Podcasts about seditious conspiracy

This week Chris and Jason read and discussed a paper Chris wrote for a strategic studies project about neo-Nazi terror networks and their links to far-right militias in Ukraine. The influx of foreign fighters to Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian invasion of 2022 has outpaced US intel and law enforcement agencies' ability to monitor potential radicals going to and coming from Ukraine. Far-right extremists have been drawn to the conflict in Ukraine since 2014 due to affiliated organizations that belong to a web of loosely related violent neo-fascist organizations. Several affiliated extremists have been apprehended planning terror attacks and other acts of violence. Amos, Howard, and Harriet Salem. 2014. “Ukraine Clashes: Dozens Dead after Odessa Building Fire.” The Guardian. May 2, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-dead-odessa-building-fire.“Atomwaffen Division (AWD)/ National Socialist Order (NSO) | ADL.” 2020. Www.adl.org. April 29, 2020. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/atomwaffen-division-awd-national-socialist-order-nso.Belew, Kathleen. 2018. Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Department of Homeland Security: US Customs and Border Protection. 2022. “Intelligence Note: United States Citizens Joining the Fight for Ukraine.”Department of Justice: Office of Public Affairs. 2023. “Office of Public Affairs | Proud Boys Leader Sentenced to 22 Years in Prison for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Charges Related to U.S. Capitol Breach | United States Department of Justice.” Www.justice.gov. September 5, 2023. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-22-years-prison-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related.Goldman, Adam. 2020. “Man Suspected of Planning Attack on Missouri Hospital Is Killed, Officials Say.” The New York Times, March 25, 2020, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/us/politics/coronavirus-fbi-shooting.html.“James Mason.” 2019. Southern Poverty Law Center. 2019. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/james-mason.Johnston, David Cay. 2002. “William Pierce, 69, Neo-Nazi Leader, Dies.” The New York Times, July 24, 2002, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/24/us/william-pierce-69-neo-nazi-leader-dies.html.Kacper, Rekawek. 2022. Foreign Fighters in Ukraine: The Brown–Red Cocktail. New York: Routledge.Kheel, Rebecca. 2018. “Congress Bans Arms to Ukraine Militia Linked to Neo-Nazis.” The Hill. March 27, 2018. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/.Kriner, Matthew, and Jon Lewis. 2021. “Pride & Prejudice: The Violent Evolution of the Proud Boys.” Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. July 9, 2021. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/pride-prejudice-the-violent-evolution-of-the-proud-boys/.Loisy, Par Florian, and Gwenael Bourdon et Jean-Michel Décugis Le 8 février 2022 à 06h15. 2022. “Enquête Sur Marc de Cacqueray-Valmenier, Le Sulfureux Chef Présumé des Zouaves Paris.” Leparisien.fr. February 8, 2022. https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/ultra-droite-qui-est-marc-de-cacqueray-valmenier-chef-presume-des-zouaves-paris-08-02-2022-TBCYP3EIPBA67GY2R7BR3ICAOE.php.Makuch, Ben. 2023. “Wanted for Murder, an Army Vet Escaped to Ukraine — and Fought the Russians.” The Intercept. July 19, 2023. https://theintercept.com/2023/07/19/ukraine-war-american-foreign-fighter/.Marone, Francesco. 2021. “Far-Right Extremism and Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy: A Case from Italy.” ISPI. October 21, 2021. https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/far-riSend us a textSupport the show

I spoke to MagaMouse author and J6 activist Katelynn Mervarand J6 political prisoner David Moerschel.David spoke about his sham trial and the events that led to the charges of Seditious Conspiracy against him.For having spent 11 minutes in the People's House.

On this episode of Ford News, Johnathan, and Brian start the show by discussing the alleged incident with Florida Congressman Cory Mills and a woman, now identified as Iranian-American Sarah Raviani. We also bring up Enrique Tarrio, of Proud Boys and Seditious Conspiracy fame, who has made himself a regular in Washington D.C. being the agent provocateur that he is. In segment two, we get to Maine Governor Janet Mills, who openly challenged Donald Trump at a meeting of the country's governors last week. They had a back and forth, where Trump said "WE ARE THE LAW." Governor Mills told him that she will see him in court. This brings up the broader question of how should Dems treat the current situation. Should Dems fight back, or let Trump and Musk burn their own bridges and watch them self-destruct from the sidelines? Segment three takes us to the Pentagon, where Trump fired an amazingly decorated and qualified Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C.Q. Brown, and replaced him with an odd choice in Lt. General Dan Caine, who actually doesn't meet the legal qualifications for the job. MAGA shouts about "woke" and "DEI," but continues to put people in jobs they aren't necessarily qualified for. LINKSRep. Cory Mills and Enrique Tarrio GOP Rep. Cory Mills probed after 'emotionally charged' spat with Iranian-American activistEx-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio arrested on assault charge outside U.S. CapitolMaine Governor Calls Out Trump Fearless governor tells Trump to stick it — to his face. He doesn't take it well - nj.comWATCH: ‘See you in court,' Maine's governor tells Trump on transgender athlete ban | PBS NewsShakeup at the PentagonTrump fires top US general in unprecedented Pentagon shakeupTrump administration fires top US general and Navy chief in unprecedented purge of military leadership | CNN Politics

What a difference four years makes. Back in February 2021, still struggling to understand what had just happened at the Capitol, John and Elizabeth spoke with Brandeis historian Greg Childs. He is an expert in Latin American political movements and public space; his Seditious Spaces: Race, Freedom, and the 1798 Conspiracy in Bahia, Brazil is imminently forthcoming from Cambridge UP. Greg's historical and hemispheric perspective helped bring out the differences between calling an event “sedition,” “seditious conspiracy” and “insurrection,” the new “Lost Cause” that many of those attacking the Capitol seem to hold on to and the particularities of Whiteness in the United States, as compared to elsewhere in the Americas. Greg even proposes a new word for what happened January 6th, 2021: counterinsurgency. Mentioned in this episode: Legitimation Crisis (1974), Jurgen Habermas On Revolution (1963), Hannah Arendt The Machiavellian Moment (1975), J. G. A. Pocock Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women and Everyday Resistance in the Plantation South (2004), Stephanie Camp Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834 (1998), Charles Tilly The Possessive Investment of Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (orig. 1998) 20th anniversary edition, George Lipsitz Listen and Read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What a difference four years makes. Back in February 2021, still struggling to understand what had just happened at the Capitol, John and Elizabeth spoke with Brandeis historian Greg Childs. He is an expert in Latin American political movements and public space; his Seditious Spaces: Race, Freedom, and the 1798 Conspiracy in Bahia, Brazil is imminently forthcoming from Cambridge UP. Greg's historical and hemispheric perspective helped bring out the differences between calling an event “sedition,” “seditious conspiracy” and “insurrection,” the new “Lost Cause” that many of those attacking the Capitol seem to hold on to and the particularities of Whiteness in the United States, as compared to elsewhere in the Americas. Greg even proposes a new word for what happened January 6th, 2021: counterinsurgency. Mentioned in this episode: Legitimation Crisis (1974), Jurgen Habermas On Revolution (1963), Hannah Arendt The Machiavellian Moment (1975), J. G. A. Pocock Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women and Everyday Resistance in the Plantation South (2004), Stephanie Camp Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834 (1998), Charles Tilly The Possessive Investment of Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (orig. 1998) 20th anniversary edition, George Lipsitz Listen and Read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latin-american-studies

What a difference four years makes. Back in February 2021, still struggling to understand what had just happened at the Capitol, John and Elizabeth spoke with Brandeis historian Greg Childs. He is an expert in Latin American political movements and public space; his Seditious Spaces: Race, Freedom, and the 1798 Conspiracy in Bahia, Brazil is imminently forthcoming from Cambridge UP. Greg's historical and hemispheric perspective helped bring out the differences between calling an event “sedition,” “seditious conspiracy” and “insurrection,” the new “Lost Cause” that many of those attacking the Capitol seem to hold on to and the particularities of Whiteness in the United States, as compared to elsewhere in the Americas. Greg even proposes a new word for what happened January 6th, 2021: counterinsurgency. Mentioned in this episode: Legitimation Crisis (1974), Jurgen Habermas On Revolution (1963), Hannah Arendt The Machiavellian Moment (1975), J. G. A. Pocock Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women and Everyday Resistance in the Plantation South (2004), Stephanie Camp Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834 (1998), Charles Tilly The Possessive Investment of Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (orig. 1998) 20th anniversary edition, George Lipsitz Listen and Read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What a difference four years makes. Back in February 2021, still struggling to understand what had just happened at the Capitol, John and Elizabeth spoke with Brandeis historian Greg Childs. He is an expert in Latin American political movements and public space; his Seditious Spaces: Race, Freedom, and the 1798 Conspiracy in Bahia, Brazil is imminently forthcoming from Cambridge UP. Greg's historical and hemispheric perspective helped bring out the differences between calling an event “sedition,” “seditious conspiracy” and “insurrection,” the new “Lost Cause” that many of those attacking the Capitol seem to hold on to and the particularities of Whiteness in the United States, as compared to elsewhere in the Americas. Greg even proposes a new word for what happened January 6th, 2021: counterinsurgency. Mentioned in this episode: Legitimation Crisis (1974), Jurgen Habermas On Revolution (1963), Hannah Arendt The Machiavellian Moment (1975), J. G. A. Pocock Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women and Everyday Resistance in the Plantation South (2004), Stephanie Camp Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834 (1998), Charles Tilly The Possessive Investment of Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (orig. 1998) 20th anniversary edition, George Lipsitz Listen and Read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/caribbean-studies

What a difference four years makes. Back in February 2021, still struggling to understand what had just happened at the Capitol, John and Elizabeth spoke with Brandeis historian Greg Childs. He is an expert in Latin American political movements and public space; his Seditious Spaces: Race, Freedom, and the 1798 Conspiracy in Bahia, Brazil is imminently forthcoming from Cambridge UP. Greg's historical and hemispheric perspective helped bring out the differences between calling an event “sedition,” “seditious conspiracy” and “insurrection,” the new “Lost Cause” that many of those attacking the Capitol seem to hold on to and the particularities of Whiteness in the United States, as compared to elsewhere in the Americas. Greg even proposes a new word for what happened January 6th, 2021: counterinsurgency. Mentioned in this episode: Legitimation Crisis (1974), Jurgen Habermas On Revolution (1963), Hannah Arendt The Machiavellian Moment (1975), J. G. A. Pocock Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women and Everyday Resistance in the Plantation South (2004), Stephanie Camp Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834 (1998), Charles Tilly The Possessive Investment of Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (orig. 1998) 20th anniversary edition, George Lipsitz Listen and Read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

What a difference four years makes. Back in February 2021, still struggling to understand what had just happened at the Capitol, John and Elizabeth spoke with Brandeis historian Greg Childs. He is an expert in Latin American political movements and public space; his Seditious Spaces: Race, Freedom, and the 1798 Conspiracy in Bahia, Brazil is imminently forthcoming from Cambridge UP. Greg's historical and hemispheric perspective helped bring out the differences between calling an event “sedition,” “seditious conspiracy” and “insurrection,” the new “Lost Cause” that many of those attacking the Capitol seem to hold on to and the particularities of Whiteness in the United States, as compared to elsewhere in the Americas. Greg even proposes a new word for what happened January 6th, 2021: counterinsurgency. Mentioned in this episode: Legitimation Crisis (1974), Jurgen Habermas On Revolution (1963), Hannah Arendt The Machiavellian Moment (1975), J. G. A. Pocock Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women and Everyday Resistance in the Plantation South (2004), Stephanie Camp Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834 (1998), Charles Tilly The Possessive Investment of Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (orig. 1998) 20th anniversary edition, George Lipsitz Listen and Read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-south

Originally 1/13/22In the Hot Notes: the Department of Justice charges Oath Keeper Stuart Rhodes and 10 others with seditious conspiracy; the Supreme Court strikes down some of Biden's vaccine mandates; the RNC signals they are unwilling to participate in presidential debates; the Select Committee subpoenas social media companies; the queen strips Prince Andrew of his military affiliations and royal patronages; Ghislaine Maxwell removes her objection to unseal the names of the John Does in the Epstein case; Kysrten Sinema slams the door on voting rights, for now; plus Allison and Aimee deliver your Good News.Follow our guest on Twitter:MeidasTouchhttps://www.meidastouch.com/https://www.meidastouch.com/podcasthttps://twitter.com/meiselasbhttps://twitter.com/BMeiselas Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Enrique's GiveSendGo: https://www.givesendgo.com/TARRIOFAMILY2024 Enrique's Inmate Number: 98721-004

Thursday, November 21st, 2024Today, the House Ethics Committee votes to block the release of the Gaetz report but they've agreed to keep working and will meet again in December; Texas is offering Trump thousands of acres of land for concentration camps; Speaker Johnson restricts use of Capitol bathrooms by transgender people; Biden locks in $6.6B for TSMC chip factories, ensuring Trump can't rescind the CHIPS Act deal; a Trump appointed federal judge criticized pardons for January 6th; Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss tell a judge that Rudy should be held in contempt of court; Senate Judiciary Democrats ask the FBI for the Gaetz evidentiary file; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, Helix SleepHelix is offering 25% off sitewide plus 2 FREE Dream Pillows with any mattress purchase OR a FREE Bedding Bundle with any Luxe or Elite mattress order when you go to HelixSleep.com/DailyBeans.Guest: Chris Melody Fields FigueredoThe Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC) (ballot.org)Bluesky - @BallotStrategyInstagram - ballotstrategyTwitter - BallotStrategyFacebook - BallotStrategy Stories:House Ethics panel did not agree to release the Gaetz report — yet (Politico)Texas offers thousands of acres to Trump for ‘deportation facilities' (The Guardian)U.S. judge appointed by Trump criticizes ‘blanket pardons' for Jan. 6 (Washington Post)Biden locks in $6.6B for TSMC chip factories, ensuring Trump can't rescind CHIPS Act deal (AZ Mirror) Have some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsAPD > Supported Living (Florida)Cat's Cradle Rescue (HILLSBORO, Or 97123)The Hamilton East Public Library (Indiana | hamiltoneastpl.org) Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill substack|Muellershewrote, twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewroteDana Goldbergtwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

FEATURING: JEN HICKS FOR JEREMY BROWN EMERGENCY UPDATEFormer Green Beret, Jeremy Brown, served from 1992 to 2012 and retired as a master sergeant. He was arrested in Tampa, Florida, on Sept. 30 2021. Brown was charged with knowingly entering a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and knowingly disrupting the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, according to the Justice Department. On Jan. 6, 2021, Brow received a sentence of seven years in federal prison Friday for having two illegal guns, a set of hand grenades and a classified military document at his Tampa home. Brown is one of more than two dozen current and former military service members to have been charged over their alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 riots.Jeremy Brown has just been put in with the general population at the DC jail. They did NOT put him on protective custody with the other J6ers. He has asked Jen Hicks to sit for interviews on his behalf. They are about to hit him with seditious conspiracy charges, it appears.Follow Freedom First Network on Pickax: https://pickax.com/freedomfirstnetworkProtect your financial future with precious metals! Download your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from Genesis Gold today and take control of your financial destiny! https://pickaxgold.comElevate your meals with Freedom First Beef… even if you find yourself in the middle of the apocalypse! Use code FFN for 25% off and enjoy high-quality beef whenever you crave it – today or tomorrow! https://freedomfirstbeef.comBe ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code FFN for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/ffn.Unleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Freedom First Coffee's Founders Blend. Order now using code RIGHTNOW and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://freedomfirstcoffee.com

For today's episode, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes speaks with Katsiaryna Shmatsina, a Belarusian political analyst and think tanker currently on trial for allegedly plotting to overthrow the government. Shmatsina discusses the charges against her, the trial process, and the broader political situation in Belarus. She delves into the history of the Lukashenko regime, its ties with Russia, and the repression of opposition voices. The conversation also covers the 2020 election and the subsequent crackdown on protests. Shmatsina shares her personal experiences with political repression in Belarus, her decision to flee the country, and her life under constant surveillance and fear of being targeted by the authorities. She explains her journey to seek asylum in the United States and her ongoing work in the think tank community.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A presentation from "Censorship and Official Lies: The End of Truth in America?" This event was co-hosted by the Mises Institute and the Ron Paul Institute, and recorded in Lake Jackson, Texas, on April 13, 2024.Full Written Text (Audio link is above): Over the past three years, the word “sedition” has again become popular among regime agents and their friends in the media. It's certainly not the first time the word has enjoyed a renaissance. It's frequently employed whenever the ruling class wishes us to become hysterical about various real and imagined enemies, both domestic and foreign.This time, the regime's paranoia about sedition was prompted by the Capitol Riot in January 2021, when we were told that Trump supporters nearly carried out a coup d'etat. Since then, regime operatives have frequently referred to Trump supporters and Trump himself as seditionists.Yet, out of the approximately 850 people charged with crimes of various sorts, only a very small number have been charged with anything even close to treason or insurrection. Rather, most charges are various forms of infractions related to vandalism and trespassing. However, because these charges have to do with the regime's sacred office buildings, the penalties are outrageously harsh compared to similar acts, were they to occur on private property.For a small handful of defendants, however—the ones the Justice Department has most enthusiastically targeted—the federal prosecutors have brought the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”Why not charges of treason, rebellion or insurrection? Well, if federal prosecutors though they could get a conviction for actual rebellion, insurrection, or treason for the January 6 riot, they would have brought those charges.But they didn't.What they did do is turn to seditious conspiracy, which is far easier to prove in court, and is—like all conspiracy charges in American law—essentially a thought crime and a speech crime. Seditious conspiracy is not actual sedition, or rebellion, or insurrection. That is, there is no overt act necessary, nor is it necessary that the alleged sedition or insurrection actually take place or be executed. What really matters is that two or more people said things that prosecutors could later claim were part of a conspiracy to do something that may or may not have ever happened.Moreover, the regime now routinely employs other types of conspiracy charges for prosecuting Americans supposedly guilty for various crimes against the state. At the moment, for example, Donald Trump faces three different conspiracy charges for saying that the 2020 election was illegitimate.As we shall see, purported crimes like seditious conspiracy are crimes based largely on things people have said. They are a type of speech crime. Now, some may ask how that is even possible if there is freedom of speech in this country.Contrary to what a naïve reading of the First Amendment might suggest, the federal government has never been especially keen on respecting the right to free speech.The federal government has long sought tools to get around the First amendment, and one of them is seditious conspiracy.Now, the term seditious conspiracy contains two pieces. There's the sedition part, and there is the conspiracy part. Let's explore both parts of this in a bit more detail to see what we can learn about this inventive way the regime has developed to silence those who question the legitimacy of the American state.Seditious Conspiracy Was Invented to Get Around Limitations on Treason Prosecutions From the very beginning, federal politicians have sought ways to create political crimes above and beyond the Constitution's very limited definition of treason. This began with the Sedition Act of 1798, and continued with the creation of the Seditious Conspiracy law in 1861, and carried on through to the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act of 1940, and a plethora of various types of “conspiracy” laws used to punish many different types of antiwar and dissident activities since then.All of these laws, involve restrictions on freedom of speech, and open up suspects to punishments for saying things.The reason why federal politicians believe they need extra sedition laws on top of treason can be found in the fact that the framers of the Constitution defined treason in very specific and limiting terms:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.Note the use of the word “only” to specify that the definition of treason shall not be construed as something more broad than what is in the text. As with much of what we now find in the Bill of Rights, this language stems from fears that the US federal government would indulge in some of the same abuses that had occurred under the English crown, especially in the days of the Stuart monarchs. Kings had often construed “treason” to mean acts, thoughts, and alleged conspiracies far beyond the act of actually taking up arms against the state.Treason could have been anything the king didn't like, and it how you end up with a situation in which St. Thomas More was executed for treason simply for refusing to say that the king was head of the church.By contrast, in the US Constitution, the only flexibility given to Congress is in determining the punishment for treason.Naturally, those who favored greater federal power chafed at these limitations and sought more federal laws that would punish alleged crimes against the state. It only took the Federalists ten years to come up with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which stated:That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States … or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, … from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.Note the references to “intent,” “counsel,” and “advise” as criminal acts so long as these types of speech are employed in a presumed effort to obstruct government officials. In the twentieth century, we will again see this type of language designed to ensnare Americans in so-called crimes of conspiracy.A great many Americans—some of whom who still took the radical liberalism of the revolutionary era seriously—saw the Sedition Act for what it was. A blatant assault on the rights of Americans, and an attack on freedom of speech. Thanks to the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 the Sedition Act was allowed to expire,Then, for sixty years, the United States government had no laws addressing sedition on the books. But the heart of the 1798 Sedition Act would be revived. As passed in July 1861, the new Seditious Conspiracy statute statedthat if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or … prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States. . . . Shall be guilty of a high crime.Note the crimes here are not overt acts like “overthrowing the government” of “delaying the execution of a law.” No, the crime here is conspiring to do something about it. That is, saying things about it to another person. That is what constitutes “conspiracy” here.Now, some people who have a rather benign view of the state might think, well, people shouldn't conspire to do bad things. Well, in real life, conspiracy as prosecuted, does not necessarily look like a group of bad guys getting together in a dark room and explaining how they're going to blow up some government building. That's Hollywood stuff.In real life, people can be found guilty of conspiring with people with whom they have never been in the same room, or with whom the "conspirator" expressed any actual violent intent.We'll return to this, and this is just something to keep in mind, whenever looking at government conspiracy laws.Given the timing of the seditious conspiracy legislation that I just read—i.e., in 1861, following the secession of several Southern states—it is assumed that the legislation originated to address alleged Confederate treason. This is not quite the case. The legislation did enjoy considerable support from those who were especially militant in their opposition to the Confederacy. However, Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio—who would later be exiled to the Confederacy for opposing Lincoln's war—supported the bill precisely because he thought it would help punish opponents of the fugitive slave laws.” Congress had initially become serious about punishing “conspiracies” not in response to Southern secession, but in response to John Brown's 1859 raid at Harper's Ferry.Thus, there was support for the idea in the South before the war. Soon thereafter, however, the Confederate secession and fears of rebellion helped enlarge the coalition in favor of a new sedition law. The new sedition law represented a significant expansion of the idea of “crimes against the state.” Senator Stephen Douglas, the bill's sponsor understood this perfectly well, statingYou must punish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. … If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, [a reference to John Brown] why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to do the act?Others were more suspicious of expanding federal power in this way, however. Sen. Lazarus Powell and eight other Democrats presented a statement opposing the passage of the bill. Specifically, Powell and his allies believed the new seditious conspiracy law would be a de facto move in the direction of allowing the federal government to expand the definition of treason offered by the federal constitution. The statement read:The creation of an offense, resting in intention alone, without overt act, would render nugatory the provision last quoted, [i.e., the treason definition in the Constitution] and the door would be opened for those similar oppressions and cruelties which, under the excitement of political struggles, have so often disgraced the past history of the world.Powell is here describing what George Orwell would later call a “thoughtcrime.” This “crime” Powell tells us, rests “in intention alone, without overt act.” To anyone who actually valued freedom in 1861, this would set off major alarm bells.Even worse, Powell saw that the new legislation would provide to the federal government “the utmost latitude to prosecutions founded on personal enmity and political animosity and the suspicions as to intention which they inevitably engender.”Like so many political crimes invented by regimes, the legislation tends to grant unusual flexibility and discretion in prosecuting the state's perceived enemies. This opens up political dissidents to new kinds of prosecution.Such legislation COULD have been used against opponents of the fugitive slave acts, as well as against opponents of federal conscription during the war. After all, opponents of both the Civil War draft and the Vietnam War draft “conspired” to destroy government property—as with the heroic draft-card burnings of the Catonsville Nine, for example.It would be far harder to prove in court that such acts constituted treason, so sedition laws have paved to way for more frequently prosecuting various acts of resistance against the regime and its crimes.It's bad enough that federal policy makers schemed to insert into federal law new crimes against the state. But, as Powell correctly noted, the greater danger is in the part of the sedition law that enables prosecutions for conspiracy.What Is Conspiracy?So now we look at the other component of seditious conspiracy: the conspiracy part.Now conspiracy laws are used far more broadly than for political crimes. They are also used in the war on drugs and countless other federal legal crusades.Current federal conspiracy laws outlaw conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. Other provisions include conspiracy to commit some specific form of misconduct, ranging from civil rights violations to drug trafficking. Conspiracy is a separate offense under most of these statutes, regardless of whether the conspiracy accomplishes its objective.This latter point is an important distinction. As was explicit in the Sedition Act of 1798, so it is today: it is not necessary that the defendant charged with conspiracy harm anyone —i.e., that there be any actual victim. Indeed, conspiracy charges act as a way of charging individuals with crimes that might occur, but have not.Moreover, it is not even necessary in all cases that a "conspirator" take any affirmative steps toward completion of the alleged conspiracy. While it is true that some federal conspiracy statutes require at least one conspirator to take some affirmative step in furtherance of the scheme, It is also the case that Many have no such explicit overt act requirement. Even in those cases where some "affirmative step" or overt act take place, it is not necessary that the act be illegal. The "act" could be publicly stating an opinion or making a phone call.In a 2019 interview with the Mises Institute, Judge Andrew Napolitano highlighted his own problem with conspiracy charges:If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as conspiracy crimes because they are thought crimes and word crimes. But, at the present time in our history and in fact, for all of our history, regrettably, an agreement to commit a felony, agreement by two or more people or two or more entities to commit a felony and a step in furtherance of that agreement, constitutes an independent crime. ... In the world of freedom, where you and I and people reading this live, conspiracy is a phony crime. For 600 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, all accepted [that] crime contained an element of harm. Today, crime is whatever the government says it is.Napolitano is right, and the fact that crime is whatever the government says it is becomes apparent in one of the other key problems with conspiracy laws. Namely, as one legal commentator put it, “few things [are] left so doubtful in the criminal law, as the point at which a combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal.”That is, at what point do a bunch of people talking about things become a criminal act. The law is very vague on this, and it is why it's not so easy to say “well, golly, I won't ever be prosecuted for conspiracy, because I don't plan to do anything illegal.But you are not safe because it is not clear in the law, at what point, statements encouraging legal activities become illegal —or statements encouraging legal activities, but without real criminal intent, become felonies.So, you can imagine yourself mouthing off unseriously and saying “we oughta burn down the offices of the department of education.” And then your friend texts back and says “I agree.” Well, congratulations, a prosecutor could easily use that exchange as a way of building a case for conspiracy against you.Would a single expression of an opinion against the regime be enough to convict? Probably not, but combined with other unrelated acts and legal activities such as a stated plan to visit Washington DC or buy a gun for unrelated activities, a prosecutor could, with enough convincing, tie them together in the minds of jurors to get a conviction for conspiracy.Legislators and the courts have never been able to provide any objective standard of when these disconnected, and often legal acts become crimes, and thus, prosecutors are afforded enormous leeway in stringing together a series of acts and claiming these constitute a conspiracy. For an indictment, the prosecutor merely need convince a grand jury that legal acts are really part of an illegal conspiracy. This is not difficult, as noted by Judge Solomon Wachtler when he cautioned that district attorneys could convince grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich."Not surprisingly, people who are actually concerned about regimes abusing their power have long opposed conspiracy prosecutions.For example, Clarence Darrow wrote on conspiracy prosecutions in 1932, concluding "It is a serious reflection on America that this wornout piece of tyranny, this dragnet for compassing the imprisonment and death of men whom the ruling class does not like, should find a home in our country."Darrow was at least partly joined in this opinion several years earlier by Judge Learned Hand who in 1925 described conspiracy charges as "that darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery" for the way it favors prosecutors over defendants.Crimes of Thought and Speech Vaguely DefinedConspiracy crimes have been a favorite of government prosecutors in going after political opponents historically.And, In the wake of the Vietnam War and the federal government's many attempts to prosecute antiwar protestors and activists for various crimes, many legal scholars took a closer look at the nature of conspiracy charges. Many were skeptical that conspiracy charges are either necessary or beneficial. The elastic and vague nature of conspiracy "crimes" means that, as legal scholar Thomas Emerson puts it, "the whole field of conspiracy law is filled with traps for the unwary and opportunities for the repressor."One of the more famous cases of conspiracy prosecutions running amok was the 1968 prosecution and trial of American pediatrician and antiwar activist Benjamin Spock. Spock and four others were charged with conspiring to aid, abet, and counsel draft resisters. That is, they were charged with saying things. Although prosecutors could never show the "conspirators" committed any illegal acts—or were ever even in the same room together—Spock and three of his "co-conspirators" were found guilty in federal court. The case was eventually set aside on appeal, but only on a legal technicality.Spock was able to avoid prison, but countless others have not been so lucky. Defendants who do not enjoy Spock's level of fame or wealth continue to find themselves locked in cages for saying things federal prosecutors don't like.The legal incoherence of the charges laid against Spock—and against antiwar activists in general—was covered in detail in Jessica Mitford's 1969 book The Trial of Dr. Spock, in which she writesThe law of conspiracy is so irrational, its implications so far removed from ordinary human experience or modes of thought, that like the Theory of Relativity it escapes just beyond the boundaries of the mind. One can dimly understand it while an expert is explaining it, but minutes later, it is not easy to tell it back. This elusive quality of conspiracy as a legal concept contributes to its deadliness as a prosecutor's tool and compounds the difficulties of defending against it.Mitford further draws upon Darrow to illustrate the absurdity of these prosecutions, pointing out that Darrow described conspiracy laws this way: if a boy steals a piece of candy, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. If two boys talk about stealing candy and do not, they are guilty of conspiracy—a felony.Again, we find that the foundation of conspiracy laws are thoughts and words, rather than any actual criminal acts. Or, as legal scholar Abraham Goldstein put it in 1959: "conspiracy doctrine comes closest to making a state of mind the occasion for preventive action against those who threaten society but who have come nowhere near carrying out the threat."This ability to treat this "state of mind" as real crime means, in the words of legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller:the government currently enjoys substantive and procedural advantages in conspiracy trials that are unparalleled anywhere else in the criminal law. Conspiracy convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence alone, and the government is allowed to introduce any evidence that "even remotely tends to establish the conspiracy charged.Conspiracy Prosecutions Are a Means of Quashing DissentConspiracy laws----including seditious conspiracy of course -- have long been used for a wide variety of alleged crimes.However, as the Dr. Spock case makes clear, conspiracy prosecutions are also a tool against those who protest government policies. More specifically, given that conspiracy "crimes" are essentially crimes of words and thoughts, conspiracy prosecutions have long been employed as a way of circumventing the First Amendment. As the editors of the Yale Law Journal put it in 1970:Throughout various periods of xenophobia, chauvinism, and collective paranoia in American history, conspiracy law has been one of the primary governmental tools employed to deter individuals from joining controversial political causes and groups.Or, put another way by the Journal, through conspiracy prosecutions, the "government seeks to regulate associations whose primary activity is expression." Naturally, citizens are more reluctant to engage in expressive activities with others that could later be characterized in court as some kind of conspiracy.So, if you and the other members of your gun club like to get a bit over-the-top in your comments about the crimes of America's political class, be careful. The federal informant in your midst may be taking notes.So it was the case with many government informants placed to investigate groups that opposed the War and the draft. Those who simply agreed with radical opinions could find themselves on the wrong end of a federal indictment.Yet, any strict interpretation of the First Amendment—which is the correct type of interpretation—would tell us that this ought to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Federal courts, however, have long disagreed, and some advocates of conspiracy might claim that speech encouraging a specific crime ought not be protected.Yet, in real-life conspiracy prosecutions, it is not easy to determine whether or not a "conspirator" is actually inciting a crime. As legal scholar David Filvaroff notes, the actual intent and effect of the speech in question in these cases is difficult to interpret. Thus, judgements about whether or not speech counts as protected speech is highly arbitrary:He writes:With a conspiracy to murder, one faces a potential crime of finite proportion and of near unmistakable content. There is little, if any, risk that either the defendants themselves, or the court or jury, will mistake the criminality of what the defendants propose to do. The probability of such a mistake both by the alleged conspirators and by the trier of fact is very high, however, in the case of conspiracy to incite.Back to our case about burning down the dept. of education. Was that casual comment a conspiracy to incite arson? Did the defendant intend it as such? This is largely up to the unilateral interpretation of the prosecutor.Most of the time, it is difficult for a "conspirator" to guess how others will interpret his words and what concrete actions might take place as a result.Under these circumstances, innocent people can end up serving years in prison for expressing their views about what government agents or government institutions ought to do or stop doing.The fact that legal acts can become illegal, and the fact that intent need not be proven makes conspiracy crimes, especially seditious conspiracy an excellent avenue for political prosecutions against perceived enemies of the state. It is not a coincidence that most of the charges against Donald Trump are conspiracy charges. They largely come down to Trump making statement both public and private questioning the validity of the election. Prosecutors have turned these opinions into a legal theory that Trump “incited” others to commit crimes. Thanks to conspiracy laws, it is not necessary that any actual crimes take place, or that any actual victims materialize, to get a guilty verdict.Thanks to his wealth, Trump has been able to mount a defense. Most people accused of various conspiracy laws are not so lucky, and countless Americans have endured financial ruin and prison thanks to the vast and abusive powers handed over to prosecutors by conspiracy laws.These are most dangerous when wielded against political opponents because, conspiracy laws essentially nullify the First Amendment and enable prosecutors to turn words into crimes.End All Political CrimesSo what is to be done? Obviously, conspiracy laws, including seditious conspiracy laws, ought to be abolished. All sedition laws are especially ripe for repeal given that the United States survived for decades without any federal political crimes other than treason, narrowly defined.Yet, if we are to win any meaningful victory against the state, we ought to repeal all political crimes, including treason, altogether.For one, political crimes like treason and sedition are simply unnecessary.It is already illegal to blow up buildings. It's especially illegal to do it with people inside the building, whether those people are government employees or not. It is already illegal to murder people, regardless of whether or not they represent the state. Destruction of property is illegal in every state.What political crimes like treason and sedition do is create a special class of people and institutions: government employees and government property, to send the message—via harsher penalties and punishments—that the destruction of government property, or the killing of government employees is worse than crimes against the mere taxpayers who pay all the bills.Political crimes are often subject to fewer regulations protecting the rights of the accused, and are often prosecuted by authorities more directly under the control of the central executive power. In the United States, the federal government has taken over control of most political crimes, centralizing enforcement and thus strengthening the central state. Certainly this has been the case with sedition laws.This scam that all modern regimes embrace exists not to keep the public safe. It exists for propagandistic purposes. These laws exist to send a message.Treason and sedition laws create the illusion that loyalty to the regime to which on presently pays taxes is morally important.Or, as historian Mark Cornwell puts it, regimes have long used crimes such as these “as a powerful moral instrument for managing allegiance.”Freedom of speech has always been a grave threat to this manipulation of allegiance, and its why sedition and conspiracy laws have so long been employed to weaponize speech against dissidents.The remedy lies in taking a page from those early Jeffersonians who abolished early sedition laws and refused to create new ones. The regime does not need or deserve a way around the First Amendment. The country does not need these “wornout pieces of tyranny” that are sedition and conspiracy laws. Abolish them now.

The State is tightening its stranglehold on its own narrative as its web of lies unravels. The government's lapdogs in the news media continue to bark and howl on TV even though a majority of American households have cut the cord. And of course, nothing resembling the truth can be heard in the softball press conferences at the White House and the Federal Reserve. Suppression and censorship are the tools of a regime that is fearful and hostile to the truth. Perhaps the easiest way to discern the truth in all the chaos is to doubt everything the government says. Featuring Ron Paul, Tom DiLorenzo, Daniel McAdams, and Ryan McMaken. This event was co-hosted by the Mises Institute and the Ron Paul Institute, and recorded in Lake Jackson, Texas, on April 13, 2024.

Wednesday, March 16th, 2022In the Hot Notes: a judge orders Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio detained pending trial; the Senate passes a bill to stay on Daylight Saving Time by unanimous consent; a new document emerges about the plan to attack the Capitol that was mentioned in the Tarrio indictment; a second 1/6 Mike Pence script change is revealed through committee testimony; and a Dem Super PAC is filing a complaint with the FEC alleging Trump has violated federal campaign finance law by spending political funds on a 2024 run without formally declaring himself a candidate; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Follow our guest on Twitter:Glenn Kirschnerhttps://twitter.com/glennkirschner2Follow AG and Dana on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gillhttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyHave some good news, a confession, a correction, or a case for Beans Court?https://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/  Live Show Ticket Links:Chicago, IL https://tinyurl.com/Beans-ChiPhiladelphia, PA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-PhillyNew York, NY https://tinyurl.com/Beans-NYCBoston, MA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-BosPortland, ORhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-PDXSeattle, WAhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-SEA Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Dakota Adams is the son of the founder of Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, who was recently convicted of Seditious Conspiracy. He and I discuss growing up in the militia world, and much more.Find this episode on your favorite podcast player here: https://pod.link/1647010767/Here are some of the sources and references from this episode:Deprogram An inside perspective on militias, extremism, and domestic terrorism.EXCLUSIVE: OATH KEEPERS LEADER STEWART RHODES' CHILDREN SPEAKhttps://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/12/exclusive-oath-keepers-leader-stewart-rhodes-children-speakStewart Rhodes' son: ‘How I escaped my father's militiahttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63709446Jury convicts Oath Keepers leader of seditious conspiracyhttps://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/29/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-verdict-00071248Operation Vampire Killer 2000 : American police action plan for stopping the program for world government rule.https://vault.library.uvic.ca/concern/generic_works/79f30599-76ff-4e55-b25f-f012a44d4e4eBundyville: The Remnant, Chapter Four: The Preacher and the Politicianhttps://longreads.com/2019/07/18/bundyville-the-remnant-chapter-four-the-preacher-and-the-politician/An oath of his own: Stewart Rhodes' son takes GOP criticisms to the campaign trailhttps://helenair.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/stewart-rhodes-dakota-adams-montana-militia-legislature-ryan-busse-neil-duram/article_9182dd06-a5ae-11ee-a090-ef329928529d.htmlDakota Adams - ActBluehttps://secure.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/154110Comments? Suggestions? Email: didnothingwrongpod@protonmail.com This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.didnothingwrongpod.com/subscribe

Originally posted Feb 14, 2021 to PatreonThe impeachment trial of Donald Trump concludes with the largest majority in history voting to convict; Mitch McConnell says Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection despite having voted to acquit on a technicality; more information tying Roger Stone to the attack on the capitol; five Proud Boys charged with conspiracy in the insurrection; Biden asks all US Attorneys but two to resign; Georgia expands its criminal investigation to include Lindsey Graham; inside the impeachment managers' decision to forego witnesses in the impeachment trial; plus Dana Goldberg (@DGComedy) and AG hit the Hot Notes and deliver your Good News.Follow our guest on Twitter:Mary L Trump (@MaryLTrump)Author, Too Much and Never EnoughHave some good news, a confession, a correction, or a case for Beans Court?https://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL Obama CIA Engaged In SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY Against Trump new Report Reveals, This Was A COUP ATTEMPT Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Originally January 13, 2022In the Hot Notes: the Department of Justice charges Oath Keeper Stuart Rhodes and 10 others with seditious conspiracy; the Supreme Court strikes down some of Biden's vaccine mandates; the RNC signals they are unwilling to participate in presidential debates; the Select Committee subpoenas social media companies; the queen strips Prince Andrew of his military affiliations and royal patronages; Ghislaine Maxwell removes her objection to unseal the names of the John Does in the Epstein case; Kysrten Sinema slams the door on voting rights, for now; plus Allison and Aimee deliver your Good News. Follow our guest on Twitter:MeidasTouchhttps://www.meidastouch.com/https://www.meidastouch.com/podcasthttps://twitter.com/meiselasbhttps://twitter.com/BMeiselashttps://twitter.com/J_Mei21 Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/ Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodhttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewrote Dana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beans Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercast https://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts The Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

On February 23, 1972, oral arguments began in the Supreme Court for a case that would shape the course of journalism. In the case known as “Branzburg v. Hayes,” the arguments rolled together three related cases that explored the reporter's privilege to protect confidential sources in the face of a legal investigation. The most important of these three cases was United States v. Caldwell. Earl Caldwell was a New York Times reporter who covered the civil rights movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, including the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and activities of the Black Panther Party. Caldwell was approached multiple times by the FBI to give up sources and additional details surrounding his coverage of the Black Panther Party. OTM host Micah Loewinger mined oral history interviews with Earl Caldwell and spoke with Lee Levine, an attorney and media law expert who is writing a book about Earl Caldwell, to learn about legal precedents for journalists being called on to testify in federal investigations, the limits of First Amendment privileges for the press, and the sometimes tenuous relationship between journalists and the government.  Special thanks to the Maynard Institute For Journalism Education for allowing us to use its Earl Caldwell oral history. This segment originally aired in our May 26, 2023 show, Seditious Conspiracy.

It's the time of the year when we celebrate Zappadan miracles.  Rudy is bankrupt, Trump won't be on the ballot in Colorado, and Fox isn't talking about any of that and also neglects to tell their audience about the missing Russia Intel Binder.  Which is a bfd.  The other things not talked about matter: Win Red and the Oath Keepers.  Because Trump invited those found guilty of Seditious Conspiracy to Washington DC and Jack Smith has the receipts.  More at proleftpod.com.. Our podcast YouTube Channel:  https://www.youtube.com/@ProfessionalLeftSupport the show:PayPal |  https://paypal.me/proleftpodcastPatreon | https://patreon.com/proleftpodSupport the show

In this episode of The Reidout we cover how former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio received a long sentence on Tuesday for seditious conspiracy. Also in this episode, we bring you new reporting saying that special counsel Jack Smith is looking into Donald Trump's fundraising off of false voter fraud claims, as some of Trump's co-defendants may be getting ready to throw Trump under the bus, according to reports. Plus, the extreme gerrymandered maps that helped Republicans win the House are now rapidly getting struck down by the courts. Alabama is just the latest state to feel the judges' wrath. Our legal experts explain in depth. All this and more in this edition of The ReidOut on MSNBC.

In this episode of Adams Archive, we're unpacking the reality of what's been termed the "Silent Depression," exploring the pervasive economic anxieties that are affecting millions but aren't often discussed in mainstream conversations. Want to know why your financial stress isn't just your own? We're laying it all out. We'll also discuss Tucker Carlson's latest bombshell interview with Larry Sinclair, who makes controversial claims about past interactions with Barack Obama. How credible are these allegations, and why is it making waves now? Switching gears, we'll break down how Peter Ducey put the White House Press Secretary on the spot with Joe Biden's own words. And in our final segment, we scrutinize the recent indictments related to January 6th, asking whether justice is truly being served or if this is a targeted witch hunt. Don't forget to hit the subscribe button and leave a five-star review to support the show.    All the Links: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams Substack: https://austinadams.substack.com ----more---- Full Transcription:  Adams Archive. Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adams Archive. My name is Austin Adams, and thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we are going to be discussing what some people are calling the Silent Depression, which I found to be a really interesting conversation about today's economic situation and how a lot of people are feeling. A lot of angst around their finances, a lot of angst around our economy, or a lot of angst about the, the amount of national debt that we have and the way that we're living our lives today. So we will jump into that. And this just absolutely blew my mind. It it's crazy. And when, then you tell anybody about this, it'll have the same effect. It's, it's so crazy. Then we will jump into the next one, which is that Larry Sinclair Tucker Carlson had somebody named Larry Sinclair on his podcast, and it will be releasing the same day that this is releasing, he will be releasing a podcast, which is a full interview with somebody who claims that they had sexual relationships with Barack Obama and did cocaine with him back in 1999. Now, that wouldn't be the craziest thing in the world, right? People do cocaine  but what's crazy about this is that this is not a woman. This is a man I. Hmm. And to have enough merit to where Tucker Carlson is actually having you on his show on an interview is pretty crazy. So we'll discuss that in the clip that Tucker Carlson dropped about this. Now, this isn't extremely new. I believe we've actually even talked about this before, but just the fact that Tucker Carlson had him on his show to discuss this is pretty crazy. So we'll look at that video together. Then we will talk about how Peter Ducey made Karine Jean Pierre, the White House Press Secretary.   Look absolutely silly when talking about a excerpt from a book that came out about Joe Biden's own claim. And then last, but not at least, we will discuss the people that have been indicted and then found guilty from January 6th in what seems to be a witch hunt like. Absolutely making an example of these people. You know, the, the four people that I have up on this article were proud boys and they've just absolutely gone to extreme lengths to make sure that they set an example of these people. And it seems quite crazy because the one who's gotten the most time out of this was not even there during January 6th. Was not even there. Wasn't in the, wasn't, didn't go into the capitol, none of it. All right, so all of that more stick around. First thing I need you to do is go ahead and hit that subscribe button. Leave a five star review again. That's the only thing that you can do to give back to me right at this moment. Just take the time out, take five seconds if you could. Again, I appreciate it a lot. It's, it's I, I've gotten quite a bit of reviews from this more recently, and I, I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. It really does help to continue motivating me, letting me know that what I'm doing, it kind of resonates with you guys, so I would appreciate it. Again, from the bottom of my heart. Go ahead, hit the subscribe. Leave a five star review and. Head over to the Austin Adams sub stack.com. Leave your email there. Anytime I have any announcements, any new podcast companions, I will be dropping them there as well. Alright, so without further ado, let's jump into it. The Adams archive. Alright, so I came across a video on TikTok that absolutely blew my mind. Now, like I was saying earlier in the intro here, I feel like a lot of people are feeling the same way. You know, 70,000, like the average income today is $55,000 a year. $48,000 a year. Well it's actually $56,000 a year is the average income today per individual, right? And $56,000 today. Feels like $30,000 did just 10 years ago, it feels like, right? It's like absolute minimum that you can, you have to make that amount just to be able to find a one bedroom apartment and feed yourself. So I, I think a lot of people are feeling this way. You know, a hundred thousand dollars a six figure income used to be what everybody strove for, right? Like if you came from, you know, a lower income family, a hundred thousand dollars a year was like, you made it, you. Did it, you're, you're doing something really, you know, you're working hard. You found a job that, that rewards you for that hard work, and you found something that, that, you know, should be that, that's like, that's upper upper class, like upper middle class, let's say at least. At least with a hundred thousand dollars salary, just. I dunno. Like I said, 10 years ago people were shooting for that and so people have been feeling this, this, you know, financial angst as a result of, of what this person from this video called a Silent Depression and we are living in this silent depression today. Don't, don't get it confused, right? What, what he compares in this video is that the Great Depression was what everybody looks back on and goes. I can't imagine living in the financial times of the Great Depression, but when you actually, when you actually look at the numbers, the financial and economic the where we're at today as an economy is worse off an individual level than it was during the thirties, during the Great Depression.  Absolutely. We are worse off today than we were during the Great Depression financially. Alright, and let's, let's break that down because that's a pretty crazy and wild claim. And I thought so too when I heard this initially, but this is how it breaks down. In 1930, the average income was $3,900 per year. Okay, so let's, let's go back. The average income in 1930 was actually $1,300 per year. I mixed up some of the numbers there. The average income $1,300 per year. Okay, the average income today is 56,000, just like I said earlier. Okay. The reason I messed it up is 'cause I'm looking at a graphic that's. Quite terrible to try to organize this thought, which came from that video. So the average income was $1,300. The average income today is $5,600, right? We're comparing 1930 to 19 or to 2023. Now, in 1930, the average house was $3,900. The average house today is $436,000. So in 1930, it took you three years of a full-time income being saved in order to purchase a home at $3,900. Now, today, it takes you eight years more than double the time that it would've taken you during the thirties to buy the average home. Okay, now the next thing is, The average car, the average car in 1930 costs $600. The average car today costs 48 to hundred or $48,000. Now, back in 1930, that was 46% of your income. Today, that is 85% of your income. The average rent was just $216 per year, 16% of your income, and the average rent today is $24,000 per year, or $2,000 a month. So when you look at it that way, when you just break down the numbers to live the standard life in 1930, You come to find out that the silent depression is real, just to make the, the, the average income and to save for the average house, to buy the average car to rent the average house costs three, three times almost in every single category, eight times your your yearly income when it comes to a house. Three times in 1930. So, so what we're seeing here is a trend that, you know, one, one thing you could correlate this with too, that, that takes away some of the, the craziness of the statistics is the co the, the the average The, the way that we live today, the standard of living has absolutely gone up since 1930. So that, that's a fair critique of this, this percentages in, in, in these finances that, that you're looking at here. Because the house that you were buying at as the average house is being $3,900 back in 1930 was definitely not the $436,000 houses that people are purchasing today. The average car that was $600 is absolutely not, you know, the the 2023. Ford Escape that you're buying today, right? The, the, the, the standard of living has absolutely gone up, but with a standard of living going up. The, the difficulty to maintain that appearance. Right. How many people in 1930 do you think were in debt compared to how many people were in debt today? We live on a debt-based society. Nobody, nobody is, is saving up eight years of theirs full salary to purchase a home at $436,000. Right? So, so I think that's a more. A more valid conversation here is that the, the amount of debt we live in a debt-based society today. The person who was buying their car for $600 in the thirties was purchasing it with cash. The, the person who was buying a $3,900 house was purchasing it likely. Cash, the person buying a $436,000 house is not buying it with cash. Right? So you absolutely have to live below the average standard of living in order to live at your means today. And just even seeing the average income go from 1300 to 56,000 is a crazy amount of inflation. 56, almost 50, 50 times the inflation. Or, or the, the, you know, the, the income. And that's something that sounds nice until you look at the, the average house cost going up by more than 10, 12 times, right? So we live in a debt based society, an enslavement of the, of the people, of the families units within our society today in order to just maintain the average lifestyle. You have to go into debt. You have to be, be a slave to the, the people who are now not only taking that money and giving it to you, but that you have to pay them interest over time. Right? Which again, demeans your standard of living long term, they profit off of that. Right? And then you go back to the the silent weapons for quiet wars conversation. Right. You wanna bring that into this. The debt was absolutely a weapon to be wielded by those elites so that they could become the gods and you could become the slave. And we see that play out perfectly here in this formula that we're looking at in front of us. So I really just thought that was pretty, pretty crazy to, to see and, and have that breakdown. Now again, the standard of living has gone up significantly. I can't imagine spending 40% of my income just on my monthly rent.  How, how do you live like that? You don't, you have to live below that, that standard.   So the next thing that we'll be discussing is that Tucker Carlson had a man on his podcast, which he's now posting on x, X being what was formerly known as Twitter. Lots of mix ups going on in the world right now. So Tucker Carlson had a man on his podcast named Larry Sinclair. Now, Larry Sinclair is a man that you may have heard the name of before I've even mentioned it maybe once before on this podcast. But Larry Sinclair has. Said and made a statement on Tucker Carlson's podcast, which to me is a, that's kind of a big deal, right? When he's just out there saying stuff into the wind. It's really not, not not earth shattering, but when he goes on one of the biggest platforms in the world and says that not only did he meet with Barack Obama and do drugs with him, specifically cocaine, and watched him do crack, he also claims that he had sex with him twice. Now, this comes on the back of. Maybe that's not the way to phrase it, but this comes on the back of, of a claim recently by bar allegedly one of, I believe it was Barack Obama's assistant or somebody, somebody came out stating that they had Records of Barack Obama stating, I believe it was like maybe a former ex-girlfriend or an assistant, somebody, somebody like that, came out and said that they had letters from Barack Obama saying that he had fantasies about men. So Larry Sinclair, just weeks after that came out is now coming out and saying that he had sex with Barack Obama, not once, but twice, while also simultaneously doing drugs with him. And so this comes from the post-millennial. And again, you can always follow along with what I'm seeing on my screen here, right on YouTube if you find the Adams archive. On Tuesday, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson released a teaser for an upcoming interview with Larry Sinclair, the man who claims to have had sex with Barack Obama. Sinclair alleged that he met Obama at a Chicago bar in November of 1999, where the pair did drugs before engaging in intercourse. Here is the video. You're just a guy who's in town for the night, and it sounds like you're looking to parties. Yeah. Pulled up in a bar outside, and there's this guy that's introduced to me as Barack Obama. I had given Barack $250 to pay for Coke. I start putting a line on a CD tray to snort, and next thing I know he is got a little pipe and he's smoking. So I just started rubbing my hand along this. By to see where it was going and it went the direction I had intended it to go. Even though you had sex with him twice, you did cocaine with him, watched him smoke crack twice. You had no idea who he was. I had no idea who he was. Lemme just ask the obvious question. What was Obama like on crack? Is it your sense that that's who Obama is, just transactional or that these bisexual or like, what is this? It definitely wasn't Barack's first time and I would almost be willing to bet you it wasn't as long the guy's running for president and credible information. Comes out that he's smoking crack and having sex with dudes. That seems like a story. Well, it would be a story if the media really cared about telling people the truth. Hmm. So that comes out tomorrow, which will be today for you guys on the day that this comes out at 6:00 PM on Twitter now known as X. So go listen to that interview. That should be an interesting one because Tucker's asking some very interesting questions there. Right now, if we read this article and continue reading it, it says that you're just a guy in town for the night and it sounds like you're looking to party. Goes on and reads what we just listened to. He went on to suggest that his allegations would've been taken more seriously by those in power if the media really cared about telling the truth. Sinclair first made the allegations against Obama in 2008 in the middle of the then Senator in the middle of the then Senator from Illinois Presidential Run and soon released a book. He was offered a hundred thousand dollars by White house.com to pass a polygraph, but failed and proceeded to suggest the sponsors of the test had been bribed. Ooh, that's interesting. As political reported at the time, Sinclair was a, has a long criminal history in 13 known aliases. Many of his offenses include elements of fraud and deceit. During a recent appearance on the Adam Corolla show, Carlson acknowledged Sinclair's past, but nonetheless said he believed that the allegations were true. Then it says this is a breaking story. It's, it's really not. This has been out since 2008. Let's see if we can find more on these allegations here as they come out. So he says, the man who claims, and then let's go ahead and click this. It says, Tucker Carlson says, Barack Obama had gay sex, smoke, crack, and media ignored the head of election. And this was, let's see, and the timing on this August 30th. So not too long ago. On Wednesday, Tucker Carlson said that despite it being really clear that Barack Obama was both having sex with other males and smoking crack people all over the media neglected to report on the topic before the 2008 presidential election. Carlson discussed the allegations surrounding Obama's lifestyle, which originally came from a man named Larry Sinclair on Wednesday as he spoke on the Adam Corolla show. And here's the clip from that. You know, everybody I knew the world I lived in, in Northwest DC like everyone works either directly for the government. Or is a, a parasite on government, effectively, including people I love and know really well. And the media is too, by the way. I mean, the media is reporting on government, but it's also dependent on government. You know, in 2008, it became really clear that Barack Obama had been having sex with men and smoking crack. And a guy came forward, Larry Sinclair, and said, I'll sign an affidavit. And he did. I'll take a lie detector. And he did. I smoked crack with Barack Obama and had sex with him. Well, That was obviously true. Nobody reported it, not because they were squeamish about sex or drugs, but because the Obama campaign said anyone who reports from this gets no access to the Obama campaign. And so they didn't report on it. So that happens. That's just one small example, but that happens all the time with lots of different issues. And now do you, do you believe that transpired or do you believe the guy is legitimate or both? Oh, the Larry Sinclair story. Oh, that definitely happened. Oh, for sure. I mean, I've talked to Larry Sinclair about it, and oh, definitely it happened. I mean, if you, Larry Sinclair's been in and outta prison during one period, I mean, you know, 40 years ago he was in and outta prison. He's got a criminal record. By definition. He's, you know, poor he's got a disordered life. He's missing a tooth, like he's not. You know, an Atlantic fellow he's not going to the Aspen Ideas Festival. I, I think he has a record of deception. Obviously he does, but this story, if you listen to it in detail, is clearly true. I mean, there's just, I mean, I'm gonna do an interview with him and you can hear it. And again, it's not gonna change the world that Barack Obama likes dudes. I think this was well known. Barack Obama said so himself in a letter to his girlfriend. And by the way, that's kind of Barack Obama's business. I'm not attacking him for, for liking dudes. I'm just saying the amount of lying in the media about it was unbelievable. Like people knew this was true and it was quite obviously true at the time, and people who covered the campaign didn't say anything about it because they didn't wanna lose access to the campaign. And, and that happens all the time up and down government. So it's, it's almost like if you have a housekeeper, you think, oh, you know, she works for me. But if you have a housekeeper long enough, you realize, well, you actually work for her and you get caught up in her dramas. Do you know what I mean? Like, yeah. Mm-hmm. There's a weird dynamic where you switch places d d with people in No, and, and by the way, fire her abruptly and she'll write a tell all book about Tucker at home. That's exactly right. And you know, we, we don't even have a full-time housekeeper, so like that's not gonna be an issue for me. But the point is, you think you're holding government accountable, but actually they're controlling you. That that's really the dynamic in Washington. But you know, you're living in the soup and it's hard to see it at work. And this is a long way of saying the conclusions I've reached are middle aged conclusions. And that's a lot of it. Right? It's just that I've gotten older. And you can't see certain things when you're younger. And it's like young people, you'd think they'd be the most open-minded of all. They're the least open-minded because they're afraid of the future. So they want to believe whatever storyline they've been fed is true. Like the only problem with Americas white supremacy and like our tax system is fair and Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman or whatever. They don't want to un, they don't wanna face like the terrifying unknown and complexities of. The actual world we live in, the reality of life, which is like, we have no freaking idea. Wow. What's going on? Actually, they don't wanna admit that. Hmm. Interesting. I'd like to see maybe if there's any other interviews that we could watch really quick on Larry Sinclair. So let me go ahead and pull that up and we'll watch some of those. But I, I don't know if I disagree with him, although I disagree with maybe the premise of, of the reasoning behind it. Let's see. Larry Sinclair. Obama. All right. So I got that pulled up and ready to go. And here's too what I, I agree with Tucker Carlson. I'm like, who caress If Barack Obama's gay, in fact, they, he would've been even more celebrated being the first, not only black, but also gay president ever. So why I. Why hide it? You know, maybe because it gives merit to the idea that Michelle Obama's actually a, a, a man the, the, the conspiracies surrounding that. And also I, you know, going back in time in my head that there was actually somebody that I, I knew that was you know, and this sounds hokey and like, you know, you hear all these people say this stuff like, oh, I knew some guy who was really high up in military da la la and, but I, I, I was aware of somebody who I used to work around and he's. Dated that he used to work security detail. And this guy's legit. He, he knows, he knows lots of people and, and he's was very, very everything that, that sounds hokey right. Very high up in special forces and ended up working security details for the president or presidential campaigns and. All of that stuff. And he said that he, he, he met and, and did security for Michelle Obama and he actually gave some merit to the idea of that conspiracy. So I don't know what to say about it. I'm not saying it's true. I'm just saying I knew a guy who said that he knew that that might be the case. That's all I'm saying now, you know, the whole hokey special forces high up thing that's legit though. This guy was like, One of the most legit dudes I've ever met. So pretty crazy. I won. I won't say his name 'cause you know, all that, you know, gotta make it more hokey. But yeah. Anyways, so let's go ahead and watch this video here. Larry Sinclair ex-girlfriend of Barack Obama says she had the letter. So that's who it was. It wasn't an assistant, it was his ex-girlfriend who said that he wanted to make love to men. Do with that, would you please? Who cares? Honestly, you know the, the general public would've celebrated him even more. That's why I'm not sure why the, why they wouldn't have just came right out and, and said that. But interesting stuff. Let's go ahead and watch the Sinclair video here. 'cause this is way back in the day when he did this in 2000, way back in the day, 2008. In regards to the Obama incident, I flew out of Colorado Springs, Colorado to Chicago on November 2nd, 1999, arriving in O'Hare early in the morning of November 3rd. Yo, I'm just saying how he's explaining this. It sounds very natural, but why would you make up something like this? Right. Wow. Oh, so people are Larry Sinclair let's see. Hmm. On the stand. 'cause that's where he's sitting at. It looks like in a courtroom. Here we go. Here's the video from two three. Larry Sinclair got a question? Yes, sir. 15 years ago this was posted microphone. Mr. Sinclair, could you explain why if this incident happened in 1999, you waited until 2007 or 2008 to come forward? It's a question of credibility, sir, why didn't you come forward back in 1999 or 2000? I'm number one in 1999. I really didn't care whether he was the senator from or not, to be honest with you. I wasn't a resident in Illinois. As far as why now I was living in Mexico up until 2006. It really was of no interest to me. I know plenty of politicians, both locally and internationally that, you know, are pretty much crooked. The whole issue was based on his drug use and his claim that he had not used drugs since his college days, and that was the whole issue that brought this forward. Next question, sir. Are you receiving any financial support for your efforts from anyone? And if so, does any, do any of those people have connections to the Republican party? I can. I'm glad you asked that question. Number one, I am not connected with any party. Republican, independent, libertarian, democratic, none nor are anybody that are contributing to the cost and the expense of this. Every penny that has gone to pay for this press conference, my travel expenses have come from average American citizens, most of them actually, according to their own statements or declare independence in the sums of from 12 and 31 cents to a hundred dollars each. This project, what is Veritas Federal Media and what role do they have? And this recogni of the camera crew and back the media company you just requested. What is it? It's exactly what I just answered, this gentleman. It represents every individual person. It's not a company. In all honesty. It was established as an email address when I arrived here for the Democratic National Committees bylaws and Rules, rules. Okay. I did. I did. Okay. It is not a company, it is nothing more than a name to represent all of the individuals across this country that have helped get this story out. He does seem like a little bit of a con man. I'll say that a bad one to would you be willing to share your mental health records with the public? Actually, I'm going to post later this afternoon a list of all my. Through all of your medical records that are available through 1999, anyone with valid legitimate press credentials that wants to check my mental health history, I will be more than willing to sign an authorized medical release for that record. Will we get more 30 minutes? Huh? More than 30 minutes. More than 30 minutes of what? What the documents. Well, actually, if you if, if you're valid press and you want me to release my psychiatric records, I. Lease them to you as long as you pay for them. I have nothing to hide. Good. It was a judge about McCain in 30 minutes. Oh, sorry. You can tell where I'm at today, Mr. Matton. Yes. Mr. Sinclair. Will you state whether you had sexual relations with any other politicians here today? Your name has come up. Larry. For the record, I have not been engaged or involved with any other politician. In fact, at the time that I met Senator Obama, I had no idea that he was actually in Illinois politics. What a question. Let's see how long this press conference is? Nine minutes. Why did you change your name? So, Well, first of all, in my younger years I was cons. So why did you change your name so often? So there was what Tucker alluded to, there's like 13 aliases of this man. He had a history of deceit, right? He, he seems like the way that he's speaking you, you can tell he is a little bit of a con man. Now that doesn't completely discredit his claim but it does a little bit. It does a little bit, although this completely backs up what Obama said himself to his ex-girlfriend, who had no reason to out him, to, in, you know, the, the letter that he wrote to her considered like you know, wild. And it was wild of respect to my family because as you can see with everyone putting my past history all over the place and distorting it I changed my name the first, actually, the first two times I changed my name was while serving prison sentences in Florence, Arizona. Nice politician Mexico, watching the last 24 hours gonna see. But as of morning, I think came to, here's the most watched portion of this. Okay. What, what, what time did you meet him on November 6th. And what time did he arrive at your hotel on the journey? On the day following, we met in the early evening on November 6th. As far as the specific time on November 7th, I cannot provide that to you, and I know where that question's coming from, but I cannot provide that to you. You know where it's coming from. Thank you. How, when and where did you incur this permanent disabling nerve and spinal injury? Sacramento, Cal, Sacramento, California. Injuries from October of 2000 through August of 2001, while employed with B N G delivery systems on Harris Avenue in Sacramento, California. And, and what is your source of income now? Is that my source of income? My, my source of income is disability, social security, everything in writing based on this constant misinformation and misrepresentation that's been circulated. I'm gonna give you everything in writing and you to make your own decision. Okay? What, what, what time did you meet him on November 6th. And what time did you arrive at your hotel on the journey of the day following? We met in the early evening on November 6th. As far as the specific time on November 7th, I cannot provide that to, I have stated, I'm not sure why, stated that he was introduced to me as Barack Obama by the driver and by Barack Obama. Himself, sir. Always. Hey Larry how much did this whole event cost you and what, what are you doing now for a living? Well as far as anybody wanting to know the final expenses, I would have to check. 'cause I've had a few things changed in the last 24 hours. But as of Monday morning, I think it came to a total of $4,126 89 cents. Wow. What an interesting guy. Let's see if there's anything else on this that we find of merit until we move. Let's see. David Cross, I snorted co cocaine with Obama. Hmm. Obama and gay marriage. Said, I struggle with this. Larry Sinclair's lawyer talks about his genitalia. How do you not watch that one? Folks? Actually, I'm wondering Mr. Simply why you decided to take this on. And, and it's the report that you've been disbarred in the state of Florida. I'm wondering if you're, you're a part of the bar in, I had to answer those questions as I expected they would come up. I have been suspended by the Florida Supreme Court on March 7th, 2000. And eight and the suspension was a result of me being too litigious and allegedly not paying child support. That matter is now pending at the United States Supreme Court, but as a result, I have been reciprocally suspended by the District of Columbia Bar and the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. Without an opportunity for a hearing or an opportunity to present my side of that story. There is on the website 147 pages, which documents what's going on in my particular professional life. And it really isn't the subject of what's going on here today, but if you're curious, you know, it's a good read. I encourage you to read it. Is it, is it fair for me to inquire about the K also? You certainly, certainly can seem to you, but I don't know why the men wear hands, but I think it's a function of male genitalia size. And you're normal or small hands probably aren't uncomfortable with those girls at the other end of the side. This cannot be, excuse me, can I say something on your question to the killer? Just, just actually, I asked him to wear a suit and tie and he says, why should he be uncomfortable? And I said, because you're paid to be uncomfortable. Look at me. Okay. Not about Obama. That was about the lawyer wearing a kilt. So this, this looks like a clown show folks, whether or not this is true or not, this man is an absolute mess. So, you know, let's, let's, let's take everything he's saying here, maybe with a grain of salt after seeing that he hired a lawyer who is disbarred and were killed. I don't know. I'll, I'll, I will have to watch this Tucker Carlson interview after all of this. 'cause this is not, not what I was expecting out of these videos. This just looks like an absolute clown show. Alright, let's see. Anything else? Anything else? Anything else? Does not look like it. And if there is, YouTube's hiding it. All right, so one of the next things we'll watch here is Jean Jean Pierre Kare, Jean Pierre, the White House Press secretary, getting asked about President O president Biden. I almost said O Biden, president Biden, which according to some people is Ashley who's running this country still, which would make much more sense than. Biden doing it and would actually make everybody feel a little bit better. But let's watch this video. It's hilarious. Okay, thank you Kareen. President Biden is the oldest president in US History. Why does White House staff treat him like a baby? No one treats the president of the United States, the commander in chief like a baby. So if there's this book that says that's ridiculous, when staff back claim what sounded like a call for regime change in Russia to the president quote, rather than owning his failure, he fumed to friends about how he was treated like a toddler. Was John Kennedy ever babied like that? So look I'll say this. There's gonna be a range, always a range of books that are about every administration, as you know that's gonna have a variety of claims. That is not unusual. That happens all the time, and we're not going to litigate those here. That's something that we're not going to speak to. There is one thing that I do want to, 'cause I think I was asked this question last week by one of your colleagues about this particular excerpt that they were referring to. And so, Okay, so I'll just reiterate the point here is that somebody wrote in a book an excerpt from something that Biden said, which was that they treat me like a toddler. Did they treat John F. Kennedy like a toddler? I. Hmm. Well, John F. Kennedy wasn't riddled with dementia. But so that, that was the idea is that oh, Biden was frustrated with the idea that he's being treated like a child. So Ducey just calls it out to Kareem Jean Pierre, and she's now. Initially tries to, you know, frivolously throw off the claim before he actually mentioned the excerpt from the book about him saying this. But watch how she basically says nothing other than a lot of people say a lot of things about stuff in books and we can't confirm nor deny anything that was said and. You know, maybe you should stop asking dumb questions and we're not going to litigate those here. That's something that we're not going to speak to. There is one thing that I do want to, 'cause I think I was asked this question last week by one of your colleagues about this particular excerpt that they were referring to. And so I'll say this, you know, we did see the excerpt excerpt go the context of the excerpt, and it seemed to be making the opposite overall point about how the value. Of his experience and wisdom resulted in rallying the free world against authoritarianism, which is important. We have seen this, you all have seen this and passage of the most historic agenda by the recent history in his handling of foreign policy, like rallying the world. Around Ukraine, as you just heard from our national security national security advisor who laid out in really good questions that your colleagues asked about how the president is moving forward about Ukraine about kind of leading into these conversations that he's going to be having at the G 20. Why do you think it is that in Wall Street Journal poll, two thirds of Democrats think President Biden is too old to run again? Look, here's what I know. Here's what I can speak to. I can speak to the president who has wisdom. I can speak to a president who has experience, I can speak to a president who has done historic, has taken historic action and has delivered in historic pieces of legislation, and that's important. When the last guy who was in this in the Oval Office talked about infrastructure week, it was a joke and the president, Passed a pretty important piece of legislation in a bipartisan way because of his wisdom, because of his experience. And now we have infrastructure decade. And it doesn't stop there. It starts Last week we talked about how the president beat big pharma. I. Something that elected officials, oh, he beat, it's gone. And politicians have been trying to do for 33 years beat, and he's been able, he beat to do that beat. And we introduced 10, the first tranche, the the first 10 drugs that Medicare can now negotiate on. Right. And it's going to save money for our seniors, for Americans across the country. The, the gentleman that introduced the president, Steven, who's 71 years old, paying $16,000 a month, $16,000 a month. Just to stay alive because he had cancer. Notice this rambling. When the question was, how do you feel about two thirds of the Democrats in the country feeling like Joe Biden is too old to run. She turns it into this and diabetes, and he cannot retire because he's, because he has to pay $16,000 a month and because of the work that this president has done. He doesn't have to do that anymore. And I'll say one last thing. I know you have a follow up. Probably about five more, but let me just say this one last thing is that. The interesting thing about this is that the president has done these historic pieces of legislation, whether it's the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, whether it's the American Rescue Plan, whether it's Chips and Science Act whether it's the Infl Inflation Reduction Act. There are some Republicans right in the House in the Senate that did not vote for any of these legislations that I just laid out, who go back to their state, go back to their district and take credit for something that the president did. So this is not unusual. They did this in 2019. They did this in 2020, and the P, they did this in 2022 and the president continues to prevail. I don't see how that answers that question at all, but what's probably the most infuriating thing for her to say there why Federal and Georgia pushing electric is that Joe Biden just, he beat big pharma. We know that he beat big pharma. It's been done, it took 33 years for people trying to do this, but he beat big Pharma. No you didn't. Big pharma's making record profits. They've been making record record profits during the entirety of his presidential campaign. Everything, everything he's done has helped Big Pharma from shutting down the country to enacting you know, vaccine mandates. It's a winter of, of death and destruction or whatever the hell he said about people during covid. So funny. So, Anyways, the, the last thing we're gonna discuss here is gonna be that the, the January 6th situation. Okay. So there's been four people now found guilty during, from January 6th, all of them related to the Proud Boys. There was, I believe one or two more today leading to maybe five or so members getting actual indicted and charged with crimes. And what we're seeing from this is that these people are being charged with exorbitant amount of jail time over these frivolous, seemingly frivolous actions. I, I, I just cannot see any violent crime going on here. So let's read this article. It comes from N B C that says four members of the far right Proud Boys organization were found guilty Thursday of Seditious Conspiracy in connection with January 6th attack on the US Capitol. Enrique Tario. Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordeen and Zachary Rail were found guilty on the of the rare charge of Seditious Conspiracy under a Civil War era statute. Wow. That's how far they had to reach back a Civil War era. Statute. Dominic Pola, another member of the group was found not guilty of Seditious conspiracy. Terry Biggs Nordine and Rail were also found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding while US District Judge Timothy Kelly declared a mistrial on the count that Pola, after the trial said it could not come to an agreement. All five proud boys members were charged with nine counts in connection with the attack on January 6th while Pola, who was caught on video smashing in a window with the Capitol Police shield during the breach, and who admitted into his behavior on the stand was separately charged with a 10th count of stealing the police shield and found guilty. Thursday Pola was also found guilty of assaulting, resisting, and impeding certain officers while four other defendants were acquitted of that charge. The jury recently a partial verdict and Kelly declared a mistrial on several other counts, which did not come to a conclusion. The mis, the trial unfolded about for over about four months with jury selection beginning in December and opening arguments starting in early January. It was the third seditious conspiracy case to go before jurors sensed the capital attack. Six members of the far right Oath Keepers group, including Founder Stewart Rhodes, were convicted on that charge across two trials in November and January. Jeremy Bertino, a high level member of the Proud Boys, who pleaded guilty to the Seditious Conspiracy in October. Testified for the prosecution in his latest trial as part of a plea deal, telling jurors that proud boys believed they had to do anything that was necessary to save the country. Hmm. Prosecutors argued the proud boys were thirsting for violence on January 6th and had organized in advance to stop certification of President Joe Biden's win by any means necessary, including by force. Defense attorneys countered that the Justice Department was using a group as a scapegoat for the real person to blame for January 6th. Donald Trump. Two defendants. This is where it gets a little bit more interesting. Two defendants testified at the Trial Rail, the head of the organization's Philadelphia chapter and Paola, a floor installer from New York, who members of the organization called Spazz just before Rail was set to be cross-examined online through surface videos that appeared to show him deploying a can of pepper spray towards Officers Rail, who was not charged with assaulting police. Denied it. At trial, Pola got heated on the stand, bringing up conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories about another January 6th. Participant, Ray aps, who seemingly is nowhere getting charged while saying, let's go into the Capitol and ranting about the fake charges in the phony trial. The biggest challenge prosecutors faced. You know, let's see if you can actually get those clips. Maybe that would be interesting. Of course. We will probably not be able to. Hmm, Nope. Let's see if we can at least get the quotes. Our plans were maybe to storm the liquor store. That was it. Yeah. Interesting, interesting, interesting. But what's crazy about this, what's the craziest thing going on here? Is that this guy, that this what was his name? What was the name there? Fi, not Paola, but Rail. Rail I believe got 22 years in prison for. This situation. Now, the what I believe, I believe he was the one who was not even there at the time of actually storming the capitol. Storming the capitol. Right. So they're, they're taking it. There was another guy that I saw on Twitter earlier. I. I don't think I'll find it right now, but he got a year and seven months just for being there and walking through the building a year and seven months in jail while the head of the Proud Boys got 22 years while he was not even present at the time of them having this museum tour. Right. Not even present at the time. So it seems like. All too convenient that at the same time the Justice Department is being weaponized against the former president of the United States. He's, it's also being weaponized against the very people who had any sort of support for him during this event. Right now, we all know Donald Trump's very likely just gonna get off on all charges. But these guys, these guys with real lives, Marine Corps veteran families, friends, Not billions of dollars are going to suffer immensely for this 22 years in prison. This guy got for January 6th and he was not even there. Think about his wife, think about his children. Think about his friends and his family and his future is gone. And this guy's like an older dude. He's not. He's not super young. 22 years. There's rapists and murderers who get off with less time in their conviction than this guy just got for. Not even being present for saying words on social media. It's crazy. So we'll see this play out, but. Yeah. Now we know, right? Just you, you gotta be smart about the way that you go about these things. You know, use your voice and, and definitely don't run into the Capitol no matter how many F b I agents tell you to do it. All right guys. Thank you so much for listening. I appreciate you from the bottom of my heart. Have a wonderful day. I love you. I'll see you next time. Peace.  

Finally after a conviction of Seditious Conspiracy comes a prison sentence that punctuates the seriousness of the crime. Former Proud Boys Chairman Enrique Tarrio was sentenced Tuesday to 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and leading a failed plot to interrupt the transfer of power from Donald Trump to President Joe Biden. To date, it's the longest sentence anyone involved in the January 6th attack has received. We'll talk about this and more with our colleague and weekly guest, John Rothmann. Renowned tech and AI specialist Robert Scoble joins us. He just wrote an riveting piece about robots that are doing very human like things. Has also has a new AI first show starting this month called "Unaligned" We follow it up with a dance on the world stage, geopolitically speaking. Former Ambassador Francis Rooney will share his ideas about lessons learned from the recent elections and where he thinks our new Congress should focus- getting a hold of inflation, public safety and getting back to a united America when it comes to foreign relations. The Mark Thompson Show 9/6/23

Enrique Tarrio gets 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy. Trump risks tainting jury in election subversion case. North Korea will 'pay a price' for weapons supplies to Russia. You can subscribe to Five Minute News with Anthony Davis on YouTube, with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill.  Join our Patreon for bonus content, commentary and more, at patreon.com/fiveminutenews Subscribe to our YouTube channel membership www.youtube.com/fiveminutenews Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential world news, daily.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Here's your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Get $200 off a 3-month supply kit from ‘My Patriot Supply' when you go to https://www.preparewithposo.com. Detox from your phone today with SLNT. Go to  https://SLNT.COM/POSO. Use promocode POSO to save 15% plus free shipping on qualifying orders.Support the show

In this episode, Tudor welcomes Julie Kelly, an author and investigative journalist, to discuss political corruption and the weaponization of government institutions. They delve into the ongoing legal situation of former President Donald Trump, including multiple indictments and the potential impact on the Republican primary debate for the 2024 presidential race. They also explore the excessive punishments imposed on individuals involved in the protests against Joe Biden's election, highlighting the attempt to stifle political dissent. The conversation touches on the legal jeopardy Trump faces in relation to the January 6th Capitol riot and the potential consequences for the upcoming general election. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday, Wednesday, & Friday. For more information visit TudorDixonPodcast.comFollow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuckSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Tudor welcomes Julie Kelly, an author and investigative journalist, to discuss political corruption and the weaponization of government institutions. They delve into the ongoing legal situation of former President Donald Trump, including multiple indictments and the potential impact on the Republican primary debate for the 2024 presidential race. They also explore the excessive punishments imposed on individuals involved in the protests against Joe Biden's election, highlighting the attempt to stifle political dissent. The conversation touches on the legal jeopardy Trump faces in relation to the January 6th Capitol riot and the potential consequences for the upcoming general election. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday, Wednesday, & Friday. For more information visit TudorDixonPodcast.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL Trump AND His Lawyers Charged UNDER RICO, Democrats Are Engaged IN SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY Against US Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tim, Ian, Hannah Claire, & Serge join JW Gibbons to discuss Georgia accidentally publishing charges against Trump before the Grand Jury convened, CNN publishing a misleading headline accusing Trump's team of breaching voting systems, the rise of mass looting & smash and grabs in major cities, & China testing humans in order to create super humans like Captain America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Recently, On the Media's Micah Loewinger was called to testify in court. He had reported on militia groups who'd helped lead the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Now the government was using his work as evidence in a case against them. Micah wanted nothing to do with it — he worried that participating in the trial would signal to sources that he couldn't be trusted, which would compromise his work. As he considered his options, he uncovered a 1972 case called Branzburg v. Hayes. It involved New York Times reporter Earl Caldwell, who was approached multiple times by the FBI to testify against sources in the Black Panther Party. His case — and its decision — transformed the relationship between journalists and the government. Voices in the episode include: • Micah Loewinger — correspondent for On the Media • Earl Caldwell — former New York Times reporter • Lee Levine — attorney and media law expert • Congressman Jamie Raskin — representing Maryland's 8th District Learn more: • 1972: Branzburg v. Hayes • Listen to On the Media's "Seditious Conspiracy" episode. Subscribe to On the Media here. Special thanks to the Maynard Institute For Journalism Education for allowing the use of its Earl Caldwell oral history.  Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

On January 6th, 2021, “On the Media” reporter Micah Loewinger recorded the secret communications of the Oath Keepers on a walkie-talkie app called Zello. After reporting on the findings, Loewinger received a subpoena calling on him to testify in the first Oath Keepers criminal trial last year. In conversations with “On the Media” host Brooke Gladstone, “Death, Sex & Money” host Anna Sale, and Roger Parloff, a senior editor at Lawfare, Loewinger grapples with the consequences of his reporting, and explores what happens when a journalist is forced to testify in court. Plus, Loewinger looks at the nineteen-seventies Supreme Court case United States v. Caldwell to understand the legal precedents for journalists being called on to testify in federal investigations, the limits of First Amendment privileges for the press, and the sometimes tenuous relationship between journalists and the government.  This episode originally aired on “On the Media” on May 26, 2023. 

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this week's edition, the anchors discuss: 1) E Jean Carroll's new defamation and $10 million dollar punitive damage and defamation case against Trump for his CNN comments; 2) Jack Smith's prosecutors new “Espionage Act” focus, using a new cooperating witness, on Trump using his personal valet to remove national security documents from Mar a Lago storage rooms before his lawyers searched and tying the documents withheld as related to Trump's efforts to do business with foreign powers; 3) the highest prison sentences so far being handed out for Seditious Conspiracy and domestic terrorism against the leaders of the Oath Keepers and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! MOINK: Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF RIGHT NOW and listeners of this show get FREE bacon in your first box! RHONE: Head to https://rhone.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF to save 20% off your entire order! FAST GROWING TREES: Head to https://fastgrowingtrees.com/legalaf right now to get 15% off your entire order! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tom Woods. The Real Story of the Proud Boys Seditious Conspiracy Conviction. The Tom Woods Show Proud Boys Convicted of Seditious Conspiracy  May 15 2023   Rachel Alexander joins me to discuss why it matters.  SUBSCRIBE TO THE TOM WOODS SHOW iTunes Stitcher GET TRANSCRIPT I make the constitutional, historical, and moral case for national divorce. Free Resources! 1) Free guide on how to start your blog or website. Click here to get it. Plus, check out my step-by-step video taking you from no blog to a blog in about five minutes! 2) Free publicity for your blog. As a special thanks if you get your hosting through one of my affiliate links (this one for Bluehost, or this one for WP Engine), I'll boost your blog. Click here for details. 3) Free History Course: The U.S. Presidents — Politically Incorrect Edition. Get access to this 22-lesson course: 22 videos, 22 mp3 files for listening on the go, and a bibliography of reliable books on the presidents. Get it at FreeHistoryCourse.com!. 4) $160 in Free Bonuses. Free signed copy of my New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, plus a free 10-lesson bonus course on the foundations of liberty, plus a free year's subscription to LibertyClassroom.com, when you subscribe to the Ron Paul Curriculum site through RonPaulHomeschool.com. 5) Free Books. Boost your intellectual ammunition with my free libertarian eBooks, including 14 Hard Questions for Libertarians — Answered, Bernie Sanders Is Wrong, and Education Without the State. Find them at TomsFreeBooks.com. Read the original article at TomWoods.com. http://tomwoods.com/ep-1989-secession-the-constitutional-historical-and-moral-case/   Tom Woods Book- National Divorce: The Peaceful Solution to Irreconcilable Differences Is National Divorce Anti-Liberty? https://tomwoods.com/ep-2188-is-national-divorce-anti-liberty/ National divorce is urgently and obviously necessary, but among the blue-pilled in our movement it's a betrayal of libertarian principles that must be rejected. I take this on. Book Discussed National Divorce: The Peaceful Solution to Irreconcilable Differences About the book- National Divorce: The Peaceful Solution to Irreconcilable Differences It's time to break up. That's what New York Times bestselling author Tom Woods says in National Divorce: The Peaceful Solution to Irreconcilable Differences. National divorce is the only way forward for such a deeply divided society. But it's a forbidden opinion. CNN does not want you discussing it, dear reader. No, it isn't unconstitutional, and it isn't backward or ridiculous, either. It's the most humane thing to do. Get this free ebook at- National Divorce: The Peaceful Solution to Irreconcilable Differences   Learn more about Tom Woods at: https://tomwoods.com/ Learn more about Michael Malice at: https://michaelmalice.com/ Watch more films from Dangerous Documentaries at: https://www.dangerousdocumentaries.com/   Watch all 10 videos in this series at- The Politically Incorrect Guide 10 videos Starring Tom Woods & Michael Malice, and based on the Regnery Publishing book series of the same name, "The Politically Incorrect Guide" covers the undiscussed facts and stories about history, culture, and social movements, purged from today's mainstream education system. Tom Woods penned the very first book in the series, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History", which was a New York Times bestseller. Capital Research Center   1The Politically Incorrect Guide to Modern Capitalism (Starring Tom Woods & Michael Malice!) 2The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Industrial Revolution (Starring Tom Woods & Michael Malice!) 3The Politically Incorrect Guide to Public Education (Starring Tom Woods & Michael Malice!) 4The Politically Incorrect Guide to Journalism (Starring Tom Woods & Michael Malice!) 5The Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes (Starring Tom Woods & Michael Malice!) 6The Politically Incorrect Guide to Woodrow Wilson & the Origins of Progressivism 7The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism (Starring Tom Woods & Michael Malice!) 8The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court (Starring Tom Woods & Michael Malice!) 9The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression & the New Deal 10The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution (Starring Tom Woods & Michael Malice!)  

On Thursday May 25, founder of the Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. On this week's On the Media, hear how OTM correspondent Micah Loewinger's reporting became evidence in a federal trial. Plus, what can history tell us about when journalists are called to testify. 1. OTM reporter Micah Loewinger [@MicahLoewinger] speaks with senior editor of Lawfare, Roger Parloff [@rparloff], about becoming a federal witness in the trial of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes. Listen. 2. Micah talks to Lee Levine, first amendment lawyer, about the case of civil rights reporter Earl Caldwell and the impact it continues to have on journalists testifying in court. Listen. 3. Micah and Death, Sex, & Money host, Anna Sale [@annasale], speak with Stewart Rhodes' ex-wife Tasha Adams [@That_Girl_Tasha] on her relationship with Rhodes and the impact of his 18-year prison sentence. Listen. 

On Thursday May 25, founder of the Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. On this week's On the Media, hear how OTM correspondent Micah Loewinger's reporting became evidence in a federal trial. Plus, what can history tell us about when journalists are called to testify. 1. OTM reporter Micah Loewinger [@MicahLoewinger] speaks with senior editor of Lawfare, Roger Parloff [@rparloff], about becoming a federal witness in the trial of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes. Listen. 2. Micah talks to Lee Levine, first amendment lawyer, about the case of civil rights reporter Earl Caldwell and the impact it continues to have on journalists testifying in court. Listen. 3. Micah and Death, Sex, & Money host, Anna Sale [@annasale], speak with Stewart Rhodes' ex-wife Tasha Adams [@That_Girl_Tasha] on her relationship with Rhodes and the impact of his 18-year prison sentence. Listen. 

Rachel Alexander joins me to discuss why it matters. Sponsor: CrowdHealth - Get your first 3 months for just $99/month at

New York Times journalist Alan Feuer talks about the conviction of the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, and what that means for ongoing Jan. 6th-related inquiries.

Monday, May 8th, 2023    Today, in the Hot Notes: the first sentencing recommendations from the Department of Justice for January 6th rioters convicted of seditious conspiracy are filed; possible criminal activity by Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni; a jaw-dropping Herschel Walker campaign finance violation; a referral for disbarment of Sidney Powell in Michigan; a 14th Amendment solution to the Republican manufactured debt ceiling crisis; plus AG and Dana deliver your Good News.Want some sweet Daily Beans Merchhttps://shop.dailybeanspod.com/Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gill https://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyPromo Codes:Get 20% off all mattress orders plus 2 free pillows at HelixSleep.com/dailybeans with code HELIXPARTNER.Thanks, Aura Frames. Get up to $30 off their best-selling Carver frames, go to auraframes.com, and use code DAILYBEANS for free shipping.Google Doc of current legislation threatening trans people and their families:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fTxHLjBa86GA7WCT-V6AbEMGRFPMJndnaVGoZZX4PMw/edit?usp=sharingHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?https://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/Link from the Good News:https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/10/political-nonprofit-fundraising-off-breast-cancer-has-deep-ties-to-scam-pac-networks/Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short Follow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3UKzKt0

On this week's episode of Words Matter, Norm and Kavita discuss the latest developments on the debt ceiling, the Seditious Conspiracy convictions of the Proud Boys, Trump's legal woes and Clarence and Ginni Thomas.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's episode of Words Matter, Norm and Kavita discuss the latest developments on the debt ceiling, the Seditious Conspiracy convictions of the Proud Boys, Trump's legal woes and Clarence and Ginni Thomas.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Once again this longform weekend podcast starts off with the legal recap of the week. Glenn begins with good news for those hoping for accountability in the January 6th attack at the Capitol as we learn the final results in the Proud Boys trial. He explains why this guilty verdict is so important. Then as Donald Trump's sexual assault and defamation trial in New York sets up for closing arguments - Glenn weighs the evidence presented and tells us what he thinks about the trial so far and what the jury will find. Next, a new report by ProPublica shows even more financial indiscretions by Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni. Glenn says the credibility of the Supreme Court has been compromised but there may be a way to charge justices who break the law so they won't be above the law. Finally, Glenn explains what you can do to fight for accountability by helping to change laws. He also tells how you can become a part of Team Justice and how you can see him appearing live in person. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A jury in Washington, D.C., has convicted former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio and three others of seditious conspiracy, handing the Justice Department a key victory in its Jan. 6 probe. And as the country continues to add jobs and boost wages, why do Americans think the country is in a recession?This episode: White House correspondent Asma Khalid, national political correspondent Mara Liasson, national justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and chief economics correspondent Scott Horsley.The podcast is produced by Elena Moore and Casey Morell. Our editor is Eric McDaniel. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi. Unlock access to this and other bonus content by supporting The NPR Politics Podcast+. Sign up via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Connect:Email the show at nprpolitics@npr.orgJoin the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.

Headlines for May 05, 2023; Guilty: Four Proud Boys Convicted of Seditious Conspiracy for Role in Jan. 6 Insurrection; In E. Jean Carroll’s “Heroic” Rape Trial Against Trump, His Team Calls No Witnesses. Will He Testify?; Freedom to Learn: Nat’l Day of Action Targets Ron DeSantis, “Anti-Woke Cabal” over Book Bans & More

Welcome to the latest episode of the MeidasTouch Podcast! On today's show, we have a lot to cover, including a major victory for the Department of Justice. The trial of the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, has resulted in multiple convictions of Seditious Conspiracy. We dive into the details of the case and what this means for the investigations into January 6. We also discuss the latest failed smear attempt by Republicans against President Biden. As usual, their baseless claims have fallen apart under scrutiny, but not before causing more outrage in the far-right news cycle. We also touch on the latest updates of E. Jean Carroll's trial against former President Donald Trump. In other news, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas finds himself embroiled in yet another scandal. All this and more on this episode of the MeidasTouch Podcast! New full-length episodes of the MeidasTouch Podcast featuring the brothers are released every Tuesday & Friday morning. The rest of the week, enjoy our short-form content we call ‘The Mighty.' If you enjoyed this episode, please be sure to rate, review and subscribe. Thanks to our sponsors! MANSCAPED: Get 20% Off and Free Shipping with code MEIDAS at Manscaped.com Fast Growing Trees: Head to fastgrowingtrees.com/meidastouch right now to get 15% off your entire order! Klyman Financial: Go to Klymanfinancial.com/meidas and speak to the owners directly to figure out what insurance policy best fits your needs! Yair Klyman is a Registered Representative who offers securities through American Portfolios Financial Services, Inc. (APFS) Member FINRA/SIPC. Klyman Financial is not affiliated with APFS. David Klyman is insurance licensed only. Shop Meidas Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Four members of the Proud Boys, including the group's leader Enrique Tarrio, were convicted of seditious conspiracy related to the January 6th Capitol Riot. A fifth member, Dominic Pezzola, was convicted on other felony charges. Meantime, new reporting says that Special Counsel Jack Smith is ramping up efforts to find out if former President Trump hid classified documents. Michael Schmidt, Ryan Reilly, Barbara McQuade, Ian Millhiser, Juanita Tolliver, Tim Miller, and Charles Coleman join.

A look at the concerted effort to destroy the American consensus. Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, Activist Media, and the weaponized federal government. PatriotCoolers.com 10% off your order with promo code: KYLE

In Washington, D.C., members of the Proud Boys are on trial related to their alleged actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. It is the second major seditious conspiracy trial related to the insurrection following one late last year involving members of the Oath Keepers.This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and, political correspondent Susan Davis.This episode was produced by Elena Moore and Casey Morell. It was edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi. Research and fact-checking by Devin Speak.Unlock access to this and other bonus content by supporting The NPR Politics Podcast+. Sign up via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Connect:Email the show at nprpolitics@npr.orgJoin the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.