CGR WEDNESDAY 080923 David Shestokas Trump Indictment SCOTUS

Hi, this is Pastor Greg and you're listening to Chosen Generation Radio. Get more at chosengenerationradio.com.

That's Chosen Generation Radio, where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses. My passion is the fight for freedom. My father fought for World War II defending our country. Today, we are no longer fighting with guns.

Instead, we are fighting an ideological battle for control of our country. By contributing to causes that support your constitutional rights, I am Patriot Mobile. I thank and praise God for this borewell that God has enabled us to put in this village with the prayer and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry. By the prayer and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry, we could put the borewell in this village for the community. Before, this community was drinking dirty water and that was really causing a lot of sickness. But now they are getting pure fresh water and all the communities are so thankful for Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry and all the supporters. We pray for all of you, and God bless you. Good morning, sir.

How are you? I'm actually tired. I certainly had on Gutfeld and then after Gutfeld I was messing around on YouTube and I ran across President Trump's talk that he gave in New Hampshire yesterday. And it went on for an hour and a half and I was mesmerized. Wow. This man knows more stuff than anybody.

I'll tell you what, in terms of what he covered in terms of the military, in terms of what he covered in terms of the VA and those situations and the oil and the drilling circumstances and the trans-activities that you like. I didn't know it was a social experiment. He was on fire and literally an hour and a half I couldn't turn around and get up and go to sleep. I watched that. I mean, my mind was just going 60-40 and it was amazing, Greg.

It was just amazing. I've done the thinking clips. You can read a lot better. Get here today at CGRWellness.com. You can go to the Gen Radio at checkout and take $20 off your first order of $50 or more. That's CGRWellness.com. You can go to Gen Radio.

Get yours today. Check me out. Welcome to Chosen Generation with your host, Pastor Greg Young. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people that you should chew forth the praises of one who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light, which in time past were not a people but are now the people of God, which had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

And now, Chosen Generation, where no topic is off limits and everything is filtered through Biblical classes. And now, here's your host, Pastor Greg. This is Adam Mundall with State Air.

We need people on radio willing to speak about the Bible, the Constitution, and putting God back in our nation again. So join me in sponsoring Chosen Generation and Pastor Greg. Call him today at 830-446-3624.

That's 830-446-3624. This has blessed my business and it will bless yours. Thank you.

Oh, yes. And welcome to the program. Great to have you with me. Thanks so much for being here. I know you have a choice in where you can listen each and every day. And I thank you for keeping it tuned here to Chosen Generation Radio where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through Biblical classes.

And I've got a great program lined up for you today. Bottom of hour number three, a very unique guest. We're going to be visiting on the assassination of JFK. And what's interesting to me about this, we'll be talking with someone that's been following this literally her entire life, Vivian Cottingham.

But the CIA monitor, Ruben Efron, and the connection between what the CIA is doing now, what the FBI is doing now, and the relationship with that is really quite stunning. We'll have to get into that with her. Tiaran Rose Mandelberg will be here. We'll talk about fake news and continued censorship that is going on. Rick Manning and Claire Lopez join me to talk about national security issues. And I'm going to be talking with you about perilous times coming up at the top of the next hour. We're in perilous times, but I want to break that down for you and point a couple of things out that are in there that, well, might get passed over in just a brief reading of it. Beyond just the bad behavior, some of the underlying foundational issues that are revealed in looking at that passage and comparing that to where we are today. But joining me now, as he does each and every Wednesday, when we get into our constitutional originalist issues, and boy, do we have some issues to get into today.

Listen, if you were watching our program yesterday, and I hope that you were, Greg Stenstrom, Gregory Stenstrom and Leah Hoops, Parallel Electron is the name of the book, but I really encourage you to take, we have the audio and the video, both are available. The video is available, and I'll be getting that up actually as the top blog post on my blog. We need to share that. You need to share that with your congressmen. You need to share that with your senators.

You need to call them then, get their emails, send them a link to the interview, and then follow up with them and say, hey, what are you doing about this? What are you doing about this? Because the evidence is there. The criminal, the criminal activity, okay, has been charged, has been filed. The documentation and all, it's all lined out.

These are criminal acts that have taken place. And you need to put your congress member on notice and your senator on notice, and then they have, by their oath, a constitutional responsibility to act on that or be removed from office, literally. All right, joining me now, Mr. David Shostokis. David, welcome. Good to have you with me.

Thank you so much, Greg. I did, you sent me a link to yesterday regarding Greg and Leah, and it was incredibly riveting. Strangely enough, I heard them say that they also testified in Gettysburg. Apparently, we were in the same room on the same day, but there were a lot of, there was a lot of witnesses there that day. I spent most of that time in the, in the back with, with the exception of when I came out to testify. But I was with Jenna Ellis and, and Mr. Giuliani and some of the, while we were discussing some of the legal things with the Pennsylvania state senators. So I didn't really get to meet any of the other witnesses there that day. So that was, that was very interesting to hear.

But yeah, no, you're exactly right. People need to listen to what, what those folks had to say. There, and there was in fact criminality. It wasn't just, it's not just run of the mill fraud, but actual criminality. And they have, they've, they have presented the criminal charges. They've, they have put the cases together, all the necessary documentation.

They sent it to Jim Jordan. His staff apparently has not presented it to him. And so pressure needs to be put, but, but every single member of Congress needs to be made aware of this.

And I, I just sent you an email with that link again that you could use forward, what have you. But I, you know, the one person I forgot to put on to, to add to that email is Lloyd Brunson. And I'm gonna, I'm gonna correct that here in just a minute, because, you know, this is, I mean, this is a huge piece of, of, of the reason why Loy is going after them, relative, and has, has filed against, I think it's, I don't know, 400 and some odd senators. 438, I think, actually, was the number.

Yeah. But that, but it's because he has, he's called them out for a violation of their oath for not acting on, on, on potential foreign interference of the election, which they are responsible to do. And, and, and, and at least to have conducted an investigation.

I'm going to stay on that for just a minute with you. Bill Barr, you know, made his infamous statement and Gregory yesterday broke that statement down and, and, and gave the background on the reality that Bill Barr blocked the investigator from investigating and then made that statement. Yeah, well, it will be interesting if the new indictments ever get to trial. If they, if in fact they do get to trial, then Mr. Barr would probably be a witness, in which case on cross-examination, you're going to wind up asking, what did you do in those two weeks? What did you investigate to come to the conclusion that there was no fraud or no determinative fraud? You know, what were your activities?

You know, the attorney general never called me, you know. And one of the pieces that's associated with this that Gregory pointed out yesterday, which I thought was an excellent point was, you know, it wasn't, oh, there was fraud in all 50 states. We believe there probably was, but the point of it was, is that the focal point was in, I believe, seven states.

That's right. And there is a preponderance of evidence that, that even the legislatures in those states have had to acknowledge, have had to have hearings about, and, and many of them have been exploring how to decertify the election. I mean, even though it's so many years later, there's still been that kind of conversation going on predicated on the evidence that was presented to them. Yeah, well, theoretically the, when something is illegal or unconstitutional, no act afterwards makes it legal and constitutional. And so in theory, were the Arizona legislature to say that the election in Arizona was illegal, unconstitutional, conducted improperly, and those electors were improperly sent, there is nothing that prevents Arizona from recalling those votes at this particular point in time. So, you know, if something were, if in fact Biden's election were to be decertified by enough, enough states with appropriate electoral votes, in theory, it would be legally possible to have that election nullified. Just because if it was unconstitutional at the moment it happened, it's still unconstitutional today, and nothing that happened in December 2020, January of 21 or thereafter, makes it correct. And so that's, that's, that's, that's a theoretical possibility. As a political probability, it said the chances are next to zero. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be pursued. In theory, they're correct.

You can, it could still be undone. Well, and, but I think the other technical legal standpoint, I think, I think the piece that's, that's, that's really most significantly critical as it relates to this is, is, is getting, getting things back into a legal vote moving forward that, that, that, that the criminal acts that were done are resolved and, and, and is spent as particularly the violations. Oh, I lost David for a minute.

Particularly the violations of the Constitution. I will, hopefully he'll be able to bounce back on here in just a second and join me. But I think, I think those, that's the, the, the, the greater issue and, and hopefully, there we go. Okay.

Are you, are we back? I believe so. Okay. I don't have your, there we go. There we go. All right. So, I was saying, you know, the most important thing is, is to get, is to get the, the, get people operating legally again, which, which.

That's absolutely correct. And, and that's one of the problems with this new indictment, in fact, because of course that now blurs the lines of what theoretically Jack Smith has said that it's illegal to contest an election. You know, this is a, this is one of the things that's problematic about those indictments. I was thinking about this yesterday, and the truth is, is that when, and that was one of the qualifying things that I opened with in terms of if these matters get to trial, because there is, there's reason to believe that there's a variety of first, first amendment violations associated with the indictments, both in, in Washington and in Florida.

And while courts, the court process typically allows a trial court to go forward and then come to a decision and then you, then you appeal whatever you thought was wrong, the appeals courts frown on what they call interlocutory appeals. But if, if the case can be made that the charges should never have been brought in, in Washington based on the first amendment, in Florida based on the Presidential Records Act, there's reason to believe that perhaps while, that the Supreme Court might in fact entertain an interlocutory appeal on that basis and dismiss these cases before they ever go to trial. That's a possible, that is in fact a possible outcome.

Whether that, whether the team pursues that or not, I don't know. But it's not, it's not typical, but the powers of the courts allow that, allow that scenario to take place. Okay. And I want to get to, I'm going to make a note about that because I want to get to the powers of the courts in just a minute because that's something that's, that's a hot topic right now because of, they're going after Alito with regards to the powers of the courts. But I want to go back for a second to something that you were talking about too, and it's kind of in a sideways kind of a way, but Mike Pence has been coming out and making a lot of comments about Trump and about, you know, his activity and he was unconstitutional on January 6th and he, and all this stuff. Here's the thing, and you and I have talked about this before, and I know you said that, you know, Mike Pence had certain responsibilities.

But let me just pose this, this question to you. Could he not have allowed a debate on the floor of the Congress of the House relative to the representatives, the congressional representatives that had concerns about what was going on and then have allowed a member from, let's say Pennsylvania, to make a motion to say, we want to take this back to our state and, and, and have some hearings before we make this certification and the same thing for Arizona and the same thing for Michigan and the same thing for Georgia. Could that not have been a pathway that would have been constitutional that would have met his responsibilities? Absolutely, because the, the jurisdiction in this matter has always been with the states, or excuse me, the jurisdiction determining the validity of the electoral vote has always actually been with the Congress. The Congress has the final say, has the jurisdiction to do that.

In fact, I did an interview with the Atlanta Journal of Constitution this past week because I had it, because of things going on in the whole Fannie Willis and Fulton County grand jury matter. And I said to them, I said, you know, they're talking about these indicting people or giving immunity to supposed fake electors. I said, that's not jurisdiction of the district attorney of Fulton County.

That's the jurisdiction of the United States Congress to make that decision. And certainly had Congress decided to do so, that wasn't even Mike Pence's decision. But, but, but Pence, but Mike Pence, and this, I think this is the argument that President Trump was making is, is Mike Pence had the authority to open the floor and allow these conversations and debates and discussions to take place. And he said, we're not going to have any conversation.

We're not going to have any discussion where I'm, I'm, I'm closing, I'm slamming the hammer down and there will be, there will be no debate. Yeah. I would suggest that he did not have the authority to do that.

Okay. You know, I would suggest that because even under the existing law, the Electoral Accounting Act, where it says if there's one Senator and one, one Congressman that cares to call into question a particular, a particular set of electoral votes, then they can have a vote on that. And typically the Congress, when they have a vote on something, typically they debate it before they have a vote. And my understanding is, and my understanding is, is that Ted Cruz was, was a Senator that was willing to make that statement.

Yes. And, and, and I believe Josh Hawley was a Congressional member that was willing to make that statement. Well, Hawley's also a Senator.

Oh, I'm sorry. Well, then Josh Hawley also was, yeah. There were several Congressmen though that were interested in doing such a thing and having that votes and then, and then, and then having a debate on that. And so certainly that would be, again, within the jurisdiction of the Congress and the Congress themselves, the Congress itself gets to set the rules of the debate and those kinds of things. The Vice President doesn't get to do that. He's just a, you know, he's a presiding officer.

He doesn't get to set the rules, the, the Congress itself does. You know, speaking of Mike Pence, I've been thinking about some other, something other, other things. Everybody says that President Trump has, has issues in the District of Columbia because everybody, because it was a 97% Biden vote for him on the presidential election. And I saw another place where everybody said, well, Mike Pence is one of the prime, prime witnesses for the prosecution. I'm going, hmm, even a DC jury, if a DC jury is looking at Pence and looking at Trump, there's a fair probability they're going to vote for Trump. I'm just, even a DC jury, because now you're asking a DC jury to vote essentially that they believe Mike Pence.

I'm not so certain that that jury pool is such a slam dunk against the President that everybody, all the pundits seem to say it is. Yeah, well, I agree. All right. Okay.

Let's, let's move. So keeping in mind, you know, again, the, the election process of what's going on, we'll take a quick break. But when we come back, there's an article that, that is out that is suggesting that the judge on the case is going to limit the, basically what can and cannot be presented as defense. Protective orders versus gag orders. They're different things.

Okay. So, so that the article by the Wall Street Journal, which, which says judge considers limits on what Trump can reveal about election subversion case, that that has to do with a gag order. And not necessarily having to do with a, with limiting what the evidence he can present. Although when I read the, but when I read the article, the article was talking about that the judge is considering how, because there's such a preponderance, you know, such a law, like you said, this could go on for a year. That the judge is considering restricting, or at least the hearing on Fridays, part of that is going to be about restricting how much evidence will be allowed into the case.

That's not what the motion's about. We'll talk about it when we come back. So we'll take a break and we'll be back with more coming up right after this.

You're listening to chosen generation radio, where no topics off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses. Folks, your health is critically important. And, and I want to report to you and have before, I am feel so blessed that my blood work keeps coming back.

Excellent. I got my new blood report last Friday and everything is, is excellent. And then yesterday went in for my checkup and that had to do with the tumor that they took out of my maxillious sinus about about four years ago, actually, when they were looking at doing the reconstructive surgery. And they had to stop because of my body's reaction to anesthesia.

But and so they had to leave a part of it in there. And the doctor looked at it and I saw it on the screen yesterday. And he was stunned because he said, there has been absolutely no growth at all.

Your sinus is completely healthy and it's clear. And he said, honestly, I am, I am amazed. So I, you know what, I, I, I attribute that first and foremost to the Lord God Almighty. But I also attribute it to the fact that he has led me to put in my body, these, these supplements that are incredibly healthy and the benefit that I'm receiving from them. Reverend Clonard Childress, they just started on it and he's, he is seeing great results. My mom had swelling in her legs and she has started on it.

And all the swelling, she's 85 years old, all the swelling in her legs, all the inflammation, all the water retention, all of it gone. I'm just telling you, Tim Chef comes on here. He has been practicing for 40 years in as a natural path. He's been using these products for 25 years with success story after success story after success story, including his own father, who is probably the oldest living individual who suffers from that, the piping insulation that they used to put on the piping, he worked in those factories and he's in his mid 90s now and going strong.

He's probably the oldest living person who has been exposed to that and he's on these products. So I'm going to show you how to get your order in. I encourage you, just start with the vibe and see how that works for you. The Resvante, it is an anti, it is a natural anti-aging. The Vitamin B and the Ultra Shot and the Flex, you'll see it in just a second.

I really encourage you to check it out. Hi, I'm Tim Chef, a certified natural health practitioner of over 40 years. I went under issue to a product that changed my life. The product's called Vibe, available at cgrwellness.com. I thought I was on a good nutritional program before I discovered Vibe.

I was taking the traditional vitamin mineral tablets, wasn't really feeling any different. So I tried Vibe. Vibe is an all-in-one vitamin mineral supplement. It's a liquid multivitamin. It's cold-pressed, whole-food sourced, non-radiate, gluten-free, and has no pasteurization. Vibe is like fresh juicing without all the work.

It supports four areas of the body, cardiovascular health, immune health, anti-aging, and healthy cell replication. Vibe is available in a 32-ounce bottle for home use or a very handy one-ounce travel packet for life on the go. The first time I tried Vibe, I had more energy in about 20 minutes.

I started thinking clear, even believed I slept better. Get yours today at cgrwellness.com, coupon code chosenjinradio at checkout, and receive $20 off your first order of $50 or more. That's cgrwellness.com, coupon code chosenjinradio.

Get yours today. Hey, this is Pastor Greg. I just want to take a minute to walk you through how to sign up at CGR Wellness, so you're going to type in www.cgrwellness.com, and that is going to take you over here. And the first thing you're going to do is you're going to come over here and you are going to, we're going to shrink this down so it doesn't get in our way. You're going to go right over here to create account, and it is going to offer you the opportunity to create an account. You've got to type in an email address, so we're going to type in an email address.

It would be good if I put a good one in there, right? There we go. And now there is a window that pops up. Now, when this window pops up, here's what you need to do. You need to just X out. Just close that window.

Okay, just close that window. Now we go over here and we'll use a strong password, and then we'll put in our name, put in our last name, and then we'll put in an address, and the city, and we'll choose our state, and we don't need a phone number, and it wants us to make sure that we're not a robot, so we'll do that. And we'll create the account. And now the account's been created. Now, there is a share code.

I don't remember what it is right now, but it doesn't really matter. Now you'd go over here and type in Vibe. It's your first product you're looking for, and there is the fruit and veggies superfood liquid multivitamin. Click on that, and you're going to order. I recommend that you order two, and I'll tell you why. You order two of them and add those to the cart. Now here comes the cart. Now you're going to get your second bottle for half off when you type in chosen gen radio, chosen gen radio, and click apply, and that's going to give you 20 bucks off. Plus, you're going to unlock free shipping. So now when you get your order, you'll get no shipping charge, two months' worth for the price of a month and a half. And then you can go back over and you can securely check out, put in your billing information and so on, and you're off to the races. So that's how you do it, nice and easy.

Again, cgrwellness.com. When that little window pops up, just X out of it. You don't need that because you're going to get a $20 discount.

Once you've completed the form and created the account, go to the top, click in Vibe, and then go. Now I use Vibe, Resvante, Ultrashot, the EPA fish oil, the Flex, and I also use, this is your apple cider vinegar, and this is your ashwagandha. I use those as well.

I'm going to run through this really quick with you. Again, Omega 3, and then these products up here. Your Vibe, your Resvante, the Ultrashot, and the Flex. Those are the ones that I personally use every single day.

I can recommend each and every one of those to you and just assure you that they do a great job. They've made a gigantic difference in my health. All right, God bless you, God bless your health, and thank you for supporting our Indian ministry through this as well. And welcome back to Children's Generation Radio where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses, and my guest is David Jastokis. So we kind of got into it a little bit, but we're going to kind of break this down. So there is an article in the Wall Street Journal out as of late yesterday that is entitled, Judge Considers Limits on What Donald Trump Can Reveal About Election Subversion Case. And, you know, I was looking at it from the perspective of something that was mentioned by Rick Manning last week, and others that I've been talking to relative to J6, and essentially, I mean, that's what this is. President Trump's most recent indictment is a J6 indictment. It is related to the January 6th protests. It is related to what happened on that date, and was he an instigator of that?

And then did he attempt to defraud the American people? All this nonsense that they're putting out there. And so in these J6 trials, what we have seen has been a rejection by judges in allowing the defendants to bring forward video evidence and so forth that would clearly exonerate them, but the judge doesn't allow this stuff to come into the courtroom, and so therefore, juries don't see it, and verdicts are rendered. I know that there are appeals that are underway for a lot of these individuals, but in the meantime, the damage is done, and we've had, I think, six suicides related to this stuff as well because of doxing and because, I mean, their families can't find a place to live. People won't rent. I mean, folks, what are you doing? What are we doing to you? It's horrible. It's not the rule of law.

It's the rule of men. It's dictatorial in many respects. We were talking just before the beginning about the difference between protective orders and gag orders. This actually is a separate issue from the issue that they're now going to have a hearing on Friday in the President Trump J6 cases, if you will. These issues have to do with judges ruling that certain evidence is either unreliable or cumulative and should not be allowed to be presented at trials, and that's very, very problematic when it comes to making such rulings relative to criminal defendants. Well, doesn't it violate, it's what, the Fourth Amendment, right, is your right to proffer?

No, that's securing. No, we're talking about more of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Fifth and Sixth, there we go, okay. You know, the Sixth Amendment has speedy trial, right to counsel, right to cross-examine and confront your witnesses. There's a whole series of trial rights in the Sixth Amendment. And then, of course, the Fifth Amendment has the right to remain silent and associated matters around there. So Fifth and Sixth are more trial, specific trial procedural rights. Fourth Amendment is kind of a pretrial situation. It requires probable cause to warrant arrest or to have a trial process begin.

So Fifth and Sixth are what the issue is. This would be a Sixth Amendment issue relative to the defendant's ability to be able to cross-examine and to present the evidence predicated in alignment with the charges. I mean, we're not talking about President Trump bringing evidence in that has nothing to do with the trial. This is all about his state of mind, and did he believe, based on the evidence that he had, that there was an issue with the elections, that they potentially were stolen? Did he have reasonable doubt based on the evidence? And the only way to show that and to show his state of mind, which is what they are attacking, is for him to bring in and say, okay, well, here's what I knew.

Here's the evidence that I had. Right, that's exactly right, and the kind of evidence that was presented to him. They're saying that Mr. Trump had to believe certain people that told him that the election was fair and square, as opposed to believing other people who disagreed with that. They're saying that he had to believe what the government says he had to believe, which is just insanity.

You know, I saw in his talk in New Hampshire yesterday, I would say I'd agree with him about Jack Smith being deranged. There is no legal basis for what they're doing. But they're doing it anyway. But what's at issue relative to the Wall Street Journal article is there's a couple of different kinds of orders that were at issue there, and the government filed a motion for what they call a protective order. And a protective order is related to the revelation of certain, what would be described as sensitive information, to a limited number of parties for the purposes of preparing your defense. And the government asked for a broad protective order that limited the activities to, say, basically defense counsel, and perhaps counsel for potential witnesses, and that you couldn't discuss it or reveal it to other people. And Trump's attorney said, wait, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, what about the people that have to work with us?

Like the paralegals? What about the secretarial staff that's typing up the matters? What about the, you know, there's other people in the process that need to have this information for us to formulate our defense. And so at the moment, strangely enough, the limiting factor is to whom what they call sensitive information is revealed. And sensitive information would be things like details of confidential informants, background and names, or doxxing of witnesses when it comes to personal information about witnesses, particular kinds of perhaps investigative techniques that are employed and revealed during the course of the discovery process.

And so that's it. And this is what they're talking about relative to a protective order. They're not talking, they did not talk about, they did not ask for and nor are they discussing on the Friday, at the Friday hearing, a gag order. And a gag order generally is a blanket order that essentially says neither the parties nor counsel are free to discuss this matter in public in any way, shape or form.

That's as strong a gag order can be. And this is not what they're talking about. Which I understand and I'm glad that that's the case because public opinion with regards to this is going to be an issue as we go forward and how this is shaped in media. But the nuts and bolts of what you just discussed is very concerning.

If the judge decides to limit and suggest that, well, no, you know, irrespective of, you know, whatever, I'm not going to allow certain people. Like, for example, all of the evidence that Gregory Stenstrom and Leah Hoops have that that supports the fact that and they had this, by the way. And I think timing is going to be an issue. I can see prosecution saying, well, he didn't know about this on January 6. He didn't find out. You know, this is more recent information. That's not true when it comes to what Gregory Stenstrom and Leah Hoops have have been fighting and battling with. This is evidence that was presented between November. What was in November 3rd when that when the election took place? November 7th, November 7th. OK, so so from November 7th until January 6, there were hearings that were going on. There was public outcry that was taking place. Just look at the Navarro report.

It's all there now. And Peter Navarro was working where? Oh, in the White House and handing the Navarro report to the president. All anybody after he has to do is Google Navarro report and see what the president was taking a look at and how he would be formulating his his his his opinion. And I want the strongest piece of evidence for the president is, in fact, the Navarro report. And some of the information that I was part of accumulating in Pittsburgh went to Peter Navarro. I know this. Yeah.

And so things that we worked on in that and Allegheny County went to Peter Navarro and found their way into the Navarro report. Well, and and and yeah. And so, you know, if if there is if it's possible for the president to get a fair trial in front of this judge, and that's still very questionable, I think in in in many of our minds, in in in light of of who this first. I'm sorry. Say again, absolutely. In light of who she is.

Yeah. Personal history. In light of the judge's history, you're correct. So that that, you know, but if he is able to get a fair trial, then all of this evidence comes out and and then out of that. Now, I, this is why I think it's so important, folks, and I shared this yesterday with with, you know, with Gregory and Leah, we shared this, but this is why it's so important that you're on the phone with your member of Congress and your senators. Because there could be right now, a basically a pre trial trial, if you will, that tries the 2020 election in public with all of this evidence predicated on the criminal acts that have taken place, and the public would already be seeing what is going to be presented as the president's defense. That's I mean, Jim Jordan has the ability to do that, right?

Absolutely. I heard a I heard an interview with Matt Gates talking to Charlie Kirk yesterday, and Matt suggested that they may subpoena the president, President Trump, to come before Congress and Congress provide President Trump with a grant of immunity for his testimony. And strangely enough, as I thought that through a congressional grant of immunity regarding the matters that he testifies about could make all the indictments go away.

Wow. You know, yeah, I heard that Gates and Kirk talking about this yesterday while I was driving someplace and I went, oh, my goodness, what a what a what a strange thing. They call the president and have him testify to what he knew before the before the congressional committee. And the congressional committee provides him with immunity for his in return for his testimony.

And the indictments go away because they can't they can't prosecute him when he's been granted immunity by the United States Congress. It's a very far out. I'd never I'd never considered it.

Why? And you got to wonder then what you know, I mean, the left is just going to go absolutely bananas if if if if they moved to to do that, they can. But it would be it'd be very interesting to see how how that plays out. All right, let's let's shift gears for just a minute and talk about Yeah, you you mentioned in the in the in the last half hour about judicial powers and and and and questions of judicial power. And Justice Alito made some statements in an interview that he did, because there were threats that were being brought forward by the Democrats regarding Congress and you know what Congress was going to do and and and how they were going to, you know, get the court squared away and and basically make the court dance to their tune. And Alito essentially said that Congress doesn't have the authority to to force the court to do to bow to its whims and wills. I mean, that's that was how I more or less interpreted it.

Am I Am I reading that right? That's the essence of what Judge Alito wrote. Yes, he wrote an op-ed piece, apparently the third in three months. Apparently he's become very prolific in writing op-ed pieces for The Wall Street Journal. And but he made a blanket statement in the most recent piece and his blanket statement in the most recent piece is that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government and Congress has no authority to regulate the Supreme Court.

And there's a kernel of truth in that. Congress does have a variety of constitutional authorities to in fact affect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, affect the number of justices, affect the terms or not the terms, but rather the pay of the offices, whether or not they have a building. Congress has to appropriate all these things.

But what the proposal was, was that's pending apparently in the United States. Congress has to do with certain ethical ethical considerations that they want to impose from the Congress to the court. And when it comes to that particular kind of activity, the I would suggest that Justice Alito is absolutely correct. The Congress has no authority to require the justices to make any kind of report to the Congress because they are in fact a co-equal branch of government once they're there. And so to the extent that Justice Alito is speaking to the proposed legislation, and the proposed legislation is based on some foolish reporting regarding both Clarence Thomas and Justice Alito.

Apparently they don't like the people that they take vacations with. But the Congress has one answer to something about the United States Supreme Court and a particular justice's conduct. Impeach them. They can't require the justice to report to Congress. They can't require them to come before them and testify.

They can't require them to file reports. So Justice Alito is right in that regard when he when he makes a blanket statement that which he did that says the Congress has no authority to regulate the Supreme Court. That statement is a little bit over the top. But when it comes to the proposed legislation, the justice is absolutely right on point. Well, and I remember, you know, taking a tour of the Capitol and the original Supreme Court chambers was actually right off of the Great Hall so that Congress could slip in there just to make sure that the judiciary, you know, recognizing that potentially a out of control judiciary, which is kind of what we have. Or have had a judiciary that legislates from the bench can't exist, that they that they would not be able to do such a thing.

And that if they did, then Congress would would take action to try to put them in in in check, so to speak, so that there was this balance of powers that was going on. The LA Times, of course, goes after him and says, Why does Justice Alito keep making things worse for the Supreme Court, that the the left wing media has has portrayed the court and they went after, you know, of course, the the reversal of the Roe v. Wade, which which they have misinterpreted and misstated and and and and lied about. But they continue to talk about these these actions by the Supreme Court or by the conservative members of the Supreme Court. I'm concerned about this. It, it concerns me that that there's this effort to manipulate the courts, Justice Kagan, when it came to reversing, I believe it was DOMA basically said, Well, you know, I think, you know, I think it's wrong. And so, you know, I have no precedent.

No, no, no, nothing else. Just I just think it's wrong. Because I because I support the rights of of sodomites.

And so we're going to overturn it. Yeah, this is this is a problem that the the leftists, if you will, have lost all consideration of honor and law. They don't really care. You know, of course, Joe Biden doesn't care. It was always clear that he never had authority to try and unilaterally do away with student debt.

I mean, it's just it's just clear. And and he doesn't care. And that goes back to that goes back to Obama and DACA.

Obama never had authority to say that people could have a path to citizenship or that that the president was going to have some sort of blanket amnesty for the folks that came into the country illegally. But so there's a history of not caring about the Constitution and they they don't care. And then they dare the Supreme Court to rein in their activities.

And this is a this is a huge problem for the country as a whole, because the for them, the end justifies the means. There's no constitutional authority. I recently did a different interview and talked about how they seem to live in a post-constitutional society that allows them to make up things. You know, we have what they call a constitutional republic. And the Constitution is there to protect the rights of minorities, not the rights of minorities that have immutable physical characteristics, but the rights of minorities when it comes to policy and politics and thought. And that's why it exists.

And unlike, say, the United Kingdom, where the parliament is supreme, if the parliament wants to change something in the United Kingdom, they vote on it. They change it. It's done.

It's over. That's not what we have. And it served us well working that way. It's protected people on both sides through time. And that's what's that's what's dangerous these days is they don't care. You know, this Trump this Trump indictment, the Florida indictment, is built upon the breaking of the attorney client privilege that the major witnesses in that case are conversator relative to conversations Donald Trump had with his lawyers.

That's crazy. They're talking about the we're talking about Mike Pence being the prime prime prime witness when it comes to these these new indictments in Washington and things surrounding J6. What executive privilege the conversations between a president and his vice president have always been sacrosanct. You know, when you start breaking these breaking these traditional rules that exist for everybody's protection, you endanger us all. And this is what's so dangerous when there is no no belief. And that's also what makes it so difficult to combat these things is because those of us that are trying to combat these matters are trying to do so in a fashion that honors both the law and the traditions. Well, David, let me let me just say somebody that doesn't, you've got like one hand tied behind your back and they're, and they're pummeling you so so relative to, you know, again, these indictments that they brought now against President Trump, by breaching this barrier now. Now you have the Republicans, for example, that are in charge of Congress and and and there's strong historical reference to suggest that sometime and then in the near future, there there will be a Republican controlled Department of Justice. And should that be the case, and should Republicans then follow and that's kind of what's happening right now with Congress right there, they're saying, Okay, well, this is what Pelosi did, this is what you guys did. Okay, fine. So we're just gonna we're gonna follow now, after you and use the rules that you put in place. And now we're gonna go get your guys.

And that's, that's not good for any of us. Well, and so in the same case, you you have the same situation now that a that a now because, you know, previously, everybody said, Well, we're going to give Clinton a pass, we're going to give Obama a pass, we're going to, we're going to we're going to give these people because we don't go after former presidents. Now they've done that now they've gone after a former president. So when a when a when a new Attorney General comes in, I would suggest that one of the mandates that he's going to be given is is I want you to look at Hillary Clinton, I want you to look at Barack Obama, and I want you to see whether or not they did something that should be charged. And we know they did. And if they did, then I want them charged. I want I want him indicted.

I want to put on trial. I mean, that's what we're looking at, folks. That is exactly what we're looking at when you break those norms that have been traditionally served us all well. And I and such a norm cost Gerald Ford is his election in his own right. Yeah. When you pardon Richard Nixon for the good of the country.

Yep. It wasn't it wasn't for the good of Richard Nixon. It was so that the country was it wouldn't be torn apart by the trial of a president.

Yep. And so but but that that that effectively ended that effectively ended Gerald Ford's career as president when he did that. But the fact is, is that he did something for the benefit of the country by by not tearing it apart with the by putting a former president on trial. And this is this is something that served these things serve us well.

There's reasons that these traditions and norms build up by attorney client privilege executive privilege, which is within the branch that allows the government to operate properly. And to and to and to explore potential things without acting upon them. You know, I, my wife and I were talking in and, and, and, and I said to her, I said, you know, do you know how many letters Lincoln had in his desk when he was assassinated that he never mailed? You know, corrections to generals and so on things that he was thinking about, but never acted upon. Can you imagine if if every time the President even had a thought, he had to remember that somebody was going to drag that thought out into the public for debate.

It's dangerous for our country. All right, we're out of time. David, thank you so much for being with me today. I greatly appreciate it.

Great conversation. Lots for us to be folks again, I'll have that post up at my blog. Please share it with your senator, share it with your congressman and call them today 202-224-3121. I'll have the phone number there too.

You'll catch it at my blog. I'll be back right after this. We got I get some things I want to share with him.

We come up about perilous times coming up right after this brief break. This is Adam Mundall with State Air. We need people on radio willing to speak about the Bible, the Constitution and putting God back in our nation again. So join me in sponsoring Chosen Generation and Pastor Greg. Call him today at 830-446-3624. That's 830-446-3624. This has blessed my business and it will bless yours.