CGR WEDNESDAY 110123 David Shestokas

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 and fresh water and all the communities are so thankful for Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry and all the supporters. And we pray for all of you that God would bless you and God would use you so that we can put more and more borewells in a poor and needy community, those who are really having a problem of the water.

This borewell we have put and pure and fresh water is coming and we are so thankful for all of you. We thank Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry that God has supported us to put in this village with the prayer and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry and all the supporters of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry and all the supporters of Pastor Greg Young and all the supporters of Pastor Greg Young and all the supporters of the people of this village. 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 shoe forth the praises of him 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 glasses and now here's your host, Pastor Greg. And welcome to the program. Great to have you with me. Thanks so much for being here. I know you have a choice of where you can listen each and every day. I thank you for keeping it tuned to Chosen Generation Radio and to hearing and seeing and all that good stuff.

Great to have you with me. I apologize for the delay. Had some minor technical difficulties this morning.

Working on a couple of new things with regards to my streaming service and some changes in their programming. So hopefully, oh, look at that. We are supposed to be live. There we are. Okay.

That looks like we are. Good deal. All right. Phew. Wipe the sweat off my brow.

All that worked the last half hour would be very disappointing to have done all that and still not be there. Holy smokes. All right.

So let's see. Item of hour number two, Joel Gilbert is with me. Joel is the gentleman that I presented the whole true story about Trayvon Martin. And we exposed Benjamin Crump for the Al Sharpton crook that he is. Anyway, yeah, he's like an Al Sharpton.

What was her name, Tenaya? The fake rape accusation. That's what made Al Sharpton famous was the woman who cried rape and he went all out on it and turned out that, you know, she lied. Anyway, Benjamin Crump put a fake witness on the stand in the Trayvon Martin. The girl who he put on the stand and said was Trayvon's girlfriend and gave her that name, he knew wasn't her. And the whole trial really, it should have been a mistrial at that point because you can't put an actor up on trial on there and have an actor testify as a witness pretending to be somebody they're not. I'm pretty sure if we asked my next guest, he'll tell you that that's not allowed.

You can't do that. Anyway, Joel Gilbert is with me. He's got a brand new expose out about Michelle Obama and the game she's running and who she really is and her background and who her father is and his background. He was part of the daily machine. I don't know if you all knew that or not, but Michelle Obama's dad was actually part of the Mayor Daley of Chicago political team.

He was one of his district thugs. Interesting stuff. How about that? So we'll get into that with Joel. Michael Morris is with me with talking about fake news.

Rick Manning is with me. We'll talk about the Speaker of the House and Melanie Collette is with me and we'll talk about, so BLM is joining with Hamas. That's not a problem. Yeah, we'll talk about that when we talk with her next at the top of the hour. But joining me now is my dear friend, David Shostakis, our constitutional originalist. And a couple of hot topics for us to talk about today.

One, obviously, I think, and it's tied to the Georgia case because it's tied to all four cases, and that is beginning today and over the course of today, tomorrow, Friday and Monday, we'll have, let's see, Don Jr., Eric, Ivanka and the President all brought forward to testify in the New York Letitia James case. I mean, what am I supposed to say other than good morning? Well, good morning.

Good morning. Outside of, of course, we did not see anybody trick-or-treating last night because we had some significant snow yesterday, which got in the way of the kids, although when I was in court yesterday, we did actually have a visit from Batman and Supergirl. So it was a strange day.

No costumes at the door, but costumes in the court. And so, you know, you know what? That probably is explicative of the world these days.

You know, that kind of, hopefully, it's kind of safe and quiet in your home and out in public. It's crazy. Very. Very crazy. Very, very crazy. No doubt about it. We didn't get any trick-or-treaters.

I don't know what it was like down there, but there was some significant snow in the evening that discouraged the kids and the families from being out and about last night, which was too bad. I feel bad for the kids that look forward to that so much, you know, and also I feel bad that we've got all this stuff at the door that I've got to eat now. Well there you go. There you go. All right, let's get into the Trump situation and let's start with that. You've got, I'm pretty sure that's the order, Don Jr. today, then Eric tomorrow, then Ivanka on Friday, and then the president on Monday. Now I guess one question I have is, you know, I would imagine, and I don't know if you're supposed to do this, but I'm going to guess that Jack Smith and Letitia James and Fanny, whatever her name is over there in Georgia, yeah, Willis, I don't know if the other guy Bragg is going to be a part of these conversations, but I suppose that he probably would. But would they not, would they talk to one another?

Would they share information with one another? Would they, you know, would they say, oh good, you're going to, you're going to get these people on the stand? I know they have to ask questions that are pertinent to the case that they're engaged in, but in this particular case, it's kind of broad because it's about brand, it's about name, it's about character, and that all goes to, you know, the motivation behind whether or not they inappropriately valued their business. So this probably has the most amount of leeway in the kinds of questions they can ask, right? Well, kind of, not the least of which is this judge, of course, in that case is kind of out of control. He has no concept of what his actual authority is, and he doesn't really care about the appellate courts. The appellate courts have told him on a variety of occasions that a number of these matters don't belong in the courtroom, he just kind of ignores the appellate courts. So you have to, when you say what kind of limitations are there on what the prosecutor can ask, there's the technical legal limitations and then there's what this judge will allow. And this judge apparently is allowing just about anything to happen, he's fined the president twice for $15,000.

And so that's what's so discouraging about so many things these days, is you cannot depend on the judges to follow the law, and certainly you can't depend on him. But assuming momentarily that there is the ability, that they do have to follow the law, then theoretically the questions have to be relevant to the issues of the case. And the issues of the case really have to do with the valuation of the Trump properties. And to the extent that these properties are, somebody can give an opinion on values, I don't see how they get into questions about whether or not it had anything to do with the election matters. I don't see how it has anything to do with the documents and whether or not you encourage people to do things at the Capitol on January 6th. That being said, I don't think any of those questions would be relevant to this case, but there's no reason to believe that Ms. Willis, Mr. Smith and Mr. Bragg have not talked to the attorney general of the state of New York and said, listen, can we shoehorn this question?

Can we figure out a way to make this relevant to your case? And so I'm sure they're speaking to each other, they have a common goal to get the president and keep him off the ballot and deprive the American people of a choice. That's what it's all about, is depriving the American people of their opportunity to vote for Donald Trump next year. So to the extent that they will get together and talk about these things, I have reason to believe that Ms. Wallace and Mr. Smith have shared information that they should not have shared because it should have been secret grand jury things that have to do only with their cases.

I know this is going to sound a little bit wild, maybe, but let me just throw this out there. So, you know, because I read out of the Times and I read out of the Post, who obviously we know are very biased, but they're talking about these cases potentially leading to prison time. Let's say that President Trump were convicted of criminal charges in one of these cases. And they decide they're going to give him a term in prison. I mean, I assume that he appeals, obviously, however, the judge can decide whether or not during the appeal he gets to be out or he has to be remanded.

Am I right in that? You're right to a certain extent, certainly the trial court judge can make that decision whether to take him into custody or not at that point. But the trial court judge, even that decision is subject to an appeal. And I would suggest that any judge, even this Erdogan or whatever, or whatever his name is in New York, and I shouldn't make fun of people's names because folks have plenty of trouble with Shostakovich, but be that as it may, even he, I don't think, would buck the appellate court on the probability that they would allow the president to be free while the appeals are pending. On the other hand, of course, his case is not a criminal.

His case doesn't involve the potential of any jail. It's all civil. So it's civil because it's the city suing the president or is that right?

I mean, because of the nature. It's about money, it's about evaluation, it's about a civil penalty. It does not involve any alleged criminal activity. But it does involve restricting their ability to do business in the city of New York and stripping them of all of their assets in New York. Yeah, which sounds like a criminal penalty to you and me. But of course, that's the strange language of the law. I got you.

Okay. So if you can't go to jail, it's not considered criminal. So let me get directly to my question would be, he's sitting in a jail cell. The election comes about, and he gets elected. I mean, I don't know if you've got a Republican establishment that then has to do whatever they do as far as the nominee is concerned. But you know, I think if he's not on the, I think if he weren't on the ballot, people would write him in.

I mean, I think that there's a lot of that that would go on. But let's say that he gets elected. First question is, can he pardon himself? Well, certainly, what depends on the case, in the case of the Washington DC matter in the case of Florida, my belief is that he can because both of those matters are federal cases.

In the case of the Georgia matter and the Alvin Bragg prosecution in New York, those are state cases. The president does not have authority to issue a pardon when it comes to state criminal convictions. So it depends on the case, but be that as it may, the Secret Service, you know, apparently they just spent $800,000 or $900,000 outfitting Joe Biden's house with security matters. So I presume that they would go and upgrade the jail, put in all the communications situations necessary for the newly elected president or president-elect to communicate and run the country from his jail. There's nothing that allows them to do that or that prohibits him from doing that.

So you know, we'll see. I don't have any expectation that the Georgia matter is going to get to a trial before the election. And as you know, I'm involved in the Georgia case with, you know, Pastor Stephen Lee is my client.

And we have communication not only with the prosecutors, but with the other defense people. And given what's going on there, there's no reason to believe that that trial will take place before the election. All right, I had on the agenda, too, to ask you very quickly about the issue of free speech as it relates to these individuals that are marching in the streets, yelling, you know, kill the Jews, who are also, by the way, as part of the same organization that has been yelling death to America and has virtually declared war, not just on Israel, but they've made it very clear that once they wipe Israel off the map, their intent is to come here. And I had a phone call from someone yesterday who has a guest that they're offering me who believes that we are going to see a terrorist attack in our country sometime in the next two weeks. I don't know about the timing, but it's certainly hard to believe that we will not see something soon given all the people that are coming across the border, that we have no that we have no idea where they are, who they are.

So there's every reason to believe that that'll be the case, although it would be I don't know. It seems like it would be counterproductive for somebody to conduct a terrorist attack here because we've got all these people that are marching in the streets in favor of their organizations. If you think about it, it would be counterproductive to scare the people off the Brooklyn Bridge. So you might as well let the LGBTQ people march for the people that would throw them off the bridge.

Let them clog up the bridge. I don't know. Who knows?

But I would suggest that the terrorist attack would be counterproductive for these folks. But be that as it may, we've got to we've got to I have no idea. We've got to.

Well, I know that I'm not asking you about that, whether there's going to be an attack. I'm asking you whether or not that they're up there goes my hand up. Hang on. I got to lower my hand. There we go.

I saw you. Yeah, I know. And so did this.

So did AI. Well, what my question has to do with free speech as a constitutional issue. You know, I mean, I don't think maybe I'm wrong. I got to go back, I guess, and really, really review in history. But you know, when we went when we were at war with Germany before we were at war with Germany, I believe that there that there was Nazi activity in our country. Once we went to war with Germany, we would not have allowed that, you know, people dressed up and and and people wearing Nazi uniforms and flying Nazi flags to march down the boulevard of Manhattan or anywhere else in our country. If we were at war with that country or or that country had declared war with us. We wouldn't consider that to be free speech, would we? Well, strangely enough, we probably would, but we wouldn't do it. We wouldn't consider it to be free speech in the first instance.

In the first instance, yes, we would go ahead, prosecute those things, indicate that these were actually not free speech, but actually a danger to the community, that they were actually inciting violence and prosecute the matters in that fashion, not calling it issues of speech. And we've done that over the years. We have, in fact, done that. But quietly, years later, the courts have all said, oh, that was wrong and will indemnify the people whose rights were violated. But during the course of such crises, we always enforce the things that are necessary to keep us safe and keep us from danger rather than encouraging people, rather than allowing people to encourage us and overthrow us. So we're in a horrible situation.

Well, so let me throw this out there then. So I guess this really speaks back to the foundation that John Adams talked about, right? He said that our Constitution is only fit for a moral people. And so, in essence, the rights unabridged are going to lead to anarchy on the streets.

Well, that's exactly right. In terms of protecting, Greg, I don't know, there's so much silliness going on, it's hard to get a real actual philosophical, legitimate discussion, because the people that are involved in cheering on the folks that are beheading babies, it's very difficult to indicate that there's something we should be doing to protect their right to cheer on the beheading of babies. But we actually do that. We do protect their right to do that. And hopefully, in a certain extent, we will continue to do that, because then they will wind up getting exposed. That's the idea of free speech, is that there's going to be a competition of ideas, and that ultimately the best ideas will, in fact, win in the end.

And so, we don't have anybody... What's that? Well, except that that side has made it very clear, and we'll talk about it a little bit later on in the program, but that side has made it clear that if you don't agree with that side, they're going to punish you. You're going to be canceled, you're going to be shut down, they're going to break out the windows on your business, they're going to expose your home address and come as a mob and try to intimidate you. I mean, these are the kinds of things that are not done in a free thinking, free idea flowing, constitutional republic. Well, what's not done is enforcing the law, or what should be done is enforcing the law. We've allowed this by not, in fact, prosecuting the protesters that do, in fact, go and break windows in police stations, that do, in fact, block traffic.

There's plenty of law. Everybody that was on the Brooklyn Bridge a couple of days ago, in fact, was violating the law by marching in an area that was reserved for car traffic, right? They could have all been arrested for that, and probably should have been. If they would have shut it down by taking the leadership and saying, no, you can't walk in the street, you're going to get hit by a car, they could have shut it down that way, which is not a situation about free speech, okay? There were plenty of laws that they were breaking that had nothing to do with speech, in which case, if we're failing to enforce the law, we're actually asking for these kinds of problems. The disruption to the people of the city of New York, if they want to march on the sidewalk, if they want to get a permit, they want to be in the park, they want to demonstrate, that's one thing, but to actually break the law that is there to keep civil society civil, that they should, they could have and should have been arrested for that. And we have repeatedly seen their side be allowed to block traffic and do those kinds of things, while, for example, we've had rallies for free speech and so on in parks, in locations off of streets, and been attacked. What happened in Cooper's Union College was terrible, but as David Wormser and I talked about yesterday, this isn't the first time that that side has attacked someone, Milo Yiannopoulos was attacked, Ben Shapiro was attacked, Candace Owens was attacked, and Riley Gaines, you know, most recently.

I love Riley, yeah, you know, it's, wow. Yeah, and yet, you know, the individuals who do that kind of thing- They're walked free. Sure seems like it. Yeah, and that's where we're giving the wrong license. That's where we're giving the wrong license, is when they actually violate actual laws that are there to protect civil society and the safety of other citizens, we allow them to break those laws, and that's where we fail, is by failing to enforce those laws. And so, like I said, keeping the people off from marching on the Brooklyn Bridge would not be an abridgment of their free speech, and that should have been done, and that should have been done. Well, it would not, it should not surprise us in light of, and I sent this to you, and I will encourage folks to go and read Julie Kelly's sub stack post over at Revolver, well, it's on ThreadReader is where you can find it, but she's writing about the DOJ's use of what's called the 1512C2, which is, as I understand it, is the rule that they used or the law they used to prosecute the 1500 or 300 J6ers on disrupting an official meeting, or intent to disrupt a meeting, or something along that line, which actually speaks to their mindset and why they were there and what they were trying to do, and it has to be for the benefit, for their own personal benefit, in other words, they were, they were disrupting the meeting for their own benefit, they were going to get something out of disrupting that meeting, and they're prosecuting them based on that, and a judge appointed by Obama, Chris Cooper, was presented with a dismissal, and he basically said, No, I don't really care about anybody or what anybody else has to say.

We're going to do this. And oh, by the way, he was married at a wedding presided over by Merrick Garland to a top aid of Eric Holder, if that gives you an idea of his political leanings, but a judge has courageously stood forward and said, No, that's not correct. And her name is Judge Karen Henderson. And it was on a specific case regarding Jeremy Grossclose, but Jeremy Grossclose's attorney, if that went through, it would benefit all of the J6ers.

So now I want to give you about four minutes to kind of talk about that for a minute, if you can. Well, you know, there's criminal law, generally speaking, and criminal law always requires that there be a specific intent to achieve a particular end. And in this situation, it's 1512C, where they talk about it. As you mentioned, the disruption of the official proceeding, the way it's put together, it's not just generally disrupting, it's disrupting with the intent to achieve something for yourself or personal gain through the disruption. And so that's something that has to be proved as an element of the crime. And there is no way to prove that through these 300 some odd cases that anybody particularly had any benefit from, say, disrupting the Congress of that day. And so this judge, in ruling, is in fact attempting to enforce the law as written, OK, as opposed to having the law enforced according to what the prosecutors feel like it means.

And that's our whole problem. We have prosecutors that are prosecuting people for political reasons and putting together law, and misusing law to have it say what they want it to say. And then we have prosecutors that are not prosecuting really very simple things like keeping people off a bridge or sending people to jail for busting windows and looting. The world is really, really bizarre because there's political prosecutions and your typical public safety kind of prosecutions are not taking place. Well, and that's specifically it's 18 U.S. code, 1512 tampering with a witness victim or an informant. And it's whoever kills or attempts to kill another person with intent to prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in official capacity. And what this Judge Cooper has said is, is that there were four officers that were killed that day.

He's entered that into the record. There weren't. No, that's a lie.

I mean, they're just plain weren't. There was one officer who subsequently died, but not related to any act or action or anything that necessarily happened in the event. And there's proven video evidence. David Summerall has been in my program notable times, but proven, proven evidence that they tried to bring him to first aid to say, hey, he's having a heart issue here. Get him some help.

And the command post there that he worked for refused to help him. Yeah, well, I don't know, but I will. Yeah, it's like everybody is like every day is Halloween and everybody's wearing some sort of costume. And it's just that's a great that's a great assessment. That's a great assessment. It's terribly sad.

I mean, it's horrifically sad, but it is it is like everybody is wearing some kind of a facade or a costume and and they're not living in in the real world. And and I, you know, I know that you continue to practice and try to bring truth to light in the court system and you know, we'll talk about it in detail next week, but a week from tomorrow on Jan, on November the 9th, we're having an evening for Pastor Lee at the Families of Faith Ministries in Shanahan, Illinois, it's going to be hosted by Gary Franchey. Gary is the head of the Next News Network with two point two million YouTube subscribers. We're going to be recording and ultimately showing that evening, but we're going to have a great panel of pastors. We're going to be discussing the weaponization of government against religion. Pastor Lee himself will in fact be interviewed during the course of that. I and my co-counsel from Georgia, David Oles, are going to be also interviewed about the details of what's going on in Georgia.

We've had some recent conversations with prosecutors that people may find enlightening. Cool. So, yeah, no, there's active stuff that we're actively involved with, with Georgia and it's a, there's a YouTube, excuse me, a Facebook event for, says support Pastor Lee and, and the First Amendment. So, if you go to the Facebook event and look up Pastor Lee, look up Shostakos, you'll find it, you'll find it there.

You'll find out more details. Send me, send me that link, yeah, send me that link, David, and I'll post it in my blog as well. We'll send it along. In the meantime, I have to put on my fancy clothes. And I got to, yep, and I got to jump to my next guest. David, thanks for being with me as always. I greatly appreciate it. Folks, we'll be back. Melanie Collette joins me right after this break.