Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody, welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Brief. We've got Alex Berenson with us, the man
Speaker 1: who was right about COVID, which I think is a
Speaker 1: phenomenally important thing to have been right about, and so
Speaker 1: we're honored to have him here with us today. Unreported
Speaker 1: Truth is his sub stack. I'm a subscriber, so full disclosure,
Speaker 1: recommend you all subscribe as well, mister Alex Berenson. Always
Speaker 1: an honor and a privilege, sir, so is is Fauci
Speaker 1: changing his name and you know, like living in the
Speaker 1: in the Yukon somewhere. I don't think so. Somehow the
Speaker 1: little the evil, little smurf got away with it all.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, no, I mean I wouldn't say he's changed
Speaker 2: his name. I'd say he's, you know, picking up one
Speaker 2: hundred grand a speaking appearance, and he's got a book
Speaker 2: coming out in June where he will I'm gonna go
Speaker 2: out on a limb hear and say not tell us
Speaker 2: the truth about everything that he knows. But you know,
Speaker 2: I I suspect that book will be released to the
Speaker 2: you know, loud hosannas of the of the same people
Speaker 2: who've been talking about how wonderful a job you did
Speaker 2: for the last four years. It'll be interesting to see
Speaker 2: if there's any sort of critical questioning of uh, you know,
Speaker 2: particularly of the way he tried to steer you know,
Speaker 2: the investigation into the origins of COVID early on. But frankly, unfortunately,
Speaker 2: I think, don't. I just don't anticipate he's going to
Speaker 2: get a lot of pushback. We'll see, we'll see.
Speaker 1: No, I don't think. I don't think he will. I think, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the problem and this was a worry that I had
Speaker 1: all along during COVID that they may they used force
Speaker 1: to make so many people complicit in the whole thing,
Speaker 1: that everyone at some level like feel like your hands
Speaker 1: like you know, look, I'll just admit like I didn't
Speaker 1: want to be banned from all New York restaurants, and
Speaker 1: I didn't want to falsify. So I got the Jay
Speaker 1: and Jayshot. I thought that was the halfway measure. I
Speaker 1: wish I could sit here and say I refuse because
Speaker 1: I didn't think it. I got the Jay and Jay
Speaker 1: obviously because over the nurses objections who gave it to me?
Speaker 1: She's like, oh this one, this one doesn't really work.
Speaker 1: You don't want this one, and said, no, no, no, give
Speaker 1: me the one that's not the mRNA. I'm good, right,
Speaker 1: And I wish I wish I had gone you know,
Speaker 1: without any of it. But I just bring it up
Speaker 1: because I think they made so many people, you know,
Speaker 1: like they sullied so many hands, and you had no choice.
Speaker 1: The now veryone just wants to forget it. And I
Speaker 1: kind of at some level understand that, but refuse to
Speaker 1: go along with it entirely. Why we have you here,
Speaker 1: the LAB leader.
Speaker 2: Well, you're absolutely correct about it. I mean, I think
Speaker 2: we've talked about this more. Eighty percent of the country now,
Speaker 2: as you know, doesn't want to hear a word about COVID.
Speaker 2: Ten percent is still in that sort of crazy long COVID.
Speaker 2: These are the delusional people who will tweet, you know,
Speaker 2: pictures of themselves with masks and stuff, and then ten percent,
Speaker 2: you know, they there's still people start of reading my
Speaker 2: substack fervently when I you know, when I break news
Speaker 2: about you know, about the LAB leak or about issues
Speaker 2: with the m RNA's But I do I think I
Speaker 2: think you're right. I think most people would rather forget
Speaker 2: that they were ever vaccinated. They know the vaccine didn't
Speaker 2: really work and certainly didn't produce any kind of long
Speaker 2: term protection. They're never going to get another COVID shot,
Speaker 2: and so they are. They just want to be done
Speaker 2: with it. And unfortunately that's enabled, you know, the people
Speaker 2: who pushed all of this to kind of walk away.
Speaker 2: But I do think the one place where we really
Speaker 2: need to keep pressing and and you know, frankly, let's hope,
Speaker 2: and I think that this is sort of the you know,
Speaker 2: much more likely than not there'll be no long term
Speaker 2: major health impacts from the mRNAs. It's just it's just
Speaker 2: over right, Like, barring some sort of catastrophic series of events,
Speaker 2: we're all going to just go on. I mean, I
Speaker 2: mean not me. I didn't get vaccinated with any of them,
Speaker 2: but we're all just going to go on like it
Speaker 2: never happened. But the lab leak really matters, and it
Speaker 2: matters for a couple of reasons. It matters because there
Speaker 2: are three distinct cover right, there's the original cover up
Speaker 2: of the origins of the virus, which you know, I
Speaker 2: think almost to a certainty, came out of a lab
Speaker 2: in Wuhan which was doing experiments to try to make
Speaker 2: coronaviruses more dangerous in an effort to come up with
Speaker 2: better anti virals and vaccines against them. Okay, we can't
Speaker 2: be sure, and we may never be able to be sure,
Speaker 2: but that's cover up number one. Government Number two is
Speaker 2: that that's a Chinese cover up mostly governed. Number two
Speaker 2: is there were a group of Americans who were very
Speaker 2: closely and other Western scientists who were very closely related
Speaker 2: linked to that Chinese lab and had every reason to
Speaker 2: believe that this was what had happened before any of
Speaker 2: the rest of us, because they knew the research better
Speaker 2: and they did everything possible to try to steer the
Speaker 2: investigation and the investigators away from that by saying it
Speaker 2: was racist to even bring it up, by saying by
Speaker 2: coming up with all kinds of you know, BS origin theories,
Speaker 2: and by basically refusing to discuss this. And then there's
Speaker 2: a third cover up, which is the fact that the
Speaker 2: media went along with this. And in the last four years,
Speaker 2: as the evidence has sort of steadily accreted and we've
Speaker 2: seen evidence of that second cover up come out thanks
Speaker 2: to a lot of really diligent civilian detective work. They've
Speaker 2: refused to admit that. So there's three separate things going
Speaker 2: on here. And yeah, maybe we'll never know where COVID
Speaker 2: came from, and maybe we'll never have a definitive answer
Speaker 2: on how safe or dangerous the MR and a's where.
Speaker 2: It's a very very complicated question epidemiologically. But if we
Speaker 2: can't at least have an honest conversation about the fact
Speaker 2: that these people's self interest led them to help the
Speaker 2: Chinese hide the origins of a virus that killed millions
Speaker 2: of people, I don't know where we are as a country.
Speaker 1: What I want to ask you, if you would, for everyone,
Speaker 1: just in short form, based on the best information that
Speaker 1: we have access to today and the research that you've
Speaker 1: done on this issue, give us just the the what
Speaker 1: you know you mentioned those three cover ups. So China,
Speaker 1: it comes out of the lab, then what happens? Then
Speaker 1: what happens? And then what do they say?
Speaker 2: So it comes out the lab, it starts it's you know,
Speaker 2: it starts spreading quickly. There's evidence you know that actually
Speaker 2: in September twenty nineteen, that's when the Chinese might have
Speaker 2: first realized they had a problem, because you know, that's
Speaker 2: when they pulled a lot of their virus sample data
Speaker 2: from an international database. Now, for example, I'm sure that
Speaker 2: data exists somewhere in an NSA database, right because the
Speaker 2: NSA gets access to everything that's ever gone on the Internet.
Speaker 2: So I bet you at somewhere that data exists, but
Speaker 2: it is not available to any civilian. Okay, the Chinese
Speaker 2: pulled it. There's evidence that the Chinese, you know, rapidly
Speaker 2: wanted to change the filters, install higher grades stuff at
Speaker 2: the Luhan lab in the fall of twenty twenty. Okay,
Speaker 2: they don't contain this. It starts to leak in Wuhan.
Speaker 2: Don't know exactly when they realized it couldn't be contained,
Speaker 2: but you know, by by mid January they shut down Wuhan,
Speaker 2: you know, they really, and then they locked down the
Speaker 2: whole country pretty much by then, it's too late, okay.
Speaker 2: And here's here's what I think happened. The people in
Speaker 2: the US who understood the research the best, and that
Speaker 2: would have included Fauci or certainly some of Fauci's deputies,
Speaker 2: were very concerned. They actually thought this was deadly than
Speaker 2: it was okay, because because they knew the kind of
Speaker 2: research that had been proposed and proposed publicly. And this
Speaker 2: is something I wrote about in Unreported Truth less than
Speaker 2: two weeks ago and in a story that got a
Speaker 2: fair bit of attention. Ralph Barrack, who's sort of the
Speaker 2: leading coronavirus researcher in the world. You know this, this
Speaker 2: guy from North Carolina. He's at the University of North Carolina.
Speaker 2: He's an expert at you know, at coronavirus management, let's say,
Speaker 2: at at growing these viruses in the lab, at making
Speaker 2: them more dangerous. He really wanted in the twenty tens,
Speaker 2: he really wanted to find a way to develop a
Speaker 2: pan coronavirus vaccine. That is to say, there are many
Speaker 2: different sub variants or variants of coronavirus. He wanted to
Speaker 2: come up with a vaccine and with anti virals that
Speaker 2: would be able to treat all or most of them.
Speaker 2: And so that is the research that was going on there.
Speaker 2: There were efforts to find dangerous coronaviruses, mainly in caves
Speaker 2: in China, and there was a guy named Peter Dazak
Speaker 2: who was very involved with the Chinese on that part
Speaker 2: of it, and then there were efforts to actually figure
Speaker 2: out how the coronavirus could become most dangerous in an
Speaker 2: effort to build effective vaccines and anti virals, and those
Speaker 2: I think those people and the people who knew what
Speaker 2: research was going on were very scared in January and
Speaker 2: February twenty twenty. And that's one reason in the US
Speaker 2: and you know, and other countries locked down so hard
Speaker 2: and so fast.
Speaker 1: I feel like, wait one sec. Just that's such a
Speaker 1: critical distinction. Because people would go on the air during
Speaker 1: the pandemic and they would talk about this as a
Speaker 1: bio weapon, and I was always like, well, like, it's
Speaker 1: really finding it to they were messing with the super
Speaker 1: dangerous stuff so that they could figure out ways to
Speaker 1: cure It's not because the way that was framed, it
Speaker 1: always sounded to me like this isn't like the Chinese said,
Speaker 1: let's come up with the most dangerous virus imaginable to
Speaker 1: kill the most people imaginable, and that got out right.
Speaker 1: They were studying dangerous viruses with the idea that they
Speaker 1: could figure out. So I mean, I mean, would you
Speaker 1: call it a bio weapon or is.
Speaker 2: Like I would not call it a bio weapon, but
Speaker 2: I would say it was an engineered virus from what
Speaker 2: we know. Okay, here's the thing about coronavirus is very interesting.
Speaker 2: Before two thousand and three, before SARS, which the original SARS,
Speaker 2: the barologists kind of you, coronaviruses is something close to
Speaker 2: a joke. Okay, there were no coronaviruses that did much
Speaker 2: more than and cause common colds in people. Then Stars
Speaker 2: came along. Wasn't that transmissible, but it had a ten
Speaker 2: percent fatality rate. And in twenty thirteen, coronavirus named Mirrors
Speaker 2: came along, and that really wasn't transmissible, but it had
Speaker 2: a fifty percent fatality rate. I mean, which is you know,
Speaker 2: that's a bowl. Uh, that's you know, that's smallpox. That's
Speaker 2: a that's a bad. That's a bad.
Speaker 1: That's like a civilization ender. That's a big deal.
Speaker 2: That's right, Except you couldn't really spread it except you know,
Speaker 2: I mean you had to be like in a hospital
Speaker 2: breathing on a nurse for six hours straight. I'm exaggerating
Speaker 2: only slightly. It really didn't spread very fast. But guys
Speaker 2: like Barrack, I mean when I say guys like Bark,
Speaker 2: I mean mainly Barrick himself and a handful of other
Speaker 2: people who were experts on coronavirus said, look, this is
Speaker 2: what we're talking about. This is really dangerous. You have
Speaker 2: to let us research this so that we can get
Speaker 2: out in front of the next one of these. Okay,
Speaker 2: And and I'm not making this up. This is all.
Speaker 2: This was all publicly discussed, and there were fights about
Speaker 2: it because there were people on the other side who said,
Speaker 2: this is a really bad idea. We do not want
Speaker 2: to do gain of function research here. The risks outweigh
Speaker 2: the rewards. Okay. But but in the end, the virologists
Speaker 2: and you know, both in the US and in China
Speaker 2: kind of pushed ahead on this, and then particularly in China,
Speaker 2: they pushed a head on it. And so, okay, twenty nineteen,
Speaker 2: this thing starts to leak twenty twenty. It's uncontained, and
Speaker 2: there are clues from the outset that it is probably
Speaker 2: an engineered virus. There's this thing called the fer and
Speaker 2: cleavage site, which basically doesn't really exist in natural coronaviruses,
Speaker 2: and there's other evidence. Okay, And what does Fauci do,
Speaker 2: What does Ralph Barrack do, What does Peter Dazac do
Speaker 2: what doll basically all the leading viologists do. They say,
Speaker 2: if you want to, if you want to investigate this
Speaker 2: as a as a virus that leaked, you are racist,
Speaker 2: You are hurting our relationship with the Chinese. You are
Speaker 2: hurting science. This is a natural virus. We're gonna figure
Speaker 2: out where it came from, just like we did with
Speaker 2: the original stars, and you are wrong. Don't do this.
Speaker 2: And for over a year they essentially make it impossible
Speaker 2: either really for the US government or for you know,
Speaker 2: or for major news organizations, or for anybody to say,
Speaker 2: let's have a you know this, this is kind of weird, guys,
Speaker 2: let's let's talk about this. And by the time listen,
Speaker 2: the Chinese probably would never have and will never admit
Speaker 2: anything anyway. But by the time that sort of that
Speaker 2: diversionary tactic was seen through and broken, it was mid
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one, and it was really too late.
Speaker 1: All right, ox I gotta take a moment for our
Speaker 1: sponsor here, will keep going on the what comes next
Speaker 1: part of your investigative journey here to try to take this,
Speaker 1: you know, take this all the way and figure out
Speaker 1: all the missing pieces. But first up. You know, more
Speaker 1: Americans are buying gold now than at any time previously.
Speaker 1: Gold is up in value, up thirteen percent this year,
Speaker 1: and a Gallup poll has shown that purchasing gold is
Speaker 1: often a better long term investment than stocks and bonds.
Speaker 1: Price and value of gold is directly connected to world events,
Speaker 1: and over time it has been a store of value.
Speaker 1: So that's why I recommend you check out the ox
Speaker 1: Gold Group. I rely on the Oxford Gold Group for
Speaker 1: my gold and precious metal purchases. Nobody can predict the future,
Speaker 1: but we can take action to prepare for it. The
Speaker 1: Oxford Gold Group are real pros when it comes to
Speaker 1: buying precious precious metals like gold and silver, and they
Speaker 1: make it easy for you. It's who I go to
Speaker 1: for my gold and silver, which I keep here in
Speaker 1: my safe Oxford Gold Group. Give them a call. Eight
Speaker 1: three three nine nine five gold. That's eight three three
Speaker 1: nine nine five g O l D Okay. So what
Speaker 1: what do you know? So we're finding out more about
Speaker 1: the cover up the lablake. All this stuff were years
Speaker 1: into this now. I know a lot of people have
Speaker 1: moved on, but what remains to be either found out
Speaker 1: or you know, what what are the areas of this
Speaker 1: that you want to take the investigation next?
Speaker 2: Well, so, I mean, I think, yes, a lot of
Speaker 2: people have moved around. I do think it's important because
Speaker 2: you are talking about Tony Fauci, You're talking about the
Speaker 2: very you know, top scientists in the US establishment. It's
Speaker 2: important to know if there's evidence that they were real
Speaker 2: talking internally about the likelihood that this was, that this
Speaker 2: did come out of a lab, what they might have
Speaker 2: been talking about the Chinese about. And you know, there
Speaker 2: are some Republicans in Congress who are who are continuing
Speaker 2: to push this Rand Paul has not let this go.
Speaker 2: There are some uh, there are some people on the
Speaker 2: House side who are not letting this go. They're gonna
Speaker 2: be hearings in May. Peter Dazak is going to testify
Speaker 2: under oath. I just I think, look again, unless unless
Speaker 2: somebody from the Chinese side defects or comes out, and
Speaker 2: it's very hard to imagine that happening, we may never
Speaker 2: you know, we may never have a definitive answer to
Speaker 2: what happened in twenty nineteen that likely caused this virus
Speaker 2: to be you know, to to leak.
Speaker 1: I got what happened all the variants. Remember there was
Speaker 1: like a variant every six months, and got to be
Speaker 1: scared of the variants. Where are all the variants?
Speaker 2: So here here's an interesting point, right, So in twenty
Speaker 2: two the virus did very little mutating. Okay, and coronavirus
Speaker 2: is historically mutat quite fast. Well, why did you do
Speaker 2: very little mutating because it was so perfectly adapted to
Speaker 2: human beings when it came out. Why because it because
Speaker 2: it had been passaged through a lab where it had
Speaker 2: been manipulated in a lab to be very well adapted
Speaker 2: to human beings. Okay, then what happens. Then we do
Speaker 2: this massive vaccine campaign with this very very potent vaccine
Speaker 2: that's targeted directly at the spike, and guess what happens
Speaker 2: over the next eighteen months from twenty twenty two, well
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one into late twenty twenty two, there's a
Speaker 2: ton of mutations in this thing, including delta than omicron.
Speaker 2: Guess what in the last twelve months, there's been much
Speaker 2: less vaccination and there's been much less mutation. So probably
Speaker 2: the virus has done really what it always quote unquote
Speaker 2: wanted to do. It's come to a place where it's
Speaker 2: more transmissible, less via. We don't have a vaccine, you know,
Speaker 2: people aren't getting vaccinated constantly, so there's not a lot
Speaker 2: of evolutionary pressure on it to beat the vaccination. And
Speaker 2: we're done. We're where we would have been. Buck if
Speaker 2: let's say, let's go back to twenty twenty, and let's
Speaker 2: say there hadn't been hysteria, and you know, we done,
Speaker 2: we'd done some reason, you know, we tried to protect
Speaker 2: the nursing homes. We'd all live like Florida. Okay, probably
Speaker 2: we'd be back. We'd be right where we are right now.
Speaker 2: We'd have a less transmissible or less virulent, more transmissible variant,
Speaker 2: and we'd all be on with our lives just like
Speaker 2: we are.
Speaker 1: I view this whole thing now, not only through the
Speaker 1: lens of they were wrong about everything, and they were
Speaker 1: horrible while they're wrong about everything. You know, Alex, I
Speaker 1: was in Miami International Airport coming back from a weekend
Speaker 1: away with my wife. They still have mask up everywhere,
Speaker 1: you know, signs, which is I know everyone ignores it.
Speaker 1: I understand that there's this sense like it's not a
Speaker 1: big deal anymore, except I think it's a huge deal.
Speaker 1: Like May maybe I'm crazy. I sit here, I'm like,
Speaker 1: these maniacs were completely wrong about everything. I mean everything,
Speaker 1: the whole thing.
Speaker 2: The whole thing was.
Speaker 1: It was top to bottom wrong. Wrong about the school closures,
Speaker 1: wrong about lockdowns, wrong about masks, wrong about the vaccine
Speaker 1: efficacy and stopping transmission. They were wrong across the board.
Speaker 1: And I don't understand. I mean, Rand Paul, whom my
Speaker 1: radio audience knows this, I love if I could just
Speaker 1: like make someone a president, like if I just sort
Speaker 1: of go poof, like he'll never win. And I know that,
Speaker 1: so you know, you need someone like Trump who can
Speaker 1: actually fight the machine. But if I could just put
Speaker 1: someone off, as I think Rand Paul wild actually be
Speaker 1: a phenomenal president on a number of levels. He cares.
Speaker 1: Very few other people, though, seem to be focused in
Speaker 1: on this, and I sit here and I'm like, this
Speaker 1: was I feel like we failed, or rather the system
Speaker 1: failed at every level and there's no changes made whatsoever
Speaker 1: except the system is ready to do it again. Is
Speaker 1: that too pessimistic?
Speaker 2: I think? Unfortunately, that's about right. And that's why again,
Speaker 2: like I can't fight over all of it. You know,
Speaker 2: my audience underported truths they're pretty they like to read
Speaker 2: about this stuff, but I need to. My feeling is,
Speaker 2: let's at least try to get some accountability for the
Speaker 2: fact that the people who knew the most about this
Speaker 2: almost certainly lied about it in twenty twenty. If we
Speaker 2: can't forget, we're never gonna get anybody to admit that
Speaker 2: the MR ANDAs didn't really work very well. School closures again,
Speaker 2: they the only thing where will admit that they made
Speaker 2: some mistakes. I think lockdowns people on the left won't
Speaker 2: really admit that they shouldn't have locked down. But you
Speaker 2: notice no one ever talks about lockdowns as a future
Speaker 2: strategy anymore. So I think there's a little bit of
Speaker 2: a realization there. But the lab leak, maybe maybe Peter Dazac,
Speaker 2: maybe Ralph Bark, Maybe we can at least get these
Speaker 2: guys to testify under oath and admit what they knew.
Speaker 2: If we can't do that, then you're right. Then we're
Speaker 2: just sitting here waiting for the next, you know, medium
Speaker 2: strength virus to come along so that they so that
Speaker 2: the world, these all these people can play this game.
Speaker 1: Yet again, I want to ask you now, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: switch gears because you know, you were the guy on
Speaker 1: all this stuff, and some of us very much appreciated
Speaker 1: the work that you did.
Speaker 2: Then.
Speaker 1: I mean I was I was getting I think I
Speaker 1: got more rage both in person from people shouting at me,
Speaker 1: like random strangers for being unmasked and things like that,
Speaker 1: because I just utterly, I mean, unless I was going
Speaker 1: to get arrested or like barred from the premises, I
Speaker 1: just refused to do it as much as that possibly could.
Speaker 1: But also online people were absolutely sadistic maniacs about the
Speaker 1: whole thing, and I think I got more of it
Speaker 1: from them on the COVID stuff anything else. So some
Speaker 1: of us very much appreciated while that was going on
Speaker 1: that you know, you were out there taking you know,
Speaker 1: you kind of look like Leonidas at the end of
Speaker 1: three hundred, where he's just like just arrow sticking out
Speaker 1: of him.
Speaker 2: Get to my hair, I must apologize need a haircut,
Speaker 2: but but you you were, you were covered in all
Speaker 2: those arrows.
Speaker 1: I do wonder, even if it was privately, you know
Speaker 1: and quietly, did anyone ever come up to you and say,
Speaker 1: man from the left specifically, man, I was I was
Speaker 1: a horrible I was a horrible you know, d bag
Speaker 1: and you were right. No what literally, no one, not
Speaker 1: a single person.
Speaker 2: Not a single perton one person in the last two
Speaker 2: years has said you were right about the lockdown. So
Speaker 2: this is just like somebody in my town and I
Speaker 2: actually wrote about that. Uh and and and somebody I
Speaker 2: know who is sort of a journalist of some note
Speaker 2: said to me privately, uh, but this was in the
Speaker 2: context of you're wrong about the vaccines. It was that
Speaker 2: it was sort of like, well, it looks like you
Speaker 2: were pretty right about some of the twenty twenty stuff.
Speaker 2: But uh but but never said that publicly and so
Speaker 2: uh So the answer is no, answers, Yeah, answer is no.
Speaker 1: Yeah, answers.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Well, there we have it. Before we we're gonna switch gears,
Speaker 1: because you actually have really interesting insight on something that's
Speaker 1: not directly in your usual barons in field of view,
Speaker 1: but the Trump trial situation New York City, which is
Speaker 1: obviously big in the headlines this week. I wanted you
Speaker 1: to take take some of that on because even for people,
Speaker 1: what I like is when there are people that are
Speaker 1: analyzing the legal stuff and they will say I you know,
Speaker 1: they'll even say, look like I'm not a Trump person,
Speaker 1: or maybe you know I have my concerns, but that
Speaker 1: this case is the absolute dumbest, most unjust nonsense abuse possible.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna we're gonna talk about the New York
Speaker 1: trial in a second. But you know, with this podcast,
Speaker 1: we're all about having deep conversations on things that impact
Speaker 1: us the world we live, and we're just talking about
Speaker 1: COVID and lockdowns. But when it comes to stock market,
Speaker 1: that's what columnist Mark Chakin does in his coverage of
Speaker 1: where the markets are going and what's going to be happening.
Speaker 1: Mark worked on Wall Street for fifty years, and his
Speaker 1: time on the street, he invented three new industries for
Speaker 1: the NASDAK and has predicted some of the biggest market
Speaker 1: ships of the past decade, including the recent focus in
Speaker 1: AI stocks. Mark is saying there's a new dawn for
Speaker 1: US stocks ahead and he predicts dozens of specific companies
Speaker 1: will be impacted in just next in just the next
Speaker 1: ninety days time. So Marc has agreed to share one
Speaker 1: of his favorite AI stocks to buy now with listeners
Speaker 1: to this show, Let's put it all together in presentation
Speaker 1: at twenty twenty four aistock dot com. That's twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four aistock dot Com paid for by Shaking Analytics Alex.
Speaker 1: The situation of the trial in New York City. Take
Speaker 1: me through what you think is most absurd about it?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, it's it's all absurd. Okay, it's a
Speaker 2: it's business. It's think about what the underlying charges are.
Speaker 2: And I think, you know, you need to look at
Speaker 2: this in the context also of the civil case, where
Speaker 2: the media. There's the media. There's what the media is
Speaker 2: saying about the two cases. There's what's actually happening in
Speaker 2: the two cases, and then there's like, try to think,
Speaker 2: in the broadest point of view, what is the crime here.
Speaker 2: So so, in the civil case, which just concluded, Donald
Speaker 2: Trump faces you know, a half billion dollar penalty and
Speaker 2: the it's not a crime because it's a civil case.
Speaker 2: But the infraction that he is alleged to have committed
Speaker 2: was lying to banks about the value of assets on loans. Okay.
Speaker 2: The thing is the banks do their own independent analysis
Speaker 2: of those loans. Much but more importantly than that, no
Speaker 2: one disputes that Donald Trump paid back every time with
Speaker 2: interest at the agreed to interest rate that that the
Speaker 2: bank loaned him. Okay, So the fraud if there was
Speaker 2: fraud had no effect. Okay. So so it's as if
Speaker 2: like the analogy I use was, you go and make
Speaker 2: a deal with the contractor and you say the contractor,
Speaker 2: I can pay you upfront, or I'm gonna pay you
Speaker 2: next week. I got all the money in my bank
Speaker 2: account right now, I can pay you next week. And
Speaker 2: you're lying when you say that. Okay, you don't have
Speaker 2: the money, but you're gonna get it in a week,
Speaker 2: and you don't want the contractor to, you know, go
Speaker 2: to somebody else's house. You want to do the work
Speaker 2: right now. So he does the work, the money that
Speaker 2: you expected to come in does come in, You do
Speaker 2: pay him, he is satisfied, and then for some reason
Speaker 2: the New York State finds out that you didn't have
Speaker 2: the money at the time when you said you did,
Speaker 2: even though you got it later, and they say you
Speaker 2: committed fraud and they take your house. Okay, that's the
Speaker 2: civil case that's last, or the February insanity. Okay, this
Speaker 2: is a criminal case. So the stakes are even higher.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump could go to jail. And what is Donald
Speaker 2: Trump alleged to have done? Okay, the case gets reported
Speaker 2: as it's about hush money. It's about paying back Stormy
Speaker 2: Daniels or paying off Stormy Daniels. But it's not actually
Speaker 2: about that when you read the indictment. What it's about
Speaker 2: is that Donald Trump didn't pay Stormy Daniels directly. He
Speaker 2: paid Michael Cohen and or I'm sorry, Michael Cohen, his
Speaker 2: lawyer paid her off, okay, for what was effectively an
Speaker 2: extortion attempt.
Speaker 1: But put that a difference off in between hush money
Speaker 1: and extortion cases.
Speaker 2: I wonder, well, the difference is if you have a
Speaker 2: smart lawyer who who doesn't make any specific threats. I mean, really,
Speaker 2: that's the difference. By the way, I don't think extortion
Speaker 2: should be a crime. I think extortion is something rich
Speaker 2: people use when poor people try to get money from
Speaker 2: them and aren't smart enough to have lawyers involved. But
Speaker 2: to the extent that extortion is a crime, this was
Speaker 2: This was extortion, okay, even though again Stormy Daniels danced
Speaker 2: through the rain drops by you know, she was selling
Speaker 2: her story, she didn't put a number on there. Whatever,
Speaker 2: she she didn't get charged. So so in the eyes
Speaker 2: of the lass, she's cleaning. So Michael Cohen pays her off, okay,
Speaker 2: That is not the conduct at issue in this case,
Speaker 2: even though the State of New York is focusing on it.
Speaker 2: The conduct at issue in the indictment is that Donald
Speaker 2: Trump or the Trump organization then paid Michael Cohen. Okay,
Speaker 2: and they didn't actually pay them hundred and thirty thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: They paid him four hundred twenty thousand dollars. Why because
Speaker 2: they wanted him to be able to pay the taxes
Speaker 2: on the one hundred and thirty and he wanted to
Speaker 2: be paid in salary, not as a reimbursement. And then
Speaker 2: they threw in some other money. So already it's complicated.
Speaker 2: It's not. There's not quite a direct line from the
Speaker 2: payment Cohen made to the Stormy Daniels to the money
Speaker 2: he got from Trump. Okay, but let's just look at that, okay.
Speaker 2: The crime, the crime that Donald Trump is being charged
Speaker 2: with thirty four felonies for is that he misclassified in
Speaker 2: his own internal business records a payment he made to
Speaker 2: his lawyer as being for quote unquote legal services, when
Speaker 2: it was in reality, in part a money that went
Speaker 2: to Stormy Daniels. That is the crime, Okay. That is
Speaker 2: a crazy thing to face. Thirty four felony charges for
Speaker 2: and on top of that, there shouldn't even in New
Speaker 2: York State. That's not a felony, a misdemeanor classifying business
Speaker 2: records improperly. And again, normally, there would have to be
Speaker 2: some allegation that some third party lost money in others
Speaker 2: this this should come into play when let's say I
Speaker 2: own a restaurant and the restaurant lost one hundred grand
Speaker 2: and I'm trying to raise more money for the restaurant
Speaker 2: from outsiders, and they say, we need to see your books,
Speaker 2: so I show them my books, but I forget to
Speaker 2: show them you know that I lost a million dollars
Speaker 2: last year. Okay, That's that's what this is supposed to protect.
Speaker 2: It's supposed to protect outsiders from fraud. Not not like
Speaker 2: I'm putting an expense that I paid in one trash
Speaker 2: instead of another trash in my own records. Okay, but
Speaker 2: let's just say Donald Trump did this. This is a misdemeanor.
Speaker 2: It's not a felony. How are they charging as a felony.
Speaker 2: They're charging a felony because they're saying there's an underlying
Speaker 2: crime that he was trying to conceal. What is the
Speaker 2: underlying crime that they are claiming. Well, they've never actually
Speaker 2: come out and charged him with any underlying crime, which
Speaker 2: is weird. But what they seem to have settled on
Speaker 2: is that the crime was improperly trying to influence the
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen election. Okay, so that's a felony. Was he
Speaker 2: engaged in a criminal conspiracy to influence the twenty sixteen
Speaker 2: election in which he was a candidate, by the way,
Speaker 2: So influencing the election and running for president, I'm not
Speaker 2: sure how you just see what those things. But let's
Speaker 2: just say, let's say he did that. Okay, let's say
Speaker 2: the money to Stormy Daniels was part of a conspiracy
Speaker 2: to influence the twenty sixteen election. Here is the deepest
Speaker 2: problem of all in this crazy case. He's not being
Speaker 2: charged for those payments. He's being charged for activity that
Speaker 2: he did in twenty seventeen falsifying these business records. So
Speaker 2: the payments to Michael Cohen started in twenty seventeen, the
Speaker 2: election was in twenty sixteen. How can New York State
Speaker 2: say with a straight fi that Donald Trump committed an
Speaker 2: act designed to influence the twenty sixteen election. After the
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen election was concluded, unless they're gonna say it
Speaker 2: a time machine, which I didn't see in the indictment anywhere.
Speaker 2: So both the sort of like overall charges here and
Speaker 2: the specifics of the charges are insane, okay, And once
Speaker 2: you actually sit down and read this, it just it
Speaker 2: looks terrible. It looks like New York State is just
Speaker 2: out to get Donald Trump by any means necessary. They
Speaker 2: went after him for a half billion dollars for a
Speaker 2: bunch of loans that he repaid, and now they're charging
Speaker 2: him with felonies based on something that on their own
Speaker 2: legal theory doesn't make any sense. And these are all Democrats, okay,
Speaker 2: they're all you know, hard left Democrats. He's being tried
Speaker 2: in Manhattan, which went eighty five point fifteen against him
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty. I mean, look, I I said this
Speaker 2: today on Twitter. I didn't vote for Donald Trump in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. I don't really like Donald Trump. I am
Speaker 2: not voting for him in twenty twenty four. I'm not
Speaker 2: voting for Biden. I didn't vote for Biden in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty either. Not voting for either of these guys. But
Speaker 2: to anybody who believes that the rule of law actually matters,
Speaker 2: and that you like your your conduct should mean something
Speaker 2: to the crime that you're charged with, and that the
Speaker 2: crime should have some like like the seriousness of the offense,
Speaker 2: some relationship to what you did. You should you should
Speaker 2: be terrified by this. This is like you speed through
Speaker 2: a red light and they take your car away and
Speaker 2: throw you into git.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a it's outrageous. Everyone should go check out
Speaker 1: Alex Parrison Unreported Truths. We went along on the podcast.
Speaker 1: It's always so much fun to have him on. But
Speaker 1: on Substack Unreported truth No, it's great man. We we
Speaker 1: miss you. We haven't had you on the show in
Speaker 1: a bit. Unreported Truths on Substack and Alex that will
Speaker 1: have you back soon. Thank you for all your work
Speaker 1: and thank you for standing strong, especially on Masks and
Speaker 1: the Vac's Madness. Appreciate you, thank you, thank you back