Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello. Welcome to the Call It Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss the unprecedented raid at and retrieval of classified documents from former President Trump's residence and the widespread attack on law and order that followed immediately thereafter. And later on, we're going to react to reports that scientists have been able to bring cells from a pig back from the dead and consider the implications of this.
Joining me today is a man whose takes may be burning, but he did not, I can assure you. Shoot the Sheriff Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde, are you ready to share with us some of that fire today?
[00:01:02] Speaker B: I'm burning down, sir.
[00:01:04] Speaker A: All right, burn it down.
[00:01:06] Speaker B: Call the fire department.
[00:01:07] Speaker A: All right, burn it down. Now, we're recording this on August 15, 2022. And we saw on August 8, the FBI executed a search warrant at former President Donald Trump's winter home in Palm Beach County, Florida, and apparently retrieved several boxes of documents belonging to the government, many of which were classified to varying degrees. Now, apparently, this followed months of demands and subpoenas and negotiations between the government and Trump, all of which must not have brought Trump into compliance. So now we have this law enforcement issue that's been publicized, and it's an issue that many are trying to make into a political mess. A political issue that is a messy one.
So to get us started, Tunde, just looking at what we know so far as what's happened, what stands out to you here?
[00:02:00] Speaker B: I don't know how to make this too succinct.
Now, I'll say let's for the beginning here, I mean, we can run through kind of the. What has happened. Right.
And then I know throughout this conversation, we'll get into some of our thoughts as to maybe why and maybe how these things are playing out now. But, I mean, what seems to have happened is this. We learned last week of a quote, unquote raid by the FBI in Trump's Mar A Lago residence, which I believe is his primary residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. Or I should say Palm beach, not West Palm Beach, Florida. And what it seems to me is that what's interesting to me is that we learned about this from one source, and that was Donald Trump himself when he posted something on his Truth Social. Social media site.
[00:02:58] Speaker A: Yeah, the government.
Yeah, they went in plain clothes and like, they weren't out there trying to embarrass him or anything like that. They were.
[00:03:06] Speaker B: And that's my point of saying that it wasn't a Raid. It was actually the Secret Service was warned that the FBI was coming. Cause clearly they didn't want to have, you know, something, some accidents go off there, loaded, guys on both sides showing up.
[00:03:21] Speaker A: Well, I mean, honestly, and we've talked about this in varying degrees, and not to make this just impossibly messy, but this wasn't a Breonna Taylor situation where they're busting in.
[00:03:28] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's what I was gonna say. It wasn't a raid because they didn't break into his residence. There was ample warning they had. Now, this came after the National Archives made a criminal referral to the Justice Department in February of this year, after they'd spent a year, meaning from late January of 2021, when President Trump exited the White House fully to, let's say, February of 2022, they tried for a year to get President Trump to return classified documents that he took from his time in the US Government to his home. Now, it's not common and very uncommon for any politician to take home classified information, especially after they stop working when they're no longer serving in government. And so it took a year. They made the referral to the Justice Department. The Justice Department then is negotiating with former President Trump's lawyers. And it seems to me that this is part of his MO which is non compliance with the legal system or the authority in question, whether it be the IRS or in this case, the Justice Department, allows Donald Trump to then claim that he's the victim of an over aggressive, I don't know, police state, let's put it that way. Right. And what my question would be is, you know, and I guess to finish off what happened last week is the FBI left with, you know, 11 to 15 boxes or so, several of which were marked top secret, and some that were at the level of what they call special access programs that are extremely secret and compartmentalized. And, yeah, they're not even allowed to.
[00:05:14] Speaker A: Be out of certain buildings.
[00:05:15] Speaker B: Yeah, that's. I was going to say those are supposed to only be held in government secure facilities and only viewed in those facilities. So the question then becomes, you know, why did President Trump leave with this stuff? Number one? Number two, why has it been 18 months or so that he refused to turn them over? Which then leads law enforcement to say, we got to go get these things.
[00:05:39] Speaker A: In other words, why did it come to this? Like, how in the world. Yeah, well, I'll tell you this. You touched on something, actually, which was my biggest kind of takeaway is the time aspect of this, because what We've seen actually Trump's MO, as you pointed out, is when he's dealing with law enforcement on various matters, whether it would be in New York, whether it would be people trying to get Trump's, the stuff with the campaign stuff, his M.O. basically with the accounting stuff, like the accounting firms, people tried to subpoena those and so forth, various law enforcement agencies. When he's dealing with law enforcement in the public view, what we see is he uses time in the judicial system to his advantage. And so he basically tries to run out the clock on a lot of these things or just keep things going along. Keep things going along. And so it really seems like when you play it out, what you just said, how did this take 18 months? If we're talking about top secret documents that aren't even supposed to leave certain buildings, how do we get 18 months that this stuff's been out of these buildings? That seems to be a pretty substantial breach and security protocol. So it is part, it seems to be part of the way he operates and operates successfully a lot of times when dealing with law enforcement is that, okay, we'll file this and then we'll appeal this and then we'll, we'll challenge it here, we'll challenge it there. And, you know, we, we saw it was the, the, the, the top attorney, state attorney in New York took, it was taken years to see, like, documents related to, to, to, to how they were messing with money in New York State. And so to me, it looked like here at some point there was some level of urgency created that had the government deciding, okay, we got to go in there and we don't know any of this stuff as to why. And that the interesting thing also is, well, and we'll get to this part, you know, as we move to the next section, but is we know very little as to why the whys right now are not. We know what, and we don't even know full on what, but we know we don't have any idea on whys, but for some reason, the government decided, boom, we have to move now. And that to me is fascinating and I look forward to, we're going to learn more about that in the future. Like, okay, like what you were just saying, like, what's happening here? Like, why does he have these documents here? You know, why does he still have them after they've been trying to get him back? Why have they come and gotten documents from him and then not believed him that they'd given all the stuff back? And then they show up and they're taking the interest.
[00:07:57] Speaker B: Let me answer that one directly. It appears that there was someone tipped off the feds within Mar? A Lago.
[00:08:03] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:08:03] Speaker B: So usually.
Usually it does. How these things unwind. Right. Is as someone, you know, a Good Samaritan type that says, hold on, what are we. What is all this stuff doing here? And. Or. Because other things I've read, which is that they weren't properly secured. You know, some of these boxes were in a room next to one of the pool areas, and people could access it pretty easily in there. In. In June. No, I mean, in June, as they were negotiating with his attorneys, they. The Justice Department asked, because what happened is the Justice Department officials had visited the location.
[00:08:38] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:08:39] Speaker B: And they were trying to, you know, basically Trump's side was trying to convince them, oh, no, we don't have much here. You know, you guys don't need to come. Keep looking. Again, some of this stuff, I mean, there's different levels, because some of the stuff in the warrant was classified as secret versus top secret. Right. So there are different levels of classification.
[00:08:55] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:08:56] Speaker B: And so maybe the stuff that was not top secret and special access, maybe it didn't have to do with anything, you know, serious in terms of, like, foreign and geopolitical stuff. And maybe they were like, look, we don't mind if you keep this, all right? You already took it. You got it this long. But, you know, what you should do is just. We just would ask that you lock it up a little bit better than this. And what they were saying is that even that wasn't complied with so well at some point. And. Well, I just want to say this because the question I would have for us as Americans is at some point, we all have to comply with some level of authority. And you make a great point about New York, because that reminded me, and I know we've talked about this in a private conversation about right now in my practice, one of my clients is being audited by the IRS for his 2018 tax return. Clearly, he'll remain unnamed on the show, but. No, but on a serious note, we had a zoom last week. I asked him, how you doing? How you feeling? He goes, oh, no, no. They asked me for. Just to show the deductions I took in 2018, that it was basically to show evidence of it. And so he goes, no, I found the receipts. I sent them in this and that. And he was pretty cool about it. And I was glad that he had that attitude, because most people getting audited aren't happy about it. He wasn't happy about it. But what we're both confident in is that the fact that he's showing them what they're asking for means that they'll either come back with another question or they'll say, okay, you showed us what you, what we asked for. And, you know, it looks good.
[00:10:25] Speaker A: And on the flip side of that, though, if he, if his approach was to stonewall, if his approach was to, to, to misdirect, possibly deceive, then things would have escalated. And that's kind of to be expected. And so ultimately, in this situation that we, we didn't even find out until things escalated.
[00:10:44] Speaker B: And actually, that's my point.
[00:10:46] Speaker A: And that led to, I mean, and now we can really get to the, to the. What to me, has seemed to really been the most fascinating part of this is this reaction that's happened once we saw this, because there, I mean, unequivocally there has been an immediate and widespread spread effort to cast this as political.
And that happened before any of the facts came out, like, well, virtually any of the facts. All we knew is that the police came in or, you know, the FBI came in and took and took some, some boxes of documents. We didn't even know at that point yet how classified they were or anything. We still don't know all that to a full degree.
[00:11:21] Speaker B: It seems fascinating.
[00:11:22] Speaker A: Well, but just let me set this up because it was immediate, that this is political. This is political, this is political. And this is from a guy, Donald Trump, that lives his life on the line between legal and illegal. He's always getting investigated for something or paying some settlement for fraud at Trump University or doing this and doing that. And immediately everybody who wanted to take this kind of approach was just like, oh, this is overreach by the government. This is without any of the facts coming out. That, to me was the most revealing part about it, is that we all knew very little, yet there were some people that were already so sure on what was going on here. And so what was your reaction to seeing that?
[00:12:04] Speaker B: No, I mean, I think it's very dangerous, as we've seen it being done now for years. But dragging the judicial branch of our government into politics. Right. That's, you know, for everything from the Supreme Court, Department of Justice, FBI, you know, they're all there specifically, and the way that they are appointed and have their terms so that they don't, aren't, shouldn't be at least subject to the whims of the political kind of situation blowing in various directions. So that's why the FBI director has a 10 year appointment. Supreme Court and federal judges are lifetime.
[00:12:36] Speaker A: FBI director right now, was appointed by Donald Trump after he fired the last guy because the last guy oversaw an investigation against him. So I mean, like politicizing to your point, you know what I'm saying?
[00:12:48] Speaker B: But let me get back to just what happened, right? This is why I want to get back to this. Trump controlled the narrative. That's the interesting thing about this last week. Like you said, think about what we've just been talking about for the last few minutes. February was when the National Archives made a referral criminally to the Justice Department. And that may or may not have been over classified things. Remember, the National Archives was dragged into this during the election because Donald Trump's team tried to insert fake electors into the National Archives as a way to lie about the will of the voters in certain states. I mean, this is pretty serious stuff, right? About trying to overturn the will of the voters in the United States. And I know, and I appreciate that a lot of Donald Trump supporters say that 70 million people voted for him and it was a record number of voters and all that. And that's fine, but it needs to be acknowledged that 77 million voters voted for Joe Biden and that's life. And that's just how we all of.
[00:13:48] Speaker A: Trump's voters are legitimate. And apparently some of Biden's weren't. But of course, like, that's a very convenient way to look at it.
[00:13:55] Speaker B: But no, but that's my point. So in this case, Trump, again, controlling the narrative, right? Which on his end I can understand, he's probably saying, shoot, I got to get out ahead of this. But my point is, is that we may not be talking about this this week if Trump doesn't post that on his social media site.
[00:14:09] Speaker A: We aren't.
[00:14:10] Speaker B: Because. Because that's my point. It made me realize that we had no idea any of this was going on prior to last week. We didn't know that his lawyers were in negotiation with the Justice Department for this classified information that's at his home. We didn't know that they had asked them to better secure it a month or two months ago in June. We didn't know any of this. So that tells me that the Justice Department wasn't politicizing this because if, quote, unquote, Biden's FBI was doing this for political reasons, wouldn't they be leaking out stuff this whole year? So it seems that again, and that's why I'm just fascinated by the behavior of Trump because he's like the ultimate victim all the time based on circumstances he creates for himself. Because the real question is, why did you take top secret and special access program stuff home?
[00:15:01] Speaker A: You made an excellent point as far as how this was going on. And none of us knew the Justice Department, if they wanted to politicize it, we'd hear leaks, we'd hear stuff like that. No leaks, nothing. But, you know, who did know all this was going on the whole time was Trump. He was ready in case something like this happened. So I think the answer you gave, I think is the answer, the immediate and widespread effort. Trump was the tip of that spear. He jumped out and controlled the narrative. And I think that, I mean, I thought you nailed it with that because. And I wanted to emphasize that because you threw it in kind of in response to me, but that's the headline here, is that Trump controlled the narrative in an impressive fashion, really. And so like we've gotten into over the past, you know, six, seven years, whether the FBI is being political. I remember one instance in particular where I guess if you put it in Trump parlance, Obama's FBI comey released information and did, you know, had some stuff go public about Hillary 10 days before the election. So I guess Obama's FBI wasn't acting that great politically, but that was something that influenced something politically for sure, that Hillary didn't control the release of. But so it's interesting from that standpoint, but also, okay, controlling the narrative isn't just getting first, though. They got out first. And then to me, what was so amazing is how manipulative Trump and his sycopants are. Like Trump in business and in politics does operate at this real close to the line of legal, legality and illegality. And so what he was able to do here, it's quite amazing if you look at it, because he was able to take, in this case, law enforcement's looking at him. He immediately, within 24 hours of him making it public, he's convinced all these people that law enforcement looking at him for breaking the law is an attack on them. And so, like, he not only got out and got in front of this like this, but he was able to persuade a large number of people and create a narrative that him for months, not complying with the National Archives, not complying with the FBI, is now about his supporters being attacked for something like this. And it's like, man, you've broken. You break the law from time to time. You know, like this is. And I'm saying that he lives on that line not as an insult. A lot of people live on that line between legality and illegality. Sometimes they cross it, sometimes they're okay. And. But they get, they are in litigation a lot. They like, that's really what it is. You can investigate a lot. Sometimes you're clear, sometimes you're not. So to me, yeah, I wanted to emphasize that point because it's like, man, that was amazing how quickly it went from, like you said, not discussing, oh, what did you take? Why did you take it? But to you're attacking all of my followers. Whoa.
[00:17:38] Speaker B: Well, that's where, I mean, look, you got a lot of moving pieces here, right. You've got number one, something that we've rarely seen in American politics, let me put it that way, where there's almost a religious type of fervor about a man. It goes back to my comment from a prior show we did in the last few months about idolatry. You know, this is really an interesting look at that, that people are, you know, our religion is supposed to be the system, the Constitution in this country, you know, and all that. And for the first time in my lifetime, there's a large chunk of America that literally are like, no, we want this man, like one man, a human being, to be the be all and end all of American politics and the direction of the country. And so that's just, yeah, this is. This guy. I mean, remember that was the platform in 2020 for the whole Republican National Committee.
[00:18:29] Speaker A: Correct?
[00:18:29] Speaker B: Was our platform is whatever Donald Trump says it is published. So at this point, published platform.
[00:18:34] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:18:34] Speaker B: Yeah. So at this point, that's where the Republican Party is, which is whatever Donald Trump says is what we're about. And so I've never seen this in my lifetime of 44 years in the United States. And I'm not sure it's ever happened in this country before where one person has taken over a whole party. So that to your point, when now this person gets attacked after you have these years of this people going down these rabbit holes of emotionally connecting themselves with him and making their kind of this valued proposition where there's a certain feeling of self worth wrapped into how they feel about him.
[00:19:13] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:19:13] Speaker B: Then it's very.
[00:19:14] Speaker A: And how well he does like doing well makes them feel better about themselves. Yeah.
[00:19:18] Speaker B: And so, and so it's an. It's much eas, especially for someone like him who clearly from. It appears from the outside, I don't know him personally, but has maybe more of a narcissistic and manipulative type of Persona. Right. And personality to Then manipulate the narrative and say, see, they're coming after you. They're not really. I'm an avatar for you. You, the good American, the good person that just wants to be free and have your rights and all this. And it's a very.
[00:19:45] Speaker A: Whether I took classified documents or not.
[00:19:48] Speaker B: Yeah, it doesn't matter.
[00:19:49] Speaker A: Yeah, well, it's all like, you would have done the same thing. Like, it's an interesting point that you.
[00:19:54] Speaker B: Know what the other thing is? Let me, let me say this here. I was going to say it earlier, but it fits better here, which is one part of this and this is what I've seen. And I just want to say to the audience, like, you probably have already seen this by the time you hear this show. Beware of the same greatest hits that we're going to see. Right. Like, I've already seen it. Now there's this whole narrative in certain ecosystems that, you know, well, this can't be that bad because Obama took 30 million documents.
Okay? But the National Archives have already said, first of all, Obama didn't take them to his home. The National Archives set up a facility in Chicago in the Obama library to house these documents. Number two, none of them were top secret or special access program. So they all, again, Obama went through.
[00:20:38] Speaker A: But to your point, the real, the truth of them, the facts don't really matter.
[00:20:43] Speaker B: Correct. That's my point. It's all about because, and that's what I was about to do. Let me catch myself, right? I was about to set myself up. Starting to defend how Obama did it. That, oh, he just, he was transparent. He did all the, checked all the boxes on the way out the door with the government officials that said, okay, you can take this, you can't take that. You know what? I'm not gonna defend Obama. I'm not here to do that. And none of that matters. What matters is Donald Trump took, you know, probably did violate the Espionage act if he does have special access programs in his house, just like he took him out of the government.
[00:21:13] Speaker A: To your earlier point, the FBI, if the FBI went to Obama and said, we need you to return this stuff, then likely he would have done it. It wouldn't have come to this. It's not like this came out of Trump out of the blue. But I think the other one, I.
[00:21:26] Speaker B: Just want to add here just for the audience to be prepared. You're going to hear about Hillary's emails, which aren't the same, and there's reasons why you're going to hear about Hunter Biden. What I'M saying, James, just to finish that thought off was part of the reaction from the allies and of the President himself, is, see, look over here, right?
[00:21:45] Speaker A: Misdirection.
[00:21:45] Speaker B: Why you're. Misdirection like a good magician, right? Why. Why are you looking at me?
[00:21:49] Speaker A: I mean, this goes back really, to the concept. I talked about this previously a couple summers ago, where we. What we're observing here is the tendency for people to want to judge actors and not actions. And so whatever happens, what's happening is that there is a segment of people who are looking at who the actors are and then deciding how they're gonna come down, not based on what happened, but just who the actors are. And so we saw this, and I actually complained about this when we were looking at law enforcement and potential acts of abuse of power when unarmed men were getting killed by police officers. And we'd see these reports and sometimes on videotape and so forth. And so we saw. We would see a pushback. And it's like, okay, all we know at this point is that there were law enforcement officers who were armed, there was an unarmed person, and then somebody's dead. I don't think you should be rushing the judgment on any side. I think you should be trying to figure out, okay, what happened. Was there an abuse of power? Was there a provocation? Try to figure out what's going on. But what we would see a lot of times is that there would be a rush to either say, the law enforcement had to be right or the person who's dead, which, I mean, again, the person who's dead doesn't have anybody to defend them. So it's a little different there. But the person was dead. Oh, you know, they were completely wrong. But nonetheless, it's this rush to judge actors, not actions. We're not looking enough at what's happening and then judging and holding people accountable based on who crossed lines, who overreacted, and so forth. And so what we're doing here, what we're seeing here, not everywhere, but oftentimes in similar circles, is where people are judging actors. It's law enforcement again, but then it's law enforcement, and they're dealing with Donald Trump. And so now we're saying, okay, well, since the two actors here now are, one is law enforcement and the other is Donald Trump, we're seeing people say, okay, well, Donald Trump has to be right. Law enforcement has to be overstepping, have to be illegitimate. They have to be demonized, you know, and all this so forth. But again, no, no focus here. Is on the actions. And well, very little focus in many circles is on the actions. And so that to me reveals deficiency. It goes back to some of the things that you've talked about when you're talking about the idolatry. But it also goes back to, I think a lot of times it is the misdirection, it is the I don't have a good explanation slash legal argument. I'm an attorney. So this is what you see. Sometimes, sometimes when somebody don't have a good legal argument, they don't have a good factual argument. They just talk about other stuff. They try to change the subject because anything you talk about amongst this subject is leading you down a path you don't want to go. So ultimately, I think we as citizens have to be better at kind of smoking this out when we see it, because this is completely disingenuous, you know, like what's happening here? We need to know. We're going to find out more. There's no need to come to some ultimate conclusion here. What we do know though, is he had stuff he shouldn't have had and it became a sufficiently urgent situation over a long period of time that they went in to get it. Well, let's be, let's, you know, go ahead.
[00:24:45] Speaker B: Well, I was just going to say, because when you say the sense of urgency, I could see someone here, well, why would it be so urgent? And one, number one, what concerns me is that it's been 18 months since he took them, so who knows what has already been done, right? Like if anything has ever been seen by some foreign adversary or sold or given away or anything like that, or maybe they had enough time to photocopy things, you know, and leave the originals in the boxes. But we don't, because this deals with high level intelligence stuff and this geopolitical stuff. We don't know if maybe did you know, the NSA and the CIA knew that a foreign agent spy or someone was going to go visit Mar A Lago to the knowledge or not knowledge of the former President Trump. You know, I mean, I'm not saying that he on purpose would give something away, but maybe there was somebody from another countries, you know, that knew what they were doing, that was gonna go for a golf outing at Mar a Lago or a golf.
[00:25:35] Speaker A: If our people knew that this stuff was there, it's likely other people knew this was it.
[00:25:39] Speaker B: But what I want to jump into too is go just rewind the tape back about two, three minutes when you were talking about the actions versus the actors and this is where I get to why it's so dangerous that we've begun to really politicize our law enforcement and our judicial system. Because it seems like, I mean, you make a great point. I almost forgot about the fact that James Comey literally had a press conference nine days before the 2016 election to tell everybody that he's now investigating Hillary again for a new email problem. On a certain.
I remember myself saying, f this B, I can't believe she's doing this. I was all upset when he did that. I'm sure she lost that vote that whole election. She won by 3 million votes, but lost the Electoral College by a total like 80,000 votes. It's fully possible that a couple hundred thousand to a couple few million people might have got swayed by that press conference by James Comey. That's plausible. So my point is, is that that's when Democrats were all up in arms about the FBI going rogue and that it's unfair what they're doing. And this is why we've learned that law enforcement has certain rules about how they disclose things in investigation, especially amongst sensitive things like politicians and political investigation, because it's so easy for it to look like a witch hunt.
[00:27:05] Speaker A: And so this still ultimately ends up being what we're seeing now. Like, I can't, I don't think. And you had kind of referenced this before as far as the fake electors. But to me, it's not a coincidence that this is the second time or probably, you know, it's more than that, but just large scale, like high profile time that we're seeing a straight attack on a pillar of the American system. Like just two years ago, it was an attack on our election system and an election because the person who, you know, one of the people didn't win, then our election system is faulty, it's fraudulent. And I mean, four years before that, that same person has said they were going, if they lost, they were going to claim it was stolen from them too. You know, so the kind of the, and you know, there's been reporting since then in 2020 that the claim that it was stolen was ready to go if they didn't win. And so it's not again, reacting to facts, it's just saying, hey, this is how we're going to play this. But so we've seen an attack on the election system. Now we're seeing an actual attack on law enforcement. We've seen, since then, we've seen people try to rush an FBI facility or rush an FBI facility in Cincinnati. We're Seeing acts of violence, threats, intimidation, so forth like that. And I mean, I don't know, do you think that we're looking at Trumpism, kind of like what you're calling this idolatry? Taking a shot at, I mean, just another pillar here of our American system, this being rule of law, law and order and so forth?
[00:28:29] Speaker B: Yes.
You know, this is. I'm going to say something that could be seen as inflammatory, but Malcolm x's quote after JFK's assassination comes to mind that this is chickens coming home to roost.
Remember the Cliven Bundy saga of that rancher who was fleecing off the American taxpayer because he owed over $1 million in lease fees and he refused to pay it? And there was a standoff. I'll never forget. It was the first time ever I saw regular old Americans, like civilians, not law, you know, not law enforcement and not military with long guns with scopes, like, trained on federal agents.
[00:29:13] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:29:13] Speaker B: And I remember saying to myself, like, why are they letting these guys just do this?
Like, you know, and I get it. Maybe at the time they thought, okay, if we push back on them, it's gonna create more of a headache. So maybe we just see.
[00:29:26] Speaker A: Let them try to let things cool down a little bit.
[00:29:27] Speaker B: Yeah, let it cool down. And it didn' that's my point. Like, this isn't going to stop. This is now the chickens coming home to roost. It was, it was a joke, I guess, when it was Obama in office and they were training the guns at his FBI guys or his agents. Yeah. Now it's happening to everybody. And my point is, is this. Once we allowed this breaking down of certain norms in our society, then I'm not surprised they're going to keep breaking because now people are.
It seems like a lot of people want to believe that things are all crooked and out of whack.
When we just said, like you said in 2016, the FBI threw Hillary Clinton under the bus and it was Obama's FBI. Right.
[00:30:12] Speaker A: Yeah. Under that, under that logic. Right.
[00:30:16] Speaker B: So is it the FBI's all political or do they just do their job and the supporters of people who they might be looking at because the person themselves didn't do the right thing then are crying foul and crying victim because of their attachment to that idol.
[00:30:31] Speaker A: Well, so here's the thing, to me, that stands out and this is why I think the question needs to be asked. And I think you're correct that, yes, at this point, I think what Trumpism stands for, this isn't about any individual person even Though Trump is the center of that universe. But I'm talking about just this kind of the ideology that has revealed itself in Trumpism. And like, for example, Trumpism only accepts the exercise of power when it's serving them or when it's being exercised by them. And so it's adverse to rule of law. It's like, no, no, no things apply to me. Trump went all in on Hillary about the emails thing and then now. And that was about government information that was off site or not in a secure place, all in. Trump even signed a bill increasing the penalties for stuff like that. And so now it's illegitimate, though. If it comes after him, it's a witch hunt. If it comes after him. The other thing, Trumpism doesn't allow for compromise and it stamps out dissent, and that's even dissent in its own party. And so what you like, that's something that can't, you can't have that in a, in a free and open society, in a democratic society, there's always going to be dissent. Our First Amendment is about protecting dissent. And so there are certain things about this ideology that line up as directly in conflict with principles that we have in America. And again, talking about Trumpism itself, and that's observing the, the operation of this kind of, I mean, you can call it a movement even, you know, and how it push, how, how it reacts when certain things happen to it is, is really you, you can, you can definitely flesh out some things as far as what it means from an ideological standpoint.
[00:32:05] Speaker B: Yeah. And I mean, let's, let's, let's also not forget, I mean, the, the FBI raid takes up a lot of, excuse me, a lot of oxygen. But in the past week, the president pled the Fifth Amendment 441 times in one day in the probe in New York. And then his underlings, in a sense, people like Rudy Giuliani and Lindsey Graham have all been basically been called to subpoenaed for the case in Georgia about the federal election tampering. And that's why this is just a waste of time to keep talking about it. Right. We heard him on tape strong arming the Secretary of State, he breaking an election law on tape. So clearly they're, they're, you know, law enforcement could have been a lot more aggressive on him actually, if he wasn't the President, United States. But I guess, you know, they're doing the right thing doing, taking their time. But to get back to just what we're talking about here, I mean, look, part of, part of what I see here is also this march to fascism. Right. And I. And that sounds probably so dramatic when you just hear it, but let me explain what I mean. Yeah, yeah. Because fascism really is when violence and intimidation become political tools en masse.
[00:33:17] Speaker A: Accepted, expected.
[00:33:19] Speaker B: You're right. Both words accepted and expected.
So the thing is, is that, I mean, something happened this week, which is very interesting.
Somehow the unsealed warrant made its way to Breitbart, a right wing kind of online news thing, and then also to Truth Social, which is President Trump's social media platform. Now, only two parties had the unsealed warrant. Sorry, not unsealed. Unredacted. That's what I meant to say.
[00:33:50] Speaker A: Yeah, unredacted.
[00:33:50] Speaker B: Unredacted warrant. Because the redaction is important for the secrecy stuff. So the one source would have been the Justice Department itself that put together the warrant. The only other source would have been Donald John Trump. Who got. Who received the warrant? You know, the subject of the warrant. So the fact that they came out on Breitbart and Truth Social, I'm gonna assume which one of those two sides leaked it? Right. Since then, a federal judge, as long as the FBI agents listed on that warrant have received death threats. And that's what I'm saying is that for a former President of the United States to leak an unredacted copy that contains a federal judge and FBI agents on it wasn't by accident.
This is what happened on January 6th. And what we learned so eloquently through the hearings, that wasn't just some mob that just got thrown together. That was the last act. Because all the other acts failed. They failed to stop to get Mike Pence to do what he did, what they wanted him to do on January 6. They failed at the courts prior to that. They failed. They failed. They failed. So the last straw was going to be violence and intimidation. That's why we hear that the President really did want to go down to the Capitol on January 6, because he was going to pull a Mussolini or like Hitler the first time he tried a storm in 1925. Literally, he wanted to be walking in there with his Brown Shirts, with his henchmen, to go intimidate the people in Congress so that they would not certify the election. I mean, this is as far as we get from Democratic actions of not party, but of a democracy.
[00:35:29] Speaker A: And so that's why small D Democratic.
[00:35:31] Speaker B: Correct. And that's why I'm talking like I am, because I think most Americans, I mean, hopefully they're waking up but aren't seeing this.
[00:35:36] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:35:36] Speaker B: So now that's what we're seeing.
[00:35:37] Speaker A: Like, because. And you bring up another point that is, that's another pillar of the American system that was attacked. The peaceful transition of power. Not just the election system, but also the peaceful transition of power. And yeah, the it. I like the way you put that in terms of it was kind of the violence and intimidation as a last resort. And so, but also the danger here is that now that we've crossed that, that's not going to become the last resort anymore. That's going to become one of the first arrows that gets pulled out of the quiver. And so we've already seen it. You know, as far as the threats to law enforcement, now, that's intimidation. We're seeing threats that it. They're Department of Homeland Security putting this stuff out around the country, high levels of threats. And this is over the FBI going out to try to enforce some law against Donald Trump. That's it. Like just, just showing up, executing a valid search warrant. And so this is a threat. This is violence and intimidation. Do not even dare think about trying to enforce the law against this person. And that's what we're seeing. And so if the law is going to be blind, if justice is going to be blind, if we're going to be people who abide by law and order, we're going to have to reject this. Because Trumpism, this is what it is. This is where it's going. It does not Trump ism. There's only one way, and that's the way that they say that it is. And it doesn't matter if they lose elections. It doesn't matter. And also by one other thing about Trumpism is that it embodies the whole thing of you're either with us or against us. And they expect Trump expects loyalty from positions. It's not like, oh, no, no, stay loyal to the, the oath of enlistment, the oath of office. Those are to the Constitution. That's not the way the Trumpism operates.
[00:37:14] Speaker B: Yeah, well. And that's where, you know, things like, you know, just kind of like that the person in power, like, owns the government. Yeah, right. Like, like my generals, my military, my this, my that. And so probably in his mind, he's like, oh, these are all my documents anyway. And I think that's, that's why when we hear people have said over the years, you know, America is such an experiment. It's only 250 years old. And, and like we've said on other shows, right. You know, Written human history is what, around five, 6,000 years old? Yeah, yeah.
[00:37:45] Speaker A: But we are now looking at hieroglyphics as far as.
[00:37:48] Speaker B: Yeah, but what I'm saying is we are, from my knowledge, the longest lasting democracy recorded and we're only 250 years old. And I think this is why, because it's actually abnormal for societies and cultures to like revere something like, like an idea like the Constitution or democracy. It's, it's usually is following a religion or an individual.
[00:38:11] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:38:11] Speaker B: And so, and so that's why I say that those things like, you know, I feel like I'm talking to a fifth grader here. Right. Like our presidents don't own the government and they don't own, like, they don't own the furniture in there. Right. They don't leave with the Resolute desk. They don't leave with, you know, the drapes from the Lincoln Bedroom and stuff. Right. It's supposed to belong to the people. And I know that, you know, that all, that all sounds idealistic, but the reality is that like you said, that's, that's one of the pillars of our system that has kept it going.
[00:38:45] Speaker A: Yeah. That is the Constitution, like you said.
[00:38:48] Speaker B: Not only peaceful transition of power, I mean, this must happen for it to be peaceful. Right. But the president saying, okay, I'm leaving and just everything while I was working, all that stuff stays here, you know, for the next guy to deal with.
[00:38:59] Speaker A: And so, but I want to get out of this. But there was one thing you said that I just want to double down on, really. And that is when, you know, the language of my generals and stuff like that that was used by Trump when he was in office. That's another revealing. That's a window into the ideology because what that is is basically an expectation that it's my, my generals means that that's not, they're not supposed to be the, their oath of enlistment is to the Constitution, but my generals mean they're they, their loyalty is to me. And we even know James Comey, Donald Trump asked him to take a loyalty pledge to him. And so what you see when they call it Biden's Justice Department is a projection there, basically because they expected the justice. And Trump did ask the Justice Department to work on his behalf to subvert the election and to do other things when he was in office. They expect that that's the, what they would expect of the, the, the, of the federal agents and the Justice Department and all that. That's what they would expect. And so they As a projection, expect that on the other side. But the difference in American system is not supposed to be about that. And if we don't fight for that, if we don't fight to keep that from not becoming the norm, then right now, this sustained attack on it, we could lose this stuff. We could lose these pillars of the American system. We can lose the primacy of the Constitution and things like rule of law, equal protection under the law and so forth. So I do want to move to the second topic here. Pretty interesting development. We're seeing reports that scientists have been able to, after a pig died, put some of its cells in a solution or put. Put it, you know, in the solution. And then those cells come back to life and start functioning. And so they stop functioning and then they start functioning again. And so what was your reaction to that, Tunde? Seeing like, I mean, literally scientists bringing cells, the building blocks of life back to life from a dead pig.
[00:40:55] Speaker B: You know, it's definitely sci fi ish.
[00:40:59] Speaker A: Yeah. The first reaction was, oh man, this is how they ended up in the Walking Dead.
[00:41:04] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:41:04] Speaker A: Oh no. Yeah.
[00:41:06] Speaker B: It's funny about a zombie. But no, I wasn't that surprised because I already, you know, aware of things like the ability to do a transplant where you can take an organ and have it frozen and it's obviously stored for some time and then. And then can be put into a living person and still work.
[00:41:24] Speaker A: Like preservation, basically.
[00:41:25] Speaker B: Yeah, the ability to preserve something. So I wasn't that surprised that this could happen. I mean, what was interesting was because some of the organs an hour, some were like four hours, they brought them back.
But that they still did not consider the pigs alive. No, they weren't able to say, okay, we totally resuscitated the entire pig and its consciousness. I think that was key back to life.
It was just like, okay, we got the liver working again, or we got the stomach working again, you know, the, you know, digesting some food or something while they're still in there. And I just thought like one thing that came out in the article that I found interesting was that it kind of. They said it reaffirmed that death actually happens in stages. Yeah, the process, like a process. That's what I found interesting. I was like, yeah, that actually probably makes sense that, that I highlighted that.
[00:42:20] Speaker A: As the key line as well. But see, what I took from that though, is that if. If we're unraveling the process that is death and we potentially learn how to interrupt that process. That's why, like I said, my mind first went to The Walking Dead, which I don't even watch that like that. My wife watches it. And when a show like that is on, you can't help but notice if you walk by like, oh, you know, so that it's like, okay, what happens then? So if we're learning how to interrupt the process of death. And then you also brought out another key point is that it was. What they were able to see activity being brought back to was more like specialized organs, like things that operate on autopilot anyway that aren't used. They don't need nerve signals from a brain or something for them to start doing what they do. They're just. If they're in their environment to do something, they just do it. And so, you know, like the liver or something like that. And so if this is the first step of something like this or this is the beginning, like, presumably this is going to become something more. But the consciousness thing and the brain activity, there's more there than we know what is going on. Like, we know more about what's happening with the liver, these. These kind of autopilot organs and so forth. So to me, it's like, okay, maybe we're getting. This is the kind of thing where I can see us get over our skis really easily because we learn how to preserve, to halt the dying process for some things, but on other things. And then what happens? Like, well, so what if you are able to bring a body back to life, that. But not the brain, so to speak. And I mean, and then you start putting it together with these devices that you. These implants that can send nerve signals, like the brain. So to me, this was like, terrifying, you know, because this is the kind of. I'm just like, yo, man, I don't know that they're going to replicate consciousness, but seemingly it seems like they'd be able to replicate all the other stuff. And then what do you have?
[00:44:12] Speaker B: Well, I mean, that's where you could have. No, I mean, this is where you could really get into like, you know, cyborg Terminator style thing. Right? Like where you have.
[00:44:20] Speaker A: All jokes aside, that's where I was gonna.
[00:44:22] Speaker B: Yeah. Or like a general grievous from, you know, the. The Revenge of the Sith type of thing where it's like a. It's. It's. Maybe it has a heart that's beating, has some organs that can allow it to actually live in a certain way. But let's say it's got a shell that's made of titanium or something that's bulletproof. You Know, I.
[00:44:40] Speaker A: In my own mind, I figured if we did this topic, there was a high likelihood that we would get a Star wars reference.
[00:44:46] Speaker B: So I'm very.
[00:44:48] Speaker A: I'm very happy I got my Star wars reference or I got my Star wars reference out of you. But no, it's a good point, though. I mean, I think you're like, they did a whole bunch of stuff with, you know, this kind of like, along this path and like a Star wars type of thing, but not good.
[00:45:01] Speaker B: I'm sorry, but it's. But I mean, it's just interesting about. That's why I found that dying in stages, the death happens as a process because you can actually see it while people are alive. Right? Like, I mean, I'm just thinking of a guy who's, you know, relative of someone. I know that. Unfortunately, I was hearing a story where he. He drank so much. I mean, he's such a drinking problem that his liver, like, shut, like, died while he's alive. You know what I mean?
[00:45:28] Speaker A: Oh, my God.
[00:45:28] Speaker B: His body shut down certain organs because of the alcohol consumption over the years. And I thought, okay, that's an interesting example where he actually killed a part of his body, but his consciousness is still there, right?
And I guess without modern medicine, it would have been a process. He'd probably be dead in a couple days after one of those major shutdown. But that's what I mean by being a process. And then what's interesting, and this is where I know that, you know, we all know that the mind and the brain and consciousness are so complex that we don't really understand them yet. You can think about diseases like dementia, Alzheimer's, as ways that the mind progressively dies, but yet the other organs might be totally fine. Because I know, unfortunately, especially what I do with wealth management, I got to deal with even clients that have some of these issues, unfortunately. But I know someone who was recently sharing with me that their parent now is at a level of Alzheimer's where they no longer recognize anybody. Like, it's no longer. It's not even. They just forgot where they left the keys. They don't even recognize their kids, anything like that. So I'm thinking like, okay, well, that's an example maybe of a brain basically being dead, except for the ability to keep the other stuff going. You know, like you're saying about the subconscious stuff.
[00:46:44] Speaker A: But I would distinguish that because there's still some. Because what you're talking there is connectivity. Like, that stuff may all still be there in their brain, but they no longer can access it. In the same way that if you like someone who has an accident, like nerves are funny like that if you sever a nerve in your back, your legs can still be there, but you, they may as well not be there from the purposes of your brain being able to access them. And so, but I think the consciousness raises actually. Okay, so we talked about the physical parts of it, but the consciousness act because if you. Okay, let's put this dying is a process thing in the context of consciousness. We've all heard reports where people talk about like near death experiences and how they, their, their brain is like, their things are happening in their consciousness and they're going towards the light or something like this or they go back or you know, like what. Eventually there may be learning about the process that happens with consciousness and when that goes and where that goes in the process. And again, if your ability, if you have the ability to interrupt the process of death, then that may, I mean, like again this, this goes to places that, I mean and I, I guess eventually if humans like don't kill themselves off, a lot of these things will end up being unraveled. You know, like conceivably in a couple thousand years people are going through wormholes all over the universe or something like that, you know, like, but this, you know, this is the mystery within us, so to speak. And I mean, like so.
[00:48:12] Speaker B: Or you know, it'd be cool. So this is where I see it going that you have all these organs that can be brought back and then you could just piece them together into some being and then put that metaverse thing on their head. There you go, right? And then you got a whole, you got like human organs, but like with a VR looking head, then it's just existing.
[00:48:32] Speaker A: I like the general grievous example better, like where he's like, okay, yeah, give me one of, I'll take one of those hearts, I'll take spleens, Give me this. Like, but either way, I mean it's, I do think it's quite a remarkable because again, something that's like that life has left has been a threshold we haven't really crossed yet. And so like life is gone and then after some hours bringing it back, the process that is now we, we can visually see some of the process in terms of like rigor mortis. And like we, we're familiar with things like that, but actually that that process may be able to be stopped or reversed is, is quite an innovation. So.
[00:49:09] Speaker B: And I think that what's interesting too, like that's what I was thinking is, you know, because like we were. Like I said earlier, it's not like they were, you know, the pig was dead for seven days and then they brought the liver back. So it was a number of hours. I thought, okay, that's. It's interesting, you're right because as we've learned about the microbiome and the gut.
[00:49:27] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:49:28] Speaker B: What's probably really going on is each of these organs specifically are their own ecosystem in a sense. And probably as long as certain things are held together for a period of time, like the right temperature and the right kind of environment for might be able to kick start back up and still work without the host being still all the way there. And so, and so this will probably revolutionize the. If they can perfect this and like things like transplants.
[00:49:57] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:49:57] Speaker B: You know they say.
[00:49:58] Speaker A: Yeah, that's what they were saying is the immediate implication they're looking at is the ability to. Because right now if you don't get to the person transplant within a certain amount of time then a wrap. But this could extend that time. But we all know that's not the end the, the end of something like this. So yeah, I think we can wrap.
[00:50:13] Speaker B: Interesting.
[00:50:14] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely so. But we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call It Like I See It. Subscribe to the podcast, Rate it, Review us, tell us what you think and Jim, share it with a friend. And until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:50:26] Speaker B: I'm Tunde Lana.
[00:50:28] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next.
It.
