Adam King is joined by supreme court expert Ted Siegel and "Job Anon," a high ranking entertainment executive friend of Adam's who wishes to be able to speak on Banned.Video yet remain anonymous as to not disrupt his job. The trio goes deep into the ATF Bump Stock issue, Michael Cargill, Moore vs. Harper, Neil Gorsuch war against the bureaucratic state, and other important cases that will shape 2023.
January 24, 2023
Adam King is joined by supreme court expert Ted Siegel and "Job Anon," a high ranking entertainment executive friend of Adam's who wishes to be able to speak on Banned.Video yet remain anonymous as to not disrupt his job. The trio goes deep into the ATF Bump Stock issue, Michael Cargill, Moore vs. Harper, Neil Gorsuch war against the bureaucratic state, and other important cases that will shape 2023.
THE ADAM KING SHOW | THIS ISN’T A TALK SHOW …IT’S A BATTLEGROUND!
The Adam King Show is everybody’s favorite place for news and commentary, the most interesting guests on the planet, humor, arts and culture, spirituality, motivation, business, technology, cannabis, alternative health, ground breaking stories, and just plain old fashion fun.
Every week host Adam King sits down with the most exceptional panel of guests ever assembled, some of which can only be found here on The Adam King Show, to talk about the most current and relevant news of the day.
With a background in diplomacy and government relations, Adam offers unique insights into the world around us through a tremendous amount of experience and relationships.
Adam is a world traveler, an entertainment facilitator, project advisor, and activist for many causes, and an education reform leader. He's a thought leader and activist in the Southern California area. Adam ran for public office and serves on the boards of various philanthropic organizations.
ADAM KING PRODUCTIONS | ENTERTAINMENT FACILITATION AT IT’S FINEST!
Homepage:
Simplecast RSS Feed:
https://feeds.simplecast.com/oQRHAlQz
Apple Podcasts:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-adam-king-show/id1644593634
BANNED.VIDEO:
https://www.banned.video/channel/the-adam-king-show
Gaana:
https://gaana.com/podcast/the-adam-king--season-1
Google Podcast:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS9vUVJIQWxReg
iHeart:
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-adam-king-show-101924386/
Overcast:
https://overcast.fm/+8ItPVh94g
Pandora:
https://www.pandora.com/podcast/the-adam-king-show/PC:1001024866
Player FM:
https://player.fm/series/the-adam-king-show
Pocketcast:
Podvine:
https://podvine.com/podcast/the-adam-king-show
Pocketcast:
RadioPublic:
https://radiopublic.com/the-adam-king-show-8gjzQp
Rumble:
https://rumble.com/c/c-1865117
Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/show/3qpZAjHDR4RubXl5eyYowj
Stitcher:
https://www.stitcher.com/show/1024866
Tunein:
https://tunein.com/broadcasters/promote/
Vimeo:
https://vimeo.com/user184438437
YouTube:
https://youtube.com/@theadamkingshow
ADAM KING PRODUCTIONS | ENTERTAINMENT FACILITATION AT IT’S FINEST!
00:00:00:29 - 00:00:25:12
Speaker 1
I'd like to welcome everybody to a brand new Edition episode 23 of The Adam King Show. This is a very special episode. We are broadcasting from a brand new platform that we have not yet been able to play with. This is our first episode on the streaming platform and Rock and I have been all over this app trying to figure it out, and this is our first show.
00:00:25:12 - 00:00:38:28
Speaker 1
We're very excited, going to bring out Rock and we are going to play with this new program and see if we like it. And there is the man rock breath who just lost the bills, just lost.
00:00:38:28 - 00:00:42:14
Speaker 2
Yeah. Thanks again for reminding me. I had almost forgot.
00:00:42:24 - 00:00:44:05
Speaker 1
Tell us how you feel about it.
00:00:44:22 - 00:00:52:02
Speaker 2
Football is dead to me. Until next opening day for the Bills. That's. That's the truth.
00:00:53:13 - 00:01:05:26
Speaker 1
So I love these new camera angles we play with. With the new. With the new software. We could go in. We could go out, We could do this. We could do that. We could put you in the corner. We can move around. It's much easier than the whole Zoom interface.
00:01:06:05 - 00:01:07:14
Speaker 2
And we could do a lot more.
00:01:07:21 - 00:01:24:27
Speaker 1
And the best part about it is the meme segment that we're about to get to. But we got some really great guests today. We're talking about the Supreme Court and all the shenanigans relating to the Supreme Court. And but before we do that, let's get into some memes and play around with them with our new software.
00:01:25:00 - 00:01:25:22
Speaker 2
All right. Do it.
00:01:26:21 - 00:01:55:12
Speaker 1
All right. So my silly little life, me and memes. Here we go. All right. Mother of living things says things that make you go home. Athletes under 35 that suffered cardiac arrest, 1966 to 2004 11,101. 2001 to 2000 to 1509.
00:01:55:15 - 00:01:57:25
Speaker 2
The numbers are staggering.
00:01:58:06 - 00:01:59:04
Speaker 1
It's sickening.
00:01:59:13 - 00:02:00:00
Speaker 2
It is.
00:02:00:20 - 00:02:01:13
Speaker 1
It's sickening.
00:02:01:20 - 00:02:06:22
Speaker 2
All right. Let's see. Something good, some funniness. Yeah, exactly.
00:02:06:28 - 00:02:17:07
Speaker 1
This is the prime minister of New Zealand. I'm leaving you. Sorry to break your heart, but I wonder if I could zoom in on the memes here, because you could see.
00:02:18:07 - 00:02:18:14
Speaker 2
She's.
00:02:18:14 - 00:02:21:11
Speaker 1
Got her balls hanging out right on the Pfizer vaccine, Like a.
00:02:21:11 - 00:02:22:13
Speaker 2
Little like a little.
00:02:22:13 - 00:02:37:06
Speaker 1
Tranny. She is Meme. Anyone have an idea why the FAA has is having so many problems?
00:02:37:06 - 00:02:38:21
Speaker 2
They're all out of maternity.
00:02:39:03 - 00:02:47:26
Speaker 1
Utah. Here's a hero story Rock, Utah Doctor allegedly destroyed vaccines and gave fake shots to children. How cool is that?
00:02:48:13 - 00:02:52:00
Speaker 2
I saw that. I love that.
00:02:53:06 - 00:02:59:02
Speaker 1
Disney smells itself, man. I mean, it's like.
00:03:02:08 - 00:03:03:14
Speaker 2
That's that's great.
00:03:04:25 - 00:03:13:02
Speaker 1
Me trying to ask the transgender clerk at Best Buy for a male to female USB adapter without smacking.
00:03:14:03 - 00:03:17:03
Speaker 2
Yeah, right. They're going to have to rename that one. I know, right?
00:03:18:20 - 00:03:22:16
Speaker 1
The last thing you see before being hunted for sport on a private island.
00:03:24:27 - 00:03:28:28
Speaker 2
It's terrible. That's actually terrible. You have to stop driving.
00:03:28:28 - 00:03:30:18
Speaker 1
Because you're ruining my.
00:03:30:18 - 00:03:34:15
Speaker 2
Future. Uh.
00:03:36:11 - 00:03:42:14
Speaker 1
Not Jerome Powell, by the way. He's coming on the show. I just bought him a dozen eggs. Is $10. And you see all the.
00:03:42:14 - 00:03:44:05
Speaker 2
Biden and all the people laughing.
00:03:44:26 - 00:03:56:06
Speaker 1
Ironically, his name is Jerome Powell. Dear trans community. Don't tell me I have to accept you for who you are when you couldn't accept yourself for who you were.
00:03:56:13 - 00:04:01:03
Speaker 2
Hey, can I drive? No. I swear to God. Scottie the kid.
00:04:01:12 - 00:04:17:22
Speaker 1
Exactly. Synchronicity. 1111 evolution. Can you give me pattern seeking brain to avoid predators? Yes. And then the monkey put together. Everyone in my life is from the CIA.
00:04:19:28 - 00:04:22:28
Speaker 1
Why is it that homeless people always think the CIA is following them?
00:04:23:04 - 00:04:27:14
Speaker 2
I don't know. But why does this one look like the little girl in the previous one?
00:04:27:22 - 00:04:32:25
Speaker 1
She is. That is Greta Thunberg as Shrek looks to appease the weather gods.
00:04:33:04 - 00:04:35:28
Speaker 2
Oh, now I get it. All right, I'm the first.
00:04:35:29 - 00:04:45:15
Speaker 1
Okay, here's one I want to highlight. Retired astronaut Buzz Aldrin marries the longtime love of his life on his 93rd birthday.
00:04:45:29 - 00:04:46:25
Speaker 2
Oh, my.
00:04:47:03 - 00:04:50:08
Speaker 1
Yeah. Look at him. Pimp on a blimp.
00:04:51:06 - 00:04:55:16
Speaker 2
The 21st. Yeah, well, he'll be dead by February 21st.
00:04:55:17 - 00:04:58:24
Speaker 1
I didn't know he was so rich. No, no, don't. Don't buy that.
00:04:59:11 - 00:05:01:01
Speaker 2
No, it's about.
00:05:01:02 - 00:05:21:05
Speaker 1
I got a dog here. I just adopted a dog, and she's trying to chew at my cord. All right. Now, Jerome Powell says 399 for gas. Six months ago, 399 for gas now. So, Drew, nobody cares. A World Economic Forum noticed the six six, six.
00:05:21:12 - 00:05:25:13
Speaker 2
Oh, yeah. Could be. That could be.
00:05:25:19 - 00:05:32:13
Speaker 1
This one is so funny. Name this boy band, The VAX. Three boys.
00:05:33:12 - 00:05:36:09
Speaker 2
Oh, that's good. The Backstreet Boys.
00:05:36:23 - 00:05:40:09
Speaker 1
Pete booted judge the census job by reminding everybody he's gay.
00:05:40:24 - 00:05:46:11
Speaker 2
Oh, Dad, let's. Let's. Let's leave them there. Not exactly.
00:05:47:20 - 00:05:51:22
Speaker 1
Corporate pharma and the government.
00:05:57:01 - 00:05:59:26
Speaker 1
My favorite part of winter is watching it on TV from California.
00:06:00:18 - 00:06:05:03
Speaker 2
Yeah, that's good. My mom got through on a very severe one. 43.
00:06:05:03 - 00:06:13:26
Speaker 1
And this is how we're going to thin is how guys who support gun control get drunk. Pass me the white claw, please.
00:06:14:28 - 00:06:17:17
Speaker 2
That's nasty. Adam, you're funny.
00:06:18:02 - 00:06:21:25
Speaker 1
All right, so that concludes our Meme segment. We're going to bring in our guests.
00:06:22:09 - 00:06:24:00
Speaker 2
That was great. That was great.
00:06:24:09 - 00:06:25:07
Speaker 1
And fun here.
00:06:25:21 - 00:06:29:27
Speaker 2
Adam, I will see you on the back side. You're going to be.
00:06:30:02 - 00:06:40:16
Speaker 1
You're going to be backstage, right? You're going to be in the new. Now, in the new system, Raw can throw up graphics and do all sorts of crazy stuff.
00:06:40:19 - 00:06:41:11
Speaker 2
I'm here for you.
00:06:41:20 - 00:07:13:00
Speaker 1
Like this one. The Adam King Show. This isn't a talk show. It's a battleground. On that note, I'd like to welcome both of my guests. I'm going to start with this mystery man over here in full, full getup, because he doesn't want to announce his name because he's a afraid of being losing his job. We're not going to tell which major production company he works for, but he wanted to come on the show and we're going to call him Josh Bannon for this show.
00:07:13:12 - 00:07:16:06
Speaker 1
So, Zorro job. Bannon, welcome to the show.
00:07:16:06 - 00:07:16:26
Speaker 3
Hello, Adam.
00:07:17:20 - 00:07:36:18
Speaker 1
And we are joined. Both of these guys are very good friends of mine. To our audience here at Infowars. But both of these guys, I want to say, are brilliant men. But there is one guy who's joining us, Ted SIEGEL, This guy knows the Supreme Court's ins and outs better than anyone I know. And he reminds me of Darren Beattie.
00:07:36:18 - 00:07:38:03
Speaker 1
You watched Darren Beattie, right, Ted?
00:07:39:02 - 00:07:45:08
Speaker 4
I have. I work a lot of hours, so I don't have time to watch as much as I want.
00:07:45:09 - 00:07:48:23
Speaker 1
You got a very different vibe to you. You know, Darren was on the show.
00:07:49:13 - 00:07:50:06
Speaker 4
He's a great guy.
00:07:51:00 - 00:08:18:10
Speaker 1
He was. You know, I'll tell you something about Ted. Zorro Jarvinen is. Ted ends up knowing you guys are both extremely informed conservatives. And I'm excited for this show so that we could all get together and, you know, talk about it and chop it down and really get into the nitty gritty of things. But, you know, this show I wanted to do about the Supreme Court.
00:08:18:28 - 00:08:47:00
Speaker 1
You guys are both very wise and understanding of the Supreme Court. Before we get started, I want to ask Ted. Ted Segal my my long, dear friend and scholar in residence to give us some overview of what before we get into the ATF bomb stuff, because that's really what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the ATF bump stock and how it challenges national national norms on gun laws.
00:08:47:13 - 00:09:03:29
Speaker 1
And I wanted some experts to come in and talk about it. But I also want to go over the Alito the Alito leak. But before we go to that, Ted, I want to hear what you think is on the dossier for the next 3 to 6 months on the Supreme Court. What are you excited about? What are you nervous about.
00:09:05:23 - 00:09:28:22
Speaker 4
In terms of cases? Well, right now, they're they are granting cert so they to certain petitions, so thousands of case of cases or their attorneys would love to. I would love to be heard by the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court is unfortunately only going to take a very small percentage of them left, far less than 1% of them.
00:09:28:22 - 00:09:49:10
Speaker 4
So a lot of people are going to be very disappointed in that. Today, there was an interesting case. They turned down a a person who fled the Holocaust and put what was back then a lot of money in the bank account. And it's in a Swiss bank accounts appreciated over time and was passed on to his daughter, who's now 80 years old.
00:09:50:07 - 00:10:15:17
Speaker 4
The IRS assessed them over $3 million in fines and penalties. And the first Circuit Court of Appeals that's in Boston had said that this was a fair punishment because the woman had not properly declared a foreign bank account to the IRS. Neil Gorsuch said he wanted to hear this case and felt the $3 million, the account, I think, had somewhere around 10 million, give or take.
00:10:15:24 - 00:10:17:05
Speaker 1
But she said they rejected it.
00:10:18:04 - 00:10:49:03
Speaker 4
They unfortunately rejected hearing it so that the register sit orari says, is is in order for the court to hear it. So four out of the nine judges have to agree to hear the case. But as I said, they reject well over 99.90 9.5% of all petitions that appeal to the Supreme Court. So unfortunately, but rarely do you use, you know, a couple of times per year, you'll see justices object and say, no, this is something we should have heard, and they'll go public with their objection to the rest of the court.
00:10:49:03 - 00:10:53:12
Speaker 1
So I want to get jarvinen in on this job and on, you know, anything going on on the Supreme Court right now?
00:10:54:29 - 00:11:18:16
Speaker 3
Well, I have some friends who work in higher education. And I, I did hear I mean, this is nothing that I've seen that they've announced or anything, but I have a very close friend who's a big lawyer. I mean, this is very legit. I'm not like pulling your leg or anything, But I, I think there's been rumors that they might be bringing up affirmative action.
00:11:18:16 - 00:11:21:19
Speaker 3
I don't know. Ted, have you heard of this?
00:11:23:01 - 00:11:51:27
Speaker 4
So they have heard two cases in this term when it comes to affirmative action, one of them versus Harvard, which is a private university in another versus the university, North Carolina Chapel Hill, which is one of our great public universities. And so people were wondering why they were hearing two different cases at the same time. So there was thought that maybe private universities could possibly have more room to have some sort of affirmative action.
00:11:53:05 - 00:12:23:20
Speaker 4
But they'll that decision should come out sometime in the next few months, likely around June. And it is thought that it is thought that they will limit affirmative action further, if not ban it in both cases. Adam, you mind if I make it some two interesting points that I thought? Yeah. So the first thing I found interesting, so this was really where we're seeing the new justices, Kentucky, Jackson, Kentucky, Brown, Jackson.
00:12:24:00 - 00:12:48:17
Speaker 4
I make their debut for this term. And she did a phenomenal amount of research showing why historically, under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, this type of affirmative action would have been allowed. If you look at its historic meaning. It was very impressive. She's a brilliant woman. Harvard undergrad and law school at all. Was also notable is that this is supposed to be a judge.
00:12:48:28 - 00:13:09:26
Speaker 4
And so, you know, when we hear complaints from the left that, oh, Kavanaugh's being a little biased or Alito is being a little biased, well, this is a woman that from when her first term on the court or one of her first cases that she heard as a Supreme Court Justice for Life did a phenomenal amount of research to support one side and is pretty much already.
00:13:09:26 - 00:13:12:13
Speaker 1
You're saying she's really like an activist judge?
00:13:12:29 - 00:13:15:03
Speaker 4
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. So while there may be.
00:13:15:12 - 00:13:18:19
Speaker 1
Some of that coming with Jackson, Justice Jackson.
00:13:19:04 - 00:13:31:25
Speaker 4
Right. So any time your friends argue that the right that is that the courts are unfair because there's there are more Republican justices realize girlfriends. Okay. But real you realize that the Republicans don't to do this.
00:13:31:29 - 00:13:33:13
Speaker 1
I have a few other jobs.
00:13:34:05 - 00:13:35:22
Speaker 4
Justices don't do their job.
00:13:35:24 - 00:13:47:21
Speaker 1
They you didn't cancel me or block me on Facebook. Very few and and family, too. I have some liberal family that blocked me also. But side now I.
00:13:47:21 - 00:13:51:21
Speaker 3
Keep on my liberal friends I have to you know I keep a little echo saying.
00:13:51:21 - 00:14:12:03
Speaker 1
Well you got to you're like in the big media executive world I mean just appearing on this show. Ted, I want to tell you something. This man is going through danger to speak his mind because he believes in something. And when I asked Zorro over here if he wanted to come on the show, he said he absolutely wanted to come on the show, but he's so afraid.
00:14:12:03 - 00:14:18:18
Speaker 1
And he asked if I would mind if he came in disguise. I think it's even better, don't you? Because, I mean, it kind of like really.
00:14:18:18 - 00:14:19:03
Speaker 4
Sophia.
00:14:19:06 - 00:14:29:03
Speaker 1
It honors the point, you know? I mean, is is is this is what it takes, you know, to speak up when we're contained in this the system.
00:14:29:26 - 00:15:00:10
Speaker 3
Ted, one thing I wanted to say about the affirmative action thing is the person who I know is a president of a private university and a major city. And I was privileged to overhear a phone conversation he was having is someone I know, just a friend. And and he's not you know, he's a very left leaning person. And he was discussing making plans for what happens once they deem it unconstitutional.
00:15:00:18 - 00:15:14:18
Speaker 3
And it was funny that you talk about it like, oh, how do we get around it? Can we can we still do these things? And, you know, we'll just make try to get them to enforce the penalties, like we can still do it. But and this was a private university, not a public one.
00:15:15:03 - 00:15:16:20
Speaker 1
Mhm. So guys.
00:15:16:20 - 00:15:38:12
Speaker 4
Yeah. That makes sense. For better or for, for better or for worse, the affirmative action case will likely turn out similar to the Bruin gun decision where the court will have ruled. But that doesn't end the battle that only that gives us a lot of ammunition, no pun intended, but a lot of ammunition. But there will be a lot of court fights going forward to make sure that colleges enforce their terms and force.
00:15:38:13 - 00:16:28:04
Speaker 1
I want to I want to I want to take that word that you just said, Ted ammunition. And I want to shift into our discussion on bump stocks on the Supreme Court. Originally, I saw two things that that made me want to do this episode. First, Michael Cargill was on Alex Jones and Michael Cargill was the plaintiff. And also Judge Andrew Napolitano was also on on Jones talking about this one court case and how, you know, overnight if effectively the Supreme Court can rule that all bump stocks, that it's not the real thing that fascinates me about this case is that it's not that they're the the ruling.
00:16:28:04 - 00:16:59:12
Speaker 1
And this is why I want you on Ted, because I want you to help clear this up. It's not that the ruling on bump stocks pertains to bump stocks. It's that these three letter agencies, EPA, ATF, DHS, that the ruling is actually saying that they don't have authority under the Constitution to make laws. Right. And that's what's fascinating, because as such vast implications far greater than than bump stocks and and far greater than bump stocks and firearms.
00:16:59:25 - 00:17:01:17
Speaker 1
So what's your take on that, Ted?
00:17:02:09 - 00:17:24:03
Speaker 4
Yeah, correct. So let me Adam, let me clear up the background a little bit that might be that might help you. So the landmark decision was that deal with regulators. How much power does a regulator, an unelected regulator, have? That's the called the Chevron decision. It was in the 1980s, a group called the National, a bunch of trial lawyers.
00:17:24:17 - 00:17:46:00
Speaker 4
I believe they're from out here in Los Angeles called the National Resources Defense Council. If you're a fan of Curb Your Enthusiasm in the early years, Sheryl David, the actress who played Sheryl David like the real Sheryl. David is a board member of their nonprofit. They're not an environmental group. They're a bunch of trial lawyers. Despite their name.
00:17:46:00 - 00:18:12:25
Speaker 4
But they were involved in a lawsuit with Chevron. And the question is, how much power does a regulator have to reinterpret laws? This is important in many cases, and the Supreme Court is actually going to hear there's actually many different interesting angles. So the conservative movement and this is not just the populists, are not just the Alex Jones types, but actually the whole conservative movement is an agreement that there needs to be less power for regulators.
00:18:13:05 - 00:18:33:18
Speaker 4
Where this really started was with a Reagan appointee to the EPA. You are correct her name. You may have heard of this last name. Her name was in Gorsuch and she was from Colorado. Her son, of course, is on the Supreme Court. And they say that they have so far said the Supreme Court ruled.
00:18:35:00 - 00:18:37:26
Speaker 1
We're tying the deep state of the Supreme Court together.
00:18:38:21 - 00:19:04:08
Speaker 4
Okay. So the Supreme Court made a rule called Chevron Deference. It gives a lot of power to regulators. And this made conservatives very upset. They said that if a law is written in a vague way that regulators can give any reasonable interpretation that doesn't contradict the law, that's a lot of power to the unelected. And recent Supreme Court decisions have limited that back somewhat.
00:19:04:08 - 00:19:30:17
Speaker 4
But conservatives are again, not just us, but libertarians, pro-corporate Republicans like the Mitt Romney types are all in agreement at this needs to be scaled back. So recent court decisions have done so. But the bump stock ban is an opportunity. Even if, you know, Mitt Romney's probably not the biggest fan of bump stocks, but this is an opportunity to say, no, you can't come up with any any ridiculous interpretation of the law.
00:19:30:18 - 00:19:53:03
Speaker 4
You have to sort of you have to see what this law what was the intent of this law and try to see what was the best interpretation of it. And in case you're wondering, this is also an argument being used in this Supreme Court term in the most important case of the term or versus Harper, where Democrats are arguing that they can interpret election law and a valid vote to mean whatever they want it to mean.
00:19:53:03 - 00:19:56:26
Speaker 4
And that's something which is that's extremely dangerous. Yes.
00:19:57:17 - 00:20:09:02
Speaker 3
It doesn't have anything to do with that case of like the EPA deeming certain residences like due to water. There is.
00:20:09:12 - 00:20:28:01
Speaker 4
Yeah. So there was an EPA case that's been going on for probably close to 20 years now where a couple in, I believe it was Idaho could have been Montana somewhere in the in the Upper West. They drained a what we would call a puddle. You know, unless you're if you're in Manhattan, it might be a river.
00:20:28:08 - 00:20:30:21
Speaker 1
Like a minnesota or a manhattan puddle.
00:20:31:27 - 00:20:54:28
Speaker 4
It was it was a large puddle. But they tried to say that this was this can be regulated under the bodies of water as a body of water of the United States and the Supreme Court is certainly limited the EPA in that sense. However, their rulings have been very narrow. So this is that case is going back for the Supreme Court because the lower courts have narrow.
00:20:54:28 - 00:21:01:21
Speaker 3
Meaning, very narrow, narrow meaning that it's it can't be applied to other things and we want to correct them because then it applied.
00:21:01:24 - 00:21:23:14
Speaker 4
So we are looking for a good case. So the bumps side, this would be a good time for me to talk about the bump stock case probably. And if you want me to go ahead, I can as well. So the bump stock case is an offer to Kennedy. Even if you hate bump stocks or hate guns altogether, this is an opportunity for or even the Mitt Romney types to say, look, the regulators can't just make up their own law from scratch.
00:21:23:14 - 00:21:32:08
Speaker 4
They have to follow what the reasonable law was. So what has happened, Adam, maybe you could explain what your where your viewers know what a bump stock is.
00:21:32:08 - 00:21:34:29
Speaker 1
Yeah, everybody on Infowars knows what a bump stock is.
00:21:35:10 - 00:21:37:18
Speaker 4
Okay, so the question is, does a bump.
00:21:37:18 - 00:21:42:10
Speaker 1
Stock want to know something for the better? Comes on YouTube. Why don't you explain what a bump stock is.
00:21:43:15 - 00:21:43:22
Speaker 4
Right?
00:21:43:22 - 00:21:47:14
Speaker 3
This is I work in the industry. I'm not a gun guy. I don't know what a bump stock is. Really.
00:21:47:14 - 00:21:48:04
Speaker 1
There you go.
00:21:48:11 - 00:21:51:27
Speaker 3
It makes the gun go shoot fast or something.
00:21:52:03 - 00:21:55:28
Speaker 1
It turns out to matter to rifle into an automatic rifle.
00:21:56:05 - 00:22:21:00
Speaker 4
There we go. So and the question is that can this be regulated then as an illegal gun under existing law? So we have in our country, we have many we have several different circuits which are call with the names for appeals court. We have to get into why they're named this, but they are appeals court. So the federal courts, you have the trial courts also called the district courts and you have the appeals courts and then all the circuit courts.
00:22:21:08 - 00:22:54:14
Speaker 4
And then finally you have this the one Supreme Court. So we have 12 appeals courts, plus the D.C. appeals court, etc., etc.. But what happens what happens when the appeals courts disagree and the Supreme Court has ruled yet? Well, so did this. That's what's been happening so far. Every circuit court has ruled that these bump stock bans on the Trump's bump stock ban is constitutional, including the most recent one, our most recent upholding of the of the regulation from the sixth Circuit in Cincinnati.
00:22:54:14 - 00:23:17:02
Speaker 4
Now, despite it being a middle America and what you would think gun country, the Sixth Circuit has not been the most friendly place to conservatives. It's been maybe center right would be the best way to put it, whereas it went to the Fifth Circuit. And the Fifth Circuit has long been the conservatives best friend. Okay, so the fifth Circuit struck it down and said that, no, a bump stock ban is unconstitutional.
00:23:17:12 - 00:23:42:27
Speaker 4
So we actually have different laws and different federal regulations and different states, unless they put which I do believe actually they put it they put a stay on their ruling, meaning it's not enforceable, meaning the bump stock ban is still in effect until a higher court will will review it. And that's usually what it takes to get the Supreme Court involved to have several different circuit courts disagree with one another.
00:23:42:27 - 00:23:43:21
Speaker 1
And what do you think?
00:23:43:21 - 00:23:50:11
Speaker 4
The report does uphold it, hopefully that they will say that. No, that's true. That's that's an abuse of power by the regulators.
00:23:51:09 - 00:24:07:01
Speaker 1
What do you think are the chances that this law is going to go through and we're going to be able to leverage this to regulate some of these extraneous organizations like DHS and EPA? And it's not a right. It's all the other three letter, bureaucratic, bureaucratic.
00:24:07:01 - 00:24:14:06
Speaker 4
Well, I do think that there is a good a much better chance now, thanks to the Fifth Circuit, I think there's a much better chance still. I think they.
00:24:14:06 - 00:24:26:01
Speaker 1
Have to be ruled on an individual basis or could there be like one overarching ruling that says that three letter extraneous government organizations and bureaucracies cannot fly anymore?
00:24:26:03 - 00:24:40:26
Speaker 4
Lawyer You need and need someone to get in there to be a very good lawyer, to get a very broad ruling because this is a free and you also need an organization that can fund lawsuits all across America so that many different circuits.
00:24:40:26 - 00:24:48:22
Speaker 1
Oh, I know one, open societies. So that's George Soros, right? Yeah.
00:24:48:25 - 00:24:53:18
Speaker 4
Well, for us is great and is very good at that. Soros used that very well against Trump. Yeah.
00:24:55:00 - 00:25:00:00
Speaker 1
I just do district attorney races across the United States.
00:25:00:09 - 00:25:01:06
Speaker 3
He's a smart guy.
00:25:01:24 - 00:25:10:11
Speaker 4
But what he also did is he oh, yeah, it was a brilliant strategy, but Republican, it ended up backfiring again, no pun intended, alive spending.
00:25:10:11 - 00:25:22:08
Speaker 1
And unlike a bad. What's the story with George Soros? Is he really alive? Do we know if I mean, he hasn't made a physical appearance in ten years. He just makes comments and stuff and.
00:25:22:15 - 00:25:25:13
Speaker 4
Yeah, but my grandma was 90. She's not making it.
00:25:25:18 - 00:25:35:15
Speaker 1
So they just came out with a new magazine about you. And George Soros just came out with a new magazine. It's called New World Order Press.
00:25:35:15 - 00:25:35:25
Speaker 4
Really?
00:25:36:06 - 00:25:39:10
Speaker 1
Yeah. Love is an Alex Jones this morning.
00:25:39:10 - 00:25:40:19
Speaker 3
It's a little on the nose.
00:25:40:19 - 00:25:41:19
Speaker 1
I know. It's like.
00:25:41:19 - 00:25:41:27
Speaker 4
I.
00:25:42:00 - 00:25:48:22
Speaker 1
Don't want to hide it anymore, You know, I'm coming out of the closet. I'm trans, everybody. I'm trans.
00:25:49:19 - 00:25:52:00
Speaker 3
You should do that job.
00:25:52:00 - 00:25:54:09
Speaker 4
And I'm not jumping on. What were you trying to say?
00:25:54:09 - 00:25:56:17
Speaker 3
You're saying it backfired. How did it backfire?
00:25:57:01 - 00:26:18:08
Speaker 4
So it backfired because the Supreme Court was much more willing to use something that has that the less named the shadow docket. And so what they did is that they said, let me actually give the background to George Soros. With fund lawsuits all across the country and federal courts that called stopping our judicial shopping at under judge shopping.
00:26:18:08 - 00:26:42:27
Speaker 4
And the idea is you pick places you think you're going to get a Democrat or a Democrat, judges to hear it and to rule in your favor. So San Francisco as an obvious place, Seattle, Honolulu, because one of the federal judges there, it's a much smaller jurisdiction, but good chance she'll have be in front of Derek Watson, who is not just a Democrat, he's Obama's old friend.
00:26:43:18 - 00:26:47:27
Speaker 4
So he was it struck down a lot of Trump things you're not.
00:26:48:26 - 00:27:12:00
Speaker 1
Acting on your your knowledge on this stuff is just not even second place. I mean, you really have to know some of my audience. I want my audience to understand this. Ted is a Wall Street trader turned educator who does this for his own. This isn't a job for Ted. Hopefully he'll get some more speaking gigs after appearing on the Adam King show.
00:27:12:00 - 00:27:17:26
Speaker 1
But this guy just loves this material. I'm so fortunate to have a friend that's obsessed with this material like this.
00:27:18:00 - 00:27:21:28
Speaker 4
So thank you. It's great to be your friend to Adam. I want to.
00:27:21:28 - 00:27:51:14
Speaker 1
Pause for a second, guys. I want to pause for a second. Give a brief word from our sponsor. I want to motivate everybody to click this link right here. Please go to Infowars dotcom and buy something from our sponsor. Help keep Infowars on the air and please enjoy this commercial from Infowars. Okay. And we're back. Please again go to Infowars store icon.
00:27:51:14 - 00:28:17:12
Speaker 1
We are joined again by Ted Segal, who is a Supreme Court historian, buff, buff genius and and Josh Bannon, who is actually a high level media professional who's afraid he's going to lose his job if he doesn't come in disguise with a fake title. And I got to say, John Bannon, it is so cool that you did this.
00:28:17:23 - 00:28:26:17
Speaker 1
And I hope more people are inspired by your effort to speak out.
00:28:26:29 - 00:28:30:01
Speaker 3
I hope one day we don't have to fear these kinds of things. You know.
00:28:30:01 - 00:28:53:26
Speaker 1
I do, too. But I imagine that there's a ton of people in Hollywood just like you, who want to say something and at their wits end they don't know what to do. And so we on the Adam King Show decided to create a mock position called Job Anon Job analysis for anybody who wants to appear on the show, who's afraid to lose their job and need to come in and full disguise.
00:28:54:07 - 00:29:06:27
Speaker 1
So thank you for coining that. I want to get back to our discussion Before the break. We were talking about the Supreme Court and Ted Segal is in the middle of going into something. I want to pick up where we left off.
00:29:07:02 - 00:29:36:00
Speaker 4
Sure. Sure. So, Adam, when these judges from, you know, let's say Derrick Watson from Honolulu would make these rulings that were just very much wrong, the Supreme Court, as well as circuit courts, would hear these cases on what's called the shadow docket. So that's a nickname that actually the left came up with. And I think it's appropriate. Well, we'll take it before these cases are being ruled on without a full hearing.
00:29:36:18 - 00:29:58:29
Speaker 4
All right. Without a full hearing, if it's just they're obviously wrong and one judges can do that if this and they do it, especially if a case is just obvious one way or another, there's no reason to have a full hearing. Just make the ruling in effect immediately and then hear the case fully later, just after they make their initial ruling to put a law on old or strike it down or something like that.
00:29:58:29 - 00:30:21:23
Speaker 4
So even the Supreme Court has gotten into the act and they have the original Texas heartbeat abortion case was ruled like that. For example, they've just said this is so obviously okay. It's can be put into effect from day one that we're not going to allow these lower courts to put the law on hold, pending litigation, pending the outcome of litigation.
00:30:21:23 - 00:30:49:15
Speaker 4
We're going to say no, it is it is very likely okay, It's very likely constitutional. So we're going to order you courts to say that this law is okay now? Sure. Once you're done hearing the entire case, if you believe otherwise, then sure, that's fine to strike it down. But we're going to overrule you. And we're not we're going to make that ruling, having heard no arguments other than, you know, the briefs they've submitted, the paperwork, arguments that the lawyers have given to us.
00:30:49:26 - 00:31:07:16
Speaker 4
So the Supreme Court has been willing to do that. And that's a huge victory in our favor. So. Oh, well, then well over compensates for the left shopping for biased judges that that will strike down Trump regulations for shopping around.
00:31:07:16 - 00:31:10:14
Speaker 3
And it's been called the shadow docket. That's what that's no.
00:31:10:15 - 00:31:39:09
Speaker 4
Shopping around is called. It's called judge shopping or judicial or forum shopping. Judicial forum shopping. The shadow docket refers to when a court makes a ruling having not heard the case and that the courts are increasingly doing that. And I don't like it. I don't like the fact that that appeals courts are doing that. But it's in reaction to these by the George Soros and others.
00:31:39:18 - 00:31:56:04
Speaker 4
Look, the right does it, too. Well, the fact is the right is copy, George stores is tactics in many ways including this one so the it that's in return to form shoppers who go pick out a judge that might be a little biased and have an appeals court of the Supreme Court overturn this guy immediately and say no.
00:31:56:09 - 00:32:07:23
Speaker 4
Now where you're really not standing or putting your ruling on holding for now. And then we're going to hear the case, the full case later. We may change our mind going forward, but generally they don't.
00:32:09:07 - 00:32:16:22
Speaker 1
So, Ted, do you think that this ETF bump stock thing is the number one thing happening in the Supreme Court right now? The most important thing?
00:32:16:22 - 00:32:24:02
Speaker 4
No, I think more versus Harper, it's not being talked about more versus Harper is the most important case right now before more and.
00:32:24:13 - 00:32:25:16
Speaker 1
More versus Harper.
00:32:26:16 - 00:32:51:26
Speaker 4
Sure. Unfortunately, to get a little bit of background to make it all makes sense and probably more than a little bit. So North Carolina has was a longtime Democratic state. All right. Controlled in all branches like a lot of Southern states. They were segregation as Democrats until really the Tea Party came around. I mean, when they would vote nationally for some Republicans, but until the Tea Party came around, they would vote Democrat at the local level.
00:32:51:26 - 00:33:10:19
Speaker 4
There's one last thing, actually, until this past election a few weeks ago, I guess it's two months ago now that they that the Supreme Court was controlled by Democrats, by a narrow 4 to 3 margin. But the their statehouses were controlled by Republicans and the law was that what.
00:33:11:01 - 00:33:11:26
Speaker 1
What year was that?
00:33:12:14 - 00:33:15:12
Speaker 4
So after the I don't remember the year exactly. It was after this party.
00:33:15:19 - 00:33:16:20
Speaker 1
Seven judges.
00:33:17:22 - 00:33:44:24
Speaker 4
Yeah. So there are seven judges. There's a 4 to 3 Democratic margin. But at one point, Republicans controlled all three. And in other words, the the governor's mansion, as well as both houses. Now they have a Democrat in the governor's seat, but the Republicans still control both houses. And I don't know a nice, polite way to put this, but the state Supreme Court essentially said that the legislature's now illegal and were ignoring basically everything that they've done interests.
00:33:44:25 - 00:34:06:01
Speaker 4
They said that the legislature was elected via a gerrymandered map. And so the court, the state Supreme Court, is now ruling that any major law they passed and they get to decide, according to them, what's a major law, what's a minor law that any major law like, say, the law says you have to show your ID to vote or things like that or minimum wage changes.
00:34:06:19 - 00:34:19:05
Speaker 4
Those are all void that anything that they think the Democrats would have or another state House would have passed, like, say, a law funding the libraries or something like that, that's okay to go through the library and not have to pay back the money.
00:34:19:29 - 00:34:22:02
Speaker 3
So all this seems obvious.
00:34:22:13 - 00:34:36:05
Speaker 4
Yeah. Now, we're never going to hear that case on appeal because what happened is that the the voters decided North Carolina, like about half the states out there, elects their state Supreme Court justices. Not a good idea in my mind, but.
00:34:36:24 - 00:34:38:16
Speaker 1
So when is the last case.
00:34:39:04 - 00:34:58:16
Speaker 4
Yeah. So they actually voted in a Republican. Two of the Democrats were up for reelection and they voted for Republicans instead. So now Republicans have a423 majority. Right? I'm sorry, I think two one Democrat, one Republican and the Democrat lost their seat to a Republican, I think is what happens. There's now a 4 to 3 Republican. I think don't quote me on that.
00:34:59:25 - 00:35:00:13
Speaker 1
And that's one.
00:35:00:13 - 00:35:00:29
Speaker 4
Of those really.
00:35:01:27 - 00:35:01:28
Speaker 2
How.
00:35:02:01 - 00:35:04:24
Speaker 1
Do you think this is the most important ruling that's coming out?
00:35:04:24 - 00:35:24:28
Speaker 4
Well, sorry for getting into it because this is let me tell you, first of all, wake up to the Supreme Court. So why is because one of the things the state Supreme Court ruled, as they said, for drawing congressional maps. In other words, gerrymandering is the art of drawing a congressional seat so your side will get elected or as many as possible on your side will get elected in as few as the others look like.
00:35:24:28 - 00:35:27:20
Speaker 1
California is communist.
00:35:27:20 - 00:35:35:09
Speaker 4
So certainly that certainly we have a biased way we draw seats here, but that's in many states.
00:35:35:16 - 00:35:44:24
Speaker 1
Actually where I'm at right now. I we just got gerrymandered out of a congressman. We had Mike Garcia as our congressman and it was a Republican.
00:35:44:24 - 00:35:45:08
Speaker 4
Yeah, Yeah.
00:35:45:18 - 00:35:52:15
Speaker 1
And I don't see how that I don't see how that one doesn't go to the Supreme Court as an illegal gerrymandering because they lost a Congress.
00:35:52:23 - 00:35:54:11
Speaker 4
Over it, because we saw.
00:35:54:12 - 00:36:00:02
Speaker 3
The California Supreme Court. That wouldn't it wouldn't change. I don't think the you know, the California right.
00:36:00:02 - 00:36:05:12
Speaker 4
But remember, they said the US Supreme Court said gerrymandering is not a reviewable case by federal courts.
00:36:05:12 - 00:36:06:20
Speaker 1
So it's not.
00:36:07:01 - 00:36:08:01
Speaker 4
It's it's reviewed.
00:36:08:01 - 00:36:09:09
Speaker 3
By the state Supreme Court.
00:36:10:00 - 00:36:27:03
Speaker 4
So if states say, their own Supreme Court correct, that their own state constitutions don't allow gerrymandering, and that's one thing. In many states like New York, for example, gerrymandering is not allowed under the state's constitution. But federally Supreme Court said that that's not it's not even a question the courts can hear.
00:36:27:19 - 00:36:29:07
Speaker 3
But they did. You're in New York.
00:36:30:21 - 00:36:51:08
Speaker 4
I to a certain extent, yes. But remember there, the Republicans picked up several seats. Yeah, but they shouldn't have to because because the original Democrats map was thrown out. It would have been the Republicans would have only had maybe 3 to 4 seats. And so they have like eight or something like that, which made the difference in control of Congress.
00:36:51:25 - 00:36:56:18
Speaker 3
So that's not that's not considered gerrymandering. I mean, I don't know, you know, the term is it is.
00:36:56:18 - 00:37:07:04
Speaker 4
But again, in New York, New York, the New York Constitution does not allow jury, but federally, it's okay. But they made a New York judge that struck it down.
00:37:08:00 - 00:37:09:14
Speaker 3
Okay. All right.
00:37:09:14 - 00:37:44:06
Speaker 4
Yeah. So the so federally, anyway, what happened is in North Carolina, State Supreme Court drew their own map. They stated that they stated that North Carolina's map they thought was unfair. So they drew their own map. And that's what the Constitution mean. That's what the US Supreme Court picked up on what they're stating. If you look carefully at the rulings that the text of the Constitution, it's said that elections for House and Senate as well as for the for the presidential slate of electors, because remember, we don't vote directly for president.
00:37:44:15 - 00:38:11:17
Speaker 4
We vote for an electoral college who selects the president. And so they said that all of those are to be chose are to be voted for in a manner as decided by the legislature. And so that term by the legislature has been picked up by a lot of the conservative movement to to say that, wait a minute, this is the state Supreme Court can't decide how we're running elections, only the state legislature.
00:38:12:09 - 00:38:36:01
Speaker 4
Now, why is that the most important one issue in front of the Supreme Court? Because in the year 2020, well, it wasn't the first year going back even to the year to 2000 election where there were many lawyers working on Bush, Bush versus Gore case, including a lawyer named Brett Kavanaugh. There were there were. And I want to say that Amy Coney Barrett also had some small role in that, too.
00:38:36:01 - 00:39:08:09
Speaker 4
I'm not 100% sure on that one, but I want to know. I'm sorry, John Roberts is Roberts that had a role in that as well. He's it's been a long time Republican lawyer, though. So they both said some version of this, some version of this, because if you remember in the year 2000 that that the Florida state Supreme Court, which was then appointed by Democrats, they tried to they kept extending and extending the deadline for certifying the election, just trying to hoping that once more recounts would put Gore over the top in 20.
00:39:09:03 - 00:39:09:14
Speaker 1
20.
00:39:09:17 - 00:39:27:14
Speaker 4
Or 2000. Yes. So they were the ones that helped come up with this idea that, no, the Florida state Supreme Court can't do this. But the 2020 election was even further. Now, remember, even as Alex Jones just conceded, the machines had nothing to do with what happened in 2020. This was good old fashioned counting ballots that.
00:39:27:18 - 00:39:28:05
Speaker 1
I don't think I.
00:39:28:16 - 00:39:28:29
Speaker 4
Didn't know.
00:39:29:03 - 00:39:30:06
Speaker 1
It it that I think that there's.
00:39:30:08 - 00:39:34:01
Speaker 4
Only absolutely absolutely it said that I mean I.
00:39:34:15 - 00:39:55:13
Speaker 1
Very talks about Dominion voting machines and and there's definitely something with Dominion voting machines. Ted, just to touch on the subject, I remember back in the day we were having a discussion on this and you said something really smart. You said that the Dominion voting machines, that's the wrong argument. There was clear violations of federal election law that.
00:39:55:13 - 00:40:39:04
Speaker 1
So I understand focusing away from the need to focus away from the from the Dominion voting systems. But also, you know, let's not discount that clearly. I mean, look at Dominion. They're suing Fox. They're suing everybody that came after them. I mean, it's clear that Dominion is definitely hiding something. And, you know, whether they are the main culprit of the fraud that took place in 2020 and 2024 or 2022 or not, I don't think we can let the Dominion thing go, whether it's a valid I don't think it should be the lead argument, but I definitely think it's something we've got to keep a target on as we move forward.
00:40:39:05 - 00:40:41:10
Speaker 3
How does that factor into the Supreme Court case?
00:40:41:10 - 00:41:07:18
Speaker 4
Well, yeah, let me get to it. So I want to be clear. I'm not I'm not saying we let them off the hook and I'm not fan of the a lot of these type of machines because of the potential for something to go wrong. But what I'm telling people is that that just that that should not be what you're yeah that's and I'm pretty sure if by the way by the way that Alex Jones said look don't look at the machines for what will happen in 2020.
00:41:07:18 - 00:41:35:04
Speaker 4
What happened that Democrats admitted to in court in many cases if you go read the Brennan and grabs or go read the they counted illegal vote spends is that you had all this mass mail in ballots and you had these mail in ballots that were sent out to everybody, whether they requested or not in many cases. And the way you check to make sure that the proper person voted the vote wasn't stolen was mainly by the signature match.
00:41:35:12 - 00:42:00:02
Speaker 4
Now, you have other ways, like, for example, double check to make sure the vote and checking the government database to make sure the voter still alive that they're residing within the state, etc., etc.. Those you know, the government databases are never going to be 100%. So I understand why not relying solely on that. But it's my view that that it they should air on the election officials, first of all, should follow the law.
00:42:00:10 - 00:42:03:06
Speaker 4
And second of all, when there's doubt, should try to get.
00:42:03:06 - 00:42:04:19
Speaker 1
Them to try to get them.
00:42:04:19 - 00:42:21:07
Speaker 4
Listed on your website that your ballot was not validated. So you now have 15 days and most if you have 15 days to what's called cure the ballot, meaning you can come in with up to 15 days after Election Day and say, no, this was my ballot, this was my signature. I really am this person. And if you don't, the ballot is thrown out.
00:42:21:07 - 00:42:49:15
Speaker 4
And what happened is the Democrats did the exact opposite. The Democrats issued orders stating that that all signatures basically are to be deemed a match unless proven to not match. And you look at this and these signatures weren't match even even in the case of Ward versus Jackson, which was the Arizona election challenge, went to the Supreme Court, the Democrats auditors came in and said, no, of course, about 10 to 20% of these signatures are not matching.
00:42:49:25 - 00:43:12:14
Speaker 4
And legally should have been thrown out. But the Democrats argued that, no, it's our right to say that, you know, we said the signatures did match. So Katie Hobbs was the secretary of state. She says it matched. So therefore it's a legal match. So if Moore versus Harper goes our way and they say no, that the only valid election laws are ones that the legislature enacts, then the future.
00:43:12:14 - 00:43:32:10
Speaker 4
Katie Hobbs People out there will no longer be or likely no longer be able to to validate legal. You mean validate illegal ballots for federal elections? Now, for state elections, she did the same thing. If you're not familiar with the Carry Lake case, Kerry Lake just today has a show. What's that?
00:43:32:19 - 00:43:33:18
Speaker 1
This is the reason one.
00:43:33:23 - 00:44:03:13
Speaker 4
Yes, there is an Kerry Lake running for governor in the 2022 elections. So she had three different she had three different witnesses whose job it was to validate signatures. City stating that give or take 100,000 signatures in Maricopa County were tossed out, give or take, and the number instead that end up and then that Katie Hobbs people were just validating virtually all of them I think they said that it was in the end only several hundred, not 100,000 ended up being thrown out.
00:44:03:15 - 00:44:07:16
Speaker 4
That's what the mail in ballots were going, roughly 2 to 1 in favor of Katie Hobbs.
00:44:07:20 - 00:44:10:17
Speaker 1
There's supposed to be a big announcement on the 29th. You know about it.
00:44:11:00 - 00:44:37:26
Speaker 4
I don't. But what I can say is that the Arizona state legislature reviewed about 40,000 ballots as far as the sample, and they were finding the same roughly the same percentages. Somewhere between ten and 20%, 10% were clearly not matching. And another 10%, you could argue, were not matching it. But when I say not nationally, we're talking either not even close or the person didn't sign the ballot at all or put like a giant X through it, that's not a signature match.
00:44:38:07 - 00:44:44:11
Speaker 4
And their excuse the judge came up with since, you know, we're jus this is this is a good definition of a hotspot.
00:44:44:21 - 00:44:46:18
Speaker 1
So how do you know that the man is a Jew?
00:44:47:11 - 00:44:50:12
Speaker 4
Oh, because he works in Hollywood. That's why we.
00:44:50:12 - 00:44:54:11
Speaker 1
Can't give any details about his actual ethnicity.
00:44:54:11 - 00:44:55:09
Speaker 3
Episcopalian.
00:44:56:00 - 00:44:57:27
Speaker 4
He's a desert alien sailor.
00:44:57:27 - 00:44:59:15
Speaker 1
He doesn't even work in Hollywood.
00:45:00:25 - 00:45:02:19
Speaker 4
He doesn't work in Hollywood. I thought you said that. My bad.
00:45:03:18 - 00:45:07:28
Speaker 1
We're not trying to blow his cover over here.
00:45:07:28 - 00:45:29:09
Speaker 4
So he. So I the the you know, the old saying is that the definition of a chutzpah is a man who murders his parents. And then the judge says, well, why should I go easy on you? And the man goes for this, says, Your Honor, I want you to go easy on me and be sympathetic to my case because my parents just died.
00:45:29:09 - 00:45:48:03
Speaker 4
I'm now an orphan. So that's kind of like what the Arizona judge did. And Kerry legs case. So he, after two years, were saying, no, there was no election fraud. If you think that your if you think there was a fraud in the election, then you're like a holocaust. You know, you're an election denier, like a Holocaust denier.
00:45:48:03 - 00:46:08:23
Speaker 4
It's the big lie. Sorry, Something just fell. It's the big lie. So what he cited and you can go read the case, I'm happy to say, even circled it with a highlighter to send you out. It's it's like four sentences. It's not. Wouldn't take too much time to read. He said that Kerry can't sue for the for what Katie Hobbs did over the signatures.
00:46:09:02 - 00:46:36:08
Speaker 4
She should have known that Katie Hobbs would have would do that to her because she may have done it last time. And as as evidence she may have done it last time. He cites both Trump's 2020 election challenges and the Arizona Republicans. State Republicans report showing that the signature matches were not, that the signature matching standards were not being upheld by Katie Hobbs.
00:46:36:08 - 00:46:51:18
Speaker 4
So that's hot spot saying that you can't you can't challenge the election because you waited too late to see. It's the same thing as sports, by the way. If you don't challenge the bad call right then and there, you can't wait till after the game. So it's the same in law called matches. What happened to the bills? Oh, yeah.
00:46:51:29 - 00:46:55:02
Speaker 4
Now it's called it's called. It's called latches in law. So you have.
00:46:55:02 - 00:46:56:05
Speaker 1
These handjob you.
00:46:56:09 - 00:47:16:06
Speaker 4
Said is what it is. That was so what the judge said is it's too late to sue. You should have known she was she would have known that Katie Hobbs is going to do something like this to you because she may have done it last time, even though if you had said before this trial that that there was any games being played with the signatures, you were compared to a Holocaust denier, basically.
00:47:16:22 - 00:47:20:14
Speaker 3
Is that a normal thing for a judge to do? I guess it's like precedent, right?
00:47:21:13 - 00:47:44:23
Speaker 4
I can tell you that one of my best friends, I was the best man at his wedding as a as a I was a lawyer. He's a is a federal law, is a federal judge. He says in the Northeast, not here that he looked at this and he's a Democrat. He's nice, honest man and he's a Democrat. And he said, man, this judge is trying to find any excuse in the book to avoid hearing this case.
00:47:44:23 - 00:48:06:21
Speaker 4
So he the judge refused to hear any election challenges based on the signature matching standard because he said the carry election, you know, should have known to sue before the election and judges court appeals court lets appeals courts let judges get away with that garbage, you know, to avoid hearing these cases. And he said, man, that's that's a dirty trick by the judge.
00:48:06:27 - 00:48:09:00
Speaker 4
But he said, yeah, he'll likely get away with it.
00:48:09:10 - 00:48:22:14
Speaker 3
I saw a tweet on Twitter recently that very wise tweet that said future elections due to all the mail in ballots are now less about vote getting and more about ballot collecting.
00:48:22:23 - 00:48:32:27
Speaker 4
Correct. So the thing is, we need we need to unfortunately go against Trump said when he speaks out against mail in ballots. When you do what Trump I.
00:48:32:27 - 00:48:36:22
Speaker 1
Got no problem going against things that Trump said he told me to give vaccinated.
00:48:37:24 - 00:48:55:25
Speaker 4
Okay, that's true. I know what Trump Jr said is, look, when that where there is legal mail in ballots and like Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, places like that, we need to vote by mail and embrace voting by mail to get elected to then change the law so that there is either no vote by mail or it's like done in Georgia as a.
00:48:55:25 - 00:49:12:29
Speaker 1
Way to end ballot harvesting is for Republicans to make a big public display of ballot harvesting to go crazy about ballot harvesting, like to the 10th degree, go hard, don't stop ballot harvesting all the time.
00:49:12:29 - 00:49:34:11
Speaker 4
So we did it in Los Angeles. We put they started putting mail at ballot boxes in front of these mega and jellicle churches. And then Democrats won. We said, Hey, you guys said this was legal, so we're doing it now. You know, you did it in, you know, in front of Democratic places. So, you know, you're just putting on random street corners.
00:49:34:11 - 00:49:37:28
Speaker 4
We're putting it right in front of churches to remind all the church to go and vote.
00:49:38:11 - 00:50:00:02
Speaker 1
I appreciate it very much. All this Supreme Court talk, it's a I really wanted to get this information out there to our listeners and the Adam King show while we're here, I want to pivot to Job Anon and I want to ask Job Anon what you think is is pressing you more than anything. If it has to do with the Supreme Court grade and if you just want to bitch about the trannies, go right ahead.
00:50:00:11 - 00:50:06:01
Speaker 1
Let's hear what you got to say. We didn't get a didn't get enough of your opinions on this episode relating to.
00:50:06:02 - 00:50:31:07
Speaker 3
Well, I'm not an expert. You know, I appreciate Ted's expertise. It's very informative. But relating to the Supreme Court, you know, I heard recently from a very powerful governor that the Second Amendment is like a suicide pack pact. You know, there's been in his state, there have been three big shootings recently in the past couple of days. And surely he knows, you know, it was Gavin Newsom.
00:50:31:07 - 00:50:50:15
Speaker 3
He is I think he was walking through northern California or if San Francisco, since it's considered northern California, a day after two mass shootings in his state, claiming that the problem is the Second Amendment in his state, where it's like, I don't know, it's probably hard to buy a gun in California.
00:50:50:15 - 00:50:51:25
Speaker 1
It's actually pretty easy.
00:50:52:14 - 00:50:53:06
Speaker 3
Really? Well.
00:50:53:15 - 00:50:53:25
Speaker 2
Yeah.
00:50:55:09 - 00:51:20:15
Speaker 1
And I'm not talking about the black market. That's really easy to get a gun. You go to the gun store in California, pay for it. You got to take a test. And the test, if you've got to take a test, if it's your first gun, you get a little, little card. If you pass the test test, it's like if you're angry and you have a gun, what do you do to the person that you don't like?
00:51:20:15 - 00:51:31:13
Speaker 1
Do you, A go to their house and assault them with the gun? Do you b ignore the problem or do you see, you know, and like it's really not a difficult test at all. They don't.
00:51:31:13 - 00:51:32:09
Speaker 2
Check if you're like a.
00:51:32:14 - 00:51:39:12
Speaker 1
Lab test and then you have to wait ten days and then you go back to the gun store and pick up your gun from the gun store. It's not that difficult at all.
00:51:39:12 - 00:51:54:28
Speaker 3
I don't know about the bump stock thing so much. I'm not even sure I'd be able to identify what it is. But I've seen in Chicago a lot of the kids who do a lot of the mass shooting puts to put these things on their guns called, a switch it turn their handgun into an automatic. Have you seen this before?
00:51:55:26 - 00:51:59:24
Speaker 3
It is actually a huge problem. Yeah, I wonder if that will be rap.
00:52:00:13 - 00:52:01:19
Speaker 1
Clips from the Pistols.
00:52:02:08 - 00:52:20:29
Speaker 3
The thing that goes in the back of the the handgun in the eye. So I don't know. I think that's a pressing. I think the bump stock issue is very interesting considering where it spurred from didn't it. It came up after the Trump it was it spurred from Trump himself.
00:52:21:05 - 00:52:24:02
Speaker 4
Yeah. From the Las Vegas mass shooting. Yeah. Yeah. The band which.
00:52:24:02 - 00:52:26:24
Speaker 1
Never got which never got.
00:52:28:24 - 00:52:29:12
Speaker 3
Resolved.
00:52:30:03 - 00:52:30:18
Speaker 1
The I know there.
00:52:30:27 - 00:52:32:23
Speaker 3
Are a lot of serious surrounding it.
00:52:34:14 - 00:52:47:05
Speaker 4
And the the sheriff of Clark County who couldn't seem to find the shooter and it helped go away somehow got elected governor.
00:52:47:05 - 00:52:48:08
Speaker 3
It's very interesting.
00:52:49:05 - 00:53:00:20
Speaker 1
I heard a really interesting thing that one of the Saudi princes was staying in that hotel at the time of the shooting and that it was an actual assassination attempt on a Saudi prince that kind of got out of control.
00:53:01:15 - 00:53:23:04
Speaker 3
My favorite theory about it is the pictures that came out afterwards. There are no bullet casings on the ground. I mean, that you can't you can't see them. So maybe they're just not visible. But, yeah, if you look at the pictures that the FBI released, I implore you to go Google them. They aren't bullet casings. You'd think there'd be a lot.
00:53:23:04 - 00:53:30:10
Speaker 1
So but some really got hit up because of that case. Because of that situation, because of Trump. I were obsessed with bump stock today.
00:53:30:29 - 00:53:31:08
Speaker 4
Yeah.
00:53:31:27 - 00:53:38:07
Speaker 1
But it might have along with the shooting, with the AR15, with bump stocks or didn't he have like actual M-16s or something like that?
00:53:39:08 - 00:54:00:18
Speaker 3
I think it was it was I think it was bump stocks. I think it was like ours with or I don't know what type of gun he had but it was he was using bump stocks and that's it was a big it was you know the media has figured out how to weaponize hysteria and cause legislation. And I think it probably was like that in the past, too.
00:54:00:18 - 00:54:15:27
Speaker 3
I don't think we've this is a new thing, really, but it feels faster now that something happens and then it just like they can force legislation. It's almost like a tool, you know, that that people will try.
00:54:15:27 - 00:54:20:26
Speaker 1
Do you guys think about Sheila Jackson? What's her name? This Sheila.
00:54:20:26 - 00:54:21:08
Speaker 3
Jackson.
00:54:21:08 - 00:54:33:18
Speaker 1
Lee. She's making a love to get both of your opinions on this as we're closing out the segment soon about criminalizing white people. Guess what? Saw that, right?
00:54:33:28 - 00:54:39:14
Speaker 4
Yeah. Look, anyone can make headlines by proposing a ridiculous bill. An unconstitutional bill, obviously.
00:54:39:17 - 00:55:17:15
Speaker 1
I call her. I forget the name of the God. I forget all their names. Anyone who's on any of the liberal media, I forget all their names. They're so insignificant to me. But she was on this show with this woman of color. I don't know what her name was. And she says the the black interviewer says. So according to this law, any white person who promotes or supports anything that has to do with white nationalism can be arrested.
00:55:17:21 - 00:55:28:05
Speaker 1
And she looks at Congresswoman Sheila Jackson and she says, Does this mean that we can arrest Tucker Carlson for this?
00:55:29:19 - 00:55:30:24
Speaker 3
It sounds like Joy Reid.
00:55:30:24 - 00:55:47:07
Speaker 1
It's like, yeah, they're like, yeah, we're she gives like this little smirk and it's like, yeah, we're going after them. That's how they're going after us. So you were saying we got a glitch and you kind of just cut out for a sec. You were talking about criminal prosecutors.
00:55:47:07 - 00:56:14:22
Speaker 4
I just think it's tragic that the community has elected a lot of representatives that, you know, I don't think are serving their community well. I think that if they had elected people that would push for school choice and better schools and those who see the need to have a safe streets, but also understand that there are some abusive police officers, really, and prosecutors is where it is.
00:56:15:01 - 00:56:40:02
Speaker 4
Remember the places where African American cities like Baltimore and Cleveland, if you're an officer that had that had a that has a record of abusing your your power, that you can actually get your get that your your record gets wiped every few years. That's what African-Americans vote for themselves to have. And I just think we should still look at police officers as government.
00:56:40:18 - 00:56:57:19
Speaker 4
We should still see them as government workers who do make mistakes and need to be held responsible, need to be fired when they do a bad job. Same with teachers. And and that doesn't excuse bad behavior from other places. And yes, of course, this is who they voted for. So, you know, you deserve what you get. But I do think the situation is tragic.
00:56:57:19 - 00:57:01:07
Speaker 4
And for me, it was a really big turnout. And I I want the best for them.
00:57:01:22 - 00:57:13:05
Speaker 1
It's very tragic. And to pivot into actual tragedy of the failures of the black community. Guys, what is going on with Atlanta? Jarvinen you got anything on this?
00:57:13:05 - 00:57:25:26
Speaker 3
Well, I don't know if everyone's on the same page here, but recently there was they I think they were protesting the building of a of a cop training center, a police officer training center.
00:57:25:26 - 00:57:27:08
Speaker 1
That's what this thing is about.
00:57:27:15 - 00:58:01:25
Speaker 3
Yeah. So there is a bunch of people protesting the building of this police officer training center. And there were one of the protesters shot at it and hit a police officer who I think was in critical condition but is fine now. But he got killed. The guy, the Antifa member, and they're they're calling this that. I think the Saint Louis Congresswoman Cori, tweeted out that, you know, I don't remember exactly what she tweeted out, but she was calling these protesters who used a gun to shoot a police officer.
00:58:01:25 - 00:58:05:01
Speaker 3
You know something? You think people who are anti-gun would be.
00:58:05:09 - 00:58:08:08
Speaker 1
Protesters, mostly peaceful protesters.
00:58:08:08 - 00:58:34:12
Speaker 3
Yeah, that they were supposedly they're calling this a protesting the destruction of forests and they're protesting the building of a police officer. You know, they're anti-police people, which, you know, it's I think a lot of these protesters were not from the area or they found out after they arrested them, which is funny because they're like, you know, they're not going to suffer the consequences of there being fewer police officers if their protests were to have been successful.
00:58:34:29 - 00:58:52:21
Speaker 3
It's it's kind of funny. You know, they just there's anti-police no matter what, whether they're good police officer, bad police officer. Ultimately, we rely on these police officers, but they just they don't care. They just they they want and maybe these people are funded by certain groups that try to sow discord. You know, a lot of people believe that.
00:58:53:27 - 00:59:02:13
Speaker 3
But so there's there's a lot of strife right now. There's a lot of protest. And it's now it's around the country. There've been several protests all around. And there's some.
00:59:02:16 - 00:59:04:26
Speaker 1
It's not even really largely reporting on it.
00:59:05:29 - 00:59:07:05
Speaker 3
No, it's not being reported.
00:59:07:05 - 00:59:13:04
Speaker 1
I actually called my mother and I was like, did you see Atlanta's like burning down? And she's like, what? Didn't even know.
00:59:13:16 - 00:59:53:18
Speaker 3
There was a there was a big protest over this over this incident in Atlanta. There was a protest in Boston recently where a the Democrat House minority whip child. I don't you know, I don't know how they identify. And that is actually a thing that this child was arrested for assaulting a police officer. I saw someone on Twitter was like this this this House member in Boston has four children, the one who identifies as something other than their original born gender or whatever it is that that you mean.
00:59:53:19 - 00:59:55:04
Speaker 1
The hero of the family.
00:59:55:27 - 01:00:03:20
Speaker 3
She talks about this child many times in her Twitter feed, but never, never talks about her other three children. She adds. It's kind of.
01:00:03:20 - 01:00:10:18
Speaker 1
It's just so proud. I mean, I would be tears. I mean, it's such a proud thing, you know, it's unfortunate.
01:00:10:18 - 01:00:14:11
Speaker 3
You know, a lot of these people are used as like props. But yeah.
01:00:15:04 - 01:00:21:14
Speaker 1
It's not something to joke about because the trannies end up killing themselves and it's a tragedy and nobody stands up for them.
01:00:22:00 - 01:00:40:25
Speaker 3
But we are talking you know, we were talking about how a lot of these areas, they feel that they're being oppressed by the police and then, you know, they do ultimately defender shrink their police size and it has a negative effect on the community.
01:00:40:25 - 01:01:22:13
Speaker 4
I think a good solution to this actually came out of Nevada this past week and that in Nevada they the state Supreme Court said that state officials in Nevada are no longer presumptively covered by qualified immunity. I wouldn't personally go that far because I think when a police officer puts his or her life on the line or is in a dangerous situation with a suspect who is resisting arrest or even putting their hands in some hidden, you know, into their car or into the pocket, I think that a police officer should be able to err on the side of expanding themselves and shoot a shoot to kill.
01:01:22:25 - 01:01:47:00
Speaker 4
That said, I think the qualified immunity goes way too far. If a police officer or across, for example, look at the prosecutor who who prosecuted Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin. There's unfortunately under existing Wisconsin law, nothing you can do to that prosecute even a case that was ridiculous art. So I think it's a it's a it's the right idea to eliminate all firearms.
01:01:47:00 - 01:01:51:27
Speaker 1
The case across here, there's no ramifications for rogue prosecutors, is what you're saying.
01:01:52:17 - 01:01:59:21
Speaker 4
Right. There needs to be ramifications for rogue prosecutors, Judge, judges. Yes. And police officers. The exception is.
01:02:00:28 - 01:02:10:16
Speaker 1
It's funny that the lawyers come and they regulate the shit out of everybody's business. But when it comes to regulating law, I mean, there's like zero regulations on the regulators.
01:02:10:16 - 01:02:26:17
Speaker 4
Or even worse, lawyers regulate themselves through the bar committee. In the bar, the state bar is notoriously biased. So ask any lawyer what they say if they think that their state bar is fair. And I don't think anyone can say unless someone is on the bar can't connect. Can I just say earlier?
01:02:26:21 - 01:02:29:02
Speaker 1
Yeah. When it comes to.
01:02:29:02 - 01:02:47:16
Speaker 4
Quality, when it comes to qualified, I mean, I do I do favor qualified immunity for police officers when they're putting their lives on the line. But once they decide to say, give parking tickets to all in like, say, only a black community, that police captain who made that decision should not get qualified immunity because he's not putting his life along on the line.
01:02:47:16 - 01:02:48:14
Speaker 4
That's a situation.
01:02:49:21 - 01:03:12:25
Speaker 1
I want to get to our last comment segment as we're ending the this unbelievable edition of The Adam King Show episode 23. I want to thank both of our guests, Ted Segal, the hidden luminary of Los Angeles. That's what we're going to call you from now on. And job anon one day, may you come out of the closet as a conservative in Hollywood, my friend, I want to leave any last comments.
01:03:12:28 - 01:03:19:07
Speaker 1
You guys want to make both parties The Final Hammer's Blow. You want to say anything before we leave?
01:03:19:07 - 01:03:43:01
Speaker 4
I would just want to. And I was like to end on a happy note. Just note for all the challenges that we're facing as a country right now, we don't have to go through all of them. But in all of the setbacks that we've been dealt in the past several years in court, remember that the wheels of justice do turn slowly, but they do turn and remember all the victories that we've had over the vaccines, all the victories that we've had in terms of paring back abuses of state.
01:03:43:11 - 01:04:02:11
Speaker 4
And, you know, things keep getting better and just look at how much easier it is to right the wrongs of our country in America versus in other countries. And that we are heading in the right direction, doesn't stick a look at even the what direction they're heading when it comes to, say, free speech in France. It's much, much worse.
01:04:02:11 - 01:04:08:14
Speaker 4
I'd much rather be an American, despite my critiques, my criticisms of our current laws, things are moving.
01:04:08:14 - 01:04:17:09
Speaker 1
Outward that we're still the best. We do have a lot of work to do, but we're still the best job. And on closing thoughts before we end this segment.
01:04:17:09 - 01:04:35:01
Speaker 3
Oh, you know, Ted, you're an expert and you know, this has been a very great conversation. I love I love living in America. It's great. I've lived in other countries. And this is we have the best food, I have to say underrated. Definitely.
01:04:35:02 - 01:04:57:07
Speaker 1
Definitely gets everyone's food here. I mean, we've got every type of ethnic food that you can imagine. We got potato latkes, we got frozen garnishes, we got meatloaf. Oh, my God. Don't forget the matzo ball soup. We got my Bobby Mandel bread. Oh, my God. The food here is incredible. It's just really incredible.
01:04:57:07 - 01:04:58:20
Speaker 3
It's it's pretty great.
01:04:59:09 - 01:05:04:26
Speaker 4
Thus far to have much better food. Moroccan food, Iraqi food's Yemenite food is so much better than ours.
01:05:04:29 - 01:05:06:19
Speaker 3
We can have it too.
01:05:06:19 - 01:05:07:03
Speaker 2
You know.
01:05:08:00 - 01:05:32:11
Speaker 1
I am Adam King. I want to thank my guests. Jarvinen Jarvinen right over here. Ted SIEGEL. Right over here. We had a great show about the Supreme Court. Of course, none of this would have been possible without our amazing associate producer Rog breath. Thank you. I also want to thank the Infowars team and band on video. Please check us out on Adam King, The Adam King Show Dcoms.
01:05:32:11 - 01:05:55:17
Speaker 1
To see all of our platforms, we lean into our band, our video platform, check out Infowars. Dotcom helps support the live feed in the broadcasts and from the bottom and the top of my heart unified in the center. I want to say you to all of our listeners who keep listening every single week, I am Adam King. You are listening to the Adam King Show on Band-Aid video.
01:05:55:23 - 01:06:01:16
Speaker 1
Have a wonderful, wonderful week, everybody. Stay tuned and God bless.
01:06:01:27 - 01:06:02:16
Speaker 2
Who's.