 Welcome back. Today, we have something a little bit different. Our very own Robert Noor facing off against Destiny and a debate over impeachment, Russian collusion, and several other topics. If you don't know who these guys are, Robert Noor is a Republican who has run for office, he's excelled in debate teams, and is well known on this channel for being an expert on all things Russian collusion and impeachment. Destiny is a left winger who invites people to his Twitch and YouTube channels to debate a variety of topics. I'm not real familiar with Destiny, but he's got a large following of around 250,000 subscribers. So kick back with a snack and beverage and enjoy the show. Make sure to subscribe to Robert's channel as well. I'll put a link in the description and pinned comment. All right, hit me up. What you got? Yeah. Yeah. So I just, I did a live stream the other day. I had met several people that were big fans of yours and I've been watching your content off and on for about a month and they recommended I get in touch with you about, I think they believe that you're for the impeachment of Trump based on the impeachment hearings. That's a pretty hard one. I'm in favor of wherever things wind up. I mean, it kind of seems pretty bad right now for the Trumpster, but yeah, I mean, whatever happens, happens, I guess. I'm not like super hanging my hat on impeachment or anything. Okay. Why do you think that I still haven't really got a clear answer for why the Democrats think Trump should be impeached is my understanding is it's not just a quid pro quo. It's that it has to be a quid pro quo with ill intent behind it for a personal gain or something like that. Would you agree with? No, I don't think it has to be, there doesn't have to be personal intent at all. Congress has the power to appropriate funds for other countries. The president doesn't really have the power to mess with that. And it seems like Trump was trying to extract political favors from Ukraine in an effort and then was holding that aid hostage to them. It seems to be what all the testimony points to so far. Well, I kind of disagree that that's the criteria for what should be impeachable because it seems that in foreign policy, particularly with aid, we use quid pro quo all the time. In fact, that's exactly what Biden admitted to do. He personally told them, we're going to withhold a billion dollars in loan unless you fire this particular prosecutor. The reason it seems to me the Democrats are okay with that, they say, oh, but that was for the good of the country. So therefore that quid pro quo, even though it was congressionally approved aid was okay. So I don't know as much about the Biden stuff and I don't really care about the whataboutisms that troubles like the poll when it comes to other types of politicians. It's entirely possible that Biden did bad stuff as well. I don't really know. I don't really care. I don't particularly like Biden, but it is not common practice for the president of the United States to hold aid that's already been approved over another country's head to extract information off of a political opponent. And then to request that said political, said investigation be made public, like it's very clearly. And the fact that that quid pro quo, whether it even happened or not, the idea that Trump attempted to do it is just bad in and of itself. And that offense alone is impeachable. Well, I don't think it's whataboutism. And here's why the actual, what Biden did, the fact that it's potentially being investigated, and it's not just Biden, by the way, this is somewhere the Republicans go wrong on. It's actually the Obama administration because Biden admits in his speech. I'm sorry. Before just to cut off this whole line. So let's say that Obama and Biden did bad stuff and can be prosecuted for it. Could Trump still have done bad stuff as well? No, because if Trump is using his position as the leader of the executive branch, which is to enforce laws, we have a long tradition in this country of the executive branch looking into things like corruption, including people from past administrations. For example, yeah, but we don't have a long tradition of the president. Well, firstly, when it comes to looking into corruption or whatever, the Department of Justice historically stands separate from the office of the presidency. It's not normal for the president to direct the Department of Justice. Those are two institutions that are supposed to stand separate of their own, aside from the fact that the president makes the appointee or appoints the head of the DOJ. But other than that, the institution is supposed to stand separately, first of all. And secondly, it's still not within the purview of the president to hold foreign aid that's already been approved by Congress, which already has the power of the purse, to take that foreign aid that's been approved and to use that as leverage against a current political opponent is highly irregular. None of that is normal. But it's because the reason that it's an irregular situation is because what was being investigated itself was an unprecedented situation. Can you name me one other time in the history of the United States that any executive branch official has withheld congressional aid to fire a prosecutor? I can't, but again, that's what about us. Can you name me another time in presidential history where a president has asked another country to dig up dirt on current opponents that like? Yeah, we saw that with Obama. We know for a fact that what Obama was doing was talking to people, particularly in the Five Eyes Agreement, all of our allies about finding potential crimes that Trump committed, whether it be colluding with Russia or other things like that. And by the way, Obama... Hold on, hold on. Again, okay. So this is a really common problem with a lot of Republicans. These institutions don't function this way. The FBI doesn't function under the order of Obama. Obama does not order the FBI to talk to allies that we have. So for instance, in our Five Eyes Alliance, that doesn't work that way. Obama wasn't investigating Donald Trump. The FBI had investigations related to Donald Trump. That's not an Obama investigation. Right. But we know that we can even see through text of Strauch and Page that we know that Obama was asked to be kept aware of this. And we also have... It's unprecedented that we've ever had a situation where personal phone calls have been leaked, not just leaked like with Trump, but actually had to have the transcript released. So we have no idea specifically what Obama was talking about to his counterparts in these countries. Alls we know is... Okay, wait. Sure. Go ahead. I'm sorry. There's so much... Yeah. Keeping Obama informed is part of the job of some of our intelligence agencies. It doesn't mean he's directing them. Just because somebody's keeping him informed, it doesn't mean that they're giving you direction. You should probably... The president should probably be aware of ongoing investigations like this. Absolutely. I mean, I think that would be a good idea. But... Well, right. But you could say the same thing with what we see with the transcript with Trump's call. Trump didn't say, I'm personally directing. He said, I would like you to cooperate with my DOJ and Barr. Trump literally personally requested that the investigation into Biden's son be made public by Ukraine. That was a literal request by Trump made that it's been supported by multiple testimonies given so far. Obama has done nothing of the sort. You never saw anything where Obama was saying... In fact, Obama's even said that he was like... That he tried like very hard to keep that stuff separated. It's one of the reasons why Comey went public with the information that he did into like Hillary's emails. There's a lot of weird like people trying not to say anything publicly. That was a huge trend in Obama's administration. People try not to come out publicly and say stuff. But in Trump's administration, everything is tried to make like be made public like very quickly. Well, two points on that. One, that's just... I don't believe that characterization. In fact, we know that Obama lacks regulations like never before to ensure that different agencies under his administration before Trump took over were able to share all the information of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which predictably then led to record amount of leaks. For example, we know I'm sorry, Brennan was working for CNN suggested to Comey that Comey actually briefed Trump on the P dossier, then use that hook of the P dossier for CNN to run the story the next day. So there was clearly unprecedented leaks whether they were coming straight from Obama or not. The fact is he was... There were unprecedented leaks. I don't know who's calling unprecedented. Sure, but there's a lot of leaky shit right now. There was a lot of leaky shit in Obama's administration. There's a lot of leaky shit in Trump's administration. Like when you get to the level of being a billionaire, you're going to be surrounded by a fuck ton of people, of course. And we've seen that Trump has severely compromised judgment when it comes to who he surrounds himself with, for instance, Giuliani or Cohen or Roger Stone. All these people that are catching charges of shit or just are fucking insane. So it's not really surprising to me that there are leaks and I don't need a conspiracy theory to explain the fact that a lot of the people around Trump are quite leaky. Yeah, but it wasn't... The leaks almost universally are opposed to Trump. And most of them are for people at the tops of the Intel agency. So for example, we know that the IG report found that it recommended a criminal referral to Comey, but said beyond that, that he had broke FBI policy by leaking information, some of which was classified. Like we know for a fact that... But again, that's... Sure, it's possible that other people made mistakes. This is where... What about is aiming to a huge level? It's possible the FBI made mistakes. A lot of people believe that Comey made mistakes when he went public with a lot of different things. When he talked publicly about the Hillary email stuff, a lot of people believe that was a mistake. But none of these mistakes exonerate Trump. The fact that people leak bad stuff about Trump doesn't excuse the bad stuff that's leaked. And I don't think you need a greater conspiracy to explain like all the leaky shit around Trump. Okay, it's neither here nor there, I guess, for the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm making is that if there was a reason to... There's three things that Trump wanted an investigation of, or that what he talked specifically, that all the testimony says. By the way, there has been not one person that testified that Trump personally said that he wanted anything in exchange for age. It's all... Or in exchange for this congressional aid. It's all based on their presumption, they said. I can believe he was one of those. A lot of testimony, a lot of presumptions, a lot of people that have the understanding that Trump was threatening to withhold aid or wasn't going to exchange aid without that investigation. Not only being started, but being publicly announced. That's what the testimony so far, thus far, has shown. Taylor said that he heard through one of his aides, who heard through one of Sondland aides, that Trump told Sondland that in the phone. So then when we get to Sondland's testimony, Sondland says, I presume there was a quid pro quo, but when he specifically asked by shift, he says, oh no, Trump's, but I asked Trump an open-ended question. He even said, he probably used a four-letter word. But basically he said, I said, what do you want from Ukraine? And Trump said, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelinsky to do what he promised to do when he was elected. Yeah. And he said that explicitly after things were heating up and elites had started about it. Of course. It's strange to me because you would never apply the same standard to somebody like Obama. Unless Trump literally is on a recording saying, I am requesting a formal quid pro quo from Ukraine, I want to, unless you have those exact words, it seems like nothing he says or does will prove that he's probably engaged in some pretty shitty behavior. I mean, just on a withdrawal, pulling back on a broader frame, are you really comfortable that the president of the United States is making requests to other countries to publicly declare an investigation into a political opponent? That seems insane to me. Yes. I'm perfectly fine with it. Just like I was perfectly fine with the Obama administration and all of the people under them, rather, even if you don't think Obama is personally involved, making sure that the president-elect of our country, Donald Trump, was not a Russian asset. I was okay with that as well. Okay. So two things. One, Obama doesn't direct the FBI. These institutions stand separately. Two, fuck Obama. I don't like Obama. I don't care about Obama. I want you to defend Obama. Obama could have fucked up, too. That doesn't exonerate Trump. The pivots to Obama doesn't help Trump look any better. Okay. Take Obama or the FBI or anyone out of it. Did you personally think there was enough evidence to warrant investigation into Trump and his team? It's rather not they colluded with Russia? It seemed to be the case. Yeah. Okay. But no one said, well, wait, it's unfair for the Democrats to be spearheading that investigation because it's their political opponent. We were told the implication is so severe that we could possibly have a president that's under the thumb of one of our enemies that we need an investigation, right? Do you recall any other massive investigations going on at the same time about a potential political person like Hillary? Yes. Like that probably cost her the election. Trump's stuff was pretty secretive until I think it was after he was elected. We started to find out way more information related to the FISA warrants and everything. If you want to complain about an unfair investigation swaying the last election, you should be looking at the Hillary email thing, not anything related to Trump, which there was way more evidence for than anything related to Hillary's email that got dragged out for years. Well, again, that's neither here nor there than just the general point. We could say that it is okay for it points for people to want investigations into their political opponents. Sure, but the general point was, and maybe not my time lens are fucked, I don't recall there being public statements about Trump being under investigation while he was running for president. There were Harry Reid, for example, I think four days before the election wrote a letter to the Senate, then he also released Mother Jones also did an article about the dossier. So there was stuff out there. Also, if you want to get technical about it, Comey's admitted that the only reason he reopened the investigation was two things. One, there was a whistleblower within the FBI that knew that Strach had been sitting on Wiener's laptop for over a month, which that's kind of a funny phrase sitting on Wiener's laptop. But anyways, the second point is Comey admitted the reason he did this was he assumed that Hillary had the election in the bag and he didn't want this to be an albatross over her neck for our first three or four months when people found out Oh, the FBI sat on this laptop until after the election. So I don't know if that's true. If that's something that he wrote in his book, regardless of whether or not that's true, that's still super far removed from anything we're talking about. The idea that in the idea that, okay, but you brought it up. The idea that investigations hurt like Trump more than Hillary is asinine. The investigations most likely would have been like the tipping point that cost Hillary her election. The emails were in the news constantly for a year. We didn't start to hear about the FISA stuff, about all the stuff related to Manafort and Carter Page and all these other people. We didn't start to hear about this until after Trump already won the election. So the idea that these investigations are causing somebody not to get elected. I mean, if you want to take that stance for sure, we can, but then you'd be defending Hillary, not Trump. Well, I didn't make the point about Hillary at all. And I didn't say that the investigations hurt Trump more than Hillary. I'm merely making the point here that we expect our executive branch at times. It's okay. I don't mean it had to come directly from Obama or Hillary or Trump or Bill Clinton, whoever the executive is, but we expect that sometimes it's okay for them to investigate crimes. If there's a reasonable suspicion that there's crimes, just because it was their problem. But the precedent that's set is for the DOJ is that typically they are very cautious. This is something that Comey has publicly talked about as well. But typically, this is one of his why Comey got so much heat. The DOJ is typically very cautious about publicly declaring anything related to investigations close to election time because they want to protect the integrity or electoral process. The FBI doesn't typically want to come out and say things like, by the way, we're investigating this candidate that's running for president because it's not the FBI's job to determine who's voted for by the American people. This is one of the things that's talked about pretty publicly quite a bit. Comey's brought this up a lot. That stands in stark contrast to Trump saying, hey, Ukraine, can you guys publicly announce that you started an investigation on Biden? He didn't even wait for any results or for any investigation to happen. He just wanted a public announcement that the investigation was even begun, which shows pretty clearly that he's not really concerned about getting to the bottom of anything. He just wants to hurt a political opponent. No, I disagree. As is one, we still have no evidence that Trump specifically said that. But even if we assume- We have tons. We have so much testimony right now that shows that Trump, from so many, what do you mean? Okay. No, honestly, I'm asking because we've had people say, we presume this is what Trump wanted. But the number one witness, Sondland says, I specifically trumped the Trump. He didn't say that. Now you'll say, well, of course, Trump was lying. But even if we grant that, like for example, with Hillary's investigation, the reason she was left off was because we couldn't prove intent. Why would that standard be any different here? We can't just say, well, a bunch of people presumed what Trump felt in his heart. By the way, that's the same thing they say about Biden. They presumed that Biden's- You need intent. You don't need to prove intent when it comes to things like extortion or quid pro quo. That's not the intent as part of the crime. But right, but you need to prove that that's what he intended to do. No, you don't. Why wouldn't you? If I go up to you and I say, you need to pay me like $1,000 or I'm going to kill you, that like that's the crime is done in and of itself. If you say that, but if you just say, hey, I'd like Rob to give me $1,000, and then people say, I presume that meant he threatened to kill him unless he gave $1,000. That would be unfair to you. That's just- But that's not what Trump's done. Trump made a request and he, and then he was holding the eighth hostage in exchange for that request of an investigation. But we don't have proof of that. We don't have proof that's, and there's clearly, the only reason that we would need, let me put it this way, the only way we could assume that would be if there's not other plausible explanations. And there's all kinds of other plausible explanations, such as we know that Trump doesn't want to give foreign aid to pretty much any country, such as- Not Trump's call to make. I understand that, but that's a different issue as to whether or not this is impeachment, whether it was extortion. That's just you saying, Trump's using executive power more than he should, which by the way, I agree he and all presidents at least in my lifetime before him have done. I find that to be a very reasonable criticism of Trump, that he's expanded- Why has Trump kept so many people from testifying? If he thinks that he's in the clear, whatever, if he thinks that he's fine, why has he kept so many people, all the people that could either exonerate him or convict him, I guess, spending no testimony, why has he kept people from testifying if he thinks he's so much in the clear? Well, because it's his right. Because he, why did he release the transcript? Like, he's been asked to do things- He didn't release a transcript to be clear. That wasn't a word-for-word transcript of the call. That was like a summary. Yes, but even the Democrat witnesses admitted that it was the, that the summary acts as an effective transcript, because it was pretty accurate. With the, I think they quibbled about, did the word company, was that replaced with the word barisma? But, but I'll give you that. I understand what you're saying. But it's the same, the same argument could be used all the time. You could use the same argument for Biden. Why is Schiff refusing to let the whistleblower testify? Why is Schiff refusing to have Joe or Hunter Biden testify? Now, this isn't one about this- Why do we, yeah it is. Why do we keep pivoting to these guys? The question is whether or not Trump abuses his power of the president to withhold foreign aid until an investigation was announced by Ukraine. That's the question. Fuck Biden and Obama and Hillary and, and John F Kennedy and anybody else you want to talk about. None of these people matter to this. I don't care about any, I don't like any of these people. I'm not going to defend them. Fuck Biden, okay? I'm not asking you to defend them. The point is, if there is reason for an investigation, then what Trump did wasn't impeachable. If there is a- That's not true. Sure is. Even if they did something bad, even if Biden's son was the fucking devil incarnate, even if Epstein, all the child rape was directed by Hunter Biden himself, that still doesn't excuse Trump withholding aid until an investigation is announced by the Ukraine. Would you admit that it's not cut and dry? It's more of a political calculus when it comes to impeachment. That's not what we're talking about at all right now, but of course. Right, so the argument would be then, what you're saying is the Democrats will say, we are fully admitting that Obama and Biden did exactly what we're accusing Trump of right now. And we're fully admitting that not only did we not want them impeached, but we're saying that even wanting an investigation into that is a bad idea and criminal. But Trump should still be impeached for this. Fuck Obama and Biden. But that's, but not them. We can impeach them. We can impeach them. They're not in office anymore. Sure, you can still impeach them. In terms of criminal, what? I believe you can impeach a past president. It wouldn't have much effect, but. Okay, I think that's the law. If you can. I've never heard that before. I think you can. I don't know. Even if you could, then fuck them, then do it. I don't care. But that still doesn't exonerate Trump. But no, but it's not them that I'm concerned about. It's the Democrats like Schiff, like Pelosi, like Schumer. Because we know then, if our argument then becomes, well, Trump should go down for this, even though we know the Democrats did this four years ago, and many of those same Democrats were okay with it then, and are now voting to impeach. That's the double standard. And that's because it's a political. Wait, okay, with what then? Nobody else was withholding aid from foreign countries in exchange for it? That's exactly what Biden admitted to do. That's what the Obama administration did. Exactly what they did. Biden was not the president. Right, Obama, he said in his conversation, he said, I told him you have six hours to fire this prosecutor, or I'm withholding a billion dollars aid. They said to Biden, in Biden's own word, you're not the president. Biden said, call him. He said that we could do this. So yeah, you're right. It's not Biden. It's the Obama administration. He gave Biden the go ahead to withhold aid that was congressionally approved, unless they fired a prosecutor who happened to be looking into Biden's son. Okay, I don't know if that's 100% true because I haven't looked into that. I suspect that that's exactly what went down. I'm pretty sure the rationale there was far different because there was a lot of corruption surrounding that prosecutor. I don't know 100% if that's true. That's what I've heard, but I haven't looked into that. But even if that was all true, even if Obama himself said, fuck you, blah, blah, blah, and withheld aid, that still doesn't exonerate Trump. Well, it does in the sense that I think that it's okay for us to engage in foreign power. I have no problem with our executive authority withholding foreign aid to get something in exchange as long as it's to benefit the country and not to benefit yourself personally. It's to benefit Trump. But that's why the starting question is that's why it's not, what about is it? If we could prove that there was a- If I knew about this all the time, why didn't Trump do this investigation at any time over the past four years? Why did he wait until now? Sure, if you watch and you watch the testimony from all the Democratic witnesses, all of them said verbatim over and over. Zelinsky, it's finally a guy that's anti-corruption. He's the real deal. He's surrounding himself with prosecutors to fight corruption. I don't know if you knew this, but Zelinsky was basically the John Stuart of Ukraine. He's a stand-up comic. And you had, this is real quick, if you give me 30 seconds, this is just my layman's view of what's going on in the Ukraine. You had like 2014, you had this president, Yakonovich, who was like a pro-Putin stooge. Then he gets removed for Poroshenko, who's basically a Western stooge. The people in the Ukraine are just sick and tired of it, just like me and you would be with our political system. They just want someone looking out for themselves. So 75% of them vote for a stand-up comedian. This is Trump's first attempt to talk to this person. And so he's just like, hey, are you going to investigate corruption that occurred in the past administration? Okay. And that's why I think- I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the impeachment hearings turn out. And we'll go from there. Like I said, I'm not super invested in this topic. I just find it strange how much charitability we extend when we're Republican to Trump and then how like quick we are to convict past presidents who are Democrats of certain crimes. But I don't really care much about the impeachment stuff. We'll wait and see. Well, if I could just, I don't feel, and I understand, and you're perfectly within your rights and probably correct to assume to paint with a broad brush. I think that people on all sides tend to be super forgiving and super one-sided when defending their side. But, and I'm guilty of that as well. But I am telling you, I have no problem with Obama working with foreign allies to investigate Trump for possible collusion with Russia or Obama's DOJ or whatever. So I don't think that that's the case. And I think that also I'm trying to get is, I think for you and your audience and correct me if I'm wrong in painting with a broad brush, I would guess that most of you dislike Trump and probably would want to see Trump at least lose the 2020 election. And I would point you to people like Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald because I think they're right that all of these investigations are actually harming Democrats' chances of beating Trump in 2020. You want to talk about an optics point of view? I don't think impeachment is good at all, but that's a totally different question about whether or not Trump has committed crimes or whether or not you should be worried at how Trump is acting in the office of president. But I think though that I'm more worried the fact that we have an entire establishment, particularly the establishment Democrats, that are doing everything possible to cover up the actual investigation we should be having, which was 2016 Ukrainian election interference and the Bidens in their world and the Burisma Company. I mean, we were told probably went in and well if we were to do that because that the Yukovych, whatever the, what was the guy's name? Yukanovich. Yukanovich, Manafort extensively helped that guy's campaign. So I'm guessing that anything you dig up there is probably going to come back on Trump to some extent as well because Trump decided to surround himself with people like Manafort. So I mean, like I doubt that he's very invested in any type of investigation that involves that anyway. So, well, I mean, but that's kind of the crux of this in the first place. We have public, we were told for three years that foreign election interference is the biggest deal in our country. No stone could be left unturned. Now we have public admissions in the Financial Times of August 2016 from a parliamentarian in the Ukraine named Lyschenko, admitting that he worked with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which is the FBI of the Ukraine, in releasing a black ledger about Manafort because he wanted to swing the election for Hillary. Now that's election interference. We also have proof that there was a DNC operative named Alexandra Chalupa that actually was working with officials in the Ukraine to get that dirt. That's exactly what Trump was accused of for three years. But every single Democrat on the impeachment testimony said, oh no, that's a conspiracy theory. Wait, I did this. Fuck. I don't think, I feel like I've heard about this and I feel like none of this actually happened. Oh, it happened. I mean, I could send you the evidence, the email or whatever. Do you think that there was any conspiracy, like the Goose super hacking, would Russia working with Assad or anything like that? Or do you believe that all of that is fake or? I don't know. I'm very distrusting of the intelligence community. I have questions, for example, as to why the intelligence community would capitulate to the DNC and not get their hands on the physical server. But I'm willing to say, I could say- They didn't get their hands on the physical server because they didn't need the physical server. It wasn't necessary. Like you don't need a physical drive to analyze the contents of the drive so you can take an image of the drive. You don't really need, having a physical drive doesn't really do anything. But we know from Comey's own testimony that the FBI prefers to have the physical copy because their worry is they're the best professionals at this in the world and they don't want to rely on a possible mistake copying from a private company like Crowdstrike. So the FBI actually did request and the DNC denied allowing access to the physical. Why would they do that unless they had something- If it was going to be the exact same as getting a copy, what incentive does- So like the Ukraine interference stuff that you've brought up, I'm briefly familiar with. I'm uncomfortable talking about it but I'm like 99% sure that that is entirely baseless conspiracy. I think you're going to push that, got fired for corruption or some shit. None of that actually happened the way that- But the fact that- But maybe that did happen, but the fact that you're so willing to believe that but you're saying I don't really trust the FBI's conclusion on the investigations that they did, that's highly suspect to me. So you think that all of the indictments that Mueller made relating to those Russians, the Internet Research Agency, the Shell company that operated in the US, all of that was 100% fabricated and fake? No, no, no, I'm not saying that. In fact, I'm saying I'm basically agnostic on the hack. It could very well be that the FBI- I don't know enough technologically-wise to know whether or not it happened as is being said. So I'm not condemning that the FBI was wrong about that. And in my argumentation and dealing with these things, I've assumed that they're right when it comes to the hack. Now I have questions why they didn't get to the physical server but that's neither here nor there. As far as the Russian trolls and the using Pokemon Go, yeah, that's a joke. Not only is it a joke, I'm sure they did it, but for example, a judge actually admonished Barr and Mueller saying that they're no longer allowed to publicly say that those people in that agency were connected to Putin because they have presented zero proof. So what we have is 12 people who happened to be Russia that were putting a bunch of stupid memes on Facebook and Twitter. If we're going to act like that seriously affected an election, we're half a trillion dollars were spent and all sorts of things in the mainstream media. I mean, that's a joke. Okay, hold on. Actually, can you tell me real quick, what did you just say that a judge told Barr and someone else that- Mueller and Barr, yes. A judge admonished- What was his judge's name? So Mueller and Barr are no longer allowed to say the internet research agency was all fake? No, no, no. They're not allowed to say it was directed by Vladimir Putin. They thought that that was, the judge found that that was actually leading a potential jury because they had presented no proof even to this judge that there was any connection to the Russian government whatsoever. And that was the judge that was- Well, I can wait a few minutes. Can you throw me up a link on that? Sure, I absolutely will try to do that. Okay. And I can wait a few minutes. I understand if you don't have this on hand. Yeah, I'm really sorry. I'm really sorry to see this. By the way, you're absolutely correct to demand people put sources up because anyone can see. So, sorry, my internet's- So I got this Washington Times article. I think this will do it. And it's, I'll put a link up, but let me just read it real quick to make sure it's the right one because I'm just getting that. Federal judge sides with Russian company, rebukes Mueller and Barr, from the Washington Times, July 21st. It says it has chastised Mueller and attorney Barr for stating Russian government was behind the election year social media. The ruling by district judge Dabney L. Friedrich, culminated in a secret legal battle between the Justice Department. And I'll put that link if you want as well. But yeah, basically- I already have it. Hold on one second. Let me read this. Sure, please. I'll leave you go. Okay. So this is saying that basically the judge is telling Mueller and Barr that they're not allowed to state to a jury that the Kremlin like was personally involved in the direction of this company, but that it was still a Russian company that was involved in like American propaganda, right? Yes, exactly right. Alls we know is that- So the idea that this was at the behest of the Russian government, we don't know that at all. We don't have proof of that. We just have proof it was a Russian company. And I don't deny that this happened. Do you think it's more likely to assume that just a random Russian company decided to set up shop in the United States under a fake name and then mislead Americans that worked with them into thinking they were working with fellow Americans to try to throw the election for a different candidate? Well, what I think is most likely is irrelevant as to what actually happened and what could be proved. I mean, I also think what's most likely is probably, and this is just my opinion, they really didn't care if Trump or Hillary won. I think they assumed Hillary would win and so they wanted to muddy up the waters, which is why they played that same Internet Research Agency pushed all kinds of like pro Black Lives Matter stuff, pro LGBT stuff. After the election, they were personally responsible for starting rallies against Trump. So they just wanted to mess with the system. But it's- I'm glad that you bring that up because this proves the actual contention is why we need to investigate all election interference. Because I will concede to you that if the hack did actually happen from Russia to the DNC and to Podesta's emails, that's a bigger deal than this IRA stuff. You would agree with that, right? You don't believe the investigation right now that points to Gusevara being directed by Russian sources hacking into the DC? You don't think that that investigation was good or that that was proven? No, I'm not saying that. I'm assuming it was proven. I'm always skeptical anytime that I don't personally see proof whether it's to benefit my side or not. For example, I was skeptical. I think the worst thing Trump's done in his administration was bombing Syria. Now I think we're seeing credible evidence that it turns out the chemical attack wasn't as it was seen. But I was skeptical of that information from the intel company. I'm not saying that it's wrong though. I'll take them at word and I'll say that to me is obvious. All I'm saying is that's a step beyond these Russian trolls, right? Like I think we could agree with that. The idea of hacking Hillary or her campaign manager's email is a bigger deal to me than 12 Russian trolls posting memes. Sure, I don't like how you how you phrased the last thing. I think the last thing is so pretty troubling. But yeah, the hack that and the hack is also something that was I think with more evidence was stated to have been directed by the Kremlin. If you read those on Diamond Logs. That is the yes. That is what they found. That is a difference between what was going on with the RA and what's going on with the hacks. They can directly tie the hacks to the Russian government. So yeah, I will agree with you. Now again, I stand that I'm skeptical and ready to hear counter evidence, but I'm operating on the assumption that Mueller is right and that that is actually what happened. That's the assumption I'm and by the way, I'm by no means my Putin fan. And I think it is outrageous. If he hacked, I don't care if it was my candidate, a candidate that had nothing to do with an election that's outrageous and should be investigated. The reason I bring up the IRA point is even with that, even with these Russian trolls and no matter how severe, like I'll admit that my bias is leading me probably to downplay what they did compared to what you would take on it. But the point is, this is proof that even Russian or even foreign interference of that level of just releasing dirt is worth investigating. We've been told it's a big deal and it led to indictments. So why would it be different all of a sudden in the Ukraine? Why would we allow Ukraine? What is this Ukraine thing that we're talking about investigating? What are you referring to specifically now? Sure. So for example, we had a Financial Times 2016, August 2016 article where a parliamentarian named Sergei Lushenko publicly admitted to working with the Anti-Corruption Network which was set up with the help of the Obama administration. That's called the NABU. And what they did was they released this black ledger on details of Paul Manafort. And they released that, we now know through other articles that was in conjunction with a DNC operative named Alexandr Chalupa. But you could leave her out of it for now. Just know that parliamentarians in the Ukraine admitted to interfering in the election releasing dirt and they did so because they expressly said we hate Trump. We think that he will be someone who's more willing to talk to Russia. Almost 90% of our politicians are on board with Hillary. That's election interference. You might say, well good, Manafort sucked but it's still interference. No one said the interference is allowed if it's truthful. People are saying that this same guy was fired for corruption and later retracted these claims. Is that true or not? That's not, if I could clear that up. That's not true. This person's name is a man by the name of Lesh. Hold on, your mic, hold on, your mic is cutting out. Sorry, can we go down? I'm sorry. Can you hear me? The, this man's a man by the name of Lesh Shanko, L-E-S-H-C-H-E-N-K-O. Yep. Lot Sanko was a former prosecutor. That's someone that their saying was corrupt. I have quibbles with that as well but I'm not talking about Lot Sanko. I'm talking about Lesh Shanko. And if you look up Financial Times, it might be behind a paywall but Financial Times, Lesh Shanko, L-E-S-H-C-H-E-N-K-O. It'll come up and you can see his public admission. This is August. Okay, wait, real quick. I just want to see real quick of these are actually two separate people. Sure. Because I never read anything. I really don't care about this impeachment stuff that much but he's literally talking about Ukrainian officials talking shit about Trump. That's what he's referring to when he says there was interference in the election. So what exactly are we talking about when we talk about like election interference when it comes to this Ukraine stuff? So what they've admitted to doing, you can check out a Politico 2017 article or the Financial Times 2016. What they've admitted to doing was there was an ongoing investigation into this guy Yakanovic. You said it would be bad for Trump to bring this up because he was connected to Manafort. You're right about that. There was connections between Manafort and the previous President Yakanovic. There's an ongoing investigation into him in 2016. Parliamentarians and investigators decided to, while this investigation was ongoing, illegally leak that information to the United States. Now there's good evidence they leaked it with the help of a DNC operative named Alexandra Chalupa. But they publicly admitted to leaking this in August of 2016. That's official dirt as to official records they had. We now know that that Mueller didn't even find that black ledger credible enough to use it in his indictments of Manafort. So it turns out it looks that it's highly skeptical that the dirt they released on Manafort was even true in the first place. But they publicly... There are... I'm not concerned. I agree with the audience that's bringing up. I thought the Republicans were absolutely stupid to bring up this point. Oh, well, some Ukrainian ambassador talked crap on Trump. Who cares? Trump probably deserves to have crap talked on him. And I don't have a problem with that at all. But actually releasing this evidence, which later turned out to not even be credible enough for Mueller to use for an indictment, that seems to be exactly what Trump was accused of. Working with the foreign government. All right, okay, okay. I'll look into this because I just don't... I honestly just don't care about the impeachment show that much. I'll look into this. But yeah, I just don't know about the facts of the matter for this. So... Okay, well, hey, that's fair. I really appreciate it. If I wanted... If there was one other thing, I think this shows something endemic though that we see going on with these investigations, which is it seems that every time there's any kind of foreign interference that could have benefited the Democrats, that it seems that we brush that under the table. For example, what would you say was the biggest Russian interference into our election in 2016? Probably the hacking of the DNC, but I don't care that much. I've never really cared that much about like impeachment stuff. Okay, well, I would... That's I guess would be a good vote. I would think that even more than that though, you know that the dossier was sourced by Kremlin officials. The dossier was sourced by Kremlin officials. I thought the dossier was originally worked on by... Was it Christopher Steele? Yes, and he... Most... He had source A and source B. He admitted source A and source B are both Kremlin officials close to Putin. And that's where all of the allegations about Carter Page being in... Cohen being in Prague and Carter Page dealing with Russians to try to get gas shares in order to throw the election for Trump. That's where all of these accusations came from. We know for a fact the dossier was used to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, which in its own right is the biggest political scandal in the history of our country that you used... Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait. Do we have anything non-impeachment should we talk about? There are so many like crazy conspiracy theories regarding a lot of these claims that I have to go back and... Like I did this stuff a long time ago and man, dude, Republicans make up so much random shit when it comes to this. I have to go back and look all this shit up again. Rather than just kind of like let you spin like a really crazy narrative. I need to get the facts of the matter straight again. If I want to go back and have these conversations. Okay, that's fair. Is there anything like non-impeachment related that we don't have to rely on all this like crazy fucking shit to have a conversation? Sure. I don't think that was necessarily... If I'll just summarize it here real quick. All I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's debatable. I think that it's just out there. It's public fact that the Kremlin officials were behind this. Why aren't we investigating the Kremlin officials that their dirt was so effective that it led to a three-year investigation that affect our elections? Like it seems that... First of all, the investigations didn't affect our elections. Trump is already elected. So that's a false narrative. What affected the 2018 election? Maybe. Maybe now. We don't know that. But wait. No, wait. Let me in the interest of honesty then, well, we can say that Trump talking about Biden, that election is not for a year from now. We've never said that's affected anything either. Well, but that seems like... Like in order for it... No, it doesn't have to be. A quid pro quo doesn't require that the outcome is successful. It doesn't require that a black male or an extortion or anything actually works. None of that is required for it to be a quid pro quo. And maybe it doesn't have any impact whatsoever. But regardless, if we wanted to talk about how upset we are that a potential investigation can affect an election, why were we so quiet when Hillary was constantly being bombarded with stuff related to Benghazi or emails? It seems like we never cared about it then. But now we do... No, it's just like... Yeah, I don't know. I just don't care that much about the impeachment stuff. But I... And if anything, if we look at the polling, all the Republicans are emboldened anyways when this investigation type of shit happens. Like, look at Kavanaugh. Like, the support for Kavanaugh grew in the wake of those investigations. The support for Trump has actually grown after the testimonies are... Oh, I lost. Investigations are actually hurting Trump. Oh, are you still there? I'm sorry. Yeah, oh, sorry. Hello, I'm here. Yeah, I'm from... No, I agree with you, but I'm not the one who was starting on the position of, oh, we should avoid investigations because they'll interfere with the election. That is an argument that the Democrats are making. I understand your more nuanced argument is that process... I thought the argument that the Democrats are making right now is that there's just an investigation as if Trump withheld foreign aid in exchange for favors from Ukraine against political opponents. It doesn't have to do with election interference. Oh, no, no. They don't need a byproduct, but... No, if you listen to Schiff, all of their narrative coming on it, it's not about the... They know they can't argue about the process or they'll be hypocrites because they know that the Obama administration also used a quid pro quo. So their specific argument is, Trump did this in order to go against his biggest opponent in the 2020 election. This was to benefit Trump in the 2020 election. In fact, they specifically had many witnesses say they presumed that's what this was about was helping Trump in the 2020 election. So I do respect that your position is more nuanced and I actually think it's a firmer ground to stand on, but no, the Democrats are making the argument this is all about the 2020 election. So I'm agreeing with you that I think that's nonsense. I don't think that should factor into our calculus. If there's a... I don't know if I agree with you there because I'm not sure if that's really good. I don't know if that's the right point. This is a try in my part though, right? It's took a long time for Pelosi to come around on impeachment here or so, but okay. All right. Well, hey, listen. Yep. If we want, we can chat at like a later date about this and I'll start doing all my reading right now so that I can get a hold on this, but man, what a waste of time. I don't know why like so much time is spent on the impeachment stuff. Like it's a legal process. Like it has to happen. It'll go down its route or not a legal process or a legal political process. It'll go down its route. I don't know. She's not something that interests me that much, but that's fair enough. Make sure to head over to Robert Noir's channel right now to see the full one hour and 40 minute debate and make sure to hit that subscribe button.