As the world strains at the seams from the latest upheavals, I find myself grappling with a whirlwind of emotions and a steadfast commitment to upholding our cherished democratic values. The chaos may be relentless, but so is my resolve to dissect it, bringing you my raw, uncensored reactions. From sharing the grit behind my podcast's creation to my concern over the ongoing hush money trial related to former President Trump, this episode is an unscripted voyage through the stormiest of waters, seeking clarity in a clouded global landscape.
Veering into the political maelstrom, we reflect on the implications of George Santos's recent decision, the shockwaves from Harvey Weinstein's legal saga, and the burgeoning concerns over TikTok and a potential nationwide ban.
These moments aren't just headlines; they're the threads of a larger narrative on justice and digital freedom. And in the thick of it all, Arizona's latest stance against Trump allies' election interference sparks a beacon of hope for accountability, a concept that resonates deep within our discourse and beyond.
As the episode draws to a close, I turn my gaze to the Supreme Court, whose looming decision on presidential immunity could redefine the contours of American politics. With nobody to sway the conversation, it's a moment for introspection and a clarion call for a ruling that reaffirms the foundational truth: NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
As the world strains at the seams from the latest upheavals, I find myself grappling with a whirlwind of emotions and a steadfast commitment to upholding our cherished democratic values. The chaos may be relentless, but so is my resolve to dissect it, bringing you my raw, uncensored reactions. From sharing the grit behind my podcast's creation to my concern over the ongoing hush money trial related to former President Trump, this episode is an unscripted voyage through the stormiest of waters, seeking clarity in a clouded global landscape.
Veering into the political maelstrom, we reflect on the implications of George Santos's recent decision, the shockwaves from Harvey Weinstein's legal saga, and the burgeoning concerns over TikTok and a potential nationwide ban.
These moments aren't just headlines; they're the threads of a larger narrative on justice and digital freedom. And in the thick of it all, Arizona's latest stance against Trump allies' election interference sparks a beacon of hope for accountability, a concept that resonates deep within our discourse and beyond.
As the episode draws to a close, I turn my gaze to the Supreme Court, whose looming decision on presidential immunity could redefine the contours of American politics. With nobody to sway the conversation, it's a moment for introspection and a clarion call for a ruling that reaffirms the foundational truth: NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
AWorldGoneMadPodcast@gmail.com
Speaker 1:
There is chaos in the world, can't you see? And we need to stand up and preserve our democracy. Well, this is a world on fire, this is a world gone mad. I'm a little bit angry, a little bit disillusioned. Some of it has to do with just things in general, some of it has to do with the world events that are happening. I'm pissed off, and some of it is just one of those days where I'm just angry and it's probably going to come across on this episode. So I'm sorry, this is what you get Housekeeping. Here we go.
Speaker 1:
Someone asked me several times through email and a text so what do you do on your podcast? I mean, you just turn on the microphone and talk. No, my friend who does a podcast two of them in fact and other people I know, we don't just sit, go to our microphones or our studios, turn on and start talking and that's it. And we have a podcast. I absolutely try to convey this to people and a lot of people don't understand. I can only speak for myself, but it's similar to everyone else that I deal with who has podcasts. I put in over 40 hours each week for this podcast, to do a 30-minute or less podcast. So there's that.
Speaker 1:
The other question that was asked do you script your shows? No, I don't script my shows. Yes, I pull up news information that I see, news events. You know things in the news, worldwide, nationally, politics read them, absorb them, ruminate on my thoughts. But no, I don't sit down and script, can't speak for other people. But I don't do that. I am unfiltered, I am unspun. Someone took me to task for that and said yeah, well, you know, it sounds like you're doing this just to create interest and get people to be upset the Republicans and the Democrats. No, no, I don't do that. And if you met me at a bar or at a party, what you hear now is what you're going to get in person, maybe a little bit mellower, I'll have a drink in my hand, but I don't BS anybody. My opinions that I give you on this podcast are exactly how I feel in real life, and I'm going to do that with the news that I'm going to present now, unfiltered, unspun, my honest, raw emotions about what's going on.
Speaker 1:
Thirdly, you've heard these news stories. Someone texted me and said well, they're news, they're old stories by the time we get to your podcast. I know that, but not everyone has heard these stories and not everyone has heard a commentary or absorbed with back and forth discussion in their mind. I try to provide that. So, with that in mind, thank you for letting me vent a little bit. Let's get right to what's on my mind and why I'm pissed off. I'm sorry for the anger, but each podcast episode is different and that's what you're going to get on this podcast Real, honest, raw emotions.
Speaker 1:
One bit of good news Arizona House votes to overturn that stupid century-old abortion ban, paving the way to leave 15-week limits in place. They had a 160-year-old abortion ban that wanted to say the words that are not going to. The Republicans in charge thought it was kind of cool and finally they repealed it. Katie Hobbs is going to sign legislation to get the words that I'm not going to. The Republicans in charge thought it was kind of cool and finally they repealed it. Katie Hobbs is going to sign legislation to get rid of that. So bye-bye putting the paper away, thank you.
Speaker 1:
We have the hush money trial going on against Donny Boy you know about his secret hush money with Stormy Daniels and everything else going on. We're on day what? 37? I'm joking. It's day eight. I'm only going to cover one thing from it the back and forth. We had David Pecker, from Pecker. Did I say that? Right? Yes, david Pecker, I was thinking something, but you know whatever From the National Enquirer and they're interrogating him back and forth.
Speaker 1:
But the one statement that stood out that really got me is this is from Donald's lawyer, and Donald's lawyer said Todd Blanche is the lawyer said about accusations of the payments that were trying to illicitly influence the 2016 election the hush money. He said there's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy, it's called garbage, is what it's called? Anybody in their right mind thinks that that's okay and it's normal political stuff to do during an election. No, garbage, you're wrong. Ok, I'll cover more of the hush money trial as it goes along, but right now it's playing out its course back and forth witnesses, etc. You could follow it online, you could look at it daily, you could read the notes and I don't want to bore you with that. I don't want to bore me with that.
Speaker 1:
But other news, unbelievable. You know George Santos, right? Former New York representative, george Santos, who was expelled from the House and is facing federal charges. Oh, guess what he said? He's withdrawing his bid for Congress in New York's 1st District Yay, one smart thing he's done in his life. His quote I have decided to withdraw from my independent run for New York 1, district 1.
Speaker 1:
I don't want my run to be portrayed as reprisal against Nick Lolota Although Nick and I don't have the same voting record and I remain critical of his abysmal record. I don't want to split the ticket and be responsible for handing the house to the Dems. He doesn't want to be in the public eye anymore. That's what's happening. Georgie boy Santos further stated that he was relieving the Republican Party bye-bye, close the door quietly and would run his congressional comeback bid as an independent. I have met with leaders and with constituents and I have made the decision to hang it up here and stop pursuing this race this year. Oh crap, here it comes. The future holds countless possibilities and I'm ready, willing and able to step up to the plate and go fight for my country at any time.
Speaker 1:
George, can I remind you about something? You have 23 counts against you in a court of law. Do you remember this? Please go away. You know there was a contest held and it was run between Marjorie Taylor Loonball and George Crazy Ass Santos. I don't know who would win between that contest of who's the bigger Loonball. What do you think, george Santos, marjorie Taylor Greene, give me your decision, I'd like to know. And here's another episode in a world gone mad, not the podcast, but in real life.
Speaker 1:
The New York Appeals Court overturned Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes conviction and orders a new trial Slap in my head. The New York Court of Appeals this past Thursday overturned his sex crimes conviction against Harvey Weinstein, the powerful Hollywood producer whose downfall stood as a symbol of the Me Too movement. The court, by a 4-3 vote, ordered the new trial and their reasoning. We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The ruling, written by judge jen Jenny Rivera, states luckily, the prosecution says they're going to do a new trial. Wow, our justice system. Blankety blank, blankety blank, right, Our justice system sucks as of late.
Speaker 1:
All right, congress just passed a potential TikTok ban last week and here's what happens next. Ok, congress finally finalized the legislation on this past Tuesday that could lead to a nationwide TikTok ban. That's the app For those of you that don't know. For those of you who use it or not use it. You're aware this escalates a massive threat to the company's US operations.
Speaker 1:
Now the bill passed the Senate as part of a wide-ranging foreign aid package meant to support, by the way, what this is doing in the foreign aid package. I have no friggin' clue. This is about aid to Israel, ukraine. It's ridiculous, these side bills that are glued together. Hold on, let me take a piece of gum Stick. There we go. We're going to talk about mayonnaise jars while we're talking about leukemia. What does one have to do with the other? Anyways, it was passed and TikTok could be forced to find a new owner within months or be banned from the United States entirely. Here's what we know. How it could affect us.
Speaker 1:
Okay, the bill approved this week is an updated version of a bill that House lawmakers approved in March. It gives TikTok's Chinese agent, bytedance, 270 days to sell TikTok. Failure to do so would lead to significant consequences. Tiktok would be prohibited from US app stores and from Internet hosting services. If you've already downloaded, I believe it's fine.
Speaker 1:
What do you think about TikTok? I started using TikTok because of the podcast. I'm really not impressed. Right now, it seems like the only thing I get from TikTok is single women across the world who want to say hello and show me their sexual pictures. I'm not joking and other things have spammed. Some guy in Venezuela with one follower goes I listen to your podcast, I want to follow you. Tiktok is weird and TikTok bothers me and I basically don't pay attention to TikTok anymore. Do you use TikTok at all? Anybody who's listening to this podcast? What do you feel about TikTok?
Speaker 1:
Now here's one piece of news that happened this last week that made me smile. Arizona prosecutors file criminal charges over 2020 election subversion schemes. A grand jury in Arizona has handed up an indictment against former President Donald Trump's allies over their efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, including the fake electors from that state, my state where I live, and several individuals connected to his campaign and the people who were named Boris Epstein I believe his pronunciation a former White House aide who remains one of Trump's closest advisors. Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was indicted, and Rudy I'm a scumbag Giuliani are among those who have been indicted. According to a source familiar with the investigation, attorney General Chris Mays, a Democrat, announced the indictment this past Wednesday, focusing on the 11 individuals who acted as pro-Trump electors in the state. The names of several other indicted defendants remain redacted, mayes said in a statement this past Wednesday, until those people have been served.
Speaker 1:
By the way, an unindicted co-conspirator let me try that again was Donald Trump, who was not named. So this is interesting. Or, let me try that again was Donald Trump, who was not named? So this is interesting. He's part of this, but they didn't name him. Thank you, finally, are we going to get somewhere with this trial? Seems like we're not getting anywhere with a lot of other things. Maybe something will finally stick and these people will be held accountable for the BS stupid scheme that they tried to do to overturn the election. Thank you, chris Mays of Arizona. Round of applause from you and, hopefully, my Wolfpack listening audience here.
Speaker 1:
And finally, a new US military aid package to Ukraine, expected to be worth around $1 billion. In this part of the package, the Biden administration is preparing a new aid package for Ukraine. Now, remember they just did the new recent package and let me look at this here and make sure I got all the numbers I believe it was $61 billion just to Ukraine in the aid package that was just passed. Well, this is preparing this package and it's going to be approved. In briefings to Congress in recent weeks, administration officials have indicated that the US will likely send Ukraine long range missiles All right Army tactical missile systems for the first time as part of the new aid package. Last fall, the US sent Ukraine the mid-range variant of this system, which can reach about 100 miles, while the longer-range version can reach as far as 190 miles. This is significant.
Speaker 1:
Ukrainian officials have been asking the US, both in private and in public, for the long-range missile to target deeper behind Russian lines. American officials have resisted, citing both supplies and further provoking Moscow as their excuses. The US officials have been describing the situation on the Ukrainian battlefield in increasingly dire terms over the last several months. Dire terms over the last several months. The USA stalled for almost two months because of the gridlock that finally was released this past week. Now here's the frustration part for me.
Speaker 1:
Before I go to a break, I wish and if those of you are in support of Ukraine and against Putin, I wish we could do air support you know more jets and help them do something to stop the air strikes from Russia. But that would directly involve us. Obviously, you know what I'm thinking and what you're thinking is. I would just like to directly get involved and stop Putin. We can't. We're part of NATO, we're the leader of the world, so to speak, and we can't do that. But thank you for the long range missiles. We need to put a line in the sand against Putin somewhere. This is a start. Let's see if more things happen coming up. I'm going to take a short break. When I come back, I want to talk a little bit about the immunity case that Trump filed with the Supreme Court. What's happening there? They wrapped that up last week as far as discussion and I have some definitive thoughts about this on where we're going to go.
Speaker 1:
So, quick break from World Gone Mad podcast and I will be right back. You're listening to a World Gone Mad, thank you. You're listening to A World Gone Mad, thank you, and you could reach me by sending me an email, and the email is aworldgonemadpodcast. Aworldgonemadpodcast at gmailcom. Leave your first name in the email, your age, your location, where you're listening to us, from what app, etc. And any comments you have. Also, don't forget to hit subscribe. That way I can let you know when the new episode goes online. It's automatic and it's free. Also, if you can review, rate, rank the show on the app you're listening from. That helps me tremendously. I thank you for listening, whether you just joined us for the first time or have been listening for a while. I appreciate that.
Speaker 1:
And now back to the show and welcome back. I'm your host, jeff Allen Wolf. Before I talk about the commentary I wanted to touch upon, we have a Facebook group I want you to know about. It's very simple Go to Facebook A World Gone Mad Podcast, hit, join and become a part of a great group of people like yourself and people who listen to this podcast, a World Gone Mad Podcast. See you over there. All right, we have the big two-ton elephant in the room.
Speaker 1:
That's the immunity hearing going before the Supreme Court that Donald Trump says he's absolutely immune from anything he does when he was in the White House before he was in the White House, in the future, in the past, in a time machine, etc. So here's some key takeaways, and, by the way, a lot of you probably already saw this, probably already read this. Maybe you watched the Supreme Court hearings with the audio, maybe you didn't, but we're going to pull out some key takeaways. Okay, number one the justices seem poised to award some immunity, notably the majority of the justices. The conservative men seem inclined to award some kind of immunity to Mr Trump and future presidents.
Speaker 1:
Now, when it comes to criminal prosecution, chief Justice John Roberts, justice Clarence Thomas, samuel Alito, brett Kavanaugh, all raise concerns about political opponents using the loophole to go after the president. Michael Dreeben, the attorney arguing on behalf of the special counsel, reiterated to justices it was not the problem in Mr Trump's case. On the other side, john Sawyer, mr Trump's attorney, seemed to convince these judges that the prospect of charges, trial and imprisonment could distort the president's decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. That was his argument. In other words, trump's attorney is saying you're tying the president's hands and he won't be able to act in the interest of the nation, the safety of the United States, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 1:
Now the liberal justices. On the other hand, they're extremely skeptical of broad immunity. They said if the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office? And that was Justice Katonji Brown Jackson who stated that. So let's extrapolate. Okay, if total immunity is granted to Donald Trump, he gets his wish he's immune from everything. The minute SCOTUS makes that decision, that means Biden in this case could order an assassination of a political rival, in this case Donald Trump, and there's no way that he's liable for it, because they said he has total immunity. This ruling should not happen that way. So that's off the table Doesn't mean it's not going to happen. It shouldn't because of that one fact. Another takeaway the justices do not appear to be in a rush to issue a ruling in the case, and the longer the legal wrangling goes on, the longer it takes Mr Trump's federal election interference trial to make it to trial. Further delays could be in store. If the Supreme Court asks the lower court to remand their ruling, they would need to conduct more proceedings, issue a decision, likely pushing the trial past the November election. Additionally, a ruling in favor of Mr Trump could undermine the other federal classified documents case and the Georgia election interference case, possibly dismissing them or delaying those.
Speaker 1:
Here's one of my favorite takeaways. Justices want to define the term official acts. Much of the debate surrounded what exactly is an official act is. And if the alleged actions laid out in Mr Smith's indictment constituted those? Here's where the justices drilled down into nitpicking. Maybe that's not the right term. Justices ran through several scenarios appointing the ambassador, creating documents, pardoning individuals, and more were offered. Mr Drebin, the prosecuting attorney, said that certain powers exclusive to the presidency were protected from criminal statutes because Congress cannot regulate them.
Speaker 1:
Chief Justice John Roberts specifically criticized a lower court ruling which ruled that Mr Trump was not immune from prosecution. Roberts was not happy with how Trump was treated in previous rulings, and that's where you have a clear-cut indication of a swing person like Justice Roberts, who sometimes sides with the liberals, sometimes tries to make things fair so that it doesn't seem like it's politicized with SCOTUS. He doesn't like how Trump was handled or treated. That's scary. Conservative justices seemed happy with the idea of asking a lower court to remand their ruling spelling out directly what official acts are versus private. Kicking the can back to the courts. Why shouldn't we either send it back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that's not the law? He said when I heard this I don't like where this is going and neither should you. Now there's one little sliver of hope.
Speaker 1:
Special counsel may be able to proceed with parts of the indictment against Trump as part of the debate surrounding what an official act is justices, and the lawyers seem to agree that some of the actions described in Mr Smith's indictment constituted private acts, like asking personal lawyers and private actors to engage in the alleged fake elector scheme or calling on supporters to go to the US Capitol on January 6th. They finally got Trump's lawyer to admit that those are not official duties of the president, trump's lawyer to admit that those are not official duties of the president. Therefore he can't be immune from them. Those private actions would not be protected by theoretical presidential immunity, allowing the court to move forward with some prosecution From a surprise justice. Who offered the following Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that, should the court rule narrowly, mr Smith could still prosecute Mr Trump for those private actions, which is interesting to see how much this plays into a ruling of the other judges. What's going to be pulled further? What Coney Barrett said or the other judges? This is the key and this is the fascinating part of this. These are the comments that actually made me go. Really, this is what made me stand up and listen closely to the TV and the audio.
Speaker 1:
Justice has recognized implications in the case, despite the justices weighing the possibility of granting immunity. Several emphasized how crucial, no kidding. A ruling would be for future presidencies. We're writing a rule for the ages, justice Gorsuch said to the court. Justice Kavanaugh later added this case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country, even stating that this case I'm not really concentrating on this case with Trump. In other words, he's more concerned long term, but that is correct. But this case is important and that's what bothers me about the justices. Let's not talk about this specific case with Donald Trump. Let's talk about the legacy this ruling would leave in the future, get them deeper in the rabbit hole. But they're looking beyond. I understand that. But they kind of have to make a ruling on this case.
Speaker 1:
You know, the last time the United States considered prosecuting a president was Richard Nixon, after the Watergate scandal. While the court did weigh in on whether a president had to participate in the judicial process, nixon was never, of course, criminally prosecuted. Now, did all of you listen or hear or read about the weird analogies and metaphors that the justices used as typical in Supreme Court arguments? Justices involved, or invoke, rather several unique metaphors to describe certain actions. Justice Roberts said expunging official acts from Jack Smith's indictment would make the case a one-legged stool, okay. When exchanging points with Mr Drebin the prosecutor, justice Alito described that old saying you know, you can indict a ham sandwich, indicating that indictments are easy to bring forth. And when Mr Drebin the prosecutor asked if Justice Alito came acrossa lot of instances of a grand jury refusing to indict a case, justice Alito responded snarkily every once in a while there's an eclipse too. And finally, at one point in the arguments, justice Gorsuch pondered if a president could pardon themselves, but neither attorney offered a clear answer. So that was left in limbo.
Speaker 1:
From my opinion, here's what should happen Out of any type of ruling whatsoever from the justices. I know what I want to happen nine to nothing, okay. But here's what should be stated clearly A clear statement from the Supreme Court that the president is not above the law. That's the legacy that needs to be left for future generations and future presidents A president is not above the law. That should be forefront of the statements in the ruling. If that isn't clearly stated in the ruling, written visually as the one soundbite from this ruling from the Supreme Court, then this country is screwed Truly.
Speaker 1:
This is the chance for the Supreme Court to get its credibility back after several years of bad decisions Roe v Wade and other credibility issues, justice Thomas and his income and finances, and nondisclosure, etc. This is their opportunity. I'm holding my breath. I'm waiting, like you, for this decision to happen, and damn it. It better come quick and it better come clear because, again, I'll reiterate, this country is screwed if they don't seize the moment and make a statement. If this ruling delays Jack Smith's case, then the only way Donald is stopped from taking the White House again is the election and he is not re-elected. Unfortunately, polls right now are way too close. Some of them even have Donald ahead close, some of them even have Donald ahead. Are we in the homestretch where our democracy seriously gets shredded to oblivion? I hope not. I'm genuinely frightened for what this ruling is going to bring. This is the last nail in the coffin for or against, finally stating no one is above the law and no, donald, you can't do whatever the hell you want. I'm hoping, and I'm hoping we hear something soon and I'm hoping this trial from Jack Smith moves forward. What do you think this is time to hear from you.
Speaker 1:
You have many ways to reach me the email address, the Facebook group. A World Gone Mad podcast on Facebook, the phone number, a toll-free voicemail system. There is no excuse for you not to comment on this podcast or any previous episode. Guys, I get very sporadic feedback. I need your feedback. Can you take 60 seconds to even say hey? I get very sporadic feedback. I need your feedback. Can you take 60 seconds to even say hey, I'm listening? Let me know someone's out there breathing. It would be nice. Otherwise, like I said before and my friend in the other podcasts have said, podcasters sit in a room and talk to themselves. Please get back with me in a room and talk to themselves. Please get back with me. Please email or phone call or join the Facebook page.
Speaker 1:
Your support and comments are imperative to the continuation of this podcast. I'm your host, Jeff Allen Wolfe. I will be back next week and, as I state before, but I'm going to add a specialized comment to one of our listeners out there who is dealing with Parkinson's. To everyone else, but especially to you, stay hopeful. Chaos in the world, can't you see? And we need to stand up and preserve our democracy. This is a world gone mad. This is a world gone mad.
