Destiny Reacts To His Debate w/ AJW, Lauren Southern And Dylan

all right um I guess before we do we'll watch about we might watch 10 minutes of this we'll see how far we can make it on this before I want to myself H greetings and salutations loyal viewers of this channel my name is Sean and today I will be unambiguously defending my own honor because post my appearance on the hippie dippy stream debate whatever you want to call it a bunch of different lies have been spread about me specifically that I was going out of my way to intentionally and deliberately lie about district attorney Alvin Bragg and enough is enough I have watched the tapes I have gone over what was actually said and I have found the quote that I was thinking of in my brain when I was talking about people targeting president Trump and I will be presenting that to you as well as many more things throughout the course of this video on top of that as a little bit of a bonus I will show you that by Destiny's own standard one of the chief operators one of the chief smear Merchants against me he in fact deliberately lied to me again by his own standards now we're going to get into this but before we do I want to thank everybody who supports this channel via actual Justice warrior.com jooin oh give me the money give you give me the money okay so we're going to knock out the brag thing first because I think this is one of the most prominent things that has been spread about me but I do want to give credit to Connor of all people somebody who I haven't really gotten along with in the past for refusing to buy into the idea that I deliberately lied about this he's willing to lie blatantly lie you agree that he lied about what Alvin Li the ass that somebody is a liar which I very rarely do because I think there's all sorts of delusional cope spirals that people put themselves through in order to affirm their uh presupposed positions if I go through a lie then what I have to have I have to know that they know something and that they are knowingly choose to say something opposite of what they should in like in normal circumstance no whatever our differences were in the past I definitely respect you doing so and by the way your faith has been rewarded because I have the quote I have what was actually said during the debate and I will demonstrate Beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am being smeared in this regard but let us go to the point brought up by Destiny in the conversation where he demands that I present a quote about Alvin brag let's go to that so you guys can see it running okay so running on I'm going to find a crime to prosecute them that's totally fine did Alvin say that I'm gonna find a crime yeah he said he what what was the exact quote um uh what you call it cam you you were talking about I love what he throws it back to cam ajw who by the way whole [ __ ] YouTube channel is is about him having a background in criminal justice him living in New York and him being hypercritical of everything to do with New York crime and bail and Alvin brags and Laticia and all these people right it like uh Hey cam you got the you got the quote on that one right you because you brought it up right you got the quote on this one right oh my God that was so brutal poor [ __ ] cam dude holy [ __ ] did Alvin say that I'm gonna find a crime yeah he said he what what was the exact quote um uh what you call it cam you you were talking about it earlier that he said he was going to he was running on seeing Trump in court now you guys need to understand the context of this conversation I will link it in full in the description of this video for you could check it out but this followed me talking about a hypothetical Pro Trump district attorney running for a state or local office and saying that they will dig into somebody in order to find a crime to charge them with or something there's abouts this was not a direct quote but this is what I was saying in that particular segment no I asked you hypothetical that if this were the case but they went through the normal legal process you would be fine with that that's the standard no because in order to make it comparable it would have to be like the governor of New York running on try a local da very Pro Trump 90% Trump category finds an official charges him with the crime that he campaigned on charging him with they present evidence in front of a grand jury it's enough for an indictment very low standard by the way and they secure a conviction that's like totally legit now of course rather than properly engage with the hypothetical these people decided that they were going to throw out a challenge related to Alvin Greg and at this point in time I want to highlight something that I've been criticized for which was tossing it over to official running fine with that that's the standard no because in order to make it comparable it would have to be like the governor of New York running on try a local da that's very Pro Trump 90% Trump category finds an official charges him with the crime that he campaigned on charging him with so charging with a crime that he campaigned on charging with implies that he's he's he was trying to say earlier that somebody's running on just like finding any crime the I believe the exact term I think he used this exact term I believe he said fishing Expedition I think those were his words let me check though let me double let me double quadruple check I'm seeing if he said it or if I said it one second investigation that had already begun which is a stark and St contrast to Shawn accusing him of saying he's running on going on a fishing Expedition and he was going to prosecute him no matter what so I'm looking for a single quote I feel like he I'm almost positive that he said fishing Expedition first but I only see it brought up two times here so maybe I running on going on a fishing Expedition and he it's either it either doesn't show up in the transcript or he said something akin to this and he didn't say the term fish I'm pretty sure he said fishing Expedition but the the whole point is that Sean is trying to make it sound like this guy's going to invent charges okay that he's going to be the the the he's going to run on a guy who just hates politically and he's going to invent charges for this particular person that's the entire point that Sean is trying to make and he can't substantiate that with anything and even the way that he presents this clip here where he's saying they present evidence in front of a grand jury it's enough for an indictment very low standard by the way an indictment is a very low standard yes it is um uh probable cause I think reasonable probable cause is for an indictment okay but then he goes over and they secure conviction that the SEC secure conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt that's not a low standard right I like how he he's very careful to say well it's a very low standard for a grand jury indictment okay sure and then they secure conviction okay that's a 99% like standard but okay just like kind of like you know we go totally legit now of course ra than properly engage with the hypothetical these people decided that they were going to throw out a challenge related to Alvin Greg and at this point in time I want to highlight something that I've been criticized for which was tossing it over to cam to let me see if I can find where he initially talks about Alvin brg's doing this your perspective um I wanted to ask the room is that an example of an attack on Democracy the political persecution of an opponent or is it a bunch of hogwash I mean it's an attack on let's let's start with Sean because he's been bringing it up it's an attack on the Norms in our institutions I mean trying to remove Trump through the ballot through the 14th Amendment I mean you could argue that that's an attack on our democracy but are institutions held in those particular cases we didn't even get through how stupid every because he doesn't know anything about this 14mm and stuff so we didn't get any of that but but I mean if you look at these different court cases now granted I will like point out that they're not even all remotely Federal one is even do you think he's intentionally playing fast and loose with words like this or is it just his bios shipping spring no no no no no no it's very intentional you'll see I only watch I I've watched like five or 10 minutes it's very intentional how sneaky he is when he inserts language into Aries he's not he's not uh he's not dumb he knows exactly what he's doing but um we can yeah we can listen to this is but I mean if you look at these different court cases now granted I will like point out that they're not even all remotely Federal one is even a local one the Alin Brad case I don't know why he says this word so much I've never heard this before somebody referring to a state uh like a state is just local I I don't know what that I don't know if that's a normal thing that some people do but like he he talks about he'll say like federal charges versus local charges there would be State charges but I don't know if it matters that much but okay what you're seeing is like weird new interpretations first time ever used interpretations in order to Target Trump I mean the brag case where it's a money thing falsifying business records those were enhanced to felony charges based on the fact that he was trying to influence the outcome of an election now that's fine that you could say that that's what you know that's what you're trying to go for but those falsifications occurred after the election so it was even on its face that's like a very like odd upgrade to felony charges especially from a guy who ran on and downgrades more felony charges than anyone in the history of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office you have the Georgia case where they actually prosecuted as a test case widely reported Young Thug under the rot statue in order to I don't know anything about this young thug thing but given that Sean is lied about basically everything is brought up so far he's probably misrepresenting it um the whether or not you want to talk about how the charges were upgraded um I don't actually think the charges were upgraded maybe they were but the important thing was that the statute of limitations was able to extend if you can show that the crime that he committed was in the commission of other crime to say that like well it's weird this is happening okay well is it good or is it bad like do you not should that not be the case then should Trump be able to get away with this particular for free do we think that he didn't commit a crime you should argue if you want to argue at good faith you should argue against the substance of what he's being charged with not this idea that like oh well they used a way to extend the statute of limitations and in reality he should have been okay well do you think that it was an illegitimate means of doing so um was it relatively novel in this case I think it kind of was but it's again it's a pretty novel situation have a case more similar than the Georgia teacher Statute in order to prosecute Donald Trump and it was described by the media as a test case it's still ongoing and again that's very unusual to try a completely different defendant in a new way just so you have precedent in order to try by your political opponent who by the way you ran on Prosecuting so yeah like these are problems but do they necessarily rise to the point of overthrowing our democracy no I think that is a heavy burden I think it can change the norms and honestly I know a lot of people on the left are worried that Trump might win again and he might follow suit with what the Democrats have demonstrated that they will do when they're in power so I don't thinky at the end of the day you still have to identify a crime you still have to file charges you maybe convene a grand jury jur appears and we're talking about the same doj that successfully prosecuted Bob Bob mandez he just they just secured a guilty after Texas representative quar they successfully prosecuted Hunter Biden so I'm sorry I'm just not buying this good counter good concise counter by Hutch 100% yes yeah the whole allegation that the justice department has been weaponized under Biden is absolutely Preposterous they appointed a special counsel to investigate him Robert her release an incredibly politically damaging report about the president um they bent over backwards to accommodate Trump May Garland We have reporting that he dragged his feet for a [ __ ] year uh with a classified documents case didn't the FBI in the National Archives uh play footsy with Trump behind the scenes begging him to send the documents back because they didn't want to prosecute him qu Menendez Hunter Biden could have snapped his fingers and made that case go away usually us attorneys resign when a new president uh enters office because they're political appointees of the previous administration Biden specifically asked David Weiss the Trump appointed special counsel to remain to investigate his son Donald Trump would never [ __ ] do that that was actually an act of superhuman ethics on Joe Biden's part thus proving his moral superiority over Donald Trump objectively cool I'll answer the question too so I don't think I don't think it's a threat to democracy I think it's a bad corrupt thing to do but I don't think it's a threat to democracy AJ is so good at throwing it over to cam when he has no response to anything it said so all these substantive responses given to AJ's point he'll never bring up again and he won't respond to it and then cam comes here who is totally unequipped for this conversation democracy will not cease to exist if you go for brag who explicitly the in that there were state even specifically clarified that there were state even local officials then I went specifically to Alvin brag who is a local official I talked about them running on these like are you not familiar I said they were also want to point out that you're like Garland drag to speak yeah it's true the federal prosecutors all dragged their feet on this up until Trump was announcing he was running for election I this is a thing that he invented in his brain I don't know where he gets this from I don't know where this comes from um Sean I don't know there's like a common Republican like skitso talking point the idea that Trump was not going to run for president again and then all of a sudden he did and then everybody started like filing charges and [ __ ] like all of these investigations weren't actively happening in the background for years before like Jack Smith filed his charges before New York and uh Georgia came out with it this just this is like a fantasy delusion talking point I don't know where I don't know where this originated from it might just be his own but yeah and there's no obviously there's no evidence or proof of any of this either right he has absolutely nothing other than just saying like well Trump announced he was going to run and then they did charges again it's like everybody knew that Trump was running in 2020 everybody knew that Trump was going to run uh you know 2024 everybody knew this this was never a question like and this is a criticism I've heard from people on the left and the right that once it was clear that he was going to run that's when they decided that they were want to prosecute I mean Jen yuger screams about how mer Garland there's no evidence of any of that statement whatsoever should have went after him the the entire time Jen weager is not an authority on any of this he's another P I don't know why we're even citing to him but came out of office so you are accusing the Biden doj of political prosecution right let me finish my point so he says he should have went after him as soon as he got out of office you had the special Council bring charges on the classified documents case but it would have been probably less political to go after him early when you weren't sure he was going to run rather than later but it seems like they went after him and they put all these cases on the ballot and again most of it is not federal officials or the special Council it's local politicians that ran specifically on Prosecuting Trump and remember normally you have to have evidence of a crime before you start an investigation not as a campaign promise run on finding a crime to charge somebody with that's it there it is okay don't ever forget okay hold on we're gonna write this down this is the strong claim that he's going to run away from okay and this is what we know he believes this we all know he believes this okay this is the strong claim okay the [ __ ] I don't need any of this [ __ ] of a crime Council it's later but it seems like they went after him and they put all these cases on the ballot and again most of it is not federal officials or the special counsil it's local politicians that ran specifically on prosec Trump and remember normally you have to have evidence of a crime before you start an investigation not as a campaign promise run on finding a crime to charge somebody with but again even then like people did vote for this I find it to be disgusting I don't think they ran specifically on Prosecuting Trump normally you have to have evidence of a crime before you begin an investigation so he's implying they had no evidence of a crime before beginning an investigation and not as a campaign promise run on finding a crime to charge somebody implying that there wasn't already an investigation ongoing okay which there was when Alvin Brad came into office okay and implying there wasn't already public evidence of a lot of like mouthe happening right with the federal cases reling the story Daniels everything all of this stuff was already public so this is this is the strong this is the strong claim right here this is the strong claim I think it is a threat to democracy it shakes the faith in the judicial system but I don't think it overthrows our democratic system because that's just a heavy burden what Cam said touching on what Cam said you are saying that the Biden doj under mayor Garland is engaged in political prosecution right I don't know if the special Council directly answers to Mayor Garland like I but you said that mayor Garland specifically announced the charges when he knew that Trump was going to be said America didn't charge Trump and people have criticized him for dragging his feet until Trump if it was or wasn't political persecution Sean I think there's definitely a political element to it there's a reason all these like he won't he doesn't and then so after saying that he's saying that they ran on finding a crime to charge okay they ran on finding a crime to charge Trump with and that's okay so are these political BR SEC like well it's an element of it like why not answer the it was or wasn't political persecution Sean I think there's definitely a political element to it there's a reason all these sure Al even if he did run on the idea of Prosecuting Trump couldn't he have done it because he thought that Trump committed a crime like this was a criminal case he got a grand jury we got a gr jury to to an indictment and then it was tried in in open criminal court and a jury of beers convicted Donal Trump the crime so even if it started off it like I hate it politically whatever he went the entire Criminal cour process in order to that conviction at the end of the day so ad I want to get the standard out get stand out if Trump orders an investigation into his political opponents and then they find a crime when they're digging into him in order to look specifically for a crime they didn't have evidence before they started the investigation but they go through the whole trial phase like you know they like none of what he's saying has happened none of and he should know he does know he should know and he probably does know because he talks about this [ __ ] so obsessively right he does crime he's from New York he fixates on crime [ __ ] he like if you search his Twitter timeline for bail there's like 50 billion things we complaining about uh Bale in New York right nobody ordered brag to go and find a crime there was already an investigation underway when brag was running for da okay they they didn't start the investigation with no evidence whatsoever there was already evidence from the federal investigations like publicly people were already speaking about this all of this is just fantastic they try um they try whatever political opponent in a I don't know a county that voted 80% for Donald TR have they convict him like that's fine as long as you present some evidence when you're theid do Direct that's one of the major differ serves under the presid like this weird idea that this is beyond [ __ ] I we can't even dig into how stupid this is the doj is under the president uh the the President should not be dictating investigatory orders to the doj that would be an egregious breach of norms um and it might even I'm not sure on this it might even be a breach of um doj uh policy like I I know for instance the president can't dip down and talk to people in the doj he's not supposed to do that that's a that's a contravention of doj policy it's an explicit violation of doj policy to do it I don't know if the policy of the doj allows the president I'm sure the president can can talk to because it's technically it's his office created by Congress I don't know if the was created by Congress or Constitution but an office that's created for the president that's his officer I'm sure he can talk to him about things but the idea of the president going and just ordering the doj to find crimes and investigate these things if it's not a if it's not a direct violation of policy um it would be an egregious breach of norms and we would all agree it shouldn't happen and there's no evidence of this happening under Biden um at all so it's it's such a crazy stupids under the executive branch are like somehow above the executive branch not this like the way that he framed this here is like so wildly unbelievably stupid attorne prose presidents don't prosecute that's one of the major differences doj serves under the president like this weird idea that departments under the executive branch are like somehow above the executive branch nobody even said they were above two that's like him trying to bad fath bad faith reframe what was just said nobody's saying they're above it they just don't like the President should be dictating to them exactly who they go and investigate they're not above they're not above the executive branch but the president by by way of Norm is not supposed to be involved with the day-to-day prosecutorial decision so the attorney the attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president he is the the president is his boss but the the thing is that they shouldn't be directing you prosecute this person you don't prosecute this person it's like broad uh like Hey we're going to uh reschedule uh marijuana we're going to focus more on these sorts of cases than this not you're supposed to prosecute this person or not no one is saying that the Attorney General is totally independent of the president they serve the the president's pleasure the president's just not a prosecutor the way district attorney is and said the president was a prose I said he got his to go after them yeah but I like how he he thinks that this distinction here matters he got the president got his prosecutors go after them what he where when prut the way district attorney is I said the president was a prose I said he got his prut to go after them yeah but so the president so the president wait so the president did get prosecutors from the doj to go after Trump no I asked you hypothetical that if this were the case but they went through the normal legal process you would be fine with that that's the standard no because in order to make it comparable it would have to be like the governor of New York running on local that's very Pro Trump 90% Trump category fines an official charges him with a crime that he campaigned on charging him with they present evidence in front of a grand jury it's enough for an indictment very low standard by the way and they secure a conviction that's like totally legit the evidence of the crime think they committ a crime hold on especially as in new yor you don't think people have ever run on cleaning up crime on getting rid of like the mob or the mafia or you're not answering the question a very question I can't at the same time Sean you saying yeah so you're not answering the question which is a very direct question and now you're pivoting to a da a da running on PIV on being tough on crime and prosecu criminals in general like go criminals if you think guy committed a crime and runs on that he's like I think that this guy's a criminal when I'm the I'm going to go after this the evidence of the crime was already out in the public space at that point Michael Cohen had testified in front of Congress to these crimes he had been criminally charged and convicted on these crimes so it's not like there was it's not like there was some fishing Expedition there was already strong evidence of these oh he might have been the first one to say fishing Expedition maybe crimes out there in the open that had been reported on and adjudicated for years okay Michael was prosecuted by federal authorities am I right or no no but it was for the same it was for the same it was for the the same like uh he was prosecuted federally but the crimes were related all right but can I also get my question answered so it would be F yes okay if get some of these donations guys because district attorney thought that somebody yes if a district attorney thought somebody committed crime and he runs on that I'm going to hold him accountable for this crime that this person has committed yeah and they go through the ordinary process and I break rules yeah I think that's fine I think everybody running okay so running on I'm going to find a crime to prosecute them that's totally notice how he keeps changing to try to get me to accept something like I'm what my response is pretty clear here I think district attorney thought that somebody yes if a district attorney thought somebody committ a crime and he runs on that I'm going to hold him accountable for this crime this person if he if the is crime in mind he thinks a person is committed he says I'm going to run I'm going to hold him accountable for this particular thing is committed yeah and they go through the ordinary process and not breaking any rules or anything yeah think that's fine as long as they go through yeah they do their grand jury they've got evidence for they're doing their subpoenas and everything correctly they think that he's committed a crime this what you wanted da to do yes this is what da should be doing yes this is their job I think everybody run but then he changes it to running on okay so running on I'm going to find a crime to prosecute them that's totally fine running on I'm going to find a crime implies that there's nothing there what do you mean Alvin say that I'm going to find a crime yeah he said what was the exact quote um what you call it cam you were talking about it then he tossed it over to cam it was no IDE what's going on here oh [ __ ] earlier that he said he he running on seeing Trump in court oh yeah yeah he like specifically said that he was the person that had the most experience in the ballot with dealing with court okay was did he say he was gonna find a crime he didn't notice how they both answer in things that have nothing to do with what like the big assertion here is right like Sean is saying he's going to try he's gonna find any [ __ ] crime he's gonna find a crime right saying he's got the most experience dealing with Trump at court okay if Trump has a court case in front of him and the guy's running on having experience dealing with Trump in court yeah that sounds like a good reason to vote for a guy yes he's the da he's he's the district attorney he's like the the the lead the representative of the state prosecution here of course that would be a good reason to vote for him what the [ __ ] specify what crime he was going to prosecute on when he asked so he didn't say this then completely you completely fabricated that to be clear right hold you you totally just made that the [ __ ] up right he was gonna find a crime right I didn't say he said as an exacte he's gonna find a crime but he ran on finding a crime to prosecute on say exactly though grinding sorry grinding running on finding a crime I don't I'm I might not phrase as well I don't need the exact quote of like I'm going to find any crime but like any evidence at all that he said he's just find random crimes anything about that at all like I thought I thought we going exact quotes a detailed inserted that in there and pretend and you hope that your audience won't notice if there's already Federal prosecution of people around Trump or Cohen for these exact types of behaviors why wouldn't we assume that Alvin brg is running on the idea of going after Trump because he knows that Trump was in the state of New York when these crimes are being committed why couldn't we just assume that I'm looking for the quote that he uh there's no [ __ ] Sean is super slimy I should have made him answer he doesn't answer anything should can you answer that like why can't we just assume that Trump is already in hot water for crimes that he committed while he was already living in New York why wouldn't the da running for New York who's talking about going after Trump for crimes while Trump was in New York he's just talking about the crimes that Trump has already been investigated for that he's already committed in New York wouldn't that be like the way more logical reasonable assumption like would wouldn't we just assume that like unless we have very strong evidence for the contrary for his also check the timeline in all seriousness I I thought that Trump was already under some sort of preliminary investigation by Bragg's predecessor wasn't he that's the other thing too I I can't remember but you may want to double check that too okay can we use this as a stopping point and Sean during The Question period if you find something maybe we can retouch on it again okay fantastic also quick thing for how you know this is [ __ ] if there were strong quotes about this or strong evidence of this being the case it would be immediately findable this would be a pretty Sensational thing if a DA was saying like I don't care what this guy's done I'm gonna [ __ ] get this guy I'm goingon to Ru I'm gon to get this guy on anything I don't care we're going after him right if if it was as vague and bullshitty as he's saying it is probably pretty easy to find this uh thank you guys for being here for this we're going to go through some questions because a lot of people have questions we got a A lot of people watching happy to see it uh let me read through these quickly okay um but okay to bring up the exact quote while I decided that I was going to go out on my own and look for this quote myself I think everybody running okay so running on I'm gonna find a crime to prosecute them that's totally fine did Alvin say that I'm gonna find a crime yeah he said he what what was the exact quote um uh what you call it cam you you were talking about it earlier that he said he was G he was running on seeing Trump in court oh yeah yeah he like specifically said that he was the person that had the most experience in the ballot with dealing with Trump in court now the reason I did this is because if you rewind the debate to when this came up specifically with Alvin Bragg what you will discover is that the person who made the claim that I am currently being smeared with is in fact cam cool I'll answer the question too yeah so I don't think it's I don't think it's a threat to democracy I think it's a bad and corrupt thing to do no no the reason why we're on this tangent is because Shan said wow now okay now I'm glad I watched earlier Wow's he's trying to throw cam under the bus Shawn made the claim they ran spec wait this was Shawn right this wasn't cam was it or did I write down what Cam said they ran specifically on Prosecuting Trump normally you have to find evidence of a crime before you begin an investigation not as a campaign promise um run on finding a crime to charge somebody with hold on let me just double quadruple check it was Shawn that said this right that I wrote down a campaign prom yes this is what we're talking about Prosecuting Trump and remember Prosecuting Trump and remember normally you have to have evidence of a crime before you start an investigation not as a campaign promise run on finding a crime to charge somebody with but again even then on no no no wait never mind this is at 13104 so this was before Sean said this here okay so hold on let's go back here Trump in court now the reason I did this what you call it cam you you were talking about it earlier that he said he was he was running on seeing Trump in court oh oh wait oh wait we're being so tricky right now wait hold on this is something that Sean said at 1 hour and 38 seconds the reason why we're talking about this is because of that comment that I just played um here but he goes all the way back to 130 oh yeah yeah yeah he like specifically said that he was most exper now the reason I did this is because if you rewind the debate to when this came up specifically with Alvin Bragg what you will discover is that the person who made the claim that I am currently being smeared with is in fact cam cool I'll answer the question too yeah so I don't think it's I don't think it's a threat to democracy I think it's a bad and corrupt thing to do but I don't think it's a threat to democracy democracy will not cease to exist if you have for Alvin brag who explicitly can't crimes or supposed crimes depending on your perspective um I wanted to ask the room is that an example of an attack on Democracy the political persecution of an opponent or is it a bunch of hogwash I mean it's an attack SE because he's been bringing it's an attack on the norms and our institutions I mean trying to remove Trump through the ballot through the 14th Amendment I mean you could argue that that's an attack on our democracy but our in itions held in those particular cases but I mean if you look at these different coure cases now granted I will like point out that they're not even all remotely Federal one is even a local one the Alvin Brad case what you're seeing is like weird new interpretations for so he brings up the Alvin brag case at 1 hour and 28 minutes why is he throwing cam under the bus here at 1 hour and 31 minutes let's see if we keep talking about it past first time ever used interpretations in order to Target Trump I mean brag case where money thing falsifying business records those were enhanced to felony charges based on the fact that he was trying to in the outcome of now he's talking in detail about the brag case now that's fine that you could say that that's what you know that's what you're trying to go for but those falsifications occurred after the election so it was even on his that's like a very like odd upgrade to felony charges especially from a guy who ran on and downgrades more felony charges than now he's saying that brag ran on uh you know dealing I guess downgrading felony charges or whatever because he's likes to be nice to criminals is probably what he's saying I don't even know if any of this is true anyone in the history of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office you have the Georgia case where they actually prosecuted as then he switch okay so there's a full like two and a half three minutes before Shawn is the first one to bring up brag unless cam brought it up earlier but if he did bring it up earlier then ajw has made a mistake Sean's made a mistake in only citing to 13104 test case widely reported Young Thug under the rot Statute in order to have a case more similar than the Georgia teacher Statute in order to prosecute Donald Trump and it was described by the media as a test case it's still ongoing and again hi what's up keep listening to the 129 he makes a specific claim in the 129 minute range gotcha still listening yep it's very unusual to try a completely different defendant in a new way about the r thing in to try your political opponent who by the way you ran on Prosecuting so yeah like these are problems but do they necessarily and then he I think he does this you ran on Prosecuting a political opponent that sounds like he's making that claim I think about BR and again that's very unusual or that might have been about the Georgia um H or to try a completely different defendant in a new way just so you have president in order to try your political opponent who by the way you ran on Prosecuting so yeah that's has to do with Georgia like these are problems but do they necessarily rise to the point of overthrowing our democracy no I think that is a heavy burden I think it can change the norms and honestly I know a lot of people on the left are worried that Trump might win again and he might follow suit with what the Democrats have demonstrated that they will do when they're in power so I don't think at the end of the day you still have to identify a crime you still have to file charges you maybe convene a grand jury jury appears and we're talking about the same doj that successfully prosecuted Bob Bob Mendez he just they just secured a guilty they're going after Texas representative qu they successfully prosecuted Hunter Biden so I'm sorry I'm just not buying this yeah the whole allegation that the justice and then Tron doesn't respond at all all to that he's super quiet Sean is really good at tact maybe because he knows other people will speak he just doesn't say anything in response to that direct response sucessfully prosecuted Hunter Biden so I'm sorry I'm just not buying this you could argue that at yeah 45 seconds earlier he was he was mentioning brag as well when he's talking about like running on Prosecuting political opponents sh that Georgia and uh New York yeah the whole allegation that the justice department has been weaponized under Biden is absolutely Preposterous they appointed a special Council to investigate him Robert her release an incredibly politically damaging report about the president um they classified they didn't want to us David for human ethics on Biden's part thus proving his moral superiority over Donald Trump objectively I'll question I think I don't think it's democracy I think it's a bad corrup thing to do but I don't think it's a threat to democracy democracy will not cease to exist if you vote for Al brag who explicitly campaigned on going to court with Donald Trump and also Hut you it seemed that Sean said almost the exact same thing and then you attacked him as if he said the inverse against strong maning him which seems to be your primary tactic throughout the entire debate no he accused he accused Biden's doj of political persecution against Biden's like political opponents throughout this debate that Biden's not involved like several times so is not involved in what like Prosecuting Trump he's not Biden is not involed in Prosecuting Trump yeah exactly that's the point we're making like I think Sean and I both have conceded that Biden's not involved but it seems that Hut keeps attacking Sean for the exact inverse of everything he says nobody said that Biden was involved because he used language talking about political persecution I specifically clarified that there were state even local officials then I went specifically to Alvin brag who is a local official I talked about them running on these like are you not familiar I said they so even sean is saying that he's clarifying that he said this before cam spoke why is Sean trying to make it sound like cam is the first person that brought this up let me listen to this one more time what the [ __ ] what he's running on seeing Trump in court oh yeah yeah yeah he like specifically said that he was uh the person that had the most experience in the ballot with dealing with Trump in court now the reason I did this is because if you rewind the debate to when this came up specifically with Alvin Bragg what you will discover is that the person who made the claim that I am currently being smeared with is in fact cam cool I'll answer the question bro you brought this [ __ ] up unprompted like 2 minutes earlier damn that's Savage poor Cam he's already brought into this debate like at the last minute because he didn't even he he wasn't supposed to be the one originally here La was supposed to be here doing a 2v2 initially so he's dragg the last minute and now Shawn is going to throw him who's supposed to be by the way the criminal justice guy who's supposed to know all this [ __ ] now he's throwing him under the bus for something that Shawn brought up before he did yeah so I don't think it's I don't think it's a threat to democracy I think it's a bad and corrupt thing to do but I don't think it's a threat to democracy democracy will not cease to exist if you vote for Alon brag who explicitly campaigned on going to court with Donald Trump uh and also Hutch you it seemed that uh Sean said almost the exact same thing and then you attacked him as if he said the inverse again strongman him which seems to be your primary tactic throughout the entire debate the person who said he had the quote from district attorney Alvin Bragg is in fact C so you are accusing the Biden doj of political prosecution right well let me finish my point so he says he should have went after him as soon as he got out of office you had the special Council bring charges on the classified documents case but it would have been probably less political to go after him early when you weren't sure he was going to run rather than later but it seems like they went after him and they put all these cases on the ballot and again most of it is not federal officials or the special counsel it's local politicians that ran spe seems like they went after him spefically on Prosecuting Trump and remember they ran on Prosecuting Trump normally you get evidence normally you have to have evidence of a crime before you start an investigation not as a campaign promise run on finding a crime to charge somebody with so right here I'm talking about a prosecutor looking into somebody in order to find evidence of a crime rather than you having probable cause to start an investigation which is the normal operating procedures that a prosecutor would go through in order to find evidence of the crime I don't you need probable cause for an indictment you don't need probable cause for a uh don't you what is the standard for a subpoena is it just a reasonable suspicion how are you supposed to ever find probable cause if you don't start digging first I'm trying to think of um I don't know what the standard is for a subpoena but I'm pretty I think probable cause is enough for um for an arrest for criminal charges you wouldn't start with probable cause I believe you start with Reasonable Suspicion if you if you had to start with probable cause you would never need to investigate you would just arrest somebody immediately because that's enough for for an indictment I think but maybe for subpoena I don't know why I'm giving any charitability I should just say this with absolute confidence and then ban anybody this isn't wrong I also end this hypothetical and talking about somebody announcing their intentions this is something that I mentioned and by the way this is clearly and obviously understood real quick real real real quick yeah go so the dumbest thing said in this entire video is when Sean says that you need to start an investigation probable cause yeah anybody with any knowledge or information about the criminal justice system would not make that mistake because probably what you're trying to build up to for your initial charging exactly warrant or for an arrest so only someone who is it actually is the best evidence that Sean wasn't lying because only someone who is totally deranged unconnected to any facts doesn't know anything about anything would make that mistake and not catch it in the video it's it's such a dumb thing to say yeah okay yeah because Hutch ends up responding at some point shortly after this he had been criminally charged and convicted on so what is the point he's trying to make is he trying to pretend that cam is the one that got us on this track when when Sean is the one that brought up brag first prosecutor would go through in order to find evidence of the which is the normal operating proced crime rather than you having probable cause to start an investigation this yeah this is a really stupid statement probable cause to start an investigation normal cops don't need probable cause if cop has probable cause he arresting you all cops is reasonable suspicion that's what you get pulled over for that's what they detain you for to begin an investigation so that they can build up to probable cause and then you get arrested and then potentially charged with a crime if they feel like the evidence is strong enough to give procedures that a prosecutor would go through in order to find evidence of the crime I also end this hypothetical I'm talking about somebody announcing their intentions this is something that I mentioned and by the way this is clearly and obviously understood because Hutch ends up responding at some point shortly after this he had been criminally charged and convicted on these crimes so it's not like there was it's not like there was some fishing Expedition this is not a fishing Expedition but what I'm actually referring to exactly describes a fishing Expedition let me play you the clip I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings and and every dealing go demanding truthfulness at every turn so right there okay so let's just I'm just going to try to going to try to use my brain here okay let's see if we can figure this out okay clip I will be shining a bright light um this is uh is it Leticia J hold on New York um I think it's a New York AG Leticia James yes I was going to say Laticia Jones um this is the AG so he apparently a lot of the negative things he was ascribing to brag he's going to say well actually was Laticia James to that however she's saying what is she saying here I'm going to be shining a bright light into all of Donald Trump's real estate dealings is this out of nowhere or and I don't know cuz I haven't looked at this we can go Google right now though I'm seeing here soon day two of Trump's $250 million civil fraud trial set to begin is what she's saying does it have anything to do with the already ongoing fraud trial or is this an older clip that's being played over oh no wait this is 2018 to be fair this is an older clip I think that's being played okay into every dark corner of his real estate dealings and and every dealing demanding truthfulness at every turn so right there and it's dated November 7th of 2018 prior to Leticia James taking office as the Attorney General she is pledging to a crowd that she will shine a bright light not just into Trump's real estate dealings which you might be able to argue in some way shape or form there was a case in the news that she might be referring to but all of his dealings and she says she's going to demand truthfulness at every turn this even if we took her at her worst there and assume there was nothing public about any Shady thing happening ever even if we took her her worst there there's still technically nothing wrong with what she's saying um if if I if for some reason she believes that somebody has committed some kind of crime or somebody has done something bad shining a light what are we saying is she going to start arresting people without warrant is she going to start subpoenaing without like approval is she going to start like what is the what is the what is the wrong thing here that's even happening is he saying that just saying that I want to shine a light on Trump now if it's only politically motivated or something sure if it's only politically motivated I agree that would be problematic for sure um I wonder if we can find the entire speech here uh Leticia November 7th 2018 nice good one I have no [ __ ] idea Spectrum News New York 1 November 7 2018 [ __ ] does anybody have this full um does anybody have the full speech here of what she's talking about oh wait he link set nice sometimes Jonah wrestles with falling asleep so he takes zil the world's number one sleep a brand and wakes up feeling like himself get the rest to be your best with non-habit forming zel better days start with zil kns I do want to play some of the criticism from Trump himself been particularly on comments made by the New York attorney general Leticia James while she was running here a few things she said then in 2018 about Trump I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president he should be charged with obstructing justice I believe that the president of these United States can be indicted for criminal offenses I will be shining a bright light okay so that's just like a highlight real estate dealings and and every dealing demanding truthfulness at every turn would those comments have any legal basis for a dismissal here I don't know about a dismiss I'm very very troubled by them um I think they're completely I think it's I actually spoken with a fell who WR a book on prut misconduct he ass he going to include a chapter next time on the kinds of statements that are appropriate ethically and inappropriate ethically in the course of an election campaign for elected officials for judge and prosecutors I think they're very troubling comments um the government is held to a different standard and the public generally believes when they say something that it's accurate we can't have people targeting particular citizens when they're running for office especially there no investigation and certain no finding yet at that time of any culpability I think they're very TR this is part of what I think is driving the polls in addition of policy issues I think the fundamentally American people demand fairness and they don't want to see people Target even if they're you sort of Larger than Life figures like Donald Trump okay does anybody have a I want to I want to link to this speech can I find this anywhere does anybody have this campaign speech I'm just curious what the full context of the statement is it's gonna what's the date again it was November 7th um let's see if we can find it la James uh was it an election night speech there has to there is a full video of this somewhere I know there's a full video of this somewhere let's see before 2019 after 2017 can you explain to me why that was inappropriate if somebody is running and the implication is that it's a political prosecution or persecution maybe be going say where they're just going after some because they really don't like them and they don't think a crime has been committed that's problematic but if somebody's running because they feel like somebody's committed a crime and they want to hold that person accountable they're your district attorney or in this case your attorney general that's what you would expect them to run on you would expect them to run on things like persecuting people that have committed crimes um or Prosecuting crimes like the top one was this the the crowd was fired up hold on I felt like the room was darker than this no yeah this isn't the same thing wasn't that the night she won um should James victory speech then this is somewhere this video is somewhere on the internet I know this video is somewhere on the internet Leticia James um election AG was that the Victory Day speech um yeah also that's true too because if she said this after she'd been elected or as she's elected that's also she's not technically running on that on the for to say that the night of now you could say that she said it earlier but then you would have to show a video of it earlier as well the general election was held on November 6th 2018 oh in that case sorry hold on because I don't know I don't want to spend a lot of time on this um uh so I'm not going to do Sean's homework for him in that case uh H this quote is entirely and completely defeated by the date itself and so this is not the example that he can show to demonstrate um anything that he's defeated his own example with the date Expedition but what I'm actually referring to exactly describes a fishing Exposition let me play you the clip I will be shining a bright light because she's because to say that she's running on this is she's already she's already elected it's 2018 November 7th um the election's closed on November 6th right or the general election was held on November 6th so it was the day before so he would need an earlier clip to even show his um he would even he would need an earlier clip to even show what he's trying to demonstrate here into every dark corner of his real estate dealings and and every dealing demanding truthfulness at every turn she's also not Alvin Bragg true as well so right there and it's dated November 7th of 2018 prior to Leticia James taking office as the Attorney General she is pledging to a crowd that she will shine a bright oh do you see what he did there this is why I don't think he's dumb this is why I think it's intentional he's so sneaky he doesn't say well she's hold on hold on hold on let me hear the before and after of this one second that this is not a fishing Expedition but what I'm actually referring to exactly describes a fishing Expedition let me play you doj a political prosecution right let me finish my point so he says he should have went after him as soon as he got out of office you have the special councel bring charges on the classified documents case but it would have been probably less political to go after him early when you weren't sure he was going to run rather than later but it seems like they went after him and they put all these cases on the ballot and again most of it is not federal officials or the special Council it's local politicians that ran specifically on Prosecuting Trump and remember normally you have to have evidence of a crime before you start an investigation not as a campaign promise run on finding a crime to charge somebody with not as a campaign promise run on finding a crime to charge somebody with so it's a campaign promise you're campaigning You're Not Elected yet and you're running on finding a crime to charge somebody with so right here I'm talking about a prosecutor looking into somebody in order to find evidence of you're talking about a prosecutor looking into someone in order to find evidence but you're running on it as part of your crime rather than you having cause to start an investigation which is the normal operating procedures that aose would go through in to find evidence of the crime I also end this hypothetical and talking about somebody announcing their intentions this is something that I mentioned and by the way this is clearly and obviously understood because Hutch ends up responding at some point shortly after this he had been criminally charged and convicted on these crimes so it's not like there was it's not like there was some fishing Expedition that this is not a fishing Expedition but what I'm actually referring to exactly describes a fishing Exposition let me play you the clip then he plays a clip of her speaking after after she's won her election so now we're not technically talking about campaigning on or promising in order to get elected this is after she's won her election but hold on listen listen this is so good wait I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings and listen listen listen hold on every dealing demanding truthfulness at every turn so right so right there now he doesn't say before she's elected he doesn't say while she's campaigning and he doesn't say before she wins the office he says and it's dated November 7th of 2018 prior to Leticia James taking office as the Attorney General taking office does he say that because he knows she's already been elected and won her campaign that was a very particular word that he used there he acknowledged the date so he knows she's won the election so he knows that this example doesn't apply to what he was just saying not to mention the fact that it is a different person it's not Alva braas Jam but that this is the I know that Sean has done this for a long time you guys s for him so hard I don't know why he's done this to me like multiple debates where he's so slimy he's one of the slimiest people I've ever debated before he did he tried to do it in person even when we were at uh the modern day debate in person debate he is so sneaky and slimy though she is pledging to a crowd that she will shine a bright light not just into Trump's real estate dealings which you might be able to argue in some way shape or form there was a case in the news that she might be referring to but all of his dealings and she says she's going to demand truthfulness at every turn this is a fishing Expedition when you are telling people you're going to look into somebody in order to find evidence of a crime and again she was the public advocate for New York City before this she was not an Assistant Attorney General or anything like that she is promising to go on a fishing Exposition this is exactly what I was referring to in this particular moment right here and again a now he's like well this is what I was ref to the whole time you were talking about running for office explicitly saying you were going to go on a fishing exped not those exact words but you were going to go and try to find any kind crime this actually she's already been elected she's already been elected got conflated with brag maybe worst case scenario you say I misattributed this to Alvin brag but and again it got conflated with brag maybe worst case scenario you say I misattributed this to Alvin brag but in no way shap that's the worst case scenar no that's your best case scenario wait what that's the the best case scenario is I just misattributed to it that's the charitable interpretation the worst case scenario is assuming you're intentionally lying about all of this and complaining all these people because it doesn't matter to you because you're just trying to sell whatever lie you think you can get away with because nobody actually knows you know the exact names and dates and statements made by these people to go on a fishing Exposition this is exactly what I was referring to in this particular moment right here and again it got conflated with brag maybe worst case scenario you say I misattributed this to Alvin Bragg but in no way shape or form did I go out of my way to make something up out of thin air in order to tie down Alvin Bragg and smch his good name which to be clear he does not have a good name in fact the person who attributed this to Alvin Bragg was cam not me and he was referring to a different quote bro you brought up you brought up brag first you why is Cam getting thrown under the bus so much here and you have to remember this election was actually occurring in 2020 cuz brag was sworn in in 2021 where he was arguing on the campaign that he would be the best person to take up an already existing case against Trump and he was citing his other lawsuits against Trump as qualification now he's acting like he knew brag already had the existing law he learned this at the end of our debate he learned that he didn't know this that there were already existing lawsuits he learned this in the end of our debate after he tried to smear brag for 30 minutes which is still questionable Behavior but it is nowhere near at the level of what I was talking about in against Trump as qualifications which is still questionable Behavior why would it be questionable Behavior if your state is engaged in a lawsuit against a incredibly wealthy person like I remember when I lived in Omaha people ran on this yeah if you're if the state or the city is engaged in really costly litigation against like a big Corporation or against a really wealthy person or against certain off official people run on this yeah I've taken the bankers to task before you know i' I've I've challenged Wall Street and I've won I was the person that sued this person they they're your district attorney or they're your um or they your prosecutor they're your general attorney what what the [ __ ] else would they run on if not their [ __ ] record yeah no [ __ ] obviously they're going to run on their [ __ ] record what do we what do we what is improper here like but it is nowhere near at the level of what I was talking about in the hypothetical which again was attributed to Leticia James so for Steven who's been calling me a liar who's like oh well he made up this specific and all that I want to know how you're going to justify that claim right now because you're the one that brought this up it wasn't cam we have something a whole minute earlier of you bringing this up before cam even opened his mouth to because you threw the defense over to him here cuz you realize you're no idea what the [ __ ] you were talking about what what is the plan here for Sean is it just that nobody would rewind the video and watch well I guess people don't huh damn going president in order to try your political opponent who by the way you ran on Prosecuting ruting you ran on Prosecuting that was your claim that was your specific claim you even said it about Georgia as well and then you throw cam under the bus because a two minutes later wait was cam only resp hold on let me just double check was cam only saying this because Sean threw it to him a new special counil th democracy superiority it might not it might it might have just been a separate question towards cam Donald Trump objectively Co I'll answer the question too yeah so I don't think I don't think it's a threat to democracy okay Cam did take the question here but yeah but the reason why we're talking about this is because Shawn is the one that brought it up Jesus because I was obviously referring to something very specific and very real it happened to be a different New York prosecutor now maybe you could call this me misattributing something that Leticia James said to district attorney Alvin brag but again the person who brought up a specific quote in this conversation about going after Trump was cam not me and the other yes in the other quote wait quote in this conversation about going after Trump was cam not me no we literally listened to it 2 minutes earlier you cite Georgia you say that they they invented a whole case basically to trial run before they went after Trump with the racketeering stuff and then you say that it happened in New York too that people were just running on charging him I think that is a heavy burden I think it can change the norms and honestly I know a lot of people on the power so I don't think democracy and hold oned more felony charges that that's what you know that's what you're trying to go for get Trump I mean brag case I will like point out that they're not even all remotely Federal one is even a local one the Alvin Brad case what you're seeing is like weird new interpretations first time ever used interpretations in order to Target Trump I mean the Brad case where it's a money thing falsifying business records those were enhanced to felony charges based on the fact that he was trying to influence the outcome of an election now that's fine that you could say that that's what you know that's what you're trying to go for but those falsifications occurred after the election so it was even on its face that's like a very like odd upgrade to felony charges especially from the who ran on and downgrades more felony charges than anyone in the history of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office you have the Georgia case where they actually prosecuted as a test case widely reported Young Thug under the rot Statute in order to have a case more similar than the Georgia teacher Statute in order to prosecute Donald Trump and it was described by the media as a test case he brings this up implying this case was just done so that they could go after Trump later on ongoing and again that's very unusual to try a completely different defendant in a new way just so you have precedent in order to try your political opponent who by the way you ran on try your political opponent who by the way you ran on prose so yeah like these are problem and now his claim is what after all that at the level of what I was talking about in the hypothetical which again was attributed to latia James so for Stephen who's been calling me a liar who's like oh well he made up this specific and all that I want to know how you're going to justify that claim right now because I was obviously referring to something very specific and very real it happened to be a different New York prosecutor now maybe you could call this me misattributing something that Leticia James said to district attorney Alvin brag but again the person who brought up a specific quote in this conversation about going after Trump was cam not me correct the other yes in the other quote he said obviously like evidence he gave the caveats he wasn't as bad as letia James and there's no to be clear for Lea you also couldn't say anything that letia said that was bad also the idea of guy hold on Stephen I do have the clips of Laticia where she said to a voter on the street that you should vote for her cuz she's going to sue Trump now by the way this isn't the only time Leticia James did this when she was approached by somebody asking her about the value of voting she ended up responding to this person in this way and what would you say to people who say oh I'm not going to bother to register to vote because my voice doesn't make a difference or I'm just one person I say one I say one name Donald Trump as should motivate you get off your ass Mo will you will you sue him for us oh we're going to definitely sue him we're going to be real painly ass he's going to know my name personally I love it he probably does already again there's what is the date for this what is she referring to there could have already been like there could have also suing Trump yeah suing Trump implies civil litigation not criminal litigation as well which is a separate thing too um but also what is the wait here's the fact check on this quote what is the date here [Applause] this is from November 7th 2018 okay so this is after she' won our election the day after James was elected and the Instagram account of this a Comm uh a community I almost say communist activist who ran for New York City Council in 2019 in the video appeared to record is the exchange what would you say to people this is what we just watched uh will you sue him for us or we're going to sue him I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate President James made this statement in a nearly three and a half video uh video minute video she posted December 12th 2018 on nownews.com a politically Progressive social media focused news organization the headline was why Leticia James wants to take on Donald Trump as New York attorney general James opened the video by saying America is an Uncharted Territory we can just listen to the video just kidding no we can't America is in Uncharted Territory we are angrier and more deeply divided than we've ever been at any point in our history since the Civil War and at the eye of the storm is Donald Trump ripping families apart threatening women's most basic rights I'm wunning for attorney general because I will never be afraid to challenge those illegitimate president when our fundamental rights are at stake from the musl band to efforts to deport immigrants to denying transgender students the ability to choose whatever bathroom they want rolling back regulations to protect our planet colluding with foreign powers putting profits over people dividing Us in ways we haven't seen in Generations we need to focus on Donald Trump we need to follow his money this is part of a response to a question asked of James and other Democratic New York Attorney General candidates during a September 16th 2018 debate so also so this is by definition not really a fishing Expedition if you're literally citing specific things that you would intend to challenge in court it's already not like we're already ped like Expedition things here's actions that Donald Trump has taken that I think we should challenge whatever I'm writing on attorney general so that I can do this right you might not agree with challenging him on these things you might not agree that New York uh State should be but this is It's the job of the Attorney General right like it's it's like saying it would be improper for uh for um for a senator to run on Single Payer healthare it would be inappropriate it's like what do you mean well because I disagree with Single Payer healthare that's fine you can disagree with the policy but this is what a senator runs on they run on passing legislation um we need to focus on Donald Trump we need to follow this money this is part of respons General the question what is your view uh of the proper basis required to start an investigation of a person or Corporation or nonprofit how much smoke if any does there need to be and how do you guard against a rush to judgment against someone whether it's an average unknown New Yorker or Donald Trump and his associates James said an attorney general should be following the facts and following the evidence and that simply opening up an investigation can ruin lives and so with respect to Donald Trump we need to follow his money we need to find out where he's laundered money we need to find out whether or not he's engaged in conspiracies and whether or not he's concluded not only with uh Putin but also with China as well we all know that 10 years ago he was almost bankrupt most domestic Banks we're not lending him any money we need to get all of his money to purchase his real estate holdings and all of his golf courses and all of those transactions have happened here in New York City which is why the next Attorney General is absolutely critical what is feeling my soul right now is Trump James made that remark during her opening statement of an August 28th 2018 debate with the Democratic candidates if you want to say that this is evidence of like a fishing Expedition or that she would invent something or make something up you could say maybe that you're troubled politically buy it maybe you could okay if you're troubled by an attorney general saying that she wants to do things in a prosecutorial manner against somebody which is what the Attorney General does but then if you wanted to make that claim okay well this is 2018 then the next step is did they do this is there any evidence of any improper Behavior like have you seen them do something that like is evidence of them going on a fishing Expedition or is evidence of them doing something that they weren't legally allowed to do or breaking some process or procedure or doing something else because that's also the next thing that would be hugely missing from any of this as well um prosecutors run on Prosecuting crimes like I don't know what the [ __ ] else I don't know what else you want like it's such a Bizarro world to live in Trump said I did nothing nothing wrong it called James investigation a vindictive and self-serving fishing [Applause] Expedition wait this one I'm going to be real p asked he's got to know my name personally I love it he probably does already again there's Laticia James saying vote for her because Donald Trump and when asked if she will sue Donald Trump she's not saying we'll use all the afforded legal Avenues in order to challenge anything that he's doing that's breaking the law she says yes I'm going to sue him campaign promise directly to this individual right here's no to be clear so he I like how also let me and we're not even we're not even first of all yeah campaign promise first of all she's already won our election number one number two it's not just a random individual it's a what do they say like a state council person or whatever but I mean you they're voted right so when she's already won her election so to call it a campaign promise is not right okay um I don't like to do the comparisons I do like to do the comparisons I actually love to do the comparisons um the law she says yes I'm going to sue him campaign promise directly to this individual right here no be clear for Lea you also couldn't say anything letia said that was bad it's really critically important that everyone understand as was mentioned by Mr bajara that um filing a lawsuit simply opening up an investigation can ruin lives and so with respect to Donald Trump we need to follow his money we need to find out where he's laundering money we need to find out whether or not he's engaged in conspiracy and whether or not he's colluded not only with pu Putin but also with China as well now again you have Leticia James during the actual debates of the election in September of 2018 saying that she's going to follow Trump's money in order to see if he's money laundering and whatnot and this is a fishing Expedition because once again she doesn't have evidence for a crime she's promising that she's going to just look into all his transactions in order to find money laundering but there's nothing right now that says that she's continuing an investigation if the if it's oh oh [ __ ] I was just going to do the double standard thing I like how these guys kashan will defend okay to the death okay the idea that you can't read Trump's mind we can't know what Trump we can't know if Trump thought there was mm but you can't read his mind you have no you can't read his you can't read his [ __ ] M but her saying that as a prosecutor by the way uh as an attorney general by the way we're going to follow the money we're going to see if anything improper going you're reading her mind to say that she's going to engage in extra legal like unfair illegal practices to try to do stuff that she's not legally within her entitlement within her right within the pervy of her job to do how where the [ __ ] do you get that from right somebody says we're going to follow the money we're going to figure out if anything wrong is going on here right well she's going to obviously break the law she's obviously going to do things that are illegal she's obviously going to do things that she's not supposed to like how do you know that what's your your evidence for that is her saying we're going to follow the money and see if somebody's colluding or doing something improper or illegal again it's an attorney general this is what they do I mean like investigating crimes and and looking into crimes is literally what they're supposed to do what like this transaction in order to find money laundering but there's nothing right now that says that she's continuing an investigation or anything that they said as defenses of Alvin brag because she's just promising a fishing Expedition I take accusations of me deliberately lying to people out there in the audience to my audience very seriously long-term viewers of this channel know that I will go out of my way to correct mistakes errors that I've made on this channel with whole separate videos included in the beginning of next videos and do anything and everything to remind you of when I am in fact wrong in fact even in this stream because I believe that cam had the goods when I couldn't find this Alvin Brad quote I said you know what I could be mistaken I could be wrong but Steven of course had to rage out like an absolute lunatic and say that I'm lying and then continue the LIE past that point and that's when I have to address it for this now as far as the specific quote that Destiny is asking for it does not exist he gave caveats he's smarter than than what you go he's smarter than uh than I gave him credit for in my paraphrase so if you want to take that that's fine so to be 100% clear there is no way shape or form that you could say me referencing Leticia James without remembering that I'm just to be clear we do I don't know how much he's trying to gas the audience here when Sean says he's giving caveats he's smarter than I thought the implication here is that Bragg is fully going to go and do illegal [ __ ] the implication is that brag is going to fully go and do stuff that he's not supposed to but he's smart enough he's smart and clever and crafty and he gives you these HED he Hedges very intelligently first before he goes and does illegal [ __ ] but when Donald Trump says fight like hell you're going to lose your country well we can't possibly know what he means by that we can't possibly you know re when When Donald Trump says things like and I know you'll be marching down there peacefully that's not him hedging that's not him like trying to cover his ass that's genuinely what he believes fully with his heart even though we can look at what happened afterwards and how he responded afterwards and every single thing sells the idea that he wanted violence but for Alvin brgs who did the exact opposite every single time we have the exact opposite conclusion where well even if he said he was going to follow law he's obviously not going to because reasons what's up what do you want yeah notice real quick there the sneakiness as well where he says I thought that cam had the goods so which is it Sean did you make that mistake because you thought cam had the goods and you were relying on cam or were you relying on your own broken memory of Leticia James even that is inconsistent he's willing to say that it was definitely me misremembering these quotes as opposed to me relying on Cam's memory and knowing that cam had the good so even there you can see slipp sneakiness he's not committing to a story I'm only defending brag here because cam brought it up first but cam happened to actually bring up the correct thing that I knew but it was actually about somebody else and not Alvin BR like even though he was actually the one that brought BR yeah it's ridiculous yeah so if he was relying on Cam's having the goods then why would he be saying that he misattributed the quotes you should just say one or the other oh yes I was relying my own memory I was relying on Camp yeah that's when I have to address it for this now as far as the specific quote that Destiny is asking for it does not exist he gave caveats he's smarter than than what you go he's smarter than uh than I gave him credit for in my paraph trump Foundation agrees to dissolve New York attorney general says Leticia James would have been the AG here right December 18th 2018 so was it had this case already even been ongoing when did the um when did the Trump Foundation cases start because if this happened if the foundation was dissolving in 2018 December I'm guessing this case was probably started years earlier already or at least a year earlier maybe not when did the Trump Foundation case start in a June 2018th petition filed by the office of the New York attorney general it was explained that none of the foundation's expenditures or activities were approved by its board of directors the investigation found that the board existed in name only it did not meet after 1999 it did not set policy or criteria for choosing Grant recipients and it did not approve of any grants Mr Trump alone made all decisions related to the foundation and this was in a petition filed by the office of the New York attorney joural in June of 2018 so there was already stuff on the books there was already stuff on the books about Trump testified in an October 2017 deposition that he witnessed Donald Trump's campaign staff coordinate with Trump to use the Iowa fundraiser to benefit the campaign in 2018 New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood alleged that in a larger suit against fation that Trump and using the foundation protest campaign during and after the Ia fundra had violated Charities laot like this is all prior to to Leticia Jame uh James even being the attorney general like Leticia James was overwhelmingly elected as the AG of New York on Tuesday shattering a okay so this on November 6 2018 Miss Underwood already has dozens of cases pending against Mr Trump dozens of cases didn't he didn't he say didn't Sean say earlier she wasn't promising to continue earlier cases she was implying that she go after whole new things already had dozens of cases Sean just doesn't know any of this he did just enough research to inconveniently be incorrect about every single thing he's saying so if you want to take that that's fine so to be 100% clear there is no way shape or form that you could say me referencing Leticia James without remembering that I'm referencing Laticia James specifically in a hypothetical is somehow me lying deliberately about district attorney Alvin Bragg that is he is lying deliberately okay I will have one L my bad he was not lying about Alvin Bragg only he was also deliberately lying about Leticia James as well my bad okay there are two people that he's lying about not just one okay that was my mistake it's just not the case now I do believe and I have presented evidence for the fact that Alvin brag did charge Trump for political reasons we had two prosecutors resigned from Bragg's office because they believed that he was dropping the case after he took office because again it was just a campaign thing for him and they were really angry about it but then brag brings back the case up again after it is clear that Donald Trump is running for president in 2024 not no evidence no evidence for any of this the two prosecutors left because they thought that he should have gone to a grand jury with an indictment brag thought he didn't have enough evidence he does he bring up an article or a video of anything proving he keeps bringing this point up again over and over again well they only brought the charges back because Trump started announced he was running again where's the evidence where does he show evidence for this maybe he will what's up all right this is the last thing that I'm not coming back again but I just have to say so dishonorable for Shawn right now to say what he just said about the two prosecutors he says the prosecutors were upset that he dropped the case so they quit and they had this letter and then brag resumed the case after Trump announced the election yeah he's confusing two different cases the the case that brag said we're not going to charge on was the inflated assets case the the inflating the value of the hotels inflating the value of the golf clubs that's a different criminal case that was never charged the case that actually was charged is the hush money case so this is another example in a long list of examples of Shawn making mistakes I guess he's saying and claiming that this case was dead and buried and then Alvin revived it after he found out but the truth is these are there are some similar facts but they're two completely different cases and he has the gall to claim that they're the same case one is the hush money case and the other is the inflated assets case which was never charged and so only someone who is either lying or so incredibly willfully blind doesn't even do the beest due diligence to look into this matter would say that after by the way in my spaces I explicitly warned him and told him hey these are two different legal theories so him being put on notice by me that these are different cases in his follow-up clarification video Even after being put on notice doesn't do the due Dil to make sure that he's not telling another lie and this is the only evidence he has that it's a political prosecution sure yeah although his response to this oh sure okay Sean's response to what PCO said he okay well fine they didn't uh he didn't restart one drop case but the only reason they brought charges on the other case because Trump and he was running again right is what he would say probably but yeah it's it's all the same but then brag brings back the case up again after it is clear that Donald Trump is running for president in 2024 not to mention the fact as I said that brag who has downgraded over half of felony charges and by the way this doesn't even count the dismissals in the cases that he just refuses to charge people so Som found a way to upgrade the charges against Trump this talking point is nonsense I don't know why he keeps saying this well I know what he's try he's trying to sell you this really weird vague idea that brag said he was going to downgrade felonies well why did he upgrade the felony for Trump my guess is going to be without and somebody can link me an article showing me me I'm wrong if you if there's one my guess is going to be br's probably said uh we're going to downgrade felonies people that we feel like don't deserve felonies so things on like drug offenses or whatever was like okay we don't need to charge felonies for these people cuz it's going to ruin their lives not that they would try to get rid of every single felony that exists or not that like nothing should be a felony ever like he keeps cting this stat like it has anything to do with uh it has anything to do with what Donald Trump was charged with or anything to do with his case it's such a stupid vague um like vague assertion like imagine the guy who caught you know Walter White is like I'm I'm not going to try to arrest people for drugs as much anymore and like oh really well why are you Prosecuting Walter White just for being a meth King wow good one like it's such a stupid [ __ ] the dismissal in the cases that he just refuses to charge people somehow found a way to upgrade the charges against Trump again for political Reon so that he can say look he's a convicted felon based on me going outside of my pattern of behavior and upgrading charges because specifically he was talking about a political opponent named Donald J Trump now the next lie again just no evidence like so and upgrading charges because specifically he was talking about a political opponent named Donald because he because because it's just political for Donald Trump or J Trump now the next Lie by Destiny that I want to address that he is deliberately spreading let's be clear about that is the idea that I misinterpreted it deliberately so the prompt is democracy on the ballot now I did not misinterpret that prompt at all there was no inter ation from me at all because I never received that prompt I was messaged by Connor to debate up or down whether or not Trump would end democracy if elected this is what I was offered as a debate you can see it in plain text and this is by the way what I agree to actually debate and I believe that Destiny as a debate you can see it in plain text and this is by the way what I agree to actually debate and I believe that Destiny is deliberately lying about this in order to smear me even further because when Connor actually presented him the screenshot and took blame for sending me this and by the way this is what I agreed to all of a sudden Destiny who pulled it up couldn't get it down fast enough okay so I I sent uh I sent Lauren and Shawn and I could look up the the message I'm going send it to you but but but I sent the equivalent of will Donald Trump in democracy in 2024 or something like that right so that's an extrapolation it's a little bit hyperbolic ET but of course when you recruiting somebody you want to give them the most fiery version of the debate right and so Lauren says what is the exact wording of the prompt and I did send that to Lauren uh what can you show me these Dam somewhere sure I just sent you I just sent you one of them this is the one that was sent to ajw yeah this is there's nothing oh my God I know about to do and it's so it's so stupid I'm so happy he's about to do what he's about to do I'm so happy this is about to happen I know exactly what he's going to say and it's so dumb wrong with this though so there must be something more but but hold on I what for what I sent to wait is this from my screen or is this a no P just me a tweet where it's you saying do you want to debate wait did I bring that up or was that put over my screen by Sean debate part but but hold on I what for what I sent to ajw no P just let me a tweet where it's you saying do you want to debate another Democrat about whether or not and democracy elected yes that that was my extrapolation okay that's that's fine okay y now one of the things that annoys me about this is that since I provided the screenshot wait what he said I brought it up and took it down wait hold on kid I just sent you one of them this is the one that was sent oh wait was this an August edit oh I wonder if August added it a hold on yeah this is there's nothing wrong with this though so there must be something more but but hold on I what for what I sent to ajw no P just let me a tweet where it's you saying do you want to debate be debate partners with LA another Democrat about whether or not Trump what what is theide idea that I want to bring it up and take it down really quickly wouldn't I just not bring it up at all what what is the implication why would I show it if I don't want anybody to see it or read it democracy elected yes that that was my extrapolation okay that's that's fine okay y now one of the things that annoys me about this is that since I provided the screenshot which by the way was demanded by Pisco there should be no more conversation about this this is what I was given this is what I accepted I would not have accepted the debate had the topic been we're just going to argue randomly that something may damage an institution it was an up or down question and that's what I prepared for there should be no argument against this because obviously this is what I was presented and what I agreed to but instead I get all these different ridiculous points like from Pisco in his Twitter space where he tries to make the case that it would have been interesting for me to bring up whether or not Kamala Harris would destroy democracy I like how he's pretending like this was just an easy it should have just been a binary dichotomus like oh you know will democracy end forever or is democracy going to carry on in some form like oh that's reasonable that's a reasonable interpretation of I think what the prompt was meanwhile and then when he was asked later on in that debate he was like wait hold on no no it wasn't in the debate it was the next day right it was the next day no no it was during the debate do you think the Civil War was a threat to democracy and he's like well it's a good question I'm not sure like wait what the [ __ ] are we even talking about then the one thing I wanted to bring up was you know we're talking about I want to kind of go back a little bit so the whole is democracy on the ballot first of all this became the topic of the debate instead of sorry the topic of the debate became the debate right um one of the things I had an issue with was is that you could assume pretty obviously from that that Trump was the one that this was being discussed about I think that's pretty obvious true YouTube chat comment ajw really convinced himself that the debate was will the world end for sure and told himself this is going to be easy actually true like what is he thinking and again this is like a it's an insult to me Josiah and Hutch like does he think that we agreed to take on the debate prompt we can we can prove with 100% certainty that Donald Trump will do everything to end the entire institution of the government as we know it in a way that it will never be able to be brought back in the future like that's the prompt for us like holy [ __ ] but you know even if what are we talking about here weren't you could even assume because of the rhetoric that has been going out there already about Kamala and being a communist and things like that you could even assume in that end that it could go the way of K but obviously the more obvious one is Trump and I think it was really interesting when we looked at how actual Justice Warrior was going about all this uh you know it was really interesting he didn't understand the debate but yet he kept even when called out on it continued to debate from the perspective as if the topic was is democracy going to be ended yeah even when called out about it he continued it was not up until Lauren Southern came in and I could be mistaken on this but until laurren Southern came in that this entire 30 minutes of discussing what it was that he actually speak up and go oh yeah this is this is this is the issue so yeah yeah it's a really good point I want to address first the Comm thing so like hold on is her saying this about Donald Trump [Music] okay hello my name is Laticia James and I'm running for attorney general for the great state of New York now more than ever New Yorkers needed attorney general who has the experience the skills and the passion to uphold our laws and defend our most basic rights I have a real record of getting things done as a former public defender I fought for people who didn't have the resources to afford representation but that didn't mean they should be afforded any less justice as an Assistant Attorney General I fought to protect our civil rights and to take on anyone who would abuse them or attempt to defraud consumers and as a city council member I helped uncover one of the biggest corruption scandals in New York City and pass laws to improve the lives of New Yorkers and as the current New York City public Advocate my office has addressed over 32,000 constituent complaints individuals who walk through our doors without fancy lawyers or high paid lobbyists we have taken on bad landlords and the gun industry and passed a groundbreaking law to end gender wage discrimination as a New York Cate attorney general I promise that I will use the powers of the law to move us forward and fight back against forces who try to move us backwards I will take on President Donald Trump and anyone who tries to deny New Yorkers their most basic rights whether it's corrupt politicians unscrupulous landlords inhumane immigration policies or Wall Street abuses I will take on powerful interest and hold them accountable because regardless of where you live what you look like who you love or who you pray to every New Yorker deserves equal protections under the law and that will always be my driving force I hope you will join me on this journey forward and vote for latia James on Thursday September 13th as the next New York State Attorney General I don't understand was the meme that because she said fighting or what was the meme what was the time stamp Nation as a New York City Atty General I promise that I will use the powers of the law to move us forward and fight back against forces who try to move us backwards is that was that was that a meme or yeah that would have been a very interesting way to take it like if he actually argued that yes democracy on the ballot because either a k uh Kam Harris is going to Institute these communist policies or policies that are like against our constitutional system then insert thing or you could take the route that well Kamala was appointed in an anti-democratic Way by I disagree with this but that's an angle you could take so I think that's a really interesting perspective that like the question by its terms was not candidate specific now this was very annoying because based on the prompt that I got my interpretation of it was that it was about Donald Trump and the reason why is because the prompt is whether or not Donald Trump will end democracy if elected so it would not have been a good argument if that was the question up or down to say what was the wasn't the publicly announced topic like on in the public was it democracy is democracy on the ballot was that the is there like a way that I can see this somewhere like was there a tweet made about this Twitter hippie dippy Lauren Destiny um ajw [ __ ] I'm not going be to find this oh the return of hippie dippy is democracy on the ballot in 2024 well Camala Harris would end democracy as well that's not a good Counterpoint so I didn't prepare that specific argument because again that wasn't the prompt mine was exclusively about Donald Trump so I came in ready to argue exclusively about Donald Trump and by the way Lauren ended up asking for clarification of this so when we spoke a day prior and I said this is the topic as presented to me and she says yeah I even clarified it with Connor I had no reason to believe that the conversation would be something completely different now another lie that spawns from this is is the fact that I somehow in bad faith never made this point about the prompt being different or about them trying to argue a different standard than what I agree to until over an hour in when Lauren Southern joined the conversation and this is 100% false in my opening statement I laid out a standard that they were going to have to prove that the evil orange man would end democracy as in the American government they're going to have to explain exactly why the mechanism or why the mechanisms of our government are going to be overthrown if presumably Trump gets elected the fact of the matter is our government is the longest consistent government currently going in world history at this moment in time we have been through a bunch of different controversial elections we have been through a trump presidency already so these guys are going to have to explain what would be different about Trump winning also this was a one-on-one debate he never dealt with my hypothetical either now I understand there's other people too but he was able to like pivot and divert to like other people's statements but I gave a hypothetical for I think there are real threads he could a point a Cabinet member who would do like crazy [ __ ] and he could give them direct orders to do so and promise them either a part a pardon or use his newly found presidential criminal immunity to do these bad actions like how would you deal with this but he that was just never addressed literally in the entirety of the conversation 2024 that was from him winning in 2016 around the 14 minute Mark after Hutch tried to put out what I consider to be a weasly standard because again I was informed that the topic would be up or down Trump is going to end the system if elected I called this out but again your argument seems to be that our institutions are strong enough to withand someone like Trump my question is why how do you justify allowing someone to come in and check those institions actually stress them and see how far these checks and balances actually go to constrain him what's Sean's General motivation here why would he lie and cop so hard on this because he's a conservative hack he's a partisan political hack right all his only job is to just appease like the um conservatives in his audience and this is It's Like Donald Trump is the ultimate imate I think um bad faith stress test like how much can you mentally twist and contort yourself into an area where you can defend somebody without just coming off as like a total lunatic and Sean is like extended beyond beyond all limits of what you can do without appearing to be a crazy person well first all prior prior to your question you were like well I'm not saying democracy is gonna end I'm just saying it's gonna be chipped away so you got to kind of commit to your argument because if you're saying it's not goingon to end then you kind of agree with me in that that the institions are well like well suited to hold up to whatever challenges real or imagine that Trump will bring up so it seems a little for you off the Prem of theate by saying like oh well he might chip away at ours I me could arue that prose your political opponent is chipping away at our institions You could argue that using new interpretations or setting up test cases in order to set up for a future prosecution against a former president is a chipo at our institutions and at the Norms that we're typically used to in the United States look at how he goes from institutions now he says institutions and Norms look at how he goes from like directly trying to destroy or attack our institutions to Prosecuting a political opponent or creating a new way to like prosecute someone like none of these things are technically like these things still can be checked in a variety of different ways these are all like wholly and and substantively different like there's a difference in kind between what we're talking about here versus what we're alleging Donald Trump would do right of America you know the things that ultimately ended up leading to that immunity decision from the Supreme Court that's not really the end of democracy I don't think that our system was destroyed over the last four years under the Biden Administration so like I think you got to either commit like Steven actually is to some kind of crazy plot that Trump's going to overthrow our entire system of government or not and he even wow he even acknowledges that I've committed by giving my example but he'll never deal with it but in fact over and over again well before Lauren showed up I pointed out that they were going off the topic and the reason I believe that is because I was presented a completely different topic I agreed to that different topic based on those parameters and that's what I prepared for SL expected to debate so when they started saying oh a threat to democracy and blah blah blah and all that I took that as nonsense throughout the whole course of the debate I challenged them to commit to the broader premise that I was presented and now they're pretending like I just brought it up when Lauren got there when that's just not the case all this talk about how oh well it doesn't mean when you say if the Second Amendment is on the ballot or abortion is on the ballot that it's going to go away or be completely wiped out or whatever is completely irrelevant because I was never presented this on the ballot question I was presented again in plain English up or down whether or not Trump would end democracy if elected now that of course leads into the next lie deliberately being pushed by Steven against me despite the fact that it is completely an other nonsense on its face and this is the idea that oh the reason I argued the way that I argued is because I believe America is not a democracy it's a Republic now to be clear I do believe that but I never made that point at all whatsoever during the hippie live stream and the reason I never made that point is because I understood for the context of this conversation that distinction made no difference no I I I hear you there's an interesting question about what democracy mean recall of course by the way that actual Justice Warrior his whole position is we don't actually have a democracy and so by for his mer there can be no threat to a democracy in because he said multiple times we do not live in a democracy so if we're going by that definition of democracy I don't think actual Justice Warriors would raise the kind of concerns the Confederates are bring up because he would of course not agree you guys are stupid there's no democracy you live in a republic or whatever his phas is on the actual of I find to be silly and pedantic and semantic it's stupid but the question it's not oh it's not silly and pantic semantic and stupid it's intentional it's intentional and malicious it's intentional and malicious so when Pisco just makes up out of thin air that that's literally my whole argument and then Destiny who is watching live listening says oh it's not that he actually believes that he's being malicious about it thus affirming the inaccurate assessment of my position that is objectively a lie and if you want to prove that it's not a lie show me exactly where I said that on the Hipp dippy Liv stream and the crazy thing is not having this context I end up going on the Twitter space Destiny asked me is America democracy I say is it a republic and he starts making all these SN ridiculous comments about oh I understand this and that I understand okay I can see all of the debate from last night there is no thre yes there is no thre democ we don't have democracy I understand now and again I don't have any context for the fact at this moment in time that he's been lying about my argument for a full hour beforehand and by the way PCO is buying into that lies and in fact after Destiny raged out of that Twitter space I ended up saying yeah PCO while I do believe that for the purposes of the conversation yesterday I didn't make that argument because I understood in general we were talking about the American electoral system so in that context I was going to fight on that point because what's the point of fighting on that you all hold on am I crazy I thought I asked him point blank are we a democracy and he said like no which what was the um I thought I I feel like I asked a a direct question about this can you show me these hold on 91 hits holy [ __ ] right let's look for a republic instead bringing up because he wouldn't of course not AG say well you guys are stupid there is no democracy you live okay I don't think he join us until later I got it all okay great that's amazing okay wa wait wait wait that that is your point aw it is your point that there is no democrac in America Fair well the American system is a republic but this is like again this is he's not this stupid he's not this autistic this intentionally weasly slimy phrasing right well we are a republic so PECO says it's not a right and he's like well we are a republic right that we have no that's fine okay so I understand let's just this SE vot for senators and they appoint and confir the Supreme Court Justices so legislation by your argument is not Democratic right we don't vote on that legislation acknowledge that what you just said that there's an objective reality about democracy that was objective than the idea threaten democracy objective than uh it's more objective than uh it's more objective than whether or not somebody's a threat to democracy or if they win will they threaten democracy on what ground can you say it's more or less concrete again I said it's more objective than the idea like a threat whether you perceive something to be a threat is inherently subjective whether you perceive something to be Democratic isn't that inherent subjective no there's a certain there's a certain degree of like objective reality when it comes to whether or not a process is democratic hold on wait wait wait wait wait that's completely wrong hold on just as a quick precursor do you know how any single part of the United States government works ever like any part of the government whatsoever I'm just check I'm so aggressive here he's triggered the [ __ ] out of me so much they idea that you can objectively say the level of democ democracy that's not true republics democracies all these things exist in Broad spectrums theidea that like you objectively true that's not true that's [ __ ] you understand there are people that are appointed right that we don't democratically right do you think do you think that the Supreme Court Justice is that undemocratic because nobody votes for them yeah they're not democratically elected okay wait yeah so do you acknowledge that what you just said that there's an objective reality about democracy that was the most [ __ ] statement that anybody with even a level one understanding of us Civics could ever say right you ack was [ __ ] statement right the Supreme Court is not Democratic like that's easily objectively verifiable okay okay so legislation is not Democratic either then right because we don't vote on bills we don't vote on it well we have a representative democracy we have a representative democracy that appoints the Supreme Court that confirms the Supreme Court justice as well why why why does Supreme Court Justice not count but legislation does so so what we have a president who appoints Supreme Court Justices and we have a represent democracy that votes for senators and they appoint then confirm Supreme Court Justices so legislation by your argument is not Democratic right we don't vote on that legislation well we don't vote directly on it so in that sense it's not Democratic this is [ __ ] it's okay and the presidential election that's not Democratic right because we don't even get to vote on that it's just the electors right presidential election is is is 50 uh individual elections and people argue that it's not Democratic because the person with less V okay so in that case we have no that's fine okay so I understand okay I can see it all of the debate from last night there is no threat yes there is no threat to democrac because we don't have democracy I understand now I got it all okay great that's amazing okay wait that is your point it is your point that there is no Democracy in America Fair well the American system is a republic but for the purposes of the No No the American system is a democratic constitutional republic it's all three of those things you understand that you saying it's a republic and not democracy when we vote it's [ __ ] right that was a [ __ ] comment right you know we are democracy and Republic do you know somebody needs to make him admit yes I am [ __ ] yes I did make a [ __ ] somebody needs to force him to do it why won't Pisco do it here why is Pisco being a punk [ __ ] in this conversation make him admit yes I did say something [ __ ] [ __ ] yes we are Republic and a democracy do you think that the United States is both we're Republic with Democratic elements too like this I think this is the line of questioning hold on are is [ __ ] right you that was a [ __ ] comment right you know we are democracy and a republic do do you know that we are a republic and a democracy do you think that the United States is both we're a republic with Democratic elements to it no is the United States a republic and a democracy a republic okay yeah this okay wait and what and his statement is that he doesn't believe this lying about my argument for a full hour before hand and by the way PCO is buying into that lies and in fact after Destiny raged out of that Twitter space I ended up saying yeah PCO while I do believe that for the purposes of the conversation yesterday I didn't make that argument because I understood in general we're talking about the American electoral system so in that context I was going to fight on that point because what's the point of fighting on that and you all in the context of that conversation get when you're talking about democracy you're talking about the United States governing system it sounds like you're acknowledging that there are different definitions of democracy that you're working with if you're saying that in the cont debate prepared with I'm using democracy don't be [ __ ] in the conversation we were asked if Trump would end democracy so I interpreted that as we're calling America a democracy like our current governing system and how we choose our representatives and all that for that conversation if you asked me if you asked me is America democracy a republic I would opt for the America as a republic which is completely different now I didn't once do the little thing where I was like technically America is not a democracy throughout the whole debate because that would have been pointless and would have gotten us anywhere try to argue what we actually agreed on or what I was actually invited to debate which psychically just for the 50 trillionth reminder there is no tension uh and there is no um uh you don't have to choose one or the other between a democracy and a republic we have a we live in a Democratic Republic we have republics uh we have a republic we've got elected officials that do legislation for us they represent us but we elect them through elections we are a Democratic Republic there is no tension there is no mutually exclusive property between these two things we can be both okay okay the the idea that we're either democr or Republicans we're I don't know where again well I guess Connor kind of exemplified it apparently he was like well I'm a republican so I defend the Republic like this is there is there's no tension between these two things we a Democratic Republic try to argue what we actually agreed on or what I was actually invited to debate which appar psychically like understand that it's actually something different Sean first of all I totally appreciate you making those cation points because I wasn't sure because in terms of the first part of what you said I'll get to the second part the first part you're saying is like of course when I come into the debate I'm using democracy in Republic is a for wait Republic is just the former of government but democracy is a value no what democracy also refers to like the form of government it refers to what we do in our government we vote citizens go out and they vote for things that is a democ we vote for things that affect things that's a democracy when you vote when the public people go and they vote for for stuff it's a democracy in the sense of the American constitutional system I'm not using this more narrow version of democracy which I wouldn't apply in more general terms to America now again if you have any evidence that I made this claim during the hppp live stream present that evidence show that evidence if you have any evidence that I was presented the actual topic and that I would have agreed to the actual top topic which is vague oh is this a threat is this potentially bad or that then present that tell me how in my mind on my honeymoon when I got this request and I agreed to this based on these terms I actually psychically knew that they were presenting something completely different to the other side I want that presented to me and by the way as late as the community tab where I posted the link to this live stream I was still using the same language that was originally presented to me right here on the community tab I will be live at 8:15 Eastern Standard Time debating whether Trump will end democracy with Destiny and others we so just to recap it is 100% unreasonable as in a standard that no other person would be expected to be held to to receive this message from Connor which says up or down Will trump and democracy if elect for me to assume that the topic is completely different than what was being presented to Meely the person who recruited me onto the show Conor has acknowledged that this was his error his mistake I don't think there was anything malicious about it I know a lot of people in my audience are saying that it's a setup but the fact of the matter is they're expecting me to be able to argue something completely different that I probably wouldn't have even agreed to in the first place based on this prompt and then claiming the extra step that I'm going out of my way to bad faith interpret a prompt that was never presented to me and again I would not have agreed to if Steven Pisco Hutch any single Lefty were put in the same position I was put in were offered to and agreed to terms that I agreed to and then things were completely different by the time that they showed up to the conversation then I would not blame them for somehow receiving the different terms and agreeing to them on top of that throughout the whole course of the conversation because again this was the premise that was presented to me I was like fine we can move on from this if you would just concede this point and Destiny refused to do so intended when you wrote the question just concede that you do not know that Trump is going be a dictator and let's move on do so for to assert that it's absolutely crazy for me to interpret is democracy on the ballot again something that I never received never interpreted to mean whether or not Trump will end democracy if elected in 2024 which is exactly what I did receive and then also refuse to concede that point to move on to another part of the conversation is intentionally bad faith and by the way completely stupid it's ridiculous that he's making these two arguments out of both sides of his mouth but again I will point out he couldn't get that screenshot off his screen fast enough because he knew it completely refuted disputed and destroyed his entire baseless line of attack again it's such a strange like uh it's such a strange mindset to accuse me of is that one it seems to me it looks pretty obvious to me that this is not something that I'm bringing up it's something my editor is putting up number one and number two whether it's either me or my editor why would I try to get something off my screen so fast when I'm the one that put it there I would just not put it there like what what is the implication here that um that why would I show it at all if I didn't want people to see it right never mind the fact that it's pretty obvious that this August you know put this up but screenshot off his screen fast enough because he knew it completely refuted disputed Andes of also fast enough how long does it take you to read this how long is this on my screen for hold on but again I will point out he couldn't get that screenshot off his screen fast enough because he knew it completely refuted disputed was that up for 5 seconds these two arguments out of both sides of his mouth but again I will point out let's see if we can read it do you want to be debate partners with Lauren Southern against Destiny and another Democrat about whether or not Trump will end democracy if elected oh [ __ ] okay well we only got to okay there's the bottom part here it'd be a hippie DIY debate four-person panel okay reading out loud I was not able to read the entire thing so you know what maybe he gets that maybe he gets that conviction against me okay I was being sneaky I was planning on the person watching the video only reading it out loud not being able to read it fast enough not being able to rewind not being able to pause um and also I told August to do this okay I said five seconds okay not a second longer because godamn they'll get us on that I will point out he couldn't get that screenshot off his screen fast enough because he knew it completely refuted disputed and destroyed his entire baseless line of attack against me you read that DM out loud when Connor sent you the message oh yeah I did read it yeah sure you're changing the parameters of the debate but that's fine but to Stephen's point about oh he wants to arrest people for he said he wants to arrest people for burning the American flag he said that in 2016 like when he was running then he said that for a long periods of time in his life and when he was in office he did absolutely to for those goals and you also say oh this presidential immunity it doesn't exist people don't want you to people don't want the president to commit crimes and all that well I happen to remember when Barack Obama actually murdered an American citizen abroad Abdul Abdul alaki and Eric Holder his attorney general are this is what Sean this was the main thing by the way that made me uh like committed me to the black listing of him the way that he phrases this he's either so stupid that it's not worth talking to or he's so dishonest that he's not worth um talking to I wonder if he'll include this in his video when he conflates legal counsil working at the office of legal counsil with a person's personal lawyer that is an unfathomably stupid thing to do I couldn't believe that he did this our top of law enforcement officer looked directly into the camera and he said due process doesn't necessarily mean judicial process so unlike Bill bar who didn't side with Trump in that particular instance Eric Holder absolutely did and yet our government still stands despite the fact that Obama not only did that for him who by the way very likely he was a propagandist for Al-Qaeda very likely betrayed our country although you could try somebody in absentia Obama didn't bother to do that but then again his son who was 16 years old was also killed an American citizen in another country by Obama and again it was under the same justification that due process doesn't equal judicial process the difference between your flag quote and Eric Holder and Obama's actions is that Trump was in office he did nothing about the American flag but what we saw from the Obama Administration is also Trump didn't ask to do anything about there's so much dishonesty here everything about what he's saying is so stupid so there's so much dishonesty so one Trump asked bar if something was legal Trump and then bar said no and Trump tried to do it anyway bar ended up quitting over that Obama asked through the Attorney General through the office of legal counsel something was legal the olc said yes and then Trump did it so we're already fundamentally different in terms of what they pursued and what they didn't pursue also secondly uh Obama was asking a question about something that clearly fell within the purview of the office of the presidency right do I have the authorization to make this legal strike Donald Trump was asking as a campaigning politician to see if he could fake election fraud so that he could win his next election like these things are so many worlds apart from each other um there's so many worlds apart from each other the comparison is absurd Obama's actions is that Trump was in office he did nothing about the American flag but what we saw from the Obama Administration is that they did claim and receive that power to kill Americans abroad that they deem to be terrorists so right here in this part of the conversation I brought up the fact that Obama unilaterally declared that he had the right to kill Americans abroad in non-combat zones that he decided were actually a threat and I unilaterally now how could like I just don't want to be charitable at all if I want to say Obama declared this unilaterally right if I was dealing with somebody that I felt like understood government better or just wasn't a bad faith piece of [ __ ] I would say I would assume he means the executive branch decided this unilaterally is that that what you mean the executive because Obama clearly didn't because he went to the doj and he asked to be could that doesn't come off to me as deciding unilaterally seems like the exact opposite he asked somebody else if he's legally allowed to do this declared that he had the right to kill Americans abroad in non-combat zones that he decided were actually a threat and excited the case of anoir alaki and his son Abdul raham alaki and Destiny of course decided to go into Petty stupid semantics by trying to make a distinction that didn't need to be made between Obama's White House lawyers and his personal lawyers despite the fact that I never once at all at any point in time said that they were his personal lawyers when you talk about comparing Barack Obama uh trying to see if he can assassinate an American citizen or not the question was was does the president have the ability to order uh certain types of military strikes or assassinations on US citizens the process that Obama went through wasn't going to the Supreme Court saying I need criminal immunity in case I want to commit crimes it was going to the office of legal council it was saying if he thought the president of United States had the authority to do this and it was in the legal clear he never said I'm beyond judicial review he never asked for any amending the Constitution and he certainly didn't ask Congress to to protect him and shield him from the liability of any of his ACS so no it's not even remotely comparable Donald Trump just presumed that he had the he just presumed that he had the ability to do that like he goes you talk about legal counsel how do you mean what do you mean he presumed if he presumed why would he ask a lawyer what does presumed mean Sean what does presumed even mean do I ask that what does presumed mean so those are his lawyers to come up with the you're dead wrong you're completely wrong you misunderstand completely the structure of government the olc those are his lawyers to come up with the justification wrong oh my and his lawyers to come up with the justification they're not his lawyers it's the office of legal counsel presume that he had the ability to do that like he goes you talk about legal counsel those are his lawyers to come up with a justification wrong you're completely wrong you misunderstand completely the structure of government the olc the White House councils those are not his personal lawyers personal lawyers they're not they're not his lawyers they the president of the United States lawyers now in the context of this particular conversation St said Obama never claimed that this was beyond judicial review which I found to be very interesting for him to make that claim as a specific and then he said if he did then why didn't somebody withstanding decide to bring a suit against Barack Obama his his White House lawyers gave him whatever paper thin justification he needed right from the jump so he didn't have to get a second justification with paper thin uh justification right from the jump so he didn't have to get another justification what other justification he need what do you mean he's the president he believes he's authorized to do something so the president checks with the doj's legal counsil say do I actually have the authorization to do this and they said yeah we believe that legally you are in the clear here and then he does it what else is he supposed to do what other process would you recommend Sean was paper thin and why didn't anybody with standing bring a case of Supreme Court and have it overruled or why didn't Congress legisla create a new statute to limit the powers of the exec which are the two checks that it would be the um the judicial branch didn't seem to check Obama ear that's my understanding and the uh legislative branch didn't seem to check him on the decision either is my understanding they F like it was over the line now according to Destiny if you bring up very specific details about something and then you turn out to be wrong that means you're lying and wouldn't you know it Destiny is clearly by that standard lying right here never said I'm beyond judicial review because Barack Obama specifically claimed in his motion to dismiss a lawsuit along with the fact that the person suing I hope to God oh man I hope that he's not going to conflate I hope he's not going to conflate I think this is legal with I'm beyond judicial review but I I haven't read the the um this the particular case case here uh I could be incorrect In citing it uh or incorrect In cting I'm not really citing it I'm just saying that Barack Obama didn't ask for broad uh criminal immunity which is true by the way um Fally claimed in his motion to dismiss a lawsuit along with the fact that the person suing him who was alak's father had no standing that this was a non-judicial political question now this is specifically Barack Obama's office's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against him by nasar alaki again you V Barack H Obama president of the United States lean e p director of Central Intelligence to the federal rules of civil procedure on the grounds that plaintiff's lack uh standing and that his claims acire the court to decide non-judicial political questions turn the court should exercise the Equitable discretion and not to Grant the relief sought in addition PL if has no cause of action under the alien Tor statute this is not asking for all for for IM immunity or saying that all of your particular decisions are Beyond judicial review um it's a also this is a motion to dismiss also again if Obama presumed that all of these actions were Beyond a court why would he even bother asking his legal counsel also he's completely misrepresenting Obama's position here he is Obama is saying that a c and also I'm so sorry I you can say everything you want to say I'm sorry also also this is a civil suit not a Criminal suit as well okay go for it sorry correct so so number one you guys were talking about criminal immunity and not any kind of civil immunity so number one already we're starting off incorrect number two he's moving to dismiss for many reasons one relates to standing which of course wouldn't be an issue in a criminal case so you know supposing the doj goes after Obama because of course the Department of Justice um supposing that it's like in the right place will have standing to bring the federal case against Obama the hypothetical one uh that's another reason um and then yes Obama was claiming um that a certain question was non-justiciable namely the following two narrow issues number one the guy in this case was asking for a prospective exante injunction that basically would limit the the government in how they would operate their kind of military activities and so what Obama was asking for it was say number one you cannot Grant this kind of perspective injunction that limits the military and their military activities you can look backwards but you can't look forwards that's number one and on the political question non-justiciability they're not saying you can't review this case what they're saying is specifically you cannot review whether or not something is a war zone court that the determination of something being a war zone is up to Congress and it's up to the president the courts don't get to decide what is a war zone and what is not but if you read the motion to dismiss uh Obama clear his lawyers Clearly say that um the father could have raised issues about whether or not his son actually was engaging in terrorism actually was engaging in war and so they're not saying that you can never litigate a case against the president uh for killing a citizen abroad they're saying you cannot litigate you cannot the courts cannot determine whether or not something is a war zone that whether or not something is a war zone that is within the complete discretion of the political branches Congress and the president that is completely different than what we're talking about in the criminal context yeah he's not saying he's immune from from any suit about killing a person the citizen he's saying the court can't determine what is and what's not a war that's up to Congress and that's up to the president so completely misrepresented it's just another case of him reading the first page of emotion dismiss and not understanding how narrow the non-justiciability question is in a completely different context um and not at all related to criminal immunity so that's just another example sure okay thank you alak's Father had no standing that this was a non-judicial political question now this is specifically Barack Obama's offices motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against him by nasar alaki again you can look it up for yourself and it's on page one and right here it says defendants Barack H Obama president of the United States Leon e Panetta director of Central Intelligence and Robert M Gates Secretary of Defense hereby moved to dismiss the plain's complaint pursuant to Federal procedural rule 12 B1 on the grounds that the plaintiff lacks standing and that his claim requires the court to decide non-judicial political questions so isn't that curious that Destiny specifically qualified why didn't anybody withstanding bring a lawsuit against Barack Obama justification was paper thin and why didn't anybody the court to decide he doesn't even go into into what the political question was right your motion to dism how could why would you bring up on the grounds that plaintiffs like standing and that his claims require the court to decide non-justiciable political questions what if the complaint here was that Barack Obama's [ __ ] is too small for him to do this and we think that only a president with a 12in dick should be allowed to assassinate American citizens right that part of your motion to dismiss might be well this is a non-justiciable political question this a non-justiciable question that the court shouldn't have any authority over how big the president's dick needs to be to launch a particular military strike why would you ever bring up a motion to dismiss without even referring to ignoring the fact that we're not even talking about what's in the motion to dismiss we're just going over page one sentence one okay how could you not bring up what the complaint is actually about non-judicial political questions so isn't that curious that Destiny specifically qualified why didn't anybody withstanding bring a lawsuit against Barack Obama if the justification was paper thin then why didn't anybody with standing bring a case to the Supreme Court when this case ultimately ended up being dismissed on the standing issue and then he said Barack Obama never claimed that his power to unilaterally kill people anywhere in the world including non-combat zones which is exactly what Yemen was in 2010 was something that he did not say was beyond judicial review never said I'm beyond judicial review when page one of the Obama administration's motion to dismiss says this is a non-judicial political question what's the question motion to dismiss what he doesn't even bring up with the with the suit is over or maybe he will and then the next few minutes he's got he's got 10 minutes left in the video you're not even bringing up what's in this motion or what's in the complaint does he know what a complaint is does he know what a motion to dismiss is what the [ __ ] now normally I would be willing to Grant Destiny the grace to say I don't need Grace from you you've never read a single legal document in your entire [ __ ] life what was his act what is it like is it forensic I don't even know what his degree is in um holy [ __ ] that he didn't even bother to read page one of this motion to dismiss from the Obama Administration but by his own standards he's a liar he's lying about this and deliberately so now by the way just to illustrate he does know these things that's why he's a sneaky [ __ ] I don't I'm not actually sure now I don't know this point well or maybe he does I guess if he's but he knows his audience Dustin so he can just get away with whatever lie possible or the absurdity of this particular argument from the Obama Administration and what Destiny is willing to accept when it comes to Democrats is the fact that the reason there's no standing to sue is because alaki was killed and you can't file a lawsuit if you're dead if you'll remember when indefinite detention came up to the courts and the Bush Administration made the case that they could do this to enemy combatants those people were actually alive so they were able to Sue and under the Court's ruling which was that the constitution goes where the US you think a wrongful death suit so these don't exist in the entirety of the United States there's no such thing as a as a wrongful death suit because you can't sue when you're dead government goes this was not allowed I guess Obama's genius is that he just straight up murders these people so that way they can't file a lawsuit so that way you have a situation where the courts can never take up this case because how how is there ever how is there how is there ever a civil action for a wrongful death claim ever if this is the the case like this is just immediately on its face the most [ __ ] [ __ ] statement I've ever heard of my entire life what how do you how does nobody have standing to do a wrongful death suit do these just never all of these get dismissed it's just a matter of if your lawyer is paying attention like oh [ __ ] we got hit up with another Rockville death suit oh quick remember dismiss it because the guy's dead like sorry nobody has standing because they're dead so yeah in this particular case I was 100% right Destiny was 100% wrong and again under the standard that he would hold me to this can't this is this can't be real to not himself to he was 100% lying in this case deliberately wrong brought in enough details to show that he should have been aware of what was alleged in this case and then deliberately said something that was not true that is refutable on page one of Barack Obama's motion to dismiss this particular lawsuit they're saying what they're saying is that if Donald Trump were to come and be a dictator for one year and then he would be out from office and then people were you know repair everything and we set ourselves back on the right course they would like oh the actual answer is who has standing to sue wrongful death in before it says these actually don't ever happen in the United States the surviving spouse of the deceased has highest priority to file a wrongful death claim the deceases children if there is no surviving SP who whoa what what then it wasn't a threat I guess that's what they that's an but wait wait wa wait do you acknowledge you just said that's silly you you acknowledge that was their position okay yeah no no no no wait wait why you saying okay no yes yes that was their position yes to use the N word again that's fine I don't care I love the N word now another lie from stepen is that I made the claim or made the argument that if Trump became a dictator for one year then that would be perfectly fine as long as things went back to normal in fact I made the exact opposite argument and this stems from him asking me if Hitler is a threat to democracy in which I responded after being cut off a million times with a distinction from an election like the Hayes election which was very wonky and how it happened super questionable resulted in the hay compromise which is a stain on American history and of course somebody actually overthrowing the system so it took a regime fall for democracy to return to Germany and several like Decades of uh Western occupation in Germany for that uh like democracy to be restored to Germany okay so uh that's not what happened in the Rutherford B haes case that Sean cited earlier where this exact thing that you're claiming will overthrow democracy happened and it resulted in democracy continuing on to today clearly you agree that democracy today would be arguing democracy in Germany ex today you Pro point the idea that democracy is only end is stupid now now you're moving post hey guys editing Sean here and I just realized that the reason why Destiny is misstating my position right here is because in order to perform for his audience he started playing piano which I'm sure you can hear on his stream or his version of the stream if that even exists so he deliberately in a bad faith way ignored the answer to question and then ascribes the position to me and my panelists that he didn't hear the reputation for also this guy right here in the corner he shows up at some point when Lauren does he adds nothing of any in this guy here intellectual value to the whole conversation just throwing that out there what does Lauren add to this conversation again Sean there there's a decad long Gap in between democracy and dictatorship else yeah all right so do do you think that there's a meaningful difference I'm just gonna ask you of having external governments overthrow your dictatorship and then install a a democratic government in half your country by the way because the Soviet Union took over the other half or at least whatever they split the country but do you think there's me differ between that and then an election that's likeed that has stupid elector thing and then a corrupt compromise that's contested and has this stupid electors thing LOLOL the St on American history but then the next election functions as normal do do you understand that there's a difference I understand there a difference now the distinction that I make should be obvious but I guess I'll explain it between the Hayes election or bush Vore or any questionable election in American history which is whether or not despite the questionable nature of set election the system functions as normal this is obviously not applicable if somebody is a dictator for any period of time so no this would not be comparable to saying that if Trump was a dictator like acted as a dictator for a full year then this would somehow not qualify as ending democracy there is no interpretation of what I said in response to the haze ver Hitler question that could be read that way yet Steven goes on and presents this as if it is actually my legitimate argument that I put forward it is obviously not true this is obviously yet another lie from Steven but let's move on to another one do you agree that the Civil War wasn't a threat to democracy because that was another country right it's a civil war that's actually an interesting question no it's not they weren another country they weren't they didn't have the legal right just because you say I the fact that he I was already as soon as he says well it's an interesting question is it so like whatever I prove happens as a result of trump being elected I've got to prove that it's going to be more of a threat to democracy than the Civil War what the [ __ ] democracy if these people like wanted to sued Suede and then like the going to war with the other half of the country external country conflict from within the country about whether or not you could break apart like like that's actually an interesting question very easy to off we came back immediately after so see got really mad right here that I said it was an interesting question whether or not the Civil War counts as a threat to democracy as an ending our current system of government but the fact of the matter is I thought it was an interesting question this was a compliment to him because it was something that I did not consider in the context of the okay framework that I was describing now the reason I thought this was an interesting question is because the southern states wanted to lead the union and form their own new Confederacy by contrast the union government could have maintained power without the southern states so the question is is a reduction in the size of the Union an inherent threat to the union could the system not function without those Southern States and again this is still an interesting question now what I was also thinking about is all the various places that want to break away from a larger structure and if I would consider that a threat to democracy if those people were willing to do so so of course we had referendums on leaving the Soviet Union now the Soviet Union was an authoritarian government so you might say that's different but we also have the catalonian people trying to leave Spain and yes while it is objectively a threat to Spain if they were to leave does that mean it's undemocratic for them to do so and it would ruin the Democracy in Spain if they were allowed to do so I also brought up a again on Twitter the example of the Irish trying to separate which ultimately they ended up doing and the reason I brought up these three examples on Twitter and would have brought up these three examples had I actually been able to speak without Destiny raging out like an insane Maniac is because there are three different sets of facts all based on the premise of leaving your larger governing structure and one of them was actually successful by the way the Irish one actually invol okay I'm good holy [ __ ]