A photo of Megan Fox and her sons surfaced, showing her sons dressed as girls. This is not the first time her children have been seen in such attire.
Reports are circulating that Megan Fox is forcing her sons to dress like girls. Liz criticizes Megan Fox for grooming her sons in the name of transgender ideology, and for engaging in satanic rituals.
Liz reports that Robby Starbuck, a former Republican congressional candidate, shared a viral Twitter thread claiming that Megan Fox forced her sons to wear female clothing and condemned it as child abuse. Megan Fox responded, accusing Starbuck of seeking attention and denying the accusations.
Next, Liz discusses President Donald Trump’s indictment. She argues there is a fundamental legal error in the indictment against Trump that should release him from any legal persecution.
Liz analyzes Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment announcement, suggesting that he wants people to focus solely on the indictment and ignore other important factors.
Additionally, she points to the numerous allegations against Trump and the Department of Justice’s perceived bias, which raises doubts about the indictment’s credibility. She underscores the double standard in comparing Trump’s treatment to Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.
Finally, Liz highlights former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark’s view on the Trump indictment, emphasizing the primacy of the Presidential Records Act over the Espionage Act. Clark argues that the use of “classified markings” instead of “classified documents” in prosecuting Trump’s private conversations implies a politically motivated entrapment.
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.
Happy Monday, guys. Welcome back to The Liz Wheeler Show. If you haven’t already subscribed to my brand new email newsletter, please do so at LizWheeler.com/email. That’s LizWheeler.com/email. I can hear you guys typing this in your browsers right now, and clickety clacky texting it to your friends liz wheeler.com/email. Okay, so we’re gonna talk about two things on the show today. We’re gonna talk about Megan Fox. She’s an actress in Hollywood, extremely famous. She was in Transformers, which maybe that’s a little ironic because she is intentionally grooming her children to be transgender. She admitted that she intentionally groomed her children to be transgender, and Hollywood is perhaps applauding her for this, but this is abject child abuse. There is no other way to categorize this. Wait till you see this photo of her three sons. She has three elementary school aged sons. Some of them look hardly older than toddlers.
They’re dressed as girls, and there are reports that she did this to them intentionally. She taught them and forced them to dress like girls even when they did not want to. So we’re gonna talk about that and show you all these receipts that lead me to this pretty strong conclusion that she did this intentionally. She’s not just, she’s not just an idiot, she’s not just a liberal that bought into this when someone else groomed her kids. She is responsible, she is guilty. She is the culprit. She is the one who dressed her sons like girls and made them dress like girls and planted this poisonous ideology in their head so that they would dress like girls because she is satanic. And again, I don’t say that word lightly. She practices satanic rituals. We are also, of course, going to talk about the Trump indictment. There is one major legal flaw that decimate the entire Trump indictment.
Special counsel Jack Smith unsealed this over the weekend, and nobody’s talking about this legal flaw. Nobody that I’ve heard on cable news, nobody that I’ve heard in the podcast world, I haven’t read this. Nobody even on the right is talking about the one thing that causes the bottom to fall out of this indictment. I don’t understand people on the right. Sometimes it is right before our very eyes. And yet, what are we looking at? We’re not looking at the legal flaw that causes this indictment to implode. We’re looking at what the Left tells us to look at. We’re looking at these salacious conversations or tidbits of conversations that they put in the indictment that’s unsealed, that you can read for yourself instead of looking at the one thing that causes the utter destruction of this completely political prosecution of Trump. So we’re gonna unpack that bit by bit. Let’s get to it.
Okay. Megan Fox is perhaps one of the most attractive, beautiful women in Hollywood. Whether that’s real, whether that’s fake, who knows, who cares? She is one of the highest paid actresses. She used to be on Transformers. I think she got fired from Transformers because she said something negative about the director of Transformers. There was a whole Hollywood kerfuffle that Megan Fox was married for quite some time to to another Hollywood actor, Brian Austin Green. They had three sons together. These three sons are elementary school age is the oldest one. The youngest one is just past being a toddler. And this photo, I wanna show this photo, this photo surface of Megan Fox and her three sons. And I think a lot of people on the internet, myself included, found this picture to be kind of jarring. As you can see in this picture, Megan Fox is standing, be beside, behind three little boys, but if you didn’t know they were little boys, you might not realize or recognize that these were in fact, boys.
The one on the Left is wearing a pink shirt that said, strong girls. He’s wearing a choker necklace. He has a girl’s haircut, he has bangs in the front and long hair, short shorts. He’s dressed exactly like a girl. I mean, he’s starting to get old enough that he looks a little more masculine. The middle child, the smallest one also has hair down past his collarbones, parted in the middle. And then the one on the right is wearing what appears to be women’s like athletic wear leggings with with long girly hair as well. And again, just for context here, this is not the first time that Megan Fox’s children ha her sons have been spotted wearing girls’ clothes. This is something that has become the norm. It’s something that she’s addressed before. And I wanna show a tweet. So when this photo went viral over the weekend, I wa I wanted to make something very clear here.
These children are being victimized by their mother. Oftentimes, we talk about children being victimized by groomer teachers. We talk about children being victimized by TikTok. We talk about this grooming coming from our culture or our institutions. In this case, the person directly responsible for victimizing these children is Megan Fox. Megan Fox deliberately groomed her sons into a transgender ideology because Megan Fox is satanic. I don’t say this as an ad homan am I say this because Megan Fox engages in satanic rituals, satanic rituals like drinking her own blood and drinking the blood of her lover. She is open about her satanic rituals. She calls herself a witch. And the transgender ideology, queer theory, is a satanic ideology. It’s satanic in the sense that it’s a Marxist communist ideology, and that is a satanic ideology in itself. It is also child sacrifice. Child bodily mutilation is also a satanic ideology.
So it should not surprise us that when the mother of three sons has decided to engage in satanic religious rituals, that Satan also captures her three children. She is directly responsible for serving as a bulwark between evil and her children. And instead, she is acting as a conduit for the evil to capture her children. It’s the most horrendous thing that I’ve ever seen in and of itself. That would be a story, but it gets worse. Robby Starbuck, who’s a former congressional candidate from the state of Tennessee, he’s also very prominent on Twitter and in the conservative movement, shared a Twitter thread. I wanna bring this because I wanna read this to you, shared a Twitter thread that went viral this weekend. He said, these are Megan Fox’s sons. We used to live in this same gated community, and our kids played at the park. I saw two of them have a full-on, and he is talking about Megan Fox’s kids, two of Megan Fox’s kids.
Her sons have a breakdown saying they were forced by their mom to wear girls’ clothes as their nanny tried to console them. It’s pure child abuse. Robby Starbucks said, pray for them. Now, this Twitter thread, that particular tweet has been viewed on Twitter nearly 10 million times. And he posted a second tweet attached as a thread to add more context. He said, more context. This was around five years ago. So they were younger than they are in this picture. There were other witnesses, pl there was another witness plus the nanny. When the boys did this, it started with one and then the other chimed in the third child was not involved. We knew California wouldn’t do anything about it because the state celebrates this stuff. And she’s famous, weirder wrinkle to this. Robby Starbucks says, I worked with Megan once on a small shoot about a year or so before she moved into our community, and she was very nice to me.
So I was shocked when this happened later on. Just a very weird situation. But clearly those boys weren’t happy. I never said anything publicly because they were so young and I thought it would stop because they were vocally expressing their desire to wear quote unquote boy clothes. We moved to Tennessee shortly after, and I saw this photo of the boys going around online this week. Really sad. It didn’t stop back then and wish there was more we could have done back then, but there really wasn’t anything we could do in California. Then he posts this third tweet and says, and to the community note, someone tried to write saying Only one of her kids has worn girls’ clothing. That’s not true. See below, and this is the photograph of her children when they were younger, her children being her sons, both wearing girls’ clothes. Now of course, they all three have extremely long hair, long hair that typically only girls have hair that long, especially at that age.
Now, Megan Fox responded to Robby Starbucks viral Twitter thread, and let me bring up her response. And this is where you’ll see that Megan Fox deliberately groomed her children into being transgender. So this is the, this is, it’s a two slide Instagram post. The first slide is a screenshot of Robby Starbucks tweet, and then the, and then her description underneath says this, Hey, Robby Starbucks. I really don’t want to give you this attention because clearly you’re a clout chaser, but let me teach you something. I, regardless, she said, it’s not a word, Megan. I, regardless of how desperate you may become at any given time to acquire wealth, power, success, or fame, never use children as leverage or social currency, especially under erroneous pretense, exploiting my children’s gender identity to gain attention in your political campaign has put you on the wrong side of the universe.
She said, I have been burned at the stake by insecure, narcissistic, impotent little men like you many times, and yet I’m still here. You effed, effed with the wrong witch. If, I mean, that gives me the chills to read that because it shows you that she is completely bought into a Satanic ideology. She identifies as a witch. She’s also doing the classic Marxist tactic of accusing her opponent, of doing exactly what she’s doing, the reason that the radical left. And this is a tactic that they, that they co-opted from the Marxist. The reason they do this is because it’s a lot easier or it’s a lot more difficult to it’s a lot more difficult for the person being accused to be like, nah, you’re doing it. So this is something that it’s actually in rules for radicals. In rules for radicals. He suggests that if you point at someone and say, you are using children as leverage, even if you’re the one doing it, it’s a lot harder for the person you accuse to be like, nuh, that’s what you’re doing.
Just human nature. We tend not to believe the person that says, nuh, that’s what you’re doing. But make no mistake, what Megan Fox is doing is intentionally grooming her children. And if we back up one year ago in Glamor magazine UK, by the way, glamor UK, you might recognize the name of that magazine. It is the same magazine that we highlighted last week, the magazine that highlighted the so-called Pregnant man on the cover in Glamor Magazine UK one year ago. Megan Fox said the following, she said, I bought a bunch of books that sort of addressed these things and addressed a full spectrum of what this is. She was talking about her son dressing as a girl. Some of the books are written by transgender children. Some of the books are just about how you can be a boy and wear a dress. You can express yourself through your clothing however you want, and that doesn’t even have to do have anything to do with your sexuality.
So from the time they were very young, I’ve incorporated those things into their daily lives so that nobody feels like they’re weird or strange or different. Let me reread that last sentence from the time they were very young. I’ve incorporated those things into their daily lives that Megan Fox is grooming a little child, being told by his mother that he should wear a dress, is grooming that child into wearing a dress, being told by his mother that there are, that you’re not a boy just because you’re born a boy and you’re not a girl. Just because you’re born a girl that you can be however you feel, gender’s a spectrum. It’s not a binary, a biological binary that is grooming. This is the exact same thing that happens in elementary schools when teachers are teaching children the tenants of queer theory. This is exactly what happens on TikTok when children just a little bit older than her sons are told that their gender is on a spectrum.
It’s fluid. They can be however they feel reject sex essentialism. They’re told in favor of what is Mark’s ideology. Megan Fox admitted that she groomed her children into this by providing small children with propaganda that planted poisonous and false ideas in their heads. So why should, why, why should she be surprised when they’re acting like this? She taught them to do it because she’s evil. She’s an evil groomer mother who is abusing her children. And yes, this is child abuse. You can dispute the legal definition of child abuse all you want, but objectively reality, this is child abuse. And by the way, when Fox News covered this, what is wrong with Fox News these days? For the last year or so, Fox News seems like they’re on the side of the transgender ideology versus the side of reality, the anti Marxist side. Listen to this, listen to this phraseology how Fox News presented this article.
They said, give her a reason. And Megan Fox will transform into an outwardly ferocious protector bashing anyone attacking her Three sons, the Transformer’s actress Fox says, and current Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover model took to Instagram to eviscerate Robby Starbuck, a former Republican candidate for Congress in Nashville, Tennessee, Tennessee, after he claimed the actress, quote unquote, forced her sons to wear dresses. This is like something you’d read on the Daily dot. This is like something that you’d hear on Ms N B C. This is like something you’d hear from Jeffrey Marsh on TikTok, and yet it’s coming from Fox News. Are you kidding? So let’s talk about the Trump indictment here, and let’s zoom out, and if you’ll indulge me, let me share with you how I have reacted to this, how I’ve unpacked this, and how I guess it’s a con a continuing analysis, how I am analyzing this as we get more and more information about it.
So here’s a little bit how I think about this and how I react. When we get these blaring headlines, these push notifications, this cable news, you know, sirens saying, Trump indicted, Trump indicted, and we hear, we hear people reacting, even some people on the right reacting by saying, oh, listen, this doesn’t look good for Trump. This looks pretty bad for Trump. Sure, it’s an unequal standard. They didn’t, they didn’t indict Hillary, they didn’t indict Biden for mishandling classified information. But that doesn’t mean that Trump, that we should excuse what Trump did. This is the initial reaction from a lot of people on the right. And that’s not a smart way to analyze this. It’s not a smart way to analyze this at all. First of all, and I know that this is a very unpopular take in our current media culture, but we cannot indulge in hot takes.
I know that there’s monetization potential and the ability to acquire higher view counts if you respond to something like that. We all dream of being able to do that. That’s why we educate ourselves on topics before they reach the news so that when they do reach the news, we can say, wait a second. I know about this. Let me tell you what’s going on. But sometimes there are topics like this one, like the Trump indictment that can’t actually issue a hot take because you don’t know everything. In fact, you’re falling into the trap of what the Left wants you to do. If you believe that just the indictment, the unsealed indictment, the words themselves, read the document for yourself. If you believe that’s all there is to the story, then you’re acting in this this confined space. You’re looking at this through a very narrow a a very narrow well lens that the Left actually wants you to look at it through.
And it’s not the correct way to look at this. A lot of Republicans are doing this. So the first thing that I wanna do before I completely decimate this indictment, because there is a complete, there is a fundamental legal error in this indictment that should completely release Trump from any of this legal, this legal, well persecution that he’s facing. But before we even get to that I want you to listen very closely to the words from the Special counsel Jack Smith when he was announcing that this indictment had been unsealed. So take a listen.
Good afternoon. Today, an indictment moves unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with felony violations of our national security laws, as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. This indictment was voted by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida. Now, I invite everyone to read it in full, to understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged. The men and women of the United States intelligence community and our armed forces dedicate their lives to protecting our nation. And its people are laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States, and they must be enforced Violations of those laws put our country at risk.
Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone applying those laws, collecting facts. That’s what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more and nothing less. The prosecutors in my office are among the most talented and experienced in the Department of Justice. They have investigated this case viewing to the highest ethical standards, and they will continue to do so as this case proceeds. It’s very important for me to note that the defendants in this case must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. To that end, my office will seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest and the rights of the accused. We very much look forward to presenting our case to a jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida.
Okay, do you guys remember the Invisible gorilla Test? That video where it’s supposed to demonstrate what’s called selective attention. But in this video a viewer such as you or I is told, watch this video and watch a group of children bouncing a red ball back and forth. And you’re supposed to keep your eye on the red ball to make sure that you keep track of who it’s bounced to, who catches it, and then who they throw the red ball to. You’re only supposed to keep your eye on this red ball at all times. Meanwhile, supposedly unbeknownst to us, the viewer, a a gorilla or probably a man in a gorilla suit, walks behind the children throwing the ball. Now, the purpose of this video is a large percentage of people watching the video because they aren’t told that they’re to watch out for a gorilla.
They don’t notice a literal gorilla walking through the scene. They’re so focused on what they were told to pay attention to. They were told to pay attention to the red ball that they don’t even notice the gorilla. I confessed to you that when I first tried this video, when I first, when this first came to my attention, maybe like five, six years ago, I did not notice the gorilla for probably over half of the video, the first half of the video. I suspected there was some trick to this video that we weren’t just supposed to watch it because people were passing it around and it was supposed to be like, oh, look at this. Follow the red ball, snicker, snicker. But it took me a while to notice the gorilla. Maybe you were the same. If so, we’re the norm. This is very typical of the human brain.
It’s called selective attention. When we are told to look at something, we don’t always see what’s happening in the periphery. That is exactly what Jack Smith is trying to do with the way that he framed this announcement. What did he tell us? His call to action, to us, what he was directing us to do was just to read the indictment in full. That’s what he wants us to look at. That is the red ball. Look at the indictment in full as if that paints the whole picture. He called it the full scope. I would call it his context, his contained context. He only wants us to look at the words that are in the indictment that he wrote. He’s the one accusing Trump of being guilty, but he only wants us to look at what he wrote in this indictment, and he wants us to ignore the 300 pound gorilla that’s walking by us.
So that being said, let’s take a step back. Let’s not just look at the red ball and let’s look at what he, what Jack Smith doesn’t want us to see. Because remember, over the past eight years since President Trump announced that he was first running for president, he has faced allegation after allegation after allegations. Some of them are more social allegations regarding his past, his past sexual exploits. Some of them are related to his business. Some of them were related to his conduct as candidate, not his conduct, but related to his candidacy or related to. It turned out to be false allegations about things that he did as president. But time and time again, any of the allegations that were levied at Trump by the Left, even legal allegations inevitably collapsed under the scrutiny of giving it a couple of days and giving the informational context time to populate.
And that is certainly true in this case. The second thing that I would note before we, we drill down into what the fundamental flaw of this indictment is remember who we’re dealing with? Special counsel Jack Smith was appointed by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice was the instigator in every single legal attack against Donald Trump. So when you’re reading this indictment, you shouldn’t look at it and give it the benefit of the doubt. You should say, who am I giving the benefit of the doubt to? Am I giving the benefit of the doubt to the Department of Justice who has labeled pro-lifers as extremists, who has has told us that if we’re patriotic, we might need be militia violent extremists that has labeled parents who oppose critical race theory and wanna unseat school board members who support critical race theory as potential domestic terrorists.
Are we giving the benefit of the doubt to the Department of Justice who has falsely accused Trump of thing after thing after thing just because they don’t like him? So again, this isn’t a purely unbiased legal document. This is coming from a thoroughly corrupted administrative agency, the Department of Justice. So with all of that being said, let’s now given that context, understanding that we shouldn’t just look at the red ball and we shouldn’t give the benefit of the doubt to the people who created the red ball. Let’s untangle the indictment itself because, and here as a little warning a little, a little trigger warning for our audio engineer to bleep this next word out. The indictment is utter bull [inaudible] Total [inaudible]. So let’s start with the precedent here. Now, the precedent here is not a what aboutm as the Left would like to tell us.
We’re not just we’re not just saying, but her emails as Hillary Clinton tweeted, selling a hat with that line, we’re not just saying, but you should treat Trump the way that you treated Hillary. You didn’t hold Hillary to account and you held Trump account. That’s not the entirety of what we mean. When we point to Hillary or we point to Pence, or we point to Biden, we point to other executive level. Well, executives, either the chief executive or the vice president who have mishandled classified information. There is something deeper that the Left doesn’t want us to think about when it comes to the legal precedent of what happens when a president has classified information in his, in his possession after he is the president or after he is no longer the President. So the reason that the Left is making a big deal about when we point up the selective prosecution of President Trump, that Hillary Clinton, who wasn’t the chief executive, she was Secretary of State and as Secretary of State, had no authority to declassify classified information and therefore had no authority to take that classified information and house it on her private unsecured home brew email server in a bathroom closet somewhere in New York, and then when she was subpoenaed for it, delete these classified emails.
These 33,000 emails with bleach bit and a hammer. I mean, you gotta admit the comparison is an apropo not an apropo, but the comparison is something we actually should be focusing on. If our government’s not gonna prosecute Hillary for that, how can they pretend to prosecute anybody else, let alone a president who has the sole authority to declassify any information he wants as president. And therefore, that should let President Trump off of any of these phony charges. But the Left only focuses on the, but her emails precedent because they don’t want us to focus on what Hillary Clinton’s husband did when Bill Clinton was president for the eight years that he was the chief executive of our nation. He routinely recorded on audio cassette, believe it or not, that sounds so an like ancient history now. But he routinely recorded conversations that he had with high ranking members of his own administration and foreign leaders.
The content of these conversations that he recorded on audio cassette contained very highly classified information about deals and treaties and weapons and war and enemies and all kinds of information that is, well, it’s not just proprietary information because we’re not talking about a private business. We’re talking about the most closely guarded secrets of the United States government secrets that if our adversaries, or God forbid, a terror group found out about they could exploit in order to harm our country. When Bill Clinton made these recordings during his presidency eight years, he did this after his presidency, he took these audio cassettes with him to his private residence in New York and hid them in his sock drawer. You can’t even make this stuff up. He hid them in his sock drawer. And when the federal government found out about this, there was litigation because the federal government tried to get him to give these tapes back.
And Bill Clinton said, no, these are my personal records. These are not, this is not property of the government. I get to keep this. And in the course of this litigation, a judge ruled that Bill Clinton was in fact, allowed to keep these audio cassettes even though they contained highly classified information because the judge ruled that they were in fact, his personal property. And the reason the judge ruled that these were, in fact his personal property, was because the judge said under the Presidential Records Act, which governs how former presidents handle documents or memorabilia or communications or notes or speeches or anything that had to do with our presidency. Under the Presidential Records Act, a president is the sole arbiter in determining whether a record is government property or whether a record is his personal property. It’s funny, isn’t it, that over the course of, what has it been six months since the FBI raided Trump’s private at Mar-a-Lago and told us that the justification for this was the National Archives demanding property back, that the National Archives determined belonged to the government, that nobody mentioned that under the Presidential Records Act, the president who’s in office determines what is his personal property and what is the government’s property that makes not just a small difference in this dispute that makes all the difference in the world when it comes to this dispute because President Trump is being charged by Jack Smith under the Espionage Act.
It’s funny, all of a sudden the National Archives was talking about the Presidential Records Act, but all the, but all of a sudden these charges are under the Espionage Act and you have to say, okay, well how is it determined? Which piece, like, which, which statute, which piece of legislation, which of these laws pertains to President Trump’s retention of certain documents or the National Archives claim that the documents that President Trump retained are in fact the government’s documents? So former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark, let me read you this. He has been explaining the legality of this, and I warned you before, this is pretty nitty gritty. This is pretty nerdy legal stuff, and this is exactly what the Left is counting on us not delving into because it’s really nitty gritty, because it’s really nerdy. Which statute is the one that applies the Espionage Act or the Presidential Records Act?
And they’re hoping people are like, what are you even talking about? President Trump was handling nuclear secrets, is all special counsel Jack Smith wants us to think about, let’s throw him in jail. And unfortunately, even some Republicans are falling for this based on the narrative that was crafted by this special counsel whose wife, by the way, donated to Biden and produced a Michelle Obama documentary. So this guy is not exactly your neutral arbiter of justice. When he put together this prosecution, think of it like a media presentation. Think of it like Rachel Maddow’s show, how she crafts her monologue. She crafts her monologue in a way that she hopes will make you think what she wants you to think. It’s an entertainment adrenaline based presentation. Just like when the January 6th committee had their first primetime presentation, who did they hire to structure that?
They hired a former ma corporate media high level producer to help them put on the show of the thing This is how you should view Jack Smith’s indictment. So Jeff Clark, the former Assistant Attorney General said, I’ve read the entire indictment, let me explain something to everyone about how statutory interpretation works. And it’s clearly a weak spot for Jack Smith, given his nine to nothing smacked down in the Supreme Court on the Honest Services case against former Virginia governor Bob McDonald and his failed prosecution against wealthy Democrat trial lawyer and vice presidential candidate John Edwards. As the Edwards case shows, Jack Smith’s special counsel is particularly stymied by highly complex regulatory statutes. Here, Jeff Smith says, or Jeff Clark says Smith, the Special Counsel is totally ignoring the Presidential Records Act, but it’s on the field and it cannot be ignored When multiple statutes apply, they often must be harmonized.
One of the key principles of statutory interpretation is that the specific controls over the general and the Presidential Records Act is the more specific statute, given what the facts are at issue as alleged in the indictment, it controls here over the Espionage Act and less, perhaps Smith could show that Donald Trump was acting as a spy, giving national defense information to our nation’s enemies. And of course, he can’t because Trump is so loyal to the United States that he sweats Americana on a hot day and on a cold day, his soup is red, white, and blue. So ironically, Jeff Clark says, many, like many of the Left’s plays are really a form of psychological prode projection. The Espionage Act perhaps is in the Biden family’s TA card re readings. They’re fortune telling, but the Department of Justice under Biden simply cannot wish away Trump’s defenses. Again, it’s pretty nerdy legal stuff, but the summary of that is the specific, the spec or the more specific the statute, the more that it or, or, or that specific statute takes precedent over the one that’s more vague.
So the Presidential Records Act is more specific pertaining to situations just like this. Therefore it has to take precedence over the Espionage Act. But of course, the red ball, just look at the red ball, don’t look at the gorilla, just look at that red ball bouncing away. Do you see who it’s being thrown to? Do you see who it’s being catching? Just ignore the gigantic primate that’s walking along behind. Also worth noting, Mar-a-Lago is not simply the private residence of Donald Trump. This this is very relevant to the legal aspect here. Mar-a-Lago is the official office of the former president. The official office of a former president is funded by the federal government. It’s funded by Congress and it is protected by the Secret Service. So Donald Trump keeping boxes of classified information, and I know we, we all saw Jack Smith release these salacious looking photographs of boxes being kept in a bathroom and boxes on the stage of a ballroom in Mar-a-Lago.
This was not haphazard, even though that’s what Jack Smith will have you believe. This is the official office of the former president. You can compare this to past presidents, for example. some past presidents kept their boxes in a warehouse. Some presidents kept their boxes in a little facility rented between, between restaurants in a strip mall. This is not uncommon. This is actually arguably more secure because it is his private residence and not some rented warehouse in downtown Chicago. The other, the other, a couple of aspects here that should make us understand that whatever the conversations that are supposedly recorded between President Trump and his private employees, the reason that’s not even relevant because it’s just part of the show, is because of the phrase that the special council has been using the phrase that the National Archives were using. And that phrase is classified markings.
They’re looking for documents with classified markings. Now, the intelligence community has not been honest with us for a long time. They use rhetorical semantics to try to trick us into thinking something else. But classified markings are different than classified documents. Classified markings are different than classified information because oftentimes documents will be classified and then declassified, but the classified markings on the documents that are no longer classified aren’t removed. So classified markings are not classified information. Classified markings are not classified documents. And you’ll notice that Jack Smith and the National Archives are only using the phrase classified markings. They are not using the phrase classified documents. This seems to be not just a little relevant. This seems to be a red flag that should show us that they’re trying to make us look at that red ball. The reality of the fact, the reality of the situation is that they’re prosecuting, Biden is prosecuting his political opponent.
He is weaponizing the power of the federal government to try to take out the man who he fears more Americans will vote for, who will gain more electoral votes than he will and unseat him as President of the United States. To say that this is Banana Republic stuff would be the understatement of the year. Two other things, Anez Felcher had a really good point that I wanna bring up here. This is a tweet about President Trump. This is relating to the conversations that the special counsel said he has. Recordings of the transcripts included in the prosecution are in the indictment, and Anez says, listen, president Trump’s reaction can be explained as follows. It’s the Mike Flynn strategy. She says, gin up a politically motivated case and then get the principle, get the principle on reacting stupidly to the BS investigation. I read that and I thought, that’s exactly right.
That’s exactly what’s happening. President Trump understands and is very rationally wary of working with the Department of Justice. He’s very rationally wary of working with the FBI, working with the National Archives, working with the Biden administration, working with the administrative state because they’ve only tried to weaponize the government against him. So were some of these Ill advised, who cares? It doesn’t matter. This is the trap that the Department of Justice and the special counsel Jack Smith set for Trump. They knew that if they, if they aimed a politically motivated prosecution at him, that they could then get him on a technicality based on his reaction. This is legal definition or not. This is a form of entrapment. Now, the last point that I will make about this, and again, the more, the longer you wait, the more context fills in, don’t do hot takes because we learn more and more by the day.
And inevitably as every single one of these prosecutions or in indictments or impeachments accusations against Trump, they inevitably collapse under the weight of just a couple of days of information and scrutiny. The last point that’s that i I want to bring to our attention is there’s even questions in the legal world about whether the Espionage Act is constitutionally sound because the Espionage Act deals simply with someone speaking classified information. And there’s an argument that’s a violation of the First Amendment if the person is a private citizen, right? So if you’re, if you’re in the military or you work for the federal government and you share verbally classified information, yes, you’re toast. You shouldn’t do that. By the way, the Department of Justice does that all the time to their favorites in the mainstream media, which by their definition would be a violation of the Espionage Act.
But it’s very different for an employee of the federal government to behave that way. They can be held accountable for the information that they are sharing when they are not supposed to be sharing that it can even be deemed a crime. But when you’re a private citizen, can you be criminalized for words that you speak? There’s a, there’s an argument made by some in the legal community that the Espionage Act criminalizing just someone verbalizing classified information when they’re a private citizen, that is not allowed. That this would not be, this would not be upheld under scrutiny, under a constitutional scrutiny. I’m not a lawyer here, I’m not an attorney. I don’t know. It’s a very compelling, intriguing analysis of the Espionage Act. But we shouldn’t even have to get to the point where we’re making an analysis like this. This should be governed, this entire indictment should be decimated by the fact that it’s not the espionage that applies.
Even if the Espionage Act is legitimate. It is the presidential records acting under the precedent set by Bill Clinton and a judge ruling on Bill Clinton’s retention of classified information that he deemed while he was president as being his personal records versus the government’s property. President Trump should be able to deem anything that he wants, including classified documents as his personal property as well. If you don’t like the Presidential Records Act and you don’t like that’s the president, go for it. Make that tell Congress you wanna change the Presidential Records Act. But as it, as the law stands on the books right now, that’s simply the way that it is. The other reason that they didn’t charge President Trump under the Presidential Records Act is because it’s not a criminal statute. They’re using the Espionage Act because it’s the only way that they can charge him with a crime.
The Presidential Records Act is not a criminal statute and they desperately want to see Trump in jail. But if you’re on the right, don’t fall for it. Don’t give the benefit of the doubt to the Department of Justice of all places. Don’t look at the Red Ball bouncing back and forth while the gorilla of of the Biden administration is walking right in front of your face. Alright, guys, if you haven’t already signed up for my brand new email newsletter, please do that at LizWheelershow.com or LizWheeler.com/email. That’s LizWheeler.com/email. Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show.