Off The Cuff Declassified： Judge rules against Mueller, Trump⧸Kim summit, New FBI data on guns
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
178.86748
Summary
Robert Mueller is still playing fast and loose with exculpatory evidence, but one judge is having none of it. A federal judge rules that Mueller must identify the unnamed person in his recent superseding indictment of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manchanderson.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Today on Off the Cup Declassified, Robert Mueller, the special counsel, still playing
00:00:03.820
fast and loose with exculpatory evidence, but one judge isn't having it.
00:00:07.880
Retired CIA station chief Scott Ulinger joins me to analyze the Trump-Kim Singapore summit
00:00:13.420
and criminologist Adam Dobrin is with me to discuss how concealed weapons license holders
00:00:20.920
Mueller is really playing games and this guy won't stop.
00:00:30.600
Of course, I'm talking about Robert Mueller, the special counsel.
00:00:32.960
Now Mueller is playing games that I've frankly never seen.
00:00:36.900
I always tell you, I've been in affiliated with or covering on-air law enforcement issues,
00:00:44.860
I started doing it when I was literally early 20s.
00:00:53.000
So I've been doing this my entire adult life in some fashion.
00:00:58.220
And I've never, I've never seen, I have never seen anything this bad.
00:01:05.260
So now a story from the Hill, Judge Rules Mueller must identify unnamed individuals in Manafort
00:01:11.680
And you have a constitutional right to face your accuser.
00:01:18.760
It's one of the most fundamental rights, one of the most basic rights, one of our oldest
00:01:22.500
rights, a constitutional right to face your accuser.
00:01:27.980
Another case going on when Mueller wants to, Mueller is actually asking the court in another
00:01:34.640
To let him withhold evidence from those individuals charged, it's unheard of withholding exculpatory
00:01:43.860
It's saying, I'm going to, I'm going to hold everything back that might help you.
00:01:48.480
And then you need to go and mount the defense without any of the evidence we've collected
00:01:53.100
that you're entitled to according to the federal rules of criminal procedure.
00:02:01.740
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that special counsel, Robert Mueller must identify the
00:02:07.600
unnamed individual in his recent superseding indictment of former Trump campaign chairman
00:02:13.120
Now you remember that there was a superseding indictment.
00:02:15.720
He indicted Manafort again, though it was the superseding indictment.
00:02:21.180
That's a catch-all that in addition to all the financial crimes Mueller had previously been
00:02:26.760
indicted on, he was now being indicted on witness tampering because of a couple of meaningless
00:02:36.980
And people like Andrew McCarthy, legal giants didn't think that there was anywhere near enough
00:02:45.540
Now, a Mueller indicted, it was like last week, Mueller indicted Mount Manafort and a guy
00:02:54.200
And it was, they were indicted on charges related to lobbying work in the Ukraine.
00:03:01.640
However, the new, the new issue here is, let me read it to you.
00:03:04.880
Judge Amy Berkman Jackson ordered Mueller turn over the names of several individuals and
00:03:10.280
organizations, including European politicians and other Manafort contacts to Manafort's attorney
00:03:19.320
The New York Times reported last week, the two veteran journalists told Mueller that Manafort
00:03:24.400
attempted to contact them, excuse me, and try to shape their testimony.
00:03:32.660
Three time sources identified the journalists as Alan Friedman and Eckhart Sager.
00:03:38.280
Mueller's indictment did not name the witnesses that Manafort and Killam Nick allegedly contact.
00:03:44.920
The judge, her ruling, is coming in response to a motion from Manafort's team seeking more
00:03:54.900
Now, the judge ruled that, quote, this is pretty standard stuff.
00:04:00.980
The defendant is obliged to prepare for a complex trial with a voluminous record within a relatively
00:04:10.920
And he should not have to be surprised at a later point by the addition of a new name or
00:04:18.600
And that is just a legalese way of the judge saying to Mueller, you've got to be kidding
00:04:24.840
This is the most basic principle of discovery in a criminal proceeding.
00:04:30.820
You can't tell somebody, a defendant, you're charged with these new crimes, but we're not
00:04:41.580
We're not going to let your lawyers do their job, cross-examine those witnesses, depose those
00:04:49.520
We're not going to let your private investigators look into this.
00:04:52.780
We're not going to give your client a chance to mount the defense by saying, I never spoke
00:04:58.200
to that person or, yes, I spoke to that person.
00:05:01.520
But what that person didn't tell Mueller's team is that there were these 15 other people
00:05:08.780
And those 15 people will swear under oath that I never said to that person what they alleged
00:05:17.380
Mueller is now, in my opinion, clearly, clearly trying to hide something.
00:05:26.260
And this, I've never, I've never watched a prosecutor play this fast and loose with exculpatory
00:05:33.700
When you combine the fact that Mueller has a history, a long history of being admonished
00:05:40.520
by judges for playing fast and loose with exculpatory evidence, as does his number two, Andrew
00:05:46.420
And this becomes all the more troubling, all the more problematic.
00:05:51.160
So the second story from Dan Abrams, blog, law and crime.
00:06:02.700
Mueller is trying to hide evidence from defendants in the Russian trolls trial.
00:06:09.880
Special counsel Robert Mueller and his deputy, Rush Atkins, filed a 14-page motion.
00:06:21.420
Mueller, couldn't have to release certain evidence to the indicted Russian company Concord
00:06:27.640
Management and Consulting, LLC, due to ongoing, quote, interference operations against the
00:06:39.320
But because I'm going to concoct a Russian bogeyman to say they're interfering in elections,
00:06:44.140
I don't want to have to give you any exculpatory evidence for your defense.
00:06:50.420
It's like the government going after somebody for organized crime, indicting a mobster and
00:06:55.820
then saying to the mobster's legal team, we indicted your client, but because their
00:07:01.440
criminal enterprise is still operating, your client, unlike every other client, is not
00:07:12.240
You have to give the defense the exculpatory evidence, no matter what else you think they're
00:07:17.700
If you think they're doing those other things, then go charge them on those other things.
00:07:21.920
But you can't withhold evidence on speculation.
00:07:25.800
In their motion, Mueller's team requested a protective order to, number one, keep other
00:07:32.060
co-defendants named in the February 16th indictment from accessing the government's evidence against
00:07:40.700
And it is exactly what Judge Amy Berkman Jackson told Mueller in a different case against
00:07:49.940
And number two, to keep additional evidence under the control of government attorneys and
00:07:57.980
So Mueller wants, again, to withhold all exculpatory evidence from the main defendant, as well as
00:08:06.400
He only wants the prosecution to be able to mount the case.
00:08:09.400
By the terms outlined in the government's requested order, quote, disclosure of sensitive discovery
00:08:16.440
would initially be limited to domestic defense counsel.
00:08:22.580
What Mueller is saying is only U.S.-based defense counsel for these Russian entities is allowed
00:08:37.860
After review of the materials, defense counsel could seek permission from the court to make
00:08:44.000
For any foreign national to whom defense counsel wishes to disclose sensitive materials, defense
00:08:49.320
counsel would provide a firewall counsel for the government, separate from the prosecution
00:08:55.560
team, with the name of any such individual contemporaneous to its request for court approval.
00:09:01.760
If needed, firewall counsel would alert the court to any concerns or considerations about
00:09:09.600
Now, I could explain it to you, but Abrams Vlog did a good job.
00:09:14.600
In English, Mueller's team is suggesting that Concord management not have access to the evidence
00:09:22.600
Special counsel contends that only Concord management's attorneys, U.S.-based attorneys, be given
00:09:29.280
And that may be, at some point in the future, with the court's permission, two additional
00:09:33.940
legal teams, one provided by the defense, one by the government, and punitively unaffiliated
00:09:42.100
But it's going to be impossible for a legal entity provided by the government to not be
00:09:48.920
Now, their opinion on law and crime is interesting.
00:10:03.360
In my opinion, Mueller's posture could easily be viewed as a red tape heavy method intended
00:10:09.640
to cripple and undermine Concord management's defense.
00:10:14.620
In the United States, criminal defendants are entitled by virtue of an almost sacred right.
00:10:19.400
They're telling you about the other case where Judge Jackson basically told Manafort, Mueller,
00:10:27.380
Of a sacred right to view the evidence against him, this right undergirds the basic foundation
00:10:34.460
What that means is we're going to have adversarial trials.
00:10:45.940
The founding fathers understood that off the bat, the prosecution is at a distinct advantage
00:10:55.080
in that they have law enforcement on their side.
00:10:59.740
They have teams of government-funded investigators with subpoena power, power of arrest, being able
00:11:07.740
to come to you with the barrel of government's gun to compel testimony, to compel cooperation.
00:11:13.680
Defense, private investigators, as good as they are, many of them are former.
00:11:19.640
Almost all of them were formerly the first, those government law enforcement officials,
00:11:29.100
The founding fathers knew that, and they wanted that playing field to be equal.
00:11:32.520
So what they said was that everything the government, with all of its power and all of its might
00:11:37.500
and all of its weaponry, can compel and can investigatively obtain
00:11:47.880
The government is doing its investigation, presumably for the prosecution, but in the course
00:11:53.620
of that investigation, evidence comes to light that's beneficial to the defense, that's
00:11:58.540
beneficial to exonerating the defense's client, to having them found not guilty.
00:12:02.400
Well, that's what's called exculpatory evidence, and it must be turned over to the defense.
00:12:11.260
That gives a defendant, who's poor, who only has a court-appointed lawyer, the access to
00:12:17.780
all of this investigative information, theoretically.
00:12:23.960
Oftentimes, we see exculpatory evidence withheld and cases overturned.
00:12:30.460
Mueller's team is doing it in almost every instance.
00:12:32.600
And now Mueller's team is taking the extraordinary step of requesting that the court concede this
00:12:39.640
point and that the court play along with the withholding of exculpatory evidence.
00:12:46.500
Law and crime says the Supreme Court jurisprudence has frequently favored the rights of the accused
00:12:53.300
And yes, this even goes for foreign national, because the U.S. Constitution applies to anyone
00:12:59.980
under the jurisdiction of the United States, not just citizens and not just people physically
00:13:06.980
on U.S. property, U.S. landmass, U.S. contiguous territories.
00:13:12.420
If the U.S. can prosecute you, it doesn't matter that you're sitting in Russia.
00:13:17.060
If you're being prosecuted by the U.S., then the Constitution says you have all the same rights.
00:13:24.780
You have all the same rights afforded to you under federal and often state.
00:13:29.740
Us typically, almost always state, criminal procedure.
00:13:34.040
But if you're a foreign national, you typically be charged federally.
00:13:37.700
If you're here in a foreign national, charged in a state crime, then it would apply as well.
00:13:42.180
But that you have the same rights afforded to you.
00:13:44.160
You have to be given all the exculpatory evidence.
00:13:53.300
The Mueller's proposed protective order, this says, expressly forecloses against that right.
00:14:02.220
At the same time, the Mueller's proposal reports to offer Concord management
00:14:05.620
the mere possibility of seeing those discovery materials somewhere down the road.
00:14:12.440
This would maybe occur by way of an extremely complicated and burdensome permission-seeking regime
00:14:18.080
under circumstances which could accurately be described as theoretical at best.
00:14:22.620
Mueller's team, of course, makes pains to make this action appear reasonable.
00:14:32.240
The, the, um, what Mueller's team is doing is unprecedented.
00:14:37.140
And Mueller's team goes through all of these legal gymnastics and contortions to try to withhold
00:14:46.880
Now, law and crime ends by saying this, and I happen to agree, no matter one's position
00:14:53.440
on the named Russian defendants in the private sector troll farm case, these heavy-handed information-hiding
00:14:58.640
tactics in order to secure a conviction against internet trolls accused of frustrating the
00:15:03.900
democratic process is an ironic use of the U.S. legal system.
00:15:08.620
In other words, you're accusing these people of trying to block and impede a sacred part of our system
00:15:15.040
or these entities that even exist, the electoral process.
00:15:18.780
So to prosecute them, you're going to use unusual and probably unconstitutional tactics
00:15:24.180
to undermine another sacred part of our system, the rules of criminal procedure
00:15:29.400
and the rules of discovery, exculpatory evidence.
00:15:33.420
It is absolutely embarrassing for the United States at this point.
00:15:42.480
It is long past time, I say it every day, for this Mueller probe to be shut down.
00:15:54.140
A lot of differing opinions on this Singapore summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.
00:16:03.420
I think it's a great thing that the president of the United States could get a North Korean
00:16:10.940
They think that it gave North Korea a chance to stand next to the United States on the world
00:16:18.440
But let's see what somebody who actually worked in these regions thinks.
00:16:21.300
Somebody who was advising presidents, giving them intelligence to go into these meetings
00:16:26.500
and understands far more about this than many of the pundits out there.
00:16:29.360
My good friend, Scott Ulinger, retired CIA station chief.
00:16:36.420
I mean, any way you slice it, this is a win for the United States and the world.
00:16:42.360
There are people now on the Korean Peninsula, Seoul, like the president said, a city of
00:16:50.260
We have 32,000 troops on the 38th parallel in Korea.
00:16:57.420
We're getting nukes that there isn't going to be a conventional artillery attack anytime
00:17:04.200
I mean, the summit was rather limited in its scope, but it still was great progress.
00:17:10.100
I mean, this is the first time that both leaders, both national leaders of both countries have
00:17:18.420
And there are people who can say, all right, well, it gives Kim too much legitimacy and
00:17:24.300
However, I believe that by doing it this way, which is Trump's style, because he wants to
00:17:29.940
be the deal maker, so he was able to cut through considerable diplomatic red tape.
00:17:35.980
Just look at the fact that this meeting was scheduled in about six weeks.
00:17:39.500
That is virtually impossible in the foreign policy world.
00:17:46.560
He pulled out, and they still made it happen on schedule.
00:17:49.360
The speed of this happening is incredible, and it shows that because he isn't well-versed
00:17:55.160
in the foreign policy establishment, that's actually a good thing, because he thinks outside
00:17:59.840
He cuts to the chase, and as a businessman, he wants to see results.
00:18:04.160
And by meeting personally with Kim, he understands the need for personal connection.
00:18:09.400
Having done business in Asia, that's very important.
00:18:11.620
It's a good idea to look your adversary in the eye when you're making the deal.
00:18:16.520
But it also applies psychological pressure to Kim, I think, because it makes it harder
00:18:22.540
for Kim to pull out of a deal, because he's sort of made a personal commitment to Trump.
00:18:27.740
Now, that's not saying that they could possibly backtrack on any deal.
00:18:32.320
The North Koreans have a long history of this, and Trump is certainly aware of that.
00:18:36.960
However, it will make it that much more difficult for him to risk the ire of Trump, and he well
00:18:43.460
knows about the ire of Trump, because he's been reading the president's Twitter attacks,
00:18:48.540
and he understands that the president means business here.
00:18:51.480
So he's going to really think twice, I think, about backpedaling.
00:18:54.400
And although we still, you know, I'm consciously optimistic, we still have to keep that in mind
00:18:59.740
Now, there's been a lot of talk about certain individuals around Kim being purged.
00:19:13.760
And I don't think we're going to see these people again.
00:19:15.760
Now, some have suspected, I disagree with them, that Kim wants to take a more Western-friendly
00:19:20.920
approach, and he's ridding himself of the hardliners.
00:19:22.840
I think he's ridding himself of the hardliners, but I think he's ridding himself of the highliners
00:19:26.560
that are now seeing him as weak for meeting with the United States, people he doesn't
00:19:32.240
Is he getting rid of the people who he thinks could pose a threat to him, who want to be?
00:19:36.380
Because I truly believe, and I want to get into the video Donald Trump showed him in
00:19:41.580
But I truly believe that Kim, I thought the video was brilliant.
00:19:46.340
He has this very campy Miami Vice 1980s image Rambo movies of the West.
00:19:53.820
He wants to live as a legitimized leader of a nation and be able to travel to Europe and
00:19:59.600
travel to the United States with all the trapping.
00:20:02.060
And the people who might pose a threat to that who want to keep this communist hardline in
00:20:05.120
place, I think those are the ones he's getting rid of.
00:20:09.300
And also, you know, he is very aware of the fact that any travel abroad, you know, he
00:20:13.560
could find himself coming back to a country that's in rebellion, like I think happened
00:20:17.020
to Basharif or the Shah of Iran way back in, you know, 78, 79.
00:20:21.360
So he wants to make sure he has trusted people behind him.
00:20:24.480
And he has made a it's been a pattern of purges since he took over.
00:20:29.200
And we have to look at this guy with, you know, this guy is is a homicidal guy.
00:20:33.540
He's he's a person who's willing to do anything to stay in power.
00:20:38.700
But at the same time, what you said is also true.
00:20:44.440
The scheduling of the summit in Singapore was a great idea because it allows him to see
00:20:51.680
And then we go back into the video that you mentioned.
00:20:56.620
People on the left said, well, this video is is too hot.
00:21:01.660
Look, I thought it perfectly nailed his psyche.
00:21:05.540
White horses running on the beach, cigarette boats racing off Miami.
00:21:13.980
Like an 80s action movie trailer all rolled into one with him and Donald Trump as the stars.
00:21:18.560
I don't know who ran that psychological operation, but I thought it was one of the most brilliant,
00:21:27.080
I was very impressed by the content you have to look at.
00:21:29.980
And for those liberals who say, oh, it's too cheesy, things like that.
00:21:36.600
I've worked in very Muslim Islamic cultures, Central Asia, places like that.
00:21:44.080
Things that would be or statements, verbal statements or imagery that we would regard as way over the top or cheesy or ringing false.
00:21:55.080
That that that is totally different in this in other parts of the world.
00:22:01.960
You can say things to foreigners like as I did as a CIA station chief that you would if you if you said this to an American, they would laugh in your face.
00:22:12.300
But the Iranian you're speaking to will absolutely swallow it and believe it.
00:22:18.880
And this is something that clearly the makers of the film understood.
00:22:23.420
And so I think the film really resonated well with somebody that they know is very interested in movies as his father was.
00:22:30.640
In fact, his father went to the point of abducting a South Korean actress to star in a North Korean film.
00:22:37.120
So there is a history of film appreciation, shall we say, in the Kim regime.
00:22:42.100
And so I think that the I think that this really captured it very well.
00:22:46.700
And, you know, motivating almost like a recruiting video or a motivating video that that you can actually make the difference.
00:22:53.200
And and almost hinting that your legacy can even be greater than that of your father and grandfather.
00:23:01.040
If you pursue peace, which is, you know, in this family regime and the only, you know, inherited authoritarian communist regime, the appeal of you can actually do even better than your father and grandfather.
00:23:23.820
I actually rewatched his entire post summit press conference yesterday in its entirety.
00:23:27.500
And, you know, there were gotcha questions by CNN and whatnot.
00:23:31.220
But when Trump said he was asked, well, you're calling Kim very powerful.
00:23:44.640
But to take a regime at 26 years old and run it that brutally, I think something else clicked to me.
00:23:51.580
I said Trump is puffing this guy up because he knows that inflating this guy's ego throws him off balance.
00:23:58.040
That if Trump inflates his ego enough, him is going to swoon over Trump.
00:24:04.960
Now, the left wing media is seeing it as Trump appeasing a dictator.
00:24:08.600
I see it as Trump listening to his generals and his intelligence people more than he's listening to career diplomats.
00:24:15.400
And I and I trust the generals and the intelligence people a little bit more in dealing with North Korea.
00:24:19.800
What do you think I think I think that you're right.
00:24:23.220
As you said that I was processing that and viewing that as a station chief.
00:24:27.020
If I had to make a deal, I was involved in similar, of course, much lower level negotiations with foreign officials.
00:24:37.000
I think I would have done the same thing because the other thing he needs to do is he wants to pump Kim up because Kim has got to sell this to his own people.
00:24:45.480
And his own power, you know, the power, the power, the regime in the power base.
00:24:52.520
So he's got a general out there controlling the military that Kim always has to worry about.
00:25:00.700
And so this way, Trump is in is increasing Kim's authority, which means that Kim will better be able to push this thing through.
00:25:13.540
It's something that he instinctively knows and that I learned after experience.
00:25:19.940
You've got to be careful not to go too far because then the guy gets too big for his britches.
00:25:24.160
But at the same time, I think that approach was very sound.
00:25:27.480
And in the thought experiment I just conducted, I would have done the same thing.
00:25:30.960
Now, the biggest, I think the most controversial statement that Trump made or movie made is discontinuing the joint military exercises with South Korea.
00:25:43.060
Trump apparently took some people by surprise by putting a temporary hold on some of the major exercise, which is supposed to be in August.
00:25:53.600
There's some hedging about smaller exercises and things like that.
00:25:57.140
But I think that this unparalleled opportunity justifies the putting off of one military exercise for the first time in 65 years to see what happens.
00:26:10.900
It's not we're not talking about pulling the troops out.
00:26:13.180
We're not talking about the normal cooperation between South Korean military forces in the U.S. and the U.S. forces.
00:26:19.780
We're talking about a, you know, a centerpiece exercise that happens once a year in August time frame.
00:26:28.000
So I think that this, you know, this is sort of a high risk, high gain strategy.
00:26:33.140
I think that it's worth it postponing that in an attempt to, you know, increase Kim's trust level of us.
00:26:42.880
Because you can always reschedule the exercise or go back if the North Koreans prove once again that they are not willing to follow any kind of agreement.
00:26:55.760
And one of the reasons Trump gave, he said he wanted to not just take a look at these exercises because of this pending relationship with North Korea, but that they were tremendously expensive.
00:27:09.840
He goes, he said, I asked from where they sit close.
00:27:17.660
And I almost took that as him saying to North Korea, well, you know, they don't have to stay on Guam.
00:27:23.300
If you get out of line, those bombers can sit in Japan and Japan would be happy to have them.
00:27:28.200
So I thought there was a lot of nuanced diplomacy.
00:27:32.140
But again, I've been driven by the generals and the intelligence specialists more than the diplomats.
00:27:38.320
I think that that was another, that was a good gamut because by bringing up the cost factor, it shows that maybe he's willing to negotiate with that.
00:27:45.520
And also it's a not, it's a subtle reminder to our allies that they need, again, reemphasizing the fact that you all need to start pulling your weight.
00:27:58.140
He said South Korea is not paying 100% of their share.
00:28:00.300
You know, look, there is a legitimate, a legitimate financial reason behind this.
00:28:05.240
What would you estimate those joint exercises cost?
00:28:09.380
Those would, it would probably, it would, it would be in the, in the hundreds of millions, it would probably be like $200 million or something like that.
00:28:18.400
Actually, let's say, I'd say it would be approaching $100 million.
00:28:23.440
Because you're going to, you're going to send, right, you're going to send B2s out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, I believe it is, and then bring them out to Guam.
00:28:33.520
And then, right, and then, and then practicing, and it's, yeah, you're talking about tremendous expenses, wear and tear on equipment, you know.
00:28:40.840
So, like I said, if we can put it off a little bit, and our, the upside is that we increase the level of trust.
00:28:48.240
The downside is that they, you take that as a sign of weakness and engage in some kind of provocation.
00:28:53.800
Okay, fine, then you reschedule the exercise, and you walk away, which Trump will do.
00:28:58.920
And, but I, I think that, I think that you're going to see Kim not responding as the North Korean regime has before.
00:29:07.100
A lot of times during negotiations, there were artillery duels between, you know, North Korea and South Korean territory or other incidents.
00:29:16.740
And I think you're not going to see that this time, because of the personal meeting, and also maybe the postponing of the exercise as a trust-building exercise.
00:29:27.580
Right, and from an intelligence perspective, now going back to your career with the CIA, there has to only be upside for us from an intelligence standpoint for getting that McDonald's in Pyongyang or that Marriott Hotel on the beach, right?
00:29:39.360
I would have to assume, I would have to assume our intelligence services are going to embed with the employees.
00:29:43.900
That's right, or certainly use them as some sort of, I hope, collection platform.
00:29:49.280
The other thing we have to look at is the, for the intelligence world, the importance of actually meeting with the world, with the leader.
00:29:58.320
Now, before this, the United States had to do things like study videos.
00:30:02.540
And there were numerous articles, even in New York Times, about these kinds of things about a year ago, about having to study videos, propaganda videos of Kim with his latest missile to determine things about his health and things like that.
00:30:14.520
Whereas just having, maybe not even intel officers, but having trained observers at the Singapore summit, people with medical background who are able to look at him or psychological background, to look at Kim and the way he conducts himself and all, is tremendous.
00:30:30.580
It's a tremendous amount of information for intelligence to understand the motivations of this guy.
00:30:34.800
And of course, the dealmaker himself, the president can see, can get a feeling because we've already seen that President Trump's gut instincts in negotiations are pretty damned impressive.
00:30:47.640
And so his ability to take the measure of Kim by personally meeting him, that can't, the importance of that can't be overstated.
00:30:55.520
No, I think the value of this all around, even if the deal falls apart, Scott, I think the intelligence value of getting this guy out of North Korea, seeing the kind of detail he travels with, seeing their level of security, how well-trained they are, how alert they are, down, I would imagine what weapons they're carrying.
00:31:13.680
All of these things might be things we haven't known before, correct?
00:31:17.640
That certainly would be true, because as I said, it's been a long time since we've had negotiations at any level with North Korea.
00:31:27.440
And it was very, even if, like I said, there's no timeline set for this relatively vanilla agreement that we entered into, there's no timeline, there's no enforcement mechanism.
00:31:40.380
But you set the path, the stage for future working agreements that will flesh out things, and we'll see what happens.
00:31:48.340
And it's going to be, there's going to be stops and starts along the way.
00:31:52.340
But we at least can walk away knowing that we did our very best to try to solve this.
00:31:58.600
And as I said, President Trump's out-of-the-box thinking is the main reason that we got this thing scheduled in such a short time and got the result we did.
00:32:11.380
It's pretty broad, and it might be unfair because it's broad and almost absolute.
00:32:15.780
But do you think Kim's desire for nukes was an actual desire to nuke another nation?
00:32:22.480
Or was it a temper tantrum by a man-child saying, hey, look at me, look at me, because I really do only want hotels on the beaches and McDonald's and Pyongyang, and this kills two birds with one stone.
00:32:34.460
We get rid of the nukes, we give this guy what he wants, he becomes an international player, and that region becomes a little safer.
00:32:39.420
Or is everybody way off, and this guy is just a homicidal maniac hell-bent on nuking somebody one day?
00:32:46.500
But also, you're talking about somebody who is maybe an egomaniac.
00:32:50.340
I mean, you know, his grandfather was the leader, his father was the leader, he is the leader.
00:32:54.300
So his father started the program of nuclear weapons as a way of puffing up North Korea, enhancing the value of North Korea with the missiles.
00:33:02.120
And, okay, there's certainly, there's a lot of showmanship to that.
00:33:05.260
There's also a military use for these missiles and nuclear weapons.
00:33:09.000
But maybe now, if we can kind of show that the path to the son, the grandson's greatness, will be opening his country up.
00:33:17.880
See, so maybe before he thought his path to greatness would be, he's the first guy to develop nuclear weapons and put them on North Korean missiles.
00:33:25.840
But now, if we can convince him, and using things like the video, hopefully we can, that his path to greatness is forging a totally new life for North Korea.
00:33:39.420
So that's going to be, you know, there's a leap there.
00:33:42.200
I mean, you know, this guy is a product of an extremely paranoid regime.
00:33:45.540
And his grandfather and father reached power by, you know, liquidating possible rivals, by, by, you know, jealously, you know, it's a Stalinist regime, by jealously taking out anyone who could be construed as a threat.
00:34:00.680
Hopefully, we can overcome his secretive and extremely paranoid background by, by showing him that there is another way.
00:34:09.040
And I think that this was a major step in that we'll see ultimately whether it's successful, but you have to try, I think.
00:34:17.740
You know, we may find out it was wrong, but, but it won't be for lack of trying.
00:34:22.600
And I think that's what the American people want.
00:34:24.640
Yeah, I think the majority of Americans were happy that we gave it a shot.
00:34:33.300
If we have to go to war, then that's the way it is.
00:34:38.820
Scott Ewing, your retired CIA station chief, former U.S. Naval officer.
00:34:42.900
Scott, as always, my friend, an absolute pleasure.
00:34:58.100
You know, if you watch the show regularly, you know that I'm a tremendous Second Amendment advocate.
00:35:04.240
I believe that firearms are a fundamental right of every American.
00:35:08.920
But even more importantly than that, they're really woven into the fabric of America, part
00:35:13.960
Well, new research is showing that concealed weapons holders are saving lives.
00:35:20.320
The fight with these misguided kids over in Parkland, Florida are telling you, while they're
00:35:24.960
being funded by Michael Bloomberg and the anti-gun groups, they're trying to eradicate and erode your Second
00:35:30.500
Amendment rights, the data is telling a very different story.
00:35:33.520
Joining me now is somebody who knows more about this data than anyone else I know, criminologist
00:35:42.220
Look, there's a really interesting story from the Crime Prevention Research Center.
00:35:46.220
It says, new FBI report claims that 8% of active shooter attacks that occurred between 2014 and 2017 was stopped or mitigated by concealed
00:35:57.140
handgun permit holders, but that the FBI study misses half the cases, so the number could actually be higher than 8%.
00:36:04.820
I'm sure that the number would be higher just given their methodology because in some states
00:36:12.020
you don't need a permit to carry a gun, and in some states you don't need a permit to carry
00:36:18.740
a specific way, either open or concealed, so there's going to be some variation in that.
00:36:22.660
Real quick for the audience, what Adam is talking about is something called constitutional carry.
00:36:27.060
States like Vermont, Arizona, where you don't need a concealed weapons license to carry a firearm,
00:36:33.540
other states will allow you to carry, Virginia is one, right, where you can carry open without a concealed
00:36:40.740
weapons license, but if you want to conceal the weapon, you have to then have the license.
00:36:45.060
But what you're saying is in those instances where shooters either in the scenario in Virginia where they were
00:36:49.860
open carrying or in states, Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, that have open, that have constitutional carry,
00:36:56.180
they weren't even factored into this. So if a mass shooting was stopped or mitigated,
00:37:03.380
Correct. If I'm reading the methodology right, and that's just how they look at it.
00:37:07.460
And then maybe even another possibility would be off-duty law enforcement,
00:37:11.940
who don't need a concealed weapons permit to carry off-duty as well.
00:37:15.380
So, but in short, we are seeing now what would be considered statistical evidence
00:37:23.140
that concealed weapons license holders can in fact mitigate a mass shooting. That the left's narrative,
00:37:29.940
although a good guy with a gun doesn't stop a bad guy with a gun, is becoming debunked by the
00:37:35.140
side. Oh, absolutely. And I think we don't, we shouldn't be led by the nose by the narrative
00:37:42.100
about mass shootings only. This is such a rare event and it's a horrible event. There's a big
00:37:46.580
body count, all that. It's big news. But there are so many other criminal events out there besides
00:37:52.100
mass shooting that we need to really focus on because that's the reality of crime. And the data
00:37:58.260
aren't great. I'll be the first to say, we don't really have a national data collection system on
00:38:02.580
self-defense firearm use. But criminologists have examined it and there's a huge range of estimates
00:38:09.780
on how many times people use guns defensively. And there's been a lot of
00:38:14.660
critique of the methodology. On the high end, you have people saying, like Gary Kleck,
00:38:19.940
there's about two and a half million times per year. There's even one study by, I believe,
00:38:23.700
Philip Cook that says it's up to four million times a year.
00:38:26.740
And we're talking about defensive, we're talking about legal defensive uses of firearms.
00:38:33.220
Oh, wait, wait, wait. Let me just finish real quick.
00:38:35.220
But on the low end, people are saying, oh, those are exaggerated, exaggerated, exaggerated.
00:38:40.660
Those are only used 100,000 times a year in self-defense. So it might not be two million,
00:38:47.380
it might not be four million, but on the absolute lowest, 100,000. Yeah, that seems pretty significant
00:38:54.100
Right. Because I think we see what, about 12,000, according to the FBI, about 12,000 homicides
00:39:02.820
That's what I mean. And I was going to ask you, how many of those are by firearms?
00:39:06.340
About two thirds. Okay, so the 12,000, we've got about, what was it, 8,000 to 9,000 by firearms.
00:39:12.260
So when you're talking about 100,000 defensive uses, you're talking about 11 times, guns are used
00:39:17.460
11 times more on the very, very low end, defending people from crimes than they are used in homicides.
00:39:23.380
Not in crimes, we have robberies, we have shootings, we have assaults.
00:39:26.100
Okay, so back up a little bit. So you said that the government proper doesn't have an effective
00:39:31.460
data collection mechanism to determine, in fact, how many of these uses of force there are,
00:39:38.260
the legal uses of force with a firearm. Is that because local law, well, I think I know
00:39:42.580
the answer, you know, being, having been local law enforcement, that local law enforcement isn't
00:39:50.580
The biggest reason is there's just, I mean, there's just no mechanism. It's not
00:39:55.300
part of the FBI uniform crime reporting system. That's not an item.
00:39:58.660
The FBI isn't requesting that specific data set.
00:40:01.860
No. So how is the FBI reporting that? In other words, if I carry concealed legally every day,
00:40:10.020
if I shoot someone that's trying to rob me, is that not reported to the FBI?
00:40:18.180
That's the question. Are they dead or did they survive the event?
00:40:23.700
Then that would be recorded as a justifiable homicide. And when you look at some ways people
00:40:29.060
present the data, that would be counted as one of the homicide counts or, yeah, but, but, but most
00:40:36.340
people wouldn't, if you know how to analyze the data, it would not be included. It would be,
00:40:40.500
you can look at it, it would be counted, but in a, in a separate column.
00:40:44.180
Now, what if, what if they didn't die? What if they were just wounded and lived?
00:40:47.140
It'll be, it probably wouldn't be counted in FBI data because it's not a crime and they don't count
00:40:52.900
injuries. There are other public health mechanisms that might count the firearm injury,
00:40:57.860
the national electronic injury surveillance system, uh, counts, um, admissions into certain
00:41:03.780
emergency rooms. It's a sample. It's not every emergency room, but for the most part,
00:41:07.860
it wouldn't be guaranteed to be, to be collected. Now, let me just hold on there. Most of these
00:41:14.420
self-defense firearm uses probably wouldn't even be reported to the police. Now, imagine if, uh,
00:41:19.860
someone were being, uh, a stock in a parking garage and you just pull out your, your pistol and put it
00:41:26.340
by your leg and the person, the attacker sees it and runs away. Are you necessarily going to even
00:41:31.460
call the police to tell them about? Right. Very true. Very true. Very true. The rural homeowner
00:41:37.460
who has some people on his property and he walks outside with a shotgun or a handgun and they run
00:41:41.700
off and he decides not to call the sheriff because they're 40 minutes away anyway, and he's handling
00:41:45.140
himself. Or they just don't want to get police involved anyway. You want to invite the man into your
00:41:50.260
life regardless of the reason. Yeah. Yeah. No, no. It makes, it makes perfect sense. So how,
00:41:56.180
okay. So where do you, where you, you are, I mean, look, full disclosure, Adam's a very good friend of
00:42:00.740
mine, but he's absolutely one of the most knowledgeable people I know on this issue.
00:42:05.460
He's going to be working more with us here at the rebel on these stats. Where do you fall?
00:42:09.300
What number do you believe? Or somewhere in between the a hundred thousand number,
00:42:12.260
the two and a half million number, the 4 million number in terms of defensive UC?
00:42:15.380
You know, I've, I've never thought about, I think it's almost like a dart throw. I would say
00:42:20.260
probably given the methodologies in the above 1 million is what I would, I would successfully count.
00:42:27.940
So it might be a hundred times higher than the, the, uh, homicides. And let's, let's conservatively
00:42:35.140
say that at 1% of, of, of the homicides that the FBI collects as being conducted with a firearm
00:42:42.980
are justifiable, simply misreported. We're still around 9,000. If your 1 million number stands,
00:42:48.980
we're talking about 110 times more people are using guns legally to defend themselves than
00:42:54.340
criminals are using them to kill people. Yes. I mean, that's unbelievable. We're not,
00:42:59.620
we're not hearing these numbers presented often enough in defense. Why do you think large organizations
00:43:06.180
like the NRA and other firearms organizations aren't using this argument to combat the false
00:43:12.580
narrative of these Parker and kids and Michael Bloomberg's out anti-gun groups?
00:43:16.900
Uh, I have a personal opinion on that, but it's not an academic, it's not supported by data.
00:43:25.220
So I don't, I don't, give us Adam Dobrin's personal opinion, not professor Adam Dobrin,
00:43:30.500
PhD, professional. Without naming specific firearm rights organizations, generically,
00:43:36.740
some firearm rights organizations like to stoke, uh, fear and, um,
00:43:42.740
um, present a worst case scenario in that so that their numbers, uh, and supporters spend more money.
00:43:49.940
What Adam is trying to say is that the large gun organizations want you to believe that left-wing
00:43:55.700
gun grabbers are coming through your guns every day. So you continue to donate to them
00:44:00.100
and you grow their rank, which isn't a terrible idea from a marketing perspective.
00:44:03.460
No, it's a very successful marketing perspective. He's far more diplomatic than I am.
00:44:07.780
I'm on that. I'll call people out, but no, it's true. Look, but it is marketing, right? I mean,
00:44:13.460
AAA wants you to believe that your car is going to break down every five minutes on the side of the
00:44:16.740
road. So you really need their services because every interstate is just ridden with nails,
00:44:21.940
screws and shards of glass. And if you don't have them, you're going to be stuck in the middle of
00:44:25.380
nowhere. So I don't think it's unique to the gun industry. No, absolutely not. Yeah.
00:44:30.020
Medical industry, any industry, uh, your house, your roof industry, because I'm,
00:44:33.780
I'm dealing with that right now. Your roof is going to, before the hurricane season,
00:44:36.980
you're going to die. So you need a new roof. Well, yeah, right, right, right. Exactly.
00:44:40.820
Yeah. Yeah. We both live down here in South Florida. So roofing and flood insurance and all
00:44:45.620
of that, if you don't have it, it's Armageddon and it's the end of the world. But, but I look,
00:44:49.700
we get the association of realtors is going to be one of those, but, uh, we get that. But what do you
00:44:55.220
think? Um, uh, let's talk about open carry for a second, because we both live in Florida. Open carry has
00:45:01.540
failed. Uh, as good as Florida is on guns, we had a little hiccup at the parkland.
00:45:06.180
We gained back on a couple of things in one of the few states in which stocks.
00:45:10.260
That's another thing. Florida, the open carry was killed not only by the Republicans,
00:45:14.420
but by the prominent firearms organization. Right, right. The NRA was against open carry in
00:45:22.500
Florida. Why do you think that was? Why do you think that was? The NRA has a tremendously powerful
00:45:27.220
lobbyist, Marion Hammer down here in Florida. She's been around forever. And, uh, I was very
00:45:32.100
surprised that the NRA fought open carry in Florida as many times as they did, considering
00:45:38.980
that some of the representatives on it here were, were very powerful. They were very good friends
00:45:43.380
of the NRA. I don't know about this particular event. I watched it from the news. That's really
00:45:50.660
about it. But Florida traditionally has been against open carry, uh, because of tourism that it scares
00:45:57.060
non-residents and tourism, of course, is the largest industry in Florida. And that would be,
00:46:02.980
that would probably be my answer. You and I have had this conversation, right? Offline at many,
00:46:07.700
many times. Adam and I have been friends for many, many years now, going on almost 15 years,
00:46:12.740
14 years or whatever, maybe. Wow. Yeah, I know. Right. And, uh, we've had this open carry
00:46:17.220
debate so many times and I'm really torn on open carry. I want it to be legal. I want it to be legal,
00:46:23.060
but I'm not a fan of it because me personally, not, I don't want to talk. I'm the same way.
00:46:27.780
I don't want to give the bad guy the upper hand. If I'm standing in line at the ATM or I'm in a
00:46:32.420
restaurant and somebody comes in to rob the place, I don't want them seeing my gun and shooting me
00:46:37.780
first. I want, I want the element of surprise. There are other people who feel it's a deterrent.
00:46:43.140
I just don't, I think you feel the same way, right? I do. And I also see in other states where it
00:46:49.540
becomes a pain for law enforcement that they get calls. There's a man walking down the street
00:46:53.860
with a gun. So they have to go and look and it's perfectly legal and they're not even technically
00:46:59.140
supposed to stop and even talk to the person about that because it's, it's just like walking down the
00:47:03.780
street with a dog. It's not a crime. And so, but some people don't see that and they see it as a
00:47:08.020
disturbing the peace kind of event. And so long, it's becomes a hassle for law enforcement as well.
00:47:12.980
But, but tactically, you know, I don't think it would be necessarily a good advantage. On the other hand,
00:47:17.860
nobody goes up to a police officer and steals their gun from them or anything. So I think it's
00:47:22.340
kind of a wash tactically. Um, as long as you're carrying and have the right equipment and training
00:47:27.860
and so on, if you're carrying one of those non retention holsters, it's just stupid and a bad
00:47:32.420
idea. Um, I think a lot of the open carry proponents are their own worst enemies by presenting
00:47:38.500
themselves in a non-professional slovenly. Well, this is where I was going to go. So we're
00:47:43.300
talking, I know what you're talking about, but I'll say it. We're talking about some of these guys,
00:47:46.340
groups like Open Carry Texas. Now in Texas, it's only legal to open carry a long gun.
00:47:51.540
They want it to be legal to open carry a handgun. So they make their point, I think,
00:47:55.300
in a very ridiculous way. They, they're wearing, they're wearing tactical gear with, with AR-15
00:48:01.060
slung at low ready, walking around supermarkets. And it just looks horrible because they're wearing
00:48:07.460
tactical. Most of these guys are, you know, part of, they're, they're members of Meal Team Six.
00:48:11.380
They're like 400 pounds. They're in tactical vests, camo, uh, boonie hats, walking around,
00:48:17.700
you know, a supermarket where they are 15 slung at low ready. And it just, it creates a really
00:48:24.100
negative optic for that member of the public who's on the fence, right? Whereas if they were making
00:48:30.100
their point and they were in a pair of jeans or a pair of shorts and a, and a nice shirt,
00:48:34.180
and they had the gun, you know, unassumingly on their waist and a holster with a snap,
00:48:39.300
it would be far more easier for the mom wheeling her kids around that supermarket who really doesn't
00:48:43.780
think about guns to digest. No, I absolutely agree. And I would say 90% of the public wouldn't
00:48:49.940
even see the gun because we're, we're too focused on our own cell phones and lives and things like
00:48:55.780
that. And then on top of it, again, if the person were professionally dressed there, the assumption
00:49:00.820
would probably be law enforcement or law enforcement anyway. Now let's back up real
00:49:04.500
quick. Florida does have open carry in certain circumstances that most people are unaware of.
00:49:09.460
Yeah. Hunting, if you're in the field, hunting or fishing, what are the others?
00:49:12.980
If you're not just in the field, if you're hunting, fishing, or target shooting, camping,
00:49:16.580
or on your way there or back or target shooting, you're allowed to open carry. And I'm sure.
00:49:20.900
If I'm going, if I'm going on a fishing trip, if I'm, if I'm driving to the boat in Fort Lauderdale,
00:49:24.820
I can legally open carry going to and from the boat. You can, but I guarantee you,
00:49:29.140
if you interact with law enforcement, you're going to get frustrated from that.
00:49:33.220
So yes, they probably won't know that. Now I will say this. We, we have a mutual friend.
00:49:37.620
They have a large piece of land. We go out there. We, you know, I, I shoot out there often.
00:49:41.700
I always open carry out there because it's a very large piece of land and nobody cares,
00:49:45.540
but I private property you're allowed to. So it's not a big deal.
00:49:48.020
Right. But what I'm saying is it's a rural area. And there have been days when, because we're
00:49:52.340
shooting on the land where we're, you know, hunting wild hog, which is invasive. I've gone to local
00:49:58.260
businesses, but because this is a rural agricultural County, even though I was in a t-shirt and jeans
00:50:03.460
and my jeans were dirty and a baseball cap, nobody gave the gun a second look because it's a gun
00:50:07.380
culture. If I were to do the same thing in downtown Fort Lauderdale or Miami, there'd be 14 police
00:50:13.220
officers on me. Yes. Yeah. And it would end poorly. Even if you had a fishing rod in your hand.
00:50:18.980
Exactly right. Exactly right. So it really is also cultural, I think, right? Where the,
00:50:22.900
in that rural County, everybody has a gun. Everybody has a gun in their vehicle, a gun on them. It's just,
00:50:26.900
it's the old South. It's part of the culture. And Adam, great information. We got to,
00:50:31.140
we're going to be digging more into these, uh, watch for some interesting projects. Adam and I
00:50:34.580
are going to be doing for the rebel on these topics on defensive uses with legal defensive
00:50:39.780
uses with firearms. It's going to be very, very compelling information. Dr. Adam Dobrin,
00:50:43.940
criminologist. Thanks a million. Happy to be here.