Rebel News Podcast - Off The Cuff Declassified： Judge rules against Mueller, Trump⧸Kim summit, New FBI data on guns

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

00:00:19.020 are saving lives.

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,

00:00:41.780 intelligence issues for 25 years now.

00:00:44.860 I started doing it when I was literally early 20s.

00:00:48.260 I joined the NYPD in my last year of college.

00:00:51.880 I was going to school at night.

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

00:01:11.100 indictment.

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.

00:01:25.640 Let me read you this, how troubling this is.

00:01:27.980 Another case going on when Mueller wants to, Mueller is actually asking the court in another

00:01:32.600 case we're going to talk about in just a bit.

00:01:34.640 To let him withhold evidence from those individuals charged, it's unheard of withholding exculpatory

00:01:43.320 evidence.

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.

00:01:57.880 It's bizarre.

00:01:58.720 So here's, here's the first story.

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

00:02:12.300 Paul Manafort.

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.

00:02:20.020 It's a new 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

00:02:33.000 phone calls.

00:02:33.980 Maybe he meant to do it.

00:02:34.960 Maybe he didn't.

00:02:36.000 I don't think.

00:02:36.980 And people like Andrew McCarthy, legal giants didn't think that there was anywhere near enough

00:02:42.900 evidence to charge him again.

00:02:45.540 Now, a Mueller indicted, it was like last week, Mueller indicted Mount Manafort and a guy

00:02:50.360 named Constantine, how do I pronounce it?

00:02:52.820 Kill him, kill him, Nick.

00:02:54.200 And it was, they were indicted on charges related to lobbying work in the Ukraine.

00:02:59.580 You know that story.

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

00:03:17.120 reporting through court documents by Politico.

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

00:03:51.940 information on the superstition indictment.

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

00:04:09.500 short period of time.

00:04:10.920 And he should not have to be surprised at a later point by the addition of a new name or

00:04:17.060 an allegation.

00:04:18.600 And that is just a legalese way of the judge saying to Mueller, you've got to be kidding

00:04:24.520 me.

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

00:04:38.440 going to tell you how we got that information.

00:04:41.580 We're not going to let your lawyers do their job, cross-examine those witnesses, depose those

00:04:48.900 witnesses.

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

00:05:05.680 in the room for the entire conversation.

00:05:08.780 And those 15 people will swear under oath that I never said to that person what they alleged

00:05:14.120 I said.

00:05:14.820 That's standard defense.

00:05:17.380 Mueller is now, in my opinion, clearly, clearly trying to hide something.

00:05:22.780 He has a very flimsy case against many people.

00:05:26.260 And this, I've never, I've never watched a prosecutor play this fast and loose with exculpatory

00:05:33.340 evidence.

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

00:05:45.940 Weissman.

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.

00:05:56.060 And this is not a conservative outlet.

00:05:58.380 This is not a pro-Trump outlet.

00:06:00.900 This is even worse.

00:06:02.700 Mueller is trying to hide evidence from defendants in the Russian trolls trial.

00:06:07.440 Now, let me read you this.

00:06:09.880 Special counsel Robert Mueller and his deputy, Rush Atkins, filed a 14-page motion.

00:06:15.100 They submitted that motion yesterday, Tuesday.

00:06:18.200 And this is the best.

00:06:19.260 Arguing that the government, i.e.

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

00:06:34.360 United States.

00:06:35.440 In other words, I'm going to indict you.

00:06:37.600 I'm going to charge you.

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.

00:06:48.320 It is a ludicrous assertion.

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

00:07:07.460 entitled to exculpatory evidence.

00:07:09.260 It's not how the system works.

00:07:12.240 You have to give the defense the exculpatory evidence, no matter what else you think they're

00:07:17.540 doing.

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

00:07:38.060 them.

00:07:39.320 It's bizarre.

00:07:40.700 And it is exactly what Judge Amy Berkman Jackson told Mueller in a different case against

00:07:47.260 Manafort he could not do.

00:07:49.940 And number two, to keep additional evidence under the control of government attorneys and

00:07:55.400 away from Concord management itself.

00:07:57.980 So Mueller wants, again, to withhold all exculpatory evidence from the main defendant, as well as

00:08:05.280 from the co-defendants.

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.

00:08:20.780 So they're limiting it to that extent.

00:08:22.580 What Mueller is saying is only U.S.-based defense counsel for these Russian entities is allowed

00:08:29.040 to view the exculpatory evidence.

00:08:31.760 So here is what they are also saying.

00:08:37.860 After review of the materials, defense counsel could seek permission from the court to make

00:08:42.320 additional disclosures.

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

00:09:07.780 such disclosures.

00:09:09.600 Now, I could explain it to you, but Abrams Vlog did a good job.

00:09:12.580 They say lots of legalese there.

00:09:14.600 In English, Mueller's team is suggesting that Concord management not have access to the evidence

00:09:19.200 used against them, at least not at first.

00:09:22.600 Special counsel contends that only Concord management's attorneys, U.S.-based attorneys, be given

00:09:27.760 access to said evidence.

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

00:09:40.540 with the prosecution.

00:09:42.100 But it's going to be impossible for a legal entity provided by the government to not be

00:09:45.920 influenced by the prosecution.

00:09:47.340 Again, none of the systems supposed to work.

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,

00:10:24.940 you've got to be kidding.

00:10:26.140 Give Manafort's team the names.

00:10:27.380 Of a sacred right to view the evidence against him, this right undergirds the basic foundation

00:10:32.380 of America's adversarial legal system.

00:10:34.460 What that means is we're going to have adversarial trials.

00:10:38.600 Prosecution's trying to put you in jail.

00:10:39.960 The defense's trying to keep you out of jail.

00:10:42.240 The rules want the playing field to be level.

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,

00:11:25.300 those government prosecutors.

00:11:26.580 They no longer have the same amount of power.

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

00:11:43.560 must be shared with the defense.

00:11:46.180 There can't be any surprises.

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.

00:12:09.560 That levels the playing field.

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.

00:12:21.660 It doesn't always happen that way.

00:12:23.960 Oftentimes, we see exculpatory evidence withheld and cases overturned.

00:12:28.300 But this is a rarity.

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

00:12:51.740 to know what they're up against, too.

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.

00:13:23.300 Do discovery.

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. 0.99

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.

00:13:46.560 Does it matter that you're sitting in Russia?

00:13:48.760 Does it matter that you're in France?

00:13:50.360 Does it matter that you're in Australia?

00:13:52.040 Does it matter?

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.

00:14:27.920 It's ridiculous.

00:14:29.780 It's simply ridiculous.

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

00:14:45.420 exculpatory evidence.

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.

00:15:36.860 What Mueller is doing is now thuggery.

00:15:39.980 It's thuggery.

00:15:40.960 It's heavy-handed thuggery.

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 1.00

00:16:06.860 dictator out of North Korea.

00:16:08.920 People on the left don't think so.

00:16:10.940 They think that it gave North Korea a chance to stand next to the United States on the world 0.54

00:16:14.920 stage.

00:16:15.320 I happen to disagree with the left.

00:16:16.840 I happen to disagree with the globalists.

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.

00:16:32.960 Scott, great to see you again.

00:16:34.560 Hey, great to be here, John.

00:16:35.380 This is a win, right?

00:16:36.420 I mean, any way you slice it, this is a win for the United States and the world.

00:16:39.580 Because I don't care if it's only three days.

00:16:42.360 There are people now on the Korean Peninsula, Seoul, like the president said, a city of

00:16:47.060 28 million people.

00:16:50.260 We have 32,000 troops on the 38th parallel in Korea.

00:16:54.680 These people are resting a little bit easier.

00:16:57.420 We're getting nukes that there isn't going to be a conventional artillery attack anytime

00:17:00.840 soon from North Korea, right?

00:17:02.840 That's right.

00:17:03.320 Very much true.

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

00:17:16.520 ever met, and it's a good thing.

00:17:18.420 And there are people who can say, all right, well, it gives Kim too much legitimacy and 0.99

00:17:23.340 all of that.

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.

00:17:43.240 Right.

00:17:43.420 That's right.

00:17:43.780 He pulled out.

00:17:44.960 They sent Pompeo twice.

00:17:46.560 He pulled out, and they still made it happen on schedule.

00:17:48.960 That's right.

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

00:17:58.940 the box.

00:17:59.840 He cuts to the chase, and as a businessman, he wants to see results.

00:18:03.200 That's a good thing.

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

00:18:58.520 as a possibility.

00:18:59.540 All right.

00:18:59.740 Now, there's been a lot of talk about certain individuals around Kim being purged.

00:19:03.900 I'm going to use the word purge.

00:19:04.920 The media doesn't use the word purge.

00:19:06.180 But we've seen a lot of people disappear.

00:19:07.620 It's the word I use.

00:19:08.520 Yeah, yeah, right.

00:19:09.140 It's the regime.

00:19:09.920 I'm comfortably using the word purge.

00:19:11.540 Exactly, right.

00:19:12.160 And they've disappeared.

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

00:19:29.400 trust.

00:19:29.880 That's right.

00:19:30.860 So what is it?

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

00:19:40.900 a second.

00:19:41.320 Right.

00:19:41.580 But I truly believe that Kim, I thought the video was brilliant.

00:19:44.200 I believe that Kim loves the West.

00:19:46.340 He has this very campy Miami Vice 1980s image Rambo movies of the West.

00:19:50.980 And he wants that.

00:19:53.080 He wants that.

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.

00:20:08.760 That's right.

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.

00:20:37.320 We have to understand that.

00:20:38.700 But at the same time, what you said is also true.

00:20:41.520 He likes the trappings of the West.

00:20:44.440 The scheduling of the summit in Singapore was a great idea because it allows him to see

00:20:49.320 what Pyongyang could be.

00:20:51.680 And then we go back into the video that you mentioned.

00:20:54.840 Yeah, the video I thought was great.

00:20:56.420 Right.

00:20:56.620 People on the left said, well, this video is is too hot.

00:20:59.960 It's too campy.

00:21:00.740 It's like a movie trailer.

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.

00:21:10.680 That's right.

00:21:11.220 I mean, it was great.

00:21:12.160 It was everything you'd expect.

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,

00:21:23.160 one of the best I've seen in years.

00:21:24.760 It is.

00:21:25.480 It is true.

00:21:26.100 I watched it last night.

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.

00:21:33.760 OK, look, I worked in Central Asia.

00:21:36.600 I've worked in very Muslim Islamic cultures, Central Asia, places like that.

00:21:41.620 And they have a totally different view.

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.

00:21:59.100 I've learned that it resonates with them.

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. 1.00

00:22:12.300 But the Iranian you're speaking to will absolutely swallow it and believe it. 1.00

00:22:18.080 Right.

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.

00:23:14.480 That that has massive appeal.

00:23:16.260 And so I think it really hit dead center.

00:23:18.340 And here's what I think.

00:23:20.120 All right.

00:23:20.580 I don't know.

00:23:21.420 But here's what I think.

00:23:22.360 I watch Trump's press conference.

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.

00:23:35.540 Why would you give him credit?

00:23:36.880 I think it was Jim Acosta or somebody else.

00:23:38.580 It could have been Major Garrett.

00:23:40.180 Asked him the question.

00:23:41.500 Trump said, well, he was very powerful.

00:23:42.940 It takes powerful person.

00:23:44.060 I'm paraphrasing.

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.

00:24:03.000 And I think it gives Trump the upper hand.

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.

00:24:33.640 And and I would I Trump's gambit.

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.

00:24:59.540 That's right.

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.

00:25:09.240 And actually, maybe it'll reach fruition.

00:25:11.920 So I think it was a good tactic.

00:25:13.540 It's something that he instinctively knows and that I learned after experience.

00:25:17.560 I would have done the same thing.

00:25:18.940 You've got to be careful.

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.

00:25:40.620 Good move or bad move?

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.

00:26:09.880 I think it's worth it.

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.

00:26:32.120 But I agree with it.

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. 0.70

00:26:53.660 You know, I took another little nuance away.

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.

00:27:06.080 And he made a good point.

00:27:06.940 He said, look, we fly these bombers in, B-52s.

00:27:09.840 He goes, he said, I asked from where they sit close.

00:27:12.800 He said it was Guam.

00:27:13.780 It's six and a half hours away.

00:27:15.040 And he said, I know a lot about big airplanes.

00:27:16.720 It's expensive.

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. 0.99

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.

00:27:38.200 Right.

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.

00:27:55.660 Trump started doing that when he was running.

00:27:57.540 He said that about South Korea.

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?

00:28:07.820 You were a U.S.

00:28:08.300 National officer.

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.

00:28:17.140 Wow.

00:28:17.160 Wow.

00:28:17.420 Okay, let's, no.

00:28:18.400 Actually, let's say, I'd say it would be approaching $100 million.

00:28:22.780 That's pretty easy.

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. 0.96

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.

00:29:25.380 I definitely think it's worth the risk.

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. 0.63

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.

00:30:47.000 They're good, yeah, they are.

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.

00:31:25.580 So it's all true.

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.

00:31:51.080 You could have major disappointment.

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.

00:32:08.140 Let me ask you this last question.

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?

00:32:45.000 Well, I think, I mean, he is homicidal.

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. 0.92

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. 0.86

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.

00:33:35.480 Then, then we will have succeeded.

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.

00:33:59.240 He's much the same.

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.

00:34:16.180 And I think it's worth a shot.

00:34:17.740 You know, we may find out it was wrong, but, but it won't be for lack of trying.

00:34:21.220 And I think that's the important thing.

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.

00:34:29.040 Right.

00:34:29.220 We're not, right.

00:34:29.860 We're not a violent people.

00:34:31.140 We just want to see, we want to see peace.

00:34:33.300 If we have to go to war, then that's the way it is. 0.99

00:34:35.540 But we want to try to exhaust all avenues.

00:34:37.680 Right.

00:34:38.000 We certainly do.

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.

00:34:44.500 Great trading to me.

00:34:45.540 Thanks for having me.

00:34:46.420 Thank you.

00:34:58.100 You know, if you watch the show regularly, you know that I'm a tremendous Second Amendment advocate.

00:35:02.520 I'm a shooter.

00:35:03.000 I'm a collector of firearms.

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

00:35:12.920 of our history.

00:35:13.960 Well, new research is showing that concealed weapons holders are saving lives.

00:35:18.920 The fight with the left tells you.

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

00:35:38.420 Dr. Adam Dobrin.

00:35:40.720 Adam, thanks for being here.

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%.

00:36:03.640 Let's talk about this, Luke.

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,

00:37:00.660 they wouldn't even be counted in the data.

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.

00:38:30.900 Absolutely.

00:38:31.780 Okay, so back up a second.

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

00:38:53.700 to me.

00:38:54.100 Right. Because I think we see what, about 12,000, according to the FBI, about 12,000 homicides

00:38:59.460 yearly in the US.

00:39:00.340 By all mechanisms, not simply firearms.

00:39:02.820 That's what I mean. And I was going to ask you, how many of those are by firearms?

00:39:05.700 About two thirds.

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

00:39:47.140 pushing those stats up to the FBI?

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?

00:40:14.820 Did you kill them or not? How is it?

00:40:18.180 That's the question. Are they dead or did they survive the event?

00:40:21.220 Let's say they were killed.

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 0.87

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.

00:42:26.580 Really?

00:42:27.060 Yes.

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 0.94

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 1.00

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.

00:50:54.900 Thank you.

Rebel News Podcast - June 13, 2018

Off The Cuff Declassified： Judge rules against Mueller, Trump⧸Kim summit, New FBI data on guns

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript