Binance Hacked For 6 Billion Worth of Crypto North Korea’s Lazarus Group |EP964

[00:00:00] All men are created equal, but they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. By Liberty and the Beautiful of Pounds. If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

[00:00:33] America Great Again! The Big Mig. All right, welcome back to The Big Mig Show. Here with your host, George Ballantyne. Lance is having some tech issues. We'll see if he figures it out and comes back. I do not know. Couldn't tell you, but we'll see what happens. But right now, you got all you need. You got me. That's it. Listen, it's Friday. It's before Halloween.

[00:01:02] I know some people wanted to see us dress up in Halloween costumes, but you know what? It just is not happening. Can't do it. Sorry. Let me see if Lance comes in. He's trying. He's working on it. But I don't know. Halloween costumes. I was never big on Halloween because you don't know what people look like. And I don't know. It's just not my thing. But if anybody else wants to dress up for Halloween and you want to send me pictures,

[00:01:32] I'll put it up on the show right now if you're dressed. Just email me at GB at the big mig dot com and I'll make sure that picture gets shown on this show. I get my emails right away. So you got a Halloween costume on right now? Take a selfie. Send it to me. Let's go. Get it done. Let me see. There we go. Lance came in and he left. No, I'm not here yet, George. I have a problem with the camera. All right. Well, don't talk.

[00:02:01] Do yourself. All right. Anyway, I'm gonna give a shout out to our sponsor. Oasis of Hope because they got something truly remarkable that's happening in the world of cancer care. And this is just south of the U.S. border. So since 1963, Oasis of Hope Hospital during Tijuana, Mexico has been quietly redefining what's possible for patients facing late stage cancer.

[00:02:27] Their integrative approach treating the body, mind and spirit has produced survival outcomes that far exceed standard American hospital averages. And in some cases, more than three times higher. I'm going to give you some of those averages. Like for four stage cancers, listen to this difference. Pancreatic is 25% versus 2%. Well, no, but they have a 75% cure rate versus 24% breast cancer.

[00:02:52] Ladies, 75% versus 24% and prostate 50% versus 28%. Now that pattern is clear. Patients at Oasis of Hope often live longer than expected. And you have the center of this is Dr. Francisco Contreras. He's been on the show probably like a month ago. You can check it out. Look him up. He's a world-renowned oncologist. I went through to something like 15 books.

[00:03:19] And he's leading this compassionate team dedicated to giving patients not just treatment, but hope. So, listen, if you or someone you know, family member, anybody that's facing cancer, Oasis of Hope offers free Zoom consultations for anyone that mentions the Big MIG show. That's right. Free Zoom consultations if you mention the Big MIG show. You got nothing to lose by exploring options. Just visit Oasis of Hope dot com when you get a chance. Lance, I think he's got his shit figured out.

[00:03:49] Let me set up his camera real quick, people. Pardon the corruption. And there he is. Oh. Hey, good morning, guys. Sorry, I had a little issue with the camera. This ongoing thing with this update that OBS bot doesn't appear to be motivated to fix for whatever reason. I haven't heard from him, but it doesn't appear to be working the way it's supposed to. So, anyway, good morning. Welcome. Here I am. I'm back. George, what's going on, buddy? I don't know.

[00:04:18] I'm just setting up all your shots, Lance. Yeah. What's going on? I'm tired as fuck. That's what's going on. Tired as fuck, huh? You guys are heading into the Halloween weekend. Of course, got to be excited if you have kids. Halloween was always a great holiday when it came to our kids. I loved having Halloween for my daughter. I don't know about you guys, but I loved dressing her up. I used to take her out trick-or-treating. Trick-or-treating has kind of changed. It's not what it used to be when we were kids.

[00:04:46] Of course, we were out there with pillowcases. George, what's up? So, in the spirit of Halloween, since I didn't dress up and not wear any masks or anything, you could take yours off. Ha, ha, ha, ha. George. George got jokes, even though he's tired and grumpy. Got jokes. All right. All right. Listen, so here we are doing what we're doing. Of course, I think we got Dr. Michael Schwartz joining us, isn't he? Yeah, Schwartz and Roney is coming, I think. That's what he said. Schwartz and Roney will be here.

[00:05:15] Got a lot going on today, of course, you know. The Binance hack, man. Not good. Not good for crypto. Not good for a lot of things. This is massive. Of course, they're celebrating in North Korea. I don't know how this is going to go. This is interesting. You almost wonder if the world is going to want to block North Korea because they've got the Lazarus group.

[00:05:43] Anybody doesn't know that's the number one hacking group in the world. And Lazarus has a lot of subgroups that work underneath them. And this is unbelievable. I mean, and it's so bad for crypto in its own way. So it looks like Binance was hacked for at least 5.7 billion worth of crypto. Of course, this is the largest exploit in the history of the industry. There's never been a bigger one. The biggest one before this was 1.5 billion.

[00:06:13] So Binance says the hackers may have used a compromised employee's laptop to access it. Well, that's how they did get in. He's one of the DevOps engineers. I'm sorry, what, George? That's how they did get in. And I think that's confirmed now. Yeah. So, of course, these were all unauthorized withdrawals, as you can imagine. And that's an estimated 6.3 to 6. And I guess now they're saying it's an estimated 6.3 billion.

[00:06:43] And now they've frozen about 3 billion in assets. Interesting. I don't know. The impact of these hacks on crypto is not good because, of course, people start to panic that their crypto isn't safe. Well, one could argue that if you keep it in a cold storage wallet, you wouldn't have this, we wouldn't be in this jeopardy.

[00:07:08] But listen, I know Binance said that they're covering any customers that lost crypto. It's on them. So that's a good thing. So really, no crypto, anybody had a crypto wallet with Binance. You're not losing anything. They're going to put it back in there for you. They're taking a massive hit. You know, you think about it, Lance. Binance, they lost almost $6 billion in this, right? Of a hack.

[00:07:37] Plus, they've got to put money back in people's wallets at loss. How much money do they actually make? Well, I don't know, but hold on a minute. That would be the money that's going back in the wallets in this hack. I don't think Binance had crypto stolen from them. I think it was clients that had stolen crypto. Right. $6 billion. No, I know. But the way you said that, it sounded like you were thinking it was Binance. The money they're going to have to put back is the money back in the wallets. You separated the two. Oh. It was confusing to me anyway.

[00:08:07] I just want to make sure the audience. Maybe I did. This was stolen from clients' wallets. I guess these hackers had prepared for 36 hours in advance to move to make this drain. They had the door open. And then they waited because, of course, you can imagine. Imagine their excitement as they were siphoning off the billions. I can only imagine how big what they were celebrating there. The question is, is the industry going to work together?

[00:08:36] Are they going to figure out a way to claw back this crypto to block North Korea's access to the internet? I mean, there's some options here. The question is, is the world going to unite and stop them from doing this? Are they going to stop the Lazarus Group by literally shutting off their access to the internet? All the pipes coming out of North Korea, is the world going to unite? There's been some discussions about it online, about not giving North Korea access to the internet. I don't even know how that's possible.

[00:09:06] George, I mean, you're the tech guy. Is that even possible? What? To block the country of North Korea from the internet. No. Are you sure? I mean. I mean, they've got to go over internet pipelines. They're going over fiber. They're going over Wi-Fi. Why? Couldn't they just block every IP coming out of North Korea? And what happens? That's what people online are talking about. What happens if you use, um.

[00:09:36] Oh, my God. You have different IPs. No, if you have different IPs. I can't even think of the name right now. Jesus. Well, IPs are geolocated, aren't they? Yeah, but. Oh, my God. What's the thing where you can, you can mask your IP? Oh, you're talking about a, you're talking about a, when you use. Ah. I know. I'm so tired. I can't think. I don't know. You threw me off when you said it. I had it for a second. I thought I did. VPN. Thank you. Thank you, Bulldog. Yeah, VPN.

[00:10:06] Yeah. So you can use VPN and put yourself in a different country. Yeah. And if they, you know, they can get their satellites and get connected somehow. There's always a will of those away. Yeah. Well. I mean, we can, you can not make it easy for them and cut off. The future of crypto. Cut off the internet. Does this impact the future of crypto, George? It affects the future of crypto. Yeah. I mean, it's affecting crypto right now. A lot of things went down.

[00:10:34] Don't you think every time there's a hack, lots of people that are sitting on the sidelines think, oh, hell no, I'm not going to go into crypto. Every time there's a hack doesn't, don't the people that aren't involved in crypto already kind of get nervous and think, oh, no, I'm not doing that. Yeah, they probably do. You know. I mean, you may lose a few, gain a few here later on. I mean, it is what it is. But, you know, it always comes down to like, they're not. So just so people know, they're not hacking into the blockchain per se.

[00:11:04] They're hacking into finance a company through a worker who mistakenly maybe hit an email with a malware and a phishing scam, something. However, they got into some worker and maybe they should, these workers, whatever, instead of laptops. I don't know. Maybe they need to restrict them somehow.

[00:11:27] So to stop stuff like this, like maybe, I don't know, not let their emails go to those servers and those laptops and go a different way. I don't know. I'm not like 100% expert on that security features and stuff, but it always comes down to human error, really. Well, a dev developer, clearly his laptop got compromised somehow. That's how they got access. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:11:54] But for them to get access to his laptop, he most likely, I'm going to say allegedly, they probably sent an email out to this guy with malware and he clicked on it. And, you know, he don't know what's going on, what's coming into his computer. That's why people, you got to be careful when you get these emails and stuff, make sure it's coming from a valid address.

[00:12:18] Well, it's interesting that they use the technique that I don't know if it's been done before. So that particular Binance hot wallet had 50 authorizations signed in with that wallet's own private key. So basically when you give an authorization, that's when you give permission that lets a wallet, you know, give its control to code.

[00:12:41] And since I guess somehow they didn't know exactly which transactional number of the 50 was going to be authorized, they did all 50 of them. So it had 50 authorizations on one wallet and it was all controlled by an automated code written by these guys over at the Lazarus Group. So I haven't heard of something like that before. It's pretty interesting. That previous hack for the one and a half billion, that's not how they did it.

[00:13:10] So this was, so that one installed a sweeper contact contract on the wallet. So I guess Blockade found that only the Toronado Cash Funded Center can operate it. So here's the thing, right? If they hacked into these wallets and they transferred the crypto out of those wallets, right? It's going to another address. They can follow those addresses and see where it's going. I mean, look, why can't we hack back into them or hack into North Korea?

[00:13:38] You know, this is coming from the Lazarus Group works for the regime. They ain't doing this with all that money. What are they doing with it? It's for Kim Jong-un. Yeah. Well, fucking hack into North Korea. Get her shit back. Get it back. Whatever. We could do it. We have the capabilities. It's the first time we start hacking North Korea. Snowden said that we could do that? What?

[00:14:09] Snowden said, bro, would it, would it hit like on your keyboard, hit enter, and they could shut down the whole electrical grid of a country. There's so much stuff that NSA could do with their supercomputer and then some that we don't know about. Just, you know, they could have, NSA could be watching our computer right now through our cameras and watching everything we do. Wow. Mike Schwartz show rated us. All right. He should be coming in.

[00:14:37] I know Mike's not big on crypto, so. Yeah. It's a good thing he wasn't here in the beginning. No offense, Mike, but. He might be right. All right. Let's talk about the Obama administration. This motherfucker. Tell me what's going on. Excuse me. Oh. Tell me, George. What's going on with the Obama administration? This is some bullshit right here. The Obama administration investigated Elon Omar. And found evidence she married her brother. But they didn't take any action.

[00:15:10] What the fuck? So we now, I guess it's proven fact she married her brother. Once again, us conspiracy theorists, we were right. I'm just saying. We said it all. Let me let Schwartz and Rudy in here. Let me set him up, Lance. You want to go so I can set his shots up? It's typical, right? Here we are. You know, so I guess the investigation into her marriage, you know, to her dirty dandy is what they're calling it.

[00:15:39] Goes back further than anyone realized. You know, here we are that Omar has long been, you know, she was taught. These allegations were going on forever. Right. With this Ahmed Nur Saeed Elmi. And that was part of the scheme to get him a U.S. citizenship. Schwartz-Aroni. Now, when you answer, when somebody asks you a question, you ask Schwartz-Aroni or anybody else and you say, Mike, did you marry your sister? And Mike says, not to my knowledge. No. Doesn't that become suspicious right away?

[00:16:09] Aren't you suspicious of what happened after that, Mike? I didn't marry my sister. I didn't marry your sister or George's sister, just to be clear. So you wouldn't want to marry my sister. You would have had a miserable life. Oh, my God. She is a pushy ass. You know what? I did marry somebody's sister, though. My sister-in-law, Jess, and my brother-in-laws. And so I did marry somebody's sister. So what do you think, Mike? Mike, when somebody says, when you ask somebody, did you steal the money, did you steal the crypto from Binance?

[00:16:39] Not to my knowledge. So he's from the Lazarus Group, and they say, not to my knowledge. Are you setting me up? Did you steal crypto in my name that I don't know about? Is this a trick question? Yeah. We're going to use this clip later on. Not to my knowledge. I didn't. Yeah. George, did you grow a beard on purpose? Not to my knowledge. I plead the fifth.

[00:17:01] Trust me, if I had stolen even one-tenth, forget one-tenth, you know, 5.7 billion, we covered the story a minute ago, Mike, and now they're saying it might be as much as 6.3 billion. If I had stolen even 1% of that, I probably wouldn't be here this morning. Well, here, I have a question. I would have been on my way to a non-extradition country with my 10 wallets, my 10 wallets, and I would have been moving around and turning it into cash.

[00:17:29] So I have a question for you, you Bitcoin people, because you know I know nothing about crypto except for what I learned on the Crypto Power Hour occasionally. But what – so I brought this up on my show today because I got a guy, you know, I have somebody in our chat, Hastusa, who always talks about securing the vote via our phones and our electronic devices because he says you can secure a blockchain transaction. Why can't we do it with the voting? So does this – does this expose a weakness here with this story or no? No.

[00:17:59] So what happened – okay, what happened with this story was one of the dev engineers at Binance, his laptop got hacked. So I'm saying maybe he hit an email, opened up an email with malware or something like that. That's how they got in. They didn't get – you ain't hacked. It's really almost impossible, I think, to hack the blockchain.

[00:18:24] And when they talk about certifying the blockchain, it's because how the blockchain encodes all the transactions. And every transaction anybody could see, Mike. Yeah. So when it comes to a vote, you're talking about securing the blockchain. What happened here was the transfer of assets using a compromised laptop. That wouldn't necessarily – that doesn't impact that they don't know. They were identifying the wallets last night. They know where the crypto went. And the question is, how do you claw that back?

[00:18:54] And that's the difficulty because, of course, once that transaction is completed, there isn't really a clawback mechanism. And that's the difficulty of crypto. Okay. Along with security, the fact that you can secure every transaction, the minute it gets transferred, that transaction is still secured. The blockchain doesn't actually link it to being a fraudulent transaction. You know, how did we get the money back from the Lazarus Group?

[00:19:16] Really, the Lazarus Group, along with all its subgroups, is probably the most sophisticated hacking group in the world because they also – when these hacks occur, North Korea, of course, that's a government-funded and government organization, right? Lazarus Group works for the North Korean administration. My understanding is as soon as they get a hack like this, they also invest deeper into their computer infrastructure.

[00:19:39] It wouldn't surprise me if North Korea has quantum that they have gotten themselves on the edge of having quantum and agent swarm because that's what the Lazarus Group does. They reinvest into their systems. And that's what makes them so dangerous because when you have – Well, if they had quantum, they'd be tearing up everything. They don't have quantum. Well, and let's face it, George, we don't know that they're not further along than anybody realizes. Look at this hack.

[00:20:04] They took – they waited – even though they already had access, they waited 36 hours to make sure they had everything ready to go before they pulled the trigger. Well, that's smart. Again, I'm saying there's nothing to say that they don't have quantum and they're sitting on it and they're moving forward and waiting to use pieces of it. And I'm not telling you it's fully effective. I'm saying when you have $6.7 billion and a government behind you – imagine this.

[00:20:29] Tomorrow the United States says they're going to take $10 billion and they're going to create their own hacking group. And they're going to start hacking the same way that Lazarus Group is working. Can you imagine a fund – a U.S.-funded hacking organization that's authorized by the federal government? Imagine what we could do as a hacking group if we decided we were going to start going after world banking, other crypto, this and that. I – imagine how dangerous that is.

[00:20:59] And the Lazarus Group, everybody that's ever talked about them, there's one member that was – is no longer with them that had done some like – some statements and semi-interview stuff. And he said, you have no idea how sophisticated they are. He didn't go into a tremendous amount of detail because I'm sure he's worried about getting killed. He said, but you have no idea what they're capable of. And that in itself is pretty frightening because, again, you've got the full support of that particular government, right? And what do you think, George? George?

[00:21:29] I'm sorry. I'm typing something in the chat to answer a question. All right. Mike, what do you think? I'm sorry. I'm typing something in the computer to try to – what do you think, Lance? Both of you guys. I'll just keep going here then. Not to my knowledge are George and Mike on this show. So – Okay. So hold on. Somebody said, oh, so as long as the humans involved, blockchain can be hacked and compromised. Well, no. The blockchain – I don't know how it works. Hold on. Hold on.

[00:21:55] So in order for any transaction to go through to be approved on the blockchain, it has to be approved and verified by numerous different nodes. So if somebody tries to get something through, there'll be other ones. They'll look in the ledger and they'll see that, no, this doesn't hold water. They won't put it through. So why is our banking, like normal banking run like that too for transactions or no?

[00:22:21] Apparently, normal banking is on the SWIFT system and it's not multiple nodes. So that's why that – so everybody out in the audience, is everybody familiar with the PHP exploit that happened, that they identified this PHP exploit that basically gave – it looked like it was a backdoor into every website that was using PHP. A lot of scrambling online because of it. Companies like GoDaddy and other companies were sending out notices to their people that they were fixing the backdoor.

[00:22:49] And I've said this over and over again. You know, once you do have quantum available to the general public and you can use Agent Swarm, Agent Swarm is basically using AI agents, eugenic systems, LLMs, that you could have 1,000 as an example, 2,000, 10,000 unique SI biologics. Notice how I used SI for you, George. I knew you were probably cringing every time I said AI.

[00:23:13] So SI – and I know Donald Trump was – SI biologics because I think they're almost biologics, right? These things do have personalities. They do have an interesting dialogue that you have with them. Imagine 10,000 of those individuals, all unique in their thought process. That's what Agent Swarm does. All working on the same problem, whatever it was. Let's say they're trying to reverse engineer, as an example, the recipe for Coca-Cola. You could have 10,000, 100,000 if you choose to.

[00:23:41] And if you add quantum to that and you had given it samples of a chemical map of what you found Coca-Cola. You sent Coca-Cola, the original recipe, out to an organization and they came back with the chemicals that are in it. Now you give it to your 10,000 Agent Swarm and you're choosing quantum. There's no doubt that they're going to give you the recipe for Coca-Cola, right, for the original recipe. They're going to be able to do it. And they could reverse engineer anything.

[00:24:06] And that's where it's getting much more difficult because we don't really have quantum encryption available. Yes, some of our intelligence agencies allege they have quantum encryption. Do they? I can't tell you whether they do or not. Of course, that's a national security interest. But you don't have it. Banks don't have it. And the SWIFT system, when you look at the banking system, it's relatively antiquated. That's why you hear the stories about how Ripple as a company is going to replace the SWIFT system.

[00:24:35] And that's why you're seeing all these banks adopting the Ripple system. They understand that it's going to have to be replaced. Ripple is XRP. Oh, yeah. Good point. So XRP, the token, is Ripple. That's why people keep talking online about XRP having this massive upside. And I always tell people, people ask me, what do you think? I said, look, XRP is still issuing tokens. But if you look at the total number of tokens that are allowed to issue, yeah, the value doesn't make sense.

[00:25:04] If XRP is going to be used along with Ripple and along with the other tokens in the ISO 20022 tokens, XLM, XDC, Quant, you can go look them up. There's many of them. And if you understand how those all fit together, they are all the pieces of the backend that's necessary to replace SWIFT. They're all on the blockchain. So people say to me, well, what do you think is going to happen with XRP if I was going to buy some tokens?

[00:25:30] I always tell people if you have some extra money and you're going to hold it, buy and hold it like you would a stock that the ISO 20022 tokens are where you would want to invest your money. And the reason I say that is because I do believe that they are going to replace SWIFT with all of this. There's a number of reasons. You can go do your own research. You can ask Grok. It'll tell you its own version. Or you can go online and do your own research with all the people. But a lot of people are hyping up XRP that it's way below market. Do I believe it's way below market?

[00:25:58] Yes, but there's a second set of pressures that, you know, XRipple is issuing, is continuing to issue tokens, XRP tokens. They do it every month. They're increasing their revenue stream with it. So right now it's not a limited token like you've only got 21 million plus Bitcoin that can never be minted. And because of all the Bitcoin that have gotten lost to landfills and lost seed phrases, they say there's truly only about 16 million Bitcoin.

[00:26:28] It's kind of like Quant. Quant took a big jump. It went from $50 a token up to 200 and some odd dollars. I don't know where it's at right now. It's one of the ISO 20022 tokens. But they have a limited number of Quant. I think there's 15 million, 15 million odd in Quant that are ever going to be issued. So, of course, limited supply drives price also. In the case of XRP, there's a lot more than that. But for them to do what they're talking about doing, which is replacing the entire SWIFT system,

[00:26:55] which is literally trillions and trillions of dollars of transactions daily, they need a much bigger number of tokens. So XRP limiting the number of tokens right now doesn't make a lot of sense if, in fact, it's going to do SWIFT. The future of XRP, I think it's got a much higher value. Because when you reverse engineer the math, so if somebody said to me, hey, like I got an extra 10 grand, I want to buy some tokens, and I'm not worried about the money. And you can't sit there and watching it every three seconds. It's the same thing that happens with stocks, right?

[00:27:23] You got to buy stocks, buy and hold. Hopefully, you did the fundamentals and you did the right thing and you bought a stock, like an NVIDIA stock. You did the research and said, I think NVIDIA is going to be huge. You bought NVIDIA 10 years ago. You were right. You made a shitload of money. I believe it's the same thing with crypto. So you can't look for last minute. So this, not to my knowledge, we were just talking about the Omar Obama investigation. So Obama actually found evidence that Omar's marriage to her brother was fraudulent.

[00:27:55] But he's saying the case stalled because the crime fell outside a five-year statute of limitations, which there is a five-year statute of limitations when it comes to cases, unless the federal government uses Title 1832-96 when a defendant gets their case overturned. And they call it the poison pill. Wait, there's a five-year statute of limitations on immigration stuff? Five-year statute of limitations on federal crimes. And that would include, of course, immigration.

[00:28:23] Now, Mike, since you're in law school, I'm going to throw to you, because you might know more. Doesn't fraud videate everything? Doesn't fraud, wouldn't fraud kind of reset? If, in fact, she committed fraud, I thought that fraud reset everything. Is that incorrect? It would depend. I mean, if she's still using her name, let's say she signed a document somewhere, you know, using a fraudulent name. Now, you may be able to, you might have a case at that point.

[00:28:53] But fraud necessarily as a whole isn't going to negate the statute of limitations depending on the crime. I thought that when you- All right, hold on, hold on. There's no statute of limitations on immigration fraud regarding civil immigration consequences, permanent inadmissibility, or citizenship revocation. Well, here's an interesting thing. And by the way, she's- Wait, she's not using her real name. Elon Musk is allegedly not her real name. So she's still committing fraud, ain't she?

[00:29:25] If it's not her legal name and she signed that name for a mortgage document or something, then you might have her. There's a lot of loopholes in the law that, you know, it's the same thing when you're a cop. But she also, like, lied her age to get citizenship. I was just about to say that. Mike, does that impact what George just said about the age? It might. I'd have to look it up. It might. I mean, it's going to be specific to that case. I'd have to go and do some research on it. I'm just glad we're talking about politics. I had no idea. I had a glazed look on my face when you were talking about all that technology stuff. I got another one. I lost it at nipple. Here's another one.

[00:29:54] You said nipple or something. The government can seek to revoke or invalidate U.S. citizenship at any time if it was illegally procured or obtained by willful misrepresentation. Boom! Okay, George. Sounds good to me. She's guilty. Take her fucking ass back to fucking Somalia. Good deal. You know, I mean, don't you think it's interesting, though, that Obama, a Democrat, Omar, a Democrat, that we didn't even hear about this presentation? What are you saying?

[00:30:24] Democrats stick together? I'm just saying the criminality of Democrats seems to be consistent along party lines. Mike, you look so serious. You all right, bro? I'm fine. That beard's throwing me off. And you guys kept saying nipple before I was driving this. Who's you guys saying nipple? Not you guys. Him. Don't put me in that shit. I said nipple. Was it nipple? What something you said nipple? I don't think I said the word nipple.

[00:30:52] Maybe he's fucking, he's minds in the gutter right now. Ripple. Sorry, ripple. Ripple, bro. Get your head out of the gutter, bro. Yeah, yeah. Yo, Kelly, take care of business at home. See what's happening to Mike? No idea what's going on. Huh? You get me on here. We're talking about Bitcoin and blockchain. I have no idea. I just got a glazed look on my face. As far as these two are concerned, I don't know what the statute of limitations is. I don't know what the actual charges are going to be. I'm letting them, they've obviously got something because everybody keeps talking about it.

[00:31:22] And everybody, everybody's kind of nodding. Even when Tom Holman came out and he's like, I got stuff, but I can't tell you. There's something here. And look, if it was a Democratic DOJ, would they glaze over it and probably not prosecute? Yeah, of course they would. Yeah, they stick together, George. They're protecting the narrative. They're protecting the Borg. They can't let anything disrupt that. And I don't know what the charges are going to be. I'd love to see them outlined so I can give you a better understanding of what I understand it from law school.

[00:31:51] How long is it going to take to get these charges? I mean, it seems like there's clear evidence. I don't know. Obama said they had the evidence. I mean, so what the fuck? Why is it taking so long to put the cuffs on the bitch? Throw an immigration jail, too. Man, you're going to be a dictator, George. See, that's the problem. We have placements here. She obtained U.S. citizenship illegally.

[00:32:20] She lied, lied, lied. She's sitting in Congress, lie, lie, lie. And they're going to have to prove that. They want to make sure they got a rock, you know, an airtight case to do that, which I respect. Everybody wants it to happen now. I don't know. You know, look, everybody's frustrated. They've been investigating this shit since Obama was president. Okay, but obviously our DOJ took charge. Whatever. Nothing came out of the Obama administration. They chose not to prosecute and not to look further into it.

[00:32:50] So now our DOJ has got it. I'm just saying I want to see her locked up now because I do it for Lance. Because, you know, I usually am the devil's advocate saying you have to give the FBI time. But I'm just trying to be on Lance's side today. I got you, bro. All right. A lot of people I want to lock up. I want to lock up all the people that want to lock us up. Like Jennifer Wells. Like Hillary Clinton. Like, you know, Hassan Piker. There's a lot of these nefarious characters in the mix that I would love to see prosecuted. But, you know, what comes around goes around. And when they have power, you're going to – you saw it in the last administration.

[00:33:20] They came after me. They came after everybody in the last administration. It's not fun. Get me into a position of power where I have that option. I'll wipe out. There won't be any of them left. They won't have a choice. You know, honestly, as stupid as that sounds, my problem is that I still don't see any real accountability. I mean, we're talking about Omar. Okay, you know. Lance, you're kind of frozen, bro. Yeah. My camera's a problem today, George, so I don't know what to tell you about it.

[00:33:49] No, your voice was going in and out too, so it's not the camera. Because your voice has nothing to do with it. Well, am I okay now or no? I don't know. Move. Moving. I guess, maybe. Maybe. All right. Well, anyway, you know, my thing is that she's a marketer for the deep state, but she's not really part of it. I mean, yeah, she's part of the squad, and I don't like what she's done with immigration,

[00:34:17] but we still don't see any real accountability on the real players. We don't see the Russians. She's a pawn. She's a pawn. I know there's bigger people out there, Lance. I get it, but it's like where do you draw the line? And then you'd be mad that we weren't going after her. So we're going after her, but it's not enough. You know, like at some point, there's got to be a little realism here as far as what we can and can't do. The Comey thing, for instance, like I think the case is ridiculous. I mean, they got him on. There's probably bigger things. I'm just thinking that they can get him on.

[00:34:47] The first case they withdrew because the prosecutor wasn't duly, you know, illegally appointed. So they withdrew it without prejudice, but they never brought the charges back. Now they got this 8647 thing that we haven't heard much on, which I think is flimsy at best. And now they've got another charge they want to put on Comey, but they're not doing a grand jury, which might not hold up in a court of law because it's a federal charge. They technically need the indictment. So, I mean, there's a lot of questions I have with the DOJ. I would love to get an interview with- You think they're doing that intentionally, Mike?

[00:35:17] I mean, when do they not sequester a grand jury on a criminal indictment? They're not even seeking a grand jury. They're not even looking for an indictment. Is that intentional? It could be, but I've looked into it slightly, and I can't find a reason why. Now, again, I'm only a second-year law student, and there's people much more schooled on jurisprudence than I am. But, you know, everybody I've talked to and thought about and listened and researched on this case, there's not- I can't find a plausible reason why they would do that. It should be by design.

[00:35:47] You would think if they're not doing it, but it may get thrown out of court because of it. And that's interesting. Do you think that seems like a risky play, even if there's some legal argument for it? Why wouldn't you just stand to the status quo, you know, the standard modus operandi that they use in every other case? I mean, it's pretty much standard that they sequester a grand jury. Maybe they're bringing- They could be bringing the case in D.C. They could be bringing the case in D.C., Lance, and figure that the jury pool is so tainted there they're never going to get the indictment. I mean, I don't know what their thinking is.

[00:36:17] You know, it's interesting, though, right? Because at the end of the day, to me, what they do- I don't like the grand jury system. I don't like the way that the DOJ uses it, not because I don't think the grand jury's necessary. What I think is ridiculous are the sealed grand jury indictments, that they present evidence against the defendant, and the defendant has no idea what was presented against them. We have no idea what was said to the grand jury, and you're supposed to be able to face a jury of your peers. And then when you get your discovery as a criminal defendant,

[00:36:47] they don't give you the grand jury testimony because they say it's sealed. Yeah, but you're not arguing your defense in grand jury. Your defense- You don't have really a defense in grand jury. Grand jury is basically- It's almost like a probable cause hearing. You're showing- You know, it's not even a jury, technically. Grand jury's a little different, but you're arguing to a jury of your peers that most likely a crime was committed, and most likely it was the defendant. They're just saying yes to that to move the case forward. You get to argue in front of your- But why is it that they never provide that in the discovery?

[00:37:16] Because it seems to me that the grand jury testimony should be part of what you're preparing your defense against, and yet they never give it in discovery. It is almost- In fact, even when defendants push for it because they think there was misrepresentation in the grand jury for one reason or another, because they get proof later on, there is almost a standard refusal that it's never offered. And to me, at that point, and they'll use the reasoning that there's a confidential informant. Well, there's never a case

[00:37:43] where the defendants don't know who the confidential informant is because, for example, you were meeting with George to commit a crime, and let's say he was the only confidential informant in the case, and you said, well, then I met the confidential CI number one at the Starbucks. Everybody knows who they met with the Starbucks. It's not hidden. Nobody doesn't know who is testifying against them, but that's their claim to fame, and yet you might have proof that the grand jury testimony that was presented

[00:38:13] was fraudulent, that they fabricated statements in front of the grand jury. Courts aren't set up for fairness. That's the first thing you learn in law school. And there's a lot of things that happen that aren't fair. There's a lot of procedural things where, you know, I mean, why do you think the lawyers get paid so much money? I mean, you can go, you can get a track, you know, three, 450-day discovery case where you're going to sit on, work on it for over a year and a half, and it's just motion after motion, motion to deny, motion to appeal, motion to quash,

[00:38:42] and all you're doing is defending motions during this period. When you get into discovery, though, that's where you have a lot more latitude where you should have some of this information. As far as grand juries being sealed, you know, and only seeing confidential informant, if the government has a, and I'm not, look, I'm not agreeing with them, Lance, because I don't, I don't know that we're not talking about a specific case. We're talking just in a vacuum here. But if the government had a reason to try to protect a witness or something, that's why they'd be listed as a CI1 or CI2 or something like that.

[00:39:12] But beyond that, I mean, you would think that the defense attorney would get access to that. They don't. You can't say that in every case there. But we're not talking about every case. I'm talking about 95, 98% of all cases. That would seem to me that that exculpatory information that's presented should be given to a defendant. There shouldn't be any argument when you're already indicted and you're trying to defend yourself because now there's almost a hidden circle of information that you're not being provided. I don't know how they can, to be honest with you,

[00:39:41] I think it's criminal. I think that, in fact, these cases where they refuse, because I'm not saying every case people request their grand jury testimony, but they do it in many cases, especially cases where they find out about, you know, coaching of witnesses, other information that was presented that was untrue. I don't think that anything that's presented when it comes to you having to defend yourself should ever not be provided to the defense counsel or the defendant himself if he ends up having

[00:40:11] to represent himself. Agreed. And they will tell you, no, no, no, no, no. And in fact, most of the time, they don't even really get into the semantics of what you requested. They just use procedural blocks and tell you that it's too late to ask for that, your time barred, or any other list of bullshit. All right, let's move on here. So one of the things I've been watching, seeing is like when a lot of interviews of just people like voters and stuff, even polls, and one of the number one issue that they bring up is government corruption

[00:40:41] and no consequences. Yeah. Well, that's why you got so many MAGA voters that say they don't even want to bother to vote. They're angry about the delivery of consequences for government officials. You know what? And those people are going to be fucking more angry if Democrats win. So that's just stupid. I'm sorry, MAGA people. I don't mean to disrespect you because I'm one of you, but I will vote. So we must vote. No, I agree. I mean, it is, but you know, the people are very dissatisfied with there hasn't been,

[00:41:11] we caught them all indictments. Those statements were made. We caught them all. Well, I mean, what do you expect when the president of the United States says, oh, I gave Obama, Hillary, Biden, whoever else a pass? I mean. Well, our own AG says, has made it vocal within the White House to many people that he is not going to go after the Russian collusion hoax participants. That he's not going to pursue Well, there's a grand jury over there in Southern Florida, so I don't know how that's possible. I'm just telling you, I got that from a source.

[00:41:41] I think that source is mistaken or taken out of context. No, I don't think so. Well, they have a grand jury, so if the grand jury comes back with indictments and stuff, I mean, it's going to move forward, so he can't say that. I don't know. Well, I know. I can't tell you, I can't tell you why Blanche, George, here's my question. That case was started under, wasn't it started under Pam Bondi and not Todd Blanche? What, the grand jury? That case that you're describing, wasn't that? Yeah.

[00:42:11] So maybe he's not motivated beyond what was already started. All right, let's talk about the Alaska governor, George. What do you got here? I mean, at least the last governor is coming out. He's saying he's going to not certify the Senate races in Alaska if Democrat Mary Pallotta wins. They're going to, they're investigating. Pallotta, isn't it? Pallotta? P-E-L-T-O-L-A. P-E-L-T-O-L-A. I don't know. Pallotta? P-E-L-T-O-L-A. Whatever.

[00:42:41] What do you think, Mike? Is it Pallotta? P-E-L-T-O-L-A? P-E-L-T-O-L-A, I think. I couldn't pronounce it last night because I want to say Pallotta. It's P-E-L-T-O-L-A, I think. I think it's P-E-L-T-O-L-A, too. I think you guys are right. People were asking me about this last night on the Barry Cunningham show, like why, you know, why is the federal government not getting involved? Because you really can't. Yeah, but when you, but it's a statewide, you got to understand, they're trying to defraud the people of the state of Alaska. This would be really the secretary of state has to certify the election in Alaska. So, you know,

[00:43:09] if it got that far and she won and there was some nefarious activity going on, I love this story, by the way, too. Wait a minute, Mike. Maybe some of the audience may not even know what's going on here. Let's give the premise of what we're talking about. Sure, it's the tale of two Dans. You got Dan Sullivan, Dan S. Sullivan, and Dan L. Sullivan or something. Or Dan J. Sullivan. Yeah, so the Democratic Party decided to put up, you got to remember, you have a ranking system in Alaska. So, you know, if you don't get 50% of the vote, you go to a runoff and blah, blah, blah. They wanted to try

[00:43:39] and disrupt this election. So they found another Dan Sullivan to put on the ballot to take away votes from the incumbent Dan Sullivan. And that teacher has been incognito the last couple days. They can't find this person now. I don't know if they're going to find him today. I would love to find out what was said. I would love to find out if he was offered anything. Was there consideration? Because they were doing a statewide search for other people named Dan Sullivan to try to confuse the voters. And as I said, this is not the first time this has happened. This happened in New Jersey in my neck of the woods

[00:44:09] back in 2026. But in that case, the Democrats put up an actual candidate on the Democratic slate to run against... We had a candidate called Saxton. They put up a Sexton to try to confuse voters. In this case, they tried to put somebody up to take votes away from Dan Sullivan so that the Democratic nominee could win the election. So, but, you know, look, it happens all the time. It's not illegal. But when you have a conspiracy, if you have a solicitation, a conspiracy

[00:44:39] to try to defraud the voters because this guy never had the intent... Lance and I talked about this yesterday on Liberty Radio on the Big Big Talk radio show. If you had the intent to never do the job and try to defraud the voters, then you may have a problem here. So while it might not be illegal on the surface, when you dig a little bit deeper, I think there's a case not only for criminal charges but civil as well. Well, this candidate, this decoy candidate, Dan Sullivan, they're saying he refuses to go under oath

[00:45:08] and DOJ has just issued a bunch of subpoenas and they're expanding their criminal investigation. Now, the Senate, even though it's in the state and it's for the state, but it's a federal position because they're in Washington, D.C. It's not like it's a state senator. That's why the DOJ gets a ball too, I believe. You know... Well... Go ahead. The legality... Because it's a federal election, right? Of course, we want to see, we want to see, you know, Patola, we want to see

[00:45:37] the consequences for that. But what's really horrible to me is the lack of integrity that the Democrats continue to show over and over and over and over again. Mike, I might be wrong. I've never heard of Republicans doing this. Has there been a case of Republicans doing this? I mean, I'm sure it's happened somewhere, maybe not to this extent, but, you know, who knows? Look, you get a district that is heavily won, you know, especially in Congress. I just want you to think about New Jersey for a second because New Jersey 3rd, which now is a Democratic seat,

[00:46:06] used to be a Republican stronghold, the way it was districted back then. So Jim Saxton, who was our congressman for 11 terms, 20, you know, 22 years or whatever, nobody was getting in that seat. So the Democrats said, well, screw it. Let's just run this guy named Sexton and maybe people will get confused, hit the name and we can just win the seat. That stuff happens all the time. But then there was no publicity on that because it wasn't somebody trying to abruptly insert a candidate to take away votes from another guy.

[00:46:36] This was somebody, you know, they did it a little bit differently back then. Even though it's the same premise, it wasn't as nefarious, I guess you could say. In this case, you had people searching this guy or a guy named Dan Sullivan out for a very long time. This has been going on for a while. This went to court back in June or July, maybe August. It was in the summer though and it went to court and initially the election commission on this said, let's take him off the ballot because it's too confusing to voters. Then when it went to the Alaska Supreme Court, they said, well, you can't do that.

[00:47:06] And I understand that. Let's say there's a guy named Lance Migliaccio who's the congressman in your neck of the woods and you decided, you know what, my name's that, but screw it, I really want to run. We're not going to take you just arbitrarily off the ballot because you have the same name. That would be disenfranchising the voters. It would be disenfranchising you even more. So I understand what the Supreme Court did here, but when you dig into the case and the reason the New York Times did this story, there were 12 witnesses that came forward on this, 12 sources.

[00:47:36] There was also somebody from the campaign that came forward and the campaign manager who now wants to retract his or her statements. I can't remember if it's a they or a them. It's Democrats, so I'll just call them they. But now they want to retract their statements. But this story got so big because you had so many people talking about it that even the New York Times said this story's too big for us to bury. So they came out and reported on the story and now all of a sudden the pieces are coming out. Even CBS News. How telling is it, Mike and George, do you think that

[00:48:06] Daniel J. Sullivan refused to go under oath on the initial investigation? He wouldn't do it. He actually said, nope, I'm not doing it. And now they're having to... He hasn't even campaigned. You know, allegedly Mark... Was it Mark Elias? Mark Elias. He's involved in this. So that's just say right there. Well, let me just play the clip real quick. But what were you going to say, George, about the campaign? I'm sorry. He hasn't even campaigned. He hasn't done no campaigning, no events, nothing. But the fact that he refused to go under oath, isn't that almost

[00:48:35] an admission of guilt? I mean... I don't know. They got like 30 subpoenas out, though. Not to my knowledge. It would be in a civil trial. So if you were... And this is why I think they got to file civil charges and bring this into chancery court, because if you bring it into chancery court, you can get a hearing right away. And if you say somebody's being disenfranchised at that point, if you make it civil and you ask this guy to testify and he pleads the fifth, that can be an ad... You can now take that plea of the fifth in a civil trial and infer guilt on a criminal trial because of the civil trial.

[00:49:06] That's a good take. All right, George, go ahead and play the clip. Okay. Had people come to me that are voting now early saying it was very confusing. You have the two names, the two Dan Sullivan names closely together. And as a matter of fact, when we did our investigation in late spring, early summer, the Dan Sullivan from Petersburg, Alaska, his initial emails to the division of election wanted him put on the ballot as Daniel S. Sullivan. His middle initial is not S. That's the initial

[00:49:35] of our incumbent state, U.S. senator. And so we knew that the intent was questionable then. We really, really believe it is incredibly questionable, very questionable now. Let me ask you a question. Does Alaska, hold on. Does it have brought his middle initial, George? I don't know. Doesn't Alaska have primaries? Yeah, and he, and the Daniel, and the fake Dan Sullivan received 2.5% of the vote in the primary. And that's kind of the interesting point

[00:50:05] on this story. If you think about the- It shouldn't be on the ballot. Right? Go ahead, Mike. Finish. When you have, when you have a candidate, when you have a graduated system like this, okay, where you don't need, you can kick, when you have this system that they have where you have to get 50% or more and all of a sudden you start kicking people off the ballot and then start doing, what do you call that? When you do the runoff elections. If this guy, in a close election, when you garner 2.5% of the vote,

[00:50:35] think about how much that can throw it in a very close race. I mean, this could cause a lot of problems. And to think that this guy fooled enough people to get that many votes in the primary, they could really throw the election off here in the general. Don't you think, though, that the intent is clear? The fact that this Dan J. Sullivan wanted to be registered as Dan S. Sullivan, even? Yeah, and that's probably why- he actually tried to register himself with a fake middle initial. Yeah, and that's where

[00:51:04] you would start to go down the road of what's the intent. So that's why I want to get the guy under oath. I want to get an interview with the guy and say, why did this happen? How did they find you? Who contacted you? What was the agreement you made? Because if you can prove solicitation and a conspiracy, now you've got them by the you-know-whats on this case. So there's a lot more to this than people know on the surface. And to answer George's question from before, why would the federal government not be involved? If the federal government got involved and tried to quash this, it's going to look like we interfered in a statewide election. So I think

[00:51:34] what the governor's doing, Mike Dunleavy, by stepping forward here and saying, hold on a second, we're going to handle this on a state level. You're disenfranchising the voters of the state of Alaska. Just because it's a federal election, you're representing Alaska. So the state of Alaska really needs to take the lead on here to look like there's no interference from the federal government and the Trump DOJ here. So I think Mike Dunleavy is doing the right thing. But the DOJ just issued 30 subpoenas, bro. So they are involved. That's fine. They're going to have a federal case somewhere, whether it's civil or criminal.

[00:52:04] There's probably a lot of federal charges here coming down the pike, but it has to be handled. You can't just, the federal government to say we're not certifying or get it, you know. No, that's the governor said that, not that the governor said he's not. And that's what I'm saying the governor needs to do because if the federal government tried to look like they were influencing who the state of Alaska wanted to put up here, that would not be a, that would open up a whole nother can of worms. Well, I hope to see

[00:52:33] some accountability. Of course, this is horrible when you do this to voters. It's sneaky, horrible. It's unethical. It lacks a tremendous amount of integrity. So for anybody out there that wants to talk, you have friends or family members that are telling you how amazing the Democrats are, maybe just point them to Alaska. Tell them about the S. Sullivan versus J. Sullivan and how they've tried to do this. Hopefully this information you can pass it around. This is crappy.

[00:53:03] To me, this is a reason to never vote for Democrats. And listen, you know I don't love the Republicans. I think we've got a uniparty in D.C. I don't like the way they've handled the Senate. We haven't gotten anything passed that matters. I mean, here we are with this damn daylight savings issue still that I'm just so sick of. I want it over with. It angers me every time I hear about I'm going to get ready to reset the clocks and I look outside and I hate what it's done to my circadian rhythm. I think it's awful for our health. All right, let's talk about

[00:53:32] this fire general. You believe they're trying to, Democrats are saying they want to impeach Pete Hex, Seth, over this? You know, it doesn't surprise me the Democrats are doing it, but of course for the audience, this general, you know, admitted to classified Iran and Ukraine leaks and he was anonymously attacking Pentagon leadership. Now, if you understand the chain of command, there are plenty,

[00:54:02] plenty of rules and laws within the court of military justice, which operates differently than the regular federal system does. Mike, what do you think here? This fired Army Lieutenant General Brett Sylvia, he was the director of the Directorate for Strategy, Plans, and Policy at the Joint Chiefs, which of course means that he was sitting on a tremendous amount of classified national security secrets, especially operational plans,

[00:54:32] which could endanger troops. And now he's, he has admitted he leaked the classified information. Yeah, and he failed the polygraph too. So, I mean, for Pete Hex to get rid of him. Wait, he admitted he did this too. Okay. So, I just want to know how come he's not in a brig? He's still in the military. He just got fired from the chief of staff position he had there. You would think the military, if they had this information, they'd throw his ass in a brig already. And here's my question, Mike. I'm confused about one thing. The,

[00:55:02] the legal system, the military has its own court of justice, right? They've got their own military courts. Why are they referring this to the Department of Justice versus their own Jags and their own military courts? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what the circumstances is and what his title was. I mean, I don't know all the particulars, so I'm not going to question that because I don't really have the specifics on the case. But the guy failed a polygraph. The media's been trying to spin it. I played a story on it this morning. The media's trying to spin it as if we've gone rogue and we're just firing

[00:55:32] everybody. And this guy who, you know, leaked stuff, he failed a polygraph. For me, at least in my audience who understands it, they understand that Pete Hexeth and this administration is trying to tighten the reins and make sure we don't have leaks and make sure that we can get rid of the deep staters and that we're, you know, actually doing something for a change. We get it. But I played a fake news ABC story on it this morning and it just made it look like Pete Hexeth has gone rogue and the whole department has gone to crap. By the way, I don't think, I think you might see Pete Hexeth leave right after the midterms.

[00:56:01] That story's been floated by a lot of industry insiders. I'll just say it like that. But because a couple things. Number one, you know, if we lose the midterms and Donald Trump's going to need somebody to kind of throw under the bus here and everybody's going to start pointing out Iran and the gas prices. But the second biggest reason is if they do win and they win the Senate, impeachments are coming and yes, to Georgia's point, they are looking to impeach Pete Hexeth. They do not like him. I like Pete a lot. I think he's one of the best,

[00:56:31] you know, secretaries of defense war we've ever had. I think he's a great guy. He knows his stuff. I think morale and, you know, people signing up for the military, they love him. Absolutely. But don't you need two-thirds of the Senate to impeach? What? Do you? I don't know what the vote is in the Senate. You do. Well, while you guys are getting to the bottom of that, I just want to point out to the audience. So during one of his meetings, this general's meetings at a diner in Arlington, Virginia, he relied on

[00:57:00] notes he took while reviewing a classified secret report to orally give redacted on U.S. assistance to Ukraine. And so while meeting with this reporter who had his Pentagon access revoked, Sylvia did not coordinate these meetings with the Pentagon's public affairs office or seek to have the information reviewed before providing it to this reporter. And that is a standard whether you're writing a book or you're meeting with a reporter. Number one, your meeting has to be approved. Number two,

[00:57:30] the content of that meeting has to be approved. Now, Sylvia further admitted to being one of the 20 officials attacking the Pentagon's leadership under Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and President Trump. That's a violation of chain of command. But what are the other 19 officials? Do we know? That hasn't been fully disclosed yet that I've seen. I looked for that actually oddly enough. And this is when you say a shadow government or deep state operatives. This is what we're talking about. What do you got, Mike? George, you're correct.

[00:58:00] It is 67 votes, but I wanted to make sure that was the same for secretaries and it is the same standard. 67 votes, two thirds. You know, but just the time and the obstruction that the Democrats, the amount of time wasting that's going to happen if they win in the midterms, it's going to be unbelievable. And all the good that Donald Trump has done, and listen, I love Donald Trump. There's many things he's done very well during this second term. I don't love everything, meaning it's not the wars I don't love.

[00:58:30] I think that we should have never even gotten involved in Ukraine, is my opinion. I mean, Zelensky should have been hung out to drive. And what do I think about, you know, Iran? They've been a problem in the Middle East for literally decades, maybe even centuries. I just don't think that we should allow that to continue. But of course, I know a lot of people think the Congress has to approve everything. But when you have a Congress like this one that sucks so badly, I don't know. Hold on. So Michael Jones and YouTube,

[00:58:59] and he's right on this. They already, they actually, he's saying this, they already been saying for months they're going to file impeachments again. That is 100% true. They all been talking about that. And they probably have them all ready and printed up, as he's saying. You're absolutely right. But what are they going to impeach them really on? They're going to make something up like they did with Trump. Well, I agree. You know, there's a story here I'd like to cover, George. I know you're a little bit just do that. That's what I mean. After that one. Yeah.

[00:59:29] So Mike and I discussed this on the radio show. So the UN is meeting in Armenia and they're pushing to lock up 30% of the earth's land and water. So you're talking about private property and U.S. sovereignty on the line. So right now there's nearly 200 delegates from 200 countries meeting right now in Yerevan, which is in Armenia, for the UN's COP17 Biodiversity Summit. The centerpiece is a plan to put at

[00:59:59] least 30% of the planet's land, inland waters, oceans under effective conservation management by 2030. So a lot of critics are saying it's a long-running push to expand government and international control over productive land to restrict owners and bypass national sovereignty. I've said it before, I'll say it again, I don't like the UN. They're lucky if I wasn't president, I would have thrown them out of New York. I don't want to participate in the UN. I don't think it's what it was initially established to do.

[01:00:29] I don't like them, I don't trust them, and I don't like, if you've followed COP17 and these biodiversity summits, it seems to be an on-coning kind of a massive push for unified government that oversees and controls each individual country in their own manner. What do you think here, Mike? You got any thoughts or George? Fucking, I don't know, who's the UN think they're going to come and try to take land here in the United States? Good luck with that.

[01:01:00] Good luck with that. 30% of all the planets land inland waterways and oceans. effectively the control would be under the guise of conservation and management, which I don't dislike conservation. I just don't want an individual independent agency to have some kind of power. Imagine if they came in right now and said we're taking 30% control of land and property here in the United States. Just imagine 30% of the inland waterways

[01:01:29] and 30% of the oceans that touch on the United States were taking control of it. Just take it from that perspective. Mike, what do you think? It's this new world order BS. I read that headline the other day. I don't think much of it because there's a lot of people who have a lot of these crazy ideas, but then they start to get legs. That's when I start to get a little bit nervous. I'm not a fan of the UN. I'm not a fan of anybody wanted especially to come in here and take over and have any part

[01:02:05] why don't we just tell the UN to get the hell out of New York and leave the UN. We don't need them. We do that too. Fuck. We start time and money and effort. I'll say the last thing. Legendary actor Sir Patrick Stewart died at 86. Jean-Luc Picard is no longer with us. Dementia and other brain issues. He was also Professor Charles Xavier and X-Men out to his family. He gave us a lot of enjoyable hours of watching.

[01:02:35] I was a Star Trek fan. I loved him at X-Men. He's gone at 86. If you love the show, make sure you follow. If you're not following the Dr. Michael Schwartz show, it's a great place to start your day. If you follow him, please go and give him a follow. Also, he's got D's nuts books. Sure. Here, D's nuts. can pick it up on

[01:03:04] Amazon right now. D's nuts. It's a tale of my dog and his toy squirrel Daryl, an unlikely pair with a handful of dreams. Yes, you can read this to kids, but the adults will get a chuckle out of it. It's doing well. It's great stocking stuff. We're picking

[01:04:06] has been quietly redefining what is possible for patients facing late-stage cancer. Their integrative approach, treating the body, mind, and spirit, has produced survival outcomes that far exceed standard American hospital averages. In some cases, more than three times higher. The pattern is clear. Patients at Oasis of Hope often live longer than expected. At the center of this extraordinary story is Dr. Francisco Contreras, world-renowned oncologist,

[01:04:36] author of 15 books, and medical director leading a compassionate team dedicated to giving patients not just treatment, but hope. If you or someone you love is facing cancer, Oasis of Hope offers free Zoom for anyone who mentions the Big Mig show. You have nothing to lose by exploring your options. Visit www.oasisophope.com right now. Forged

[01:05:06] through rigorous training and honed by the finest instructors on earth, these canine units serve beside our nation's warriors as they fight to preserve what we cherish. When these warriors complete their duty, the Warrior Dog Foundation provides them with a home deserving of the service they've given us all. At our state-of-the-art kennels, they receive rehabilitation and care suitable for heroes because that's what they are.

[01:05:35] Be a part of giving them a future today. Visit warriordogfoundation.org. This is the STAB Sawman Tactical Advantage Blade, built by former Marine and Navy SEAL Craig Sawman Sawyer. In the teams, every ounce had to earn its place. No extras, no excuses. That is why he built the STAB. 17 practical tools, no moving parts to fail.

[01:06:05] CPM D2 tool steel, hardened to 60 Rockwell. Tungsten carbide glass punch on the pommel. It clips on a belt. It mounts on a plate carrier, reverse grip or conventional. It stays built for the work. Rain, night, salt, mud, created for adverse conditions. The one he carries now. Grab yours at sawmantacticalblades.com.