Today, we've got a number of different stories to look at, but first I want to jump into the one that's coming up, which is the impeachment trial of president Trump. Now there's obviously a lot of hype and media and opinions flying around. A lot of propaganda also flying around. A lot of groups are essentially saying things for the sole purpose. Of making others feel a particular way rather than believing in the things they're saying. But let's look at the the core issue here and something that's already had a vote in the Senate, which is, can Trump actually be found guilty by the Senate after no longer being president of the United States in an impeachment trial? Now I want to say certainly as an ex-president, he is open to being tried in federal court system, but specifically tried in the Senate for an impeachment is a different issue. I think the, short, easy answer there is no, he cannot, which doesn't mean they're not going to try and do it, but. Certainly historical evidence, as well as the actual words of the constitution point to the answer being no. The, process of impeachment was created specifically to be able to remove somebody from a position of power who was abusing that position. In one way or another. And there's actually, if you look at the full list of impeachments from the beginning of the United States to present, there is only a handful of them it's only been used while I can count them, I guess let's see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. 19 2020 times. This will be the 21st time that there's an impeachment coming from the house to the Senate. And during that time well of course the people old enough will remember Clinton who was impeached by the house and then acquitted by the Senate. And certainly everyone will remember Trump just a year ago, impeached by the house and acquitted by the Senate. But the majority of the impeachments were for judges. So federal judges that were removed for a variety of reasons. And some of these are actually kind of funny. There is there were, there's a judge here. Judge picker done was impeached on charges of intoxication on the bench and unlawful handling of property claims. He was found guilty and removed from office. There are a lot of judges. Well, I've the 21. There's certainly a vast majority where judges and the minority were presidents. Andrew Johnson was impeached by the house acquitted by the Senate. And of course, bill Clinton was impeached by the house, acquitted by the Senate. And then Nixon was impeached by the house. But resigned now. What is interesting here is every single one of the 20 previous impeachments were for somebody who was in the office at the time of the impeachment. There's really three results that have come out of all of these 20 impeachments, either acquitted. So the, the house impeached, the Senate acquitted them or the house impeached and the Senate found them guilty and remove them from office. Or the third is resigned prior to the Senate trial. So it might've resigned after the house impeachment, but before the Senate trial and that resignation stops the process. And that's been the case in every one of the 20 impeachments that have happened in the Senate is that. If somebody actually resigns the post before the impeachment hearing, they are no longer in that position, the impeachment steps. So this brings an interesting question, but I think the answer is relatively straight forward. Can the Senate impeach somebody who is no longer in their position? It's never been done. I think the intent of the impeachment is also pretty clear, which is to remove from federal office, somebody that is abusing or misusing the power of the office. You can't say that about Trump right now. He is. Not in the office. He's not abusing the power of the office because he's not in the office. Some would argue Biden's abusing the power of the office right now as we speak. But that aside they're bastardizing, they're certainly attempting to bastardize the rule of impeachment, which was meant to remove somebody from office and change it to simply a rule of. The secondary effect of impeachment, which is also not being able to run for other federal officers against somebody who is not currently in office now to play devil's advocate. I think some Democrat lawyers would say well, but he was actually impeached by the house and found guilty by the house when he was in office. So the fact that the Senate doesn't get around to it, Until he's out of office, shouldn't stop the Senate from being able to impeach him to vote on it and to convict him based on the impeachment. The I think that is a interesting argument, but nonetheless, a false one because it, it essentially is removing the intent of the impeachment from the consequence. It's saying that even though the intent was to take somebody out of office and he's already out of office, we're still going to go through with the consequences of that process. Essentially, it would be similar to Let's say somebody had a party at their house. They have music playing loudly. The neighbors didn't like the loud music. So they call the police and saying, Hey, there's loud music. It's after hours come and tell these neighbors to stop playing their music. And just as that neighbor hangs up the phone to call the police, the party is wrapping up. The music stops. Guests leave police show up 20 minutes later, maybe an hour later, and a knock on the door and say, Hey, you need to turn that music down. Well, thanks for telling us serve, but there's no music playing right now. All right. And because you are not turning that music down, I'm going to write you a ticket. That's essentially what the argument is. From the Democrats right now, they're saying for something that happened in the past, we're going to use a law that says you have to stop doing that thing. You can't do it anymore longer. And if you continue doing it, there'll be consequences of you not being able to run for office. Well, that thing that they are trying to persuade the Senate. To impeach to, to find Trump guilty of is no longer happening that he, he isn't drinking on the bench as some of these previous and pitch in feature. And it's for other people where they're, they're essentially saying that because he made a speech, which some people interpreted to mean. Go break the law, which was never explicitly in his speech. And I'm sure with his lawyers are going to be pointing out that if you look at the actual text of what he said, there was a zero call to breaking laws. There was a call to certainly protest to maybe even shout, which is not illegal. But there was no call in breaking any sort of police barriers. But because that happened in the past, When he was president, he should now no longer be president, but he's not president. Well, okay. So he's not president say the Democrats, but let's, let's at least make sure he never becomes president by still voting him guilty. So I think this is an absolute misuse of the intent of the particular section of the constitution which was what the was it section three? I can't remember off the top of my head. But I believe that's what it was. So given that's what's happening? Yeah, article three. Sorry. I'm a bad constitutionalist. Apparently I don't have the whole thing memorize. So what, what they're trying to do is, is impeach him. For a reason that was not a valid to begin with, but even let's say he actually said, go storm the Capitol. Let's say, that's what actually happened. The fact that he's out of office currently, I think automatically precludes him from being impeached. And I will say that the Supreme court happens to agree with my view on this. And we know that because justice Roberts. Has said that he will not be presiding in this case and why? Well, what does that mean? Well, according to again article three of the constitution, the, the that the impeachment hearing in the Senate has to be presided by, by the. Chief justice of the Supreme court, in, in any impeachment of the president of the United States. So Robert's argument is exactly the same as mine, which is, well, Trump is not no longer the president. If Trump is no longer the president, the chief justice doesn't have to preside. If the chief justice is not presiding and we acknowledged the Trump is not the president. Then he cannot be impeached because impeachment is only for impeaching people that are in holding federal offices. So this is a very weird twisting by the Democrats to say, well, we're still going to hold the impeachment even without the chief justice there. And we'll allow him the argument that, well, he's not the current president, therefore. The chief justice is not necessarily present, but if they're not impeaching the current president, they don't have the power to impeach that it's not in the constitution. You can't impeach a private citizen, the process, or I keep saying impeachment, there he's a Raymond peach, but you can't convict a private citizen in the Senate. You can only convict somebody who is a government official. That is by design private citizens go through the courts of law government, federal officials, I should say, not just government, but federal officials, go through an impeachment process through the house and Senate, which is how you get rid of bad judges. So I think the Supreme court's justice Roberts has made it pretty clear that, His reading of the constitution is that his presence is only required during the, th the impeachment trial of a president. And since Trump is not the current president, he's not going to be there. Now, you combine this with what I've said earlier, which is of the 20 previous or 21 previous, impeachments, every single one of them were. The sitting party has resigned has ended the impeachment. Here's a fairly recent one. Samuel B. Kent, who was a judge used district judge for the Southern district of Texas. He was impeached on June 19th, 2009 on charges of sexual assault, obstruction and impeding in official proceeding and making false and misleading statements. So he was impeached for something that was not related. To, well, it was basically criminal act, right? It was not related to him to the way that he judged it was related to what he did in his spare time, I guess. And the house convicted him on June 24th, 2009. He resigned June 30th, 2009 before the completion of the trial. And the proceedings were ended. So now we have another sample, which is judge Thomas, Porteous us federal district judge Eastern district of Louisiana impeached, March 11th, 2010 of charges, accepting bribes and making false statements. And Peached December 7th and eighth, 2010 found guilty removed from office and the disqualified for holding future office. So there are two examples right there of judges, one who had. Resigned and effectively was no longer in his post and that ended his impeachment. So the fact that, he was being impeached for charges of sexual assault, you know, you would think, well, geez, that, that happened, right? So shouldn't the impeachment continue. Even after he resigns, after he leaves his post. Well, Never in the history of the United States in the last 240 years, has this happened? Why the impeachment was always interpreted as being something that is done to remove a federal office holder from office. That is it once they're no longer in office, impeachment is not the right remedy, legally speaking. And so right now, I think what's happening in the, with Trump, will come out one or two ways. Either the senators will agree with what I've just said and the, and will acquit him, which is what you have to do. If you recognize the fact that you can't legally even be holding the impeachment hearings. Or if they convict him, they're opening up a huge Pandora's box. And here's what I mean by that. So if we accept the fact that a non sitting politician can be impeached, why would we not impeach George Bush for lying and starting the very expensive both in terms of money and in terms of deaths, war. With Iraq. Now we know there were no weapons of mass destruction. In fact he's being called a a war criminal and can't travel to a lot of countries that have proclaimed George Bush to be somebody that should be arrested onsite for his work crimes. Why would the Democrats not impeach him now? Well, I can tell you why, because they are also warmongers, but, but whoever Democrats Republicans, there's a perfectly good reason to impeach George Bush, Barack Obama. Well, we know that during Obama's presidency, several Americans were bombed and killed with no trial, no conviction, no ability to defend themselves. He was effectively acting as a King and you can say, well, mistakes were made. That was not intentional. Okay. First time it may have not been intentional, but when you kill the second or third person, it's intentional, this is simply government sanctioned execution with no trial of American citizens. He should be impeached. I think we outta start that up as soon as there's a, a majority of conservatives back in the house and Senate, as there will be. Might as well impeach him. Who cares if he's not in office anymore? We can certainly go back further. Clinton was impeached once let's redo that. Let's impeach him one more time since we're we seem to also be creating this idea that, that a president can be impeached multiple times. Let's let's go ahead and re and pitch bill Clinton, might as well do the same thing for Bush senior. You know, he, he had a number of impeachable offenses that he was running when he was running the country. Absolutely Reagan. I'm sure we can find something to impeach Reagan with. I mean, literally every president, if you can go back with hindsight being 2020, looking back at history for many years on down, looking at the mistakes made slash abuses of power. You could probably come up with an impeachable offense for every past sitting president. So this really opens up Pandora's box. I think the idea of impeachments being ha eh, being done for every election now it's probably already happened. I mean, I think that there are plenty of plenty of people on both sides of the aisle right now. That are going to be more than happy to start off impeachment proceedings, regardless of who's voted in next election. And I'm sure it'll eat well. I can't say I'm sure it will. It may even happen for Joe Biden. It depends. It depends if Biden survives long enough to last through the next election. Because there is certainly a chance during the next election, but there'll be a conservative wave sweeping through the Senate and the house. And if both the Senate and the house flip and become Republican, which remember Obama during his first term, he had both the Senate and the house as well, and then flipped. So and actually Clinton did, I think as well, and then it flipped for him. So if there is a flip like that, What's to say that Joe Biden won't be impeached immediately after that newly minted, Senate and the house class comes in, there's nothing, right? There's because impeachment now no longer means this person did something inconceivably bad that everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees on impeachment is now simply a political tool. And the Democrats were leading that way. The first time they impeached Trump, but they are absolutely solidifying that position. The second time they're impeaching Trump. So impeachment now is going to be utilized on a regular basis. It will not mean anything and likely the only silver lining out of it, in my opinion, is something I've argued for literally since I was in high school, which is term limits. So if every president gets impeached and every president can only run once that's a win in my book, even, even for the good presidents, because ultimately if we limit the number of times, somebody who's a good president in our minds can run. I think that is more than offset by limiting the number of times that a bad president can run. And I, frankly, I wish there were term limits across the board on everything, but. You know, I've been saying that literally since I was in high school and it's made zero difference it because once a politician gets into office, what politician is going to ever vote for limiting themselves from something that they honestly consider to be your job, this is what they do for a living. This is their, their careers. So voting for a limit onto the amount of time you can spend in your career. Oh my God. Who's going to vote for that. So it'll probably never happen, but honestly, if, if Elon Musk gets to design the government of Mars and he's already said that Mars will not be controlled by earth government, I think that's a, obviously a cute thing to say. Honestly, I wish that was the truth. If we have private exploration in marks you can actually make that stick. If the F the Mars is explored by NASA, obviously United States is going to lay claim to Mars at, I mean, you, you can see that writing on the wall. So I think it is pretty vital that a private mission to Mars happen before and NASA mission to Mars with humans. You know, the fact that NASA sent a robots that drive around Mars. Doesn't exactly lay claim to it, but sending humans does have a historic precedent. And much like the Americans planted the flag on the moon. And at this point, space force will defend that side of the moon against use by any other country. And that's why China has to go down way down to the the very poles of the moon, because that's uncontested territory. Now you can also say, well, that's also where the better minerals are. Which is very true. It sounds like the polls are the places to be, but, but you imagine what would happen if China started building a moon base, right on top of the landing site of Apollo 13, what outrage would happen in this country? Possibly war. So I think the same thing could happen on Mars. So I think it's, it's gonna be important to make sure that Mars stays free. From earth politics. And to do that, we need, really need private missions to Mars. And hopefully Elan sees the need for that as well. And there's good odds that he's not even going to get the funding from NASA, regardless of even if you want it to. So it may be that the only way to go to Mars is through private funding. Anyway, I've obviously moved on a tangent, but I think that's enough about that topic. I think the whole impeachment thing. It's much like a lot of other things. It's political theater, it's political theater to try and push emotions around. And it's it's really a symbol of just how embedded the Democrats, the socialists, the Antifa party, how deeply they think they have a control of America right now, now that they can try a non sitting president. As though he were a sitting president because that's the only way they can go after him. They know they can't go after him in criminal court. They can't go after him in civil court. And the only thing they're trying to do simply because they have the majority of people is to go after him in the house, in the Senate. Right. So let's jump on to some of the other stories. Because there are certainly some interesting stories out there today. Not necessarily good. Interesting. Just interesting in general. So it looks like the purge continues. We got one other guy now I've never heard of this Wayne root guy. Maybe you guys have, but apparently in another person that's a conservative, radio host and Probably a YouTuber that has been a band. The band continues. I don't know why people are still really honestly surprised about this. And I don't know why people are upset about it because frankly, play everybody should be jumping off of social media. Certainly off of that side of social media, off of Twitter, off of Facebook, why would you want to be there? I've said this before and I'll say it again. By being on Facebook and Twitter, you are putting money in the hands of Facebook and Twitter. And the reason you're doing that is because you are the product. They don't make money from you. They make money off you. They sell you being part of their network to corporations that want to spend money on advertising that then pay Facebook and Twitter. So you're you're effectively the product that they are selling. So getting off of social media, getting off of media that you don't like maybe getting onto other media, like no agenda, social or other federated media is a good way to go. There's also an article here. I guess there's Trump had an interview with Breitbart and Breitbart had said, well, it sounds like Trump is wanting to create his own social media platform. That's cool. I think that would get a lot of people motivated to jump on whatever that platform is. I'm not a huge fan of Trump getting on on Oh God. I'm spacing out. Get, get giga starts with a G gab. Hello. I was a senior moment apparently. Not a fan of Trump getting again on gab. I'm on gab. I have an account on there. I am occasionally on there. Mostly no agenda social, but, the reason favor of Trump getting on gab is just the optics of it. The problem is for Trump, for any public figure, I think, but certainly for Trump is a gap truly is a free speech platform. And the, the reason that you can call it a free speech platform is because it has speech that the majority of the population on both sides of the political aisle will dislike. Gab has genuine Nazis on it. Not people that are called Nazis by Antifa, but people that have. Nazi flags on their profiles, people that, will in every other post blame Jews for something people that will say on gab that we need to finish with Hitler started and get rid of the Jews. That sounds horrible to most people, but that is speech, which in my opinion, is certainly protected by the first amendment. There's no need to protect speech that everybody agrees with. There's only a need to protect speech that most people disagree with. And certainly speech from sort of self admitted Nazis or fascists or whatever you want to call them a white supremacist, white separatists, whatever that speech is, the speech that needs to be protected by the first amendment. And gab is doing exactly that. They are allowing that type of speech. They're not banning it. Because it's simply unpopular speech. It's not illegal speech and it should never be illegal speech again, in my humble opinion. And obviously I'm totally in disagreement with these guys. I would not want to listen to people talking like that. I don't want to ban them, but I will mute them. So I don't have to hear them, but just because I don't want to hear them, doesn't give me the right to say they shouldn't talk. And so gab provides an outlet for all voices, including voices that are unpopular. Here's the problem. If Trump joins gab, he immediately will get associated with those voices. There'll be article after article talking about. Well, Trump is finally on the Nazi supremacist website, gab talking to his base, and then through Trump, there'll be aligned, drawn from. People advocating killing Jews to Trump, to all 78 million people that voted for Trump and the Democrat news media will say, see, we told you these entire group of, of Trump's supporters are all Nazis. And we've been saying that for years and here's proof here are some snapshots of comments made by these Trump supporters. Do you see the problem here? You're talking about the fringe less than 1% of the population that is talking about things that 99.9% of the population finds abominable. But nonetheless again, in the, in my opinion, they should be allowed to talk like that because they have the same freedom of speech that everybody else does. But tying Trump to that group, which will happen if he joins gab, will not only paint him in a worse light than he already is, but it will paint every other person that supports Trump in that same light. It's, it's really the association effect of if you can, if you can find somebody that you don't like. And then draw a line of association from them to somebody that nobody likes. Well, that's modern politics for you. That is exactly the way that you deep popularized somebody. And that's how you effectively, change the narrative about a group of people from simply being supporters of a particular politician to being supporters of the Nazi genocide of Jews. So hopefully Trump, isn't going to fall for that. And I know that a Cushner is getting a lot of a lot of negative, comments about him encouraging Trump to stay away from gab. But I understand why, and I actually think it's a good idea. So even if you're a supporter of freedom of speech, There is a good argument for Trump to not be on gab and to be on a network that is a little bit more moderated, a little bit more conservative, but not completely open free speech at all costs the way the gab is. So it it's, it's interesting. And I wish this was not the case, but it is the case that in order to avoid painting the entirety of the voters that voted for Trump with the same brush as Holocaust deniers, Trump needs to say off gap. But again, I say all of that. With the pre well, well with an admission, I guess that I'm also on gab. And I also think that even though I don't want to hear those voices, those voices absolutely have a right to speak. And I'm very happy that gab is providing a complete. And free first amendment opportunity to everybody on any political spectrum. And incidentally, they're also anarchist some gab, not just Nazis. They're also, just extremely far deep, an Arco socialists on there. There are, you know, every manner of opinion that is being driven away from mainstream. Can be found in gab. And that was their whole point is like, look, just cause I'm, you know, have certain opinions doesn't mean that I'm going to push those opinions on everybody else. I'm going to allow every voice to be spoken and anybody that doesn't want to hear that voice can go ahead and mute those voices on their own. We're not going to do it for you. And I respect that. So, Trump hopefully stays away screened from from gab. And we'll be hearing more about this, cause I know there are people that are pressuring him to jump on gab and jump on something at least. Hopefully I think the best plan is honestly, given that he's got the money is just to start up a new social media platform, frankly for that matter and UTV platform or just buy CNN. One of those two, I think, would work well. All right. What else did we get? Oh, well, there's a new article about the hosting company that parlor is currently sitting on getting a threat, saying that you need to kick parlor or we're going to black hole your ASN. So what does that mean? Essentially? The threat is. If you don't remove parlor off your servers, we're going to through routing protocols, we're going to set your set of IPS as essentially be non round-table. And I've talked about this in the past as well, not on this podcast, but certainly people that have heard me either speak about it or write about it. Know that. I predicted this as coming. I absolutely predicted that after you have large websites, simply removing user base, the next logical conclusion is there will be domain blocking. And then after domain blocking, there will be IP blocking. So sites that are deemed to be unworthy will not be able to be connected to by people. Because they're their DNS names, you know, yahoo.com, Google icon, whatever the, the top level domain names or maybe not the top level, but the specific site names, although it probably will be a top level they will simply be blocked for users. So if you want to, and this hasn't happened yet, but it could easily happen that right now, if you go to gab, gab.com. You get to the website, but what, what could happen is he type in gab.com and you get a message that says for your safety access to this site has been removed by, at and T by your ISP, by, you know whoever your ISP is or, or any of the cell phones, right? Any of the cell phone companies, you have your cell phone through, they are effectively your ISP for data on that device, so they can limit what you can access. And then, you know, the workaround to this is to use IP addresses. So, well, all the DNS does all that going to gab that comm does is translate. The DNS server translates that into the actual IP address of the website. So you can say, well, I can bypass that. I'll just use IP address. You can, unless somebody does what these guys are threatening to do, which is to to black hole, the set of IP addresses. In which case they're removed from the ability to be routed to. So now even if you have the IP addresses or the DNS name, neither one will work because effectively you just can't get from here to there to like the old saying goes right now. This is actually very common. Saudi Arabia does this, China does this. Iran does this, in fact, I'll bet you, there's probably you know, 50 or 60 countries around the world that have some version of this firewalling of bad content, things that they don't want their citizens to be able to get to. They simply block at the edge of the country's routers. And this is the path we're going down is the great firewall of America. Which will essentially say, we're going to control what the can citizens have access to and what they don't have access to. And we're going to limit the information that the surfs that live in the country can get to. It's kind of scary. It's certainly been part of dystopia. It's been a real possibility I've talked about, but we're definitely closer to today than we were a year ago. Or even, you know, 10, 15 years ago, we weren't even close to that during the most egregious times in the American history blocking American access to information. I mean, I, I'm trying to think of any examples where that happened. There's always been propaganda, which is to counter bad information, but even during world war two, You could still get mail coming from controlled areas like France, you can still get letters sent. Now you would assume they would be read at the border, but that information could still come through. Certainly radio, transmissions word. There wasn't any blocking of radio with transmissions by the U S side. But you know, the counters are. Countries, we would consider bad China. Iran Lincoln said Saudi Arabia does this for a fact. I know because I worked in the project, that was involved with them. The USSR prior to the fall of the USSR absolutely did this by the border. In fact, they went so far as to have jamming stations to block free America radio, radio free America. I can't remember what it was called anymore. But essentially you S set up sites of radio transmissions so that people across the border can hear sort of the, the Western news and Russia absolutely did their darnedest to block that by jamming the radio signals, because the only way you can control the narrative of a population is by preventing them from hearing any alternative voices. And right now there's certainly we're heading down that path. We're not quite there yet, but you look at RT Russia today. You look at, Al Jazeera. You look at any of these external new sources that operate in English. They all have a little warning on the bottom that says, Hey, this is propaganda from such and such country. Well, okay, fair enough. But most countries don't put that tag in front of CNN, which has always been American propaganda. it sort of goes without saying, if you're tuning into Al Jazeera, you would be a complete idiot to think that the information coming from there doesn't have some sort of a direction or feel from the country that owns the station that is producing that broadcast. Of course it does. But does that, I mean, you need to be limited as an American from being able to hear those voices. That could be propaganda. No, no. You should have the right to look at any data coming from, and I'll say the same thing for China doesn't have to be Russia or, or it could be news coming directly from China. Like, you know, there's propaganda there, you know, that it's going to be, one-sided very pro China, but it doesn't mean that you should be blocked from being able to hear it or see it or read it. And unfortunately, I think that's the direction. We're going right now. So I know there's a bunch more stories. You know, like I saw the, the story about Reddit buying a five second ad for the super bowl. My opinion, I think, was with most people on the engine, the social, which is fuck the Superbowl. It's just not interesting anymore. And I'll be able to watch the ads on YouTube. Don't need to spend time watching the actual super bowl itself. So, yeah, we'll see if there's any good ads. My guess is bill. There'll be fewer funny ads this year than there have been in the previous years. But all of a sudden done, I know I've gone long because I've had a long explanation of the impeachment thing. So I'm going to wrap it up at this point.