The Fifth Amendment Is Not Optional: Why Holding Fauci in Contempt Is a Dangerous Mistake

In this opening monologue, Ryan Samuels takes a hard constitutional stand. The Senate Homeland Security Committee just voted to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt for invoking his Fifth Amendment rights more than 100 times. Ryan argues that punishing someone for exercising a core Bill of Rights protection is a dangerous precedent — no matter how much you dislike the person using it.
He walks through the history of the right against self-incrimination, from the English Star Chamber abuses to George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, Patrick Henry’s warnings, and James Madison’s drafting of the Fifth Amendment. The Founders put this protection in the Constitution for a reason. Turning it into a political weapon when it’s inconvenient threatens the liberty of every American.
This is not a defense of Fauci. It is a defense of the Constitution.

Uncle Ted says subscribe on Facebook!

Transcript

SPEAKER_07 1:28

Hey Ryan, hi, this is Sarah Feeling.

SPEAKER_00 1:30

Ryan Donald Trump Jr. Hey every final time check out a Philemonia's podcast. My name is Jeff Newton, and I got a call from my buddy Ryan F. Samuels, and he wants me to tell you that he's a working hard, playing all-American son of a f who is celebrating God's family country.

SPEAKER_07 1:50

Welcome to the Ryan Samuel Show, one of the top political podcasts in the United States, where we have a healthy discount for government and mainstream media. The Ryan Samuel Show is a raw, unfiltered look at American politics. Follow on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Rumble, and all podcast platforms. Here is your host, Ryan Samuel.

SPEAKER_04 2:15

Good evening, America. Welcome to the Ryan Samuel Show. We are here tonight to cut through the noise and get straight to the truth. So let's get something straight right out of the gate. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not a loophole. It's not a technicality. It's not a get out of jail free card for the guilty. It is one of the most important protections written into the Constitution by men who had just lived under a government that could compel people to testify against themselves and then use their own words to destroy them. Quote, no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Unquote. That is not complicated language. It's not vague. That's not a bright red line. This right didn't appear out of thin air in 1791. It was forged into fires of English tyranny. For generations, the Crown Star Chamber and ecclesiastical courts forced people under oath to answer any question put to them and then use their own words to convict them. The old maxim was simple and powerful. No man is bound to accuse himself. When the American colonies broke free, they put that principle into writing. The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted largely by George Mason, declared that in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man has a right to, quote, be compelled to give evidence against himself. Other states followed. During the ratification debates, Patrick Henry warned that with such protections, Congress could introduce the quote, the practice of France, Spain, and Germany of torturing to extort a confession of the crime, unquote. James Madison answered those concerns by proposing the language that became the Fifth Amendment. The founders put it in the Bill of Rights because they understood that government power left unchecked will always press the individual to become the instrument of his own destruction. And right now, a Senate committee has voted to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress because he invoked that exact right more than a hundred times. I am completely opposed to this. Not because I like Anthony Fauci, I don't. I think the response to COVID-19 was a disaster of overreach, mixed messaging, and institutional arrogance that did real damage to this country. I have said that for years. But the Constitution does not only apply to people we like, it especially applies to people we don't like. Faussi showed up, he sat in the chair, he did not skip the deposition, he did not ignore the subpoena, he appeared under oath and on the advice of counsel repeatedly evoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That is not contempt. That is the exercise of a constitutional right the founders deliberately protected. You cannot punish a man for using the rights the founders put in the Constitution to stop exactly this kind of pressure. Once you start treating the Fifth Amendment as optional when the witness is politically inconvenient, you have turned fundamental liberty into a political weapon. And weapons like that never stay pointed in only one direction. I've watched both sides play this game. When it was Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, we heard endless lectures about, quote, no one is above the law. Unquote. Now that the target is Fauci, some of the same people who cheered those prosecutions suddenly discover that taking the fifth is sacred, that hypocrisy cuts both ways, and it's poisonous. Either the Fifth Amendment means what it says or it doesn't. Either it protects the unpopular witness as much as the popular one, or it is just another tool for the party in power. I choose the Constitution. The same Constitution Madison Mason and Henry fought to secure. Congress has the power to investigate. It has the power to issue subpoenas. It does not have the power to erase the Bill of Rights when a witness refuses to hand them the rope they want him to hand them to hang him with. Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not obstruction. It is the last line of defense the individual has against government that wants answers more than it wants justice. So, no, I don't support the contempt resolution. I do not support turning the exercise of a core constitutional right into a criminal act. If we start down that road, we will regret it the moment the political winds shift and the same standard applies to people on our side. The Constitution is not a suggestion. The Fifth Amendment is not negotiable. And if we are serious about limited government and individual liberty, we have to defend those principles, even when, especially when the person using them is Anthony Fauci. That is the topic of the show tonight. Don't go anywhere. You can call in 561-786-2916. A lot of you disagree with me. I've been dealing with it in the comments all day. Thousands of people in my comments calling me an idiot, moron, whatever you want to say. I wholeheartedly disagree with it. I am adamantly I have never been more opposed to emotion, probably in my entire political career. Adamantly, wholeheartedly, unequivocally opposed to this. We'll be right back. Do not go anywhere. Jessica, I see your comment. I'm gonna get to it in just a second. Don't go anywhere, we'll be right back. Jessica says only the Republicans go to jail. Bannon and Navarra did time for so-called lying to Congress. So did Fauci. He needs to be put in jail. He lied intentionally to the world and killed millions for his ego. Jessica, I don't disagree. I do not disagree. Here's the issue. Regardless of Anthony Fauci being guilty or innocent, regardless of him, how you feel about how he should be held accountable, what we cannot do, and what we cannot allow the government to do is circumvent individual rights and individual liberties to go after people we do not like. We cannot set that precedent. Unfortunately, Joe Biden gave Anthony Fauci an unequivocal, unquestionable 10-year pardon for any crime he may have committed against the United States. Rand Paul and the Senate committee are trying to articulate that since he has a pardon, he therefore cannot invoke his Fifth Amendment right. That is unilaterally false. It couldn't be more wrong, and it's shocking to me that a person like Rand Paul would even consider taking this position. My mind is is unfathomably blown. And that is not because I think Falci is innocent. It's actually because of the opposite. Because I think that he's guilty.

SPEAKER_09 11:12

Here's Rand Paul. Eight days ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci sat before this committee in the witness chair under subpoena for conduct covered by the President Biden's full and unconditional pardon reaching back to 2014. Dr. Fauci faced no risk of federal prosecution. All he had to do was tell the truth. More than 100 times, though, he refused. The chair ruled that Dr. Fauci's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was unsupported in light of the pardon and the testimony he offered in his opening statement. The chair directed Anthony Fauci to answer. He refused again. That is what we are voting on today. Eight days ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci.

SPEAKER_04 11:59

And then they proceeded to vote and hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer. This is the exchange that they had, that that Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci had. They do not like each other. They're never going to like each other. I don't think many people like Anthony Fauci. I think the only people who really and truly like Anthony and Fauci and think that Anthony Fauci is a hero are the ones who bought into everything hook, line, and sinker, and are still wearing masks in their parked cars alone in the middle of nowhere. Here's the exchange between Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci, where Rand Paul was setting him up so that he can come for the contempt charge. Let's listen to this.

SPEAKER_09 12:48

But he was subpoenaed here to testify, refused to answer any questions, even after being directed by the chair and being advised of the law requiring him to do so. He has cited a privilege that is unsupported because of his blanket pardon and because he waived the privilege by testifying at the start. I'm going to give you one more opportunity to comply with the law.

SPEAKER_04 13:10

We're going to go over the Supreme C so he's referring to two things, right? Rand Paul is referring to two loopholes around the Constitution, essentially is what he's doing. A Supreme Court case from 1899, 127 years ago. Which similarly, during that time, had another ruling, or at least a few decades before that, had another ruling where they ruled that African Americans were not human beings and therefore did not qualify for human rights. The Supreme Court in this country does not make law. There's populism, and then there's the natural law. The natural law are the rights that you are born with. You're born with certain rights. And those rights are outlined in number one, the Declaration of Independence, which is life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. The right to speak, the right to work, the right to produce things and sell them, not the right to work, not the right to like have an employer, but the right to go in your yard and grow a vegetable and sell it to your next door neighbor without the without the federal government getting involved and calling it commerce. The commerce clause of the Constitution has been used to completely remove every individual's rights over the past 250 years, which was not the original intent of the commerce clause. But I don't want to get off of track. But you're born with rights. You have the life right to live, you have the right to keep what you produce or sell what you produce. If you want to build bookshelves and sell them, you have that right without the government interfering or taxing you on it. Although they do it anyway. Then there's populism. Populism is there's 10 of us standing in a circle, and I say, you know what? I think little Jimmy should not have his bicycle. He's too dangerous on it. Listen, listen. Jimmy's been riding around. He's way too dangerous on his motorcycle or his bicycle. I don't like it. We should take his bike, sell it, and then just keep the money and screw Jimmy. And then everybody votes. Oh yeah. Nine of us say yes, and Jimmy goes, no. That's populism. Where the popular opinion prevails. But what that does is it squashes the minority. And the minority is Jim, Jimmy. Not minority in the c as in the color of your skin, but minority in your viewpoint, your minority view, your minority opinion. That's a little that's a concept called tyranny of the majority. So what so Rand Paul, I still cannot believe that I would ever live to see the day where Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, would ever try to say that the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply at any point in any situation. I don't care who you are. Let's listen to the rest of the exchange.

SPEAKER_09 16:38

Limited to the period of your pardon, at any point between January 1st, 2014 and January 19th, 2025, did you destroy any federal record or tell anyone else to?

SPEAKER_05 16:56

Under the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

SPEAKER_09 17:02

Given that you have a unlimited presidential pardon, what is your specific objection that you are making?

SPEAKER_05 17:10

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

SPEAKER_09 17:16

My question was limited to the period of your pardon only. I find your objection unsupported and direct you to answer the question.

SPEAKER_04 17:24

This is the United States government trying to force a citizen to be a witness against themself. Precisely what the Fifth Amendment is there to protect. What the Fifth Amendment specifically says they cannot do by somebody who's supposed to be this libertarian icon who believes in the constitution above all in anything. He's saying the argument that Ron Paul of Rand Paul is trying to make is if you have full immunity from the presidential pardon, then you can't incriminate yourself by answering this question. That is incorrect. A presidential pardon only protects an individual from federal crimes. So if Anthony Fauci says, yeah, I deleted some emails. There was an email from you know the attorney general of the United States. There was an email between me and the attorney general or the director of health in Wyoming, oh, also in Chicago, and then one in New York. And that, okay, well, now, now that I admitted to that, I'm not protected from individual states coming after me criminally. The President of the United States cannot pardon states' crimes. That's what the 10th Amendment to the Constitution is. It's states' rights. States still have the ability and the authority to pursue crimes against Anthony Fauci unless the governor of that state gives them a blanket pardon. The president cannot pardon for state crimes, only federal crimes. He's not the executor of the states, he's the executor of the federal government. So by invoking the Fifth Amendment, he's saying I could answer that, but the states could still come after me and incriminate me. The guy is probably guilty of thousands of crimes. He should probably be in prison for the rest of his life. I am not saying no to that. I am saying you are witnessing in real time the federal government attacking the one protection it's specifically barred from doing.

SPEAKER_09 20:28

Because you refuse to answer, citing a privilege that is unsupported because of your pardon, and after being denied to do so, this committee has scheduled a vote next week on a res on a resolution certifying your contempt.

SPEAKER_04 20:42

I think uh we have this was last week during the hearing. We covered it then. I was adamantly opposed to it then. Adamantly opposed to it then. I am still adamantly opposed to it. You may not agree, that's fine. That's fine. Colin, we can argue if you want. We can talk about it if we want. You know, it's I've spent the entire day today trying to make an argument defending the United States Constitution. That's all I'm doing. That's why I started this show. I am here to report on the government when they violate your individual liberties. I do not give a shit who's doing it. I don't care if Donald Trump is doing it, if Bill Clinton's doing it, if Barack Obama's doing it, or Pam Bondi. I don't I do not care who's doing it. I am not biased. My duty is to inform and report on things that are going to make your freedom go away if you allow them to happen. By allowing and supporting this, you You open the door for the AOC administration to come after you for pleading the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. What's even more it goes even further than that. It goes way past that. So if we set the precedent or we allow the federal government to set the precedent that the Fifth Amendment does not apply if you have a pardon. Okay, great. So, yep, you have a presidential pardon, the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply. Okay, now I'm forced to talk about it, and now I get persecuted by the states. So you're under duress when you're making these statements. Now, another scenario, another argument that is in this same precedent is this. O.J. Simpson gets acquitted for murder. Gets acquitted for murder. Probably did it. Probably did it. Jury of his peers found him innocent. There's a little thing in this country, a little constitutional protection called double jeopardy. Where if I'm acquitted of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson, I cannot be charged with that again. Therefore, I'm acquitted. Therefore, if the police pull me in to ask me questions, I can't incriminate myself if I admit to the murder because I've already been exonerated from the murder. So now the police say, Mr. Simpson, you've been acquitted of this crime. We need to know where you were that night. Well, no, I'm not going to tell you where I was. I invoked my Fifth Amendment right to the Constitution. You can't invoke your Fifth Amendment right because you were acquitted of this crime, sir. You can't. There is no double jeopardy. We can't come after you again. You don't have that right anymore. You've been acquitted. So where were you? I'm not answering that question. Boom. You are now interfering with an investigation. You are being uncooperative. We're going to lock you up. You're in contempt. You are obstructing justice. And we're going to put you in jail for the maximum term of five years. It's a green light for every government in the United States, whether you're municipal, city, state, county, federal, to go after innocent people they do not like or do not feel that they should have been acquitted or pardoned. That is not how the United States of America works. To give or support, I don't care who it is. The ability to say you no longer have a right to anything. To anything. I'm not gonna speak to you. You can't force me to speak. My thoughts, my words, my knowledge are mine. You don't own them. I do. You can't compel me to tell you anything. This isn't the Middle Ages. Here is TMZ confronting Rand Paul in the halls of Congress. Let's listen to this.

SPEAKER_01 27:20

And that's why you're going after Fauci.

SPEAKER_09 27:23

Million people died in America deserve answers. Many of these people died alone. It was just disgraceful. I think the uh the membership families that lost loved ones deserve answers.

SPEAKER_01 27:41

Shouldn't we just try to find the root cause for all of this? Like why not try to be for you now?

SPEAKER_09 27:47

If you want to debate somebody that's lost, I'm not looking to debate.

SPEAKER_01 27:50

I'm just saying, why don't we give him immunity? So then we can find. Why not give him immunity so then we can find out the root cause?

SPEAKER_06 28:01

Mr. Chairman, what are the plans for that?

SPEAKER_04 28:04

He doesn't want to, he wants to put him in jail. Because frankly, he believes that he belongs there. I don't disagree. I don't I don't again, I don't disagree, but I would rather let Anthony Fauci go free and keep the Fifth Amendment intact and ironclad than put this guy in prison and ruin the Fifth Amendment for the entire future of the United States of America. Maybe somebody like Mom Donnie gets in. Oh yeah. Good luck with that without Fifth Amendment privilege. Excuse me, right. It's not a privilege, it's a right. Good luck with that. Here is Donald Trump.

SPEAKER_06 28:57

Do you think the DOJ should prosecute Dr. Pauci?

SPEAKER_08 29:01

Well, you know, they prosecuted Peter Navarro and they prosecuted Steve Bannon, two very decent people, over something that essentially was never prosecuted before. And they're sort of telltale signs of similarity. And they went to jail for a number of months over something that they I saw one of the analysts said, they used to laugh at it in the Justice Department when something like that was referred. But Merritt Garland prosecuted two very decent people and sent them to jail. I wasn't president, I would have given them a pardon in two seconds, but I wasn't. It was after I left. They waited until after I left, and then they prosecuted these two people, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. So when you see that happen, you sort of say maybe he should. What he did is far more serious than a lot of crimes, frankly. But they prosecuted two people when nothing like that has ever taken place before.

SPEAKER_06 30:01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 30:02

Do you think here to testify if you the one thing that drives me nuts about Donald Trump is that Donald Trump doesn't really have a political philosophy. He doesn't have a core constitutionalist ideology. He doesn't have a core like religious natural law theory. We're all individual humans, we're all individual souls. We all have a right to live that the way that God intended. He does not have that. He is a business person and he makes decisions based on principle. He's a populist. The entire country after Richard Nixon resigned. The entire country wanted to put Richard Nixon in jail after the Watergate scandal. Gerald Ford did an incredibly unpopular thing. He gave Richard Nixon a massive pardon. Very unpopular. And he said it was not good for the country. We need to move on. He's out of office. It is done. What Donald Trump should be doing in this scenario, and what Rand Paul should be doing in this scenario, is they should be standing up and saying, we could try to circumvent the Constitution of the United States. We don't believe in doing that. That's something that the Democrats do. In a situation like this, the Democrats would do everything that they could to illegally put this person in jail, but we uphold and we are beholden to the Constitution, and they should have taken the higher ground. They would have a better argument in saying, listen, the president of the United States can absolutely pardon people. That is not the argument that we are making. There's one thing that he cannot do, though, and that is pardon them for crimes that they haven't been accused of. Fausy's pardon is for any crime that may have been committed from 2014 to 2024. So it doesn't matter what that crime is. Anything, anything you find on Faucy in that span of 10 years, you can't do anything against. A normal pardon would be Anthony Fauci was found stealing millions of dollars in COVID relief or whatever, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then you, the president, would say, yeah, I pardon him of stealing the money. He didn't really steal it. It was kind of gifted. That's what we're doing. Not anything or everyone or anything that he's been in near and a touch with. They have a better argument with that, and then a better argument with the autopen as well. Did Joe Biden even know he signed this? Is this a legitimate pardon? And they would have a better opportunity to go after the actual pardon and question its legitimacy than to go after Fauci for invoking his constitutional right. It's backwards. Here is an ABC report. I have not watched this. Let's hear what ABC has to say.

SPEAKER_03 33:36

Meantime, on the Hill tonight, the Republican-led Senate panel voting to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress. Dr. Fauci taking the fifth during last week's hearing on Capitol Hill. Democrats tonight say Republicans were trying to set him up. Let's get right to ABC's Jay O'Brien, live on the Hill for us tonight, Jay.

SPEAKER_01 33:51

David, tonight the Republican-led Senate Homeland Security Committee voting to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress after he refused to answer their questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. The chairman of that committee, Rand Paul, says that Fauci is not eligible to do that because he received a full pardon from former President Biden. Fauci says that Paul has a quote, unhinged obsession with him and wants to see him behind bars. Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to lay a trap for Fauci. Paul has now referred this matter to the Justice Department. No word tonight on if they will seek criminal charges, David.

SPEAKER_04 34:28

We're gonna see what happens. Donald Trump says he thinks he should be prosecuted. Doesn't mean that they will. Steve Bannon spent four months in jail. I hate this. Man, do I hate this. Here is the Mike Gallagher show talking about the part.

SPEAKER_02 35:00

8-5, the Senate panel voting to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress. Here is legal scholar and attorney Jonathan Churley's reaction to that vote moments ago on Fox News.

SPEAKER_06 35:15

Well, it's very significant. This is not a small step for any committee in holding an official, particularly a high-ranking official in contempt. We have the added wrinkle that just occurred, where the committee will do a direct referral to the Department of Justice rather than allow this to go to the floor, where it would face a filibuster and a higher requirement of 60 votes in order to be uh referred to DOJ. That's going to add a complexity, that's going to add grounds for a challenge from the other side. The law behind this controversy is rather murky. People may be surprised that the cases in this area are relatively sparse. And so what Fauci is saying is that I'm really not protected without the privilege because there may be questions in ongoing state investigations or new questions that would put me at risk. What the committee is saying is that you have this sweeping pardon going back to 2014. And Chairman Paul specifically framed his final set of questions as only addressing matters within the confines of that pardon. So that's going to put into sharp relief for the court whether he truly has a right to invoke the privilege. What Chairman Paul is saying is that you can't be prosecuted for anything that you did or said during that period. All you could be prosecuted for is perjury. And you were always under that risk. All those previous hearings he testified in, he was under the risk of a perjury uh charge if he he testified falsely. Even if he gets immunity directly from the committee, he has that lingering potential. And so what the committee is saying is that you don't have this privilege anymore because Joe Biden gave you that pardon.

SPEAKER_04 37:18

Even if you had complete immunity, you have every right to invoke your Fifth Amendment. I'm supposed to trust the government. You think, you think James Madison or Thomas Jefferson or even John Adams, right, would come out and say, well, you don't have a right to not talk about you have to testify against yourself if we determine that we're not going to prosecute you for them. So if you can't get prosecuted for them, we're just going to go ahead and not. Yeah, we're just you so that means you don't have the right for that anymore. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. So I I killed President, I killed JFK back in 1969. You think they're gonna let that go? You think if you came out and admitted to something very egregious, or if Anthony Fauci came out and said, No, you're right, not only did I develop this virus, but I intentionally sent it out to the United States as a bioweapon because I feel that we're overpopulated and I would also receive a lot more funding. So I did it to murder people and get rich. You think you think that the federal government is just gonna go, oh well, yeah, he's he's got his pardon. You don't think they're gonna go after him some other way? The Fifth Amendment means what it says. Sorry, I don't like it. Not an instant, but I might like it in the future when they try to maybe do it to Elon Musk for donating to Donald Trump's campaign. Or spending a million dollars in Pennsylvania per per new voter. And may not like it when they do it to Donald Trump at his impeachment trial, or they do it to JD Vance, or they do it to Marco Rubio, or they do it to me for my show. You can't have it both you can't have it both ways. You can't use the Constitution to You can't circumvent the Constitution because it's against somebody you don't like. You can't circumvent the Constitution because it's against somebody who's guilty. It is dangerous and it is what we campaigned on. The unlawful prosecution of Donald Trump and Steve Bannon and Nevero and all the countless people is what we campaigned on and why the Democrat Party was bad, why the Democrat Party had to be stopped. Because these unlawful prosecutions in Atlanta, in New York City with Alvin Bragg, Daniel Penny, Kyle Rittenhaus, all of these political prosecutions, we stood and we drew a line. And now we have not just so I wouldn't be as upset if this was just your run-of-the-mill Republican who's trying to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. We have Rand Paul trying to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. Frankly, I'm depressed and ashamed. But we're gonna see where it goes. We're gonna see where it goes. I hope Rand Paul is just posturing. I hope he knows the DOJ is not gonna do anything. I hope Donald Trump is sitting there saying, well, they did it to Steve Bannon. They need to go ahead and do it to Fauci, too, and then Trump is telling the DOJ, hey, we're not gonna do that. Let it go. The guy's got a presidential pardon, and then it just goes away and nobody talks about it anymore. Maybe. Or maybe the next time you get pulled over for a traffic stop, you're now forced to testify against yourself. You're now required to disclose. No, sir, I don't. Well, how fast were you going? Well, I plead the fifth to the constitution. You can't do that. So this is a traffic violation. This isn't a crime, it's just a violation. So you have to tell us. That only gives you immunity from actual crimes. This is a this is a civil matter. This is a ticket. You have to tell me. Your Fifth Amendment doesn't apply. We got rid of that with Fausci. We just opened the floodgates wide open for the United States of America to come and give you the old green weenie. That's my take for today. I don't mean to be too emotional about it. You don't see this often, especially from the Republicans. You see it quite often from the Democrats. The Democrats don't believe in the Constitution. They believe in populism. They believe that your rights come from the government and that they can take them away as they see fit. Rand Paul knows better. He was raised better than this. And the Republican Party knows better too. And so far, I think I'm the only one speaking out. I think I'm the only podcaster, conservative podcaster speaking out and saying this is wrong. Mark it now, book it now. I haven't, I haven't heard anybody. I haven't heard from Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson. I haven't heard anybody say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. You absolutely have the right to plead the Fifth Amendment. Where where are all these people who were screaming about the Twitter files? Where are all these people who were screaming about the political persecution of Donald Trump and his allies, of Steve Bannon and Navarro? Where are they? Oh, they're gone now. Oh, oh, now, now that we have the power, we're gonna go ahead and do everything we swore was wrong. We're gonna go ahead and do everything we fought against because now we have the power. Oh, they're not doing it to us, we're doing it to them. And hey, they got it coming. They did it to us too. And we're gonna have a friggin' banana republic where every political party is gonna go after the next person. I think Anthony Fauci is a monster. I think that he he has a lot to make up for. I pray for his soul. I do. I I do not think he should be free on the streets, but that is irrelevant. Bleeding the fifth is not an admission of guilt. Bleeding the fifth is an inherent right that you have. You, you have it. So if you ever wind up in Handcuffs and you are completely innocent, but everybody is scratching and scrounging and trying to figure out any way that they can to get you. That's the point of the Fifth Amendment. That they cannot force you to testify against yourself and then you use your own words against you. That's the whole purpose. So that it prevents the government from finding the person then applying the crime. They're supposed to find a crime. Oh man, somebody robbed this bank. Okay. Let's go ahead and look at the evidence and do get some fingerprints. Oh, Ryan's fingerprints were here. Let's just go talk to him and see what's going on. Yep. Okay, you were here. Okay. Oh, wow, there's a gun here. We had a witness say that this silver revolver was used in the crime. I mean, you also shot a round that hit the safe door, and I took the safe, the round out that matches the gun. We got our guy, lock him up. Instead of going, you know, Ryan's really talking a lot lately, man. And well, why is this guy talking so much? I, you know, I'm a I'm a senator. I don't want that. This guy's not allowed to talk against me. So let's see if we can find something on him to shut him up. Yeah, let's um, nah, I don't want to put him away for life. Let's just send a message. Let's find a crime that fits about a two-year sentence, should do it. Let's see if he values his freedom more than he values his First Amendment right. Oh, hey, right, Mr. Samuels. Turns out you wrote a check that bounced five years ago. That's fraud. Still within the statute of limitations. Oh, we also found X, Y, and Z. Oh, and you put a shed on your property without a permit. You knew you had a permit. That's criminal. That's willingly violating the city ordinance. Did you put this shed on your property? Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and plead the fifth. No, we don't do that anymore. Those days are done in the United States. Has been for a while. But that's my take. Sorry for the rant. Very, very disappointed in this. But those who get power, no matter who they are, St. Augustine, he's a Catholic saint. His mother was a nun. He used to live in sin. He's mother prayed for him like every night that he would come to God, didn't want to come to God, was out there, had messages, was sleeping around. This is back hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Came into the church and then wrote confessions and a whole bunch of awesome literature, talked about something called libido dominante or the lust to dominate, which is unfortunately rampant in politicians. Power-hungry egomaniacs. Even if you go in there with all the best intentions in the world, you enter Congress or the Senate or governor's office or even a mayor with all the best intentions of the world. You see this with police officers all the time. They get a little power, they get on a power trip. It's anybody. It would be you too. It would be me as well. That's why there's checks and balances. Nobody is above succumbing to these forces that live within us. So Libido Dominande, the lust to dominate. That's what you're seeing. 250 years of gradual encroachments has left us where we are today. Thank you for tuning in. Don't forget to hit that like, share, and subscribe button, and we will see you tomorrow night. Go to Ryanfsamuels.com. Sign up for the newsletter. Yes, I agree too. I agree too, Michelle. Sign up for the newsletter. Just do it. What are you waiting on? What are you waiting? I mean, you get news from me every day. You're going to get a discount when the shop opens up. I do have a merchandise shop on building, trying to make it bigger and better. But make sure you sign up for that so you can get your discount on the shop. And we will see you tomorrow night. God bless you. God bless our troops and God bless America.

SPEAKER_07 50:21

Thanks for tuning in to the Ryan Samuel Show. Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe.

SPEAKER_04 50:29

Oh, and call Rand Paul's office and talk to his people and tell them just, dude, what are you doing? Stop it. Stop it, Rand. Good night.