Send us a text

They instigated the January 6 events and lied about it. This isn’t some tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. This is a documented fact.

In this episode of ‘Off Air’, I lay out the truth the media doesn’t want you to hear.

The FBI had 26 confidential informants in the crowd at the Capitol on January 6. That’s from the Justice Department’s Inspector General report.

Some of those informants even crossed restricted lines. One entered the Capitol Building. But the FBI wants us to believe they were just passive observers.

I will also break down one of the most egregious acts of media manipulation I’ve ever seen. The BBC maliciously edited Trump’s January 6 speech to make it sound like he incited violence.

This episode exposes all the liars in the media, in government, in the courtroom, who twisted this event into a political weapon to interfere with the elections.

Tune in!

Key Takeaways

Introduction (00:00)

FBI had 26 confidential informants in the Capitol crowd (02:03)

At least one informant entered the building (04:29)

Informants engaged in illegal activities (05:12)

Capitol security was intentionally under-prepared (09:48)

Kamala Harris compares Jan. 6 to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor (15:03)

Trump’s actual call for peaceful protest (22:07)

Trump’s real-time tweets promoting peace (24:23)

BBC doctored Trump’s speech with deceptive edits (28:14)

BBC misrepresented the video timeline of protesters (31:27)

Lack of media accountability and peer condemnation (35:43)

Additional Resources

📖 Read Ron’s book Truth and Persuasion in a Digital Revolution

https://a.co/d/2GxCpsZ

✍️ Subscribe to Ron’s Substack for deeper investigations: https://ronaldwchapman.substack.com/

💡 Free sample of Truth and Persuasion here:https://ronaldwchapman.substack.com/p/truth-and-persuasion-free-sample?r=5ojo21&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

📲 Follow Ron on social:

Twitter:@RonChapmanAtty

Instagram: @ronchapman

👍 If you found this breakdown insightful, share it, and subscribe for real legal commentary grounded in experience.

Send us a text

Ron’s New Book: https://open.substack.com/pub/ronaldwchapman/p/truth-and-persuasion-free-sample?r=5ojo21&utm_medium=ios

For a Deeper Dive: https://open.substack.com/pub/ronaldwchapman/p/letitia-jamess-pattern-problem?r=5ojo21&utm_medium=ios

Episode Description

NY just delivered Pam Bondi a 333 page handbook to a civil rights case against Letitia James. Join Federal Trial Lawyer Ron Chapman to go inside the ruling and understand why this case was corrupt from the outset. Learn what’s in store for James and her staff and the DOJ investigation.

Send us a text

In United States v. Campbell, Ron Chapman argues before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals against the "deliberate ignorance" jury instruction used in the case of Dr. Campbell, a Louisville physician acquitted of improper prescriptions. The government's attempt to claim willful blindness raises important issues regarding justice and medical practice regulations.

Send us a text

Donald Trump is now a convicted felon, Hunter Biden is now a convicted felon. If we think this wasn't political, think again. This begs the question, how far is too far when vague statutes are used to wage political warfare with jail as a consequence? Ron takes you into executive expansion, agency power, vagueness in criminal statutes and the several cases up this term before the Supreme court that will determine if the Supreme Court has elected to protect our constitution or destroy it.

Quote: "As this term progresses and you start to see the Supreme Court strike down the overly broad interpretation of Sarbanes Oxly 800 January 6th defendants will have their convictions impacted..."

Check out Ron's Book Discussing Executive Overreach: https://ronaldwchapman.com/book

Contact Ron Here: httys://ronaldwchapman.com

Send us a text

BONUS EPISODE United States v. Trump oral argument.

Website: https://ronaldwchapman.com
Book: https://ronaldwchapman.com/book

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Trump. In this bonus episode I recap some of the oral argument as well as a prediction for the outcome of the case.

In August 2023, Donald Trump was indicted for allegations that he conspired to overturn the 2020 election. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment arguing presidential immunity for his official acts.

The D.C. Circuit disagreed causing Trump to file in the Supreme Court.

On April 26, 2024 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in what justice Gorsuch would call "a decision for the ages".

Send us a text

Website: https://ronaldwchapman.com
Book: https://ronaldwchapman.com/book


The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling which had ordered that Donald J. Trump be excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress, not the States. Therefore, Colorado's action to disqualify Trump from the ballot was found to be beyond the state's authority. All nine Justices agreed with the outcome, emphasizing that only Congress has the power to enforce the disqualification provisions of Section 3.

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Anderson centered on the application and enforcement of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses the disqualification of individuals from holding office due to engagement in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. The case arose when a group of Colorado voters contended that Donald J. Trump, by his actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach, fell under this disqualification and thus could not be listed on the presidential primary ballot for the 2024 election. The Colorado Supreme Court had ordered the Colorado Secretary of State to exclude Trump from the ballot, interpreting Section 3 as applicable to him and within the state's authority to enforce.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, holding that the enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates is a power vested in Congress, not the states. The Court reasoned that allowing individual states to enforce Section 3 would create a fragmented and inconsistent electoral landscape across the country, undermining the unity and direct relationship between the national government and the people, which the Framers deemed essential. Such a "patchwork" enforcement mechanism would disrupt the presidential election process, potentially nullifying the votes of millions and altering election outcomes based on disparate state actions.

The Court underscored the historical context and intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing Congress's role in enforcing its provisions through legislation. It pointed to past instances where Congress exercised its power to enforce or relax Section 3's disqualifications, illustrating the established practice of federal, rather than state, enforcement. Moreover, the Court highlighted the absence of historical precedent for state enforcement of Section 3 against federal candidates, viewing this lack of precedent as indicative of the constitutional allocation of enforcement authority to Congress.

The decision reaffirms the federal government's primacy in matters of constitutional enforcement related to the eligibility of individuals to hold federal office. It clarifies that while states have significant authority over their electoral processes, this authority does not extend to enforcing constitutional disqualifications for federal office, which is a matter reserved for Congress. This ruling has broad implications for the country, ensuring a uniform approach to enforcing the disqualifications outlined in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and preserving the integrity of the federal electoral process.

In essence, the Court's ruling prevents states from independently determining the eligibility of candidates for federal office based on Section 3 disqualifications, reinforcing the centralized role of Congress in these matters and maintaining consistency across the nation's electoral system.

Send us a text

Ron Chapman is a federal criminal defense attorney who is admitted before the Supreme Court and breaks down the Supreme Court's decision to stay Trump's trial pending a decision on presidential immunity.

February 28, 2024 the Supreme Court decided in a one page order to accept Donald Trump's request to stay his federal fraud case pending in the D.C. district court. The case was appealed from the trial court to the D.C. Circuit who decided that Trump shall not receive immunity for prosecution. The case was appealed by Trump to the Supreme Court and Justice Roberts sent the case to the entire court. 5 justices voted to grant the stay.

During this episode Ron discusses the one page order and some clues in the order that tell us exactly how the Supreme Court is likely to decide the case.

www.ronaldwchapman.com

Send us a text

A topic near and dear to Ron's heart, he discusses the federal structure surrounding the scheduling of drugs. He goes all the way back to the early 1900's to discuss the early cases against physicians walking the listener through the changes in the law prior to the Controlled Substances Act signed into law by Richard Nixon. Each era is punctuated with a specific decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Ron moves on to discuss the Oregon Death With Dignity Act and a prominent Supreme Court case that tailored back DOJ authority to define the practice of medicine. Ron then walks the listener through the DOJ's end around by creating the CDC guidelines and its impact on pain patients.

Finally, Ron spends the second half of the episode discussing the trial of Dr. Kendall Hansen a physician prosecuted in Covington Kentucky that Ron was personally involved in just a week prior to the date the episode aired.

By the conclusion of the episode the listener will have a robust knowledge of the legal landscape surrounding opioids and the federal enforcement of drug laws against physicians.