NATO just crossed Putin's red line and this changes EVERYTHING - St. Petersburg attacks | Redacted

Summary

Podcast Summary: Redacted News

Episode: NATO just crossed Putin's red line and this changes EVERYTHING – St. Petersburg attacks | Redacted
Date: June 3, 2026
Hosts: Clayton Morris, Natali Morris
Guests: Professor Robert Pape (Chicago Project on Security and Threats), Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deeply into major global conflicts—focusing on the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine war, the West’s role in it, and the potential for catastrophic consequences, including nuclear escalation, as NATO is accused of crossing one of Vladimir Putin’s “red lines” by enabling drone strikes deep in Russia during the St. Petersburg Economic Forum. The discussion then transitions to Iran’s widening regional wars, the economic impacts of global instability, and finally challenges the mainstream media narrative surrounding Bill Cosby’s legal battles, raising questions about lawfare, due process, and changing legal standards.

Throughout, the hosts assert their role as “narrative questioners”, challenging mainstream accounts and highlighting underreported backstories.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. St. Petersburg Attacks and NATO's Escalation

Timestamps: 03:14–14:10

• Red Line Crossed: The episode opens with the assertion that NATO—by facilitating and funding advanced drone attacks during the high-profile St. Petersburg Economic Forum—has crossed a significant red line for Russia. Seven civilians killed, 11 injured, with concerns about civilian targets becoming normalized.
• Potential for Nuclear Response: Quoting Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, the hosts emphasize heightened nuclear threats:

  “Encroachments on Russia and its territory by aggressors… could prompt us to use these weapons in the worst case scenario, meaning nuclear weapons.” (Clayton, 03:14)

• Ukraine's Capability and Funding: Discussion with Professor Robert Pape about Ukraine’s increasing independence in weapons manufacturing, especially drones—often supported by private Western donors (i.e. Jennifer Pritzker), not just states.

  “Drones are so cheap that Ukraine, with donor help, has been able to build factories, drone factories, etc. So this is not just simply about, well, the United States has got to stop funding and then the Europeans stop funding… Ukraine has a lot of wherewithal on its own and this is making things very dangerous.” (Pape, 10:20)

• Western Role & Risks: Ongoing Western financing, IMF/world bank loans, and direct aid are described as enabling Ukraine’s “escalation trap”—risking direct NATO-Russia conflict.

---

2. The Escalation Trap: Irreconcilable Goals & Civilian Targeting

Timestamps: 07:34–14:10, 17:07–20:48

• Stalemate and Tipping Point: Both sides (Ukraine and Russia) locked in unreconcilable objectives, drawing dangerous parallels to prior conflicts (Iran, Korea, Vietnam).

  “This is an escalation trap… both sides have nearly irreconcilable objectives... Zelensky and Putin squarely in its grip.” (Pape, 07:34)

• Civilian Victims for Strategic Destabilization: Attacks on the St. Petersburg Economic Forum seen as attempts to disrupt Russia’s elite business activities—just as Iran disrupted Gulf luxury sector with drones.

  “The attack on the St. Petersburg Economic Forum… what they're thinking is they want to disrupt business… I think it's horrible that states attack civilians. I'm not defending this for a second.” (Pape, 17:31)

• Media's Missing Focus: Media overlooks Ukraine’s own manufacturing capabilities and their independent escalation; public is unaware how indiscriminate warfare increases overall instability.

---

3. Europe and the End Game in Ukraine

Timestamps: 20:48–26:49

• Why Does Europe Persist?: Hosts question European leaders’ rationale for ongoing war support/funding, despite stalemate and civilian harm.

  “It seems like they have a death wish… what is the end game for Europe in this?” (Natalie, 20:48)

• Need for Realistic Peace Negotiations: Pape advocates for “freezing along the line of contact” (a Korean War-style armistice), arguing European leaders refuse to recognize military stalemate for political reasons:

  “We need to end this war… the obvious thing to do is to start talking turkey about where the line should be. And that line of contact has not moved or budged more than a handful of miles over three and a half years.” (Pape, 21:31)
  “If the Europeans would decide among themselves and make it a public decision that this is the line they're willing to support… freeze the conflict at the line of contact, getting an armistice.” (Pape, 24:39)

• Escalation Traps & Responsibility: Parallels drawn to Middle East; concern that letting Ukraine (or Israel, in the Iran context) drag the West into endless escalation is a repeating pattern.

---

4. Iran’s Escalation, U.S. Rhetoric, and Economic Fallout

Timestamps: 28:32–43:30

• Iran’s Changing Approach: Coverage of Iran’s attacks on U.S. and allied facilities across the Gulf following U.S. strikes on Kashm Island, and the unreliability of U.S. official statements:

  “Iran seems to be done with any sort of negotiations at this point. They're not playing this tit for tat anymore… we're going to carry out these attacks on our own terms.” (Natalie, 28:32)

• Demonstration Attacks: Professor Pape calls recent strikes “demonstration attacks” meant to show resolve to both domestic and international audiences, but warns escalation is rising.
• Economic Impact: Rising energy costs and shortages are directly linked to ongoing wars; polls show strong voter pessimism about the U.S. economy.

  “We're now in the stage where we haven't quite gotten to the contraction of actual economic activity yet. That is coming, but we're in the shortage stage. And that's where the inventories are being drawn down... when everybody realizes it all at the same time, that's the really dangerous point.” (Pape, 37:31)

• PR vs. Reality: Multiple comparisons to Vietnam's Tet Offensive as a moment when public belief in official optimism collapses.

---

5. The Bill Cosby Case: Lawfare, Consent, and Media Narrative

Timestamps: 49:00–78:21

• Context and Questions Raised: The episode transitions to cover the recent denial of Bill Cosby’s appeal in a civil case relating to an alleged 1972 incident.
• Legal and Societal Issues: Discussion focuses on the implications of changing statutes of limitations, evolving definitions of consent, and the concept of lawfare (using legal processes to target individuals for political/social reasons).

  “If lawmakers can revive decades-old claims after the statute of limitations has expired, what exactly is the purpose of the statute of limitations? ...That is lawfare.” (Clayton, 49:00)

• Lionel’s Legal Analysis:
  • Historical context: Statute of limitations extensions often started with abuse cases in the Catholic church, not just celebrity cases.
  • Burden of Proof: Civil cases require a lower burden (“more likely than not”), making old claims difficult to challenge but easier to win.
  • Consent in Law: The line between “impaired” (by pills/alcohol) and “incapacitated” is blurry, especially with decades-old evidence.
  • Precedents: Comparable cases—e.g., E. Jean Carroll vs Trump—show how jury perceptions of victim testimony are decisive.
• Notable Quotes:

  “Do I think that in all of the cases, he was just the victim of his fame? Absolutely not… but also, it's dangerous. This is a court of public opinion.” (Lionel, 63:16) “We're gonna have to be asking ourselves from now on… what if we're having a drink and I start off, but all of a sudden… someone passes out. Is that sexual battery and rape per se? Technically, yeah.” (Lionel, 61:03)

• Media Critique: Media’s portrayal of Cosby as a “slam dunk” case is challenged; hosts urge skepticism and emphasize the complexity of such old cases and the risk of selective justice.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Ukraine Escalation:

  “This is not just NATO giving drones. These are Ukraine-produced drones, funded by small donors. That’s a game-changer for escalation.”
  — Professor Robert Pape, 11:56

• On Civilian Targeting:

  “I’m not at all justifying what they’re doing… but the strategy is to disrupt business – to hit Russia’s Davos and send a message to elites.”
  — Professor Robert Pape, 17:31

• On the West’s Role:

  “We cannot let ourselves off the hook. Ukraine has taken this Western money and funneled it into their weapons programs. Now they're sort of a dog off the leash.”
  — Clayton, 15:18

• On Peace Prospects:

  “The obvious thing to do is start talking turkey about where the line should be. And that line of contact has not moved… We need the leadership to say that.”
  — Professor Robert Pape, 21:31

• On Lawfare and Justice:

  “If lawmakers can revive decades-old claims after the statute of limitations has expired, what exactly is the purpose?... That is lawfare.”
  — Clayton, 49:00

• Challenging Media Narratives:

  “It’s not a slam dunk narrative, and you should not buy it from the media.”
  — Clayton, 78:11

---

Segment Timestamps

• NATO/Ukraine-Russia escalation: 03:14–26:49
• Iran and Middle East escalation, economic fallout: 28:32–43:30
• Bill Cosby legal discussion, consent & lawfare: 49:00–78:21

---

Episode Takeaways

• The Ukraine conflict is entering a new, more dangerous phase, with NATO support and independent Ukrainian escalation increasing risks of direct NATO-Russia confrontation.
• Civilian targets are now at the center of strategic warfare, echoing patterns seen in the Middle East and Gulf region.
• Western governments, particularly European leaders, are criticized for failing to admit the stalemate and negotiate a frozen conflict; there is a call for political realism and leadership.
• Economic and social instability from these wars is likely to have sharp consequences in coming months, especially as oil shortages deepen.
• The Bill Cosby segment challenges the reliability of highly publicized legal cases, highlighting profound questions about statutes of limitations, definitions of consent, the fairness of retroactive law changes, and the potential for selective prosecution driven by public pressure or media narratives.

---

Overall Tone

Assertively skeptical, anti-mainstream (especially anti-corporate media), analytical, and at times polemical. The hosts pride themselves on challenging official and popular narratives, urging listeners to think critically and question prevailing storylines—especially those that serve powerful political or corporate interests.

Transcript

[Clayton]

What would you do if your online store converted 36% more shoppers? You could take 36% more vacation.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Another pina colada?

[Show Host Natalie]

Yes, please.

[Clayton]

Open a new retail location with 36% more square feet.

[Show Host Natalie]

Fantastic.

[Clayton]

Hire 36% more help.

[Show Host Natalie]

You're hired and you're hired.

[Clayton]

Shopify has the world's best converting checkout up to 36% better than other e commerce platforms. What you do with those extra sales is up to you. Switch to Shopify [e-mail] setup and get a $1 trial. Shopify.com setup oh, and there's a lot

[Show Host Natalie]

they don't want you to know about what's happening right now in the, this Ukraine war, what's happening in Iran, what just happened in Kuwait, and a big court case that we're going to talk about today on the show that the mainstream media does not want you to know about. There's a lot of propaganda floating around right now about what's happening in Russia. So we're going to break down these narratives as the St. Petersburg Economic Forum opens and Ukraine has launched multiple drone strikes, I should say NATO, not Ukraine, launching multiple long range drone strikes into the heart of Russia. This is of course, a huge red line crossing. What will Russia's response be? We're going to talk about that today on the show.

[Clayton]

We're also going to talk about the Bill Cosby case because he has been denied an appeal for a case. Now we're going to talk about how the state of California defines rape, how it defines incapacitation. Why was the law changed for a case to be brought against Bill Cosby for something that happened in 1972? Is there anything, what's the deal with the statute of limitations? Because the media is all in on Bill Cosby as a rapist. But we're gonna ask some questions about that narrative. I just wanna know why. I just, I'm curious.

[Show Host Natalie]

I think today's show is gonna be all about like, sort of challenging, you know, the narratives that they're pushing out, the mainstream media is pushing out. So if you've learned anything from our show, it's just we don't believe these mainstream media narratives at all. And like, what's the real story behind them? So we're gonna try to unpack a lot of that.

[Clayton]

The narrative questioners. That's what we do here.

[Show Host Natalie]

Exactly.

[Clayton]

That's what.

[Show Host Natalie]

Thank you guys all for subscribing and being a part of our daily show. We really appreciate it. We've got some great guests lined up for you today. But first, in today's uncertain economy, American financing is helping families find a way out of high interest traps. We were just talking to some family friends the other night and they were talking about wanting to refinance right now, but just being concerned and well, here you go. American financing can actually help you because these economic clouds aren't clearing for most middle class families. You know, persistent inflation, cost of daily life. You're likely feeling the pressure. And that's the beauty of what's going on right now with American financing. They understand that everything that's happening in 2026 requires a real strategy. That's why they have salary based mortgage consultants that work for you. They don't work for any big banks. And when the mortgage rates, with mortgage rates in the fives, their customers are saving an average of $800 a month by wiping out high interest debt. That's money that stays in your pocket to fight against rising costs. No upfront fees, no pressure. And if you start today, you could delay up to two mortgage payments. Call American Financing today, 866-890-8434. That's 866-890-8433 or visit american financing.netacted while

[Clayton]

Russia says that it may respond with nuclear weapons to the attacks on St. Petersburg that happened today, here is Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Serge Rabbi Goff. That's probably not right. He said, to put it straightforwardly, these documents send a signal that encroachments on Russia and its territory by aggressors, including those who may possess such weapons, could prompt us to use these weapons in the worst case scenario, meaning nuclear weapons. So he's not just saying we could use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. He's saying we could justify using them against other countries who have nuclear weapons. Now, obviously it's NATO that's launching these attacks on St. Petersburg. Ukraine doesn't have the capability to do that themselves. Ukraine also does not have nuclear weapons. NATO countries do. NATO countries are the aggressors here. Now, this comes as Ukraine began striking at Russia during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, which is hosting attendees from over 130 countries. It includes over 20,000 people. Here is video of the drone strikes in St. Petersburg today that began to be launched just as this forum was taking place. So you can see the drone coming clear across the city. This is obviously highly populated civilian territory. We also have video of a bus, a civilian bus that was attacked in Russia as well. We're having reports of seven civilian casualties plus 11 injured by Ukrainian armed forces drone strike. Now Obviously, Russians are getting pretty tired of this, and the Putin government knows it. Well, at the same time, Zelensky, Ukrainian President Zelensky is saying, but I've been open to peace negotiations all along. I've always wanted peace. He is meeting with the head of NATO, Mark Ruta, today. He did basically the same thing he always does when Europe's class of idiots come to visit. He makes videos showing off his acting skills. Highly edited heartstring pulling videos. Solemn tributes to the soldiers he sent to their deaths. Once again portraying himself as the tragic war hero of the war he refuses to end. We're going to watch as much of this as we can stomach. It's about 40 seconds. I probably can take about 20, but roll it. Okay, that's good. You get the picture. You can find these kinds of things for the last three years on Zelensky's social stream. Who buys this? Well, mostly European politicians eager to applaud him and then send European taxpayer funds into his pocket. He continued his pitch to join NATO, said that big trouble would come if Ukraine is again denied me membership. He says even Russia should want us to be a part of NATO. Listen, I believe Russians also need Ukraine to be in NATO, because in the future it could be painful if Ukraine is not in NATO. And then warning eyebrow raise. You see what he means there? Okay. It's already painful, but okay. He pretends to be open to peace negotiations, but we know the terms of that. You can watch that here. He's ready for direct negotiations with Putin. He says, okay, so he's been saying that for years. He doesn't mean it because he continues to put obstacles in the way. So claiming to want peace while escalating the war and killing civilians is familiar and dangerous. Joining us to discuss it is Professor Robert Pape. He's the director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago and author of Escalation Trap on Substack and feels like that's exactly what we're doing. This is an escalation trap. We've seen this play out for now, three years. What are we to make of it now? It feels increasingly dangerous.

[Professor Robert Pape]

I'm really glad you're covering it, because with all the coverage of the Iran war, I think much of your audience may have even forgotten there is this ongoing war with Ukraine and Russia. And the frameworks that I've been describing here with the escalation trap apply absolutely least early to what's happened here. We need to go back and remember that the war started over four Years ago, when Putin thought he was going to get a quick and decisive victory at Ukraine, attacked thinking he was going to topple the government in just a few days. Doesn't that sound familiar? And instead what happened is Ukraine did not collapse. Ukraine stiffened. And now Ukraine is lashing back in its own horizontal escalation campaign. And you're in a wicked escalation trap here. It's been going on for years. Both sides also have nearly irreconcilable objectives if they want their maximum objectives. Doesn't that also sound familiar? And both sides have engaged in, off and on diplomacy through Trump mostly. And what doesn't that sound also familiar? So this trap here has got both of them. That is Zelensky and Putin squarely in its grip. And it is incredibly dangerous because Putin has nuclear weapons. So this is one of the reasons why several years ago, the United States was not so keen on giving Ukraine the power to strike deep into the heart of Russia. It has that now. It has drones. It's built on its own for the most part. And now what you see is that of course Putin is talking about defending his country and he has nuclear weapons. So this is a very, very dangerous escalation trap.

[Show Host Natalie]

Well, and this is a crossing of Putin's red line in many ways. The attack on the St. Petersburg Economic Forum. And you know, there is discontent within Russia about putting an end to this war. But you have this massive NATO support and it seems, you know, Ukraine has basically mortgaged its future. Right. So they've how many loans now to the IMF, the World Bank $90 billion boondoggle with the, with the demons that run the European Union to now bring in these gripen fighter jets from Sweden. As Colonel Douglas MacGregor pointed out yesterday on this show, Sweden better watch out because forget the fighter jets arriving inside of Ukraine. What about the factories that are manufacturing those fighter jets? And if NATO really wants to play this game in escalating further with Putin, they are about to get hit hard. To me, it seems like we're at a tipping point moment right now.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Well, I don't know if we're, I understand why we're, we're at a tipping point moment with Putin and his nuclear threats. But let me just point out what we're really seeing here, which is similar to Iran. What we're seeing is Ukraine on its own has a tremendous drone manufacturing capability. In fact, I know a little bit about that because I hear, I live in Chicago, as many of your listeners will know. And one of the biggest donors to the drone is not the US Government and it's not the European government. It's Jennifer Pritzker that is drones are so cheap. It's very important. Just as we talked about this with Iran, drones are so cheap that Ukraine, with donor help has been able to build factories, drone factories, etc. Etc. So this is not just simply about, well, the United States has got to stop funding and then Europeans stop funding. There's issues there. I don't really mean to say they aren't there, but that's where the media discussion has been for years. What the media is missing, much as we missed with Iran before the Iran war, is that increasingly Ukraine has a lot of wherewithal on its own and this is making things very dangerous. It makes it dangerous for Europe. I'm not saying this makes it better. The problem we have though, I just want to come back, is these are Ukraine produced drones. These are not European given to Ukraine drones. Wow.

[Show Host Natalie]

No, that's a very.

[Clayton]

But would we call that, given that it's funneled through the Pritzker family. Jennifer Pritzker, who served as a man in the US Military now has a military foundation that is US Funded so well actually.

[Professor Robert Pape]

So I don't know the full details. So that's getting into things beyond my knowledge about the exact wire diagram. I know about this because this issue has been prominent in the city of Chicago. And so I've been at dinners and so forth and so on. And she's very public, at least has been about her support. And the reason I'm, but I'm bringing it up not because I know the details here of the finances. What I'm bringing up is to show how relatively small amounts of money, and I don't know the full amounts that this donor is giving, but this donor is not giving 100 million billions of dollars here. So what you're, what you're seeing is relatively small amounts of money and there's probably a number of donors that are doing that can go a long way in supporting these drone campaigns. And they're very precise. So your video showed just how precise. In fact, they have these forward looking where you're able to literally at long distances drive the drone because of the way the drone technology works, literally right into the target like you're going into the pickle barrel. And that is stunning because we used to think only a large power like the United States States could do that. Well, now we're seeing it here with Iran, we've been seeing it with Ukraine for a while and I think we're just not yet fully able to come to grips with the fact that Ukraine on its own is escalating here and it's escalating with its own capability.

[Show Host Natalie]

Wow, that's a, that's a great point. I mean, a lot of focus has been on NATO and the amounts of money coming in from European countries and IMF loans, World bank loans, and all of these other things. But on a smaller scale, when they can get access to, to these drones, it's devastating. Before we switch things, and I will

[Professor Robert Pape]

be saying more about this, by the way, here on my substacks. You probably don't know. I actually have, I inadvertently created two. I have this Professor Pape one, and so that's the one. I'll talk about Ukraine and things like that on keeping the other one for Iran. But there are some similar points here, but they need to be sort of developed in some depths because as you're seeing the things, the conversation we've been having, as important as they are, what's the relationship to the United States, to these conflicts? Absolutely critical. I don't dispute that for a moment. But I think there are some other frameworks here that are very, very helpful because I am very concerned about the prospects of escalation that are happening here between Putin and Ukraine. I think that this is not at all a good idea that, that Ukraine is attacking these essentially strategic targets because Putin is not going to just sit there and keep taking it. And he unfortunately could move down that road. And you know, this is, he's, he's talked a lot about nuclear threats in the past. This is not a, an implausible scenario,

[Clayton]

but a lot of this is Western funded. So we cannot let ourselves off the hook. I mean, as early as 2015, the IMF warned Ukraine, Stop the genocide on the Donbas or we're not gonna loan to you anymore. But they continued to loan. So Ukraine has taken this Western money and funneled it into their weapons programs. And now they're sort of a dog off the leash. And yet we continue the funding.

[Show Host Natalie]

Well, and zelensky just admitted $200 billion that we gave him. I don't know where it is. I'm sorry. Well, to all these corrupt individuals who managed to get all this money, where's this money, this massive money laundering operation that's run through Ukraine.

[Professor Robert Pape]

There is an incredibly strong case. What you're essentially, I would put it in slightly more my terms of restraint. I think you're making a very strong case for restraint here. And you're saying that the Idea of just will we know he's supporting and so forth often can be counterproductive. I think that's an extremely strong case here. And as the escalation grows here, which it could well do, this is not good for us to get trapped in somebody else dragging us in. So also, just to bring another parallel, so you recall with the Iran war, we're often talking about, did Israel drag us into an escalation trap? That's one of the other big argument or discussion points we have. Well, here you have another case where there's Ukraine. Is Ukraine dragging us into. You see, so the parallels here are really quite striking. And it's important to see that these frameworks have been developing here and sharing now with lots of many people. They're not just unique to the situation in Ukraine.

[Clayton]

Right. But just, you know, Ukraine does not seem to be as strategic as you give them credit for. I'm just curious about that because we just showed them hitting a civilian bus. And so, you know, it's along the lines of those of us who have studied the genocide and the Donbas. Those are not. Those are civilian targets. They've been hitting civilian targets for two decades.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Yeah. I'm not at all justifying what they're doing on any moral case whatsoever. Just want to be clear. But let me explain the likely strategic logic, which is similar to when Iran used its drones to get rid of the luxury tourism in the Gulf state. So you'll recall that when Iran was using drones, it didn't just hit military bases in the Gulf, it was also hitting some hotels. It was also hitting airports, Remember, shut down a lot of air traffic over the Gulf. In fact, it just hit Kuwait Airport again here, just overnight. What. That's about here. And I'm not defending it. So please, please don't take explanation as moral defense. I'm just trying to show you what I think they're thinking, which is that what they're thinking is they want to disrupt business. Well, this St. Petersburg forum is essentially Russia's Davos. I mean, this is the. The area where there's lots of strategic investors here. You know, billionaire. I mean, lots of money here. And those billionaires, the last thing they want is eat a drone. So that's not what they're up for. Okay, so. So what I'm. So when you say what's the logic? It is. I think it's horrible that states attack civilians. I'm not defending this for its second. But the reason is they think they're disrupting that business much the way Iran was disrupting and actually did achieve disruption of some luxury business.

[Clayton]

Right. I think that probably your point is well taken. We underestimate the power of the pockets behind Ukraine because we sort of see them as this nation of gangsters, but they are well funded gangsters.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Well, there's a bigger point I'm going to make here in just a few hours on this live briefing on my Professor Pape substack, which is that we're moving to a new world, you see, and this is going to be hard because we don't want to have a world that's so unstable. But what you're really seeing is, and it's not just a consequence of the Iran war because after all, Ukraine started before Iran. But what you're really seeing seeing is a number of factors are coming together and that's what I'm really going to be articulating here that are making it so that there's a common set of instabilities that are now spreading in different regions of the world. And unfortunately they can spread even further, you see. So we're not, we're used to thinking that instability is the exception. It's not a norm. We have a short term problem, we get rid of it and we go back. Well, the Houthis did a bunch in the Red Sea straits. A lot of your folks may not even remember that a year ago, but that strait traffic in the Red sea is still 60% down, still 60% down, even though it's been a year since the Houthis launched their drones. So there's a lot that is sort of seeping under the surface, if you see what I mean, that I'm trying to bring forward so that we can see more clearly the direction that we're heading. And it's not because I'm happy about it. It's because I think that we again, these are the values of these frameworks I've been bringing up. I think they help us to see where things are going a little better.

[Show Host Natalie]

When before we move to Iran after the break, I want to ask you what are these European leaders hoping the outcome will be by funneling money into this corrupt government of Ukraine, allowing this to continue attacks on civilians, killing, you know, we've been covering what's but the again the genocide in the Donbass, Donetsk and Luhansk for, you know, for years here on this show when the Western media totally ignores it. So what is the end game for Europe in this? I mean, we see the militarization of Germany all in an effort to go up against Russia. They've said it publicly like this is not a mystery, but it seems like they have a death wish. What do you see going up this ladder for Europe?

[Professor Robert Pape]

Let me just say, I think, and my classes at the University of Chicago explained this for a while, but now we'll start to talk broadly that we should be ending this war on the line of contact and that the Europeans are not talking that way. They're saying, and this has been a standard talking point for years. It was the Biden administrations as well. It's up to the Ukrainians to decide where the line is that ends the war. Well, the truth is, we fought the war in Korea, and we did not simply say when we fought the Korean war in the 1950s. Oh, let's just keep fighting until the South Koreans decide where to end the line. No, we ended that war that went on only three years. I say only three years. This has gone on for. We need to end this war. And the obvious thing to do is to start talking turkey about where the line should be. And that line of contact has not moved or budged more than a handful of miles over three and a half years. So this point I'm making is identical to the Korean War. We just need to accept that is the key place to end the war. And we need the leadership to say that. I don't think Zelensky is going to come to say it. Just like the South Korean leaders didn't say that in the Korean War.

[Show Host Natalie]

No, that's a great point. Yesterday, Colonel Douglas MacGregor on our show said the only way this war is going to seemingly end at this point is if Russia seizes Odessa, crosses the Dnieper river and makes a move. Otherwise, they're going to continue this bloodshed for years to come. And we'll be at this.

[Professor Robert Pape]

There's a lot of truth to what he has to say. I just want to come in at it more. The interaction of the politics here. You see that point very militarily. Correct. But I just want to focus again back on what I said, which is if we don't identify where the line should be, then I don't think you're going to get Putin and Zelensky to do it. We just got to say this is the line. President Trump, I thought, was actually getting pretty close to that. But now, of course, he's. He's deep into his own. I mean, so. So I think that's going to be. But the Europeans. You asked what the Europeans should be doing. That's the issue. Force them in public to say what exactly should the line be to draw? That's the thing.

[Clayton]

Yeah.

[Show Host Natalie]

Professor Pape, isn't it crazy, though, that within the first year, early, we had a framework for peace that involved Russia even beyond past eastern Ukraine, with the Ankara agreement was in place so that Russia wouldn't have. This land, wouldn't have moved further, almost up to the Dnieper river, taken over all of most of eastern Ukraine, where all those ethnic Russians live. There was a framework in place until Boris Johnson swoops in with his parachute and scuttles the entire peace plan. And so now whatever Europe gets is gonna be far worse than they could have gotten years ago if they had not tried to scuttle this whole thing from the very beginning.

[Professor Robert Pape]

I certainly think that that's right. So there's a lot. Once you have so many actors, as you're pointing out, you have so many ways in which these escalation traps can continue. That's why I'm trying to identify. And there's not many good off ramps here, but what I'm trying to do is identify what would be the key thing that could truly help, and that is if the Europeans would decide among themselves and make it a public decision that this is the line they're willing to support when they give money to. For X, Y or Z. It is to support the line freezing the conflict at the line of contact, getting an armistice. It doesn't. We still don't have an official peace treaty for the Korean War. We have an armistice. That is what I think the model should be, and I think it should be front and center. And if they're not doing it, I think the reporters should be constantly asking why not? And why are you just letting Zelensky drag the world, Europe and others and us, deeper into an escalation trap? That's the way I would put it. We say that with Israel. Why aren't we saying that here?

[Show Host Natalie]

Yeah, that's a great point. Yeah. Zelinsky. Well, you had Representative Luna last week saying, make peace now, you fool. To Zelinsky, you're the one holding up this peace program. So there are some people who are pretty vocal about it. But.

[Professor Robert Pape]

And I'm telling you that I just like. We didn't let the South Koreans dictate everything here. We need to decide what is in our own interest. What. What's in the European interest. And look, we may agree, we may come to believe, you may persuade me that we want all of the territory back and it's worth fighting another. You know, half million dead to get. I don't believe that but I think we should be talking about that. Where exactly are we going to settle? And I think for the west it's pretty clear that we want a new iron Curtain. I said this back basically in foreign affairs is in the fall of 2022. Sorry to keep, but I actually laid out we should have a new iron Curtain and just freeze it there. And we're just not willing to say these words. I don't, it's, to me it's, it's baffling.

[Show Host Natalie]

Yes, well, stay right there. We want to talk about Iran and of course the escalation trap that is unfolding. New attacks overnight on the from Iran on multiple targets across the Middle East. So Professor Pape, stay right there. We're going to come back to talk about that.

[Clayton]

But first, first I want to tell you about our friends at NetSuite because every business is asking the same question right now. How do we make AI work? For us, the possibilities are endless. But guessing is risky and sitting on the sidelines is not an option anymore because your competitors are already making their move. That's why businesses are turning to NetSuite by Oracle. NetSuite is the number one AI cloud, ERP trusted by more than 43,000 businesses. It brings your financials, inventory, commerce, HR and CRM all into one platform, creating a single unified source of truth for your entire business. And that's what makes AI really truly useful. Instead of guessing, it knows NetSuite can intelligently automate routine tasks, deliver actionable insights, help cut costs and empower you to make faster AI driven decisions with confidence. That's what we like is that it's not just some bolt on AI tool. It's built in directly into the system. So whether you're in software, healthcare, manufacturing or any number of other industries, NetSuite can customize to fit your needs. If you're running a seven figure business and looking into putting AI to work without the guesswork, this is where you should start. If your revenue again is at least in the seven figures figures, get your free guide called Demystifying AI right now at netsuite.com redacted. Download the free guide today one more time. That's netsuite.com redacted. Netsuite.com redacted.

[Show Host Natalie]

Well, overnight Iran launched a series of devastating attacks on Gulf countries. Iran is targeting US bases in multiple countries, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq following US attacks on Kashm Island. By the way, Iran said that they were going to retaliate Last week and they did. But according to us, CENTCOM says that every Iranian missile was stopped in its tracks. In other words, shot down and then daylight hit and suddenly shocker, oh, CENTCOM was lying to us. Iranian missiles struck targets all over the region and video are now emerging as a result of that. Here's Kuwait. International Airport and they're, there are some daylight photos that have also emerged as well, which you can see. And so then once we get satellite imagery, according to Egypt's intel observer, fresh satellite imagery confirms the destruction of drone aircraft shelters located within the air base in Kuwait following this Iranian missile strike. So CENTCOM stopped all of the missiles. Okay. According to Max Blumenthal, friend of the show over the gray zone said Iran is targeting the these bases. Iran seems to have recognized that deterrence can only be established by forcing the US Regime, the mafia co opted by Greater Israel to recognize every terrorist action has a cost. Meanwhile, we are seeing obviously a worsening economy in the United States and you can draw a direct line between the start of the Iranian war and rising interest rates, rising gas prices, rising food costs all across the United States, according to a new study this morning. New data this morning. Most voters believe the US Economy has gotten worse since last year. But they're divided over which party can do a better job of handling it. Here's a, here's a little insight. They're both in on this together. They both love war. Both of these parties are massively corrupt and they both of course want this war and they'll do whatever they can to support the military industrial complex. Professor Robert Pape is back with us, author of the Escalation Trap. And what he writes about, of course on his substack is exactly what we're seeing here. So professor, maybe you can analyze for us where we sit right now. Iran seems to be done with any sort of negotiations at this point. They're not playing, according to sources in Iran saying we're not playing this tit for tat anymore and we're going to carry out these attacks on our own terms. We're not waiting for Trump to come back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. We're done. What do you make of that?

[Professor Robert Pape]

What I think is that Iran recognizes that the more the war has gone on, the more leverage is going to its side. And it's playing that that hand is strongly as I think we could, we could imagine. It's not succumbing, it's not buckling. This idea that because of X, Y or Z, economic costs on the Iranian economy because of the blockade. The whole house of cards is coming unglued and the regime is about to topple and be coerced. There is no signs of this, and there's no reason to think that that's going to happen. And in fact, what's happening is we're underestimating how much more this is going to escalate. You run into this to. The segment here really covers the core issues here. We are essentially now, in the last few weeks, been bombing while negotiating. So the last night was not the first set of tit for tat attacks. This has been going on for a while. Both sides have been doing what I call demonstration attacks here. These are kind of attacks to show resolve that they're not going to be cowed or moved in the negotiations. They also want to sort of send a little demonstration to their other audiences, domestic and international, that they're not buckling. But now what you see is that they're escalating. It's really, I think, quite sad and counterproductive for CENTCOM to be putting out essentially victory rhetoric when this is going to be easily discovered here. And you just showed it within hours, you're able to show that that was not the case. And what that does is it disillusions supporters on their own side here. So they might think putting out this rhetoric is a good idea, but over time, it tends to be counterproductive, even. Even for their own supporters, because people just see it with their own. With, with their own eyes, I'm sorry to say. But I'm expecting there will be more escalation as, as time goes on, and specifically even for what happened against Kuwait. Because the idea that you're going to let these videos get out, you're gonna see all that damage and the United States is just gonna sit on its hands. Well, President Trump looks weak, and we know President Trump does not like to look.

[Clayton]

Right. This was my thought, too. Is. Isn't there a consequence to putting out lies like this? You can just say, nope, nope, that didn't happen. Absolutely not. Some people will buy it and be like, oh, okay, that's the official government line. But the rest of them will just start to realize they're lying and they keep lying. And is there any consequence for them to be lying to us with our own money that they're operating? I just can't get over it.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Yes, it builds it. This is one of the problems we had in Vietnam here. It's a little bit like a bubble in the stock market where it seems as if you can go for quite some time. But the problem is you have the, basically people are just kind of mouthing the words of, of, of support, knowing that these, there's, there's a hollowness to it. And what that does is it builds up over time. And this is what we've seen in other conflicts. And it really then helps create some, a moment of bursting of balloons. So the danger here is not so much that President Trump will go down in the approval ratings like on a day by day basis. So if you're looking for, oh, we're going to track this in the White House and what is, how is this rhetoric tracking for President Trump on a day by day basis? The bigger problem is, and we saw this in Vietnam when the bad guys, the Viet Cong did this thing, this offensive called the Tet Offensive, is they did something more specific, spectacular, which put a lie to the Pentagon's pr. And that created a bursting of a balloon moment at a certain point in the war. And that is when you couldn't stop the, it was like a bursting of a dam. So that's more the risk here. And that's maybe why they don't quite see it, because they're probably tracking his, his PR teams, that's the White House communications are probably tracking his, his support on all these polls day by day by day. But what they probably can't see coming is the balloon that could possibly burst.

[Show Host Natalie]

What does this escalation look like financially for the American people? And then of course, militarily for the United States military. We saw, of course, over the past few days, there seems to be pretty high tensions between President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. That phone call leaked maybe intentionally, it seems probably intentionally to show that I called him crazy. I called Netanyahu crazy. What the hell are you doing in Lebanon? You'd be in jail if it wasn't for me. And then people thought maybe this phone call was fake. Then Trump confirmed it in an interview to the New York Post. Yes, I did say those things. So this seems like it was intentional to get out there.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Well, yeah. Well, first of all, a lot of what President Trump says, he's not hiding, he tells you a lot of what he thinks. So the second thing I would say is that I think this is pretty, pretty strong evidence. He knows he's in an escalation trap. He's doing his best to wiggle out of the trap. He's doing everything. I think he's trying to do it quickly, which is a problem because I don't think that's possible, but nonetheless, that's what he's trying to do. And Netanyahu is just getting in his way. And Netanyahu is the one who suckered him into this in the first place. He probably this was not a good thing to have done. He keeps saying it is, but we, I think, realize it's not. And so Netanyahu was a big part of the reason he did it. So no wonder he's blowing up at Netanyahu.

[Clayton]

And so you've been reporting about the oil shortage and how that is going to have a cascading effect on our economy, our ability to buy supplies, our ability to use the US Dollar as it continues to be devalued. It seems like voters understand that A new poll from Rasmutin. Rasputin. Rasmussen. Rasmussen, sorry, Rasputin. Was Rasputin different, a different thing altogether says that 58% of Americans say the economy's gotten worse and they don't expect it to get any better. And so I guess we need to just continue to plan for what is the inevitable. Can you play that out for us?

[Professor Robert Pape]

Yes, well, and so this comes from my study of blockades and so forth, and we're going through a stance of a process here that I have laid out on the sub stacks. And we're now in the stage. Oh, I'm sorry, there's. We're now in the stage where we haven't quite gotten to the contraction of actual economic activity yet. That is, that is coming, but we're in the shortage stage. And that's where the inventories are being drawn down. And the more and more as time goes on, this unfortunately is going to start to create something of panic because it's the inventories are not going to last forever. And in fact, you can see them running out sometime in the middle of July, which means much like the, the crises we've had in fact, in the past say that, you know, the no doc crisis with the housing. There will come a point here where everybody realizes this is actually going to be a crisis. And when everybody realizes it all at the same time, that's the really dangerous point. And that could well come here. I'm expecting something like that in June, before June is over. But we know that those inventories are running out by the middle of, by the middle of July. And that is going to be the real problem because it would take months and months and months here of time before you could ever recover from those inventories being drawn down that far. So this is a known Risk the financial folks here, like Exxon, others, you're hearing the very people right on the top of it are starting to talk about it. I think a lot of people just don't want to talk about it yet because much like the no dot crisis crisis here that, that we saw in fall 2007, people kept saying, yeah, it's happening, but it's going to get better. We'll wiggle our way out of it. Well, we didn't wiggle our way out of that one, and I don't see how we're wiggling out of this one here. And if somebody has a way to refill those inventories, just let us know.

[Show Host Natalie]

I know what you hear.

[Clayton]

I'm sorry. The president posted it on social media. It's all going to be okay in the end. That's not strategy. That's like, what is the end? Are we all dead in the end?

[Professor Robert Pape]

That's right.

[Clayton]

Probably the least comforting thing.

[Professor Robert Pape]

But again, this is. This. I, you know, I guess I've lived through a number of these. I went. And the reason I liken it to that, that no dot crisis is I clearly remember in August of 2007, almost identical rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration here. And then, then by October, it really, it didn't matter because there was a wall that was hit. And so you have a story here, which is people are saying, not a problem. We had plenty of issues. It's like when we say, oh, the junk bonds weren't all that big a deal in August 2007. And then suddenly they are a big deal, because you know what? They are a big deal. So it's just not true. And if there's a real solution, let's start to hear them as opposed to, don't worry, there's not a problem.

[Show Host Natalie]

Yeah, I don't understand. I mean, I can't wrap my head around. I've heard not just from you, but other experts we've had on the show that are predicting right around the 250th anniversary of the country by July 4th. Forgive my French, Lafayette, but that's when the shit's gonna hit the fan. Right around our 250th anniversary. And you're hearing from, you mentioned Exxon, you mentioned these other CEOs. They're telling us we're approaching tank bottoms. We've tapped out our strategic petroleum reserves or dwindled them down. Like, where is this magic oil going to come from?

[Professor Robert Pape]

Well, and so some of the argument that you're hearing here that just to put it on the other side they're saying, well, that's all true, but it'll really hurt us more in August than in early July. Okay. And there is truth to that. Okay. So don't think that sequencing is. It's true. But where the problem here is that when those oil inventories draw down the places, and that's true globally, the places that will get hurt the worst will be the poorest countries first. And they're already starting to suffer. Now, they will get the hurt the most here because they have less money to pay for what's remaining. However, we're also going to be facing the consequences, not just running out the price of diesel going up. It's as the rest of the world, like say the textile. Most of the clothes in the United States are not made in the United States. They're made around the world in very poor countries. Once they run out, once they start to contract here, that's going to shoot up the prices here for things like clothing, things that we're not even talking about right now. So these issues here have knock on effects that are known. We know they're coming. We can almost lay out the sequence, you know, pretty clearly here about how this time bomb unfolds. The problem is we're not hearing the solutions on the other side. The big solutions that I, that people send me and my substack here is, well, we're going to end the war. President Trump will just end the war and this is all going to be over because he said the war is going to be over. Well, that's been going on for three months.

[Show Host Natalie]

Right, Right. And there doesn't seem to be an end to it at all.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Well, it's not real. I mean, I'm just saying if there's a reality here, this is the problem. Remember how I used to talk about victory rhetoric meets escalation reality? Well, we're seeing the same sort of thing here. And the problem is you can only run the rhetoric so far. However, I just want to point out other administrations have done very similar things. You'll recognize, recall I just talked about the Bush administration, the no doc crisis. Your work called Biden kept trying to tell you there's not really an inflation problem. I mean, we actually see this all the time, but it doesn't actually stop the problem.

[Show Host Natalie]

Right. Professor Robert Pape, you got to follow his substack, the escalation trap and look for that big report that he's working on later this afternoon. Professor, great to have you on the show.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Thank you for your time.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate all the depth you get and the fact you talked about Ukraine. Oh, my gosh. Goodness gracious.

[Show Host Natalie]

Yeah, absolutely. One of the most important, important points in the world right now. Professor, great to see you. Thank you so much.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Yeah, thank you very much.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

All right.

[Clayton]

I mean, that war is still making Europeans lives absolutely miserable. They're paying $10 a gallon in Portugal right now. $10 a gallon based on this war now compounded by the war in Iran. So, yeah, we can't get tired of it. We can't look away. And especially if there's now nuclear threats.

[Show Host Natalie]

Well, they just sent 90 billion. I mean, the, the EU, you know, 90, bill, where, where can Europeans afford this? I mean, how can they afford to send $90 billion so that they can get gripen fighter jets from Sweden?

[Clayton]

Oh, it's awful.

[Show Host Natalie]

I mean, are they out of their minds? Yeah, they're, they're literally demonic out of their minds over there.

[Guest or Contributor]

I just want this, I want this ability. I want this. I just want to be able to say, like, my income is, I got $2 billion now. Bam, there we go. I'm just going to go, I'm just going to go buy an island.

[Show Host Natalie]

Like, I don't, you know, Ivanka and.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Yeah.

[Show Host Natalie]

You and Kushner.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Yeah.

[Show Host Natalie]

By your Albanian island together. All right, we got more news to get to coming up here on the show. We're going to talk about this Bill Cosby story. You know, the mainstream media has really spun a story about this. And I think most people kind of walking through their afternoon, if you ask them about Bill Cosby, they'd all say, oh, I heard he's a rapist.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Really?

[Show Host Natalie]

We're going to challenge, we're going to challenge that mainstream cnn.

[Clayton]

Now, before you go to the chat and say, what is this celebrity news? No, it's not. We're asking if this is lawfare in the same way that President Trump was a victim of lawfare and why some people and not others. So stick around. Don't give me that celebrity news.

[Professor Robert Pape]

I wanna know who.

[Clayton]

That's not what this is.

[Show Host Natalie]

No, no. And who's behind it. Like, that's, to me, when you see a big story like this, you need to ask yourself, like, what's the big money machine behind this?

[Clayton]

They changed the law to go after Bill Cosby for something that was alleged in 1972. Don't you think that's kinda weird? And if they can do that to Bill Cosby, can they do do that to you? I just think that The. There's some scary questions to ask here. I'm not going to make the case whether or not Bill Cosby was or was not guilty of certain things, but I do want to ask questions that poke holes in that narrative, and I'm going to do it.

[Show Host Natalie]

All right, buckle up for that. We're going to talk about that first. So get your jello pudding pops. Oh, yeah, we'll talk about that in a second. But first, how long have you been shopping looking for, like, a great shirt out there, maybe trying to find one that fits and feels comfortable, and you probably just can't ever do it. You walk through the mall and you're like, none of these places, they're all. They shrink too much. They don't fit right. I'm telling you, my favorite shirts that I have ever worn are from Mizzen and Maine. And I didn't even know about them until they started sponsoring the show a few years ago. And they sent me a shirt to try, and I was like, holy smokes, this is the best shirt. And I worked at Fox News, where I had shirts galore with ties and suits and all that kind of crazy. I hated wearing it. They were so uncomfortable. It felt like wearing a suit, straight jacket on a regular basis. These are the most comfortable shirts I've ever worn. And by the way, if they weren't sponsoring the show, I would say the same exact thing, because I wear it all the damn time. So these are the most. These shirt. These dress shirts look polished. They feel incredibly comfortable. They. They are the ones that invented the performance fabric, meaning you can pop it right out of the dryer and you don't have to iron the darn thing. They breathe. They sort of bend to your body and. And they just are so stinking comfortable. I just. I wore it the other day, and I wore it on. On Easter Sunday. It was one of my. Part of my. Part of my outfit, wearing my nice mizzen and mane shirt. And now I buy stuff from them. So they were kind enough to send me a shirt to try out. And now I actually buy my own stuff from Misen and Main. Big fans of these guys. They make classic menswear with performance fabric so you can look sharp, feel great all day long with no compromises. And you can. There's a few missing and main stores out there if you just want to go into the store. But I highly recommend, hey, it's Father's Day is coming up here. You want to grab some nice pants, Grab a nice shirt for your father. The man in your life who takes great care of you, go to their website, mizzen and main.com and use the promo code redacted20 and you're going to get 20% off your first purchase. I will eat my own shirt if you try one of these and you're like, clayton, that wasn't comfortable. I would be absolutely shocked if you, if you said that because these are the most comfortable shirts I've ever worn. And I've worn suits my whole stinking life and shirts my whole life that, like, feel like constrictive straight jackets. And these are the exact opposite. I'm telling you. Hand of the heavens. M I Z z e n main.commizzen and maine.com promo code redacted 20 to get 20% off. And if you'd rather shop in person, find a Mizzen and Main store in selected states.

[Clayton]

All right, before we get started on this next one, I just want to ask how many of you believe the official narrative about Bill Cosby, that he was a rapist? Just say yes or no. Yes, I believe it or no. I have questions. I just want to. I just want to.

[Show Host Natalie]

Yeah.

[Clayton]

In the chat, I want to gauge who. Yeah. The discussion.

[Show Host Natalie]

We've got nearly 20,000 of you watching across all our platforms. So, you know, the chat room, maybe we can. A lot of people say yes. Yes.

[Clayton]

David, can we put a poll up? Yes, you believe it or never cared. Okay, you're going to care in a second.

[Show Host Natalie]

Someone says never cared. Someone says serial rapist. Others said he was framed.

[Clayton]

Let me tell you. Okay, you. I don't care. People, hold on through this segment and then tell me later if you still don't care. I'm just. I'm just curious. Okay, well, here we go. Bill Cosby has been denied a retrial in his California case, case against him by a woman who claimed sexual abuse after Cosby, she says, gave her a glass of wine and then a pill that she says she thought was aspirin, but it lowered her inhibitions, and they had a sexual encounter. This allegedly happened in 1972. Now, Cosby has been accused by several women of sexual abuse, but the story is always the same. They took some pills. It lowered her inhibition. She didn't mean for that to have happened. And then she claims rape. Now, he says that every encounter was consensual and that the women knew, hey, we're going to take some stuff. We're going to have a wild night. He has steadfastly maintained his innocence to his own detriment. In his criminal trial, he refused to admit wrongdoing and refused to take sexual abuse classes, and they denied him parole because of it. He said he would rather serve jail time than do anything that would admit to guilt. Now, the criminal trial is separate from this. That was overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but now he's been found liable in a civil case in Los Angeles. Now, regardless of what you believe about Bill Cosby, this raises legal questions that could affect everyone. Because if lawmakers can revive decades old claims after the statute of limitations has expired, what exactly is the purpose of the statute of limitations? Do lawmakers do this specifically to prosecute certain people? They did change the laws in New York so that they could prosecute President Trump. Now, did they do this for Bill Cosby, in which case that is not equal justice under the law. That is lawfare. Can laws be changed just because there's public pressure that demands it? Now, Cosby's case also raises an interesting question about consent. But because can impairment alone negate meaningful consent even when there is no allegation of force or violence? And if so, what is the line? How impaired can a person be? We're talking about pills here. But would that, say, extend to a different substance? Let's say you buy a woman a drink that lowers her inhibitions and she eventually has sex with you and then says, actually, I didn't mean that. That was the wine talking. How do courts now distinguish between criminal conduct and behavior that while regrettable or perhaps irresponsible, has been long considered a part of ordinary adult courtship? Is this rape by seduction? These are uncomfortable questions, but they increasingly sit at the center of modern law and they extend far beyond the celebrity of Bill Cosby. So I have invited Lionel to join us. He's from The Lionel Nation YouTube channel. And we're gonna hold on to see what Lionel has to say.

[Show Host Natalie]

Well, and constitutional expert and former prosecutor. Yes, Lionel. Not just random Lionel, Right?

[Clayton]

Yes. Okay, Lionel. First, let's start with the statute of limitations. Because these allegations date back to the 70s, they would have been time barred under the law, but it was extended. So California then passed this Assembly Assembly Bill 2777 went into effect on January 1st of 2023. And then here comes the case against Bill Cosby. It's a three year window in which you can sue back dated. It's difficult not to feel like this was put into place to allow high profile allegations. How do you see it?

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

First of all, what, what, what lower inhibitions? The hell are you? I think somebody slipped. You Something lower. These women were knocked out. Did you ever hear, first of all, isn't it funny that whenever I'm on your show, it's always about some kind of deviancy? It's always upset Diddy or whatever it is. Okay, in that case, there's one thing. Let me tell you how this started. Do you know where this Bill Cosby thing came from? Initially, there was a comedian named Hannibal Burris. 2014, everybody was talking about Bill Cosby being a serial predator. Everybody in the business, women. It was during the time of the old days of the Playboy Club, when they would do things like, oh, I don't know. Oh, oh, slip. Emma, Mickey. Remember that one? A Mickey Finn. This was like the days of Hugh Hefner. It was a different time period. Lowering inhibition is having a Chablis giving somebody a roofie or some kind of a drug. That was a roofie, then that knocks them out. This is a different story. So what if they knew?

[Clayton]

Because several women have said, yeah, I did Quaaludes with Bell Cosby. That was the party. That's what it was. Prove that they didn't know.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Well, here's the thing. First of all, remember, this is finished as one thing. It was a comedian in 2014. It wasn't the police. Women had gone to the police for years to say, do something. No, no. You want to talk about lawfare, let's talk about Lawfare in reverse. You never hear about that. Somebody who's not brought to justice, somebody who's not the Epstein Files. That still isn't brought. That's Reverse Law Affair. So people knew about this. So it took this comedian to bring this up, and somehow somebody had their camera on and it went viral and that was it. And they have been talking about this for the longest time now. First and foremost, he was denied a new trial because of the trial judge. After the jury found him liable, they said, how about a new trial? The judge says, no appeal that which is pro forma. Everybody knows that this is civil, not criminal. Now, this type of this redo, if you will, this revamping of statute of limitations happened, believe it or not, at the behest of people who were themselves the victims of Catholic schools and Catholic priests and people who claimed to have been violated years ago, decades ago, and they couldn't bring a lawsuit because they were kids or the parents didn't want to cause any problems. That was really what started this here in New York. There were two particular extensions that dealt with that. It kind of caught on politically, not just to deal with famous people. Remember, just because you bring a lawsuit doesn't mean you're successful. I'll explain that in a moment. So the idea was that it's also, by the way, one more thing. If, if minors, a kid, for example, has some type of, let's say, medical malpractice committed against the child later on, and the parents elect not to sue because they like the doctor or knew the doctor, they will toll the statute in order to allow the statute to be extended so that later on they can bring it after they hit the age of 18. So statutes of limitations can be moved around when the event occurs, when you become aware of it. So believe it or not, it's. There's been a lot of. It's kind of like an Overton window kind of a thing where, where it can again, move. So it's not that. That out of the ordinary. The question you're asking is the jury decides this. If a juror, if a woman were to say, I had a drink or we smoked a joint or I did something to loosen up. If a jury thinks for some reason or another that that removes her ability to consent, that it is sexual battery, I think that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about cases where somebody wakes up. In this particular case, she wakes up and she finds herself. She's nude, but she has underwear on. She knows something happened. And later on, if you said, well, you know, you consented. Consented to what? Consent. The moment it is either withdrawn or the moment it is deemed by the trier of fact, a jury, a judge, not to have been able to be given. Remember, children cannot consent. But as far as an adult goes, in what started off as a seemingly consensual sexual case, that's a jury issue. And they're going to have to hear the facts of the case. They're going to hear about how a woman, what were the particular cases, she went to a doctor, she had abrasions, trauma, what have you, doesn't remember it, confronted him, he said something. From a practical point of view, how do you even go about this 50 years before saying this is what happened? I am torn between giving people justice, but I understand the due process considerations of somebody who has got to put together a case that's 50 years old. Remember, in murder cases, you know how we have all these cold cases, these cold murder cases, which sound terrific, There are some people who are 80 years old who are still alive, who can't help in their own defense. They're almost incapacitated. They're almost, they're also, they're almost incompetent. So I've got a real problem with this. The statute of limitation is for finality. We can have things open ended. Certain cases, murder in particular, there is none but the facts of the case here as far as why would somebody sue Bill Cosby? For the money.

[Clayton]

Well, for the money.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

So there's nothing new about that. That's why people brought. You don't know how many of those Epstein cases were satisfactorily settled. You don't hear anything about this at all. But if you go through the particular cases, some of these were harrowing. You know, it's one thing for somebody to be loosened up, but you bring up a good question. Let me give you one example of the worst. You're not going to believe this ever happened. There is a famous case, I believe it was California, interestingly enough to show you how, how weird the consenting is. A couple, adult, young boyfriend, girlfriend, had sex before. They weren't strangers, they were having sex. And she said, I have to go.

[Show Host Natalie]

Okay.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

He thought that meant I don't want some family show here. Hurry up, you know, complete the process, so to speak. She did. No problem. Later on, a prosecutor was able to convince a jury that that meant I am withdrawing consent. Stop. I have to go now. To me, that's reasonable doubt. I know this is civil, but that they convicted this guy, it's a very scary thing. And I want everybody listening, especially now when we're in a litigation more litigious than ever. Especially after men in particular. Beware that. Oh, and if you're a celebrity, you're going to have NDA signed, you're going to, you're going to have a witness, you're going have to have a post event review. I'm not kidding you. But, but Natalie, you bring up a good question. What if somebody, what if we're having a drink and I start off, but all of a sudden I, or let's say somebody else is really out of passes out. They've passed out at their own hand. Not because of roofing, not hypnol or some barbiturate. They passed out because maybe they were tired, maybe they were drunk and they complete the act. Is that, is that sexual batteries and rape per se? Technically speaking? Yeah.

[Clayton]

Yeah, yeah.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

So the thing is, if you start and you have now lowering, lowering your, your tolerance or lowering your ability to object, that's a different story. By analogy, DWI cases, a lot of times in most states they say if you're under the influence to the extent your normal faculties are impaired. When juries are asked, what does this mean? Impaired? Drunk? Intoxicated? No, impaired. The slightest amount of impairment under most states makes you liable for dui. So in this case, what you're bringing up, and I agree this is scary stuff, because consent, sexual battery is really the only time when two people could theoretically engage in something. Robbery doesn't work like that. You know, burglary. Nothing else does. Where we start off with something consensual. And then at some point, somebody decides, I don't know about this either. They can't make the statement, they've changed their mind. And it's really scary. If you can convince a jury and if they can listen to this and listen to the woman, listen to her testimony. How do you remember these things? Did you call anybody at that time? Did you keep a diary? Every case is different. The fact that it went all that way and the fact that he's famous. Look, sometimes fame can actually work in your benefit. So we don't know. We weren't there, obviously. But let me tell you something. To ask your original question. Do I think that in all of the cases, he was just the victim of his fame? Absolutely not. Now, remember, I'm using things like anecdotal evidence, reputation, what other people have said, you know, that. And that's kind of dangerous. This is a court of public opinion. But as far as him just, you know, I can't believe it. They keep bringing me into court. They keep saying I did this. I don't know why. Maybe it's my fame.

[Clayton]

Well, then why have so many other famous people with reputations like this? And I'm not. I'm not excusing it, but we've had stories of, let's say, Frank Sinatra giving people, you know, drugs in order to have these wild nights. The same with David Bowie, Mick Jagger, Gene Simmons. But they don't get this same, you know, move the statue and get. So I guess I'm saying I don't know how much this was a part of a partying culture. And it was. It would have been wrong across the board. But is there. You know what I'm saying? I'm getting at it now.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

You bring up something. You bring up something which is very, very interesting. And today. A lot of people today are very. They're absolutist. It's wrong. I don't care what it was. Then what are you gonna bring up? Caligula? You're gonna bring up a Roman? Or. It's Like. No, no, no, we're not gonna bring up that. But, but, but you make a very good point though. There used to be a thing. Slip him a Mickey. The Mickey Finn. It was. If you knew half of this stuff that was going on at the Playboy Club, at the Mansion, it. It'll. It'll make your hair curl. So I don't know. I do think though that, believe it or not, in terms of what is expected. Let me go a step further. Why would somebody not want to sue Frank Sinatra? Oh, I don't know. There was some allegation. Some have to. Perhaps he might have been mob connected, they might have said this might not be a good idea, maybe or what. Also, if you word to bring in. Remember the days of. And this is for the youngsters out there, groupies. Remember sweet, sweet Connie. The plaster casters and women who made their names, they were, they were notorious. You knew that when you go backstage, if it was Led Zeppelin, remember the film. I'm gonna go through this. But the. But the argument, you're almost like you're walking into a different territory here. Not that it excuses it, but you had to have gone in here knowing a little something. Not that, not that that you know, allows this, but you have to wonder sometimes, did you. Were you surprised by this? Your consent or your claim of not being able to consent? You have to take into, as you say, a little bit about. Of the tie, a little bit of the zeitgeist, you know, the way things work, the epic, the way people reacted, what people knew, what people expected. It's a very. This is why I'm telling you, I

[Clayton]

want to interject there. One of the victims went to his house at 2am so you're not going there for an up and up Catholic picnic or a pudding.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

But remember though, you're not going there. And see, this is so funny. And you realize how you are being accused of betraying your gender. That's right, blame the victim. Right? But what you're saying is simply this. They would say to you, I didn't go there at two in the morning to be anesthetized, right? That's not why I went. This isn't a walk in clinic, you know, it's just like when you have. I've got a friend of mine, this guy, he left his car open and they stole his wallet. And I'm saying, what the hell's the matter with you? He says, what? Doesn't excuse it. I said, no, it doesn't excuse it. But you left your car unlocked. You know you want you sometimes. And I know people don't do this, but look at the Diddy case. I don't want to bring that up again. Do you know how many people would have been able to testify? All of the. Of the bouncers and the people who. Women who were trying to pay money to get in. And one more thing. What do you think there was about Clayton? About 150, I don't know, let's say total professional teams, MLB, NFL, who knows, 200. Do you know the women who go out and try to find where the

[Show Host Natalie]

team stays, where the hotels. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Hotels are the concierge. Now, if somebody goes in, just as in Diddy, and they were. I mean nobody dragged him and pulled him in, you've got to ask yourself, do you know what you're doing? You're walking into a room of. So you have to ask. It doesn't excuse it. But you are at least to use this other thing. You're contributorily negligent, you know, if you accepted, God forbid to accept an invitation to a Hell's Angels party. I'm just saying I'm trying to think of. With all due respect to the Hell's Angels, but what I'm saying is you got to ask yourself sometimes what are you doing every. If Bill Cosby look at Weinstein, how many of the women went to his house room at 2 in the morning? I mean, you got to ask yourself, do you think he wants to go for contract negotiation? Not only that. Do you know this is Harvey Weinstein? And I'll bet you anything that Bill Cosby's reputation then was even more well known than it is now. I mean, all you have to do, it takes a couple of minutes. Like, have you heard about Bill? You're going to Bill Cosby's room. Good luck. Take Summer next tonight, you know, 99. There had to have been some reference. Now, again, that doesn't excuse it. But you. But, but a jury apparently Natalie heard this and said, you know what? Doesn't matter. He's liable. And it's a very low burden. It's not like reasonable doubt. That seesaw. You know, this is just a little bit. Is it more likely. Not that he did this. And the thing is, there does come a point, though, when you're putting on this case. I would have during cross examination say, how do you remember this? Remember the E. Jean Carroll case, supposedly with Trump? Remember that when she would say things like how do you remember this? How do I remember? Because I called my friend up and I called her the phone, and she told me this, and I was wearing this. And that jury listened to her and said, I believe it. Even. Even though the facts of the case that this occurred at a Bergdorf Goodman swat, still, that jury heard this. And for whatever reason. And I just mean, this may come as a shock to you, but sometimes juries find people guilty not because of the fact, but they think, I ain't that son of a person. Who does he. Bill Cosby. I heard it. Look at you, smug. Who knows that that plays a role? I'm not saying that's the only reason. But unless you're there and unless you see this woman testify and you say, how do you remember? How do I remember? Does a grandmother remember when her son was born? Do you remember catastrophic or cataclysmic or major events of your life? There are people walking around with PTSD from World War I who were in their 90s. They remember like it was yesterday. See where we're going with this? And the jury will say, that's good enough for me. And not only that, I went to the police, theoretically, and they tried, and they said, tweet, you can't do this against Bill Cosby. What, are you crazy? And then finally, thankfully, they opened this up. So unless you're there, unless you hear this or sometimes you could say, I don't believe a word of this. And Bill Cosby, how he handled this, I have no earthly idea. I don't know about his demeanor. I don't know what his defense was. I don't know what your defense was. Quick. Clayton, Last A. Tuesday, March 3, 1983. What were you doing? Just a minute.

[Show Host Natalie]

Let me check my diary. Yeah, I don't know. Probably playing with Transformers or GI Joe in the backyard in the dirt, but I don't know. I can't be sure.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Or you're going to say who are you again, and you don't want to sound like a cad, but you say to who are you again? Yes. Don't you remember her? No, I don't.

[Clayton]

Yeah, 1970 is the answer.

[Show Host Natalie]

I just picked 83.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

But, I mean, this is 54. So what do you do? Do you have receipts? Did you remember somebody? How did you remember that? Now, it's another thing. When you go to the emergency room, when you talk to somebody at the time, when you. When you kept records. Again, this is a factual basis, but it goes to show you there is no. There is no. How do I say this? There's no crime or potential crime that starts off where two People theoretically could have engaged in something, and then. And then it became a crime. Like we don't. Like, for example. I never. We never said, okay, Natalie, let's you and I pretend we're robbing each other. Okay. You stop pretending. And I'm saying, no, no, I'm going to start. I'm going to go through with it. No, no, we were kidding. I can't think of anything. DUI is, by the way, the only offense where you never went out and thought about doing it. It was an accident. You never said, I'm going to go out. I'm going to drink and drive. That's a close second. This is a weird one, but again, this is civil. Civil. Is it more likely than not, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that Bill cosby did this 52 years. Is it more likely than not? What kind of burden is that? It's more likely than not that Clayton played the center for the. For the Harlem Globetrotters. Then not. What does that even mean? I don't even know what that means more. But that's the burden. That's the reality.

[Clayton]

Yeah. And also, you know, there's this idea as a woman that, like, oh, well, you had too much to drink. It wasn't on you. You know, you accepted a pill from someone. You weren't entirely sure what it was. You were the victim there. Right. So what would you tell your kids? Do not take pills when you're out from people. Do not incapacitate yourself.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

This, and especially now on the Internet, anything you're taking with fentanyl. But. But also, the thing is, you could say it's a different. It's one thing for you to react negatively to a pill you took.

[Clayton]

Yeah.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Another thing for you to say is like, well, that's not what I thought I was taking. He gave me something else. Or who. Who knows? But now, here's another thing. I'm surprised. This is another last point.

[Clayton]

But again, I just want to point out this teeters on the brink of. Some women said, yeah, I knew I was taking Quaaludes. That was the party. That's what. And he. He always said so. And then there are some said. I actually didn't know. We cannot know that. That's unknowable. For you and me, it's unknowable.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

There are some women who are so. I don't want to say they're of a different makeup. They'll say, well, that was my fault. What are you gonna do? Live and learn. Others will be devastated for life. Who knows? But but you. You get into this, this really very strange thing about. And that's the notion of where all of this comes from in terms of consent and the like. And more importantly, we're gonna have to be asking ourselves from now on. Oh, before I forget, what's even scarier?

[Professor Robert Pape]

Men.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Men. Because let's face it, men, we're talking about, for the most part, if they're having a hard time with us with this, and they say, you know what? Don't worry, I don't remember this. Well, don't worry about this, because I've got five other women that he did this to. And we're going to bring them in as similar fact evidence. They did this to Harvey Weinstein, and they're going to come in and they're going to tell the jury how they were sexually attacked via this same MO. Exactly. So don't worry. Now you're going to say, wait a minute, who are these women? So Bill Cosby said, wait, I got five other women. We're not charging you with them. They're just adding to this. They're showing that your behavior that night was similar to the behavior you showed against them. That's the worst of the worst, because now you're bringing in people and you're slipping in new victims that you haven't charged.

[Clayton]

Yes.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

What. That's. I. That's what I despised.

[Clayton]

And that happened to him in the Pennsylvania case. Yes.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Get him on what he did now.

[Clayton]

Yeah.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Not somebody who says, well, you know what? We may not have enough evidence of it now, but I've got about five other people. And by the way, it may not have been exactly that, but this dastard, this ne' er do well. And pretty soon then it's almost like having a. Not that you would ever do this, Natalie. I'm just saying. But sometimes when people argue, somebody will say, oh, yeah, okay, maybe don't forget what you did on Christmas. What the hell are we talking about Christmas for? Well, yeah, that's kind of what this is. You're bringing in something else. This is irrelevant. It's immaterial. Has nothing to do with this. Yeah, but this goes to show you that. So this, this is a very, very dangerous thing. By the way, look at, look at Harvey Weinstein. Ask yourself, why is this guy. Why are they even. How bad can this guy be? Epstein did a weekend and go ahead, you would thought Weinstein, he had it all locked up. He could have sold out everybody down the river. And did he? Did he still. Did he still. I don't Understand? So your question is this. What did he do? Who did he piss off?

[Clayton]

Yes, that's the question we cannot. Yeah, that we cannot answer. But I really appreciate your take on this because it's just not so easy to evaluate it in this way.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Do you feel like I made you feel a little bit more. Not that I expressed the confusion, but you feel a little bit more like, yeah, it kind of makes sense or. I didn't know that because nobody really explains this to anybody.

[Clayton]

Right. That's what I feel, is that the questions are valid, that's all. And that the media slam dunk case is not. So that's how I feel about it.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Absolutely. And why do some people appear Done with? And also, look at what Michael Jackson went through. Dear God. What? This guy with pictures of genitals. I don't remember anybody else. Again, you know, you don't want to compare sexual batterers or rapists, but I think we believe that there should be this continuity of treatment, this similarity. Everybody treated alike because. Or not treated at all.

[Clayton]

Yes, exactly. Well, thank you, Lionel. I really appreciate this chat.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Thank you. I'll see you next time when there's some other sordid, concupiscent, salacious, scabrous, vile form of defiling humanity and give me a call.

[Clayton]

I will, you know, I will have

[Show Host Natalie]

something that's nefarious like that or some.

[Clayton]

Yeah, yeah, Our favorite conversation was not illegal to be gross.

[Show Host Natalie]

Okay, thanks, Lionel.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

And don't forget to be careful of that Rasputin poll, too. That's my favorite. I like that. All right. All the best.

[Clayton]

All right, well, let us know what your thoughts are on that. Yeah, it's confusing. It's not a slam dunk narrative, and you should not buy it from the media.

[Guest or Contributor]

It reminds me of. There was a thought experiment that I did in college. I don't remember what class it was in, but where they, you know, like, I'll try to shorten it, but it's like this big, long scenario where they set up the stage of, like, this woman is arguing with her husband. Her husband's being a total, like, dick to her. So then she leaves, goes across town, has an affair. The guy she's having an affair with kicks her out. And so she has to walk to, like, a hotel. And it's like, you know, there's all these different things they said in there. Like, with this basically painting everybody in the scenario to be bad. It's like while she's walking to this hotel, somebody jumps out of a bush and kills her. And then they're like, who's at fault?

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

Right?

[Guest or Contributor]

And it's like, and for me, like, I'm such an absolutist, I guess, that I'm just like the person that stabbed her. That's it. Nobody else is at fault. But it's like the. But you do in this class. You'd hear people be like, well, the husband or the woman for having an affair and like that. You'd get into all of these different, like, motivations. And for me, it always boiled down to but. Yes, but without the guy stabbing her.

[Lionel (Constitutional Expert and Former Prosecutor)]

That you don't like that.

[Show Host Natalie]

It's just like alive.

[Guest or Contributor]

Yeah, exactly. And, and so it was, it was an interesting experiment because to me it was like I was, I was just shocked how many people in the class would blame one of the other people in the scenario and like, make an argument for it. And I was like, it just didn't make any sense to me.

[Show Host Natalie]

Or it's her fourth grade teacher for leading her astray, you know, down.

[Guest or Contributor]

Exactly.

[Show Host Natalie]

Yeah.

[Clayton]

Right. Yeah. All right, well, let us know your thoughts on that. Before we go today and wrap up, we want to tell you about our friends at Connect Invest. You know, it's always amazed me that banks take your money, pay you next to nothing, and then turn around and lend it at much higher rates. That's how the banking business works. But what if you could switch seats with the bank? Well, our friends at Connect Invest give you the opportunity to do that. They give accredited investors access to real estate backed investments earning up to 9% in fixed returns. Right now, if you start with $1,000 or more, you'll receive a $50 bonus. And what I like is the simplicity of it. These are real estate backed investments designed to generate monthly income income. No tenants, no repairs. No middle of the night phone calls because someone's water heater broke. This isn't Wall street speculation. It's a straightforward way to put your money to work in real estate while earning passive income. You can start with a thousand dollars and get your 50 bonus and learn how to earn more like the bank. You can learn this by going to redacted.inc./invest. You can start with as little as 500. Again. Figure out how this can work for you because savers are losers. If you're putting money in the bank, that's a losing game. So find a performing asset, keep up with. At least try to keep up with inflation. I mean, don't underestimate the government's ability to devalue the dollar. So you make sure you have assets instead of dollars again. Redacted.inc./invest. One more time, redacted.inc./invest.

[Show Host Natalie]

All right. That's going to do it for us here today at redacted. We really appreciate you joining us. Please subscribe to our daily [e-mail]. that's the place to go. And we will be back here tomorrow at 4pM Eastern time. We hope you have a wonderful evening. Thanks so much, guys.