June 14, 2025 • 22 mins
Today’s guest, Vladimir Gagic, is an independent nonpartisan political and legal commentator, former lawyer, and social media influencer found online at @ToxikVlad
In the second half of the show, we discuss the justification for the legal attacks on Trump and from Trump and examine the merits of the cases. We also discuss the powers of the judiciary in this country.
Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/civiccipher?utm_source=search
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Keep on riding with it, says. We continue to broadcast
the balance and defend the discourse from the Hip Hop
Weekly studios. Welcome back to Civic Sipher. I am your
host Rams's job. Big shout out to q Ward, who
is in Los Angeles right now for obvious reasons, and
we are going to get him back safe and sound
to the studio soon enough to share all that he
(00:20):
has learned out there. But in the meantime, we have
a special guest in the studio. He is the one
and only Vladimir Gajic. He's an independent, nonpartisan political and
legal commentator, a former lawyer, and social media influencer who
can be found online at Toxic Vlad that is t
xik v Lad. Thank you for sticking around for the
(00:42):
second half. First, thank you for having so stay tuned,
because we're going to be talking about some of the
things going on in the country insofar as the president
is concerned and the courts, so the executive branch versus
the judicial branch, and kind of where things live. Before
we move any further, it is time to Baba become
(01:02):
a better ally Baba. On today's Baba, we want you
to check out NBJC dot org again NBJC dot org.
Founded in two thousand and three, NBJC initially sought to
address specific sets of challenges facing the black community, the
erasure of black, queer, trans, and gender expansive people, and
a political push to define marriage in ways that deny
(01:24):
black LGBTQ plus slash SGL people recognition and access to economic, social,
and political rights. Having faithfully and successfully fulfilled its original purpose,
NBJC has rebranded henceforth the NBJC is the National Black
Justice Collective. NBJC has accepted the charge to leave Black
(01:45):
families and strengthening the bonds and bridging the gaps between
the movements for racial justice and LGBTQ equality. NBJC connects
to grasstops to the grassroots authentically. The organization is equipped
with targeted messaging and data that brings voice, builds networks,
and takes action on behalf of the black LGBTQ, slash
(02:05):
SGL community. Nbjc strategic advocacy efforts have historically focused on
the impact of federal public policy on the lives of
black LGBTQ, SGL people and Black America as a whole.
The organization's cornerstone issues are health and wellness hib awareness
and prevention, safe and inclusive schools, employment, non discrimination, relationship
and family recognition, anti violence, and economic justice. Again wants
(02:28):
you to check them out at NBJC dot org. And
this is my personal co sign for these folks. Doctor Johns,
who is the CEO of the NBJC, is a dear,
dear friend, has become a dear friend of the show
in recent months, and we really do believe in the
(02:49):
work that he's done. Actually, both Q and I got
a chance to hang out with him in Los Angeles,
and we really do want you to check out the
work that he's doing NBJC dot org. All right, mister Gagik,
So we were talking about not being a fan of Judges,
(03:12):
not being a fan of Democrats, which is fair a
lot of folks that have gripes of Democrats. Would you say.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
It was a Democrats behavior the reaction to his election,
not the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Sure, okay, okay, thanks for sharing that up. Thank you
for clearing that up. But do you think that many
people that come on this show, and we don't want
to be an echo chamber, but many people that come
on this show will say loudly and indeed I might
(03:47):
be one of those people myself, and in fact, I
think I would be that these times are unprecedented. This
president is anti democratic and is not beholden to the
entire country really just one specific facet of the country.
(04:07):
There's a lot of people who it doesn't affect them
one way or the other. So maybe this strong man
sort of whatever appeals to them, because ultimately, if it
doesn't affect them negatively, and it might affect them positively,
they don't have a dog in fight. But this president
has at least it feels like this president really doesn't
(04:33):
care about anybody else. And this coming from a person
and people that come on the show course that have
seen attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and when
you think about the language there, that feels crazy to
a lot of people because you would imagine that this
(04:53):
country stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the heart
of this country, at the heart of humanity. Lot of
people would argue that this president has fired people who
considers dei hires. He's defunded institutions that affirm black history.
He has defunded institutions that celebrate black achievements, which are
(05:17):
rare and unique in the story of this country and
often overlooked or buried and so forth. And these attacks
feel very pointed and very personal to a lot of people,
and a lot of people again that come on this
show feel that way. And he's doing this all legally.
Would you argue that that is imagined and whole are
(05:42):
in part, or that people are being extra sensitive to
this president, or would you argue that, no, these are
valid criticisms of this administration. This is unprecedented, and this
president is changing the culture of this country to suit
one specific fact of the country and more or less
(06:02):
enshrining that into law.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
What would be your position, I would say, any criticisms
that a person has is a legitimate criticism. And if
you're asking me, is it legitimate criticisms for some of
the say African American or gay or whatever, to have
this particular criticism of the president? Is that valid? I've
never walked in those shoes. You can't ask me to
to know what's in somebody's in somebody's thought process, right.
(06:30):
I will say this though, I mean, you're talking about diversity, equity,
and inclusion. I think those are viral, valid points. I
think talk about the founding fathers, there's a there are big,
big fans of the Roman Empire, and if you know
Roman history, the Romans were Their whole thing was diversity, right,
That's why the Roman Empire lasted for so long. It
was actually had an Arab imperor at one point. And
(06:52):
those are fair points. I will just say from my perspective.
For somebody with the first name Vladimir, when every single
thing you hear out of the Democratic Party is how
evil Russia is and how evil Vladimir Putin is, it
starts to wear thin when you start hearing the other
side about, oh, the Republicans or this the Republicans or that,
(07:14):
or Donald Trump is this because the republic you know what,
the Republicans were doing it just as much as the
Democrats hating on Russia, trying to provoke a nuclear war
with Russia for some god forsaken reason I don't know why.
And then they talk about that the pe tape and
all this stuff that Donald Trump did when he was
in Russia and Putin has all this.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
Sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
We heard that for sixty eight six years and I
was personally affected by it.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
I was assaulted in court.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
I think one of the contributing factors, if not the
proximate cause is my name. My experiences of the past
three and four years, six years since twenty eighteen in Phoenix,
Arizona have been directly caused by hatred of Slavs, of Slavophobia,
of xenophobia, of anything to do with Eastern Europe, anything
(08:02):
to do with my name. And that's been directly caused
primarily by the Democratic Party, but also certainly the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
So fear mongering, fear mongering, bread baiting is the word,
red baiting.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Just like Joseph McCarthy back in the day, they're bringing
up people are bringing back, Oh, how would Ronald Reagan
react to Donald Trump or being called by Vladimir Putin
that sort of stuff.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Okay, So you one of the things that I did
read about you is you were disbarred, the facto disbarred,
This facto disbarred. Okay, So talk to us about what
that means and what happened to you as a result
of this.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
So for twenty years, I'm a lawyer with zero history
of any sort. I was in the Marine Corps. I'm
an honorably discharge you US Marine. I was a reservist
for twenty years. I have no discipline. And I'm a
public defender. You know, public defender is I basically work
for free. I get I have to defend the people
in court who have nor so poor they have no
(09:00):
they can't hire their own lawyer. Right for all sorts
of charges, from DUIs to whatever else. Right, I'm a
public defender. I get a client, his name is Jamal Pennington,
who's innocent. I don't think he's innocent at the time,
and he's charged with sex trafficking basically being a pimp.
Turns out the police reframing him. And keep in mind,
(09:21):
I am not some radical left winger. I am not
a member of Atifa. I'm not a member of the
Communist Party.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
I am a normal.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Tax paying citizen who's never been in trouble with the
law and never been in trouble with the state bar.
I don't even speed, I don't do drugs. I don't
do any of those things. And when I point out
the fact that the police falsified a DNA search warrant
for my client's DNA, they just falsified a search warrant.
(09:49):
They just made up the evidence to get a search
warrant to test his DNA. It's not even a contested issue.
It's not one of those things like, oh, maybe they did,
maybe they didn't.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
No, they did. Everybody knows it.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
The case agent bribed one of my witnesses, a defense
witness who says my client is completely innocent in somebody else.
The case agent, meaning the detective who's running the case
in secret, gave that witness money to change your testimony.
And I know that not just because she told me
that and because she told my private investigator that. I
(10:23):
know that because I actually have the Facebook records proving it.
I actually have Facebook written proof that the Phoenix Police
Department agent in charge of a case was bribing and
tampering with my witness to change your testimony.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
So how did this end up with you?
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Well, I'm a public defender, so I bring it.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
So what do you think of the first defense attorney's
supposed to do in those circumstances. You bring it to
the court, right, And so guess what happens When I bring.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
It to the court.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
They side with the police.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
The judge who's a Democrat. They're all democrats, All these
judges are Democrats. He files a bar complaint against me
based on what he says I'm being conspiracy theory, that
sort of stuff. Keep in mind, I have this in writing.
I have it in writing. I have zero history. He says,
I have a personal grudge against the prosecutor. So the
(11:14):
same prosecutor who called me a sexist just randomly started
calling me a sexist and angry and started resorting to
ethnic tropes, and the judges were going along with it.
I asked then DOUBLEACP for help. Guess who then Double
ACP sides with. They sided with the prosecutor. Hmm, because
they have zero interest, zero interest in fighting systematic racism.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Zero interest.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
That's a bold claim.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
It is a fact, and I will prove every single
word of it. And so what happens is the bar,
the judge files a bar complain against me, the state
bar gives me a year's suspension without a hearing. Every
lawyer in America, it's ordered by the Supreme Court of
the United States.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Every lawyer.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Before they take your license, it's just like taking your kids.
They must give you a hearing. They must give you
a hearing to be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
So it is harder for the state to take your
child from you than it should be to suspend a lawyer.
But guess who happens to be the only lawyer in
the history of Arizona who's lost his license without hearing,
(12:22):
without being defaulted, or without consent. There's only one Guess
who that lawyer happens to be. That's me.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
That's me.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Okay, Well, I see why there's a lot to be
frustrated about there, and I see why, you know, the
pivot to you know, social media activism and those sorts
of things. Now, one of the things that I've learned
is that and maybe this is maybe these things are
not connected, but I seem to recall I have a
(12:56):
friend who's a lawyer in New York City, brilliant lawyer,
went to the London School of Economics, THENTO Harvard Law
you know, and her firm had to change. I couldn't
get into it. I couldn't give you the details of
it because I'm not a lawyer, and lawyers speak a
different language. But her firm had to change some fundamental
(13:22):
elements about either their culture or whatever it was, in
order to remain compliant with the current administration's politics, and
in doing so they would be able to retain certain
contract government contracts and represent the interests of the government
(13:44):
or something like that. And if they did not make
these changes and align themselves politically, I guess that would
be the right way to say it with Donald Trump
two point zero, other than they would lose out on
this significant amount of business. And I was told by
her that that maneuver is unprecedented, not unlike many other maneuvers, like, hey,
(14:07):
your funding is done. We're just going to take away
your funding. What they're doing with Harvard, what they're doing
with Columbia, all these other places.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
Do you know what you're talking about?
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Do you feel like these things are connected?
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Like no, I think what you're talking about, and I
think what you're talking about in particular. And it's something
that made me very upset because when when Donald Trump
was running, his whole kind of thing was free speech,
like liberty comes first. You're right, because he's he put
himself out there, and I think legitimately as a victim
of of of prosecutors and cops gone wrong, gone rogue,
(14:39):
particularly the FBI agents.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
He was the victim. Donald Trump was the victim of that.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Yeah, because he was talking about the classified documents case
and the prosecute. You know the classified documents case in Yes,
in mar Alago, and there were a number of prosecutions,
and there was also the one in New York. And
the ultimate point, you have prosecutors like the criminal system
(15:06):
has been weaponized. That was kind of his whole pitch.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Do you think that that's valid that he's saying that, Well,
I'm just telling you what I interpreted.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
The way I interpreted was that it was a criminal system.
And also the state bar was weaponized against lawyers who
were representing his causes in state court after the twenty
twenty election, Right.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
That's okay, So we got to you got to help
me because I'm sure that now that we're here a
lot of folks might want to hear so we don't
have to dwell on it too much. But so, there
was a phone call that Donald Trump made in Georgia
saying to it might have been the election commissioner the
I forget the name of the person, but some individual
(15:47):
who was in charge of the election the twenty twenty election,
and he says, hey, I need you to get me.
It might have been thirty thousand votes. It's like, I
need you to get me thirty thousand votes. I don't
know that that's the number, so please fact check me
if you're hearing my voice. But Donald Trump said that
on that phone call, the call was recorded, was least
to everybody. We heard him say that. And then there
was the election interference case, right, which was that in Georgia,
(16:11):
the one where the mugshot famously came from. Fannie Willis
prosecuted him. But we heard him say that. Donald Trump
has famously had many accusers of him being let's put
it kindly and say, sexually inappropriate. And he himself has said,
(16:35):
you know, I love going backstage in my past. I'm
making I'm making a point here, I'm making a pointer.
But he himself, he we heard him before the first
election say, you know, when you're a celebrity, you can
just walk up to him and grab him by the
P word. He said that, right, and then he loses
in court to Egene Carroll. He found he's found liable
(16:56):
or something. He's somehow he's an adjudicated rapist. This is
what the term, this is what the term that.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Is now adjudicated Civilly response.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Civilly response, Well, we'll go with that, and we'll go
with that, okay, mar A lago those documents. Joe Biden
also famously had documents in his garage, right, and Donald
Trump had documents in his garage and the government said,
that's not supposed to happen. You're not supposed to have
those docus certainly not supposed to have next to the toilet.
(17:28):
And then there was a case there, and then Donald
Trump's position was the criminal justice system is being weaponized
against me. And that is the position that you think
is valid for him to do.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
I think what I'm saying is that's the position he
was arguing. Okay, And if I can just tell you
what was saying, that's the position he was arguing. Corollary
to that was his position that Republicans are the party
of free speech. Okay, Corollary to that, And if you
listen Tucker Carlson, he said something that I think resonated
with me is you only get in trouble when you
(18:04):
tell the truth. You never get in trouble when you lie,
because lives don't matter. It's the truth that matters. So
my assumption was when Donald Trump and he actually signed
an executive order saying that during the past four years
during the Biden presidency, any acts by the federal government
to limit the citizen's right to free speech will be punished.
The federal government has no right, or no power, or
(18:27):
no immunity to limit the free speech of private citizens.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
I was ecstatic with joy.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I was absolutely jumping through the roof and joy because
I've been the victim of federal I've had the FBI
at my house because of what I.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Tell sure, I'm very upsetive.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
While Biden was president, all right, while Democrats were running,
while all these free speech, all these Party of Equity
and all this fairness and blah blah blah blah, they
sent the FBI out at my house in secret because
I was telling fact jokes on X about the kind
of attorney. But anyway, so when he goes, when he
starts deporting these protesters at Columbia, I forget the names exactly,
(19:09):
but the one kid.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
What was his name?
Speaker 2 (19:13):
I think my mood, yes, yeah, I can't tell you
how disappointed I was.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
I can't tell you.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
I wasn't crying, but I was pretty close to it
because I felt like that was a betrial, because I
felt like, finally we had a president who actually really
really did believe in the first Amendment, really really did believe.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
In free spece.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
But does this not make my point that the point
I made earlier where Donald Trump has shown that he
is not the president. I mean, while he technically is
the president of the United States of America, in terms
of the people, he's the president of some people.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
He won the vote, well, then that's all that matters.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
But some people he's acting on their behalf and other people.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
So put up somebody against them, put up a better candidate.
It's very very simple, have a p primary, have a
candidate who actually goes to the primary. The Democrats rigged
twenty sixteen, so so Bernie Sanders, there's no doubt about that.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
That I know.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
You then can't be complaining all the other guys an
anti Democrat when you don't even have a primary to
put us up the candidate that the people actually want
to win. That party has forsaked and for they're done
saying all the other guys are anti Democrats. They've lost that.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Right, Well, how about this for the people that are
going to compare apples to apples, Right when you look
at a Joe Biden, a Joe Biden was not to
the degree that Trump is anti all of us.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
I disagree with that fundamentally.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Obama do the same thing. I'd go back as far
as Clinton, because that's as far as I've been like
kind of politically aware. But I'd throw George Bush Junior
in there as well.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
As far as which category, in which.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Category Democrats are part of this country too, Donald.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Trump, George W. Bush, the Patriots, the Patriot Act guy,
the guy who started a war over a lie and
killed ten thousand Americans and his father, No, no, no,
George W. Bush who invaded Iraq and killed how many
iraqis that's fair, fairpoint. Okay, However, Donald Trump, relative to
(21:42):
all of them, has famously been very you know, uh,
it's almost like a witch hunt on Democrats. Everything in
his social media posts as Democrats did this, that and
the third.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
And you're out of time. Twice we're out of time.
So obviously we have to have you back up again
because this is a spirited conversation. I certainly do appreciate
your time, because this is something that's really necessary. You know.
Obviously you said you're an independent, and we've had, you know,
people who fundamentally disagree with everything that we leave on
(22:19):
this show. But you know, there are people with different
perspectives and they're all valid. We believe in that, even
if our president doesn't. So again, I want to thank
you for your time. Once again, our guest has been
Vladimir Gagic, an independent, nonpartisan political and legal commentator, form
a lawyer, and social media influencer who can be found
online at Toxic Vlad That is at t XI k
(22:42):
V l A D. Be sure to follow us on
all social media at Civic Cipher. You can hit civic
cipher dot com and make a donation to support the show.
The show grows with your support, so keep helping us grow.
You can find me on all social media at Rams's job.
Q I am q ward and until next week, y'all Peace,
Keep on riding with it, says. We continue to broadcast
the balance and defend the discourse from the Hip Hop
Weekly studios. Welcome back to Civic Sipher. I am your
host Rams's job. Big shout out to q Ward, who
is in Los Angeles right now for obvious reasons, and
we are going to get him back safe and sound
to the studio soon enough to share all that he
(00:20):
has learned out there. But in the meantime, we have
a special guest in the studio. He is the one
and only Vladimir Gajic. He's an independent, nonpartisan political and
legal commentator, a former lawyer, and social media influencer who
can be found online at Toxic Vlad that is t
xik v Lad. Thank you for sticking around for the
(00:42):
second half. First, thank you for having so stay tuned,
because we're going to be talking about some of the
things going on in the country insofar as the president
is concerned and the courts, so the executive branch versus
the judicial branch, and kind of where things live. Before
we move any further, it is time to Baba become
(01:02):
a better ally Baba. On today's Baba, we want you
to check out NBJC dot org again NBJC dot org.
Founded in two thousand and three, NBJC initially sought to
address specific sets of challenges facing the black community, the
erasure of black, queer, trans, and gender expansive people, and
a political push to define marriage in ways that deny
(01:24):
black LGBTQ plus slash SGL people recognition and access to economic, social,
and political rights. Having faithfully and successfully fulfilled its original purpose,
NBJC has rebranded henceforth the NBJC is the National Black
Justice Collective. NBJC has accepted the charge to leave Black
(01:45):
families and strengthening the bonds and bridging the gaps between
the movements for racial justice and LGBTQ equality. NBJC connects
to grasstops to the grassroots authentically. The organization is equipped
with targeted messaging and data that brings voice, builds networks,
and takes action on behalf of the black LGBTQ, slash
(02:05):
SGL community. Nbjc strategic advocacy efforts have historically focused on
the impact of federal public policy on the lives of
black LGBTQ, SGL people and Black America as a whole.
The organization's cornerstone issues are health and wellness hib awareness
and prevention, safe and inclusive schools, employment, non discrimination, relationship
and family recognition, anti violence, and economic justice. Again wants
(02:28):
you to check them out at NBJC dot org. And
this is my personal co sign for these folks. Doctor Johns,
who is the CEO of the NBJC, is a dear,
dear friend, has become a dear friend of the show
in recent months, and we really do believe in the
(02:49):
work that he's done. Actually, both Q and I got
a chance to hang out with him in Los Angeles,
and we really do want you to check out the
work that he's doing NBJC dot org. All right, mister Gagik,
So we were talking about not being a fan of Judges,
(03:12):
not being a fan of Democrats, which is fair a
lot of folks that have gripes of Democrats. Would you say.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
It was a Democrats behavior the reaction to his election,
not the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Sure, okay, okay, thanks for sharing that up. Thank you
for clearing that up. But do you think that many
people that come on this show, and we don't want
to be an echo chamber, but many people that come
on this show will say loudly and indeed I might
(03:47):
be one of those people myself, and in fact, I
think I would be that these times are unprecedented. This
president is anti democratic and is not beholden to the
entire country really just one specific facet of the country.
(04:07):
There's a lot of people who it doesn't affect them
one way or the other. So maybe this strong man
sort of whatever appeals to them, because ultimately, if it
doesn't affect them negatively, and it might affect them positively,
they don't have a dog in fight. But this president
has at least it feels like this president really doesn't
(04:33):
care about anybody else. And this coming from a person
and people that come on the show course that have
seen attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and when
you think about the language there, that feels crazy to
a lot of people because you would imagine that this
(04:53):
country stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the heart
of this country, at the heart of humanity. Lot of
people would argue that this president has fired people who
considers dei hires. He's defunded institutions that affirm black history.
He has defunded institutions that celebrate black achievements, which are
(05:17):
rare and unique in the story of this country and
often overlooked or buried and so forth. And these attacks
feel very pointed and very personal to a lot of people,
and a lot of people again that come on this
show feel that way. And he's doing this all legally.
Would you argue that that is imagined and whole are
(05:42):
in part, or that people are being extra sensitive to
this president, or would you argue that, no, these are
valid criticisms of this administration. This is unprecedented, and this
president is changing the culture of this country to suit
one specific fact of the country and more or less
(06:02):
enshrining that into law.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
What would be your position, I would say, any criticisms
that a person has is a legitimate criticism. And if
you're asking me, is it legitimate criticisms for some of
the say African American or gay or whatever, to have
this particular criticism of the president? Is that valid? I've
never walked in those shoes. You can't ask me to
to know what's in somebody's in somebody's thought process, right.
(06:30):
I will say this though, I mean, you're talking about diversity, equity,
and inclusion. I think those are viral, valid points. I
think talk about the founding fathers, there's a there are big,
big fans of the Roman Empire, and if you know
Roman history, the Romans were Their whole thing was diversity, right,
That's why the Roman Empire lasted for so long. It
was actually had an Arab imperor at one point. And
(06:52):
those are fair points. I will just say from my perspective.
For somebody with the first name Vladimir, when every single
thing you hear out of the Democratic Party is how
evil Russia is and how evil Vladimir Putin is, it
starts to wear thin when you start hearing the other
side about, oh, the Republicans or this the Republicans or that,
(07:14):
or Donald Trump is this because the republic you know what,
the Republicans were doing it just as much as the
Democrats hating on Russia, trying to provoke a nuclear war
with Russia for some god forsaken reason I don't know why.
And then they talk about that the pe tape and
all this stuff that Donald Trump did when he was
in Russia and Putin has all this.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
Sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
We heard that for sixty eight six years and I
was personally affected by it.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
I was assaulted in court.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
I think one of the contributing factors, if not the
proximate cause is my name. My experiences of the past
three and four years, six years since twenty eighteen in Phoenix,
Arizona have been directly caused by hatred of Slavs, of Slavophobia,
of xenophobia, of anything to do with Eastern Europe, anything
(08:02):
to do with my name. And that's been directly caused
primarily by the Democratic Party, but also certainly the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
So fear mongering, fear mongering, bread baiting is the word,
red baiting.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Just like Joseph McCarthy back in the day, they're bringing
up people are bringing back, Oh, how would Ronald Reagan
react to Donald Trump or being called by Vladimir Putin
that sort of stuff.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Okay, So you one of the things that I did
read about you is you were disbarred, the facto disbarred,
This facto disbarred. Okay, So talk to us about what
that means and what happened to you as a result
of this.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
So for twenty years, I'm a lawyer with zero history
of any sort. I was in the Marine Corps. I'm
an honorably discharge you US Marine. I was a reservist
for twenty years. I have no discipline. And I'm a
public defender. You know, public defender is I basically work
for free. I get I have to defend the people
in court who have nor so poor they have no
(09:00):
they can't hire their own lawyer. Right for all sorts
of charges, from DUIs to whatever else. Right, I'm a
public defender. I get a client, his name is Jamal Pennington,
who's innocent. I don't think he's innocent at the time,
and he's charged with sex trafficking basically being a pimp.
Turns out the police reframing him. And keep in mind,
(09:21):
I am not some radical left winger. I am not
a member of Atifa. I'm not a member of the
Communist Party.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
I am a normal.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Tax paying citizen who's never been in trouble with the
law and never been in trouble with the state bar.
I don't even speed, I don't do drugs. I don't
do any of those things. And when I point out
the fact that the police falsified a DNA search warrant
for my client's DNA, they just falsified a search warrant.
(09:49):
They just made up the evidence to get a search
warrant to test his DNA. It's not even a contested issue.
It's not one of those things like, oh, maybe they did,
maybe they didn't.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
No, they did. Everybody knows it.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
The case agent bribed one of my witnesses, a defense
witness who says my client is completely innocent in somebody else.
The case agent, meaning the detective who's running the case
in secret, gave that witness money to change your testimony.
And I know that not just because she told me
that and because she told my private investigator that. I
(10:23):
know that because I actually have the Facebook records proving it.
I actually have Facebook written proof that the Phoenix Police
Department agent in charge of a case was bribing and
tampering with my witness to change your testimony.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
So how did this end up with you?
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Well, I'm a public defender, so I bring it.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
So what do you think of the first defense attorney's
supposed to do in those circumstances. You bring it to
the court, right, And so guess what happens When I bring.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
It to the court.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
They side with the police.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
The judge who's a Democrat. They're all democrats, All these
judges are Democrats. He files a bar complaint against me
based on what he says I'm being conspiracy theory, that
sort of stuff. Keep in mind, I have this in writing.
I have it in writing. I have zero history. He says,
I have a personal grudge against the prosecutor. So the
(11:14):
same prosecutor who called me a sexist just randomly started
calling me a sexist and angry and started resorting to
ethnic tropes, and the judges were going along with it.
I asked then DOUBLEACP for help. Guess who then Double
ACP sides with. They sided with the prosecutor. Hmm, because
they have zero interest, zero interest in fighting systematic racism.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Zero interest.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
That's a bold claim.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
It is a fact, and I will prove every single
word of it. And so what happens is the bar,
the judge files a bar complain against me, the state
bar gives me a year's suspension without a hearing. Every
lawyer in America, it's ordered by the Supreme Court of
the United States.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Every lawyer.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Before they take your license, it's just like taking your kids.
They must give you a hearing. They must give you
a hearing to be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
So it is harder for the state to take your
child from you than it should be to suspend a lawyer.
But guess who happens to be the only lawyer in
the history of Arizona who's lost his license without hearing,
(12:22):
without being defaulted, or without consent. There's only one Guess
who that lawyer happens to be. That's me.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
That's me.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Okay, Well, I see why there's a lot to be
frustrated about there, and I see why, you know, the
pivot to you know, social media activism and those sorts
of things. Now, one of the things that I've learned
is that and maybe this is maybe these things are
not connected, but I seem to recall I have a
(12:56):
friend who's a lawyer in New York City, brilliant lawyer,
went to the London School of Economics, THENTO Harvard Law
you know, and her firm had to change. I couldn't
get into it. I couldn't give you the details of
it because I'm not a lawyer, and lawyers speak a
different language. But her firm had to change some fundamental
(13:22):
elements about either their culture or whatever it was, in
order to remain compliant with the current administration's politics, and
in doing so they would be able to retain certain
contract government contracts and represent the interests of the government
(13:44):
or something like that. And if they did not make
these changes and align themselves politically, I guess that would
be the right way to say it with Donald Trump
two point zero, other than they would lose out on
this significant amount of business. And I was told by
her that that maneuver is unprecedented, not unlike many other maneuvers, like, hey,
(14:07):
your funding is done. We're just going to take away
your funding. What they're doing with Harvard, what they're doing
with Columbia, all these other places.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
Do you know what you're talking about?
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Do you feel like these things are connected?
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Like no, I think what you're talking about, and I
think what you're talking about in particular. And it's something
that made me very upset because when when Donald Trump
was running, his whole kind of thing was free speech,
like liberty comes first. You're right, because he's he put
himself out there, and I think legitimately as a victim
of of of prosecutors and cops gone wrong, gone rogue,
(14:39):
particularly the FBI agents.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
He was the victim. Donald Trump was the victim of that.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Yeah, because he was talking about the classified documents case
and the prosecute. You know the classified documents case in Yes,
in mar Alago, and there were a number of prosecutions,
and there was also the one in New York. And
the ultimate point, you have prosecutors like the criminal system
(15:06):
has been weaponized. That was kind of his whole pitch.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Do you think that that's valid that he's saying that, Well,
I'm just telling you what I interpreted.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
The way I interpreted was that it was a criminal system.
And also the state bar was weaponized against lawyers who
were representing his causes in state court after the twenty
twenty election, Right.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
That's okay, So we got to you got to help
me because I'm sure that now that we're here a
lot of folks might want to hear so we don't
have to dwell on it too much. But so, there
was a phone call that Donald Trump made in Georgia
saying to it might have been the election commissioner the
I forget the name of the person, but some individual
(15:47):
who was in charge of the election the twenty twenty election,
and he says, hey, I need you to get me.
It might have been thirty thousand votes. It's like, I
need you to get me thirty thousand votes. I don't
know that that's the number, so please fact check me
if you're hearing my voice. But Donald Trump said that
on that phone call, the call was recorded, was least
to everybody. We heard him say that. And then there
was the election interference case, right, which was that in Georgia,
(16:11):
the one where the mugshot famously came from. Fannie Willis
prosecuted him. But we heard him say that. Donald Trump
has famously had many accusers of him being let's put
it kindly and say, sexually inappropriate. And he himself has said,
(16:35):
you know, I love going backstage in my past. I'm
making I'm making a point here, I'm making a pointer.
But he himself, he we heard him before the first
election say, you know, when you're a celebrity, you can
just walk up to him and grab him by the
P word. He said that, right, and then he loses
in court to Egene Carroll. He found he's found liable
(16:56):
or something. He's somehow he's an adjudicated rapist. This is
what the term, this is what the term that.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Is now adjudicated Civilly response.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Civilly response, Well, we'll go with that, and we'll go
with that, okay, mar A lago those documents. Joe Biden
also famously had documents in his garage, right, and Donald
Trump had documents in his garage and the government said,
that's not supposed to happen. You're not supposed to have
those docus certainly not supposed to have next to the toilet.
(17:28):
And then there was a case there, and then Donald
Trump's position was the criminal justice system is being weaponized
against me. And that is the position that you think
is valid for him to do.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
I think what I'm saying is that's the position he
was arguing. Okay, And if I can just tell you
what was saying, that's the position he was arguing. Corollary
to that was his position that Republicans are the party
of free speech. Okay, Corollary to that, And if you
listen Tucker Carlson, he said something that I think resonated
with me is you only get in trouble when you
(18:04):
tell the truth. You never get in trouble when you lie,
because lives don't matter. It's the truth that matters. So
my assumption was when Donald Trump and he actually signed
an executive order saying that during the past four years
during the Biden presidency, any acts by the federal government
to limit the citizen's right to free speech will be punished.
The federal government has no right, or no power, or
(18:27):
no immunity to limit the free speech of private citizens.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
I was ecstatic with joy.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I was absolutely jumping through the roof and joy because
I've been the victim of federal I've had the FBI
at my house because of what I.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Tell sure, I'm very upsetive.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
While Biden was president, all right, while Democrats were running,
while all these free speech, all these Party of Equity
and all this fairness and blah blah blah blah, they
sent the FBI out at my house in secret because
I was telling fact jokes on X about the kind
of attorney. But anyway, so when he goes, when he
starts deporting these protesters at Columbia, I forget the names exactly,
(19:09):
but the one kid.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
What was his name?
Speaker 2 (19:13):
I think my mood, yes, yeah, I can't tell you
how disappointed I was.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
I can't tell you.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
I wasn't crying, but I was pretty close to it
because I felt like that was a betrial, because I
felt like, finally we had a president who actually really
really did believe in the first Amendment, really really did believe.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
In free spece.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
But does this not make my point that the point
I made earlier where Donald Trump has shown that he
is not the president. I mean, while he technically is
the president of the United States of America, in terms
of the people, he's the president of some people.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
He won the vote, well, then that's all that matters.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
But some people he's acting on their behalf and other people.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
So put up somebody against them, put up a better candidate.
It's very very simple, have a p primary, have a
candidate who actually goes to the primary. The Democrats rigged
twenty sixteen, so so Bernie Sanders, there's no doubt about that.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
That I know.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
You then can't be complaining all the other guys an
anti Democrat when you don't even have a primary to
put us up the candidate that the people actually want
to win. That party has forsaked and for they're done
saying all the other guys are anti Democrats. They've lost that.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Right, Well, how about this for the people that are
going to compare apples to apples, Right when you look
at a Joe Biden, a Joe Biden was not to
the degree that Trump is anti all of us.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
I disagree with that fundamentally.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Obama do the same thing. I'd go back as far
as Clinton, because that's as far as I've been like
kind of politically aware. But I'd throw George Bush Junior
in there as well.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
As far as which category, in which.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Category Democrats are part of this country too, Donald.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Trump, George W. Bush, the Patriots, the Patriot Act guy,
the guy who started a war over a lie and
killed ten thousand Americans and his father, No, no, no,
George W. Bush who invaded Iraq and killed how many
iraqis that's fair, fairpoint. Okay, However, Donald Trump, relative to
(21:42):
all of them, has famously been very you know, uh,
it's almost like a witch hunt on Democrats. Everything in
his social media posts as Democrats did this, that and
the third.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
And you're out of time. Twice we're out of time.
So obviously we have to have you back up again
because this is a spirited conversation. I certainly do appreciate
your time, because this is something that's really necessary. You know.
Obviously you said you're an independent, and we've had, you know,
people who fundamentally disagree with everything that we leave on
(22:19):
this show. But you know, there are people with different
perspectives and they're all valid. We believe in that, even
if our president doesn't. So again, I want to thank
you for your time. Once again, our guest has been
Vladimir Gagic, an independent, nonpartisan political and legal commentator, form
a lawyer, and social media influencer who can be found
online at Toxic Vlad That is at t XI k
(22:42):
V l A D. Be sure to follow us on
all social media at Civic Cipher. You can hit civic
cipher dot com and make a donation to support the show.
The show grows with your support, so keep helping us grow.
You can find me on all social media at Rams's job.
Q I am q ward and until next week, y'all Peace,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.