TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed

Posted - June 3, 2023 at 5:10 PM

Saved - June 4, 2023 at 2:47 AM

@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg

NEW: January 6 committee presented footage with doctored audio during primetime hearings. How about we investigate them and give them the same treatment they gave the J6ers? https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/january-6-committee-presented-footage-with-doctored-audio-cmc/?utm_source=collin&utm_medium=twitter

NEW: Jan 6 Committee Presented Footage With Doctored Audio During Primetime Hearings Just The News reporter John Solomon on Friday released unedited January 6 footage that proves the January 6 Select Committee presented footage with doctored trendingpoliticsnews.com

@JackPosobiec — Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Posted - June 5, 2023 at 2:56 AM

Saved - June 5, 2023 at 3:19 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: Pelosi committee doctored Jan 6 footage by adding audio, voices, sound effects https://humanevents.com/2023/06/04/breaking-pelosi-committee-doctored-jan-6-footage-by-adding-audio-journalist-claims?utm_campaign=64483

BREAKING: Pelosi committee doctored Jan 6 footage by adding audio, journalist claims “They faked the American people by adding sound that wasn’t on the tapes.” humanevents.com

@EpochTV — EpochTV

Posted - August 9, 2023 at 2:39 AM

Saved - August 10, 2023 at 3:54 PM

@EpochTV - EpochTV

EXCLUSIVE: The Capitol Hill Tapes Exclusive investigation into 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟔 based on 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐥 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 https://ept.ms/3KVxjll

[PREMIERING 8/11 at 9 AM ET] EXCLUSIVE: The Capitol Hill Tapes The Epoch Times was given access to tens of thousands of hours of U.S. Capitol Police security video ... theepochtimes.com

@RudyGiuliani — Rudy W. Giuliani

Posted - September 19, 2023 at 12:00 AM

Saved - September 19, 2023 at 3:23 AM

@RudyGiuliani - Rudy W. Giuliani

America's Mayor Live (E236): The Truth About January 6th

@alx — ALX 🇺🇸

Posted - November 17, 2023 at 8:41 PM

Saved - November 17, 2023 at 9:05 PM

@alx - ALX 🇺🇸

BREAKING: All 44,000 hours of footage from January 6th has been publicly released by House Speaker Mike Johnson. View the J6 tapes here: https://cha.house.gov/cha-subcommittee-reading-room-fe781e74-d577-4f64-93cc-fc3a8dd8df18

CHA Subcommittee Reading Room U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration cha.house.gov

@ImMeme0 — I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸

Posted - November 17, 2023 at 8:47 PM

Saved - November 17, 2023 at 9:14 PM

@ImMeme0 - I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: House Speaker Mike Johnson RELEASED JAN6 TAPES!! Follow the link below👇👇👇 https://cha.house.gov/cha-subcommittee-reading-room-fe781e74-d577-4f64-93cc-fc3a8dd8df18

CHA Subcommittee Reading Room U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration cha.house.gov

@Alex1234667 — Alexjones

Posted - November 18, 2023 at 1:45 PM

Saved - November 18, 2023 at 2:19 PM

@Alex1234667 - Alexjones

@ELE_Network https://t.co/VKwNft7dIH

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Ep. 15 Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reveals what really happened on January 6th. Our Fox News interview with him never aired, so we invited him back. https://t.co/opDlu4QGlp

Video Transcript AI Summary

In this video, former Chief of Capitol Police, Stephen Sund, discusses the intelligence failures and lack of support during the January 6th Capitol attack. He reveals that the intelligence he received did not accurately convey the severity of the attack, and that key agencies like the FBI and DHS had more concerning intelligence that was not shared. Sund also highlights the delayed response in providing National Guard assistance, questioning the motives behind these decisions and suggesting a deliberate effort to downplay the intelligence. He further raises concerns about potential political influence, the presence of federal agents in the crowd, and the lack of arrests for those instigating violence. Sund emphasizes the need for an independent investigation to uncover the truth.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: You've described us as an intelligence failure, but a failure is something that happens accidentally. Speaker 1: None of the intelligence that was coming up talking about the stormy of the capital, killing members congress, or killing my police officers was ever discussed at the conference calls that I was on at least. Speaker 0: That doesn't seem to make sense at all. Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense. I'm looking at my men and women having their asses handed to of and and my first thought was fuck it. I will take whatever discipline there is. Speaker 0: Once things got out of control, for 71 minutes, Pelosi of Refused to allow you to bring in the National Guard. Why don't we have Speaker 1: answers? It it doesn't seem like people really wanna get to the bottom of it, and it gets worse from there. I had a conference call of the leaders of all the law enforcement. It was a call. I coordinated. Not 1 person on that call talked about any concerns for the the intelligence, the attack from the Capitol. That we were seeing that was out there. That's what's that's what's scary. Speaker 0: This sounds like a setup to me. I'm sorry. It does. Speaker 1: New Jersey state police beat DC National of Speaker 0: National Guard to the Capitol. Wait. Cops drove from New Jersey before the National Guard could get from the armory on Capitol Hill to the Capitol. Speaker 1: Why isn't this story everywhere? Speaker 0: I have no idea. If you wanted to understand what happened on January 6, 2021 at the US capital, One of the first people you'd talk to, maybe the first, would be Stephen Sund. Sund was the chief of capitol police that day. He knew more about what happened than virtually anyone else in the United States. And yet, congressional investigators weren't interested in talking to him. The media, not interested in talking to him. But we were. So earlier this year, we did a long sit down interview with Stephen Sund about January 6th. That interview was set to air on April 24th of this year. And it never did. We don't own that tape so we can't show it to you. So instead, we invited Stephen Sund back of To explain what he saw and experienced that day. What he has to say is shocking. We recommend you watch. Mister Sun, thank you very much for coming back. Speaker 1: Thank you for having me. Speaker 0: So, wanna start with the days before January 6, 2021. It was commonly known there was going to be a demonstration or believers can be demonstration in front of the capital that day. You were the chief of capital police you're in charge of security At the capital. So it would seem logical that you would have the most intelligence, the most up to date, most of accurate intelligence about what was likely to happen that day because you're consulting with all kinds of other agencies, intel agencies, law enforcement agencies, lots of federal agencies. But it doesn't sound like you did have the most information about what was going to happen. Speaker 1: You're absolutely correct. I mean, what we've learned that it was out there at of time versus what we had coming into it night and day. And when you talk about the intelligence agency, I have my own intelligence agency up at, of, Capitol Police, IICD, Interagency Intelligence Coordination Division, that coordinates with the other intelligence agencies. And now, you know, we're seeing the intelligence I was getting coming into it was indicating this was going to be just like the previous MAGA rallies, the November December rallies that we had. We had limited skirmishes. We had some skirmishes afterwards, down by, BLM Plaza with some of the, Antifa groups, some of the BLM groups. Of but coming into it, absolutely zero with the intelligence that we know now existed, talking about attacking the Capitol, killing my police officers, attacking members of Congress and killing members of Congress, none of that was included in the intelligence coming up too. That you received? Correct. Speaker 0: But others received that intelligence? Speaker 1: Well, we now know of FBI, DHS was swimming in that intelligence. We also know now that the military seem to have some very concerning intelligence as well. Speaker 0: Of It's hard to overstate how strange that is because you were in charge of the actual facility That was the focus of the protest. Speaker 1: Well, think about it. I'm the chief of police at the United States Capitol, probably one of the most prominent and should be the most secure building in the United States in the world. You know, you'd like to think of that. But when you look at it and and don't take my word for it, look at there's now 4 at least 4 congressional reports talking about the intelligence failure, of IG reports, GAO reports talking about various intelligence failures. But coming into it, you know, think about it. FBI, The Washington field office didn't put out a single document, a single official document specific to January 6th DHS didn't put out a single official document, specific to January 6. That's very unusual. I've been through many other events in Washington, D. C. FBI would host a joint conference call at the least. Of it may be a executive, JTTF, joint intelligence, joint terrorism task force briefing or and for all these big events, DHS and FBI would get together and put out something that was called a JIB, a joint intelligence bulletin. 0 for January 6th. Speaker 0: Of So you've described this as an intelligence failure, but a failure is something that happens accidentally. And I don't see how this could be accidental. So of Walk us through the contact that you had with DHS and FBI in the days before January 6th Speaker 1: So my contacts with those 2 with those agencies or the other of law enforcement agencies, would have always been through my IICD. Speaker 0: They Speaker 1: were the ones that were the conduit. We're a consumer of intelligence. We had turned to the intelligence community to get the latest intelligence. I know Metropolitan was hosting a conference call, every couple of Mondays, and I was on a couple of those conference calls. Nothing none of the intelligence that was coming up talking about the stormy of the Capitol, killing members of Congress, or killing my police officers was ever discussed in those, the conference calls that I was on at least. And think of this. Speaker 0: Of And so you never heard that? Speaker 1: Never heard it. And then Speaker 0: But how could you not have I mean, I I mean, I'm I don't work in a federal bureaucracy, but that That doesn't seem to make sense at all. Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense. Think about this. On January 5th, the day before the attack at 1 pm, I of things 1 or noon. I had a conference call with the leaders of all the law enforcement, Conti from, Metropolitan Police Department, of, Steve D'Antwono, the, director of the Washington field office for the FBI. Nobody from DHS was on. I hadn't thought about that, but of all the law enforcement that was down there. I had the military disc of Washington, General Omar Jones, on the phone with me. I had the, head of the National Guard, William Walker, General William Walker of her on the call. It was a call I coordinated. Not 1 person on that call talked about any concerns for the the intelligence, the attack on the Capitol, the threats to officers, of that we're seeing that was out there. That's what's that's what's scary. Speaker 0: But and and but to to be clear, do we now know for a fact that the people on that call knew of About those threats and didn't mention them to Speaker 1: you? So this is what we know, for a fact. And I'll tell you, I'm not the only chief that was in the dark. You you look at Robert Conte, head of the largest police department in Washington, DC. He also said the same thing. He wasn't getting the same notifications like the Norfolk memo that came out the day before. He didn't get it. So, Steve D'Antuano, who's the Washington field office, of FBI director. You look at the GAO report that came out February of this year, it talks about multiple emails. Is the G. O. Report or maybe and no, it's a Senate report that just came out, in July, just last month, talks about multiple emails going of Steve D'Antuano on Sunday, Monday, and some probably Tuesday, just the days before, talking about the violence that they're predicting coming up to the capital. And I have a video call with him on that Tuesday and nothing said about it I mean that's He didn't mention that. Not a word. Speaker 0: Not a word. So of Not to repeat myself, but that just does not Speaker 1: make sense. It doesn't. It doesn't. Especially when you think about think about this, the military, the United States military. Of and this gets really convoluted once you get into the the response on January 6 and how I was delayed getting resources. You have the United States military, Secretary of Defense or Acting Secretary of Defense Miller and acting and, General Milley had both discussed locking down the city of Washington, D. C. Because they were so worried about violence at the Capitol on January 6. On Sunday and Monday, they had been discussing locking down the city, revoking permits on Capitol Hill because of the concern for violence. You know who issues the permits on Capitol Hills for demonstrations? I do. Of you know who wasn't told? Me. Instead, on January 4, what does Miller do? He puts out a memo restricting the National Guard from carrying various weapons, of any weapons, any civil disobedience equipment that would be utilized for the very, demonstrations or violence that he sees coming. It just doesn't make any sense. Speaker 0: Wait, wait. So the military says we're so concerned about potential imminent violence that we of Considering shutting down the city, but at the very same time they decide that the National Guard can't, of Adopt an aggressive posture to protect it. Speaker 1: Right. They're deploying because they're going to be deploying National Guard to assist Washington D. C. With crowd control at metros and some of the traffic, control areas. But they put this out on January 4th specific to January 5th 6th, and this direction affected the National Guard in Virginia and Maryland. When I was calling begging for assistance on January 6th, they weren't allowed to respond at first. If you look at, Governor Hogan, he did a press conference saying he was begging to respond, and he was not being denied by the Pentagon, all because of the memo. Speaker 0: So why? Speaker 1: You begin to wonder why. And especially when you look at things like something that I recently came across when you talk about the military. General Milley, you know, we're now now finding out, and it's not not for me. This is from Carol Leonning, you know, investigative reporter with the Washington Post, has found that he was using DataMiner on his own coming across intelligence talk. Speaker 0: Tell tell us what DataMiner is. Speaker 1: So DataMiner is an intelligence of platform. It's not something your average citizen would have on their, computer. I I guess it goes in and does, crawling across webs. I'm not really sure how it works. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: But it's not your it's a it's an intelligence platform. He's picking up intelligence talking about killing members of Congress and attacking the United States Capitol, and he's not telling me. He's telling select members of Congress I mean, Carol Wenning writes about in her book. That's concerning as hell because as the chief of police, You know, he's there's a duty to warn there, and I should be told so I can take the necessary action. I don't know who else he was telling, but he sure wasn't telling me. Speaker 0: Of Again, what could possibly be the explanation for that? Speaker 1: You know, I'm not really sure, you know, people are Well, you've Speaker 0: done this for over 30 years. Of your very familiar. You've been in law enforcement in DC specifically for over 30 years. So you know how the city runs. You know how the federal agencies respond to protests. This is not the 1st violent protest. Speaker 1: Not at all. Speaker 0: There have been many. Speaker 1: I've I've done many national special security events, and this was handled differently. Of no no, the intelligence, no jib, no coordination, no discussion in advance. It's almost like they wanted it to be watered down, the intelligence to be watered down for some reason. You know, I talked about a little bit in the book that maybe they were concerned before the, Trump invoking the Insurrection Act, and they're worried about that. But I've had people there's those other thoughts out there. Of but luckily, we still have people investigating this because I still think there's puzzle pieces missing. Someone's going to find out what's really behind all this because It wasn't right. The way the intelligence was handled and way out we're we're set up on the hill. Speaker 0: Big picture just to restate, you've seen many things like this of And as you just said, this was very different. This was handled very differently. By whom? Speaker 1: By by the intelligence. I'd say 1 by the intelligence agency, 2 by the military. So the reason why I say the military, think of this. By federal law, of Congress passed a law that requires me to go to the Sergeant Arms Capitol Police Board in advance of an event and to request federal resources such as the National Guard. So Congress passed a law. It's two U. S. Code 1970. Look it up. Just make sure you look it up before of December 22 when they changed it. So what was in effect on 6th, that requires me to go and get approval for bringing in National Guard or federal assistance in advance, have to go to the Capitol Police Board and get approval from congressional leadership in advance like I did on January 3rd. I'm denied twice because of optics and because the intelligence didn't support it, so think about that. Speaker 0: Let me ask you a question. Who made that decision? Who denied you? Speaker 1: I was denied by Paul Irving, House Sergeant Arms, of and also Mike Stenger, Senate Sergeant Arms on January 3rd And who Speaker 0: do they work for? Speaker 1: It would have been working for Pelosi on the House side, and that Pelosi was the number one boss, and then, McConnell on the senate side. Speaker 0: So we So effectively, Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi shut down of your request. Speaker 1: My request was shut down, one, because of because of optics, which is interesting. You're going to hear that term come up a couple more times, optics over the look of the National Guard on the hill. But, yeah, in the Capitol Police Board, I mean, it it's it's unbelievable that I'm I'm the only chief of police in the United States that has a law preventing me, not just regulations, rules that say I gotta go and need approval to bring in the national art, a law. So that's crazy that congress is gonna pass a law that controls of what I can do to protect the capital and even in emergencies. So think of this, even while we're under attack, I have to go to those same 2 people to request the National Guard to be brought in. I have 3 40 National Guard that have been activated, at least 150 to 180 of those are in the city, many of them within eyesight of the capital, okay? We get to come under attack at 12:53. 12:55, I call the Washington DC Police Department, I talked to their assistant of Chief Jeff Carroll. Thank God, I had talked to him at 10:59 in the morning and asked him if he could possibly put some additional resource on Constitution Avenue, and he had some CDU, platoons up there. Called him, said, hey, please send those in right away because we knew as soon as they they came to their west front, they started attacking, it was gonna be bad. 12/58, I make my 1st call to the sergeant in arms asking, saying, hey, it's bad. We need assistance. I need a declaration of mercy. I need to bring in the the military immediately and federal resources. I'm told by Paul Irving, quote, of I'm gonna run up the chain, I'll get back to you Speaker 0: The chain is Pelosi Speaker 1: The chain is his chain would be up to Nancy Pelosi of he didn't have to do that, but he wouldn't give me authorization. The law says in a mercy, he can grant me authorization, but he didn't. He said he'd run up the chain. My next call was over to Mike of Stenger. He's the now with the chairman of the Capitol Police Board. Told him the same thing. We're getting our asses handed to us on the left front. I need federal resources. He says, what did Paul tell you? Of cities. Run up the chain, let's wait to hear what we hear from Paul. Sorry. So for the next 71 minutes, I make 32 calls. Of I'm in the command center, I'm calling my partner agencies, and by law, you know, one of the first people to offer assistance was United States Secret Service, and by law, I shouldn't have requested their of assistance. You know, I shouldn't be until I had approval, but I'm looking at my men and women having their asses handed to them, and and my first thought was fuck it. I will take whatever discipline there is. Of send me whatever you got. No. That's the 1 text secret service turned over. You know how they lost all their texts? Yes. It's the text between their, chief chief Sullivan and myself. Thank god for him. Speaker 0: Of I don't so can we just so Yeah. You make this call immediately Immediately. To the house sergeant at arms who reports of Mister Irving, who reports to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker 1: he Speaker 0: says, I'll call Pelosi. Speaker 1: He says, I'm a run it up the chain. Speaker 0: Run it up the chain, but that is the chain. Now here, Speaker 1: now here, now I got you on this. I wanna tell you exactly what we told you. Speaker 0: Of What happens then? Does he get back Speaker 1: to you? So over the next 71 minutes, it makes the 32 calls to tie a number of agencies. 11 of those calls are follow-up calls. And look in the the of senate combined report from from 2001. They have a great infographic of the call after call after call after call. 11 times I call, and the next several minutes going, where are we on the approval? Where are we on the approval? Just any minute now. Any minute. I'm gonna get any minute. Finally at 209, 71 minutes later 209, I'm finally given approval. Of Think about that 71 minutes later, I immediately called Mike Stinger, say we've got approval I was so pissed off I made sure that this Watch commander, I'm in the command center. I yelled to John Wisham, the lieutenant that's my watch commander. I said, John, mark the time as 2:10. I finally got approval for the National Guard. I was that mad. Speaker 0: Of So what is the I just wanna pause on this for a minute. That's, like, it's almost unbelievable. So this is an event that Pelosi herself has likened to Pearl Harbor at 911. You know, the worst thing that's ever happened on American soil, and she's in charge of allowing the National Schlegard to come in and respond, but she doesn't for 71 minutes. What is that? Speaker 1: You know, I can't fathom why. Of I mean, they had to have known what was going on. I was telling them how bad it was. Well, it was on TV. It was on TV. It was right outside of Mike Stinger's office, of and they had a meeting in his office saying, hey, where's the National Guard? They're like, oh, we're trying to make the fighting is going on right outside his office, and I'm still getting delayed. Speaker 0: This is an unbelievable story. Speaker 1: Oh, it is? Now get a kick out of Speaker 0: the Wait. Has anyone ever explained this? Speaker 1: It's it's verbatim in my book. I have of details. The whole the whole chapter on, January 6th is almost a 100 pages long. Speaker 0: But I don't understand. So we it just I don't We're only 10 minutes into this, and you've told me two of things. One, the other federal agencies withheld critical information from you in charge of security at the capital before January 6th. And once it started and things got out of control, for 71 minutes, Pelosi refused to allow you to bring in the National Guard. So those are just, of Those are 2 of the biggest questions from January 6th. And my question is, why don't we have answers to why that happened? Speaker 1: It it doesn't seem like people really wanna get to the bottom of it. It really it it really doesn't. It, it and it just gets worse. It gets worse from there. Speaker 0: I'm I'm sorry to step on your story. I just Yeah. Of it. It's shocking. Speaker 1: It is. It is shocking to think that, we should be a coordinated security apparatus. There's regulations, there's there's procedures for defense support for civil authorities. I've taught it for the military. They don't realize they brought me in to actually ask me to actually teach us for, of, foreign governments coming to visit. There's a process for when when law enforcement needs help and we dial 911, it's through it's through the military, and that failed. That failed miserably because of the law congress passed and the denial I was receiving. Speaker 0: Well, it sounds like it was prevent it was prevented. Of So Paul Irving, the guy who had, you're saying, the statutory authority to to give that okay to, Has he ever explained why he didn't? Speaker 1: Oh, his you know, they had him and and he testified at the, senate hearing in 2001. Of, 2021? I'm sorry. 2021. My apologies. Thank you for catching. And, a couple of times, he he, disagreed with my recollection. I I can tell you my phone records. I turned them over immediately. I fought to testify. They didn't want me to testify in the senate hearing. I fought to testify. Speaker 0: Why wouldn't the oh, there's there's so much here. Of What why who didn't want you to testify? So when they first chief of Capitol Police on January 6th, Speaker 1: I mean you and me are on lockstep with with this, and my story hasn't changed in two and a half years. So when they first put out the notice and when they were talking about having the hearing, it was only for current of employees that were still in place, no long no one that was no longer in place in their position in security, so think about that. Initially, when they put out the request to have the and they put up the they were talking about having the hearing, it would have excluded Paul Irving, would have excluded Mike Stenger, and it would have excluded of only 3 people, the 3 people at the top of the security apparatus. Speaker 0: So the Democrats, I think Well, it Speaker 1: was it was joint. It was a a combined joint. I hear you. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. You're absolutely right. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: Of course. The unit party intentionally excluded the the 3 people who would know the answers to the key questions. Speaker 1: Yeah. The original plan was to to exclude them. I immediately called somebody I knew on the rules committee and said, please let me testify. I will be there in person. And I still remember, she said, you'll you'll show up in person. I said, I promise you, I will be there in person. I wanna testify. But and I was the only one that showed up in person. Speaker 0: It just seems like the denial of your request To have national guardsmen who were within eyesight, you saw them, to have them help. That is it that's a of Pivotal moment on that day. Mhmm. And we know the name of the man who made that decision, and we'd still don't know why he made that decision. And that's just shocking to me. Of Has he ever answered that question? Speaker 1: No. He's he's, never answered that question specifically that I'm aware of. And I do know when they were talking about the j6 of committee coming out, I think it was, Representative Bennie Thompson that had said Speaker Pelosi is off limits. So they wouldn't get any of her records, her phone records. What do you Speaker 0: mean she's off limits? Speaker 1: I believe that was one of the things he said that that her coming into this was she was off limits to the, inquiries to the Janier's. Speaker 0: Well, she was running the house that day. Speaker 1: I hear you. I hear you. That I mean, if we're truly trying to get to the bottom of this, trying to find out what happened Speaker 0: Other than that, missus Lincoln, I mean, it's insane. Speaker 1: You know, you would be getting everyone's records. I've been forthright. All my phone records have been turned over. And like I said, there's a a description of all the numerous calls I made requesting approval. Think about it. In that in the 71 minutes, I called in 17 police agencies, 1700 officers to help us get the capital back. And then also made those 11 calls trying to find out where Speaker 0: You are as of precise as an airline pilot in in your recollection of things I've so yes I and I think everything you you have said is is provable I mean these are Speaker 1: the the book's all based on fact. You can go through it. I've rec reference all the facts I have, footnote. You get access to all a lot of the intelligence. I mean, of you know, it's it's back to my my story hasn't changed in two and a half years. So the I'm just to circle back to this Paul Irving who played played a pivotal role, I think whose name is Speaker 0: of Unknown to most people, even people who follow what happened on January 6th. What happened to him? Speaker 1: No idea. He, he disappeared shortly thereafter. I haven't heard much from him. Had a couple of conversations with Mike Stenger before he passed away, but nothing from Mr. Irving. Speaker 0: Of So he was House Sergeant at Arms? And then when did he leave after January 6? Speaker 1: So of it's interesting. So he officially left, 7th, but his signature is on a document making the, of us. My assistant chief of intelligence to the chief of police on 8th is kinda weird the way it worked. But so I guess he was out the 7th or 8th. Was he close to Pelosi? Of oh, yes. Was he oh, yeah. He was a very loyal he it's interesting. He was able to go between Republican and Democrat pretty pretty well. He knew how to play the political games. Speaker 0: On some level. Speaker 1: Of but he was he was extremely, extremely loyal. To Nancy Pelosi. Speaker 0: And it's unclear what happened to him after he left. Speaker 1: No idea. Of the capital. Yeah. Speaker 0: Has he done to your knowledge we we haven't found anybody in interviews about Not Speaker 1: not that I'm aware of, no. Speaker 0: Of Was he called to testify before the before the January's Committee? Speaker 1: Do you know? I believe he was. I believe he there may be, of I'm just drawing a blank right now, written testimony of his. I know he was one of the 2 that showed up in 2021 for the senate hearing. He was on video, so was Mike Stenger. Of and they were asking him about, you know, his recollection of when, when I called him. And he was like, I don't recall that. Now I had my first My first timing wrong when I went and asked for the initial, National Guard. I originally thought it was January 4th, which was Monday, it was January 3rd when he denied me the first time. Speaker 0: Even though he apparently or certainly federal agencies had intel suggesting this was Going to be a bigger than normal protest and could be violent. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Now, you know, when you look back and you see some of the intel that was out there and I reference a lot of it in the book, There's intel talking about going up and killing the palace guards Those are those are my officers There are intel talking about using chemicals at some of the entry points. There's intel indicating that they've done surveillance on some of the entry points, at the Capitol. None of that's been included. They talk about burning down the Supreme Court. They talk about of different attacks on different members of congress, and they talk they talk about storming the building. Not a single word of that is included in any of the intelligence assessments. And a matter of fact, my intelligence unit is putting out documents on the 4th, 5th, and 6th indicating a low probability of civil disobedience. What? Yeah. Speaker 0: So, I mean, if you were and I'm not. But if you were conspiracy minded, you might think that Certain agencies concluded there was likely to be chaos at the capital, and that served their political purposes. And so they let it happen, and they prevented you from stopping it. Speaker 1: Of you know, when you tie that into a number of other things that happen, and, if you haven't, I mean, I'd love to take you through some of the military stuff really quick. Speaker 0: And I I hope you will at length. Speaker 1: Of is Speaker 0: And and can I just ask, I think most people don't understand that the US military would have a role in a domestic political of Protest? Why would the US military, which we pay to fight wars abroad, be involved in a protest in the United States? Speaker 1: Of the country. So the way it would work is, like I said, through a program. A lot of times, the military will come out. They'll do support for civil authorities, whether it's COVID of Vons. They did it during the avian flu, but they'll also do it during civil disobedience. We've used them for I've activated and sworn in hundreds, if not thousands, of National Guard troops for IMF World Bank, for inauguration. So we'll have them to help line the parade route, just to help us fortify the perimeter. We'll have sometimes we'll have with their their QRF, quick response force, in reserve in case we need additional civil of civil disturbance support. So that's how they'll kinda support law enforcement. So 340 were activated, for crowd control not crowd control, traffic control and management of crowds around, like, metro stations, so they weren't backed up and stuff like that. Not for specific civil disobedience. So we knew we had national guard in in the defense support facility authorities program is if we become overwhelmed, our backstop for law enforcement and I've used up all my resources and I was overwhelmed, would have been the military, specifically the National Guard. So 209, I get approval to, bring in the National Guard Probably 210, 211, my first call well, I've already called General Walker Called General Walker at 151. I was like, I can't wait any freaking longer. I call him. I said, send me the National Guard as quick as you can. I'm gonna get approval any minute because he asked, will you have approval from the Capitol Police Board. And I said, I'll have approval any minute. Please just get them coming this way. So they're within eyesight. Shortly after 209, I talked to them. 234, I get a notification to get on that call with United States Pentagon. I have to sell my request to the National Guard. I'm on the call with a lieutenant general Pyatt Piat. I'm trying to make sure I have his name pronounced right and a, general Flynn is on the call. And it's mainly a pilot that I'm, that I'm speaking with. I I get on the call, mayor Bautista on the call, Chief Conti is on the call, of and I said, I need the National Guard immediately. This is an urgent urgent situation. I still remember saying urgent twice. This is urgent urgent. They gotta be looking at the same TVs I'm looking at. Of I need the National Guard immediately. You know what his response is? Don't like the optics of the National Guard on Capitol Hill. Like, because I would rather have your officers in the fight and we can backfill your officer somewhere else. I said, I don't have that option. Of all my officers are in the fight. He goes, I'm telling you, I don't like the option of the National Guard. You know, I don't like the optics of the National Guard on the Hill. I said, sir, were having our asses hand to us. This is life or death. I need assistance immediately. And I still remember, he said, you know, of my recommendation is not to support the request. I still remember Robert Conte going, woah, woah, hold on. You're denying the chief of the Capitol Police? Of and, he goes, Vegas said, not that we're denying them. I just don't like the optics of the National Guard on Capitol Hill. Of and he goes, I'd rather and he goes back to that again. I'd rather backfill your people. I said, sir, I don't have that option. Speaker 0: This sounds like a setup to me. I'm sorry. It does. Speaker 1: It gets better. So of I beg and beg, and he goes, well, I'm gonna walk down the hall and, you know, we'll we'll talk to the secretary of defense or whoever he's gonna he's gonna talk to. Of right then, I get notification. Oh, so I'm still still on the call. We have the shooting of Ashley Babbit. And I said, we have shots fired. I still remember yelling over the phone. We have shots fired on the USCI Capitol. Is that urgent enough for you now? Hang up the phone because now I gotta go start making a notification. I gotta call of the, sergeant arms and, hey, we got what looks like maybe a confirmed shooting. Do you know when the National Guard finally arrived? 6 PM 6 PM, they're sworn in on post Do you know those National Guard, the 150 to 180 that are within eyesight of the capitol? You know what they do with them? Of they put them in vehicles, drive them around the Capitol back to the DC Army. You know where the DC Army is. Oh, it's far away. Yeah. Washington, White House is on one side, of the United States Capitol, DC Army almost equated on the other side RfK Stadium Yeah, RfK Stadium They drive them back then and they send me in the evening troops Speaker 0: Not real Can you frickin' believe it? Speaker 1: No, that's real That's real And you know what else I do? While I'm begging for assistance, depending on sending resources to generals' houses to protect their homes, but not me. So you begin to think it seems a little conspiratorial. I can see where somebody I'm not a cons you know, a conspiracy theorist, But I could see where people begin to go down that rabbit hole real quick. Speaker 0: That rabbit hole. I mean, I don't know what the other conclusion is. Because, of Look. Under pressure, people make mistakes and make bad decisions. But you're describing a of Systematic denial of intelligence and then of support Mhmm. Defense Through a whole bunch of different agencies, a whole bunch of different people, all reaching the same baffling conclusion That we're not going to protect the capital. Speaker 1: That's right. Multiple agencies with people with extensive experience, and you're getting this type of response. You know, and when you look at the level of intelligence, it's baffling that nobody put anything out ahead of time. Speaker 0: Maybe it's not baffling. I mean, remember, this was the end of the Trump administration. Again. You know, a month almost 2 months 2 months into a contested election. This is a politically charged moment with of Ramifications that we're now living through, but, there's a lot at stake here. This is not just your average protest. Correct? Speaker 1: Correct. Of there is Speaker 0: Did you feel that? Did you feel a a a political vibe coming off these decisions at the time? Or are you just showing your lawn Speaker 1: Oh, no. I was I was I was So when I was looking at these cameras that were surrounding me with my officers, my the men and women of the capital police and the other law enforcement agencies, you know, in in in a fight for their life. All I wanted to do was get them resources. And that I hadn't even sat back and at that point, started thinking about the political aspects of it. Speaker 0: I I should say just because it's this is our 2nd conversation. I feel like I know you at this of You're not political. I mean, you were a beat cop who rose and became a chief of police, a very prominent one. And so but you never, of You know, you weren't, like, working in politics on the side like a lot of these people. Speaker 1: No. And you'll you'll find if you look through it and I talk about it in the book, I am I try and be as apolitical as possible Speaker 0: I can tell. Speaker 1: Because I think that is extremely important in the application of law. I'm a rule of law type of guy, but especially being in Washington, DC in special ops. We did, demonstrations all the time, first amendment activity. You have to be apolitical. You gotta go in. It doesn't matter. You know, you have a right first amendment freedom of speech. Doesn't matter if I agree with you or not, but I have to take an apolitical approach to provide you security. And I believe it's important. You don't need to know what the political leanings of a cop are that's and stopping you on a traffic stop. You shouldn't. You should never know that. So I'll always be apolitical when it comes into, law enforcement because that's how it has to be. Amen. Speaker 0: So, by the time the National Guard actually show up at 6 PM Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: They're not needed. Of Correct. Speaker 1: The fight the fight's over. So the whole time, they were concerned they were concerned about the optics of the National Guard showing up. They show up. I have to my I have an official swearman as a special police officers. They take them. They line them up with their shields. All the protesters are off. They line them up with their shields, and I could take a couple of pictures for military magazines and stuff like that of them lined up with the Capitol in the background. Very optics because they said they were so concerned about Speaker 0: They took pictures from military magazine? Think about it. Speaker 1: You can look it up. You can look it up on some of the, go online, look up Like, Speaker 0: we're the heroes of January 6th? Yeah. Speaker 1: We're the heroes of January yeah. Of so you know, and I appreciate my men I come from military, family. I appreciate the men and women in in, military and I will tell you when they finally showed up, of New Jersey state police beat them to the Capitol before the DC National Guard arrived at the Capitol. Of I had DC National Guard's men and women that were infuriated. They were so pissed off that they weren't allowed to respond. They were extremely upset. Speaker 0: Wait. Of the cops drove from New Jersey before the National Guard can Speaker 1: get an Speaker 0: armory on Capitol Hill to the Capitol. Speaker 1: I put out a request, a mutual aid request that went all up and down the, national capital region went up to why isn't this story everywhere? I have no idea. I have no idea. General Walker even said he he called me up. He said, of Steve. I felt so bad. I pulled up on the scene. He's the head of the DC National Guard. He said, I pulled up on the scene, and the, New Jersey State Police beat us to the Capitol. He said he wasn't allowed to go. He repeatedly wanted to go, and the Pentagon wasn't allowed. Speaker 0: And yet the Pentagon celebrated of The guardsmen who showed up at 6 PM when everything was done as heroes, meanwhile, they did they send other guardsmen to protect the homes of generals. Speaker 1: Of yeah. Send other resources. I don't know if they're guard or or depending on force protection or what. But the kicker is this, the Department of Defense, when they interviewed me, all I would've been interviewed by anybody. Of the eye, because I I'm telling the truth. They interviewed me. I provided them all my phone records. They were part of the all all the records. You know, they put out a report saying the actions of the United States military was appropriate, considering the circumstance. Speaker 0: Was appropriate? It's it's online. Yeah. Go look up the deal. No one apologized. Speaker 1: No one apologized. They said their actions fired. Of their actions were appropriate. You know? They had an emergency response authority under DISCA to respond immediately, and they didn't. Speaker 0: Of Do you think that the Pentagon was gathering intelligence before and during January 6th? Speaker 1: Of well, when you look at the fact that, you know, Milian Miller, you know, specifically, Milian was talking about locking down the city, he had to have some pretty damn concerning intelligence. Of that's a pretty big stretch for the government for the military to talk about locking down the capital city and revoking First Amendment permits. Speaker 0: In a in a democracy, that would be a big stretch. Speaker 1: I mean, that's a that's a big stretch. Of It's Speaker 0: close to a coup, actually. Yeah. Speaker 1: That was And then when you hear, you know, about some of the stuff he was getting online and he was only talking to members of congress, it raises it raised a lot of concerns. Speaker 0: Of Does the does the Pentagon does Defense Intelligence Agency, have undercover intel of operatives that you're aware of. Speaker 1: I have no idea. And I think it is important to us that you bring up the the intelligence. It's important for people to realize, again, as United States Capitol Police, we're not part of the intelligence community, the technical IC. There's 18 agencies. 9 of those agencies are military agencies. So that gives you an idea of how heavily weighted of half Speaker 0: Half are of the IC is military. Half of Speaker 1: the IC is military. So But I Speaker 0: think the average person imagines that military intelligence of is not allowed constitutionally to function on American soil. Speaker 1: Yeah. You would you'd think I don't ruled by junta. Yeah. I mean, I I don't know the specifics, but you But Speaker 0: but in your career, have you seen evidence that the half of the IC, half of those 18 intel agencies, the military ones, are working in the United States. Speaker 1: I've I've never received in my times of doing the special events, demonstrations, of, intel briefings. I've never received intel from the military. So it's always been, you know, the DHS, FBI. It's always been. Of Right. And those folks never never and anyone said, hey, we got this from military intelligence. Speaker 0: So, in in the aftermath of January 6th, there's been a huge debate over of To what extent, you know, there were, federal agents or people who are working in some way for federal agencies of In the crowd. And the initial, explanation was, well, none, and you're insane if you think that, you know, you're Alex Jones. You're crazy. And then over the last couple of years, we've seen people confirm people in authority confirm actually, yeah, there were a lot, of In the crowd that day. I mean, that's now a fact. Did did you know that going in? No. They were no. So, just for perspective, since you've been to a lot of these events, there's a huge a planned demonstration in Washington DC. Will there always be of Assets, agents, people working for federal agencies in the crowd and civilian close. Speaker 1: There there always could be. And if like like inaugurations, There would usually be some combined teams, out there, one for communications, but just, you know, for situational awareness. So it wouldn't be surprising, you know, of them, 4th July, different things like that where we have thry threat pictures or concerning threat pictures. Speaker 0: And what does that look like? Does that mean, you know, FBI agents dressed in dockers and of 10 issues, trying to Speaker 1: Well, it'd just be yeah. Just, yeah, plain clothes, you know. Plain clothes. Plain clothes to blend in. So that that wouldn't be unusual, and it it'd be, you know, just standard police work. That'd be good police work. So coming into January 6, and I talk about it in the book with the fact that shortly after January 6, I'm driving through Loudoun County. I'm coming I actually just, talked to somebody from the Hill, and I get a call from overseas. And it say it's press. I don't remember which what it was. It's somebody from, Great Britain. And they start asking me about feds in the crowd. And I was like, well, no. I would have been told. So now we're getting word that there of the feds in the crowd. I said, no. They I would have been told. I've got lots of friends with the, with the bureau. They all have my cell phone number. They they would have told me. You know, Thinking about that in Jill Sanborn's testimony in 2021 where she said they were taking over action to keep certain people from coming to January 6th to to watch DC, that's that's big for see for FBI to start taking over action. I mean, that's not covert, over. That's a big that's a big deal. Fast forward to February of this year, 2023, and the GAO report that says on January 4 January 3rd, the FBI was tracking 4 domestic terrorists that were talking of that coming to Washington, D. C, the Washington field office, their AOR, area of responsibility. By January 6, they were tracking 18 or 19, it's in the GAO report, of domestic terrorists. So think about that. They have 18 or 19 domestic terrorists coming to this event, So, of course, they're gonna have resources on them. And they're not you know, they you're not gonna be just putting 1 agent. You're gonna have multiples. So, you know, it'd be multiple with that. And I don't know how many they actually had so that would be regular standard police work. So I I would be surprised by that. But not to share that in the intelligence? That's concerning. Speaker 0: Of So, I mean, it seems like common sense suggests anyway that you would have to tell the chief of Capitol Police that, hey, we've got our guys in the crowd. Of Like, just because I mean, you you would wanna know the difference. Correct? Speaker 1: You would absolutely wanna know the difference and, you know, deconfliction. Of you want to have things like that. A lot of the, folks will will already know there's a lot of standard procedures for ways to deconflict so you don't have blue on blue type of situations. You'll have that. You know, I I will say this and just really Speaker 0: So that that would just just to because you have perspective, that would be the conventional way to the by the book way to do it. FBI would call you and say, hey, we've got these we're worried about people in the crowd, and we've got our guys there too. Here's who they are. Speaker 1: Yeah. So you so just to deconflict operations, They wouldn't necessarily call me. They might call my, deputy chief that's in charge of my intel and their Or should Speaker 0: but they would call me. Speaker 1: You would coordinate. You coordinate with DC police. You coordinate with park police. You coordinate with the service just so everyone kinda knew what was going on. And and really quickly, I do wanna say this, you know, you know, nowhere do I wanna imply or, indicate that I feel that, of, agents instigated this or in any way like that. I'm never never saying that. I haven't said that. And a lot of these, agencies came to my defense on January 6th, FBI Secret Service, stuff like that. So I just want to make sure it's clear, but there would have been some coordination. And when you look at it and you think with the intelligence coming in, if you think there's 19, of domestic terrorists coming to Washington DC, somehow that would have been included in some type of report. And when you look at the FBI's procedures, policies and procedures, and again, of go online. The, attorney general's guidance for domestic operations of the FBI specifically says the FBI has to do an assessment, an assessment which includes intelligence assessments of events that are they're identifying as being the target of possible threats and possible violence. I think that would have in the United States capital on January 6 Look through that document, I outlined it in the book and see all the repeated failure after failure after failure of fire on procedures to to start identifying intelligence and making the proper notifications. Speaker 0: So it but it does raise a and I I don't have the answer to this question and I hope I don't ever pretend that I do but Speaker 1: of It it does raise questions about Speaker 0: the behavior of some of the people in the crowd who were instigating others to to break the law, and who weren't arrested. And, you know, given our facial recognition software capabilities, hard to believe they can't be found. And I would specifically cite a man called Ray Epps, who's now a hero on the left and funded by the Democratic Party, etcetera. But take the politics out of it. Of What is that? Here you have a guy on camera repeatedly saying, we're going to the Capitol. Speaker 1: We need to go into the Capitol. Hang on. Into the Capitol. Speaker 0: And he's not in jail when people who who didn't go into the Capitol are in jail? I I don't what do you make of that? Speaker 1: Of the Capitol. Again, that's something I actually address in the book. It's funny. There's a lot in here. So my concern with that, now I look at it from a chief of police point of view, is you I have somebody that's down, and I believe he's right near the old executive office building on 5th, the day before January 6th, talking to a group of people, talking about we have to get into the building, we have to get into the building. And then the next day to see him at what's called the Pennsylvania Avenue Gate. It's one of the 2 fence lines I had down at the west front. Of, and he he's there and he clearly sees the banner the, metal crowd control barriers that are up with the sign saying restricted, you know. So he knows that's a restricted area And he's up there, and you see him lean in, and he whispers in somebody's ear, and he covers his mouth in such a way so you can't read his lips or anything, whispers in somebody's ear, and that person, moments later, is attacking my officers, that's suspicious hell to me. I I it raised a lot of concerns. Speaker 0: What is that? Speaker 1: You know? And what's interesting is I believe, Speaker 0: And and that's that's verified. The person of the Yeah. I think if Speaker 1: you watch the video, you see that, yeah, that person immediately go and start start pulling on the gate and start, you know, fighting with the officers. And what's interesting is of when I believe he went on 60 minutes. And on 60 minutes, what he said was he went up to the officer, and he told that officer, these officers are on our side. Don't have hurt these officers. I believe that was pretty much not verbatim, but don't hurt these officers. They're on our side. Don't don't hurt these officers. Well, if that's the case, Why would you cover your mouth and not yell it to everybody? Because it didn't seem like that protester was the only one that was possibly gonna be hurting the officers. We had a whole bunch of people of why wouldn't you tell it to the whole group? Speaker 0: I don't I don't know. I I I know that EPPSA is being encouraged by partisan democrats to sue people who raise these questions, but of their fair questions and I'm gonna raise them anyway. How given that tape could the January 6th committee of Defend RE Aps, which they did. Doesn't make any sense to me. Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm having trouble answering that one. I I don't know. Interesting. Speaker 0: Of How many, peep how many federal agents, officer officers, of assets, people connected with federal agencies. Do you think we're in the crowd? Do we have any idea? Speaker 1: I have I really have no idea. Speaker 0: More or fewer than normal, would you say? Speaker 1: Of well, if you have, again, going back to what I'm reading now in the G. O. Report with 19 domestic terrorist possibly coming in, I haven't I've never seen anything like that in Washington, D. C. So I you know, you may have a larger than usual presence. Speaker 0: Amazing. Who's Yogananda Pittman? Speaker 1: Of Yoganand Pitman was my assistant chief for intelligence and, secure security. Speaker 0: Okay. Of So, did she have the intelligence that you didn't have? Speaker 1: I I don't know. What do you mean you don't know? I I don't know. I you You don't know what you don't know. Speaker 0: I don't know. Speaker 1: Well, no. I don't know what she what she had and what she didn't have. But I do know that when you look at it and we immediately knew, I mean, anybody immediately knew, one of the first things you start to think about is this an intelligence failure. So think about it. We go through January 6. I was begging for the National Guard, refused of 4, refuse during it. We get the, capital under control. You know, I get them to where they can go back into session, of 7:30. They elect to go in at 8 and then the house goes at 9, but nonetheless so think about this. The very next day, less than 24 hours after we got control of the of the, of the Capitol Nancy Pelosi goes on national TV, blames leadership at the top of Capitol Police, of calls for my resignation on national TV and then the lies about me, okay? The very next day the very next day puts Yogananda Pittman as acting chief. Speaker 0: But Yogananda Pittman, you just described her as the head of intelligence for the Capitol Police. Correct. So if there was an intelligence failure, which again doesn't seem like a failure, it seems very intentional to me. But if there was such a failure, she'd be responsible. Correct? Or she'd be in the chain of responsibility anyway? Speaker 1: Well, I mean, she was she was the head of intelligence. So if there's intelligence failure See, my thing is do a proper analysis. You know? You know, why do a knee jerk reaction? I mean, putting her in charge, I mean, she ended up getting a a vote of no confidence, so she didn't get the position from the, from the police officers because many were upset with what happened. Where where did she wind up? Where is she now? Yeah. She's chief of police for the University of California, Berkeley. Interesting. Speaker 0: So right across from Nancy Pelosi's district Speaker 1: That is correct, sir. Speaker 0: In the Bay Area. Speaker 1: That is correct. Speaker 0: So you just kinda take the Bay Bridge over there, and that's Yeah. That's where she is now. What does that position pay? Do you know? Speaker 1: I think it pays, pays pretty well. There was, you know Speaker 0: Pays extraordinarily well. Speaker 1: I'm sure it pays I'm sure it pays pretty good. It's it's interesting. There was a hearing just recently, that was on it's on TV. You can look at it. Where the chief of police, Tom Manger, was asked about her position. It turns out that she was given some type of a of secret leave. So she'd leave, start her job on February 1st as the chief of police, and not retire from the Capitol Police for months later. Speaker 0: Of Oh, so you should get the benefits. Speaker 1: Yeah. Think about that. Yeah. It appears to be against department policy, you know, and nobody allegedly Speaker 0: was What you're saying is that the of head of intelligence for the capital police which demonstrably didn't have the intelligence that needed to protect the building. That person was first elevated to acting chief of capital police and then given a very high paying job right across from Nancy Pelosi's district at at the University of California Berkeley Speaker 1: That is correct and I will say this Speaker 0: So that looks like a reward to me Speaker 1: Well, I do know that the unit had significant intelligence and I know many people within the unit were pushing that intelligence up to the to the leadership of the unit, so I do I do know that Many of them became whistle blowers, and many of them were punished of and forced to resign. Yep. Speaker 0: This looks like a scam. Speaker 1: I mean, it's just saying. It it just gets more convoluted. Of you know, I I do. I feel so bad for the men and women in the police department, what they went through. I feel so bad for the intelligence analysts and what they went through. Many of them, you know, It was it was really, really bad. I feel bad for the officials that were either demoted, forced to resign over this, forced to retire early. There's a lot of people that need someone I think an outside entity, needs to come in and do some investigation about what what went on with Speaker 0: We already had. We already we've had many entities doing investigations. I believe we empaneled this of Committee or commission, this this body of members of Congress, that went on for about a year and was on the news every single night. Of Did they address any of these questions? Speaker 1: No, sir. Speaker 0: How could you how could you have a January 6th commission whose job it is to figure out what happened on January 6th, Not get to the bottom of, like, why the head of intelligence at Capitol Police didn't pass on the intelligence, where the chief of Capitol Police was kept in the dark and denied of support from the US military, why Yogananda Pittman wound up after failing on January 6th, getting a high paying job right across Nancy Pelosi's district, like, who wouldn't ask these questions? Speaker 1: Of the Capitol. Yes, well, I know there's people on the Hill still trying to ask those questions, and hopefully, they can get answers. But it looks like they keep running into roadblock after roadblock after roadblock. But but it's hard to believe two and a half years later, we're still at this point. I still think somebody along the line is going to find, you know, the smoking gun, the missing puzzle piece that puts us together, but it does. When you look at it and there's still so much more to it, it just begins to raise more and more questions. Speaker 0: It's just it's interesting to to talk to you because, This again, this is my assessment. You seem like a very straight arrow guy. Speaker 1: I try. Speaker 0: Well, I could it it it comes off you in waves. So and I mean that's a compliment but of how long how long did it take you to realize there's something very strange going on here? Speaker 1: I knew there was something strange going on pretty pretty soon. When I when I was running into the issues with of them not wanting me to testify. I was like, this is this starts getting a little weird. And then when I started sitting down and and talking to officers and getting information and finding out from some of the of some of the intelligence that was out there and where it was and seeing some of the emails of the intelligence analysts pushing up to their officials, I knew something was something was fishy. I I mean, think about it. How how how can somebody not look at all this and think something's something's odd? Speaker 0: So, I mean, we have a media whose job it is, of to get to the bottom of questions, like, these are at least to ask the questions of knowledgeable people with relevant experience and you you're at the top of that list. Of We interviewed you, never aired, at a previous job. But, how many other long interviews have you done with media outlets? Of Speaker 1: long ones, not not very many. Not, I actually can't think of any. I've done 60 minutes. That's probably about the longest. Speaker 0: And how long from your 60 minutes interview, How much of your account wound up on television do you think? Estimate. Speaker 1: 3 or 4 minutes. Speaker 0: 3 or 4 minutes. Of 3 or 4 minutes. So you're the chief of capital police on January 6th. Common sense suggests you'd be the 1st person Speaker 1: of That any reporter trying to figure out Speaker 0: what happened on January 6th would call. Speaker 1: You'd think. Speaker 0: Is your cell phone buzzing day and night of No. Curious reporters trying to find the truth? Speaker 1: No. No. It's, it's calmed down. I mean, 1st couple of days were something else, but, it's really it's really calmed down. And, you you know, I'm not stupid when it comes to law enforcement. I've been in law enforcement for 30 years. I've done everything from capturing homicide suspects to doing, you know, barricade situations. Of this didn't have to happen. This was screwed up from the get go, didn't have to happen, numerous opportunities to prevent it from of numerous opportunities from printing bringing my men and women from going through what they had to, and it never happened. There was never that opportunity to stop that train. Speaker 0: Have, of You know, there's always a concern that politics will infect law enforcement and the justice system more broadly. And and I and I think You thought about this as one of the reason. I think you said we need to be strictly apolitical in the way we administer law enforcement. It does seem like things have changed, of And it does seem like politics affect the way we enforce the law. Does it feel a way to you? Speaker 1: Yeah. And again, you know, one of the that's one of the things that many things that that are here. I talk about the 2020 riots versus the 20 the the January 6th attack. Speaker 0: The riots in front of the White House where famously St. John's Church was set on of Speaker 1: the fire. Oh, White House, across the country. You know, I talk about the White House, and I talk about an agency that was formed by Congress specifically for the protection of the United States president, of, the Washington DC Police Department. The White House is under attack, and they are prevented. They are prevented. I know it's not from Chief Newsom. It's from his you know, he was the chief at the time, would have been from, above him, therefore prevented from going on cap on White House grounds and helping the United States seek its service and defending the the White House. So think about that. You know, who made that decision? Of again, all I know is, you know, Nutrien's hands were tied. So Baer Bowser? Higher? Speaker 0: I don't know. Of but think Speaker 1: about that. Speaker 0: Somebody told when there and there was real rioting. In fact, I I think Well that more officers were injured At that riot, they were injured on January 6, I think. Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. Again, don't take my word. Jail report. More officers injured at the, of the protests up by the White House and on January 6th. And I'm told by Park Police, all charges were dropped according to the, the fighting at Lafayette Park and at the, at the White House. There were Secret Service agents bloodied and battered over there. There was a number of federal agencies that were hurt, structures set on fire. They tried to light the Hay Adams Hotel on fire that was occupied. Think about that. Charges dropped. No no such situation. I mean, when you look at the disparity of how justice is being applied, Again, that's that's scary. That becomes really scary when it becomes politicized like that, and that's what appears to have happened. Speaker 0: I mean, it sounds like Trump is the key to all of this. If Trump hadn't been the president, things would have been very responses would have been very different. Don't you think? I mean, if Barack Obama had been president, do you think That someone would have told MPD that Washington DC Police Department, they couldn't protect the White House? Speaker 1: Again, I don't of protect the White House? I don't know. I see what you're saying there. I I don't know. I mean, I think not. Speaker 0: Just look. I mean, it's a I I shouldn't ask you to answer hypothetical of their questions, but it does seem Seems so amazing. La last question. Thank you for doing this. Again, of I really appreciate this is important, and I hope that everyone who's interested in January 6th and its aftermath, which really has changed the country, will will watch this, of Watch this interview. But looking back after spending your entire life in law enforcement, how have your views of changed after January 6th? Speaker 1: Yeah. That's a big question. I mean, my views of law enforcement, I still think Law enforcement is a very honorable, profession. I really, really do. Screwed up in a lot of cities. I feel bad for a lot of people that are going into it. We need good cops. But right now, their hands are being tied. When you look at, what law enforcement's going on, I mean, I was just talking with somebody who, one of their officers in Washington, D. C. Arrested Somebody went to a scene of a robbery, recovered a weapon, recovered somebody else's wallet in possession with the, with the suspect, made the arrest, paper a gun, went in a person's pocket. And during the search, found a loaded handgun, went down to papers. No paper. No paper. Armed hand armed robbery means all charges were dropped. That's bad. That's bad when we're seeing the type of crime that we're seeing in some of these cities and They're not prosecuting some of these cases. I feel sorry for the officers. It's, you know, very dangerous for them. You know, I still, you know, love the professions, still love the officers, with the, Capitol police, Washington DC police still talk to them regularly. They're going through a lot, and I just don't think they're getting the back and they need. No. Speaker 0: They're not. And the effects on the rest of us are are We're seeing it. Steven Sund, former chief of Capitol Police, thank you so much. Speaker 1: Thank you very much for having me on the of A dozen air people say the news is full of lies. On Kennedy's motorcade. 200 of And 39 people know the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Of

@sues86453 — Sue Knows Best

Posted - November 20, 2023 at 10:40 PM

Saved - November 21, 2023 at 12:41 AM

@sues86453 - Sue Knows Best

More information on #Jan6th Ex-DOJ officials lays it out. Free the #January6th prisoners now! https://t.co/cSRU1dR3JJ

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker makes several points about the treatment of January 6th protester defendants. They criticize the formation of the January 6th committee, claiming it was one-sided and lacked due process. The committee's hearings were described as scripted and cherry-picked. The speaker also accuses the committee of working with media outlets to spread a fake insurrection narrative. They argue that this poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC. The speaker believes that many defendants were unfairly targeted through geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants. They also mention that some protesters were unaware that certain areas were closed, leading to trespassing charges.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Let me make 7 quick points. 1st, one of the original sins of government that has carried, and caused the poor treatment of the January 6th protester defendants is, the, lawless formation of the house select committee, the January 6th committee, leading to it acting in a one-sided and due process free way. That committee was gerrymandered by speaker Pelosi, operated without a ranking member or counsel to the ranking member. Liz Cheney was granted vice chair status to try to cover that up. The committee then had a series of carefully Scripted by Hollywood hearings, where the entire q and a path was prewritten and meshed with cherry picked snippets of highly edited, audio I'm sorry, video and, audio doctored video. The committee interviewed a 1,000 plus witnesses, it says, but only about two 100 transcripts have been released. Second, the January 6th committee worked with regime media. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC, etcetera. In that way, the fake narrative that an insurrection had January 6th was blasted everywhere. Based on secretly recorded, video, we now have on tape Nancy Pelosi's documentarian daughter, and her friends admitting that no real insurrection ever occurred. The collective effect of the January 6th committee's shameful way of proceeding, plus the reinforcing media blitz, poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC. Trial venue transfers out of DC should have been permitted. Media narrative mongering, indeed, was also the pre original sin, therefore, of this entire issue because it laid the groundwork work for the January 6th select committee's hatchet jobs. 3rd, many of the defendants were swept up in a vast dragnet that I believe violated the 4th amendment, because it was the equivalent of a general warrant that our framers sought to ban. This was done through the use of geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants sent to telecom providers. Additionally, many protesters arriving after president Trump's speech, in the ellipse it in the ellipse had finished, did not see any signage that areas normally open to the public were closed that day, setting up a trespass trap for the unwary.

@RickyDoggin — A Man Of Memes

Posted - November 28, 2023 at 12:49 AM

Saved - November 28, 2023 at 1:27 AM

@RickyDoggin - A Man Of Memes

James O'Keefe Exposes Government Conspiracy to Frame Citizens on January 6th https://t.co/HXeCRrDRkj

Video Transcript AI Summary

On January 6th, a group of colleagues were outside having fun, while others inside the Capitol building were scared. Matthew Rosenberg of The New York Times asks for the truth. A video suggests Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden discussing framing the protesters. They talk about the need to prosecute those who threatened democracy and stop protests in the capital. The video raises concerns about the political power brokers protecting their own interests. It ends by stating that the public should watch the video and decide for themselves what happened that day.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: It's about January 6th. Uh-huh. Quote. It was like me and 2 other colleagues who were there on January 6th outside, and we were just having fun. I know I'm supposed to be traumatized, but like all these colleagues who are in the Capitol building were like, oh, my God. It was so scary. I'm Speaker 1: like, That's Matthew Rosenberg of The New York Times asking me what I want. Speaker 0: Only one thing, Matt, the truth. Speaker 1: It's a disturbing video that shows Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden discussing what to do and deciding to frame the protesters. Speaker 2: These people have crossed the line by threatening our democracy. I've given a shoot to kill order Any breach of the speaker's lobby, every one of these maggots must be prosecuted. Yes. I agree. No more protests in our capital. Speaker 1: The video paints a troubling picture of the political power brokers attempting to spin the narrative to protect their own interests. This is not just about the protesters, What about the lengths to which those in power will go to protect their own interests? We will now show you this video and let you decide for yourself what really happened on that fateful day. Speaker 2: Listen, sweetheart. Let the men handle it. Are you Why don't you let me finish? Staffers were almost killed. I thought I was going to die. This is an adult discussion. The public doesn't fear us anymore, and you better Do something. What am I supposed to do? Do your fucking job, Nancy. Alexandria, let's both be patient and respectful of each other's ideas. Let's take a step back and look at the big picture. Joe, I don't have anything to say to you. If we don't make sure those who perpetrated this mayhem are brought to justice, we are all This was a mostly peaceful protest. I don't care why they were there. Violence, non violence, doesn't matter. We can't allow those who showed up to get away with it. Speaker 1: They can't allow protesters to get away with it. They use anonymous sources. They say

@jsolomonReports — John Solomon

Posted - December 1, 2023 at 1:04 AM

Saved - December 1, 2023 at 6:12 AM

@jsolomonReports - John Solomon

Watch: Rep. Loudermilk confirms all videotapes from Jan. 6 Committee depositions are gone https://justthenews.com/videos/rep-loudermilk-confirms-all-videotapes-jan-6-committee-depositions-are-gone?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tw

Rep. Loudermilk confirms all videotapes from Jan. 6 Committee depositions are gone Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) says taped depositions of January 6 star witness Cassidy Hutchinson and all other testifiers from the original January 6 Select Committee investigation are now missing. “I wrote a letter to Bennie Thompson asking for them and he confirmed that they did not preserve those tapes. He didn’t feel that they had to,” Rep. Loudermilk says. “But according to House rules, you have to preserve any data and any information and documents that are used in an official proceeding.” justthenews.com

@laralogan — Lara Logan

Posted - December 1, 2023 at 5:09 AM

Saved - December 1, 2023 at 5:39 AM

@laralogan - Lara Logan

Vanished! House panel chairman says J6 videotapes of witness interviews missing | Just The News https://justthenews.com/government/congress/vanished-house-panel-chairman-says-j6-videotapes-witness-interviews-missing

Vanished! House panel chairman says J6 videotapes of witness interviews missing Rep. Barry Loudermilk says some J6 documents missing too, and came back from Biden White House heavily redacted. justthenews.com

@kylenabecker — Kyle Becker

Posted - December 1, 2023 at 2:07 PM

Saved - December 1, 2023 at 2:17 PM

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

“All of the videotapes of all depositions are gone." House Rep. Barry Loudermilk confirms that the J6 committee did not keep key evidence in its sham "investigation" of former President Donald Trump over his role in the non-insurrection on January 6 https://t.co/vAjl1mwnrC

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker confirms that the videotapes of Cassidy Hutchinson, where she changed her testimony, are missing. All the videotapes of depositions are gone, which was discovered early in the investigation. The speaker wrote a letter to Benny Thompson requesting the tapes, but they were not preserved. Despite airing portions of the tapes on televised hearings, they were not kept. The speaker believes the tapes exist somewhere and emphasizes their importance. They explain that body language and voice inflection are crucial in understanding Cassidy's original testimony and why it's necessary to have the videos.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Can you confirm to us that the videotapes of Cassidy Hutchinson, the ones where she's now changing her testimony through the Arabi, that they are missing, they are gone? Speaker 1: That is true. I can confirm that and all of the videotapes of all depositions are gone. Again, we found out about this early in the investigation when I received a call, from someone who was looking for some information off one of the videotapes, and we started searching and we had none. I wrote a letter to Benny Thompson asking for them, and he confirmed that they did not preserve those tapes. He didn't feel that they had to, but according to house rules, You have to preserve any data and information and documents that are used in a proficient, An official proceeding, which they did. They actually aired portions of these tapes on their televised hearings, which means they had to keep those, But yet he chose not to. I believe they exist somewhere. We've just got to find where all these videos are. And here's why it's so important. Even with, Cassidy Hutchins, people have asked why do you need the videos? You've got written transcripts. Well, when you got someone like Cassidy who is significantly changing her testimony, I wanna see what her body language is when she gave her original testimony. I wanna see what her voice inflection is. Was she very confident In what she was saying at that time, but then later decided to change it? This is why it's so important that we have those video tapes, and I believe that's probably why we don't have them.

@Truth_InMedia — Truth In Media

Posted - December 1, 2023 at 2:53 PM

Saved - December 1, 2023 at 3:07 PM

@Truth_InMedia - Truth In Media

What are they still hiding about January 6th? Take a look at some of what we've uncovered so far on "The Rest of the Story" with @laralogan. https://t.co/BXdRp6g0XE

Video Transcript AI Summary

This video discusses the events of January 6th and raises questions about the government's involvement and potential setup. It features interviews with individuals affected by the aftermath of the Capitol breach, including Matthew Perna's family and the Brunson brothers. The Brunson brothers, who are not lawyers, filed lawsuits against Congress for failing to investigate election fraud allegations. The video also highlights the presence of undercover agents and informants during the Capitol breach. The committee investigating security failures on January 6th has identified an undercover officer, Nicholas Thomasula, who can be heard urging the crowd to advance. The video ends with a discussion about the potential cover-ups and the need for the truth to be revealed.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: They came from every corner of this nation. Around a 1000000 voices raised, now silenced from prison to the grave. There are American citizens sitting behind bars Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: Who haven't had a trial Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 0: Some of them for 2 years, some of them going on 3 years. Speaker 3: There are people that we have willing to talk to us right now. They're scared for their life. Speaker 0: Is it potentially the biggest setup in the history of this country? Potentially. What are they still hiding about January 6th? What don't they want you to know? Take a look at what we've uncovered so far On the rest of the story with Lara Logan. The last thing Matthew Perna expected after turning himself in for nonviolent offenses and pleading guilty was for the government to try to add years behind bars at the 11th hour, but that's exactly what prosecutors were planning, Only they never got the chance. You had a conversation with the prosecutor. Can you tell us about that? Speaker 4: Yes. So he says, let me start off by saying that there are many people in my department that felt very bad that Matthew decided to take his life. I said, really? There are many people in your department, including you, who are the reason Matthew took his life. He hanged himself because of the people in your department. He said, again, I am very sorry for your that your nephew took his life. And I said, I hope that every night before you go to bed, the last thing you think of is the name Matthew Perna and the role you played in his death. Speaker 0: Matthew Perna's fate was sealed the moment his face appeared on this FBI wanted poster, his aunt said. Suspect number 73 stood out in his red Trump sweatshirt As cameras recorded him inside the capital, roughly 14 minutes, that cost him his business, his reputation, and the woman he planned to marry. Speaker 4: I just stepped my foot in the tub, and my phone rang. And it was one of my brothers. And I said, Jerry, you need to get a plane ticket and come home. Matt just hang himself in his garage. Speaker 0: They broke him. Speaker 4: They completely broke him, and they broke his heart. Speaker 0: And they knew what they were doing? Yes. What was it about his case that struck you? Speaker 5: To see somebody That was a victim of our own Department of Justice, and especially somebody as peaceable and caring As Matthew obviously was, shame on anybody that doesn't care how the system abused this poor guy. It it's just too tragic. It we shouldn't have a repeat of that. Speaker 0: From the start, Matthew saw things that did not fit the official narrative, And later that night, loudly called out those he believed responsible. Speaker 6: Antifa was disguised as Trump supporters today. Yeah. And they were the ones Who really led the charge into the capitol building? Speaker 2: We love the police, but a few empty fuck dressed up as Trump supporters Have you're causing violence and stirring up violence here at the Capitol steps, and they're playing on the emotions of you and every patriotic American. This is not right. Speaker 0: When masked men started smashing windows, protesters objected and stepped in to stop them, Taking out this man first, then tackling another who'd stepped in to finish the job while the crowd Chanted. In this footage from January 6, a plainclothes officer from the Metropolitan Police Department, Badge, briefly visible, was captured talking to a Capitol police officer and told him Speaker 7: Well, he go undercover his antique in a crowd. So Speaker 0: Do you believe this was a setup? This was an intel operation? Speaker 5: These people came to Washington to protest, but the masses had no intention to be involved in any violence at all. Speaker 0: So you're dodging the question. Speaker 5: I do think that a lot of what happened was stirred up by the federal government. There were people involved that manipulated them. Speaker 0: They were framed. Speaker 5: They were framed. Speaker 0: 43 year old Marcus Priester grew up a stone's throw away from his friend in one of the 5 small communities that stretch across the Shenango Valley. And for him, the loss was beyond measure. Speaker 1: I had so much anger in my heart, And I prayed for God to take that anger away. Yeah. I'll I'll never I'll never fill that void. Speaker 0: Best friend you ever had? Speaker 1: Best friend I ever had. Speaker 0: I suppose it's a gift. Speaker 1: I was blessed To be a part of his life. You know, he had many friends. I was just one of his. Speaker 0: Summer was just settling in to the Chenango Valley where the forest reaches from western Pennsylvania into When we met up with Marcus Priester, he and Matthew Purna would come here to run the rocky dirt Trails, but also to listen and be still. It was a little more than a year since his best friend had killed himself. And this time he was taking Matthew's friends and family on a pilgrimage of sorts To a clearing deep in the forest where Marcus and Matthew's uncle Ron had scattered some of his ashes and planted a tree in his memory. Wow. This was Matthew Church. Speaker 1: Yeah. Beautiful. Serenity. Speaker 0: For Gerry Perna, in some ways, life stopped when Matthew died. But there was one moment as unexpected as it was comforting, when an honor guard from Ohio Stood with them as they said goodbye to Matthew. Speaker 4: That night of the viewing, there were 2 officers there, And they took turns. We were all confused. Speaker 0: We were in shock. Speaker 4: Yeah. We we didn't understand why there was an honor card there. They had an American flag, and they did a flag folding ceremony. And they handed the flag to my brother. And after the funeral, my brother Said to them, I'm grateful that you came, but Matt wasn't in the service. And they said, Matt was more of a patriot than most every veteran we've ever done a funeral for. That's what they said, and they handed Larry the flag. Speaker 0: The words carved into the stone of the highest court in the land still read this under law. 4 brothers from Utah are testing that theory. They didn't go to the capital, but like many of those who did, they believe the most Powerful politicians in this nation aren't doing their duty. When we heard 4 brothers better known for blasting their horns than practicing law had weighed in on the 2020 election controversy and were suing congress for failing to investigate charges of fraud. We tracked them down earlier this year In the Rocky Mountain city of Provo, Utah, where they're from, to find out what they were thinking. Speaker 8: War puts in the power its victor. A regulation does the exact same thing. It puts in a power. It's victor only there's not a loss of life and property. Speaker 0: Meet Darren Brunson. Of the 4 brothers, believe it or not, he's the quieter one. He's not a lawyer, but he started suing banks years ago, and he's the legal brain behind the Brunson lawsuits. Then there's Loy, also known by his middle name, Arlen. He's the oldest, once ran for local office, Published a pocket constitution with all the founding documents, and at an event, got president Trump to answer his questions on the Federal Reserve. Speaker 7: Hello, mister Trump. My name is Lloyd Brunson. You've inspired I'm over here on your right. Speaker 9: Oh, you Speaker 0: can go That's the one Speaker 2: I wanna do. That's weird. Speaker 0: Not to be overlooked, Rawlin Brunson. He's the funny one. Speaker 8: She's looking at me and she's looking Speaker 7: at me like this and goes, Alright. I'll take your $300. Speaker 0: With a quick smile and a lot to say. Speaker 7: I got my brother-in-law here talking to a gal. You know? And Yeah. My brother Gaynor here. He's wondering what he's gonna be doing next. Speaker 0: At 60, Gaynor's the baby of the family And the only one who made music his full time career with a professional recording studio and a talent for drums that rivals his lips. In their emergency petition, the Brunson's had argued That lawmakers immunity from prosecution violated the first amendment rights of American citizens. That's because in the first amendment, The founding fathers also guaranteed the freedom to petition for redress of grievances. The Brunson's asserted that meant elected officials We're not immune from the lawsuits of everyday citizens. But over nearly 2 years, every court including the Supreme Court declined to hear their cases. For anyone but the Brunssons, that would have likely been the end. What's the evidence? Speaker 2: It's Speaker 7: not about whether there was enough evidence or not to make to change the outcome. That's not what this case is about, really. Speaker 0: This is about What is it about, Lauren? Speaker 7: It's about investigating to make sure that the conclusions are Sound and correct and true. Speaker 0: Well, I don't believe there was fraud in the election. What if what if they say that? Speaker 9: Well Speaker 0: You're putting our democracy at risk, Lloyd. Speaker 10: What exactly are we putting at risk? What exactly are we threatening? Speaker 0: Well, you're threatening people's faith in the elections. This election has already been declared The most secure election in history, and there's been hundreds of court cases that have failed. And you are shaking the foundations of this country because if people don't accept the results, it's damaging. Speaker 8: You know what I say? What? Good. Because your faith should be shaken up. Because if you don't, You're gonna see hell pour upon you like you've never seen before in this country. We're fast moving in the wrong direction. Yes. We're gonna shake your faith with what is called the truth. Do you wanna see the truth? If you're afraid of the truth, then, yeah, you shouldn't be here. You should wanna know the truth. Speaker 0: The Brunssons are really just a band of loyal brothers Speaker 11: Who Speaker 0: grew up in a time and a family where defending the constitution was still regarded as a sacred duty, not an act of domestic terror. In front of a studio wall lined with photographs and legendary faces, we took a stroll down memory lane. Speaker 4: Oh, my goodness. Speaker 0: Okay. But what about Speaker 4: that one up there, the White House? Speaker 0: What does it say taking a tour at night? Speaker 12: Oh, yeah. The Secret Service gave us a private tour in the evening, then They took us on a tour of the Oval Office, and this stuff was just us. Speaker 0: Here are the Brunson Brothers. They performed for that same president In the NBC Christmas special in Washington DC in 1988, Taught Regis how to blow the horn Speaker 8: first thing you have to do is you have to make make a buzz sound from your list. Like, Speaker 0: Alright. Great. Great. Led the kickoff classic halftime show at New York Giants Stadium. The music that's all led by the Brunson Brothers. Their act Drew the attention of the famous and the soon to be things. Speaker 7: We were playing at the Imperial Palace Hotel in Las Vegas. After the show, we would be there and sign. We had Our albums, and we would sign them, and this young guy came up, and he says, you guys are so great, I wanna you bought an album. He says, could you please sign this? And he And I'm a musician, and I just auditioned for a TV show, and it's looked like it's gonna happen. And it's called now remember this. It's gonna be called 21 Jump Street. Wow. So what shirt is this? Johnny Depp. Remember that. Speaker 0: Are you Trump lovers? Would you be doing this if it wasn't Trump? Speaker 10: Absolutely. In fact, even in the case we're talking about, it it has nothing to do with Trump. Speaker 7: That's not what this is about. This is not about the results of an election. This is about, violating their oath of office by not investigating an election. Well, actually. See, we're asking that both sides be removed, not just Democrats, but Republicans as well. Speaker 0: Many think the Brunson Brothers' legal theories are fanciful, Not grounded in statutory or constitutional law. They were hoping to settle that at the Supreme Court. Rollins' case did make it onto the docket twice, and so did Lloyd's. Speaker 8: They have an obligation, even under their oath, as supreme court justices, To protect and defend the constitution Where Speaker 0: is it? They that the remedy to that is that they can remove every member of congress that voted for it and the president and so on and so on. Because over and over and over and over again, the legal opinions are that that supreme court does not have that Speaker 10: We are hit with that question all the times. They have actually broken a constitutional law. And you're saying, well, what law was that? What's the oath of office? Okay. So who gets to judge them? When you break your oath of office, when you committed that crime, you are now, Automatically, according to article 3, in the jurisdiction of the Speaker 2: Judicial. Speaker 10: Judicial branch, automatically. And they get to judge that. Speaker 0: Unfortunately for the Brunson brothers, they did not get to make their argument before the Supreme Court justices, As these letters they received from the clerk of the court show, their petition was denied every time, no reason given. Speaker 8: And you gotta remember, sometimes, when you go to battle, sometimes, you might lose the 1st battle. You might lose the 2nd battle, but you may end up Winning the war. Speaker 12: I'm just so blown away by these guys. Speaker 2: Hey, Renee. That's nuts and out there. Speaker 0: No. Tell me. Speaker 12: Okay. Well, yeah, these guys I mean, the only way we can have freedom is that people want freedom more than life. And that's the attitude that it took to get what we have. Now, everyone that hasn't really worked for the freedom, Hasn't sacrificed for it. They're the ones 1st in line to sell it. And so what these guys have done is they've given up their time. They are eating And drinking and sleepingness, and they are praying. And I'm just telling you that I believe they need To be heard, and it's so awesome because now they're being heard, and you're giving them a chance Speaker 2: to be heard. Speaker 0: Did undercover agents or Assets for the federal government agitate people to go into the capital and encourage or incite violence. In short, was January 6 a kind of set up, more of a Fed's direction than an insurrection? It was a moment that will live in infamy at an informal stop the steal rally in Washington DC On the eve of January 6th when people in the crowd turned on a 58 year old man with a lot to say. That man was Rex. Speaker 11: No. I'm gonna put it Speaker 13: out there. I'm probably gonna go to jail for it. Speaker 2: Okay? Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capital. Into the capital. No. No. No. Peaceful. Dead. Dead. Speaker 0: Take me back to that moment. Take me back to the moment when you looked at Ray Epps and the thought came into your head And you said Ted. Ted. Ted. Speaker 2: Ted. Ted. Ted. Speaker 14: Right when he said that, something clicked into my head. I was, like, woah. This is scripted because he said the same exact line word for word Speaker 0: And that's not natural. Speaker 14: It's not natural. And he was he kept saying, none of this matters, tomorrow we need to go in to the capitol. Maybe the first time he's being silly or Saying something crazy. But when he said it the 3rd time, word for word, I knew there's a strong possibility this guy's a fed. Speaker 0: To be clear, Because it's very difficult to prove these things. Speaker 14: Right. Speaker 0: Nobody is saying for certain, Ray Epps is A confidential source, he, of course, denies it. Speaker 14: Right. Speaker 0: And his attorney denies it. He's taken legal action against people who say it, and he has many cheerleaders in the media. Speaker 14: Yeah. The New York Times, the January 6th Commission, Liz Cheney. Speaker 0: 60 minutes. Speaker 14: What? 60 minutes? Speaker 0: Then when things were dying down, shortly before midnight, we discovered another conversation we hadn't Seen or heard before. Speaker 2: I just buy the anti gun. I stood and down myself with the army then. I respect that. Queen Creek, Arizona. That's where that's where I live. Are you my neighbor? I care. Get out Speaker 9: of there. Speaker 2: I live in Queen Creek. Speaker 13: I wanna choke you, man. Speaker 2: Wait. This guy's antagonizing me, man. Maybe it's because you're my neighbor. Speaker 0: Then he leaned in and whispered something he apparently did not want to say out loud. Speaker 3: We're not here to We're here Speaker 2: to you're the storm. I'm not kidding you. We're here to storm the capital. Hell, yeah. Alright. Have Have a good night. Be safe, Owen. Be safe, brother. Speaker 0: That one moment changed what we knew about Reyes that night When he whispered, storm the capital, before it had happened and echoed the official narrative before it was broadcast across the nation. It turned out January 5th was not the 1st time Rea Epps encountered Big Tallaska. You can see him circling During this live stream recorded by Big Tallaska at a stop the steal rally in Phoenix on November 30th, shortly after the 2020 election. It appeared to have been scrubbed from the Internet. Here, it showed Raheps pacing back and forth a short way from Bate Alaska Who seemed to have his attention as he looked over in his direction repeatedly 13 times by our count. Then Epps Stopped and pointed his camera right at him. Snagging a photo before putting his phone down and walking away. Only to reemerge on camera roughly a minute later, taking another photo in the same area. Wherever there was trouble to be found outside the capitol on January 6th, there was also a decent chance you could find Raef's. Speaker 2: We are going to the capital. Speaker 0: The self declared Trump supporter from Arizona wasn't just directing people. Speaker 2: The capital's misdirection. Speaker 0: He was at the 1st main breach around 12:52 PM with what the department of justice described in the statement of offense from his case As the vanguard of rioters, trespassing on restricted grounds and whispering into the ear of a man named Ryan Samsel, Who's in prison for what he did seconds later. Then Epps joined the flood of rioters who stormed through the downed barricades and breached the first line of defense according to the DOJ. A short way down the path, when rioters took down more barricades, The DOJ said Epps continued to penetrate the restricted grounds and headed for the west plaza, Also a restricted area. Thanks to his tall frame and red hat, you can make him out amidst the crowd at these barriers, where he is once again in the 1st group to break through and get past the police. Jim Haft runs the Gateway Pundit, An online news site that's been a thorn in the side of progressives and establishment censors ever since he started blogging some 20 years ago When the Internet was still fairly new, few have devoted as much time to covering January 6th as Haft and his team of reporters who've published well over a 1000 stories in two and a half years. Speaker 15: We have video of Rahab's holding up this Huge MAGA sign, steel MAGA sign, and he's actually helping push it. Some of the men who were touching that sign, They're in prison today. Speaker 14: As someone who, you know, people have called me a fit, I understand how serious it is. So, you know, I say this is allegedly this is what I believe. I I don't have, like, a smoking gun Speaker 0: That you can prove it. Speaker 14: Yeah. I can't I do know he was an oath keeper. Speaker 0: We did confirm Raheps's involvement Years ago with the oath keepers as seen in this video from Tucson, Arizona in 2011 where Ray Epps is wearing the t shirt and marching along. This is the organization that according to the DOJ led the so called insurrection. Kate Hilton said she was at that event with Rhodes and Epps. What made you join the oath keepers? Speaker 16: I like the concept Then the mission statement, which is the revere, follow the constitution, and It was directed at anyone that's taken the oath to remind them that regardless of what's going on around us, We are bound to that oath. Speaker 0: Is there something sinister in that? Speaker 16: No. Absolutely not. Unless you think the constitution's sinister. Speaker 11: So I'm gonna put Speaker 13: it out there. I'm probably gonna go to jail for Speaker 2: the jail. Tomorrow. We need to go into the capitol. Speaker 16: He's yelling, go into the capitol. That's Not something I, could see him saying. That's totally the opposite of the image that he had presented previously. In what way? Well, he was a marine, very disciplined. They don't cross those lines. Speaker 0: No. Speaker 16: Yet here he was screaming to Total strangers should cross that line. Speaker 0: Epps made it onto the FBI's list of unidentified January 6 suspects but was removed around 6 months later without being charged. That was taken by many as a sign he was being protected. But his criminal attorney, John told Politico he thought Epps was removed in part because he'd contacted the FBI and was no longer unidentified. However, we found other suspects who'd been identified and were still on the FBI list, Their pictures updated with a banner saying arrested. We also found Matthew Perna still on there more than a year and a half after he'd committed Suicide in February 2022. The presence of undercover agents and informants amidst the crowd on January 6th has been coming to light and can no longer be dismissed as conspiracy. We turn to investigators like congressman Barry Loudermilk Since the FBI and DOJ won't comment, he's chairman of the house administration's oversight subcommittee investigating security failures around January 6th. Speaker 3: There was 1 video clip that had made it out, in public that some people had claimed this was definitely a police officer. We verified that to be true. Speaker 0: This is the clip recorded on the body cam of the undercover officer in question. Speaker 1: I've never seen anything like this. Speaker 0: He can be heard chanting Speaker 2: USA. USA. USA. Speaker 0: And at times, urging the crowd to advance. Speaker 2: Go. Go. Let's go. Let's go. Let's go. That's Speaker 1: it. It's tear gas. Tear gas. Speaker 0: The committee has not made his name public yet, But he was identified to defense attorneys as officer Nicholas Thomasula. There is a video that has police officers on the west side by the fountain yelling at each other, and one of them says we're hurting innocent people. And they say, For every 1 we're pulling out, we're making 10 angrier. Speaker 2: A lot of pain is applied Speaker 12: when you Speaker 2: hit innocent people. And and not only that, we're taking out 1, and 10 of them are getting It's it's it's we're multiplying them by hitting them. Speaker 0: You know, when you listen to that, you have the sense that the offices were set up for failure as much as the protesters. Yeah. Speaker 3: And we've got a video of officers saying we were set up. Speaker 9: They set us the fuck up. That's what they did. They set us Speaker 2: the They Speaker 9: set up 64 with Oh, absolutely. Speaker 2: And and Speaker 9: then they answered 2 hours later. They set us up. They needed everybody right away. No. Right away. They set us the fuck up. We Speaker 0: Is it potentially the biggest setup in the history of this country? Speaker 3: Potentially. Speaker 0: One of the greatest crimes against the American people. Speaker 3: That's why it's so important to get the truth with us. That's What we're working for and the cover ups that happened after January 6th is what I'm really after as well. Speaker 0: What about the Republicans involved in those cover ups? I know it's hard for you to address those things. This is your own party, but this is the reality. Speaker 3: We're gonna go where evidence leads. Speaker 0: No matter what. Speaker 3: No matter what. Speaker 0: I'm gonna hold you to that. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 0: What happens then at that Moment when you find yourself inside the tunnel, what's the first thing you remember happening? I I was just trying to stand stand up and not be trampled. That's Where my focus was until they hit to the head.

@RealAlexJones — Alex Jones

Posted - December 16, 2023 at 10:00 PM

Saved - December 19, 2023 at 9:21 PM

@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones

EXCLUSIVE: New Censored Footage Of January 6th Released By Alex Jones! @JackPosobiec @RepMTG @TuckerCarlson @RepMattGaetz @bannon_2024 https://t.co/FfbrfKmVbV

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker expresses gratitude for being able to respond to the lies spread about them by the media and PR firms. They claim that January 6th was a staged event and describe witnessing police using force against the crowd. They mention warning people not to enter the building and criticize the media for misrepresenting their actions. The speaker believes that the events of January 6th have been used to label political opposition as terrorists. They promise to release more footage to provide context and invite viewers to follow them on social media. Another speaker encourages peaceful behavior and advises against confrontation with the police. The transcript ends with a statement about Infowars providing truthful information.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: It is so good to be back on X. It is so good to be able to respond to the world when the establishment corporate media, when the think tanks, when the PR firms have been lying about me. January 6th was a provocateur staged event, and that's coming out. There's major criminal investigations, but I was there. And I got there about an hour into it. And I saw the police firing rubber bullets and flashbangs and tear gas at the crowd. And I climbed up onto a high spot, and I told people, don't go in. People are gonna get killed, and 5 US citizens were killed. Of course, Ashley Babbitt, execution style. This was terrible. But back at the time, I was banned everywhere. And it was only Jack Posobiec on his Twitter that put out a short grainy clip of me saying, don't go in. We're not Antifa. We're not BLM. It's gonna end up being terrible. It's gonna be like Kent State. People are gonna be killed. But there's hours of me going around the capital telling people not to go in and tell and and and I tell the Capitol Police, you've got loud speakers here on record. Turn them on. Tell people not to go in because they only attack the, you know, some of the crowd and then provocateurs broke through, Then the police opened up the doors and let them in, and thousands of those innocent people were charged. Many have spent years in jail for just walking between the velvet ropes. But I was thinking when I saw Jack Posobiec retweet or x yesterday, that same grainy clip he put out 3 years ago almost 3 years ago, I thought, wait. We've got a bunch of footage of this. So we should actually put out More of it so people can see it in context. So here is a longer clip and better quality and more context, more information so you get an idea of what happened. And remember, the mainstream media, the corporate media is still claiming that I told people to go in the building, and then I launched some type of attack. Trump had a stage set up by the Supreme Court right on the edge of the capital around the backside. We were supposed to go there and speak. He just spoken down the road. I've been to dozens and dozens of Trump rallies. We've never been violent. We walked into a provocateur trap, And now they've used January 6th. It's worse than Pearl Harbor, worse than 911 as a pretext to declare all their political opposition Terrorists are gonna say, we're the main threat that Trump was to be a dictator. So that's why it's so precious now that x is open and that we're able to show you things so you can make your own decision because they've used January 6th to frame populous Christian conservatives, Catholics, and others around America. So here's the clip they fought to keep you from seeing. And this week, I'm gonna go through hours of footage we've got and put out a lot of raw information because because we've got the footage of me telling the police to turn on the loudspeakers to let me go up and try to stop folks from from getting in the capital. We've got it all. Not just a little short clip that Jack put out. I'm very thankful. It's all Jack had almost 3 years ago. But but here is in high quality footage and and more of what actually happens and what happened. I hope you will share this clip. I hope it gets 10,000,000 views because the truth will set us free. I Wanna invite everybody watching this to follow us at real Alex Jones on X and to see what we're actually seeing Every day when I do my show 7 days a week at infowars.comforward/show. So here's the clip the corporate media, the Democrats, and the deep state doesn't want you to see. Speaker 1: Question to me. We've got a permit on the other side. We've got a It's great that this happened, But they're gonna the Trump's not gonna come when we're taking this order. We're not Anderson. We're not the Arab. You're amazing. I love you. Let's march around to the other side. Look at you. Let's not fight the police and give the system what they're doing. Yes. We are peaceful, We won this election. And as much as I love seeing the Trump flags flying over this, They need to not have the confrontation with the police. They're gonna make that the story. The police, Providers have caused the problem, and the police are throwing price things. We don't wanna have a Kent State here. Do not be part of this. Tell everybody to come out and decide. We're back to the road. We're setting this up. Everybody be peaceful. Speaker 2: While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, Infowars tells to the truth about what's happening next.

@TuckerCarlson — Tucker Carlson

Posted - January 6, 2024 at 8:00 PM

Saved - January 6, 2024 at 9:26 PM

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Ep. 61 This the smartest, best informed account of what actually happened on January 6th. https://t.co/U9yCWRVJSd

Video Transcript AI Summary

In this video, Congressman Clay Higgins from Louisiana discusses his belief that the events of January 6th, 2021, were a setup orchestrated by deep state actors within the FBI and the Democratic Party. He claims that there were over 200 FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters present at the Capitol building and that they guided protesters inside. He also criticizes the shooting of Ashley Babbitt and expresses his hope that the digital evidence from January 6th will be fully released to the public. Congressman Higgins believes that the FBI and the DOJ need to be held accountable for their actions.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: It has been exactly 3 years since January 6th, the events of January 6th, the racist insurrection that shocked this nation to its core, more profoundly than anything since Pearl Harbor plus the Civil War. And it has taken a while, Honestly, even for people who aren't on the side of the professional liars to realize there's something amiss about what happened that day, not just the response, the largest law enforcement mobilization in the history of the United States that was obviously disproportionate because it wasn't the worst riot that year, not even close, but the day itself, there was something about January 6th that didn't feel right, and hovering over that day has remained the question to what extent was it a setup. And we still don't really know. But what's interesting is how few people have asked that entirely legitimate question. One of the very few, really one of the only in the United States Congress, is a member called Clay Higgins from Louisiana. And in case you haven't seen this slip, it's worth rewatching. This is from 2022 at Homeland Security Committee hearing, where he asked it just directly of the FBI director. Why? Speaker 1: Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protesters And on January 6, 2021. Speaker 2: Well, congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about What I can say about when Speaker 1: Even now it because that's what you told us few years ago. Speaker 2: Matt finish. About when we do and do not, and where we have and have not used Confidential human sources. But to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way Instigated or orchestrated January 6th. That's categorically false. Speaker 1: Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January 6th Prior to the doors being open? Speaker 2: Again, I had to be very careful Speaker 1: of what no. Can you not tell the American people, no. We did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol. Gentlemen's time has expired. Speaker 2: Not read anything into my Decision is not to share information Director Ray. Confidentially Speaker 1: Yoma's time has expired. Speaker 0: What a sleazy, repulsive, little authoritarian liar Chris Rea is. That's obvious when you watch that tape. The sad part is so few tapes like that exist because so few have confronted him directly and ask questions to which the entire country has a right to know the answer like that one. Clay Higgins did that. Congressman from Louisiana Louisiana Lafayette joins us in studio. Congressman, thanks so much for coming up. Speaker 1: Thank you for having me, Tuck. Speaker 0: So that was over a year ago that you asked that question, which is a central question, and you asked it as I think free without any embarrassment at all on behalf of your constituents in the rest of the country. Are you any closer to the answer now? Speaker 1: Well, we're closer to being in a position where we can reveal the answers that we already have. Much of the evidence that we have compiled from investigative effort Over the the course of the last couple of years, some offices like my own would have operated in Silos of investigative endeavor, have now been able to come together now that we have a Republican majority and we have Access to the to the to the staffs of the appropriate investigative committees. And So I sit on the oversight committee and we Republicans run that committee now, therefore, we control the staff. So when you can magnify the efforts that individual, members of congress have have have pushed within our own offices. When you can magnify those efforts by the the skill and the numbers of staff from the committees, You you you get a lot of evidence reviewed professionally and aligned and assembled into essentially a case file. And in in this case, this is a big file because the the the Involvement of of certain actors, you could say deep state actors within the federal government, To set the stage for, what happened in in j 4, 5, and 6, and And to, entrap thousands of Americans from across the country And to lure them into this this set stage on j 4, 5, and 6th, the people that were involved in that is is is Quite a large web. So yes, sir. We do have a great deal of evidence compiled, And we are we're gradually, professionally, rolling that evidence out. Speaker 0: So you sort of answer the question right there in larger terms. You just said that elements within the federal government, I assume law enforcement intel and military, and I'm using your words, lured Americans to Washington into what you called a trap. Yes, sir. So that would I mean, that's a shocking and I assume that's a that's a sober conclusion based on the evidence. That's what you're saying. Speaker 1: That's that would be my Sober assessment as an investigator, and, you know, I'm quite a I love my country, and and I've I've always He'd been a staunch defender of the thin blue line and I I would proudly count the FBI amongst that number. They're just like brothers to me. So to find that level of, of conspiratorial corruption at the highest levels of the FBI, has been very troubling to me as a man, as a cop, and and yet did you know, you follow the evidence wherever it leads, and Yes. This is what investigators do. So, when I asked Christopher Wray that that question, for instance, I already knew the answer. I had reviewed compelling evidence that the that FBI had assets, Human assets dressed as Trump supporters inside the capital prior to the doors being opened and the masses allowed in. So I I knew that the FBI was deeply involved. I'd seen evidence even at that time With, that the FBI had embedded themselves into various groups online across the country of Americans who were essentially, voicing their their concerns and airing their grievances with each other about COVID oppression. Those Americans were targeted by the FBI, though almost universally Republicans and and, largely Trump supporters, but The FBI worked undercover to infiltrate those conversations and become A significant part of those individual Americans, communications. And When you dig into the evidence that we've we've had revealed through through some criminal cases that I've I've followed and worked with the families of j six, political detainees and Americans that have been persecuted for their involvement in in the capital that day, and some of that evidence is shockingly Reveals that the the the FBI agents that were operating undercover within the online groups across the country Words were the first ones to plant the seeds of of, suggestions of of a of a more radical occupation of the capital. And and they were Sort of testing the waters of who amongst that group would would begin acknowledging That, you know, yeah, may maybe we should do that. Maybe we should plan for an occupation like that. But if you look at the The origins of those conversations, they they were started by the the FBI undercover guy that was operating inside the group. And then Months later, on January 4th, 5th, 6th, many of those Americans met for the first time in person When they gathered for the massive rally where American patriots assembled to object to To everything that had happened during 2020, the COVID depression and the the stunning Results of what we believe was a compromised election cycle in November 2020. So Americans gathered at their own capital to to Appropriately air grievances and protests at their capital, but embedded amongst their number was an FBI asset that had been working from within their group online for many months. So this was the level of, of manipulative effort that the FBI invested into American citizenry and our our assembly online to, and to exercise our rights under the First Amendment, To talk to each other about whatever we wanna talk about, including the the the insidious suppressions of COVID that we were suffering Across the country. So and our concerns about where the election was going, the whole mail in ballot thing, we could see the stage was being set For a compromised election cycle possibly, and to our horror, that's what happened. So FBI had fingerprints on this thing from from many months prior to j 4, 5, and 6. Speaker 0: I wanna go back to something you said in the first sentence, which is You have seen evidence and that spurred your questions to Chris Wray that there were FBI assets dressed as Trump's supporters within the capital. So that is proof of entrapment because, of course, the federal government could have prevented entry into the capitol building. Aren't that many doors. You worked there, you know. But they allowed people in on purpose to entrap them. That's what that proves, I think. Does it not? Speaker 1: Well, it's certainly condemning. It's another piece of the of the strategy that the that the government employed To sort of complete the entrapment of Americans that they had had, infiltrated And then prodded and provoked with online with the with the those original seeds planted of Of, actions like, you know, what type of gear to wear and and and just In language that incited behavior that could go the wrong way. No pushing Actions of of legal and legitimate peaceful protest to an edge where Well, those Americans would likely not have gone had they not been been, you know, encouraged by the FBI plant amongst their number that they didn't know was there. So By the time it was actually j six and you had you had, masses of Americans assembled outside the capitol, you know, like 99.9%, 100% peaceful. The people here, and I just On the inside, you had FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters That knew their way around the capital. Before the doors even open. Before the doors open. Or else how are you gonna get around the capital? You've been there many times. You need a guide To get from whatever door you go in It's a labyrinth. It's, yeah, it's it's a maze inside there. So you that's right. So there's no way Just Americans, most of which, had never been to the capital. There's no way they can come in some random door that gets opened and then get their way directly to the To the statuary or the house chamber or the senate chamber. It's just not possible. So the the The FBI assets that were dressed as Trump supporters that were inside the capital were there, I I believe, and evidence indicates that they were there to to specifically wave in the the Trump supporters that had gathered Outside the Capitol and the doors opened and they were allowed in. And on the inside were Were oh, there's some more Trump supporters, but really those were FBI assets, law enforcement assets that knew their way around the capital. And they they waved those guys in, said, come on. Follow us. And they're they're the ones that led them on the path directly. How do you think of guys Has never been to the capital. Gotta gotta come into the capital all amped up on on emotion And make his way straight to Nancy Pelosi's office. Come on. It's like I couldn't get it. There's no way. I've been there for 7 years. It come in some random door at the capital and make my way to Namibia. Is unmarked. Speaker 0: I mean, those leadership offices are unmarked. So how would Speaker 1: you know? Confusing to get around in the capital. Every American that has been there knows this. When you go on a tour, you bring your family to DC, you go through the capital, you have to have a guide. And and on January 6th, the gods were FBI assets, law enforcement assets, And they were dressed as Trump supporters. They were positioned inside the capital prior to the doors being open So that the Americans that had assembled outside the Capitol, once allowed in, could be brought directly to The areas where the FBI, the DOJ, and the deep state actors knew Would be the most, the most sort of condemning criminal action of of Americans being a lot being inside the capital, protesting without permit and things. So they knew It was setting the stage for arrest and prosecution. It's such a crime. Who who planned this, do you think? I think factions planned this. I wouldn't say who talked because that yeah. I don't think there was 1 person Chart that that planned this, but I believe the the faction of, establishment liberals Within the the FBI and the Democrat Party and our intelligence services to to another extent, used their massive powers of surveillance and, in and investigative, assets that they have across the country, confidential informants, registered informants, Non registered informers, voluntary informers. It's in it's from it's a complex web Of of FBI assets across the country, it can be activated. So if you have authority At some of the highest levels in the FBI. Doug doesn't take much. The faction Within the FBI and within our intelligence services that would coordinate with with the most extreme liberal, factions within a Democrat party that were desperate to keep Trump out of office And and, you know, worked within the the theater of operations, shall we say, That had been that had been set by the COVID alleged medical emergencies nationwide and Millions and millions of mail in ballots. There's no daylight between the the compromised Election cycle of November 2020 and ultimately what happened on on on j 6. So Yes. Who planned this? This would be the combination of several several of the most extreme Liberal, anti Trump, anti America First factions that, that were in positions of authority within our Our federal law enforcement organizations and the the Democrat Party Across the Speaker 0: country. Can when you say that there were FBI assets in the crowd, it in the building beforehand and and certainly outside, What's the scale of this? You're talking, like, 10, 20? No. Speaker 1: Based upon some very conservative but, like, hard investigative effort Evaluation of of the numbers from putting together eyewitnesses and and videos and, and affidavit statement and whistleblower statements and, court records that have been Revealed through individual criminal cases where j six defendants have been prosecuted and Smart attorneys have forced, admissions by the DOJ and the FBI, But those admissions have been sealed within the parameter of that criminal case by protective order By the judge, so they I I can't share them, but I've seen them. So real Hard, objective, and conservative, estimates would would put the number of FBI assets In the crowd outside and working inside at at well over 200. 200? Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. So you're in law enforcement? Yeah. Yep. Before you came to congress in the military as well, that seems that's an extraordinary number. Is it? Speaker 1: Well, no. When you think about The scope of the operation, if you were gonna do this, you would need you Speaker 0: would need that relative to so, like, when, I don't know, Minneapolis burned down or when Saint John's, the Episcopal Church of Carson, the White House in Lafayette Square was set ablaze, and all the secret service agents were injured. Were there 200 FBI assets in the crowd among Antifa then? Speaker 1: I mean, I I don't know how many undercover Age is FBI would have in a situation like that, but but but but j six was the was the was the final act prior to arrest and prosecution of of Americans that that were identified as as Trump supporters. I mean, the objective was to Destroy the entire mega movement, to to forever stain the, the patriotic fervor That was associated with with the America First mega movement that had won in 2016 and, We believe won again in 2020, and the the establishment, on both sides of both major parties were determined to To smash that out of existence, not just by defeating Trump, but by destroying the, The reputations of the movement itself by creating this narrative that that was totally false, but but was heavily pushed that the that mega Republicans, America First Republicans Somehow a danger to our republic and a a domestic terror threat, which is a whole another story about what the FBI has done at tagging Americans as, suspected domestic terrorists and and following us as we travel across the country. But the the bottom line is that, 200 as a I I believe is a conservative number. First of all, I think there were There's many more. But a number that I'm comfortable going on record with is that we believe that there were that there were easily 200 FBI undercover assets operating in the crowd, Outside the capital embedded into groups that entered the capital or provoked entry of the capital and Working with FBI assets that would have included Metro Police send Capitol police that were dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol because those were the guys that knew their way around the Capitol. So given the scope of the operation and the number of of doors where, entry was allowed or e even encouraged, then the and the number of people that were actually outside The capital and it entered, we believe 200 is a conservative number. Yes, sir. Speaker 0: It's it's shocking what you're saying. It confirms everyone's worst suspicions about this. It's clearly true. Did you come across any evidence that the the DOD, the military, either Defense Intelligence Agency or National Guard or any part of the US military played any role in this at all? Speaker 1: I have not seen that. I've heard the echoes of that suspicion, And I have I have observed, circumstantial evidence that that has been presented to me that I've That I have reviewed, but to to but to me, it does not rise to the level, that I would call, actionable from an investigative perspective. So there's some there was some Some suspicion, but in in in law enforcement, the thresholds you're looking across is reasonable suspicion That would prompt a a criminal investigation, and then the next threshold is probable cause, which you need for arrest. And, of course, in our system, finally, the last threshold is is, is conviction and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So Then I I did review evidence Tucker re regarding, some suspicions of military involvement in some way, but and I and I've I have reviewed Some of that evidence that that had been that I've been able to get my hands on, and, I do not think that the the military was, was involved, not at the level most certainly not at the level of the of the FBI and, over the course of all of 2020. And then on j 4, 5, and 6, The FBI working in coordination with other law enforcement assets that that they'd roped into the operation Right. From Metro PD from DC and and, the Capitol Police was sort of, was sort of tricked Into participating with the with what the FBI had been staging for, you know, 10 months. Just I mean, If you take 3 steps back, this is not democracy. So the federal agencies serve under the oversight of Speaker 0: the elected president and then on under the oversight of the elected congress. Their elected people get to make the decisions. Your Republican president, you now have a Republican congress, and neither one can get a straight answer from the FBI. No no one has any control of the FBI. You're describing a government within a government. Speaker 1: Well, in America, a question becomes Reasonable men would would would ask when we face a crisis like this, who investigates the investigate? Right. And the answer in America is is Congress. So we'd we have the Responsibility to investigate through the appropriate committees, which would we're certainly we're certainly doing that now that we have a Republican majority In control of the committees, but we don't have the power to arrest. We can we can give criminal referrals Based upon our investigative efforts, but we have to have a DOJ that's receptive to the criminal referrals. So we we've hit quite a a brick wall, have we not? Constitutionally, Possibility to investigate objectively and and and anyone that knows me know that's exactly what I'm I'm pursuing. I do not have I'm not trying to create a crime to fit a narrative to blame on the FBI. I'm following the evidence, And and to my horror, it implicates our FBI at the highest level and a and a A conspiracy within our government at the highest level to create the the, to set the stage For a compromised election cycle in 2020, and then the the The actions that took place on j 4, 5, and and 6, and then the The criminal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Americans that they were able to entrap And document with the thousands of cameras that were operating that day and use that evidence that they knew they were setting up To investigate, arrest, and prosecute the Americans that they had entrapped. So Congress can investigate these things, and we and we are, and we will reveal these horrific truths, and we will have criminal referrals. But until you have a a a president running the executive branch that will clean house had the DOJ and FBI at the highest levels and put American patriots in place that will be that will act upon the criminal referrals That that congress provides, then none of those guys are gonna get arrested because they're not gonna arrest themselves, And we don't have arrest authority. Speaker 0: I'm a little surprised that and don't expect to be critical of your colleagues in the Republican conference, but, I mean, they do control the house. Impeachment is a thing. Chris Ray is still the FBI director. I watched Republicans, some of whom I know cheer the murder of Ashley Babbitt, who was an unarmed woman less than 55, by Michael Byrd. They were Michael Byrd's side. And it I have to say for a lot of Republican voters, I count myself among them, Very clarifying. If you're cheering Ashley Babbitt's murder shooting women now, that's okay because she likes Trump. And the Republicans are like, yeah. I was happy. Like, a lot of them thought that. What the hell? Speaker 1: Yeah. That was and it it made me sick. Me too. You know, There's a a great responsibility when you when you wear a badge in America. I mean, think about it. To be to be the To be the designated servant of your community that has that has the the authority To, to deny the freedom of a fellow American in the land of the free. Like, doesn't have a responsibility. So the the escalation of of force is it must be appropriate in order to effect a lawful arrest And and a a bad a bad shoot is the worst thing that an officer can possibly be involved in in his in his career. It's it's, you know, we it's it's it's the thing of nightmares for for good police officers. So to take what was in what would from a law enforcement perspective was clearly a bad shoot because there are some basic rules you just cannot violate. You have to attempt to effect an arrest before you can go to deadly force. There was there was no attempt to arrest Ashley Babin. There were there were officers on the other side of the window she was climbing through. There were officers On the interior side of the window she was climbing through, there was no indication that had been that this had been going on for an hour, And there was there was no reports on the radio or anywhere else of of gunfights, so there was no reason At that point, to expect that Ashley Babin or anybody else in the in the crowd was gonna produce a firearm and start firing on police officers. Why? Because it had not happened. So that's part of the totality of circumstance that a police officer is responsible for knowing. We stay in constant communication With our radios, we know what's going on. That officer that that that pulled that trigger, Which shot a a American woman who was clearly in a in, like, a physically compromised Position climbing through the broken glass of a of a window is not, you know, it's not like she just stepped into the Cage at MMA, and she was ready to fight. She was climbing through a window draped in a flag. There's police officers on the other side of the window. There's police officers on the interior side of the window, so you have plenty enough officer presence. If you wanna arrest that woman, then by all means, pull it through the window, you know, put flex cuffs on her, and throw her in the corner. We'll get to you later, ma'am. We're kinda busy right now. If that's what you do, you'd have grabbed that woman and pulled her through fletched coughed her and threw her in the corner. Handed her back to somebody that could pull it back, you know, from that front line right there. So understand It that very well understand officers have to make split second decisions, but you never You never make a decision to use lethal force unless it's absolutely called for and acquired if you're losing a fight attempting to effect an arrest, then then yeah, you know, if if there's If if the officer's life is in danger, he's all by himself, but there's never should be a circumstance where you just pull the trigger and a woman climbed through a window that's Clearly unarmed. There's no evidence of gunplay from the crowd that she's coming from. You got officers on both side of where she is. If you gotta arrest her, then by all means, arrest her. You know, to put flex cuffs on her and and move on. She'd, You know, she'd the next person trying to come through the window, but she don't shoot her. So that was bad there. Speaker 0: An invest a reveal investigation. Speaker 1: It was Cheered. Yep. Why do you think that was? And there's this in there's this insanity that has taken hold In the in the the minds and hearts of many otherwise reasonable American citizens where They did they they hate Trump so much. Like, they're they're so deeply embedded and they're they've sold their souls to the establishment that When we had an America first president and and he and he, like, stopped the, the military industrial complex forward momentum and And he and he began restoring power to individual members of congress and restoring individual rights and freedoms and sovereignty of the state, and he took away the actions of the cartels and and and brought this, This wrote common sense approach in to the executive branch and was leading our country in that beautiful direction. This was Interfering with the business model of the establishment. So many career politicians on both sides of the aisle And I, you know, I don't like those guys, man. I'm not one of them. I'd I've I served my country in Congress, but, I I don't consider myself a politician by any means. I'm a servant to We The People. Some of these guys, man, they pop out of the womb to be to be politicians. They get groomed their whole life, You know, to be a a career politician, and those are the ones that had this instinctive cheer for Something really bad happening to a Trump supporter. You know, they their true color showed in that moment and was an ugly color. Yeah. That's it. Speaker 0: We shouldn't be shooting women, number 1. I couldn't agree more. So where where does this go from here? You have this corpus of information. It sounds like it's definitive. When does the public see the detail and what's the process after that? Speaker 1: It's a good question. So Evidence from criminal investigations by nature was rather secretive, But there is a, a tremendous compilation of data that I think should be made completely available to the public, And that's the digital files from from j 4, 5, and 6. This is where, speaker Mike Johnson Can be a champion for for that will be remembered for throughout history as the speaker of the house That fully released, unredacted, digital files From j 4, 5, and 6 completely to the American people. And within that data The is full truth, and and the American people, Is this the only staff large enough to, you know, frame by frame go through 80000 hours of Digital evidence. Nobody has a staff big enough to do that, but we can crowdsource it to the American people. So you ask when will this evidence be released? I'd I'd I've I've been encouraging speaker Johnson, As I did speaker McCarthy to my god, man, release this data to the American people. Speaker 0: Why won't why won't they? Speaker 1: I believe speaker Johnson will, but but Mike is a is is quite a skilled constitutionalist attorney himself, and he's a very measured, patient, faithful man. So, I have I extend trust to to speaker Johnson when he says that it's his intention To fully release the the call the J6 tapes, but really it's digital evidence, it's more than It's more than just video evidence. It's it's a lot. It's you know, radio transcripts, the whole thing. I believe speaker Johnson knows that this is a Significant, duty that he must he he he must perform for the American people. It's a moment in history where where, you know, I believe our lord and savior has placed him in that in that position of service to the country, And he has a responsibility to to fully release that data, and then the American people will see for themselves what some of us I've already learned to our horror to be true. Speaker 0: Congressman Higgins, thank you very much. Free speech is bigger than any 1 person or any one Organizing Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.

@TPostMillennial — The Post Millennial

Posted - January 6, 2024 at 10:40 PM

Saved - January 8, 2025 at 3:26 AM

@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial

New Tucker Carlson episode just dropped…and it’s spicy! Former police officer, congressman exposes truth of Jan. 6 https://t.co/M81l8Pi9Yb

Video Transcript AI Summary

Three years after January 6th, questions remain about the events of that day and the FBI's involvement. Congressman Clay Higgins directly questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray about whether the FBI had undercover agents among the protesters, particularly inside the Capitol. Higgins asserts that evidence suggests FBI assets were present, potentially instigating actions that led to the chaos. He believes there were over 200 FBI agents involved, manipulating the situation to entrap Trump supporters. Higgins emphasizes the need for transparency and calls for the release of all digital evidence from January 6th to the public, asserting that the American people deserve to know the truth about what transpired. He expresses concern over the implications of government actions and the need for accountability within federal agencies.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: It has been exactly 3 years since January 6th, the events of January 6th. The racist insurrection that shocked this nation to its core, more profoundly than anything since Pearl Harbor plus the civil war. And it has taken a while, honestly, even for people who aren't on the side of the professional liars to realize there's something amiss about what happened that day. Not just the response, the largest law enforcement mobilization in the history of the United States that was obviously disproportionate, because it wasn't the worst riot that year, not even close. But the day itself, there was something about January 6th that didn't feel right, and hovering over that day has remained the question to what extent was it a setup. And we still don't really know, but what's interesting is how few people have asked that entirely legitimate question. One of the very few, really one of the only in the United States Congress, is a member called Clay Higgins from Louisiana. In case you haven't seen this clip, it's worth rewatching. This is from 2022 at Homeland Security Committee hearing where he asked it just directly of the FBI director. Why? Speaker 1: Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protesters and on January 6, 2021? Speaker 2: Well, Congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when Speaker 1: Even now, that's what you told us a few Speaker 2: years ago. Matt finish. About when we do and do not and where we have and have not used confidential human sources. But to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6th, that's categorically false. Speaker 1: Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol on January 6th prior to the doors being open? Speaker 2: Again, I had to be very careful Speaker 1: with what be a no. Can you not tell the American people no? We did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the capitol. Gentlemen, Pam has expired. You should Speaker 2: not read anything into my decision not to share information Director Ray. Confidential. Speaker 1: Gentleman's time has expired. Speaker 0: What a sleazy, repulsive, little authoritarian liar Chris Wray is. That's obvious when you watch that tape. The sad part is so few tapes like that exist because so few have confronted him directly and asked questions to which the entire country has a right to know the answer like that one. Clay Higgins did that. Congressman from Louisiana Louisiana Lafayette joins us in studio. Congressman, thanks so much for coming up. Speaker 1: Thank you for having me, Tuck. Speaker 0: So that was over a year ago that you asked that question, which is a central question, and you asked it as I think is appropriate without any embarrassment at all on behalf of your constituents and the rest of the country. Are you any closer to the answer now? Speaker 1: Well, we're closer to being in a position where we can reveal the answers that we already have. Much of the evidence that we have compiled from investigative effort over the the course of the last couple of years. Some offices like my own would have operated in silos of investigative endeavor, have now been able to come together now that we have a republican majority and we have access to the to the to the staffs of the appropriate investigative committees. And so I sit on the oversight committee and we republicans run that committee now, therefore we control the staff. So when you can magnify the efforts that individual, members of congress have have have pushed within our own offices. When you can magnify those efforts by the the skill and the numbers of staff from the committees, you you get a lot of evidence reviewed professionally and aligned and assembled into essentially a case file. And in in this case, this is a big file because the the the involvement of of certain actors, and you could say deep state actors within the federal government, to set the stage for, what happened in in j 4, 5, and 6, and and to, entrap thousands of Americans from across the country and lure them into this this set stage on j 4, 5, and 6. The people that were involved in that is is is quite a large web. So, yes, sir. We do have a great deal of evidence compiled, and we are we are gradually, professionally, rolling that evidence out. So you sort Speaker 0: of answered the question right there in larger terms. You just said that elements within the federal government, I assume law enforcement intel and military, and I'm using your words, lured Americans to Washington into what you called a trap. Yes, sir. So that would I mean, that's a shocking and I assume that's a that's a sober conclusion based on the evidence. That's what you're saying. Speaker 1: That's that would be my sober assessment as an investigator, and I'm, you know, I'm quite a I love my country, and and I've I've always been a staunch defender of the thin blue line. And I I would proudly count the FBI amongst that number. They're just like brothers to me. So to find that level of, of conspiratorial corruption at the highest levels of the FBI has been very troubling to me as a man, as a cop, and and yet did you know, you follow the evidence wherever it leads, and Yes. This is what investigators do. So, when I asked Christopher Wray that that question, for instance, I already knew the answer. I had reviewed compelling evidence that the that FBI had assets, human assets, dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol prior to the doors being open and the masses allowed in. So now I I knew that the FBI was deeply involved. I'd seen evidence even at that time with, that the FBI had embedded themselves into various groups online across the country of Americans who were essentially voicing their their concerns and airing their grievances with each other about COVID oppression. Those Americans were targeted by the FBI, almost universally, Republicans and and, largely Trump supporters, but the FBI worked undercover to infiltrate those conversations and become a significant part of those individual Americans' communications. And when you dig into the evidence that we've we've had revealed through through some criminal cases that I've I've followed and worked with the families of j six political detainees and Americans that have been persecuted for their involvement in in the capital that day. And some of that evidence is shockingly reveals that the the the FBI agents that were operating undercover within the online groups across the country were were the first ones to plant the seeds of of, suggestions of of a more radical occupation of the capital and and they were sort of testing the waters of who amongst that group would would begin acknowledging that, you know, yeah, may maybe we should do that. Maybe we should plan for an occupation like that. But if you look at the the origins of those conversations, it it was started by the the FBI undercover guy that was operating inside the group. And then months later, on January 4th, 5th, 6th, many of those Americans met for the first time in person when they gathered for the massive rally where American patriots assembled to object to to everything that had happened during 2020, the COVID oppression, and the the stunning results of what we believe was a compromised election cycle in November 2020. So Americans gathered at their own capital to to appropriately air grievances and protest at their capital, but embedded amongst their number was an FBI asset that had been working from within their group online for many months. So this was the level of of manipulative effort that the FBI invested into American citizenry and our our assembly online to, and to exercise our rights under the first amendment, to talk to each other about whatever we wanna talk about, including the the the insidious suppressions of COVID that we were suffering across the country. So and our concerns about where the election was going, the whole mail in ballot thing, we could see the stage was being set for a compromised election cycle possibly, and to our horror that's what happened. So FBI had fingerprints on this thing from from many months prior to j 4, 5, and 6. Speaker 0: I wanna go back to something you said in the first sentence, which is you have seen evidence and that's for your questions to Chris Wray that there were FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters within the capital. So that is proof of entrapment because, of course, the federal government could have prevented entry into the capital building. Aren't that many doors. You work there, you know. But they allowed people in on purpose to entrap them. That's what that proves, I think. Does it not? Speaker 1: Well, it's certainly condemning. It's another piece of the of the strategy that the that the government employed to sort of complete the entrapment of Americans that they had had, infiltrated and then prodded and provoked with online with the with the those original seeds planted of of, actions like, you know, what type of gear to wear and and and just in language that incited behavior that could go the wrong way. You know, pushing actions of of legal and legitimate peaceful protest to an edge where where those Americans would likely not have gone had they not been been, you know, encouraged by the FBI plant amongst their number that they didn't know was there. So by the time it was actually j 6 and you had you had, masses of Americans assembled outside the capitol, almost, like, 99.9%, 100% peaceful. On the inside, you had FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters that knew their way around the capitol. Before the doors even open. Before the doors open. Or else how are you gonna get around the capitol? You've been there many times. You need a guide to get from whatever door you go in. It's a labyrinth. It's, yeah, it's it's a maze inside there. So you that's right. So there's no way just Americans, most of which, had never been to the capitol, There's no way they can come in some random door that gets opened and then get their way directly to the to the statuary or the house chamber or the senate chamber. It's just not possible. So the the the FBI assets that were dressed as Trump supporters that were inside the capitol were there, I believe, and evidence indicates that they were there to to specifically waive in the the Trump supporters that had gathered outside the capitol, and the doors open and they were allowed in. And on the inside were were oh, there's some more Trump supporters, but really those were FBI assets, law enforcement assets that knew their way around the capital. And they they waved those guys in, said, come on. Follow us. And they they're the ones that led them on the path directly. Now how do you think of guys? Never been to the capital. Gotta gotta come into the capitol all amped up on on emotion and make his way straight to Nancy Pelosi's office. Come on. It's like I couldn't get to there's no way. I've been there for 7 years. Could come in some random door at the capitol and make my way to Nashville. Everything is unmarked. Speaker 0: I mean, those leadership offices are unmarked. So how would Speaker 1: you know? It's confusing to get around in the capitol. Every American that has been there knows this. When you go on a tour, you bring your family to DC, you go through the capital, you have to have a guide. And and on January 6th, the guides were FBI assets, the law enforcement assets, and they were dressed as Trump supporters. They were positioned inside the capitol prior to the doors being open so that the Americans that had assembled outside the capitol, once allowed in, could be brought directly to the areas where the FBI, the DOJ, and the deep state actors knew would be the most, the most sort of condemning criminal action of of Americans being a lot being inside the capital, protesting without permit and things. So they knew they were setting the stage for arrest and prosecution. It's such a crime. Who who planned this, do you think? I think factions planned this. I wouldn't say who talked about it because that, yeah, I don't think there was one person that that planned this, but I believe the the faction of, establishment liberals within the FBI and the Democrat Party and our intelligence services to to another extent, use their massive powers of surveillance and, investigative, assets that they have across the country, confidential informants, registered informants, non registered informants, voluntary informants. It's a it's a complex web of of FBI assets across the country that can be activated. So if you have authority at some of the highest levels in the FBI, it doesn't take much, the faction within the FBI and within our intelligence services that would coordinate with with the most extreme liberal, factions within a Democrat party that were desperate to keep Trump out of office, and and, you know, worked within the the theater of operations, shall we say, that had been that had been set by the COVID alleged medical emergencies nationwide and millions and millions of mail in ballots. There's no daylight between the the compromised election cycle of November 2020 and ultimately what happened on on on j6. So you ask who planned this? This would be the combination of several several of the most extreme liberal anti Trump, anti America First factions that, that were in positions of authority within our federal law enforcement organizations and the the Democrat party across the country. Speaker 0: Can when you say that there were FBI assets in the crowd, it in the building beforehand and and certainly outside, What's the scale of this? You're talking, like, 10, 20? No. Speaker 1: Based upon some very conservative, but, like, hard investigative effort evaluation of of the numbers from putting together eyewitnesses and and videos and, and affidavit statement, and whistleblower statements, and court records that have been revealed through individual criminal cases where j6 defendants have been prosecuted, and smart attorneys have forced, admissions by the DOJ and the FBI, but those admissions have been sealed within the parameter of that criminal case by protective order by the judge, so they I I can't share them, but I've seen them. So real hard objective and conservative, estimates would would put the number of FBI assets in the crowd outside and working inside at at well over 200. 200? Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. So you're in law enforcement. Yeah. Yep. Before you came to congress in the military as well, that seemed that's an extraordinary number. Is it? Speaker 1: Well, no. When you think about the scope of the operation, if you were gonna do this, you would need you would Speaker 0: need that relative to so like when, I don't know, Minneapolis burned down or when Saint John's, the Episcopal Church of Carson, the White House in Lafayette Square was set ablaze, and all the secret service agents were injured. Were there 200 FBI assets in the crowd among Antifa then? Speaker 1: I mean, I I don't know how many undercover agents FBI would have in a situation like that, but but but but j 6 was the was the was the final act prior to arrest and prosecution of of Americans that that were identified as as Trump supporters. I mean, the objective was to destroy the entire MAGA movement, to to forever stain the, the patriotic fervor that was associated with with the America First Mega Movement that had won in 2016 and we believe won again in 2020, and the the establishment on both sides, both major parties were determined to smash that out of existence, not just by defeating Trump, but by destroying the reputations of the movement itself by creating this narrative that was totally false, but was heavily pushed that mega Republicans, America First Republicans are somehow a danger to our republic and a a domestic terror threat, which is a whole another story about what the FBI has done to tagging Americans as, suspected domestic terrorists and and following us as we travel across the country. But the the bottom line is that, 200 as a I I believe is a conservative number. First of all, I think there were there's many more, But a number that I'm comfortable going on record with is that we believe that there were that there were easily 200 FBI undercover assets operating in the crowd, outside the capital, embedded into groups that entered the capital or provoked entry of the capital, and working with FBI assets that would have included Metro Police and Capitol Police that would dress as Trump supporters inside the capital because those were the guys that knew their way around the capitol. So given the scope of the operation and the number of doors where entry was allowed or even encouraged, and the number of people that were actually outside the capital and it entered, we believe 200 is a conservative number. Yes, sir. Speaker 0: It's it's shocking what you're saying. It confirms everyone's worst suspicions about this. It's clearly true. Did you come across any evidence that the the DOD, the military, either Defense Intelligence Agency or National Guard or any part of the US military played any role in this at all? Speaker 1: I have not seen that. I've heard the echoes of that suspicion, and I have I have observed, circumstantial evidence that that has been presented to me, that I've that I have reviewed, but to but to me, it does not rise to the level that I would call actionable from an investigative perspective. So there's some there was some suspicion, but in in in law enforcement the thresholds you're looking across is reasonable suspicion that would prompt a criminal investigation, and then the next threshold is probable cause, which you need for arrest. And then of course in our system, finally, the last threshold is is, is conviction, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So the I I did review evidence, Tucker, regarding some suspicions of military involvement in some way, but and I and I've I have reviewed some of that evidence that that had been that I've been able to get my hands on, and, I do not think that the the military was, was involved, not at the level, most certainly not at the level of the of the FBI and, over the course of all of 2020. And then on j 4, 5, and 6, the FBI working in coordination with other law enforcement assets that that they roped into the operation Right. From Metro PD, from DC, and and, the Capitol Police was sort of sort of tricked into participating with the with what the FBI had been staging for, you know, 10 months. Just a bit Speaker 0: if you take 3 steps back, this is not democracy. So the federal agencies serve under the oversight of the elected president, and then on under the oversight of the elected congress. Their elected people get to make the decisions. You have a Republican president. You now have a Republican congress, and neither one can get a straight answer from the FBI. No no one has any control of the FBI. You're describing a government within a government. Speaker 1: Well, in America, a question becomes reasonable men would would would ask when we face a crisis like this, who investigates the investigate? Right. And the answer in America is is congress. So we we have the responsibility to investigate through the appropriate committees, which would we're certainly we're certainly doing that now that we have a republican majority in control of the committees, but we don't have the power to arrest. We can we can give criminal referrals based upon our investigative efforts, but we have to have a DOJ that's receptive to the criminal referrals. So we we've hit quite a a brick wall, have we not? Constitutionally, we we have the responsibility to investigate objectively, and and and anyone that knows me know that's exactly what I'm I'm pursuing. I do not have I'm not trying to create a crime to fit a narrative to blame on the FBI. I'm following the evidence, and and to my horror, it implicates our FBI at the highest level, and a and a a conspiracy within our government at the highest level to create the the, to set the stage for a compromised election cycle in 2020, and then the the the actions that took place on j 4, 5, and 6, and then the the criminal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Americans that they were able to entrap and document with the thousands of cameras that were operating that day and use that evidence that they knew they were setting up to investigate, arrest, and prosecute the Americans that they had entrapped. So Congress can investigate these things, and we and we are, and we will reveal these horrific truths, and we will have criminal referrals. But until you have a a a president running the executive branch that will clean house at the DOJ and FBI at the highest levels and put American patriots in place that will be that will act upon the criminal referrals that that congress provides, then none of those guys are gonna get arrested because they're not gonna arrest themselves, and we don't have arrest authority. Speaker 0: I'm a little surprised and don't expect to be critical of your colleagues in the Republican conference, but, I mean, they do control the house. Impeachment is a thing. Chris Wray is still the FBI director. I watched Republicans, some of whom I know, cheer the murder of Ashley Babbitt who was unarmed woman less than 55, by Michael Byrd. They were Michael Byrd side, and it I have to say for a lot of Republican voters and I count myself among them. Very clarifying. If you're cheering Ashley Babbitt's murder shooting women now, that's okay because she likes Trump. And the Republicans were like, yeah. I was happy. Like, a lot of them thought that. What the hell? Speaker 1: Yeah. I was and it it made me sick. Me too. You know, I'm there's a a great responsibility when you when you wear a badge in America. I mean, think about it. To be to be the to be the designated servant of your community that has that has the the authority to, to deny the freedom of a fellow American in the land of the free. Like, that's a heavy responsibility. So the the escalation of of force is must be appropriate in order to affect a lawful arrest, and and a a bad a bad shoot is the worst thing that an officer can possibly be involved in in his in his career. It's it's, you know, we it's it's it's the thing of nightmares for for good police officers. So to take what was what was from a law enforcement perspective was clearly a bad shoot because there's some basic rules you just cannot violate. You have to attempt to effect an arrest before you can go to deadly force. There was there was no attempt to arrest Ashley Batman. There were there were officers on the other side of the window she was climbing through. There were officers on the interior side of the window she was climbing through. There was no indication that had been that this had been going on for an hour, and there was there was no reports on the radio or anywhere else of of gunfights. So there was no reason at that point to expect that Ashley Babin or anybody else in the in the crowd was gonna produce a firearm and start firing on police officers. Why? Because it had not happened. So that's part of the totality of circumstance that a police officer is responsible for knowing. We stay in constant communication with our radios. We know what's going on. That officer that that that pulled that trigger would shot a a American woman who was clearly in a in like a physically compromised position climbing through the broken glass of a of a window is not, you know, it's not like she just stepped into the cage in MMA and she was ready to fight. She was climbing through a window draped in a flag. There's police officers on the other side of the window. There's police officers on the interior side of the window. So you have plenty enough officer presence. If you wanna arrest that woman, then by all means, pull it through the window, you know, put flex cuffs on her and throw her in the corner. We'll get to you later, ma'am. We're kinda busy right now. That's what you do. You'd have grabbed that woman and pulled her through the and threw her in the corner, or handed her back to somebody that could pull her back, you know, from that front line right there. So understand that very well, I understand officers have to make split second decisions, but you never you never make a decision to use lethal force unless it's absolutely called for and required, if you're losing a fight attempting to effect an arrest, then then, yeah, if if there's if if the officer's life is in danger and he's all by himself, but there's never should be a circumstance where you just pull the trigger and a woman climbing through a window that's clearly unarmed. There's no evidence of gunplay from the crowd that she's coming from. You got officers on both side of where she is. If you gotta arrest her, then by all means, arrest her. You know, to put flex cups on her and and move on. So, you know, she'd nannle the next person trying to come through the window, but she don't shoot her. So that was a Speaker 0: bad issue. An invest a reveal investigation. Was cheered. Speaker 1: Yep. Why do you think that was? And there's this in there's this insanity that has taken hold in the in the the minds and hearts of many otherwise reasonable American citizens where they did they they hate Trump so much. Like, they're they're so deeply embedded, and they're they've sold their souls to the establishment that when we had an America first president and and he and he, like, stopped the, the military industrial complex forward momentum and and he and he began restoring power to individual members of congress and restoring individual rights and freedoms and sovereignty of the state, and he took away the actions of the cartels and and brought this this real common sense approach to the executive branch and was leading our country in that beautiful direction. This was interfering with the business model of the establishment. So many career politicians on both sides of the aisle, and I, you know, I don't like those guys, man. I'm not one of them. And I I served my country in congress, but, I I don't consider myself a politician by any means. I'm a servant to We The People. Some of these guys, man, they pop out of the womb to be to be politicians. They get groomed their whole life, you know, to be a a career politician. And those are the ones that had this instinctive cheer for something really bad happening to a Trump supporter. You know, they their true color showed in that moment and was an ugly color. Yeah. That's it. Speaker 0: We shouldn't be shooting women, number 1. I couldn't agree more. So where where does this go from here? You have this corpus of information. It sounds like it's definitive. When does the public see the detail, and what's the process after that? Speaker 1: It's a good question. So evidence from criminal investigations by nature is rather secretive, but there is a, a tremendous compilation of data that I think should be made completely available to the public, and that's the digital files from from j 4, 5, and 6. This is where, speaker Mike Johnson can be a champion for for that will be remembered for throughout history as the speaker of the house that fully released unredacted, digital files from j 4, 5, and 6 completely to the American people. And within that data, there is full truth, and and the American people, it is the only staff large enough to, you know, frame by frame, go through 80,000 hours of digital evidence. Nobody has a staff big enough to do that, but we can crowdsource it to the American people. So you ask when will this evidence be released? I'd I've I've been encouraging speaker Johnson, as I did speaker McCarthy, to, my god, man, release this data to the American people. Speaker 0: Why won't why won't they? Speaker 1: I believe speaker Johnson will, but but Mike is a is is quite a skilled constitutionalist attorney himself, and he's a very measured, patient, faithful man. So, I have I extend trust to to speaker Johnson when he says that it's his intention to fully release the the call the j6 tapes, but really it's digital evidence, it's more than it's more than just video evidence, it's it's a lot. You know, radio transcripts, the whole thing. I I believe my speaker Johnson knows that this is a significant, duty that he must he he he must perform for the American people. It's a moment in history where where, you know, I believe our lord and savior has placed him in that in that position of service to the country, and he has a responsibility to to fully release that data. And then the American people will see for themselves what some of us have already learned to our horror to be true. Speaker 0: Congressman Hinggens, thank you very much. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.

@Rickster_75 — 🗡️🛡️Sir Rickster🛡️🗡️

Posted - March 3, 2024 at 4:30 PM

Saved - April 15, 2024 at 2:45 PM

@Rickster_75 - 🗡️🛡️Sir Rickster🛡️🗡️

Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, gives testimony for the record Detailing ALL 3 Three phone calls he had with Nancy Pelosi on Jan 6th. His testimony directly contradicts Nancy Pelosi’s statements That She did not speak with Capitol Police the Chief on January 6th. #January6th #NancyPelosi

Video Transcript AI Summary

After leaving a location, I had three calls with Speaker Pelosi about getting people back into chambers. Speaker Pelosi's claim of not speaking with me is inaccurate. I cannot comment on whether Capitol security was politicized. I wish Speaker Pelosi had considered the challenges I faced before calling for my resignation. Former Sergeant at Arms believed we were prepared for a typical demonstration, not for the events that unfolded. We did not anticipate a member of Congress inciting the crowd.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Was when I left that location. As I was walking away, I met up with mister Stenger, and we started walking over to the Senate to go brief the Senate when, Jennifer Hemingway, I believe it was Jennifer Hemingway, handed me his cell phone, and it was Emily Barrett's cell phone calling her, and it was Speaker Pelosi on the other line. This is my second call with Speaker Pelosi, questioning the information I'd given to, Vice President Pence about when we can get back into chambers. I assured her that information was correct. I could get them back into chambers by 7 p. M, and the call ended. That was call number 2. Call number 3 was 6:25 p. M. I was over at the Senate from the secure location I mean, from where the Senate had been sequestered, and on a cell phone using Robert Caram's cell phone, They dialed leadership, who was over or off-site at a secure location, and I briefed all of leadership of the plans to get them back into chambers. That would have been call number 3 with Speaker Pelosi. Speaker 1: So you didn't have one call. You didn't have 2 call. You had 3 calls. So speaker Pelosi's comments that she didn't speak to are inaccurate. Speaker 0: That is correct, sir. Speaker 1: Let me let me shift gears and go back, as it relates to the optics of bringing people up to Capitol Hill and and running things up the chain of command ultimately to the speaker's office. Do you think speaker Pelosi's office, or speaker Pelosi herself, politicized capital security? Speaker 0: I I have no I have no idea on that, sir. Speaker 1: Okay. Any other clarifications you'd like to make as it relates to Speaker Pelosi's comments that you didn't speak to her? Speaker 0: I just, you know, wish she had considered that, wish she had considered some of the stuff that I've faced and the efforts I went through, to bring in the outside resources, on that day before she called for her resignation. Speaker 1: Thank you very much, for being here. I yield back. Gentlemen, yields, now begin our second round of question. I'll yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Torres. Speaker 2: Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Sun, I have here a statement, from it's testimony from, Paul Irving, the former sergeant at arms, and this is a testimony he gave to the senate, at a hearing. And he states on January 5th, Chief Sund and I participated in a web based interagency conference call with multiple law enforcement partners, the FBI, the MPD, the US Secret Service, the US Park Police, and the Military District of Washington, among other law enforcement agencies from the National Capital Region. Based on the intelligence and threat assessment, everyone on the call believe that we were prepared and the plant met the threat. So you were prepared for what you thought would be a typical, demonstration, a First Amendment demonstration on Capitol Hill, such as the women's march when we all wore our pink hats and came out and marched, against some of the efforts, of the president. What you did not anticipate none of you anticipated that a Republican member of congress would tell the crowd on stage, today is the day. American patriots start talk taking down names and kicking ass, and our ancestors sacrificed their blood, their sweat, their tears, their fortunes, and sometimes their lives. Are you willing to do the same? You didn't anticipate that, did you? Speaker 0: We we anticipated some minor skirmishes. We did not anticipate Speaker 2: But you didn't anticipate a member, a Republican member of Congress, to go on stage and incite the crowd like this.

@ImMeme0 — I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸

Posted - October 27, 2024 at 11:22 AM

Saved - October 28, 2024 at 3:54 AM

@ImMeme0 - I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸

Every time Democrats bring up Jan6, be sure to share this video with them. https://t.co/ZAShQikc6q

Video Transcript AI Summary

The events on January 6th are often labeled as an insurrection, but this characterization is misleading. Initially, reports described it as a riot, and the term "insurrection" only emerged later to demonize those involved. The actions taken by citizens were a response to their frustrations, not an organized attempt to overthrow the government. For an event to be classified as an insurrection, there must be a clear hierarchy and intent to replace a government, which was not the case here. The Capitol remains intact, and the situation was not comparable to true insurrections seen elsewhere. It's important to educate young people about these distinctions and not let them be misled by sensationalized narratives.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: The events that occurred on January 6th, we call them the capital event. Would you say that it was a demonstration in culture, Speaker 1: or Speaker 0: would you say that was a democratic demonstration? Speaker 1: That's the first big lie Americans have ever been told in this country. Forget about Nixon. What are they calling? Insurrection. Insurrection, they call it. It's so sad and cruel for a country to label young people who did what is just normal and put this label on them for the rest of their lives. Go and play every footage of the cameras that were there live that day. Okay? The live ones that saw the thing happening. Not a single reporter referred to it as an insurrection. They said there is a riot at the capital. When do you think the word insurrection started? 5 PM when they have taken the rear back to the editorial room, and they know who was in office, and they're finding a way to demonize him. Somebody we expect we should start calling this an insurrection. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Well, do you think that they only demonized him because they say that he lamented Speaker 1: He didn't lament anything. Speaker 0: That he Speaker 1: What I believe is what happened at the Capitol is what is supposed to happen anyway. So if the citizens who elected these people, who pays for the building they live in and work in are pissed off and they want their voice to be heard, they went to the right place. That was not an insurrection. An insurrection requires a hierarchy, an insignia, a name, a mission, we call it an insurrection. Speaker 0: Well, there's are people that would argue that they did have all of that. I'm not saying I'm not saying Speaker 1: that we're saying. You and I watched it and you and I know 85 broken tooth, over tattooed, ponytail caves don't scare a war with flagpoles and take over a government. Number 2, for you to overthrow a government, a new government has to be in place for you to overthrow that government. So whom were they overthrowing on general 6 when a guy has 14 more days according to the constitution? I may be wrong. If a general 6th, do you know who will continue as commander in chief? Yeah. The president. Speaker 0: That's correct. Speaker 1: So whom was he overthrowing? They wanted something to demonize him. They started calling it an insurrection. It was not an insurrection. Nothing has happened to America. The capital is still intact. The kids went there and made noise. What was an insurrection? What was happened in Seattle when they took a whole town and held it hostage for weeks? What happened in Minnesota when they touched down private people's business and homes to the tune of $300,000,000? That is an insurrection. We have to wake up and inform our young ones not to be bought into this nonsense. Nothing happened on January 6th.

@NanLee1124 — NanLee Marie Carissimi

Posted - December 13, 2024 at 5:48 AM

Saved - February 1, 2025 at 4:44 PM

@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi

Tucker Carlson and @RepClayHiggins discuss what actually happened on J6… this is an excellent account from Clay! @TCNetwork MUST-WATCH… https://t.co/Rr6VSGMd2j

Video Transcript AI Summary

Three years after January 6th, questions remain about the events of that day and the FBI's involvement. Congressman Clay Higgins directly questioned FBI Director Chris Wray about whether FBI assets were embedded among the protesters. Higgins asserts that evidence suggests the FBI had undercover agents dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol before the doors opened, potentially entrapping attendees. He estimates over 200 FBI assets were present, influencing the crowd and orchestrating actions leading to arrests. Higgins emphasizes the need for transparency and urges Speaker Mike Johnson to release all digital evidence from that day to the public, believing it will reveal the truth about the government's role in the events of January 6th.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: It has been exactly 3 years since January 6th, the events of January 6th. The racist insurrection that shocked this nation to its core, more profoundly than anything since Pearl Harbor plus the civil war. And it has taken a while, honestly, even for people who aren't on the side of the professional liars to realize there's something amiss about what happened that day. Not just the response, the largest law enforcement mobilization in the history of the United States that was obviously disproportionate, because it wasn't the worst riot that year, not even close. But the day itself, there was something about January 6th that didn't feel right, and hovering over that day has remained the question to what extent was it a setup. And we still don't really know, but what's interesting is how few people have asked that entirely legitimate question. One of the very few, really one of the only in the United States Congress, is a member called Clay Higgins from Louisiana. In case you haven't seen this clip, it's worth rewatching. This is from 2022 at Homeland Security Committee hearing where he asked it just directly of the FBI director. Why? Speaker 1: Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protesters and on January 6, 2021? Speaker 2: Well, Congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when Speaker 1: Even now, that's what you told us a few Speaker 2: years ago. Matt finish. About when we do and do not and where we have and have not used confidential human sources. But to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6th, that's categorically false. Speaker 1: Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol on January 6th prior to the doors being open? Speaker 2: Again, I had to be very careful Speaker 1: with what be a no. Can you not tell the American people no? We did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the capitol. Gentlemen, Pam has expired. You should Speaker 2: not read anything into my decision not to share information Director Ray. Confidential. Speaker 1: Gentleman's time has expired. Speaker 0: What a sleazy, repulsive, little authoritarian liar Chris Wray is. That's obvious when you watch that tape. The sad part is so few tapes like that exist because so few have confronted him directly and asked questions to which the entire country has a right to know the answer like that one. Clay Higgins did that. Congressman from Louisiana Louisiana Lafayette joins us in studio. Congressman, thanks so much for coming up. Speaker 1: Thank you for having me, Tuck. Speaker 0: So that was over a year ago that you asked that question, which is a central question, and you asked it as I think is appropriate without any embarrassment at all on behalf of your constituents and the rest of the country. Are you any closer to the answer now? Speaker 1: Well, we're closer to being in a position where we can reveal the answers that we already have. Much of the evidence that we have compiled from investigative effort over the the course of the last couple of years. Some offices like my own would have operated in silos of investigative endeavor, have now been able to come together now that we have a republican majority and we have access to the to the to the staffs of the appropriate investigative committees. And so I sit on the oversight committee and we republicans run that committee now, therefore we control the staff. So when you can magnify the efforts that individual, members of congress have have have pushed within our own offices. When you can magnify those efforts by the the skill and the numbers of staff from the committees, you you get a lot of evidence reviewed professionally and aligned and assembled into essentially a case file. And in in this case, this is a big file because the the the involvement of of certain actors, and you could say deep state actors within the federal government, to set the stage for, what happened in in j 4, 5, and 6, and and to, entrap thousands of Americans from across the country and lure them into this this set stage on j 4, 5, and 6. The people that were involved in that is is is quite a large web. So, yes, sir. We do have a great deal of evidence compiled, and we are we are gradually, professionally, rolling that evidence out. So you sort Speaker 0: of answered the question right there in larger terms. You just said that elements within the federal government, I assume law enforcement intel and military, and I'm using your words, lured Americans to Washington into what you called a trap. Yes, sir. So that would I mean, that's a shocking and I assume that's a that's a sober conclusion based on the evidence. That's what you're saying. Speaker 1: That's that would be my sober assessment as an investigator, and I'm, you know, I'm quite a I love my country, and and I've I've always been a staunch defender of the thin blue line. And I I would proudly count the FBI amongst that number. They're just like brothers to me. So to find that level of, of conspiratorial corruption at the highest levels of the FBI has been very troubling to me as a man, as a cop, and and yet did you know, you follow the evidence wherever it leads, and Yes. This is what investigators do. So, when I asked Christopher Wray that that question, for instance, I already knew the answer. I had reviewed compelling evidence that the that FBI had assets, human assets, dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol prior to the doors being open and the masses allowed in. So now I I knew that the FBI was deeply involved. I'd seen evidence even at that time with, that the FBI had embedded themselves into various groups online across the country of Americans who were essentially voicing their their concerns and airing their grievances with each other about COVID oppression. Those Americans were targeted by the FBI, almost universally, Republicans and and, largely Trump supporters, but the FBI worked undercover to infiltrate those conversations and become a significant part of those individual Americans' communications. And when you dig into the evidence that we've we've had revealed through through some criminal cases that I've I've followed and worked with the families of j six political detainees and Americans that have been persecuted for their involvement in in the capital that day. And some of that evidence is shockingly reveals that the the the FBI agents that were operating undercover within the online groups across the country were were the first ones to plant the seeds of of, suggestions of of a more radical occupation of the capital and and they were sort of testing the waters of who amongst that group would would begin acknowledging that, you know, yeah, may maybe we should do that. Maybe we should plan for an occupation like that. But if you look at the the origins of those conversations, it it was started by the the FBI undercover guy that was operating inside the group. And then months later, on January 4th, 5th, 6th, many of those Americans met for the first time in person when they gathered for the massive rally where American patriots assembled to object to to everything that had happened during 2020, the COVID oppression, and the the stunning results of what we believe was a compromised election cycle in November 2020. So Americans gathered at their own capital to to appropriately air grievances and protest at their capital, but embedded amongst their number was an FBI asset that had been working from within their group online for many months. So this was the level of of manipulative effort that the FBI invested into American citizenry and our our assembly online to, and to exercise our rights under the first amendment, to talk to each other about whatever we wanna talk about, including the the the insidious suppressions of COVID that we were suffering across the country. So and our concerns about where the election was going, the whole mail in ballot thing, we could see the stage was being set for a compromised election cycle possibly, and to our horror that's what happened. So FBI had fingerprints on this thing from from many months prior to j 4, 5, and 6. Speaker 0: I wanna go back to something you said in the first sentence, which is you have seen evidence and that's for your questions to Chris Wray that there were FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters within the capital. So that is proof of entrapment because, of course, the federal government could have prevented entry into the capital building. Aren't that many doors. You work there, you know. But they allowed people in on purpose to entrap them. That's what that proves, I think. Does it not? Speaker 1: Well, it's certainly condemning. It's another piece of the of the strategy that the that the government employed to sort of complete the entrapment of Americans that they had had, infiltrated and then prodded and provoked with online with the with the those original seeds planted of of, actions like, you know, what type of gear to wear and and and just in language that incited behavior that could go the wrong way. You know, pushing actions of of legal and legitimate peaceful protest to an edge where where those Americans would likely not have gone had they not been been, you know, encouraged by the FBI plant amongst their number that they didn't know was there. So by the time it was actually j 6 and you had you had, masses of Americans assembled outside the capitol, almost, like, 99.9%, 100% peaceful. On the inside, you had FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters that knew their way around the capitol. Before the doors even open. Before the doors open. Or else how are you gonna get around the capitol? You've been there many times. You need a guide to get from whatever door you go in. It's a labyrinth. It's, yeah, it's it's a maze inside there. So you that's right. So there's no way just Americans, most of which, had never been to the capitol, There's no way they can come in some random door that gets opened and then get their way directly to the to the statuary or the house chamber or the senate chamber. It's just not possible. So the the the FBI assets that were dressed as Trump supporters that were inside the capitol were there, I believe, and evidence indicates that they were there to to specifically waive in the the Trump supporters that had gathered outside the capitol, and the doors open and they were allowed in. And on the inside were were oh, there's some more Trump supporters, but really those were FBI assets, law enforcement assets that knew their way around the capital. And they they waved those guys in, said, come on. Follow us. And they they're the ones that led them on the path directly. Now how do you think of guys? Never been to the capital. Gotta gotta come into the capitol all amped up on on emotion and make his way straight to Nancy Pelosi's office. Come on. It's like I couldn't get to there's no way. I've been there for 7 years. Could come in some random door at the capitol and make my way to Nashville. Everything is unmarked. Speaker 0: I mean, those leadership offices are unmarked. So how would Speaker 1: you know? It's confusing to get around in the capitol. Every American that has been there knows this. When you go on a tour, you bring your family to DC, you go through the capital, you have to have a guide. And and on January 6th, the guides were FBI assets, the law enforcement assets, and they were dressed as Trump supporters. They were positioned inside the capitol prior to the doors being open so that the Americans that had assembled outside the capitol, once allowed in, could be brought directly to the areas where the FBI, the DOJ, and the deep state actors knew would be the most, the most sort of condemning criminal action of of Americans being a lot being inside the capital, protesting without permit and things. So they knew they were setting the stage for arrest and prosecution. It's such a crime. Who who planned this, do you think? I think factions planned this. I wouldn't say who talked about it because that, yeah, I don't think there was one person that that planned this, but I believe the the faction of, establishment liberals within the FBI and the Democrat Party and our intelligence services to to another extent, use their massive powers of surveillance and, investigative, assets that they have across the country, confidential informants, registered informants, non registered informants, voluntary informants. It's a it's a complex web of of FBI assets across the country that can be activated. So if you have authority at some of the highest levels in the FBI, it doesn't take much, the faction within the FBI and within our intelligence services that would coordinate with with the most extreme liberal, factions within a Democrat party that were desperate to keep Trump out of office, and and, you know, worked within the the theater of operations, shall we say, that had been that had been set by the COVID alleged medical emergencies nationwide and millions and millions of mail in ballots. There's no daylight between the the compromised election cycle of November 2020 and ultimately what happened on on on j6. So you ask who planned this? This would be the combination of several several of the most extreme liberal anti Trump, anti America First factions that, that were in positions of authority within our federal law enforcement organizations and the the Democrat party across the country. Speaker 0: Can when you say that there were FBI assets in the crowd, it in the building beforehand and and certainly outside, What's the scale of this? You're talking, like, 10, 20? No. Speaker 1: Based upon some very conservative, but, like, hard investigative effort evaluation of of the numbers from putting together eyewitnesses and and videos and, and affidavit statement, and whistleblower statements, and court records that have been revealed through individual criminal cases where j6 defendants have been prosecuted, and smart attorneys have forced, admissions by the DOJ and the FBI, but those admissions have been sealed within the parameter of that criminal case by protective order by the judge, so they I I can't share them, but I've seen them. So real hard objective and conservative, estimates would would put the number of FBI assets in the crowd outside and working inside at at well over 200. 200? Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. So you're in law enforcement. Yeah. Yep. Before you came to congress in the military as well, that seemed that's an extraordinary number. Is it? Speaker 1: Well, no. When you think about the scope of the operation, if you were gonna do this, you would need you would Speaker 0: need that relative to so like when, I don't know, Minneapolis burned down or when Saint John's, the Episcopal Church of Carson, the White House in Lafayette Square was set ablaze, and all the secret service agents were injured. Were there 200 FBI assets in the crowd among Antifa then? Speaker 1: I mean, I I don't know how many undercover agents FBI would have in a situation like that, but but but but j 6 was the was the was the final act prior to arrest and prosecution of of Americans that that were identified as as Trump supporters. I mean, the objective was to destroy the entire MAGA movement, to to forever stain the, the patriotic fervor that was associated with with the America First Mega Movement that had won in 2016 and we believe won again in 2020, and the the establishment on both sides, both major parties were determined to smash that out of existence, not just by defeating Trump, but by destroying the reputations of the movement itself by creating this narrative that was totally false, but was heavily pushed that mega Republicans, America First Republicans are somehow a danger to our republic and a a domestic terror threat, which is a whole another story about what the FBI has done to tagging Americans as, suspected domestic terrorists and and following us as we travel across the country. But the the bottom line is that, 200 as a I I believe is a conservative number. First of all, I think there were there's many more, But a number that I'm comfortable going on record with is that we believe that there were that there were easily 200 FBI undercover assets operating in the crowd, outside the capital, embedded into groups that entered the capital or provoked entry of the capital, and working with FBI assets that would have included Metro Police and Capitol Police that would dress as Trump supporters inside the capital because those were the guys that knew their way around the capitol. So given the scope of the operation and the number of doors where entry was allowed or even encouraged, and the number of people that were actually outside the capital and it entered, we believe 200 is a conservative number. Yes, sir. Speaker 0: It's it's shocking what you're saying. It confirms everyone's worst suspicions about this. It's clearly true. Did you come across any evidence that the the DOD, the military, either Defense Intelligence Agency or National Guard or any part of the US military played any role in this at all? Speaker 1: I have not seen that. I've heard the echoes of that suspicion, and I have I have observed, circumstantial evidence that that has been presented to me, that I've that I have reviewed, but to but to me, it does not rise to the level that I would call actionable from an investigative perspective. So there's some there was some suspicion, but in in in law enforcement the thresholds you're looking across is reasonable suspicion that would prompt a criminal investigation, and then the next threshold is probable cause, which you need for arrest. And then of course in our system, finally, the last threshold is is, is conviction, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So the I I did review evidence, Tucker, regarding some suspicions of military involvement in some way, but and I and I've I have reviewed some of that evidence that that had been that I've been able to get my hands on, and, I do not think that the the military was, was involved, not at the level, most certainly not at the level of the of the FBI and, over the course of all of 2020. And then on j 4, 5, and 6, the FBI working in coordination with other law enforcement assets that that they roped into the operation Right. From Metro PD, from DC, and and, the Capitol Police was sort of sort of tricked into participating with the with what the FBI had been staging for, you know, 10 months. Just a bit Speaker 0: if you take 3 steps back, this is not democracy. So the federal agencies serve under the oversight of the elected president, and then on under the oversight of the elected congress. Their elected people get to make the decisions. You have a Republican president. You now have a Republican congress, and neither one can get a straight answer from the FBI. No no one has any control of the FBI. You're describing a government within a government. Speaker 1: Well, in America, a question becomes reasonable men would would would ask when we face a crisis like this, who investigates the investigate? Right. And the answer in America is is congress. So we we have the responsibility to investigate through the appropriate committees, which would we're certainly we're certainly doing that now that we have a republican majority in control of the committees, but we don't have the power to arrest. We can we can give criminal referrals based upon our investigative efforts, but we have to have a DOJ that's receptive to the criminal referrals. So we we've hit quite a a brick wall, have we not? Constitutionally, we we have the responsibility to investigate objectively, and and and anyone that knows me know that's exactly what I'm I'm pursuing. I do not have I'm not trying to create a crime to fit a narrative to blame on the FBI. I'm following the evidence, and and to my horror, it implicates our FBI at the highest level, and a and a a conspiracy within our government at the highest level to create the the, to set the stage for a compromised election cycle in 2020, and then the the the actions that took place on j 4, 5, and 6, and then the the criminal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Americans that they were able to entrap and document with the thousands of cameras that were operating that day and use that evidence that they knew they were setting up to investigate, arrest, and prosecute the Americans that they had entrapped. So Congress can investigate these things, and we and we are, and we will reveal these horrific truths, and we will have criminal referrals. But until you have a a a president running the executive branch that will clean house at the DOJ and FBI at the highest levels and put American patriots in place that will be that will act upon the criminal referrals that that congress provides, then none of those guys are gonna get arrested because they're not gonna arrest themselves, and we don't have arrest authority. Speaker 0: I'm a little surprised and don't expect to be critical of your colleagues in the Republican conference, but, I mean, they do control the house. Impeachment is a thing. Chris Wray is still the FBI director. I watched Republicans, some of whom I know, cheer the murder of Ashley Babbitt who was unarmed woman less than 55, by Michael Byrd. They were Michael Byrd side, and it I have to say for a lot of Republican voters and I count myself among them. Very clarifying. If you're cheering Ashley Babbitt's murder shooting women now, that's okay because she likes Trump. And the Republicans were like, yeah. I was happy. Like, a lot of them thought that. What the hell? Speaker 1: Yeah. I was and it it made me sick. Me too. You know, I'm there's a a great responsibility when you when you wear a badge in America. I mean, think about it. To be to be the to be the designated servant of your community that has that has the the authority to, to deny the freedom of a fellow American in the land of the free. Like, that's a heavy responsibility. So the the escalation of of force is must be appropriate in order to affect a lawful arrest, and and a a bad a bad shoot is the worst thing that an officer can possibly be involved in in his in his career. It's it's, you know, we it's it's it's the thing of nightmares for for good police officers. So to take what was what was from a law enforcement perspective was clearly a bad shoot because there's some basic rules you just cannot violate. You have to attempt to effect an arrest before you can go to deadly force. There was there was no attempt to arrest Ashley Batman. There were there were officers on the other side of the window she was climbing through. There were officers on the interior side of the window she was climbing through. There was no indication that had been that this had been going on for an hour, and there was there was no reports on the radio or anywhere else of of gunfights. So there was no reason at that point to expect that Ashley Babin or anybody else in the in the crowd was gonna produce a firearm and start firing on police officers. Why? Because it had not happened. So that's part of the totality of circumstance that a police officer is responsible for knowing. We stay in constant communication with our radios. We know what's going on. That officer that that that pulled that trigger would shot a a American woman who was clearly in a in like a physically compromised position climbing through the broken glass of a of a window is not, you know, it's not like she just stepped into the cage in MMA and she was ready to fight. She was climbing through a window draped in a flag. There's police officers on the other side of the window. There's police officers on the interior side of the window. So you have plenty enough officer presence. If you wanna arrest that woman, then by all means, pull it through the window, you know, put flex cuffs on her and throw her in the corner. We'll get to you later, ma'am. We're kinda busy right now. That's what you do. You'd have grabbed that woman and pulled her through the and threw her in the corner, or handed her back to somebody that could pull her back, you know, from that front line right there. So understand that very well, I understand officers have to make split second decisions, but you never you never make a decision to use lethal force unless it's absolutely called for and required, if you're losing a fight attempting to effect an arrest, then then, yeah, if if there's if if the officer's life is in danger and he's all by himself, but there's never should be a circumstance where you just pull the trigger and a woman climbing through a window that's clearly unarmed. There's no evidence of gunplay from the crowd that she's coming from. You got officers on both side of where she is. If you gotta arrest her, then by all means, arrest her. You know, to put flex cups on her and and move on. So, you know, she'd nannle the next person trying to come through the window, but she don't shoot her. So that was a Speaker 0: bad issue. An invest a reveal investigation. Was cheered. Speaker 1: Yep. Why do you think that was? And there's this in there's this insanity that has taken hold in the in the the minds and hearts of many otherwise reasonable American citizens where they did they they hate Trump so much. Like, they're they're so deeply embedded, and they're they've sold their souls to the establishment that when we had an America first president and and he and he, like, stopped the, the military industrial complex forward momentum and and he and he began restoring power to individual members of congress and restoring individual rights and freedoms and sovereignty of the state, and he took away the actions of the cartels and and brought this this real common sense approach to the executive branch and was leading our country in that beautiful direction. This was interfering with the business model of the establishment. So many career politicians on both sides of the aisle, and I, you know, I don't like those guys, man. I'm not one of them. And I I served my country in congress, but, I I don't consider myself a politician by any means. I'm a servant to We The People. Some of these guys, man, they pop out of the womb to be to be politicians. They get groomed their whole life, you know, to be a a career politician. And those are the ones that had this instinctive cheer for something really bad happening to a Trump supporter. You know, they their true color showed in that moment and was an ugly color. Yeah. That's it. Speaker 0: We shouldn't be shooting women, number 1. I couldn't agree more. So where where does this go from here? You have this corpus of information. It sounds like it's definitive. When does the public see the detail, and what's the process after that? Speaker 1: It's a good question. So evidence from criminal investigations by nature is rather secretive, but there is a, a tremendous compilation of data that I think should be made completely available to the public, and that's the digital files from from j 4, 5, and 6. This is where, speaker Mike Johnson can be a champion for for that will be remembered for throughout history as the speaker of the house that fully released unredacted, digital files from j 4, 5, and 6 completely to the American people. And within that data, there is full truth, and and the American people, it is the only staff large enough to, you know, frame by frame, go through 80,000 hours of digital evidence. Nobody has a staff big enough to do that, but we can crowdsource it to the American people. So you ask when will this evidence be released? I'd I've I've been encouraging speaker Johnson, as I did speaker McCarthy, to, my god, man, release this data to the American people. Speaker 0: Why won't why won't they? Speaker 1: I believe speaker Johnson will, but but Mike is a is is quite a skilled constitutionalist attorney himself, and he's a very measured, patient, faithful man. So, I have I extend trust to to speaker Johnson when he says that it's his intention to fully release the the call the j6 tapes, but really it's digital evidence, it's more than it's more than just video evidence, it's it's a lot. You know, radio transcripts, the whole thing. I I believe my speaker Johnson knows that this is a significant, duty that he must he he he must perform for the American people. It's a moment in history where where, you know, I believe our lord and savior has placed him in that in that position of service to the country, and he has a responsibility to to fully release that data. And then the American people will see for themselves what some of us have already learned to our horror to be true. Speaker 0: Congressman Hinggens, thank you very much. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.

@julie_kelly2 — Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Posted - December 23, 2024 at 3:57 PM

Saved - December 24, 2024 at 2:30 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I found it intriguing that Liz Cheney expressed significant concern before January 6 about potential disruptions from pipe bombs, even contacting then-acting AG Jeff Rosen. She was so anxious that she hired a former Secret Service agent for protection that day. Ironically, her fears materialized when two devices were found near the DNC and RNC. However, it's odd that the committee she led barely investigated these incidents, dedicating only a couple of pages in their extensive report to the pipe bombs, relegating it to the appendix.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Oddly, Liz Cheney privately worried before Jan 6 that pipe bombs might disrupt the proceedings that day and force the evacuation of members of Congress. She was so fearful (allegedly) that she and her influential GWB alum lawyer-husband called then acting AG Jeff Rosen to share their concerns. Cheney was SO AFRAID of what might happen on Jan 6 that she hired a former Secret Service agent to accompany her to the Capitol that day. In her book, Cheney bragged about her family's long ties to Secret Service agents--disgraced former director Kim Cheatle once served on Dick Cheney's detail. IRONICALLY (or not), Cheney's predictions came true when 2 devices were discovered outside the DNC HQ and near the RNC HQ around the same time the joint session of Congress convened at 1pm. But even more ODD...

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

is the committee she led never investigated the presence of the pipe bombs. The 836-page J6 committee report she helped author devoted about 2 1/2 pages to the pipe bomb incidents and relegated it to the appendix. My latest with @ms_haleyjane https://www.declassified.live/p/liz-cheney-predicted-the-jan-6-bomb?r=4yy1i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

Liz Cheney Predicted the Jan 6 Bomb Threat Despite airing concerns that explosives might disrupt the proceedings on January 6, Liz Cheney did not investigate the presence of two pipe bombs found near the Capitol that day. declassified.live

@megynkelly — Megyn Kelly

Posted - January 7, 2025 at 1:42 AM

Saved - January 15, 2025 at 1:07 PM

@megynkelly - Megyn Kelly

Media Obsessed with January 6 To Smear Trump Supporters, and Biden's Bizarre Outburst, with @BenShapiro and @ggreenwald WATCH: https://t.co/Ke8ZLv1wfD

Video Transcript AI Summary

Happy 2025! After a two-week break, I’m back and excited to dive into the news. I spent time skiing in Montana with my family, which was refreshing. Today, we’ll discuss a tragic terror attack in New Orleans and a bizarre incident in Las Vegas. January 6th is being treated like a national tragedy, akin to 9/11, which feels exaggerated given the lack of similar remembrance for other violent events. Joining me are Ben Shapiro and Glenn Greenwald, who will share their insights on these topics. We’ll also touch on the ongoing debates within the GOP regarding immigration policies and the media's portrayal of events. Lastly, I’ll address the recent Golden Globes and Hollywood's treatment of Catholicism in film. Stay tuned for an exclusive interview tomorrow with my lawyer about a significant lawsuit involving Justin Baldoni and The New York Times.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Hey, everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show, and happy 2025. We are back with our first live show of the year. I've missed all of you over the past 2 weeks. While I spent some quality time with my family, I hope you had some with yours as well. We were in Montana skiing, and it was awesome. It was so snowy, and I have to tell you, it reminded me of my childhood in Syracuse where every morning, you would wake up and look out the window, and you'd say, yep. Snow again. Yep. Still more snow. And it's been such a nice change from what we saw last year and I think the year before too, where it's just it was nothing. So it's just such a delight, but to be in the snow, to see those fat flakes falling, and to have the holidays, especially in that setting, absolutely loved it. We did our costume nights. You know, that's a big thing for me every year around the Christmas, holiday where we do a costume night. I pick the theme, and I surprise my family with their costumes. And this year actually, we'll put this up, on the YouTube show. The theme was back to the future, and it was hilarious. I made Doug George McFly. You know, the geeky dad? It was amazing. I was Jennifer, Marty McFly's girlfriend from the eighties, and my son Yates was Marty. My son Thatcher was Doc, and, my daughter Yardley was, Lorraine, the 19 fifties version. So, anyway, it was great. And then my my brother-in-law, Ken, was Biff, which I got him a fake muscle shirt to wear, which I don't think he appreciated. Anyway, it's so important to get out and do things like that. Right? It just it's so clarifying to spend time with your family away from work. Even though I love my work, it's clarifying to spend time away from it. And I have to say it makes me feel it makes me better at my job because when I come back, though I admit I am currently slightly under the weather with a cold, no big deal, I feel more clear headed because as the news events hit over the past couple of weeks, you just have a better perspective on them when you're grounded, when you're with people you love and who love you, when you are part of nature and get better connected to it. And you can kinda see, oh, this is worth fighting over. Oh, this isn't this is bullshit. This isn't that kind of thing. Okay. So let's get to it. We've got 2 of the best guests in the industry in America to bring you different perspectives today. We're gonna kick it off in a minute with Ben Shapiro, and then Glenn Greenwald comes up in our second hour. How about that for a we're back show? We have got to cover this tragic terror attack, which killed 14 people in the early morning hours after New Year's in New Orleans. We're still learning more about the man who committed the act. And then a couple hours after that, a Green Beret blew himself up in a Tesla Cybertruck outside of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. A bizarre story that does not appear to be related to the terror attack across the country in New Orleans, though at first people thought perhaps they were related. Today, however, we have to start with the fact that it's January 6th, and they are literally treating it on the left like it is 9 11. It is ridiculous. I mean, it's got an actual function. It's the day that the 2024 election will be officially certified. But it is more importantly to the corporate media, the day that they will celebrate their favorite anniversary to smear all Trump supporters and, again, to treat this day as though it does live in infamy akin to that of 911 or Pearl Harbor. We'll show you an example. Joining me now for our very first show of 2025, we begin with Ben Shapiro, host of the Ben Shapiro Show on the Daily Wire. Don't miss a moment. Subscribe to this show on YouTube and follow me on Insta, Facebook, and x. These days, personal safety is not something that can be left to chance. Whether at home, on the road, or just living everyday life, having a reliable way to protect yourself and your family is crucial. This is why is the choice for many. Is a game changing, less lethal self defense tool. Compact, powerful, and easy to use, it provides confidence to act in any situation. Berna uses nonlethal rounds, tear gas, pepper, and kinetic projectiles to effect effectively stop a threat from a safe distance. And the best part, BRNA can be shipped directly to your door, and it's legal in all 50 states. BRNA is proudly American with products hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Sometimes a firearm is not the right option. There are a lot of people who are afraid of holding them or just unfamiliar with it and realize that they're probably gonna create more of a risk if they actually have a real loaded firearm. And BERNA could provide a powerful alternative for those folks. Protect what matters most with BERNA. Visit berna.com. That's byrna.com/megan to receive a 10% discount and learn why thousands of people and law enforcement agencies are making the switch to BERNA's less lethal protection. BRNA, nonlethal self defense, always ready. Ben, happy New Year. Great to see you. Speaker 1: Hey. You too. Glad you're back from vacation. Speaker 0: Yeah. It's great to be back. Alright. So, the the, I don't know, the panty ringing over January 6th and the reminder by president Biden that this needs to stay top of mind in the memory of the American people cannot be forgotten. You know, it's so strange, Ben. I don't I don't remember anybody doing that about the BLM protests, what happened in Portland, the 2,000 cops who were hurt in those riots, David Dorn, who was killed in Saint Louis in June of 20. None of that none of that has to be remembered. Just j 6th, which, you know, the the alleged police officer death toll, they continue to make up since no police died on January 6th, but they talk about it truly as though it is akin to the 911 terror attacks. What do you make of the, as I say, ringing that's going on? Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I I think that they have to because I think that what what they've demonstrated over the course of the last several years is their complete inability to govern or to be in any way aligned with the agenda of the American people. And so all they've had for years, and this is true going back to 2021 when Joe Biden gave that awful address in Philadelphia where he basically labeled everyone who is a Republican his political enemy and an enemy of the Republic. The only thing they can keep saying over and over is that Donald Trump is in fact an incipient dictator and authoritarian. It none of it has the same ring after Trump won. I mean, he won the popular vote, and he won the electoral college overwhelmingly. And so the the sort of idea that he attempted a coup and that we narrowly averted the rising tyranny in the United States, it it that that particular narrative was always stupid, but but it has died a horrible death at the hands of the American people who themselves voted by a majority for Donald Trump in the last election. And so it it just it rings super hollow this year. It it always was hollow, but it rings particularly hollow this year given the fact that again, Democrats didn't just lose the presidency. They they also lost control of the senate. They don't have control of the house. And so what exactly is the thing that we are supposed to be commemorating on January 6th? Is it the idea that that all Trump voters are akin to the small coterie of Trump supporters, not even the the small coterie of Trump supporters generally, small coterie of the people who are even at the January 6th stop the seal rally, who then committed some criminal acts, which again, that's a subset of people who are even at the sort of more riotous portion of the day. It it really is an incredible stretch for them. The fact they can't let it go is, again, a demonstration. This is a party devoid of ideals. It's a party devoid of ideas, and it's a party devoid of any connection with the American people whatsoever. Like, who who really is spending today thinking about January 6, 2021? Speaker 0: I know. No. It's it's similar to how they've they've run out of real examples of racism everywhere, so they have to make them up. You know, they've run out of examples to make Trump supporters look horrible, so they've gotta exaggerate what happened on January 6th to make it into one of the riots that they did that, you know, I just referenced and after BLM and after George Floyd. The they've gotta make it sound like the right. Those are the rioters. Those are the insurrectionists. Those are the ones who are truly a problem. I just went back because we've covered the 2,000 cops who were hurt during the BLM riots and David Dorn, who was shot and killed by looters in Saint Louis, retired police officer. And the number was after BLM or after George Floyd with BLM protests. 87100 protests, 574 at least that turned into riots with violence and criminality. Violence in more than 62% of the Portland, Oregon demonstrations. More than 62% were violent. And where do those cops go to have somebody remember their traumatic brain injuries, injuries to their face, to their femurs, to their bodies, as molotov cocktails were thrown at them, as bricks were thrown at them, broken bones, and so where I don't think they're gonna get an op ed by the sitting president in the Washington Post like we got from Joe Biden today, what Americans should remember about them, about those riots. But what we hear from Biden today is that we must remember the wisdom of the adage that any nation that forgets his past is doomed to repeat it, lamenting that in time, there will be Americans who didn't witness the January 6th riot firsthand, but will learn about it from footage and testimony only. This is ridiculous, Ben. You and I both know that's how we talk about the holocaust. That is how we talk about 911 and things like that. Speaker 1: It's it's an absurdity. It's an it's a it's a true absurdity. And and what makes it even more absurd is you mentioned all the cops who were injured during the BLM riots. The cops that have been demonized since 2014 in this country, since really the the Ferguson riots of 2014. The the number of cops who have been destroyed as human beings. The number of cops who failed to do their jobs because they were afraid that if they did their jobs, they would then be dragged through the court of public opinion in the ways the democrats like to do this sort of stuff. That number of cops is incredibly high. And the same week that Joe Biden is doing this routine, crying crocodile tears over January 6th, and we must remember and the cost to the cops and all this. He gave a presidential medal of freedom to George Soros, who's the number one funder of left wing prosecutors, who have spent their entire careers trying to undermine the cops in every city in America and make it easier for criminals to do their business. This is the same president who just a few weeks ago I mean, during the break, he had a very busy break, Joe Biden. This is the most alive he's been for years is is just before he's leaving the presidency. And and now he's doing things like commuting the sentences of 37 out of 40 people on death row because only 3 of those murderers apparently deserve to die. People who rape and murder little girls, they don't deserve to die. Only the Tree of Life shooter and the and the black church shooter and the Boston bomber, those people deserve to die. The other 37 who committed atrocities, those people don't deserve to die according to Joe Biden. I mean, he's letting it all hang out at this point. And, again, again, I think it underscores the reason why Joe Biden was so unpopular with the American people, which was they kept trying to sell us the line that he was a kindhearted, decent old man. And he was never a kindhearted, decent old man. He was just an old man. He was never kindhearted. He was never decent. He was always corrupt. He was always venal. He was always bloviating. None of his values ever meant anything at all. And this attempt to sort of retcon his own history and retcon what the Democratic party has done over the course of the last few years into something benevolent is is a an utter failure. It's a total failure. And I can't imagine that there are many people who are reading that op ed or hearing you read it, Megan, who aren't rolling their eyes so hard they fall out of their head. Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 0: No. If you've been paying any attention to what's happened to the j six protesters slash rioters, and I make no excuse for those who actually committed violence against cops that day. They should and have been punished. But those who just wandered into the capitol, well, there's so many who aimlessly wandered into the capitol thinking that they were allowed there or that at best they were committing a minor trespass, they have more than paid for that very egregious mistake as it turns out because the whole world was watching, and Biden wanted to make a political point. His DOJ wanted to make a political point. But to hear the media talk about this this solemn anniversary, Ben, is to again, it reminds me of 911. Having lived through 911, this this is what it brings up for me. Here's an example. Speaker 3: Regaining power and reigniting fears. In just hours, congress will meet to certify president-elect Donald Trump's 2024 election win. Happy Insurrection Day. Insurrection Day Speaker 2: where the Speaker 3: Republicans will certify the election of a president who is constitutionally ineligible to serve in the office. According to the 14th amendment, late this final prostitution of democracy. We shouldn't get comfortable. American democracy still faces, I I would argue, an uncertain future. Speaker 4: Snow covers the capital. There is this birth, this newness to winter, and there is this newness to this congress. Like, there is this storm cloud over the capitol that makes you think about what happened 4 years ago. Speaker 5: To remember what happened on January 6th is an act of remembrance in the purest form. We want to avoid ever again Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 5: Having American Speaker 0: On the knife's edge. And then there's give you one more, Ben. The AP today seems very upset that the capital was not left a mess so that we could go back today, 4 years later, and look at the scars and lament how bad MAGA is and its return to power saying, in the lead line, inside the capital, reminders of the violence are increasingly hard to find. Scars on the walls have been repaired. Windows and doors broken by the rioters have been replaced, and there is no plaque, display, or remembrance of any kind. In some ways, it's like the insurrection of January 6, 2021 that shook the foundations of American democracy never even happened. Speaker 1: Shook the foundations of American democracy. By the way, I love their respect for the property damage that may have numbered in the tens of dollars at the at the capitol building. I mean, like, they did $2,000,000,000 in property damage during the BLM riots. The the enthusiasm for remembering January 6th is matched only by the enthusiasm of the media and forgetting September 11th, actually. Now you're not allowed to show images of September 11th, lest we actually remember what happened and who did it on September 11th. The the media have already moved on. You mentioned earlier on that the New Orleans terror attack. The media are already very subtly moving on from that one. They they really are not gonna cover that one for very much longer because, of course, they can't tie that into some sort of narrative about broader American white supremacy and about domestic homegrown white terrorism or any of the rest of that sort of thing. And so they're gonna move right past that sort of thing. But but they they definitely have to focus in on January 6th. And the media, by the way, I'm not sure who took it on the chin harder this past year, the Democratic party or the media. I mean, they're appendages of one another. I've called them the human centipede because that's what they are. But, you know, at this point, I'm not sure that has anyone that's the first time anyone actually heard Jon Meacham saying that thing, Megan, was you playing it on your show. Because no one is left to watch MSNBC. No one actually has seen Keith Olbermann say that except on your show. So congratulations to Keith Olbermann for making your show, I suppose. Speaker 0: Sure. He's thrilled. The what what they're doing in New Orleans is very interesting to me, and we've seen it done time and time again. They're much more interested in what happened out in Las Vegas because that guy was a Trump supporter. Okay. Great. We're onto something. Let's talk about Vegas. This guy, he's a nutcase, and he's appear appears to be a right winger. But the guy in New Orleans who's, you know, apparently affiliated with or to to pledge his loyalty to ISIS, it's time to move on. That's really not that interesting even though 14 people are dead in New Orleans as a result of his behavior. And you had this is while we were on break or I was on break. But on January 1st, you had the FBI, agent Althea Duncan, who's in charge of the bureau's New Orleans field office, come out stopping short of even calling it a terrorist attack. Here's that. Speaker 6: Sir Patrick said, we'll be taking over the investigative lead for this, event. This is not a terrorist event. What it is right now is their improvised explosive devices that was found, and we are working on confirming if this is a viable device or not. Speaker 0: What how is it not a terrorist attack? The the guy had an Islamic State flag affixed to his rented Ford pickup truck. Later, the deputy assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division would say it was 100% inspired by ISIS. The 42 year old behind it, Shamsuddin Jabbar, who was a US citizen from Texas and an army vet, had apparently pledged his allegiance to ISIS via The New York Times. So you tell me how it's not a terrorist attack. Speaker 1: I mean, once again, for for the FBI, the immediate response, which is we know the motive, and the motive is uncomfortable. So we're gonna pretend that that's not really the motive or the me the motive is I mean, it was the least mysterious motive of all time. He literally had an ISIS flag attached to the back of his Ford F150. He said, here's my motive on a giant flag that I don't even know where you get an ISIS flag. Can you buy that off Amazon? In any case, this person had put out tapes of himself talking to his family about how he joined ISIS. And honestly, the reason why this should earn more media attention than, you the terrible case of what happened in Las Vegas, which seems to be a member of the military who had his life breaking down, he seemed to have some mental problems. The reason that this one is more noteworthy is because it is ideological in nature, not only ideological in nature. One of the stories that we reported at at Daily Wire actually was that the local mosque was being contacted by the FBI. Members of that mosque were being contacted by the FBI, the the mosque where this this person attended, the terrorist and the alleged terrorist. And the the mosque apparently put out a public message, like, on their own Instagram saying, if you are contacted by the FBI, you should contact the Council on American Islamic Relations. You should contact groups that are not the FBI. Right? Not not cooperate with the FBI. You should call the Council on American Islamic Relations, which by the way, was an uninvited coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial in the 2000. The Council on American Islamic Relations original foundation was by people who are closely associated with Hamas. Like, there are actual real systemic problems in the United States with radical Islam, and that's something that people really don't wanna talk about, which of course is the same sort of thematic that you're seeing in the UK right now. Right? You're seeing this sort of breakouts in Speaker 0: the open Yes. Talking about this Speaker 1: going after Keir Starmer quite properly. But I think that so much what you're seeing in the west right now is is revolt against the assault on common sense that we've been seeing for legitimately decades here in the west. The revolt on common sense that says that, for example, mass migration without assimilation is a wonderful idea. The the revolt on common sense that says that everyone should be forced to take a vaccine even if the vaccine is not totally vetted out yet. The the the assault on common sense that says men can be women, women can be like, what we're watching right now across the board is this revolt against that thing. And it's happening everywhere. It's happening in the UK. It's happening in France. It's happening in Germany. It's already happened in Argentina. It's happened in the United States already. It's obviously happening up in Canada where the conservative party, if the election were held today, would absolutely wipe out the Liberal party where Justin Trudeau just resigned as the head of the Liberal party, if not prime minister today. Again, the something is happening, and that thing is that people across the board in the west are tired of, to use your word, being bullshitted. And and I think that that now they're they're starting to fight back in a wide variety of ways, mostly politically. Speaker 0: I love I love everything you just said. There there so much has gone down over the past couple of weeks and and just today, as you point out Trudeau, which we'll get to. But I was just sticking for a second on the FBI and its bungling messaging around what happened in New Orleans, which was indeed a terrorist attack, says as follows at National Review. We are being tormented by the FBI's habitual woke incoherence regarding this atrocity. There should be no hesitancy. This is maddening. But in the FBI, as it has evolved since the Obama era, he says an an acknowledgment by the bureau bureau that an attacker may have been radicalized by fundamentalist Islam would implicitly concede that there is something about that ideology that inspires violent attacks against infidels. Can't have that. They're not willing to go there. And and that, of course, explains why they're moving on immediately, the media as well from New Orleans. But but let's talk about the UK because this rape scandal of children at the hands of immigrants that's been covered up was covered up for years years years, allegedly in part because they were concerned that the the rapists, the alleged rapists, were Pakistani, and they didn't wanna be seen as picking on immigrants or going against people of color and accusing them of rape at the hands like, at the expense of the well-being and safety of children may be the most pernicious and disgusting example of this woke ideology and this fear of upsetting or offending any person of color or any Muslim that I've seen in decades been. This that what's happening in the UK is a deep disgusting scandal. Speaker 1: Well, what's amazing about it is that people are denying what it's about. So if you actually look at the history of the scandal, this started to break out into the open in a place called Rochdale in the UK back in 2003. And that was because a 15 year old girl died when there was an investigation into why she died. It turns out that she had been one of the girls who was groomed by these gangs. For folks who don't know this story, basically, over the course of literally decades and there are allegations of this going all the way back to the 19 seventies. Basically, over the course of decades, white girls were preyed on by Muslim men in gangs. They were rape gangs. They were not grooming. They treat them they call them grooming gangs. They weren't grooming gangs. They were rape gangs because these are all underage girls who are being traded around by these Muslim rape gangs, and that that's what they are. And the media knew full well about this back in 2003, 2004. They knew completely about this. The me the the police knew about it. They knew about all these cases. These were already being brought up in Rochdale, in places like Rotherham, in places like Oldham. It was happening in a wide variety of cities. And as it turns out, the police basically decided that because this would be politically unhelpful, they're gonna bury these cases. And so they started blaming the girls claiming it was the girls' own fault that they had, quote unquote, consented even though obviously a 13, 14, 15 year old girl can't consent. Some of these girls got pregnant by their rapists, 13, 14, 15 years old, and the system totally ignored them. One of the journalists in this case, Andrew Norfolk, who reported for the Telegraph who in 2010, he's the one who wrote this big cover story for the UK Telegraph talking specifically about the extent of the scandal in Rochdale. He knew about the case. He's admitted he knew about the cases back in 2003. And the reason that he did not actually report those cases, and again, these are his words, not mine, is he was afraid that it played into quote unquote right wing narratives that we're going to talk about the difficulties of multiculturalism and the problems with importing vast numbers of immigrants from Muslim countries who are not integrating into British national life and not assimilating. They were afraid the British National Party, the right wing party, was going to start increasingly winning elections, that the English Defense League led by Tommy Robinson was going to increase its popularity. And so they literally just buried the story. They said for a decade, we are not going to even prosecute these cases and took a full scale decade and more and more of these cases piling up for there to be any prosecutions at all. The first prosecutions I believe happened in 2013 that led to a government study that was finally released in 2014, finding that in Rotherham alone, there are 1400 girls who'd been preyed on in in just that city. In just as years ago, thousands of girls who were raped, white girls who were raped by Muslim men, and the reason it wasn't reported is because it was white girls and because it was Muslim men. Now again, that would be reported and talk about reportorial malpractice. Okay. So Keir Starmer was the head of the crown prosecution service for a large part of this period from 2008 to 2013. Keir Starmer, of course, is now the prime minister of Great Britain as head of the Labor Party. And there was a call for the Labor Party as the head of the government to now lead a national investigation into these cases, and they denied it. They said we're not going to do it. Now to be fair, the conservative party had said the same thing. They'd this is all regional. The regional investigations should go on, but Elon went after Keir Starmer for it and deservedly so because Keir Starmer has been part of the system the entire time. And I played tape on my show earlier today of Keir Starmer with the mayor of London, City Khan, talking about the real problems of the UK in 2024, which include a radical uptick since October 7th in Islamophobia and Sidi Khan, the mayor of London, asking Keir Starmer what could be done to prosecute people who are actually engaged in Islamophobia. Right? This sort of conspiracy Speaker 0: politicization thing, Ben. This is the Christopher Hitchens prediction come to life. Right? Who who was out there in, I think, of 2009 saying, you we have got to call out what's happening in London and elsewhere with the infiltration of this ideology before it's too late. And if we wait too long, all we're gonna hear is you're Islamophobic. That's Islamophobia, as opposed to reckoning with the real facts, which is this is not just a religion. This is an ideology that means to conquer. Speaker 1: That's exactly correct. And and all of Europe is reacting to this, but in ways that the political establishment doesn't particularly like. So in Germany, that means that the AFD, which is a very right wing party that has always been, you know, sort of called Nazi esque, but the reason people oppose them is not because of their original roots. The reason they're opposed now is because they're anti immigrant. The AFD is picking up steam. Obviously, Elon is lending some of his sort of loudspeaker to the AFD and Alice Waddell, who's the head of the AFD. You're seeing the same thing happen in France with Marine Le Pen's National Rally Party, which has been gaining steam in every single election and keeps being blocked by the quote unquote centrist party of Emmanuel Macron. You're seeing the same thing in Germany, by the way, where the CDU, which is the centrist party, says we won't sit with the AFD. K. Guys, you keep trying to keep a lid on the biggest issue in Europe in generations, and it will blow. I mean, this idea that you can just tell the people to sit down and shut up and ignore the fact that their countries are being integral are being overrun with people coming from places that hate the country, that really hate the country and hate the civilization. People are only gonna take that for so long before it really starts to come out in support for parties that are not within your deemed establishment purview. Speaker 0: That's exactly right. And and we could see it happening. I mean, when Angela Merkel was chancellor of Germany, she opened the the borders. There was a massive influx of immigrants who culturally were about as different from Germans as you could get and shamed anybody who pushed back against it as an Islamophobe, as a xenophobe, as a bigot, and now they're dealing with the real life consequences of that. Eventually, the people find their voices and say, well, I don't want this. It's one thing. And by the way, we've had plenty of time since then to figure out whether these people wanna assimilate or not. Right? They wanna pretend that every immigrant, whether it's Germany, Canada, the UK, France, or the United States, is akin to the Irish and Italians who came to America in the early 20th century, that they just want a new life and that they're going to adopt the local culture, and, you know, it's melting pot. It's it's not so, and you're seeing examples like what we saw in the UK. Not to mention, look at Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You know? She's obviously one of the greatest thinkers alive, warning in her book, pray, p r e y, about what's happening to women and young girls in these European countries as a result of these immigrants. And 1 by 1, these leaders are starting starting to fall, Ben. I mean, you tell me whether it actually leads to a change in thinking on the left akin to what we're seeing the left sort of wrestle with in the wake of the Trump victory. Speaker 1: I mean, either it will or they won't have any power anymore. I mean, in in the country that that Ion came from, Gerd Wilders is is now leading the largest party. Right? Gerd Wilders is a very right wing anti immigrant and anti Islam leader in in the Netherlands. So again She was Speaker 0: originally from Somalia and then she went to Amsterdam and and, now is Speaker 1: Was essentially exiled because they wouldn't give her immigration status because of her perspective. I mean, they essentially decided that she was a persona non grata because of her perspective on immigration being an ex Muslim from Africa who had immigrated to to the Netherlands. I mean, Ayn's story is is sort of, you know, ahead of its time, but that is the reality that it that is now besetting, I think, an enormous part of the west. And and, you know, again, reality is having its way here because reality always has its way. And when it comes to immigration, I mean, so many things have changed about the way the west does immigration. So it used to be that because we didn't have a welfare system and because it actually was a risk to come to places like the United States, you left everything behind, you came here with nothing, and then you were expected to assimilate and make your own way without a welfare system to back you. Because of that, America acted as a magnet to a bunch of different groups who usually were sort of the most risk seeking members, etcetera, the Irish population or the Swedish like, we've had many waves of immigration in the United States. Irish, German, Italian, Swedish, Jewish, Russian, a huge number of immigrants in the United States. But once you change that system to make it so that you are neither expected to assimilate or you're expected to earn. Right? You're not expected to do either of those things. We have welfare systems that pick you up and you're not expected to assimilate, which is the sort of immigration that the left apparently loves. Well, yeah, I mean, the consequences are gonna be pretty dire for any civilization that attempts that particular two step. And and those civilizational consequences have been quite dire and pretty terrible. Speaker 0: They were foreseeable, and they were completely ignored as actual risks as were all the risks that were being raised by the right as we saw open borders take hold in country after country during the time of Obama. What's happening up in Canada may or may not be part of the same wave. I mean, there's so many problems with the way Justin Trudeau has run Canada. It's hard to really pick the one. But as of today, Justin Trudeau says he will resign as prime minister as soon as the Liberal Party elects a new leader. He says his successor will be selected after a nationwide process, which means the Liberal Party will take the lengthier route of choosing a new leader through a grassroots process. Could take several weeks. Means he could be, in power for the 1st several weeks, even potentially months of Trump's presidency and may have have to navigate the imposition of tariffs and so on. But Justin Trudeau has turned himself into a punchline. He is when I picture a feat, feckless man, I picture Justin Trudeau. I couldn't think of somebody less attractive to me as a woman than that man. I I can't stand the sight of him. I'm thrilled. Our friendly neighbors in our evil top hat, as Michael Knowles call calls Canada, have come to their senses and effectively forced him to this decision. So what do you make of it? Speaker 1: I mean, I think that, obviously, it's great. I think that the person they're attempting to block from the prime ministership with all of this is Pierre Polivare, who is phenomenal. I mean, truly true. Answer. One of the things he he's he's fantastic. I mean, one of the things that you're seeing is this crop of new leaders all over the world ranging from Millet to to to Polyvary in Canada, to Maloney in Italy, to Wilders in Netherlands. You're seeing, like, a whole spate of new leaders come come to fruition, and that's really wonderful. And Trudeau going again, he's hanging on through basically parliamentary maneuvering. The way that it works in Canada is that in order for there to be a new election called the snap election, you actually have to have a vote of no confidence. Right now, there are 338 seats in the house of of commons in Canada. The Liberal party controls a 153 of them. I believe they have just short of a majority, so they need some outside help from some of the other smaller parties. The conservatives only have a 120 seats. If the election were to be held today, the conservatives would be expected to win an overwhelming majority of seats in the house of commons, something like 230 seats in the house of commons. And then Poliare would enter the government with a mat a huge majority that requires no coalitional help in order to govern. And so that's basically everybody who's in the current coalition does not want the coalition to fall because the minute that happens, then the election takes place. Poli Evre wins. He walks in with a a vast conservative majority. So the idea here is it's sort of like a a Biden stepping down in favor of Harris idea here. Basically, Trudeau is planning to step down in favor of a new liberal leader who will be selected. And that way, Poliabrea has to run against not Justin Trudeau, but against random Mcface over here who's gonna be the new liberal leader. I don't think it makes much of a difference. The mistakes that Trudeau has made ranging from the authoritarian take on COVID, which led to the trucker freedom convoy to the treatment of immigration. He's been an open borders immigration guy the whole time. The cost of housing in Canada have increased rapidly. And Polio Rey makes a point, hey, guys. You know, one thing we have in Canada? Very few people. You know what we have? Tons of land. Really, housing should not be all that expensive. He's right about that. The fact that that Trudeau has been bad on energy policy in a country that really could be rich in energy is truly amazing. And then add on top of that all the woke crap from from trans to indigenous peoples, you know, all the stuff that that Trudeau has done. It's like watching a laboratory experiment with all the left's worst policies put into Bunsen burner and then boiled until they boil over. And it turns out that people really, really hate this stuff, and it doesn't matter if you're the good looking likely son of Fidel Castro. People still really don't like this policy at all. Speaker 0: It's Trudeau's Canada that produced Melody Weishardt, the 50 year old man, who's being allowed to swim with 12 year old girls because he identifies as a 12 year old girl, which is weird because he drives his car to and from the swim meets, which we all know a 12 year old girl would not be allowed to do. And by the way, he changes his clothes and gets fully nude in the locker room with the girls. And the parents, I don't understand my Canadian friends. Allow it. I'll give you this. Canadian podcaster and mortgage broker, Ron Butler. I've got all sorts of contacts up there, Ben, because I got staffers up in Canada, who says as follows. This is on x. The prime minister decides to go, and Canada says, thank god. No witch hunts. No matter how angry people are at the PM, once he's gone, leave him alone, move on, but never forget. Never forget the horrible management of the country. Never be fooled again by a candidate offering sunny ways. Never buy into theater. Never again think a totally unqualified person is fine to leave the country. That was a bullet we just dodged here in America too. Don't listen to a man claiming to be a feminist who betrays and fires every woman whoever disagrees with him. Don't believe that people who act woke all the time won't cost average working people dearly. Never accept a leader who has a religious belief in climate change and screws average Canadians into the ground with big taxes, lost jobs, and dumb decisions. As long as China and India are building coal powered generators, Canada shouldn't should be drilling gas wells and shipping overseas. And finally says never forget incompetence because we have had the stupidest waste of taxpayers' money in the history of Canada. Therefore, once Trudeau is gone, we must punish the Liberal Party with a massive election loss. Lessons must be taught. Now if that worm turns in Canada and Pierre takes over, we are it is a new ballgame, Ben Shapiro. Speaker 1: Well, I mean, they'll narrowly avoid president Trump's invasion if that happens. I mean, I'm I'm wondering, you know, if if we're gonna invade, now's the moment. Right? We gotta do it before they have an election up there and make Canada our our 51st state. Right now, we'll be greeted as liberators. But if if Polio Rey is the prime minister, then they might we might actually have to fight them. And last time we fought with Canadians, it went surprisingly poorly. So now now is the window of opportunity. Greenland, Canada, the Greater America Project is still on the table, but only for a few more weeks. Speaker 0: Here he is, the the our audience may remember this, but this is sort of how we first came to see this guy. Like, who is this wonderful man when he was eating the apple and the antagonistic media reporter was trying to get him and compare him to Trump, and he just wasn't having it. He was just stone cold. He is the opposite in every way as a man, as a politician, of Justin Trudeau. Watch. Speaker 7: Why should Canadians trust you with their vote given, you know, not not just the sort of ideological inclination in terms of taking the page of Donald Trump's book, but also thinking Speaker 5: about what page? What page? Can you give Speaker 7: me the page? Speaker 5: Give me the page. You keep saying that Speaker 7: In terms of turning things quite dramatically in terms of of Trudeau and and the left wing and all of this, I mean, you you you make quite a, you know, it's it's quite a play that you make on it. So I'm I'm not sure. I don't under I don't I don't know what your question is. Then forget that. Why should Canadians Yep. Trust you with their vote? Yep. Common sense. Okay. Common sense for for a change. Speaker 0: He's just the guy's unflappable and just doesn't tolerate fools. It's just a it's a beauty. I feel like even the Canadians who are allowing Mel Melody Weishardt to swim in the 12 year old races, See, he's a gofer. He's officially a gofer. That's what they call the league. Even those Canadians have got to see him now that the field is being cleared and say, may maybe it's worth a try. Speaker 1: I mean, that that's what the polls show right now. I mean, right now, the polls, according to CBC up there, have Poliyev running at something like 44%, while the Liberal Party is now running at 20%. You know, that's how much the Liberal Party has fallen off. So, and and it goes to show you that, you know, actually just being a steadfast conservative in a place even in a place like Canada will win you some points. This is what's so amazing about Great Britain is that they can't find anybody to just do that. Right? Well, just do that. Like, it doesn't look that hard. I mean, granted, chair Poliyev appears to have a resting heart rate of 35. But with that said, he is like, the the the fact is that it actually does not seem that difficult to find somebody who has some basic common sense. That, of course, is the thing that I think is underappreciated about president Trump. The the media kept playing up the fact that he says wild things on Twitter. But the reality is that most of the stuff that Trump says is very commonsensical because he always shoots from the hip. And when people like Trump shoot from the hip, it tends to be kind of like the common sense thing that you would say. And and the same thing is true of Polyaev, the same thing is true of Millet, the same thing is true of Maloney, the same thing is true of Wilder. Same common sense thing has become illegal in many countries at this point. People are more likely to be arrested in Britain at this point, it seems, for saying a common sense thing than for raping someone possibly. And and I think that the the blowback to that is dramatic and international. And so it's shaping up to be a really interesting year. Now in the United States, obviously, that means that now that you have power, this is all about gaining the power. Once you have the power, you have to do the thing. This is where the pedal is gonna meet the the metal and the the rubber's gonna hit the road when it comes to president Trump and the Republican Congress. What can they actually get done this year? And there I think, you know, there there are some outsized expectations that I think that we should temper and we should recognize the reality of a a fractious coalition in congress where you have maybe a 1 to 2 vote majority in the house. But I I do think things can get done if people keep their heads screwed on straight. Speaker 0: Okay. One of the controversies that I missed while I was out was the intra GOP fight over h one visas, h h one b visas, where we bring over immigrants, and we allow them to work at a decent wage over here, largely in tech, data processors, and, engineers who the tech industry has used pro prolifically, who Elon defends, Vivek defends, but people like Steve Bannon and, Arfraim Bhatia Angersargan, who writes for Newsweek and is is much more focused on the working class, has said they don't want, that we've had enough of this, that these are jobs Americans would take with proper training and so on. And here's the thing that stood out to me. And Trump sided with Elon and Vivek, basically, saying he he's always been for these visas. Here's the thing that stood out to me. The Vivek Ramaswami ex post on December 26th. I think I can bring this to you as a as a former geek yourself who's no longer geeky. But, I mean, you are, like, the most brilliant person your whole life who is always crushing everybody in every class. I would love to get your take on Vivek's way into this controversy. Like, you can defend the visas. You cannot defend the visas. But my friend, Vivek, this is not the way. This is not the way. He drops the following. The reason top tech companies often hire foreign born and first generation engineers over Native Americans isn't because of an innate American IQ deficit, a lazy and wrong explanation. A key part of it comes down to the c word, culture. A culture that celebrates the prom queen or the math Olympia champ or the jock over the valedictorian will not produce the best engineers. A culture that venerates Corey from Boy Meets World or Zack and Slater over Screech and Saved by the Bell or Stefan or or Steve Urkel in Family Matters will not produce the best engineers. More math tutoring, fewer sleepovers, more weekend science competitions, fewer Saturday morning cartoons, more books, less TV, more creating, less chilling. My friend, this is a great way to produce, I guess, better engineers, but not to produce better men who the women actually want. No. This is Well, Speaker 8: I mean, by the way, I'm not even Speaker 0: and it's a laboratory where they're they they're all Steve Urkels. We want guys who are out. We like prom kings. We like sleepovers. We like people who develop social skills in addition to math skills. And this comes down to me as, like, the I, having been a product, not myself, but, like, my kids, of the New York City private school system, realize there are so many schools there who are looking to create the perfect SAT score. They want to create your child into the perfect SAT score. Well, I don't want that. And having moved now to Connecticut and found a school that actually cares about the whole child, about creating great young men and young women, it really puts the fine point on it. Yes. They need sleepovers. They need socialization. They need some stupid cartoons. They actually need sports. They need a whole bunch of things other than math mathletes. They it's not that you you you take it from here. And Speaker 1: I okay. So I love a vague, and the truth is that when it comes to h one b visas, I think that there are some things you can do with h one b visas, like increasing the income limit before you let people in. Hey. That that's an interesting conversation. I think there's a lot more to be said about sort of the variation in terms of what actually went on in this argument. That was very it was sort of a bizarre argument to be but when it comes to the cultural analysis, I have to say it's just it's not actually true. Okay? I promise you that Mark Zuckerberg and and Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk all I mean, Elon Musk is a very culturally savvy guy, and he was not participating in the Math Olympics. Okay? So it it turns out by the way, that's also that's also a very bad read, I have to say, on Boy Meets World. Okay? So as a Boy Meets World stan, I will say, and if you ever watched an episode of Boy Meets World, the entire moral center of the Boy Meets World universe, not to get too abstruse here, is mister Feeny, who is the high school teacher who tells the kids that they need to study harder and take history seriously. Right? That that's actually that's actually the theme of Boy Meets World. Speaker 8: And and by the way, Speaker 1: the same holds true of, like, you you're picking all of the shows from the 19 nineties that actually had parental figures who actually pushed education. Right? If you think to any of the shows that he names right there, those are all, like, the ones that had sort of the Sunday the Sunday evening special that would have, like, a talk with the kids about how you actually need to take your schoolwork seriously. The the I listen, I understand that for a lot of people, particularly from countries that are not the United States, the way that you rise in those countries is to do really, really well on your exams. So you study super, super hard in South Korea. They have a very programmatic approach to how to train kids. When it comes to American innovation, which is where most of the innovators are coming from, the problem is not that people are watching Boy Meets World. If you wanna talk about, like, systemic problems in the United States with regard to education, those exist. There are public schools. Right? That's why we need school vouchers. You can talk about broken families that need to be healed. You can talk about lack of social structure. But this is a the the the weird take, which is that you have to be a person training for the spelling bee in order to be a top level engineer at Google, that's just not true. I mean, just on on any sort of relevant level, that's not true. Speaker 0: It's it's 100% a function of Vivek not being the prom king, not being the MVP. And clearly, I wasn't either, but I also watched the movie world. Speaker 2: Come on. Speaker 9: This is my moment. People need to be more like me, and Speaker 0: then their lives will be better. I this is my moment. Speaker 1: I was definitely not the prom king. Okay? Like, I skipped 2 grades and graduated high school when I was 16 and went to UCLA as the smallest, shrimpiest kid at UCLA. Right? I was I was not, like, the toast of the town, but Right. I recognize that, like, watching Saturday morning cartoons is not the thing that's preventing people from staffing up Silicon Valley engineering jobs. That's not, like, the chief problem in the United States. Speaker 0: There are trade offs. I and I think about this all the time because just given the circles that I'm in and the way and I'm I'm living in these so called super zips or near these so called super zips where it's like a lot of wealth and a lot of advantage and privilege. And, I always think, like, okay. It's great. You know? I I definitely you could turn any kid into the math lead who never does a sleepover, who's only, you know, doing practice tests and does follows the Vivek plan to become the number one engineer. And you know what? You'd wind up with somebody who's probably not a leader. Because actual leaders who people wanna be around and wanna elect and wanna follow have social skills and really interesting deep personalities and a wealth of experience and exposure to other people and develop their EQs in addition to their IQs in a way that's really important. Just ask Donald Trump, who I believe is the opposite of a mathlete. You know, it's just it's so small. Mine is so myopic, but it is very clearly Vivek being like, this is my moment. Yes. You need more me. Speaker 1: Again, listen. I I I really like Vivek, and I I even agree with some of his immigration takes. This one, I don't think was the best cultural analysis. I'll put it that way. No. Speaker 0: No. I actually think it's kind of cute, and it's kinda charming. He's not wrong that, like, if you do want great engineers, I suppose they do need to live something close to the mathlete life. But to get to tell to push your child to give up socialization and stupid time stupid time, mindless time, is not the way. I mean, having gone to the Google headquarters and been, you know, toured around, those guys who sit there entering data all day, Google has set out, like, sword fighting for them in their downtime. Speaker 1: The the the biggest nerds in the world. Right? They're like dungeon dungeon like, Dungeons and Dragons. Some of them some of them actually, you know, actually work out. Many of them are the people who are playing video games at night. Right? They're not, like, culturally non savvy. This idea that nerds are somehow they they've never watched TV. Have you met a nerd? Like, spend some time with the nerds. Speaker 2: The nerd Speaker 1: the nerds watch some TV. Speaker 0: Yeah. That's right. Have you met a nerd? Exactly right. So, anyway, I look forward to discussing that with him when he comes back on. Alright. Let's talk about president Biden because he is still president, and you point out this is the most alive he's been in a long time. And there were a couple of headlines of him. First of all, he's saying he would have won. He never should have stepped aside. This is, according, I think it was The Washington Post or their my team will correct me. I think it was WAPO. Anyway, yeah, it was WAPO saying, I I would have won. Not I shouldn't have stepped aside. That was that was mistaken. But in the meantime, in his final days, he is doing everything possible to thwart the Trump agenda, you know, from striking this deal with certain workers that they can work for from home interminably to now making impossible for us to do drilling pretty much off of the entire East Coast. And Trump tried to undo Barack Obama's attempt to do that to him when he took over. Trump took over in 16, and Barack Obama had tried to do this. And Trump tried to undo it by executive order. It was challenged in the courts, and Trump lost. So there is a better than average chance that Joe Biden's moves will will hold. Meanwhile, Trump ran on drill, baby, drill. The American people voted for this, and Joe Biden with his or maybe it's Joe Biden. Maybe it's not Joe Biden. Who knows who's making these decisions, Ben? He's doing everything within his power to thwart the wall, to stop, the return of the federal workforce to DC, and this is the latest on drilling offshore. So Speaker 1: I actually don't think it's gonna work. And the reason I don't think it's gonna work is in the interim since Trump was in office, there's an overruling of Chevron deference, which means that administrative decisions that are overruled, but, you know, that they kinda get caught up in this this internal procedure, now will go before the judiciary. So it's it's it may be that the doctrine has changed in the meantime, so maybe Trump actually has a shot at at reversing this in a way he didn't back in 2019. Whatever the case, it is very clear who Joe Biden is. Right? Now that all the everything has been sort of all all the chains have been unleashed. Right? He he is he is free, and he's running naked through the streets in all of his horrifying glory. And it it's terrible. I mean, in every way from the drilling to the pardons of the of the murderers to whatever he's gonna do on foreign policy, which I think is gonna be quite bad in his last couple of weeks. I mean, we are blessed that he is leaving office, and we are blessed that his party will have no power. Thank god for the American people, man, because that bleep needs to go. Speaker 0: And will will. I mean, he he even Kamala Harris today is out there like, I will certify the results, unlike that loser who refused to do it. Right? Like, it it's these 2, I can't wait to see them leave Washington. I really can't wait. It's gonna be a joy. Ben, I'm sorry, however, to see you go. It's a pleasure to see you, my friend. Speaker 1: Great to see you. Happy New Year. Speaker 0: You too. Alright. We're gonna stay on Joe Biden when Glenn Greenwald, the number one guest, the most frequent guest on the Megyn Kelly show, joins us next. Here is a shocking truth about New Year's resolutions. Whether you wanna lose weight, improve your energy, or beat that embarrassing post meal bloat, nothing works if your gut isn't healthy first. That's why for 2025, I wanna introduce you to Just Thrive probiotic. Most probiotics die in your harsh stomach acid before they can do much good. Just Thrive probiotic is the only probiotic clinically proven to arrive in your gut 100% alive. That means better digestion, health immunity, great energy, and easy weight management. It comes in capsule form or berry flavored gummies, so there's an option for everyone in the family. Plus, it's backed by an industry leading 100% money back guarantee. Love the way you feel or get a full product refund. No questions asked. Ready to transform your health in 2025? Visit just thrive health dot com. And use code Megan for 20% off your first 90 day bottle. That's like getting a month for free. Justthrivehealth.com, promo code Meghan. Here's to your best health with Just Thrive. Joining me now, the very first guest ever on the Megyn Kelly Show back in September 2020. Soon, we'll be at our 5th year anniversary, and one of the most frequent, Glenn Greenwald, host of Rumbles System Update. Glenn, happy New Year. Great to see you. Oh, and happy January 6th. Speaker 2: Happy New Year to you. Yes. We call that Insurrection Day in our household. I forgot that I was your first guest, and I called myself the godfather of this program for some time. But you grew a lot, and I figured that title was no more inappropriate. But, yeah, it's always great to be back. Speaker 0: It's amazing, the January 6th thing. And and, you know, right on brand, as we head into January 6th, who gets honored, by president Biden, not with the presidential medal of freedom, but with one step down, like the commendation, one under. But Liz Cheney because what did the Democrats love more than the Chanies? Speaker 2: This is, you know, I think it's important to sometimes underscore how amazing it really is for people who may not have been involved in politics 20 years ago, who weren't paying a lot of attention, who were too young to have lived through it. The policies that Dick Cheney stood for, that Liz Cheney by his side was a vocal advocate of and continues to this very day to justify, not just the invasion of Iraq, but that too. Guantanamo, due process free imprisonment, kidnapping people off the streets of Europe, torture, due pro CIA black sites. These things were regarded at the time for years as one of the greatest evils in American history by Liberals and Democrats. They were calling these people Nazis and war criminals, and to be honest, I was among them. So to watch the commendation, not just be about Liz Cheney's heroic role on the January 6th committee, but Biden said 20 years of service in defense of dignity, freedom, and, decency when she's a symbol of these policies that they said at least as bad about as they say of Trump now is just so indicative of how Democratic Party politics has become so craven and empty. Mhmm. Speaker 0: It's really I mean, it's pretty galling. And, of course, it's just they just wanna call attention to January 6th, and they continue trying to sell it as the new 9 11. And the American public is just not buying it no matter how many dark Brandon's speeches we have, how many attempts to declare Trump an insurrectionist and keep him off the ballot we have, or how many presidential medals we have given to I mean, nobody pays attention to these civilian medals. It's like Anna Wintour was given him. Like, what? How does she get and I think she got the one higher than Liz Cheney, by the way. There's somebody yes. I have this here in my packet. Somebody is upset. Some leftist is upset that, Liz Cheney didn't get what Anna Wintour got. It's a CNN medical analyst, Jonathan Reiner says, so Biden awarded Liz Cheney a lesser recognition than Anna Wintour, Denzel Washington, and Bill Nye the science guy? Indefensible. This is the presidential medal of freedom. No public figure has demonstrated courage in the defense of freedom more than Liz, Glenn. Speaker 2: There's so many things to say about it. I honestly don't know where to start. But first of all, just as an aside, because you brought it up, the reason Anna Wintour, the editor in chief of Vogue, got that award is because she refused to put Melania on the cover of Vogue, like, the first time in years that a first lady hasn't been on there, but put Joe Biden on there twice. So she has made her political affinities very clear, and, of course, the Biden administration loves her for that. Okay. We just went through a campaign where Kamala Harris effectively made Liz Cheney her running mate, dragging her all throughout the Midwest as though disaffected, you know, working class people were yearning for a return of the nobility of the Chanies as if that's what they were craving. And, look, I have Liz Cheney here. And, look, I'm gonna bring go to Michigan and remind all of you the muscle butters that I need that I have Dick Cheney's daughter with me too. Remember them? And it failed. And not only did it fail in terms of Liz Cheney, I think the broader point failed to trying to tell Americans that ideology doesn't matter, economics doesn't matter, culture doesn't matter. All that matters is our conception of democracy. And remember January 6th, and it was Liz. Nobody cares. Nobody cares. This is not what people think. It was a 3 hour riot that was easily subdued. It had about a 1,000 Trump supporters at most. 2 of them dropped out of a heart attack, one of them from an overdose. These were not trained militias. Nobody wielded a gun to continue to try and squeeze the stone after they just got crushed doing it. January 6th, insurrection, Liz Cheney. They're just so out of ideas that it's almost like they don't even internalize the rejection that they just experienced. Speaker 0: So when Joe Biden gave Liz Cheney the award, as there always is when it's Joe Biden and a woman, any woman, could be Betsy DeVos who came on my show a couple years ago to say that she was in a wheelchair after having hurt her leg, and he basically her forehead. I don't I don't understand exactly, but it happened. To the little girls whose hair he sniffs, to Liz Cheney, Joe Biden doesn't know when to let go of any female in his presence. He in this video here, you'll see he he's got her by the hand. She's kinda like, give me my award. Okay. I've got the award. She tries to pull away. He won't let go. He's holding on to the hand. At one point, she actually does roll her eyes. He's she still doesn't have the award. He's still holding on to it. And I don't know exactly what's going on here, Glenn, but it's probably further evidence of the president's decline. Just gonna give you one more on the back of that one. Last night, he gave an inter well, he didn't give an interview. He's caught at the White House on camera speaking to reporters. This is from Fox News. We went back to look at the original to see what led to this moment. What was it a question about Debbie Murphy? Somebody asked him a question about what? Oh, asked him about Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship. Okay? That was the question that preceded the outburst you will hear from Joe Biden right here. Listen. Speaker 10: Do you still believe he's a threat to democracy? The Speaker 3: oldest president, I know more world leaders than any one of you ever met in your home goddamn life. Speaker 0: Wait. What? So what's happening there, Glenn? Speaker 2: You know, I I just I'm almost hesitant to say it because, you know, we all have this experience, I think, where somebody in our family or somebody beloved by someone close to us ends up in, like, the last stages of their life. They're, you know, experiencing various forms of dementia. They go into nursing homes. You talk to any caregiver in a nursing home, and they will tell you that male patients, in particular, as they get older, they start doing very inappropriate things. They lose sense of their boundaries. But also, they just don't you can't follow a conversation any longer. And they get very grumpy at the same time, like, almost aggressive. That was like I mean, I would have been concerned for my physical safety if I had been in the vicinity of Joe Biden when he was speaking that way, because, actually, that dementia can make people very physically powerful. Speaker 0: True. Speaker 2: Megan, I was gonna talk about how the lies that the media told about January 6th, like Brian Sicknick being budging to death of a fire extinguisher, all that, all those the lies that they told. I I think it's really worth pausing that if Joe Biden had been reelected as a lot of them wanted him to do as the Democratic party was intending for him to to be, he would have 4 more years in this state. Speaker 0: Oh, god. Speaker 2: Four more years. He's 82. He would go to 86. He already doesn't know where he is. He has no compartmental self control. He doesn't understand what's being said to him. And the media and Democrats have spent not just years, but even more so over the last 12 months heading against the election, vehemently insisting that Joe Biden has never been sharper, that he's smarter than everybody in the room, that he's whip whip smart and detail focused. And and they continue to say it. That sand Symone Sanders said it. Chuck Schumer was saying it just a few months ago. The lie that they told about Joe Biden's mental capacity when they thought he they needed him to be reelected is such a foundational lie to our democracy, and so many of them were complicit in it. Mhmm. Speaker 0: And yet we had, ready as we went to break, PolitiFact saying the lie of the year was Trump's they're eating the dogs. They're eating the pets. That was the lie of the year, not Joe Biden's fine and can totally do a second term. It was what a joke. You mentioned a couple of media defenses of Joe Biden's mental acuity. We've got some of that. Here's Symone Sanders, on Meet the Press on Sunday. Speaker 9: I was very surprised that when you asked the question about mental acuity, he didn't more forcefully push back. The question on the table is, is is the is the president is the is the president all the way there? And the answer is unequivocally yes. Speaker 5: Democrats in November to try to tell the American people something they could see with their own eyes wasn't true. Speaker 9: But it's not true that the president doesn't have the mental acuity. Speaker 0: Oh, really? She was referring to Chuck Schumer there, which I'll just play to before I toss it to you, Glenn. Kristen Welker, the moderator, confronted Chuck Schumer over the many lies he told about Biden being a superhero behind the scenes. You know, if only we could see him the way Schumer sees him. He he's, you know, he's an Einstein ready to do rhetorical battle with anybody at any point. Here he here she is confronting Schumer on it. Speaker 11: I wanna play you a little bit of something you said last year. Take a look. Speaker 12: I talk to president Biden, you know, regularly or sometimes several times in a week or usually several times in a week. His mental acuity is great. It's fine. It's as good as it's been over the years. All this right wing propaganda that his mental acuity has Speaker 2: declined is wrong. Speaker 11: Leader Schumer, what do you say to Americans who feel as though you and other top Democrats misled them about president Biden's mental acuity? Speaker 12: Look. We didn't. And let's let's look let's look at president Biden. He's had an amazing record. He's a patriot. He's a great guy. And when he stepped down, he did it on his own because he thought it was better not only for the Democratic Party, for the America. We should all salute him. We should all salute him. Speaker 11: Do you feel as we have this conversation today that president Biden could serve another 4 years had he stayed in the race and potentially won? Speaker 12: Well, I'm not gonna speculate. As I as I said, I think his record is a stellar one, and he'll go down in history as a really outstanding president. Speaker 0: So it doesn't answer. He's a great guy. He's a patriot. That does not speak to whether he has the mental acuity to do another 4 years, never mind complete the existing 4. Speaker 2: Also, they're still lying. They're still lying. The idea that Joe Biden so patriotically and selflessly decided he was going to step down because it was for the good of the country, He was infuriated that they were forcing him to step down. They threatened him with the 25th Amendment. Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama were calling every day and intensifying their threats. Nancy Pelosi said we can do this the easy way or the hard way. He's enraged and bitter to this day that they forced him to to leave the race. He didn't selflessly do anything, let alone decide he didn't wanna run for reelection. The other part of it though, Megan, is there obviously have been times when the media has lied to the public about, you know, the war in Vietnam or Iraq or Russiagate, all Hunter Biden's laptop. And those are instances where the public had no way of knowing what the truth was. They had no way of knowing that they were being lied to. The amazing thing about this case is that if you look at public polling data going back to 2020, 2021, the public knew that Joe Biden was cognitively declining. They knew he was cognitively unfit for the presidency. The media pretended over and over that it was a lie. And until the debate happened when they couldn't hide it anymore, they all had to pretend, oh my god. We can't believe it. It turns out Joe Biden doesn't seem like he's all there. And the amazing part about that is when George Clooney wrote that op ed that ended up being a significant, catalyst of forcing Joe Biden out, which is the the weird into itself. But when Joe George Kony wrote that, he said when he decided that this has to happen was that that fundraiser they did where Barack Obama led him off the stage, and he said that Joe Biden was a Joe Biden I had never seen before. At the time, everybody else noticed that. They said, look, Joe Biden doesn't even know where he is. Obama has to, like, walk him off the stage. The Washington Post, The New York Times, in conjunction with the White House, collaborated to say this was disinformation, right wing cheap fakes. In other words, they were showing the correct video about lying about it. The and then George Clooney comes out and says, yeah. At that event, he he he wasn't there, and none of these media outlets have remotely accounted for what it is that they did. Speaker 0: No. And and by the way, Kristen Welker is equally guilty because there's a clip of her post the June debate, post the meltdown, defending Biden's mental acuity when she was interviewing Doug Burgum, who was raising serious questions about it. Here's that. Speaker 3: I mean, the nation we keep talking about elections. We're at a at a greater national security risk today than we were on Thursday because the commander in chief showed that he's not capable of serving. Speaker 11: Well, there's not proof of that. But let governor, let me just ask you about the debate and a little bit more of what we saw. By one count, Donald Trump made more than 30 false claims during that debate. Speaker 0: Look at that, Glenn. She won't she interrupts him. She won't let him back up his point. She claims there's no proof that he he doesn't have the mental acuity to be president. This is days after that disastrous debate that would wind up causing him to lose massive support and wind up having to go. And then she what does she why? What what is so pressing that she needs to move on to? Oh, Trump told 30 lies. Speaker 2: You know, if you first of all, if you watch her interviews, like her series of interviews since she took over Meet the Press, it was not like Chuck Todd was any better, maybe just a little smoother, a little more subtle about it because he'd been on for so long. She every time she interviews a Trump supporter, every time, that's what she does. She interrupts to try and imply that what's being said is too false to even allow to be on the air. She constantly debates the person she's debating after they say something by saying there's no evidence for it. She then wants to pivot to show how aggressive she is on behalf of the Democrats. She has never ever interviewed a Democratic Party politician that way ever, where she's constantly interrupting, explicitly saying they're lying, just like those moderators at ABC News did where they never fact Chuck Kamala or anything she said despite the multiple lies they only give to Trump. And then in this case, again, I have to say the fact that that was after the debate, every American of any kind of political strike who is being remotely honest saw with their own eyes, not for the first time, that Joe Biden was not just cognitively declined, but cognitively crippled. And then they're sitting there saying there's no evidence for that, and then they turn around and wonder, why is nobody listening to us? Why is everybody turning us off? Why does everybody distrust us? And they complain about this endlessly, the fact that, oh, there are these other podcasts and independent media that people turn to, and they're so angry about it. They think it's so dangerous that no one listens to them anymore. They never look inward. She should just look at that one interview she did, just that one, and the answer lies right in there, right, so so flagrantly. Speaker 0: Meanwhile, over at CBS, there is one woman, Jan Crawford Greenberg, who, or maybe she's just Jan Crawford now. I think she may have gotten a divorce. In any event, she stands as a beacon of reason or at least attempted in this case when the subject comes up on her network of what the most underreported story of 2024 was. It's interesting because she just had a situation where she took on her network in a in a tape that was leaked when, Tony Docapulle kind of went after, Ta Nehisi Coates, right, who who had spent 10 days in Israel and declared himself an expert and wrote a book about it, which I I feel like you should spend more than 10 days there before you write a anyway, the the anchor got a ton of blowback and, like, disciplined. And she stood up in this meeting to say, what are what's our process? Because you had one guy coming on with one POV, and he challenged him with a different POV. And isn't that called journalism? Anyway, here she is again on what actually was the most underreported story. Speaker 10: Undercovered, underreported. That would be, to me, Joe Biden's obvious cognizant decline that became undeniable, in the televised debate. Speaker 1: At the Speaker 3: presidential debate with Speaker 10: Unquestioned. And, you know, it's starting to emerge now that his advisers, kind of managed his limitations, which has been reported in The Wall Street Journal, for 4 years, and yet he insisted that he could still run for president. We should have much more forcefully, questioned whether he was fit for office for another 4 years, which coulda led to a primary, for the Democrats. It could have changed the the the scope of the entire election. Yet, still, incredibly, we read in the Washington Post that his advisers are saying that he regrets that he dropped out of the race. You know, that he thinks he could have beaten Trump. And I think that is either delusional or they're gaslighting. President Biden Speaker 2: What do Speaker 0: you make of that, Glenn? Speaker 2: Well, just just add one thing, like, on on what you said with that interview with Donnie Zicoats. Even going back to to Kirsten Walker's interview of of, Doug Burgum. I actually think that journalists should be adversarial when they're interviewing people that way. The problem is they have to be adversarial to everybody. That's supposed to be the role. People with influence, people who move them on. And if you're only adversarial when one view is being expressed but not the other, that's when questions arise. Speaker 0: It's your agenda. Speaker 2: I bring this up every time not to praise you, but just because it's true. Like, I remember back in 2014, 2015 when I didn't even know you. And I there was a political profile of you, and that's one of the things I said about you. It's like, just take a look at how she interviews Republican politicians. I know you love DeSantis during the campaign, but interviewed him extremely aggressively because that's your job. And the problem is, so often, they don't do that job. They do it only for politicized ends, not journalistic ones. As for the whole, we should have covered this more, she's, of course, right. But I think there needed to be a discussion, because it's a little bit easy to say now about why wasn't there more coverage of that. There were a couple of reporters who were trying, like Alex Thompson, political Axios. He was Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Axios. Speaker 2: I think yeah. 1 of them. I know you might as well just confuse them. They're the same. But, yeah, Alex Thompson, I think he's at Axios now. He was at political. He was on this for a long time. And the problem was, I was saying about this when I was listening to Chris and Walker too, is if you're one of those journalists who deviates just a little bit, if you're in corporate media on television, in the op ed page of New York Times Washington Post and deviate just a little bit, you actually do start asking those questions, you get mobbed, attacked by the people who you think matter, namely liberals. And it's a very aggressive and effective form of discipline to say, if you do do your job, we are going to spend 3 days on on Twitter, you know, demonizing you, attacking you, trying to ruin your reputation, and no one wants that. And so they get into this mindset of, oh, I better perform the way everybody expects me to perform, which is tell anyone defending Trump that they're lying, interrupt them, say we can't have those lies on the air, and then switch to to defending Biden. And so much of that dynamic was about that, so I'm glad Jen Crawford said that. But I think they needed some self reflection. Like, why was that so uncovered? Speaker 9: Mhmm. Speaker 0: Now they are closer to doing it than ever because they lost. So now you can see they're genuinely thinking, okay. Some some sincere soul searching might be in order so that we don't lose again. It's not so that they can save their reputations or do good journalism, Glenn. Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, it's so easy to dump on Joe Biden now because Joe Biden is never gonna run again. No one needs him anymore for anything. And ever since he was forced out of the race, they kind of started turning on him. But here's the thing. Kamala Harris as vice president was not only one of the closest people to Joe Biden, at least in theory. I mean, she met with him all the time. That's for sure. But she also has a constitutional duty as vice president. There's the 25th amendment to alert people if the person who has all this power, who's running the executive branch, who's the commander in chief of the armed forces, is incapable of doing the job. And not only didn't she do that, she was one of the most overt liars in defending Joe Biden before he dropped out, insisting that he was sharp as attack and all of that. Why isn't there if if this is a genuine sort of let's figure out what we did wrong kind of moment, Simply attacking Joe Biden is really kind of pointless. And even sort of saying, hey. We have to figure out what to avoid next time getting caught. That's even worse. I mean, Kamala Harris is probably gonna run for governor. She's talking about running for president again. She bears a lot of accountability for perpetuating this. And this is not a trivial lie. This is fundamental to our democracy, and, you don't see any accountability trying to be brought to her by these journalists because she's still valuable to them. Speaker 0: Kamala Harris didn't even know what the 25th amendment was. I got dollars to donuts. She probably thought it was the rental car policy that requires you to be 25 years old before you can rent a car. This woman was out there, couldn't even lead the senate in the pledge of allegiance a couple of days, and she doesn't even know the pledge, or she's too she says it so infrequently she forgot it in the moment. I'm sorry, but it was ridiculous. Here's that moment. Speaker 13: Join me in pledging allegiance to our flag. Pledge allegiance to the United States of America Speaker 0: and to the To the flag. To the flag. It's what kids used to say every day, at least in elementary school, including yours truly. And my little guy and his, elementary school did too. But Kamala Harris, I don't know. I guess they didn't do that out in Canada where she was raised. Speaker 2: You know, Megan, I think and this is, like, kind of an intangible, but I think one of the biggest problems with Kamala Harris as a politician is that she was constantly petrified of saying something that would bring embarrassment to her. And that insecurity generally comes from a lack of knowledge. You know, if you're supposed to know about something but you don't, you wanna be as vague as possible. She spent her entire life until she got to the senate, you know, 6 months ago doing, you know, law. She was a lawyer. She was a prosecutor. Totally perfect profession. You know, nothing to be embarrassed about with that. All she knew though, all she really knows is the law. She knows criminal law. She knows how to prosecute, or at least she knows about prosecution. She never thought about, studied, and got involved with foreign policy, economic policy, immigration policies, curing the root causes in Central America of instability and poverty in those countries, the things that she was supposed to be able to speak on, and she knew she was a fraud. That's why for 3 years, we never heard from her except in the most scripted ways, and they tried to confine her that way during the debate during the election too. Remember when she wouldn't even sit down with a reporter for so long, and then she finally didn't. It was, like, the friendliest reporters. And her worst moments were often with the with the friendliest reporters, like, on Stephen Colbert and The View when she's like, I wouldn't be different than Joe Biden at all. I can't think of anything that I would have done differently. She's a terrible politician. She knows almost nothing, and the entire attempt to foist her on the country with no votes, no debates, no democracy was at least as bad as what the media did in concealing Joe Biden's mental decline. Speaker 0: Well, that's an interesting question. Which is the bigger lie, that Joe Biden was competent for the job or that Kamala Harris was? Speaker 2: You go back and look at how Kamala Harris was talked about all the way up until the time that she was bequeathed to us by Nancy Pelosi and and and Barack Obama. Yeah. She was a national joke. There were all these stories in in liberal outlets. Like, she was firing her staff constantly. She had no role to play. Everything she did turned, you know, to crap. She was not trusted to do anything. She was never considered she ran for president once before and dropped out before the first vote was counted was counted despite having every structural advantage, massive cash from California where she comes from, a huge campaign structure. She was a California where she comes from, a huge campaign structure. She was a historic figure as a black woman, so the media loved her. She had every conceivable advantage, but she was such a terrible politician. She couldn't even make it to Iowa. And then suddenly, we were supposed to be told, and she was chosen by Joe Biden because he had promised to choose a black woman for his vice presidency. That's the reality. And only had 2 or 3 choices, none of which were particularly good. And that is the truth. And the media, on a dime, Megan, turned around and tried to convince us that she was, like, this historic pioneer, this generational political talent who was going to, you know, inspire young Americans and come out to droves and crush Donald Trump once and for all. The whole thing was a fraud. It was a complete fraud. It lasted about 3 weeks, and then the whole house came crashing down because it was built on no foundation. Speaker 0: Yeah. Just like her accents were a fraud. We're gonna win. We're gonna win. Have you not decency, man? Like, it's just so fake. I don't know. I'm asking myself that same question. Which is the bigger lie that he was competent to do to do the job or that she was? God. They're they're they're tied because Joe Biden was totally incompetent. He did not have the mental acuity. He still doesn't, and he's still president right now. He certainly couldn't do a second term. And she I mean, in my lifetime, she's the biggest moron to ever run for president or vice president ever. And and that became more and more obvious day after day. Speaker 2: And the reality is that Joe Biden knew that, which is one of the reasons why he was so determined not to to to drop out. And I don't blame him for on some level thinking that he would have been the better candidate, because it's hard to imagine how somebody could have been worse. And on top, you know, I mean, he's at least proven over 50 years that he is a adept politician. He knows how to win elections. You know, in 2020, he won For greater. Was in the senate for won for vice president. Yeah. It's like even with his brain melting, there's still like a part of him that you just kind of like he wind up and he's like, hey, I'm Scranton Joe. And it's like an instinct that she completely lacks. So I almost understand his his bitterness, but at the Democratic party was in a huge bind because they knew she was not even close to their strongest candidate. The problem was had they chosen Gavin Newsom or Josh Shapiro or even Gretchen Whitmer, there were a lot of people on the base of the party on whom they rely who would have said, how dare you pass the black woman by who was elected, who was at your side, who was next in line, and choose a white man or a white candidate instead. And the identity politics framework that they created that they thought would help them has become their Frankenstein, and they were trapped. They could not they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't, and they hoped that the media would be able to create enough of a fraud that it would lift her and hide her flaws, and it just didn't come close to working. Speaker 0: It's amazing. Thank god that American people saw right through it. Now they saw through most of the media lies. I have to say that's why Trump won. But it wasn't for lack of trying, on the media's part to mislead them. And Grapion, who does these great mashups, put together some of the lies that we saw from the media leading up to the election. And and just in 2024, we've only cut a minute sound bite. This could go on, but here's a sampling. Look at this, SOT 9. Speaker 13: A growing and insidious trend in right wing media, broadcast, print, and social media. It is to take highly misleading and selectively edited videos and then use those videos to spread messages thoroughly to cast out on president Biden's fitness for office. Speaker 3: Tim Walz beats America. Speaker 1: He had a punks like a regular person. Speaker 8: Tim Walz is the opposite of weird. A happy warrior, Speaker 3: a folksy backstory. Speaker 0: Wicked sense Speaker 8: of humor. Speaker 13: Look how happy the pig looks. It's hard to believe that JD Vance could be any more extreme. Speaker 2: It's like a freak show of bros. Speaker 1: Dark and ugly beneath the dignity of most politicians. Speaker 0: JV Vance. Speaker 3: JD is at the far extreme. Speaker 14: The most extreme. Being one Speaker 1: of the most extreme. Speaker 8: Angry and mean and dark. Speaker 9: This guy is really weird, y'all. Speaker 2: Our Speaker 0: current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son. Speaker 15: And Joe Biden has very clearly said he would not pardon his son. He would not commute his sentence. How can Republicans keep making this argument now that that now now that Joe Biden has really put it out there? Speaker 14: This version of Biden is the best Biden ever. Speaker 0: That is amazing. What a great montage of the lying the lying they did. Because every one of those, I believe they knew they were lying. Speaker 2: You know, I one one of despite how much I criticize media and journalists, or if you wanna call them that journalists, if you're being very generous, I actually believe in journalism a lot. Like, a lot of times I'm criticizing it because I want us as a country to have good journalism. It's absolutely crucial. And one of the things that sickens me the most when I listen to montages like that, the lying is very apparent. It's the herd behavior. They read from script. I don't mean this metaphorically. I believe they get literal script. You know, like 2 weeks ago when Elon Musk spoke out against the, spending bill, and it ended up being sabotage. And you saw this coordinated effort by the Democrats to call Elon Musk the president to try and drive a wedge between him and Trump, which was so obvious. Yeah. Go look at how many Democratic politicians, how many people in media did that overnight. They all copy one another. They speak to one another first. They pick up on each other's language cues. There's no individuality. It's supposed to be like a profession of iconoclast of iconoclastic, you know, adversarial spirit, and there's none of that. So not only are there all lies in that montage that you showed, it's all so redundant. You turn on any one of those channels. You read any of their op eds. They're all saying exactly the same thing. It's coordinated lying on top of just lying. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Exactly right. That's why that weird thing about JD Vance caught fire because they all loved it so much. It got for Tim Walz the nomination, which was great, as it turns out, for the Republican ticket. And once again, proves that they they just don't have the power anymore. The American public sees through these lies. They knew. Tim Walz was the weird one. JD Vance is not weird at all. He's actually quite normal, which is one of his best selling points. Now that's the Democrat Party. The Republican Party does not and has not for a long time marched in lockstep. They are like the big Italian family that airs its grievances very publicly. And Speaker 2: that Speaker 0: brings me to Elon Musk versus Steve Bannon, which we will cover right after this quick commercial break. More with Glenn coming up after this. Glenn, I mentioned this with Ben Shapiro, but there was an intraparty fight that erupted over the past 2 weeks when it comes to h one b visas, which allow foreign workers to come over to the United States and work here. And, it was Musk and Vivek versus Steve Bannon and some core MAGA or working class supporters too. On on whether these are a good thing or a bad thing, Trump ultimately sided with Elon, but it kind of emerged after the weird Vivek tweet into more of a fight between Elon and Bannon, those 2 I mean, behemoths doing rhetorical battle. And here's just an example of what Bannon said to Elon Musk on Bannon's show, you know, not directly, but, into the ether, Stop 21. Speaker 14: You need to study modern political history of the fights we've been through for 12 or 14 years to get to this spot. We're not having group hugs. We're not having pats on the head. I've said many times that Elon came, and Elon's money helped organize the grassroots of it. In his engineering mind, he saw what the problem was as we saw it, and he supported it. And for that, he gets a place at Speaker 3: the table. There's no doubt you should. Speaker 14: They're recent converts, but the converts sit in the back and study for years years to make sure you understand the faith. Don't come up and go to the pulpit in your 1st week here and start lecturing people about the way things are gonna be. If you're gonna do that, we're gonna get and we're gonna rip your face off. Speaker 0: Oh, boy. Elon had tweeted I don't know that this was directly to Steve Bannon, but had tweeted, the reason I'm in America along with so many critical people who built SpaceX, Tesla, and hundreds of other companies that make that made America strong is because of h one b. Take a big step back and fuck yourself in the face. I will go to war on this issue, the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend. So, I mean, 2 extremely strong messages from 2 extremely strong messengers, both close to Trump, both within the GOP. Your take on it? Speaker 2: I think it's very healthy despite, obviously, the political rhetoric sometimes gets overheated. That's just the nature of people fighting about things that they strongly believe in. When I you know, the reason I got interested in the Trump movement in 2016, I'd never found Republican politics interesting before that, to be perfectly honest. It was the Republican party of George Bush and John McCain and Mitt Romney. It was very predictable, very kinda staid, very pro establishment, was because Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign, which, remember, was architected by Steve Bannon, Bannon's vision was to cleanse not just Washington or the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party of a lot of its most central, sacred orthodoxies. Steve Bannon's plan for Donald Trump, soon as he got into office, was to raise taxes on the largest corporations and the richest, use that money for a bipartisan infrastructure deal that would renew America and put people back to work, and then number 3, bargain with that to get funding for the wall. That was Steve Bannon's nationalistic, populist division. He ended up losing a power struggle to Jared Kushner, a much more kind of traditional Republican. And the 1st Bush administration, Trump administration ended up doing things like cutting corporate taxes and the like. But that was the ethos out of which the MAGA movement began. It's the reason why they hated Jeb Bush and the Bush family and those Republican lobbyists, and why Trump was able to mow one of them down after the next despite all Republican establishment money behind everyone except him. And this conflict that absolutely still exists, there are a lot of people who are very, very wealthy, who see themselves as citizens of the world, who are part of these gigantic corporations. Elon does business in a lot of places with Tesla, like China and India. They have a very different world view than the nationalist populists who got behind Steve Bannon and whose vision is very, very different on things like immigration. And you see this playing out and you're gonna absolutely see it playing out. And it's so ironic, Megan, because you ask any liberal, and they'll say, oh, the MAGA movement, conservatives, they're a leader worshiping cult. Everybody is told what to do. They get into line behind Trump. That's such projection. That's what the Democratic Party has become. The Democratic Party used to be that chaotic, but it's not any longer. It's a party of lockstep adherence that all the action of ideological conflict and vibrancy and political debate is on the right. Speaker 0: Mhmm. It's so funny to watch, like, Bannon, you gotta hand it to him, has a way of condensing the issue. Like, converts sit in the back, and then Elon not one to be trifled with with the fuck your face. I will die on this hill. Like, it's it's on. It's gonna be dramatic and fun and consequential, hugely consequential, 4 years. Quick sojourn back to, January 6th day. They just did certify the electoral college results without a single objection. The joint session took roughly 30 minutes, and Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States, yay, on January 20th this month. Not everyone's happy about it, and many people would like us to be more focused on the insurrection that he personally unleashed if you ask them. As we discussed earlier, they think it's as bad as, like, the Holocaust, and you don't have to take my word for it. Here is Sunny Hostin Speaker 8: of 3 years ago. Atrocity. It was one of the worst moments in American history. And when you when you think about the worst moments in American history, you know, like World War 2, things that happened, you know, like the holocaust, chattel slavery. Speaker 0: Yeah. The January 6th is right up there next to the holocaust and slavery, Glenn. Speaker 2: Just imagine how demented you have to be to believe that. But I can go back and show you right around January 6th. I'm sure you covered it. For a year or 2 after at least, most Democrats were comparing it to Pearl Harbor and 911 Yeah. Saying this is the worst attack. I mean, this is such insane desperation. This is the sort of thing you do when you don't have anything to offer, and you just hope by being as melodramatic as possible that Americans are going to side with you. And, I mean, imagine what it's like, Megan, to spit wake up every day, go into their jobs. Remember, all the way up until the election, the main theme was Trump is Hitler. Trump's generals called him fascist. I you know, all that he wants to put Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad. Is he gonna be a dictator on day 1? Imagine saying those things over and over and over, and nobody listens. Trump crushes the Democrats, and you have to confront your own impotence, your own pointlessness, the fact that nobody trusts you any longer. They're fighting it. They're not I'm not saying they're engaged in self reflection, but deep down, they know that how discredited and pathetic they are, and they brought it all upon themselves with things like this. Speaker 0: Mhmm. So that reminds me, that last night, Hollywood held the Golden Globes, and the comedian who was the host forgive me. I can't remember her name right now. She started okay. Yeah. She started with a remark that was on point to the effect of there's so many powerful people here. There's absolutely nothing you can do except to look to president, which was good. Correct. Because everyone in that room probably voted for Kamala Harris. And the one thing I wanted to raise with you was I didn't tweet a lot while I was on my vacation. I wanted to spend my time with my family. You know, I really, really try. I stay up on the news, but I try not to tweet or get too into it just because, you know, then it blows up in, like, a Twitter thing that's distracting, or Saturday night because I made the mistake of watching the movie Conclave. And, I blame my husband, Doug, who said, let's watch the movie Conclave. That's really all all he did. But we we thought it was it was billed as a thriller involving the Vatican and the process of selecting a new pope. So that sounded kind of good. I'm into thrillers. I love thrillers, actually. And I thought maybe there'd be, like, a murder, and you have to figure out who done it or, you know, whatever. In no world, and, yes, I am about to offer the spoiler of this movie, and I hope you don't care because I hope you don't watch it. In no world did I predict that the the big twist was they would elect a new pope, the whole thing is about the process of electing a new pope, who is intersexed, who who is purportedly a man but has female reproductive organs. That's the big twist at the end. And along the way, every single cardinal you meet in the Catholic church is disgusting, except for but not really even except for the one liberal guy from America who's, like, pushing for more women in the church and a bigger role for women, but he turns out to be pretty craven too. They're all gross, and then the only one who has any virtue is the one who's secretly a woman. And then maybe Ray Fiennes, who plays plays the cardinal shepherding the process, who then allows said intersex pope to become pope without telling anybody. Speaker 16: The truth is there simply was no reason to think I was physically different from the other young men Then in my late thirties, I had a surgery to remove my appendix, and that was when the doctors discovered that I had a uterus and no vagaries. Some would say my chromosomes would define me as being a woman, and yet I'm awesome as you see me. Speaker 0: And I tweeted out that this was disgusting, that it was anti Catholic, that I was offended, repulsed by what I saw. And then somebody asked the screenwriter, who was based on a book written a few years ago, the screenwriter, Peter Strachan, about my criticism, apparently, last night at the Globes saying she called it, me, anti Catholic. And he, quote, rejected my claim saying, I don't think it is. I was brought up Catholic. Some of my best friends are Catholic. He says, I was brought up Catholic. I was an altar boy. Well, Peter Strachan, those days are obviously long gone. And he says, I think the core message of Conclave is about the church always having to refind its spiritual core because it deals with so much power. I don't believe that at all. It's not about having to refind its spiritual core. It was an attempt to embarrass and humiliate Catholics. And I get it. I understand that the Catholic church has had its problems, Glenn, but I'm sick of this bullshit because they always do this. Whether it's Catholics or Christians, there is one religion that they love to mock, smear, and belittle. And if you look at all the times that they've mocked, smeared, and belittled religions, Catholicism and Christians would be at the very, very top, and there's not a second close contender. And it's reflected in the write ups of the movie. Like, Variety's Peter Debruge calls this movie one of the most satisfying twists in years, and that's what we're talking about. A hail Mary that both surprises and restores one's faith. Maybe not everyone's, but certainly that of the disillusioned. Vulture's film critic calls it sinfully entertaining. They love to see the Catholics humiliated. A film like this would never, never be made about Islam or Muslims. Speaker 2: Or Judaism. So let me just Speaker 0: Or Judaism. Speaker 2: This is the thing. Yeah. So exactly. So the you know, it this goes back to what we're talking before about journalists and interviewing people adversarially. If you see someone doing it to everyone, you can say, okay. That's what they do. That's kind of a an important function. I remember when the Charlie Hebdo, murder happened in Paris, and the idea was, no. We need to make sure that we retain the right to satirize everything, including Islam, including the things most sacred that's a really important part of society. The problem is is that especially in Hollywood, just like with these journalists, they don't do it to everybody. They don't they're not satirists. They're not adversarial interviewers. They're highly politicized with an agenda that's constantly concealed yet very, very apparent. And Hollywood is one of those institutions in the United States that until very recently had been a very powerful and very popular that has basically collapsed. Nobody goes to these films any longer. Everything is very fragmented. You ask young people who would they admire and who they think is most famous. It's not Hollywood star making star makers anymore. It's people on the Internet. It's YouTubers. It's podcasters. These are the people who they're following. And one of the reasons why Hollywood has lost so much of its cache, I think the same is true for the media and so many of other people just don't trust them anymore. I didn't see the film, so I can't comment on that, but that is definitely an overall trend. Speaker 0: Don't bother. Don't bother. Because it's like, Ray Fi they they I think they won for best screen screenplay, I think, and not they didn't win the other awards, but Ray Fiennes was up. Stanley Tucci's in it. John Lithgow, of course, you know, he's another one who's a far left guy. We made that clearer in his portrayal of Roger Ailes in the bombshell movie and the interviews thereafter, which I paid attention to for obvious reasons. It's ridiculous. And, honestly, like, I've said to my audience before, I I have a very high threshold for offense. It's really hard to offend me. I guess I'm I'm not saying I was offended. I didn't feel, like, deeply offended, but I was unsettled by what I saw. I I I was pissed. I just think that I'm sick of the Christian Catholic bashing by Hollywood, and it's one of the other reasons why I can't stand that entire industry. Glenn Greenwald, thank you, my friend. Speaker 2: Always great to see you, Megan. Happy Insurrection Day. Speaker 0: You too. Alright. Before we go, speaking of Hollywood, guess what? Tomorrow, we have an exclusive interview with Brian Friedman, my lawyer, my friend, and the lawyer who is now representing Justin Baldoni in a massive lawsuit against The New York Times around Blake Lively and her allegations against Justin. Alright. So she is claiming some things about Justin, and the New York Times printed it like a stenographer. And now Justin, through Brian Friedman, is suing the New York Times, and Brian is here in an exclusive and explosive interview tomorrow. Don't miss that.

@WeAreJ6alliance — We Are J6.

Posted - February 2, 2025 at 7:41 PM

Saved - February 3, 2025 at 1:07 AM

@WeAreJ6alliance - We Are J6.

HEARTBREAKING 💔 HARMS True Stories of January 6 with: @BrandonStraka @drsimonegold @julie_kelly2 @GeriPerna @JohnStrandUSA @DerrickEvans_WV Now exonerated and liberated to speak freely, J6ers have many untold stories to share—and they will horrify you. https://t.co/hI1oOfuXTR

Video Transcript AI Summary

The prosecution lacks evidence to support charges of violence, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of justice. One individual’s mental health deteriorated under pressure from these charges, leading to his tragic suicide, which has devastated his family. Another person highlights the dishonesty of the prosecution, showing misleading images to the jury while ignoring the full context of videos that depict him in a positive light. A father expresses deep sorrow over the loss of his son, acknowledging that enduring constant persecution would have been unbearable for him. He calls for public outrage against the injustices occurring in the country, urging others not to remain silent.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: The prosecution is not allowed to charge with a crime hoping to find the evidence. We all were caught on video. You have all the evidence you need. How can you charge me with a crime that includes the word violent, or a crime that includes the word disorderly or a crime that includes the word obstruction of justice having to do with congress? I had nothing to do with any of these things. Speaker 1: There were no negotiations about the charges. They refused to drop any of them. And it was wearing on my nephew's mental state, something horrible. We watched him deteriorate right before our eyes. He called me on the phone sobbing, and he told me that they were looking to add a terrorism enhancement at that sentencing. It would have taken his sentence to 5 to 6 years in prison, and it was too much for my nephew to handle. And that Friday evening, February 25th last year, he hanged himself in his garage. And our family has never been the same since. Speaker 2: The prosecutors would literally show up pictures of me with my hand in the air telling the the jury that I was angry and and trying to, you know, rush against the cops. And then if you press play, because that wasn't a picture, it was a video. If you press play and watch the whole video, I'm actually clapping saying thank you for your service and cheering the cops on in solidarity. That's how dishonest the United States government and prosecution is. Speaker 3: I used to always say that I would never plead guilty to something I didn't do. My wife came to me, crying, and, so we need you home. I cried the day that I signed that. You know, I have a duty as a husband and a father and a leader in my family to be there for my kids as well. So Speaker 4: And he said, Jerry, don't get me wrong. If I could have Matthew back here, I would. I'd do anything I could do. But I know after listening to Brandon that Matthew would not have survived this constant persecution for the rest of his life. Do people understand that this is a father? And I know that there are many of you in this room that are fathers and mothers. That you would rather let your son hang himself than be subjected to the public opinion and the scrutiny for this government, from this country, a country I used to be proud of. I am not proud of this country anymore. Where is your outrage? Speaker 1: You should be out outraged that this is happening in your country. And don't sit back and be silent because you're just as guilty as they are. Your silence is deafening.

@TheEXECUTlONER_ — 👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

Posted - June 18, 2025 at 1:09 AM

Saved - June 18, 2025 at 2:04 AM

@TheEXECUTlONER_ - 👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

New footage of Nancy Pelosi and her reactions to January 6th. It was a setup from the beginning. https://t.co/sEgY3iqVjt

Video Transcript AI Summary

Following an armed insurrection, the speaker calls for the resignation of the Capitol Police chief but wants the focus to remain on the President. There will be an after-action review, but the speaker does not want the review to be on par with the insurrection and impeachment. Schumer is reportedly going to fire the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The speaker states that they can pull the card out for Q&A if Audrey finishes the card. They can say they will call for something, but they don't know because they don't have all the blue dogs with them on this subject. Someone mentions that a person briefed on a plan with numbers and stakeholders signed off on it. Another person says that in a conversation, someone was very transparent about underestimating the crowd size and the president's influence. The speaker asks if they will stay there all day or until the National Guard arrives.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Who's that? Who Speaker 1: didn't? Who are they talking about? The police. No sense of Speaker 2: urgency. Okay? Wow. Speaker 1: I care what it is. They should have a much more anticipation about the National Speaker 0: Guard. Members Speaker 1: want this impeachment. Yes, Drew. Speaker 0: Aren't going to the opening, ma'am. Speaker 1: Okay. Go ahead. Speaker 0: Alright. I'm gonna put Henry on. Also in the room is Jamie Fleet and Terry and myself. And, obviously, Henry is gonna go through the opening with you. Okay? I'm putting you on speaker. Okay. Speaker 2: Go ahead, Henry. Alright. So I'm just gonna start reading. Yesterday, the president of The United States incited an armed insurrection against America. The gleeful president has committed Speaker 0: the Speaker 2: president. I'm to president president once more. Justice will be done to those who carried out these acts, which were acts of sedition. To those who strove to deter us from our responsibility, you have failed. This assault did not divert the congress from our solemn constitutional purpose, to validate the overwhelming election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Despite the desecration of our capital, we upheld in front of the country and the world the Medmont principle that the people are sovereign, and that they hold the power to choose their leaders through the ballot. And those who fail to present to prevent the assault on our capital must be held to account. That is why I'm calling for the resignation of capital police chief Stevenson. We salute all who sacrificed to keep members, staff, and the capital health community safe. But yesterday was a profound Speaker 1: Wait. Wait a minute. Let let me just say this. I think our focus has to be on the president. Let's not divert ourselves. We're gonna have an after after review. I've never liked Son. I think he should've gone a long time. Speaker 0: Ma'am, the press is very focused on this. Schumer just Schumer it's just now a political breaking news alert that Schumer is gonna fire the senate sergeant at arms. Speaker 1: I I don't even exactly. Speaker 0: Yeah. But it's it's it's immaterial. The heads are rolling is what we're saying. Speaker 1: Well, I I I I don't wanna have it on a par with the insurrection and the impeachment and the rest of that. If they ask, I will respond, but I'm not doing it on a par because the diversionary is active. Speaker 0: Understood. Understood. So we'll can pull this card out. If Audrey's gonna finish this card, we can pull it out for q and a. Speaker 1: Okay. And then we can't say we want p Jim. We can say we'll call for we don't know because we don't have all the blue dogs with us on this subject. Curious. So let's look at those words. Okay. What else you got? Speaker 2: I'm just finishing. Speaker 1: I'm just saying, I have to declare Speaker 3: I think that it was the plan that they briefed on with the numbers, stakeholders that have signed off on it, we had some anxiety sort of third tier rank. He's done some well on some things on the operational side. But he's not strong leader. Speaker 0: Blow You know, Speaker 1: we've been holding on his retirement. I understand that, but he wasn't going before the inauguration. Is that correct? But was he just incapable? I mean, he's a secret service guy. Speaker 3: He he in our conversation with him immediately preceding this meeting, was very transparent about what he thought of the states that he may order, which were underestimating the crowd size and underestimating the president's influence on Saudi Arabia. Speaker 1: Then I will say that, further announcing that They had a recess session. It's a complete victory. McGovern's in the chair now in their proceeding. He's in the chair, mister McGovern. So what's the prospect? We're gonna stay here all day for the rest of our lives or what? We're here until what? Until the National Guard decides to come and and get rid of these people?

@JohnStrandUSA — John Strand

Posted - July 23, 2025 at 9:39 PM

Saved - July 24, 2025 at 12:14 PM

@JohnStrandUSA - John Strand

BREAKING: @HouseGOP finally moving to create legitimate J6 committee It will be chaired by @RepLoudermilk—and he needs our full support @SpeakerJohnson said “there is clearly more work to be done” to expose the lies & criminal fraud of @Liz_Cheney, @AdamSchiff & co. It’s time https://t.co/jcgXAqqp4S

@Davemuns1361 — Davemuns

Posted - November 9, 2025 at 6:34 AM

Saved - November 11, 2025 at 5:09 AM

@Davemuns1361 - Davemuns

@NoVA_Campaigns A great interview for anyone uninformed about J6: https://t.co/lzQCGQCcQh

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Ep. 15 Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reveals what really happened on January 6th. Our Fox News interview with him never aired, so we invited him back. https://t.co/opDlu4QGlp