reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I unequivocally deny all allegations of sexual misconduct. This hearing is a travesty, a national disgrace orchestrated to destroy my reputation. It's a high-tech lynching for independent-thinking black Americans who don't conform to the old order. This process is unfair and disrespectful.

With a swipe of my pen, I can charge someone with a misdemeanor, the lowest level of attempts possible. By virtue of that swipe, you will have to go to a courthouse and stand in line. You will have to hire an attorney. You may get arrested for a few hours and be embarrassed in your community. You will miss time from coming on to the Google campus, all because I've charged you with a crime, which I may choose to dismiss 2 weeks later. It's an incredible amount of power.

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

Juries often make mistakes, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. The speaker acknowledges the challenge of separating their emotions from the law. They mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and facing criticism for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to those who defame others in court.

I believe in the right to hire a lawyer who speaks up against injustice. However, today I was told to be silent, yelled at, and faced an unhinged judge slamming a table. I want to make it clear that I won't tolerate such behavior in my life, and neither should you.

I will not appear before the Georgia Senate committee without a subpoena. I believe they do not have the authority to subpoena me. I will not do anything unlawful as I have not broken any laws. I treat everyone equally, even if it upsets some people.

The conversation centers on Tina Peters, her defense team, and alleged procedural and ethical problems surrounding her case. The speaker details his personal involvement, including paying a million dollars to Doug Richards to defend Peters. He recounts discovering misgivings about Richards’ defense plan a few days before trial and visiting Richards’ hotel room to hear his theory of the case. Richards allegedly arrived resentfully on a Zoom call with other criminal defense attorneys and proposed a strategy to put Peters on the stand, claiming that “colonelson” told her to image a hard drive. The speaker notes that colonelson was the president’s attorney, not Peters’ own attorney, and Richards supposedly argued Peters could claim it was legal advice from an attorney, although the speaker states California does not have a legal advice exception and Colorado law would render such a defense nugatory. The proposed strategy allegedly aimed to create jury sympathy for a 68-year-old grandmother rather than present substantive legal arguments or evidence of fraud. The speaker contends that Richards’ strategy would have resulted in Peters going on the stand with no other witnesses, effectively inviting jury nullification and failing to argue legitimate defenses or present critical motions. Peters reportedly fell ill during this period, and she fired Richards at the last moment, seeking proper counsel. The judge and Richards are described as part of a “railroad” process in Colorado, with Richards allegedly designing an ineffectual defense to push Peters to testify, thereby enabling possible indictments of Kurt Olson and 45. The speaker asserts that several local criminal defense attorneys on a Zoom call were horrified by Richards’ strategy and that the defense was deliberately weak. Stephanie Lambert, currently indicted in Michigan, who is in leg irons in Washington, DC, then took Peters’ case and filed motions that, in the speaker’s view, should have been filed earlier. These motions contend that Peters, as county recorder, had the right to make a backup of election data, and that the backup was a legitimate act; a friend with a cyber background and a surfer athlete allegedly participated with Peters’ permission, though the employee “Billy” later denied it. The speaker asserts Peters did nothing wrong and that the charges should have been dismissed. The speaker criticizes the legal profession more broadly, claiming mass coordination by state bar associations and “Project 65” to deprive people of Sixth Amendment rights, citing John Eastman as another example. He mentions a concerted effort to undermine the defense and hints at promises of federal judgeships in exchange for cooperation. He notes that Peters’ motions filed by Lambert should have been filed earlier and accuses Richards of crafting a strategy that would have allowed immediate indictments of Donald Trump’s legal team. The speaker references a Supreme Court filing and a constitutional crisis, stating that the Supreme Court already has “everything it needs” as of the prior night. He praises one DC judge as fair and straightforward, while his other cases are described as varied, though he intends to proceed even if it means jail time. He promises to upload a confidential brief and invites the audience to read the filing with SCOTUS, signaling ongoing legal action.

Most of the January 6th individuals I've interviewed, like you, were there because they believed in and wanted to uphold the system. Some did it imperfectly and things got out of hand. However, this particular person was intentionally there to degrade and defile the system. There was no valid reason for their actions in the hearing room.

Byron Thedford? That's me. Oh, we received a report that you were pushing DEI in defiance of the state law and seeking loopholes to get around the law. Is that true? It's not. No, sir. You've never talked about pushing loopholes to get around the law? I haven't. No. What about this video?

I believe in the right to hire a lawyer who can speak up against injustice. However, today I was told to be silent, yelled at, and faced an unhinged judge slamming a table. I want to make it clear that I won't tolerate such behavior in my life, and neither should you.

Speaker 0 argues that Elon’s estimate of 20% of federal spending being part of a fraud camp could be higher, and when including state and local spending, the accounting suggests a sizable percentage of overall GDP is effectively theft through government agencies or checks. He predicts a “great uncovering” in 2026, with trillions of dollars of this behavior across the economy, and notes that on the other side, nothing will happen because the cost will be so significant it will feel like staring into the abyss. Speaker 1 asks how to differentiate between legal theft and illegal theft, noting that Somali daycares’ actions were outright fraud and illegal, while Stacey Abrams’s NGO receiving $2,000,000,000 late in the Biden administration is technically legal but clearly a different kind of theft and fraud. Speaker 0 responds with a test: “Would you throw up in your mouth when you heard the news? That’s the test. If you don’t pass the common sense vomit in the mouth test, it doesn’t matter whether it’s legal or illegal. It’s up. And you’ll realize that pretty quickly.”

I gave a speech outside the Capitol, assuming the building was mostly inactive due to the rally. I never considered entering, as the crowd couldn't force open the heavy doors. However, closed-circuit footage revealed the doors were opened from the inside. During my trial, the prosecutor misled the jury by showing a clip of a hand waving towards the door, claiming it was mine and portraying me as an aggressive mob member. This was deceptive, as I had worn black gloves all day, which the prosecutor was aware of.

I thank you for being here, Mr. Mayorkas. Your actions have been watched closely, and it is believed that you have lied. The American public sees this too. You are seen as a threat to freedom and rights, but thankfully the first amendment exists to stop you. Your accusations are untrue.

What’s in the rules is that you shouldn’t prejudice an investigation when declining to prosecute. You included language that would be politically useful, which was a deliberate choice. You could have simply stated that the president did not recall the documents found at the university, a common response from witnesses. This choice was political and inappropriate. I yield back. Did the special counsel wish to respond? What you’re suggesting is that I altered my reasoning for political reasons. No, I suggest you shouldn’t shape your report for political reasons. That did not happen.

Donald Trump and the other defendants committed persistent and repeated fraud. This was proven in the motion for summary judgment last week. The other claims will be proven today. No one is above the law, no matter how powerful or wealthy they are. It is the speaker's responsibility and duty to enforce the law. The law is both powerful and fragile. The case will be proven in court today, and justice will prevail.

Innocent people don't silence, hurt, harm, or intimidate witnesses and victims. The system is completely broken.

In a court of law, the truth should prevail. Trial by television or guilt by accusation undermines freedom.

They monitored the area before my speech, but nobody warned me about a man on the roof with a gun. People noticed him and even shouted, yet no action was taken. It was a mistake not to address the situation earlier.

I believe today is a sad day for America. I think it's important to be able to challenge an election if you believe it was rigged or stolen. Many others, like Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams, have done the same. What's happening here is a travesty of justice and election interference. We did nothing wrong, and we have the right to challenge an election we believe is dishonest. Thank you all for being here, and I'll see you soon.

The speaker clarifies that the paperwork they signed was not done in secrecy and was publicly explained on their Facebook page. Another speaker points out that intent and beliefs do matter, citing an attorney's interpretation of the law. The first speaker agrees, stating that the attorney general seems to have no idea what she's doing and suggests that this is political persecution, not a criminal prosecution.

In the United States, it's unusual that we don't have a jury, which I find unfair. However, I need to address a misconception in the press. We didn't have the option to choose a jury, contrary to what's being repeated. Personally, I believe juries often make mistakes, but I have a tool called "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" to handle those situations. I can declare that a reasonable jury would never have reached that conclusion.

I was denied the right to speak up when I saw something wrong. The judge was unhinged and slammed a table, which I cannot tolerate. We all have the right to hire a lawyer who will stand up for us. It's important that we don't tolerate such behavior.

The former president is being accused of converting a misdemeanor into a felony by the borough district attorney. However, two previous prosecutorial agencies have already examined the case and found nothing. This attack on the former president seems baseless and exaggerated, especially considering my experience as a prosecutor and defense attorney. It appears to be an over-the-top move.

The entire justice enterprise in The United States depends upon an honor system. It depends upon them telling the truth. It depends upon them abiding a promise they made to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. And we are long past the days when that oath was backed in most people by a fear of going to hell. And so it turns out it's an honor system. To get information, to be able to find the truth, and the truth is a real thing. There are facts. That honor system has to be enforced with an iron fist so the system will work, so the truth can be found in a reliable way.

Judge Wilson asks about the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor in New York—one year. The business records case is a misdemeanor, correct? The underlying crime, the falsified business records, yes. That’s a misdemeanor charge. The only way to reach a felony is by concealing another crime, right? Correct. Each crime has specific elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict at trial. Right? That is the right way to do it. In the indictment, did they specify the underlying crime? No. They only described it as other crimes. In the jury instructions, did they specify the specific underlying crime? No. The falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions, with some brief description of a New York state election law violation, but there was no description of the three underlying crimes. There was a description given of falsifying business records, which was ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records. So, and that’s also a misdemeanor, right? That should be. So you have two plus two equals six: if you commit two misdemeanors, you get to the felony statute of limitations, which they had to get—or they could have never brought the case. That’s correct. But there are more questions about the statute of limitations. It’s not cut and dry because the time Donald Trump spent out of New York could be used to toll the statute of limitations. That was the Harvey Weinstein ruling in the court of appeals. He argued that the time he spent out of New York, while in California, should have tolled the time limitations, but the court of appeals ruled against him on that issue. So that’s how they may get around the statute of limitations problem in this case. Was the election law case a federal or state underlying crime? It seemed charged as both; when we got to the jury instructions, there’s a violation of New York election law charged, but then one of the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law. And then the third one was a tax violation, right? Also unspecified. So all three underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime. Were any of the elements listed? No. Not at all. And this matters for defense: if you don’t know the elements of the crime you’re defending, how do you mount a defense? You can’t. That’s the very issue of fundamental fairness referenced here: a defendant is entitled to know what the charges are against them so you can defend against those charges. Trump was never made aware of the extent of the charges until the end of the trial. Elements of the crime go in jury instructions. Traditionally you get the elements of the underlying crime. Instead, in this case, they got a grab bag: a choice of three underlying crimes, and we don’t even know which ones they chose or whether they could have been unanimous on those three. So not only were the elements of the crime missing, but there were three different crimes with three vastly different elements, all unspecified. Neither the indictment nor the bill of particulars lists the elements. The statement of facts merely describes a series of allegations and actions believed to have been taken by Trump, none of which describe any criminal activity or elements of any crime. Therefore, on appeal there may be significant legal issues arguing the jury never actually had the elements put in front of them. There’s little doubt this matter could be reversed on appeal based on these issues. Jury trials are still the best way to determine guilt or innocence, but juries are only as good as the information put in front of them. With that, the speakers yield.