« Back

Filename: 20240106_Sat_Alex.mp3
Air Date: Jan. 6, 2024
3353 lines.

A panel consisting of Ed Krasenstein, Brian Krasenstein, Stephen Bonnell (Destiny), Alex Jones, Darren Beattie and Glenn Greenwald discuss the events surrounding the 2020 presidential election, including the Capitol riot and Trump's attempts to stay in power. Different opinions are expressed on whether it was an insurrection or not, with topics such as legal implications, historical context, political discourse, electoral challenges, and free speech rights being touched upon. The discussion also covers the treatment of January 6th protesters compared to other non-violent protests like Black Lives Matter, suggesting a double standard in how cases have been handled. They mention instances where FBI agents or informants were involved in organizing both events, and argue that this might be evidence of a larger conspiracy to exaggerate threats for political gain. The issue of selective outrage is also brought up in relation to the BLM riots and January 6th rioters.

TimeText
Jump into it.
I want to introduce our panel of incredible people, as I said earlier, and I'm going to start from the end and give you guys a chance to introduce yourselves.
We have Ed Krasenstein.
Yeah, how's it going?
I'm Ed Krasenstein.
You know me on X at Ed Krasen, also the twin brother of Brian.
Thanks for pointing out that it's Krasenstein, not Krasenstein.
Well, it can actually be either.
You can do Krasenstein or Krasenstein, and I really don't care what you use.
It's Frankenstein, not Stein!
Or Frankenstein.
That was Alex Jones, if you didn't know.
We also have Brian Krasenstein.
Hey Ian, it's great to be here.
I'm Brian Krasenstein, known as Krasenstein on X. Ed's slightly better looking and more intelligent twin brother.
And modest as well.
Probably the most modest of the Krasensteins.
Next to Brian, we have Stephen Bonnell, known as Destiny.
What's happening, man?
Hey, what's up?
You know me on YouTube at Destiny.
My real life name is Stephen and I scream and shout at people on the internet for a living.
Next to this dude, we got Alex Jones.
Alex, explain yourself.
Well, I don't think I probably needed much of an introduction, but I was there on January 6th and I saw what happened.
It's a very important discussion we're about to have tonight.
I'm glad everybody came.
We need to have more of this, not just left and right, but just different groups of people debating and discussing.
I'm really glad that Zero Hedge and their great subscription service, people supporting it, is financing this.
And so you're going to see a lot more of this, people supporting Zero Hedge.
And so I'm just honored to be here with you guys in Austin, Texas.
Yeah, absolutely.
Shout out to Zero Hedge.
Great company.
Great people, too.
Really great people involved with the company.
And to your left, my right, Darren Beattie.
What's happening, man?
Great to be here, thank you.
Yeah.
I'm Darren Beattie.
I run a news site called revolver.news, which is reported extensively on January 6th, and you can also see me on X at Darren J. Beattie.
And you're a Trump advisor and speechwriter.
Yes.
And a former professor, and you help quarterback a lot of the groundbreaking stuff that Tucker Carlson put up.
Indeed.
So I'll send you praises.
Thank you.
And we also have, coming in remote, live, Glenn Greenwald from your studio in Brazil.
What's happening, Glenn?
Hey everybody, Glenn Greenwald, I'm a journalist, I'm the host of System Update on Rumble.
I had planned to be there in person, a little logistical problems intervened and I wish I could be, but I'm really looking forward to participating.
And I just want to echo Alex, I think what Zero Hedge is doing is so important, organizing these kind of substantive, structured debates among people who obviously disagree pretty strongly on things and yet nonetheless can have what I hope will be a civil and spirited debate, what I expect
It will be, so I'm really looking forward to it and I appreciate being asked.
Yes, that is my job, is to make sure that it maintains civility, structure, organization, and that we don't talk over each other, that we end up listening to each other.
The real value of humanity, one of the most powerful tools we have is communication, so I think tonight's going to be an exemplary example of that.
Let's go, let's go, let's go for this.
The first question I got for you guys, and this is really for the entire panel, and anyone that wants to start it off, maybe we can start with you Edson, just because you're on the end and we can move around, is January 6, 2021.
Was it an insurrection?
And before you answer, before you answer, I want to read this.
This is actually what the, it's called 18 U.S.
Code 2383, rebellion or insurrection.
Yeah, let me do an overhead shot.
This is right out of Cornell Law here.
Excellent.
Alright, I'm going to start reading this.
This is according to the U.S.
Code.
It technically doesn't define insurrection.
It's the code talking about
But I guess what an insurrection is, of course they use the word insurrection in the actual code itself.
But what do you think?
Do you guys think it was an insurrection?
So I personally believe it was an insurrection.
And I base that on the fact that 20 court decisions called it an insurrection.
And the fact that there was a bill passed in the Senate that called them a mob of insurrectionists.
I think the bill passed, or it was in the House of Representatives, 406 to 21.
That was a statute to award the police officers medals.
And it referred to these individuals as insurrectionists.
So, I mean, I think the term can be subjective.
I think, you know,
People can say nobody was charged with violating Section 2383 of Title 18, which is the insurrection and rebellion statute.
And nobody was, right?
But I don't think that defines whether the event was an insurrection.
When I say insurrection,
I don't mean everybody there was partaking in an insurrection.
There were people who were peaceful.
The people who walked into the Capitol and did nothing, I don't think that they were insurrectionists.
I think they violated the law, but I don't think they were partaking in an insurrection.
I do think the Proud Boys were partaking in an insurrection.
I think you could say Donald Trump incited the insurrection.
I do.
Destiny, what do you think, man?
I would say the plot from start to finish is quite obviously an insurrection.
The only way to get around that is to either justify an insurrection, which is what most conservatives do, they don't realize it, or to deny that an insurrection could ever happen.
Or, if you're not aware of all the facts of what happened.
I think that Donald Trump and his cronies had a very coherent plan that they tried to enact from start to finish.
We're good to go.
And I want to make sure that we don't force this into like what they want to call a debate debate where you gotta be wait to be called on or anything.
So if any of you guys, Glenn, you as well, man, if any of you guys want to jump in.
Yeah, two of them just went.
I want Glenn to go, but I just want to say something here.
I was there.
I don't know.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
Of people taking off their Antifa stuff and putting on the Trump garb and the police fake arresting people, attacking them and then high-fiving them.
I mean, this has all come out in the new footage and it's all... Fake arresting them.
How were they faking it?
They now admit hundreds of federal officers were there.
A few hundred people got manipulated into fighting the police.
They were led and driven by provocateurs and other groups.
They were others, then they opened the doors and the police waved them in in hundreds of videos.
They walked through the velvet ropes and then they indict over a thousand people that just walked through velvet ropes.
And then now we're told in the National Security Directive of President Biden, the number one threat is the American people.
And he had a declaration of war yesterday against all Trump supporters and says to protect democracy, we're not going to let you vote for Trump.
So as Stalin said, I care not who cast the votes.
I care who counts them.
Well, Biden doesn't care who cast the votes.
He cares who's allowed on the ballot.
So we've already won.
No one's buying this.
And when this happened three years ago,
The Wall Street Journal had a printer retraction, but they said I was there as a coward telling people to attack.
Well, no, they wouldn't let me put the video on Twitter before I was saying don't go in.
But the truth is it's coming out.
And so so that's the bottom line here.
And this attempt by Biden to.
Cast the American people as the enemy in all these movies about martial law and civil war and race war.
That's their only hope.
Because the corrupt, evil Democratic Party and its evil twin, the Republicans, they've lost power and populism is rising.
Quite frankly, this was not an insurrection.
It was an insurrection that would have been guns.
And it's in the Declaration of Independence that it's our right and duty to get rid of a government that's destructive of
What do you think?
Carville admits it.
They all admit this attempt, like we're in Venezuela or something, to take Trump off the ballot when he's never been convicted of insurrection.
This is a military tribunal U.S.
code from the Civil War.
If a military tribunal found you were guilty of being involved in insurrection, that meant after the war ended... Can I ask you a question?
Alex, can I ask you a question?
Yeah.
So, do you think the Confederates during the Civil War were partaking in insurrection?
I mean, in retrospect, because I wasn't alive then, I think the South got manipulated into that.
I thought there was real issues from the North and South.
The abolitionists, you know, had a good point, and slavery needed to end.
But it was really about the North and South.
So just to be clear, the person that's defending the J6 rioters won't say that the Confederate states were engaged in insurrection.
No, that's not what I... See, here's what happens.
I don't... Hold on, hold on.
That's not true.
That's what it sounded like you said.
Well, you can correct the record.
So do you think they were engaged in an insurrection?
No, I was trying to talk.
And the thing I said was, I think the South was wrong.
And then you just said...
You just said that I support what the South did.
No.
I didn't say you supported that.
I said that you said that they weren't engaged in insurrection.
Do you think the Confederate States were engaged in insurrection?
The Insurrection Act was that because there were rebellions during Reconstruction at the end of the Civil War, and they were saying if you lead an uprising against the Northern Occupation of the South, you're precluded from running from office because they were worried about Southerners getting office again, like Jefferson.
No, so no, I do not support the Civil War or slavery and I'm not a quote confederate.
My question is was it an insurrection, yes or no?
The law, yes, I think that it was a civil war and you can say an insurrection.
Okay, so it was an insurrection.
Did anybody get charged with insurrection and rebellion?
What I'm saying is... Violating the statute.
You're not listening.
No, I'm asking, you just said it was an insurrection.
Did anybody get charged with violating the insurrection and rebellion statute?
Yes, people did.
No, because there was no statute there.
That's my point.
You don't need to violate that statute in order to be partaking in an insurrection because the Civil War was an insurrection and nobody got charged with violating that.
No, that's what I'm saying.
That's my point, Alex.
You're changing the subject because you know it's correct.
Democratic Party lawyers on CNN say you have to be convicted under the 14th Amendment of this before you can be.
You can't, you can't just because... You don't get convicted under the 14th Amendment.
You get convicted under Section 2383 of Title 18.
Let's slow down a little.
Let's slow down a little.
He hasn't been indicted for that.
He's the Yankee Yankee!
He's not somebody in Georgia!
He's not Robert E. Lee!
This has nothing to do with it!
On the 14th Amendment, it doesn't require a conviction under Section 3.
You can literally put it on the text on the screen.
It does not say it needs to be convicted.
I guess we need to define the difference.
Alex, Alex, Alex.
One second, one second.
We need to define the difference between the casual term insurrection and the legal definition of insurrection.
Yes.
Well, there's another thing we need to talk about.
So, yes, there's the casual term, there's the etymology of the term insurrection, which simply suggests a rising up.
So by that definition, that could encompass a wide range of things.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
So there's a rising up.
Then there's the legal definition, but we have politically weaponized court systems, so that's not even, I think, a proper standard.
I think the proper standard is the sweep of a proper historical perspective.
Does the event of January 6th compare to the antecedent that we've been discussing, the Civil War?
So if the question is, oh, is Civil War an insurrection, my question is, is the scope
It's a lie on it's face.
They say it's bigger than Pearl Harbor and 9-11.
Bullshit!
So here, let me finish what my point is.
Yeah, do that, and then I want to go to Glenn for a second after you do that.
So my point is that, two things.
The Civil War was an insurrection.
I think it's hard to argue that.
Nobody got charged with a crime of violating the Insurrection and Rebellion Statute, 2383.
What about 1992, the L.A.
riots?
George Herbert Walker Bush, he invoked the Insurrection Act.
12,000 people were arrested, 63 people were killed, hundreds were injured.
Was that an insurrection?
What do you guys think?
It's a declaration of federal martial law.
But was it an insurrection?
Because nobody there was charged with violating...
Nobody there was charged with violating Section 2383, the Insurrection and Rebellion Statute.
But we still consider that an insurrection, right?
I mean, by that yardstick, Kamala Harris bailing out people that firebombed federal buildings.
That is not true.
Glenn, talk to me.
You have something to say.
Yeah, I actually think what Destiny and what Ed are saying are very important.
First of all, I was going to say that I think one of the problems with how these things are debated is that a lot of people these days have very binary prisms for understanding things.
A lot of that comes from YouTube debate, where you have to declare yourself on one side or the other.
So Destiny said, oh, everybody either hates this insurrection, thinks it's an insurrection, or they deny it happens, or they think it's good.
And there's so much middle ground.
Namely that, for me,
This was a political protest that spilled over into a riot where a small minority of the people engaged in violence.
I don't think we want to urge that to happen.
We don't want to defend that.
I consider that lamentable.
But the fact that it's laughable to call this an insurrection is actually demonstrated by the examples that they're using.
This was a three-hour riot that was extremely easily subdued.
It doesn't remotely compare to any prior insurrections, let alone to the Civil War.
The only people who were killed on January 6th were four people, all four of whom were Trump supporters, two of whom dropped dead of a heart attack and one from a speed overdose, because these were not exactly a well-trained militia.
And when Jack Smith went to charge Donald Trump with multiple crimes, he had a lot of options to charge him with, and he charged him with a lot of crimes, including very dubious ones.
He did not charge him with inciting an insurrection for reasons that I think we ought to ask ourselves why.
But the fact that this is such a minor event in history is demonstrated by the fact that the media who needed this to be a major event immediately started lying about what happened, saying that Brian Sicknick,
We're good to go.
Supposedly perpetrating the insurrection, killed anybody, pulled out a gun, let alone discharged a weapon.
All of which is true.
It's a joke to call this an insurrection.
At best, it's a riot.
And that's the reason why Trump hasn't been charged with an insurrection.
The only time he ever commented on January 6th about whether he thought there should be violence or not was when he said the following.
He said,
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
He urged them to be peaceful in how they went there.
To the extent there was violence, I think you can make the argument that the FBI informants, that even the New York Times admits were there, were the ones that urged it.
But even if the people who were there were the ones responsible, at best this is a riot.
You could so easily make the case that the 2020 riots
Where it's a far greater insurrectionary threat than anything that happened on January 6th.
And then we marched down there to have another rally, and then I see this terrible thing happening.
It was medieval.
And then Biden's saying, they're all bad, and we can't let you vote for Trump.
I mean, come on, man.
We have a clip from Biden's speech I want to play.
And then let's get back to you, Destiny.
You had something to say.
But if you guys have this, it's clip number four, Biden's speech.
This is from yesterday.
It's only 50 seconds, but let's load this up.
Trump's mob wasn't a peaceful protest.
It was a violent assault.
They were insurrectionists, not patriots.
They weren't there to uphold the Constitution.
They were there to destroy the Constitution.
Trump won't do what an American president must do.
He refuses to denounce political violence.
So hear me clearly.
I'll say what Donald Trump won't.
Political violence is never, ever acceptable in the United States.
Never, never, never.
It has no place in a democracy.
None.
You can't be pro-insurrectionist and pro-American.
Trump and his MAGA supporters not only embrace political violence, but they laugh about it.
The insurrection is the open border.
So the insurrection was not just the three-hour riot that happened at the White House afterwards.
I think that's the least charitable reading of everything that happened.
And that's not, if you read any of the charges that either Jack Smith or the Georgia-Rico case has alleged against Trump, are saying that, in fact, not much of the focus is on the three-hour riot at all.
Hold on, Alex.
Let Stephen finish his thought first.
Not much of those indictments are actually focusing on the three hour riot itself.
The unprecedented act that there is no answer for that Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton have not engaged in is using knowingly false election claims for months to try to pressure state electors to change their vote and then when they wouldn't do that
I can explain that if you want.
Yeah, please do.
Yeah, so in 1960, JFK and Nixon, there was a dispute because there was a recount.
I think JFK ended up winning by like 150 votes.
At the time, each state decided, or the state decided to certify two sets of electors.
Decided to choose two different slates of electors.
Depending on how it went.
But they were certified by the states.
They were in the middle of a recount.
Well Trump tried to get us certified.
None of us were certified yet.
What happened with Trump was that Trump tried to get the states to certify a second slate of electors based off of conspiracy theory crap that Electrumistola...
He took it to court.
They did.
62 cases.
30 cases were looked at on merit.
So are they taking him off the ballot now?
That's a separate... Is the not purest form of election theft is taking someone off the ballot?
Alex, let's get back to the 1960s.
What happened was that they did a recount, and Kennedy ended up winning by, I think, 150 votes, and they chose the Kennedy electors, they certified the Kennedy electors, and Kennedy ended up winning that state.
That's what Trump said!
What Trump did was Trump tried to get the states to certify an alternate slate of electors.
They refused because the court said there's no no they're there.
And then when that didn't go through, Trump decided you get his own slate of electors above the states that were not certified and tried to use that to force Mike Pence to say that Joe Biden didn't win these electoral votes.
I just need to.
If we want to be precise in terms of the scope of the debate, I think it's about January 6th, and so the lead up to it might be relevant to some of the criminal indictments, but it's technically speaking outside the scope of the January 6th discussion.
If we're going to bring it into the discussion, I think there's an operative word there, knowingly.
And that's operative within the context of the charging documents, but the idea that
Trump thought that he lost the election and he was knowingly lying and knowingly engaging.
No, he believes, I guarantee it, whether you believe it or not, Trump believes that the election was stolen and he was using the legal recourses available to him at the advice of his legal advisors.
That is not true.
Most of his legal advisors said that this idea was crazy.
I'm asking a question.
Why does the United States sanction countries that take people off the ballot?
What, that's not even remotely relevant here.
Oh, okay, alright.
So you know what the United States would usually do?
If we do want insurrection, you'd know it.
It would probably be for things like circumventing the vote, like asking the Vice President, for instance, to unilaterally win the election.
That would be something that we might sanction another country for.
So you can't vote for somebody
Because they make up a bunch of stuff, and he's not found guilty anywhere, but you guys just parrot it over again like two men.
If you don't like the Constitution, that's your fault, Alex.
If you don't like the Constitution, that's on you.
Really, then why are you saying that Section 3 of Amendment 14 requires a conviction?
Alex, why did you say that Section 3 of Amendment 14 requires a conviction?
Can we put the text on stream?
I would love to do that, actually.
Put the text up.
Because you keep saying you're... Alright, guys.
I don't care what it's based on.
Let's uh, let's... That's why no one won!
Let's hear from Glenn.
Let's hear from Glenn.
We'll slow down.
Uh, this is a great conversation.
Glenn's about to drop some knowledge.
I'm dominating.
Yeah.
You're just talking a lot.
Glenn's in remote from Brazil, so Glenn, anytime you have something to say, it's helpful for me if I see a visual cue, maybe your hand goes up, I can tell you have something you're gonna say now, but let us know.
Let me just say, what happens is when you
Gather together to debate a particular question.
You're supposed to debate that particular question.
The particular question that we were presented with is we're going to debate January 6th and whether it was an insurrection.
Now, I don't blame Destiny.
And Ed, for not wanting to debate that, for wanting to debate a whole set of other issues about whether Trump acted improperly, whether he was naughty and the things he did after the election, because there is no argument to make that what happened on January 6th rises to the level of insurrection, and that's why an extremely aggressive prosecutor named Jack Smith
Decided not to charge Donald Trump with that crime because he knew there was no way that he could possibly bring a conviction against anybody let alone Donald Trump who told everybody to be peaceful when going to the Capitol.
I don't
In the last three elections that Democrats lost, in 2000, 2004, and 2016, a very large number of Democrats believed and asserted that the election was stolen, that the election was stolen and was the byproduct of fraud, and the President was as a result illegitimate.
When I started writing about politics, did that have a vibe?
The idea that George Bush was the real loser of the election, Al Gore won, was the view of every single liberal and Democrat that I knew.
In 2004, there were objections claiming that Karl Rove had interfered in the Ohio vote with the Diebold machines and cheated to make John Kerry lose and George Bush win.
And then in 2016, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats said that Donald Trump was the illegitimate winner, that Russia had helped him, and they tried to convince the Electoral College to abandon the certified results of the state.
Obviously, you go back to 1960, and a lot of historians believe that election was stolen.
So it's not like Donald Trump was the first person to ever wonder or believe that an election was stolen from him.
It's a very significant tradition in American political history.
If you know anything about politics before 2016,
And if Trump believed that the election was stolen, and while it's true, a lot of people in the Justice Department and a lot of people in the White House told him they didn't think it was.
He did have advisors and lawyers telling him that they think there was evidence of it.
Then the question is over, even on these other issues about whether or not Trump engaged in some conspiracy against the United States.
But the issue is January 6th, an insurrection.
We Hillary was in videos two days ago saying Trump's gonna steal this election.
So why are they allowed to say it?
It's free speech.
You don't get indicted for it.
Trump didn't get indicted for that.
They indicted him as they put it in the charging thing in Georgia saying he has the election.
Oh my god.
You're hoping people don't read the documents.
You can go read it.
It's a RICO case.
There's a bunch of behavior that is within a RICO case.
Oh my god.
It's self-illegal.
That's the point of a RICO case.
Talk about the differences.
So, Bush vs. Gore, what happens?
The Supreme Court ruled, and Gore conceded.
He stopped saying this election was stolen, he stopped saying, I won.
Oh, Supreme Court?
Yes.
Did Gore refuse to certify the vote?
I don't remember.
The vote was certified.
Did he do that?
Oh, he didn't have an alternative electorate?
Exactly.
After Trump wanted a Supreme Court hearing, Trump wanted the same thing!
Sixty-two cases were brought before judges.
And you said earlier, none of them are based on evidence.
Six of them were based on standing.
Six.
Out of the sixty- They wouldn't even hear it!
Do you know how many of them were Trump-appointed judges that made those rulings?
Seventeen.
So, six of them...
Let me finish here.
Six of them were based on standing.
Four of those that were based on standing, the judge also analyzed the merits and said there was no evidence, or insufficient evidence.
So only two of them, and that was Texas versus Pennsylvania, and Go-Mart versus Pence.
Do you know what those two cases were?
No.
I know what the cases are.
Texas tried suing... No, I agree with you.
Biden says inflation is fine right now.
I agree with him.
Let me finish.
Texas tried suing...
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, several other states, saying that the election was stolen.
And the judge said, no, Texas can't sue these other states.
Somebody in that state who was affected had to sue them.
Now, the other case was Gohmert versus Pence.
He challenged the Electoral Counts Act of 1807, saying that Pence could overturn the election.
He said that Pence would throw out electors.
I think that's wrong.
I agree with you.
I think that was a wrong legal theory.
Those are the only two that were based.
No, no, I agree with you on that.
But what I'm saying is, then if Biden's going to win so big, why can't Trump be on the ballot?
That's not up for Biden to decide.
That's up for the Supreme Court to decide.
Oh, no, Biden said he wants him off the ballot.
It doesn't matter what Biden says.
I get it.
No!
Trump lost.
That's why he can't have his race car on the track.
Yeah, this horse is going to lose so it can't be in the race.
Bull crap!
Who do you think has the authority then to determine the interpretation of Amendment 14?
Man, I know the State Department.
Why can't you answer a single question?
Why not just answer one question?
I'm just asking a simple question.
Who has the authority ultimately to decide it?
The President has not... Even on CNN, you don't let me talk.
He's gonna ramble, he's not gonna answer anything.
Yeah, let Alex in, let Alex in.
You don't lose your rights when you're not convicted!
He's not been convicted!
And here's the good news, it's backfiring.
We have the Declaration of Independence, and we can vote for who we want to.
No you can't!
You can't vote for people under 35!
You can't vote for non-citizens!
Can you?
Nobody stole the election, but you can't vote for who you want!
Nobody stole the election, but you can't vote for who you want!
Nobody stole the election, but you can't vote for who you want!
We just beat this into the ground.
Alex, I need you.
We just crushed this one into the ground, but I want to ask the question in a slightly different way.
Was this an attempted coup?
Do you guys think this was an attempted coup?
Of course it was.
Obviously it was.
The Hunter Biden laptop.
The weaponization hearings.
Oh my God.
The censorship.
RussiaGat.
There's no Russian connection.
That's all different.
mRNA vaccines.
Take your extra.
I want you to take all the shots.
Global warming.
How many shots have you had?
None yet.
You want to take some?
No, I'll be taking them all.
I just want you to answer one question about any of this.
I want to see you take them all and enjoy yourself.
I've been talking about the Democrats more than the Republicans on the January 6th debate.
Isn't that wild?
They now admit that the shot erases your immune system and doesn't protect you.
Isn't that crazy?
So you do that little one-liner out here.
Alright guys, back to topic.
Yeah, yeah, let's stay back.
So, is it a coup?
That's the question.
I think it can be debated that it was a coup.
Definitely, I would say it's an attempted coup.
The coup is flooding the boardroom.
District Judge, U.S.
District Judge David Carter actually evaluated the Trump-Eastman scheme and he said... We got some big news.
I'm not interrupting you.
Not that yet.
No, no, no.
Oh, but Glenn's going to speak after you.
I'm sorry, I'll shut up now.
So the federal judge, U.S.
District Judge David Carter, evaluated the Trump-Eastman scheme.
Another lawyer.
Which we can go into later.
But basically he said that it was, quote, a coup in search of a legal theory.
This is a federal judge.
We have a CIA coup over America.
Did the CIA kill Kennedy?
Judges aren't part of the CIA.
Are they?
I don't think so.
Is that a new theory of yours?
No, it's not a new theory of mine.
The whole thing is a big rotten... So they can find partisan... They found the Secretary of State of Maine took Trump off the ballot because she had one hearing in a YouTube video.
Are we ruled by this lady?
Can we not vote for who we want?
So one of the, I guess, defenses against it being a coup... Oh wait, we got Glenn.
Glenn speaking.
Go for it, man.
I actually want to ask a question that I would love to hear everybody's answer to.
But before I do that, I just want to say about federal judges.
This year, in the last six months, four different federal judges, a district court judge and then an appellate court unanimously, found that the Biden administration gravely violated the First Amendment.
In fact, the greatest assault on free speech the court set in decades.
Maybe the history of the judiciary by systemically pressuring big tech to censor the Internet and purge it of all dissent by threatening
Big tech companies using the CIA, the FBI, and the CDC with punishment if they didn't censor the internet.
Now, you may not agree, but according to your standard, four different federal judges concluded that, which is infinitely worse in terms of an abridgment of freedom or an attack on the Constitution than anything that Trump is accused of doing.
That's not true.
That's a digital insurrection out of the deep state.
That's not true.
A digital insurrection.
Can I put a pin on something real quick?
I just wanted to be noted.
Hold up.
Everybody hold up.
Glenn, Glenn, please finish your point and then we're going to move on to the response.
The question that you asked Ian is, is this a coup?
If you look at how other coups are perpetrated, and I think a lot of this is that if you're an American and you have this very soft history, you don't know what a coup is.
You think that what CNN tells you a coup is a coup.
Usually the way coups work is the leader of the country, whoever is in charge of the military, orders the military to seize control of the levers of power.
Trump was the commander in chief on January 6th.
The military was duty bound to obey his orders.
They had a right to disobey if they were illegal, but
If this were a coup, why didn't Trump order the military to seize control of power and turn over the election process to him?
Why didn't he order the armed factions that form the law enforcement part of the military and the executive branch that serve under his command to do that as well?
That's what happened to the coup.
That didn't happen here because Trump wasn't trying to perpetrate a coup.
He wanted the Department of Defense to seize voting machines and the DOJ turned him down.
The worst thing he did was try to take Biden off the ballot.
Remember when Trump said Biden cannot run and have the Justice Department take Biden off the ballot?
Oh God, that was Biden.
Sorry.
Biden doesn't have the authority to do that.
He still doesn't have the authority to do that.
The Supreme Court that Trump has his picks on, that's currently 6-3 conservative, they're the ones who are going to make the final decision on that.
I wanted to be known that every single time you try to talk about any of this stuff related to Trump, it's so many Democrat names that comes out of people's mouths.
I don't know why people can't just engage on the facts of what happened on and in the events leading up to June 6th.
Without having to invoke every other Democratic leader's name.
No, his name's Ding Dong.
Ding Dong, Destin, whatever it is.
The point is, I was there!
There was a million, over a million people, and they said police were attacking, and we got there like shooting tear gas, and then a bunch of feds helped break through with some idiots that got mad, had a brawl, and then the cops go, come on in!
Everybody come on in!
So Alex, Alex.
Everybody sees those videos now.
You call this the new Pearl Harbor, worse than 9-11.
3,000 people.
Do you disagree?
Let me ask you this.
Do you disagree
With them claiming this was worse than Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
I think it depends how you ask that question.
I would say, I would say no, it's not worse than Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
What are you basing on?
Are you basing... No, no, no, I get it, I get it.
Trying to take people's votes away is so sacrosanct, but you're trying to take people's votes from them.
It's worse than what?
It's unprecedented that a President of the United States would do everything within his power to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the next President.
He said, I want you to peacefully march down to the Capitol.
That is a uniquely horrible event.
So horrible.
No, no, it took him an- no, it was the riot was happening, he spoke for an hour and a half, it started then, then he got back to the White House, watched it like 30-40 minutes, and then shot a video.
He got back to the White House, he got Mark Meadows delivered a note on his desk that Ashley Babbitt had been shot and he sat there sipping Diet Coke for an hour and a half.
The guy that you called your leader, how many pardons did Trump do for the patriots that got unfairly charged with crimes?
Why didn't Donald Trump pardon any of those people?
So you're there, Alex.
So tell me, were there weapons there?
No, nobody used weapons.
So are you telling me?
Yes, there were weapons.
You know, you're right.
You got me.
He's gonna say the cops.
Yeah, they shot Ashley Babbitt and they threw people off the balcony and they beat a woman's brains out.
You're right.
They didn't beat the woman's brains out.
Oh no, nobody shot a woman?
Nobody beat a woman on the ground.
Nobody beat a woman to death?
That's a fake video that got put out.
That wasn't real.
Ashley Babbitt's fake, folks!
Wow!
I like how you would think that
Years after the event, we're now getting unreleased footage?
There's a video of them dragging that woman!
The police dragged her in and beat her to death!
How would that take years to report?
Everybody on X, Kim's saying they didn't beat a woman to death.
Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I just- Can I
Woo!
Yeah!
Got his ass now, baby!
Once you're done celebrating, I'd like to ask... Ashley Babbitt!
Nobody died!
Old woman didn't get drugged in by the cops and beat by batons!
This is an equals cowboys game, what is that all about?
If he wants to do little one-ups and just... So what Trump fans are into is sports games.
I hope the audience only goes off how much emotion there is.
I can top ya!
I can top ya!
Calm down, buddy.
Calm down.
Here we go.
Calm down.
Okay, so you said the weapons were the feds shooting Ashley Babbitt.
What about, um, how about the guy who, the three men on the corner of 14th and Independence who had AR-15s?
How about... Oh, they used those?
They didn't use them, but... Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, what about the pipe bomb?
I asked you a question... Who's that?
Alex, I asked you a question if people had weapons.
How about the, how many weapons were seized, like... Hey, I got a dick, I got a dick, doesn't mean I'm raping people.
Seventy-five of the people arrested within the Capitol building had weapons.
Let's uh, we have a couple of clips.
Knives and stuff, oh!
The knives have weapons that disarm them immediately!
How about Guy Refit?
The, what is he, three percenter?
Or three percenter, right?
Does he have nuclear weapons like Biden's saying we're gonna use them on Russia?
He had a handgun on the stairs of the Capitol building.
Got a handgun?
As, as he was encouraging people to... That's worse than Pearl Harbor!
As he was saying, telling people to go into the Capitol.
As he was saying, he wants to drag Nancy Pelosi out of the Capitol and hopes her head hits every stair on the way out.
Did he say, did he say, go into the Capitol like Rams?
Let me finish my point before you cut me off.
He wanted to drag Nancy Pelosi out and let her head hit every stair on the way out.
He said, let it finish.
Yeah, and I got pooped on Pelosi.
Let me finish, Alex.
Alex, let me finish my point.
Yeah, let Ed finish his point because we're going to go to Darren Reilly.
He said on his way to the Capitol building that they're going to take the Capitol and insert their own government.
Yeah, so out of a million people, a few lunatics were there, and you call it like Martians invading and blowing the Earth up, like Glenn Greenwald said.
His intention wasn't an insurrection.
Are you saying his intention wasn't an insurrection?
He's saying he's going to drag Nancy Pelosi out.
He wasn't under Trump's command!
Trump didn't tell him.
Trump said go peacefully.
Yes, you can finish your point, and then we're going to go to Darren.
Can we use a mute button or something on Alex?
No, I'm not going to be run over.
So, he was on his way to the Capitol building, saying, we're going to take the Capitol and install our own government.
He had a handgun.
It's a Trump and I'm guilty, I'm guilty.
Alex, let him finish.
On the stairs of the Capitol, saying he's going to drag Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell out.
But you don't have a problem with that.
That's not... He didn't use a gun!
Because he didn't use a gun means he didn't have the opportunity to shoot Nancy Pelosi or Mike Pence.
What do you think, Darren?
That's okay.
He didn't have access to them.
Thankfully, the Capitol Police... Thankfully, the Capitol Police... Thankfully, the Capitol Police... Thankfully, the Capitol Police... Thankfully, the Capitol Police... Thankfully, the Capitol Police... Alright, okay.
Oh my god, a guy had a gun!
Will you marshal law?
All the Americans are guilty!
You can't vote for Trump now, a guy had a gun!
I've been asked by Zero Hedge to moderate this debate, so that's what I'm gonna do.
Everyone quiet down, we're going to Darren Beatty.
Darren.
What's happening?
What's the question here?
Is this a freaking coup?
What do you think about what they've been saying as well?
I don't think it's a coup.
I, again, I think question of an insurrection, you can go to the etymology of rising up, that could be anything.
If we keep the proper perspective in mind, it doesn't elevate to anything resembling the Civil War, 9-11, or any of the crazy comparisons.
What, one guy with a gun isn't as big as the Civil War?
No.
They didn't use the gun?
So, there's that.
The scope, I think, matters, and that's what we're really getting at when we talk about insurrection.
The courts are politically weaponized, so I wouldn't even rest the legitimacy and the question on the determinations of the courts, which we can see are
Running away with pretty wild and ridiculous theories.
Weaponized.
Weaponized court systems.
So there's that.
And then, you know, these, you know, sure, there are random nutjobs who are around D.C.
on that day and then any other day.
And I don't think...
That's relevant to the ultimate question of whether it was a coup, whether it was an insurrection.
And as I said before, the stuff about Trump and the legal theory behind his, you know, multiple part plan, that could be an interesting discussion.
It's technically outside the scope of the debate.
But again, I would reiterate anyone who knows Trump, anyone who knows people who knows Trump,
A hundred percent certainty.
Trump genuinely believes that the election was stolen.
He had multiple legal advisors.
Many of his advisors were trying to sabotage him from day one.
Just because he was advised by one of these snakes doesn't mean that he therefore agrees with what they say.
He agreed with the people who told him it was stolen and that he had legal recourse to address that, which he implemented.
So there's nothing that rises to an insurrection or coup about that either, even though that's outside of the scope of our discussion for today.
So, uh, Cassidy Hutchison, uh, said that Trump said to Mark Meadows, I don't want people to know we lost.
It's embarrassing.
I would, I'm glad that you mentioned her because this gets to the televised sham.
Well, she was under oath.
Who under oath for Trump said, well, she changed her story a bunch.
She was under oath.
She was under oath.
So the thing here is that,
Listen, so the thing here is... Why is the January 6th committee destroying the transcript?
The January 6th committee called... 98% of their witnesses were Republicans.
It was kangaroo.
These people were under oath Republicans and they testified.
The people who didn't testify within the Trump circle, there were dozens who
5th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 5th Amendment.
They refuse to say a word.
So, you're going to tell me that the people that testified under oath are the liars, but the people that said things in the public, but failed to say anything under oath, are the ones that are telling the truth.
I wasn't just there on January 6th.
I was in that congressional hearing and took the 5th 98 times.
And not because I need to hide.
The Fifth Amendment isn't just to incriminate yourself.
It's because they wanted me in a perjury trap, and they were going to have witnesses claiming it wasn't true.
You think, I think, attacking the Capitol makes us win an election?
Yeah, witnesses against your, their testimony versus you can't get you in perjury.
They can't.
Oh yeah, just ask Roger Stone that question.
No, it doesn't happen that way.
How did Roger Stone, how did perjury get Roger Stone that way?
Roger Stone wasn't involved with WikiLeaks.
He worked here then.
He couldn't get a hold of him.
I knew he told the truth.
He didn't tell anybody, I'm behind the WikiLeaks.
They said Roger Stone ran WikiLeaks.
He never even talked to Julian Assange.
Just say he ran WikiLeaks.
Yeah, I mean, the January 6 hearings were a show trial of the sort that would make
Kim Jong-il, Blush.
Explain it to them.
They wouldn't let Republicans that they wanted under the law on the committee.
They wanted Jim Jordan, who was actually part of the investigation.
You're not allowed to have who you want on your side.
We pick who the people are on our jury.
Jim Jordan was being investigated by the committee.
You can't vote for Trump either.
They wanted a person on the committee who was being investigated by the committee.
How does that make sense?
Oh my God, when you're being investigated by the Democrats.
I think a lot of people watching don't understand.
Hey guys, guys, Alex.
The people that are listening don't have the context, so if we start rapid-fire argumentation, a lot of people are going to lose interest.
Does that matter?
We need to stay focused and listen to each other.
It's really important.
It is really hard.
I'm going to go take a piss and I'll let you tell people fairytales.
But what we're happening is, Darren is going to continue what you were saying about finishing up your thought, and then we're going to Glenn Greenwald.
Yeah, well, the thought was just about Ms.
Hutchinson, and she said a lot of things.
I believe she was the one who said that Trump reached over to the steering wheel and, you know, told the Secret Service this or that, which was a bizarre thing because the Secret Service agents in question weren't the ones that were called upon to testify under oath.
Some of them testified the same thing that Cassidy Hutchinson said.
No, the Secret Service actually said we would love to testify and they weren't allowed to.
The two Secret Service agents in question, that specific anecdote, were not allowed to testify.
So why would they take the second-hand report from Hutchinson when they could have interrogated directly the people who would have been direct witnesses to that?
Not those two specific agents, but why not?
Other agents in the car with Trump testified for the JSEC's committee.
I don't know why they would or wouldn't testify or have particular people testify, but other people in that car did.
No.
The two people!
The January 6th Committee, and that's what Alex was alluding to just a second ago, is one of the biggest shams in the history of Congress because what happened with the January 6th Committee was we had a long history of 225 years of tradition in the United States Congress where whatever investigative commissions would be created within the Congress, the minority leader and the majority leader would each select the members of that committee to ensure there was fair representation by both parties.
Nancy Pelosi
For the first time in the history of the United States, a Speaker of the House refused to allow the Republicans who were chosen for that committee by Kevin McCarthy, at the time the Republican Minority Leader, to be seated on the panel.
And as a result, the Republicans said, we're going to have nothing to do with this.
And the only quote-unquote Republicans that were chosen
We're good to go.
Was made available to the public except for very deceitfully chosen snippets by Adam Schiff and by Liz Cheney.
And it was only within the last several months that we saw all of the video footage and what it showed makes a joke of the idea that this was a coup.
You had people peacefully walking into the Capitol.
We're good.
You could make a much better case that the Black Lives Matter protest of 2020 was an insurrectionary movement.
And the reason it matters, Destiny, is because if you're going to make arguments, there has to be an important test, which is do you apply the same principles you're claiming to profess and believe in?
If you want to talk about applying the same standard, would you have been okay in the year 2000 if Gore refused to certify the vote because he didn't like what was happening in Florida?
A lot of Democrats were angry about that.
Because if you really believe that an election is stolen, as the Democrats claim they did, then it is kind of odd to say, we're just going to concede that and allow George Bush to march into power, even though we believe that he actually stole the election.
That is kind of an odd way to go about it.
No, it's not.
It's not all that odd.
We live in a democracy.
There are appropriate forums through which you can chattel.
Did they not chattel that out in the courts, though?
And they lost.
Okay, there you go.
Trump was battling it out in the court.
And he lost.
Once you lose, anything past that is vigilantism.
Vigilantism, directed at the government to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to entrench your own power, is an attempted coup.
That's what he tried to do.
That's not what Trump did, though.
He told them to be peaceful.
He told them, go and be peaceful.
We're not talking about the peaceful protesters.
And if he wanted them to be peaceful, he would have called in the National Guard as soon as they started rioting, but he didn't do that.
You're talking about his use of the legal process, of the congressional and judicial process.
He went and tested...
If he had ordered the military or some other FBI or any of those agencies, the CIA, to go and use violence on domestic soil in order to ignore those court rulings the way people do when they're trying to implement coups, you would have a good argument.
He didn't do any of that.
He invoked all of his legal rights in the judiciary and in the Congress.
He lost and he walked out of the White House on January 20th.
He did not have to be dragged out.
He wasn't arrested by the military, which is what happens in coups.
So much of this is because you only started paying attention to politics in 2016, you only live in the United States, you have no idea about history or anything that happens in other countries, you have no idea what a coup is!
This is a coup!
Glenn, you bring that up!
Glenn, you bring that up and you're trying to use Hawaii as an example for something that was comparable, where both slates of electors were actually duly elected by the people there, in the 60s!
Hawaii and South Carolina, these other historical examples that people go to from multiple slates of electors, are not at all comparable!
Both of these things happened prior to 2016.
There are no examples in U.S.
history, or if you want to give me one since you know so much history prior to 2016, give it to me, is there any other examples in U.S.
history where the president is telling the vice president to unilaterally not certify the vote?
Has that ever happened before?
That's a totally separate question from whether this is a coup.
No, that is what happened on January 6th.
It doesn't matter if it's the first time that it ever happened.
Even if it's the first time or the 10th time, it's still not a coup or an insurrection.
A coup or an insurrection is when you use violence and force in order to seize control of power outside of the legal process.
So a coup has to happen.
So if there's no violence, it can't be a coup.
Wasn't there violence?
I saw violence.
How much violence do you need?
25 grams.
How many officers were injured?
Is that enough violence for you?
140?
Well, here's a good question about staging a coup and emergent phenomenon, and if a crowd becomes violent, or if someone directs the crowd to become violent.
This is actually the next question on my list.
Do you guys think that Trump was responsible for this thing?
And before you answer, I want to play a couple of clips.
We have clip one and two.
These are from Trump's speeches on the day.
I think the first clip is before the violence kicked off.
Maybe we can play that first.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
We can't play into the hands of these people.
We have to have peace.
So go home.
We love you.
You're very special.
You've seen what happens.
You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil.
I know how you feel.
But go home, and go home in peace.
That second clip was from after the violence had become, and so he was kind of doing damage control, I think, at that point.
I just don't understand all of the insanely arbitrary caps that we're trying to create to try to say that it wasn't a coup.
Well, there was violence, but there wasn't enough.
There was a subversion of the democratic process, but it didn't end up working.
Like, if the plan would have gone as Donald Trump wanted it to have gone,
Which is Vice President Pence unilaterally tossing out the Electoral College vote, and if Donald Trump would have retained power past when he was supposed to lose it, what is that if not a coup?
What would you call that?
No one ordered those people, the few hundred that actually fought police to do that.
That's great.
What would you call that though?
If it would have happened, no one said Trump's been charged with insurrection or inciting a riot.
But we can't vote for him because they say he's guilty.
What would you call it if Pence would have unilaterally thrown out the vote and Trump would have held onto power for some weeks?
Trump was calling for a 10-day Senate investigation.
That's why we were there.
What would have happened if Pence would have thrown out the vote?
That's great.
That's a hypothetical.
Trump wanted a 10-day investigation.
No, but he also wanted Pence to throw out the vote.
Yeah, what would have happened?
And we're pushing for that.
What would you have called that?
Yeah, what would we have called that?
Can I get a name for that?
If you don't want to call it a coup or an insurrection, what would you call that?
Well, I'd call it taking Trump off the ballot and saying we can't vote for him.
I know you won't answer because you probably know he's guilty.
That's fine.
What about you, Glenn?
Glenn, what would you call it if the president was able to entrench his power by asking his vice president to throw out the vote unilaterally, which is what he was trying to do?
Do you want to deny the facts?
Do you want to deny that it's a coup?
What part?
A coup.
You're lucky it wasn't a real coup.
That shows the weakness of the argument, but if that had happened, my guess is it would have ended up in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would have made the decision about whether Mike Pence exercised his proper authority as Vice President, and then Donald Trump, if he had run out of options, would have left the White House on January 20th without any need for military force or police force, exactly how he did, and I would have called that the exhaustion of all of the legal remedies available to the President in the event that he takes on the election.
Exactly, and therefore it would have been just the way
The Bush v. Gore thing played out.
Exhausting your legal options, getting up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court makes the determination.
If both of you accept that then, then if the Supreme Court says that because of Amendment 14, Section 3, Trump can't be on the ballot, you would both accept that as well?
I wouldn't, but I think that would be authoritative.
Why would that be authoritative?
But Donald Trump, one man, centralizing power among himself to remain in power, that's not authoritative.
He didn't do that!
That's what he tried to do!
That is what happened!
I know you only read tweets and headlines, Glenn, but believe it or not, that's actually what happened.
That was our goal, was a 10-day Senate investigation into the Constitution.
That's not what was happening behind the scenes, though.
There's testimony from the lawyers involved.
They were war-gaming everything.
Exactly.
And they're shutting down everything.
The assistant AG, the assistant deputy AG, all of his legal counsel, all of his state senators, all of the congressmen.
If I could talk over you, I'd be way better than you.
That's what you've been doing the whole time.
Don't, don't, no.
You're doing it, and then I dominate, and you can't handle it.
Okay.
He didn't do that and he left is the point and that's the reality and now they say we can't vote for him even though we all know Biden's gonna win by 10 million votes.
That's why we call it an attempted coup and not an actual successful coup.
Alex, do you think that Trump was responsible for this thing on January 6th?
100% not.
He'd had hundreds of rallies around the country.
Five or six that we were part of in the months before this.
And we had the space.
We had, here's the Capitol, right up above the Supreme Court on the Capitol grounds.
We had a stage.
And then we get there, and it's bedlam.
And so, no, Trump didn't think attacking the Capitol would make him look good.
That's why he came out and said that, don't do this and go home.
Why didn't he call them off immediately if he thought it didn't make him look good?
It was happening while he was giving a speech.
Wrong.
The reason why he didn't call them off is because Kim, Giuliani, and Eastman were making phone calls to other senators and congressmen asking them to decertify the electoral vote.
No, no, no.
You were there but you weren't.
Do you acknowledge that that happened or do you not acknowledge it?
Hold on, hold on.
We're talking about the crowd.
I don't care about the crowd.
I'm saying that as the right was raging on and he was sitting there sipping his Diet Coke, if this really made him and his followers look bad, why didn't Donald Trump make a video immediately?
Yeah, I'm about to do it, because I can talk over you really easily.
That's what you've been doing the whole time.
No, no, no, you're doing it.
I look forward to you dodging the question again.
You're doing it, you're doing it, you're doing it.
No, you.
So, no, you.
You.
No, you.
You.
Both of you.
You.
No, you.
Keep doing it.
He doesn't like you.
Trump
While he was speaking, I was getting text messages, violence in the Capitol, and I left to try to go stop it.
And when I got there, he was still speaking.
So this thing where you guys say, the attack started at this time, and Trump did nothing this time, he's speaking while it happens for hours.
He then goes to the White House, tries to figure out what's going on, and puts a statement out against it.
And he said,
In the middle of a speech, off a teleprompter, go be peaceful.
That's what he said.
He also said fight like hell.
If we don't fight like hell, we're not going to have a country.
What did Rudy Giuliani say?
He said let's have trial by combat.
That's a legal term.
Maxine Waters said go attack Republicans in restaurants.
Grocery stores.
With her it wasn't hyperbole.
Trump never said, Trump never supported political violence.
Trump never told people to be goons.
The lefts would burn down half the country.
Everybody knows that.
Everybody knows it's Biden's erase the border.
Everybody knows all this.
You're sitting there claiming this was, do you agree this was big as Pearl Harbor?
What are you comparing it to?
As big as Pearl Harbor in what way?
Bombing?
People dead?
No.
Maybe a blemish on our democracy?
I'd say it was very close.
Let me ask you this.
If they bring in, which they've done, 10 million illegal aliens in the last three years, and then that gives them, with the congressional seats and the census, more Democrat seats in the Congress, is that not... Undocumented aliens, undocumented immigrants are not voting.
They are counting?
No, they are not.
They're counting the census!
But they're not voting.
They're counted in the census.
They're not voting.
So then they get more Democrat districts.
Can we backtrack really fast?
Oh my God.
So let's backtrack.
Ladies and gentlemen, they're already pulling elections with the illegals.
They get more congressional districts.
Let's backtrack to January 6th.
Yeah, I do want to go back.
Can we go back to January 6th?
Okay, so you play those clips.
Oh, you always want to get off of it because it was an insurrection.
No, because I came here to debate January 6th, not immigration.
And then as soon as I bring up the real insurrection, you can't handle it.
I'm not here to debate immigration.
Yeah, talk to me, Brian.
Okay, so why don't we ask the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, the ones who were actually indicted and convicted of seditious conspiracy.
Why they did it.
Oh, you know, they told us.
Yeah, they did tell us.
Let Brian finish and then you can come back at me.
Joe Biggs, he said, I did it because this is where Trump wanted me.
They wanted, he wanted me to do this.
Stuart Rhodes, Oath Keepers, same thing.
I did it for Trump.
Multiple Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, they all said, I was here because of Trump.
I went into the Capitol.
I took the Capitol because that's what Trump wanted.
So did Trump, was Trump responsible?
Ask them.
Ask the people that are serving 20 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.
I'd like to respond to that now.
I know Stuart Rhodes well.
I know Joe Biggs well.
He used to work here.
And they have never said Trump told them to go into the Capitol.
They have never said they did it because he asked them to.
That is not a true statement.
That is a true statement.
They have their quotes right here.
Joe Biggs shook a fence.
Shook a fence.
Stuart Rhodes said he never told anybody to go in the Capitol, and never went in the Capitol, and you just said they said that Trump told them!
Multiple Proud Boys said they were in the Capitol because that's what Trump wanted.
Trump wanted them.
Oh, you're reading a Jack Smith federal filing?
Next we'll talk about the men's limousines.
No, I'm going, Jack Smith didn't indict the Proud Boys.
They have messages between the group.
They have the actual... No, I know all about it.
Yes, they have them.
Are you saying these are fabricated?
No, no, read me the quotes.
Yeah, read those quotes.
I mean, we were here to storm the Capitol.
We were here because of Trump.
I mean, there's... That's pretty different.
What's the best quote you have?
This is a red herring.
They're not saying that Donald Trump personally communicated to them to go to the Capitol.
What they're saying is the reason why they were there, which I think over 147 convicted people have thus far in their convictions, have said the reason why they were there is because Trump called them to go there.
Not personally.
You know how many of those people cited Ray Epps as the reason why they were in the Capitol?
Take a guess.
In both Proud Boys and Both Keepers cases, the Fed said there was no direct conspiracy.
No one is talking about that.
But they went on to say now it's a new conspiracy where it's not written or said, they just imagined it.
I want to be clear.
What is your contention with this?
Give me the quote and then what your contention is in relation to the quote.
Like Destiny said, there are 140 convictions, where the people convicted said, I was there because of Trump.
Trump called us to do this.
And when I say called us, I don't mean called him on the phone and said... Let's assume for the sake of argument that that's true.
What is your conclusion from that?
That Trump helped incite this... Well, just because they thought they were helping Trump, that doesn't mean that Trump told them to do that.
Let's look at the actions... It's like, wait, wait, Alex.
It's like saying, you know,
Charles Manson presumably thought Helter Skelter was, you know, telling him to kill...
So is that the argument there?
Trump is essentially Helter Skelter and he's telling these Proud Boys that you need to go and storm the Capitol?
Doesn't Mob Boss tell his peons, go kill this guy, or do they use other language?
Well, what's the language that he used that you think is criminal?
The ideas that Trump discussed was that the election was being stolen from you.
Okay, so that's criminal?
I never said that was criminal.
He's not being indicted for that speech.
You're asking why are the people at the White House.
All of the Trump's indictments and charges for January 6th are not focused on the people at the White House.
No, I understand.
So what's the point of argument there?
That Trump...
The question was just why are the people there-
He laid out, very precisely, exactly what he believed had happened.
He thought that the vote was being stolen, that our country was being taken from us.
Not believed, what he wanted others to believe.
That Congress wasn't acting, that Mike Pence was supposed to be the guy to do it, but he hadn't heard good things about them, and they needed to go down to the Capitol building to protest.
To protest what?
To protest nobody is saying that you're repeating the same thing.
You're like a broken record.
You're a broken record.
No, no, I'm not a broken record.
Trump has every right
You're trying to shut me down.
Listen, here's the bottom line.
Trump's not been charged with insurrection.
No one said he was.
Trump didn't, but you're saying people can't vote for him.
No, I'm not saying that.
That's up to the Supreme Court.
Do you support- No one here is talking about- Do you support Colorado and Maine taking him off the ballot?
That's up to the Supreme Court.
No, you punt.
Do you think it's good for the opposing party, when a guy's way ahead in the polls, to remove someone from the ballot?
It's not about him being ahead in the polls or not, it's about whether or not he engaged in insurrection, and if the self-executing part of the 14th Amendment allows states to remove him from the ballot.
So, where's the, where's the, where's the conviction?
Where's Trump found guilty of intrusion?
You don't need a conviction for the 14th Amendment!
Alex, read it!
Can we bring the 14th Amendment up on you?
You're misrepresenting that, and it doesn't matter, because we have a right to vote for who we want, right?
No, you don't!
Within reason, there are rules and restrictions.
You can't vote for somebody under 35 years old!
You can't vote for somebody that's not a U.S.
It looked like you wanted to chime in, Glenn.
citizen!
But he's unpopular, though!
He lost!
Well, we can't vote for him now!
If you think it's so bad that courts are kicking him off the ballot, what do you think about Trump doing the birtherism card for Obama for how many years?
That was the first big political thing he was known for, was challenging whether Obama was even born in the United States in an attempt to get him kicked off the ballot!
You know why?
I don't know.
I can play the clips of Obama and his wife saying he was born in Kenya.
I don't believe he was born in Kenya.
He was born in Hawaii.
If Trump can say whatever he wants, that's not what's getting him removed from the ballot.
Glenn, Glenn, he's a loser!
You know, you can vote for him.
You can write him in if you want.
You can vote for him.
You can.
You can write him in.
But the 14th Amendment says he can't hold office if he incited...
Violating insurrectionary buildings during the Civil War.
I have a question.
Nobody.
And that was an insurrection.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to my house for a moment.
Hello, hi, I'm Ian Crossland and I'm moderating this awesome debate.
Glenn Greenwald is about to speak.
I want to hear what he has to say.
He's been waiting patiently for about one minute.
Glenn, what's happening?
So, first of all, on the issue of the ballots, there have been split decisions on this, and even Democratic judges in Colorado and then the Democratic, very partisan, Secretary of State in Rhode Island, as well as in California, have all said they don't think it's appropriate to remove Trump from the ballot because he has not yet been charged with, let alone convicted of, insurrection.
Thanks, yeah.
So I want to be very deferential to Destiny's incredible achievements in constitutional scholarship, but there are actually a lot of even Democratic Party elected officials who are saying, as well as
Judges of the Colorado Supreme Court who are appointed by Democratic Party governors who are saying that you cannot actually remove somebody because to remove them from the ballot is to punish them for a crime, insurrection, that Trump has never been charged with and therefore has never had the opportunity to defend himself the way a criminal does.
Wait, which case was that?
Wait, why are you citing the dissent?
No, no, no, Glenn, that's... Why are you citing the dissent?
Why are you citing the dissent and you're calling it a losing case?
Like, it proves your point.
No, also, also, that's what I thought.
He just knows the people are dumb.
Let it continue.
No one's ever been taken off the ballot without being convicted.
The Secretaries of State of California and Rhode Island have also said the same thing, but it's true.
The Supreme Court will decide.
I'm very confident they'll decide Trump can remain on the ballot, and then that will resolve that issue.
The question I have, I have a few questions quickly.
One is, why didn't anybody like Jack Smith charge Trump with engaging in an insurrection?
Was engaged in insurrection or inciting an insurrection, you would hope, I would think, that he would be charged with that.
I don't think he was, so I'm happy he wasn't.
But for those of you thinking he was, why wasn't he charged with it?
And then the second one is, I just want to know, given that the 2020 riots did have a lot of people in there who were non-violent and were there not for insurrectionary reasons, but had a lot of people who were anarchists and insurrectionists and who engaged in a lot of violence, a lot more than was done on January 6th,
Do you also think that the riots of 2020 constituted an insurrection?
I'm just trying to understand to get a sense for what your definition of insurrection is.
Glenn, do you think that the 1992 riots... Can you just answer what I asked?
I asked two questions.
Can you just answer that?
I can give answers too.
I don't think that Black Lives Matter was an insurrection.
I do think 1992 riots in LA was an insurrection.
George Herbert, Walker Bush...
Black, that made it not an insurrection.
What did it lack?
So it was a protest and the violence was when the police clashed with the protesters.
The violence was not against the government in order to stop the government from doing something.
There weren't anti-fascist and anarchist groups there that explicitly say they were using violence to overthrow the government.
That didn't happen.
They were firebombing federal courthouses!
God, that's not true!
The bombs on the courthouses, there's nobody, it was at night time, there's nobody in there.
They were not obstructing anything.
The firefighters got excited!
Arson's a serious crime!
They were not there to obstruct an official proceeding of a government.
I just burned down a courthouse!
I want to ask Glenn, do you think 1992 was an insurrection?
You didn't answer Glenn's question!
I just did answer it!
I just answered it!
Alex, I did answer it.
I specifically answered it.
Glenn, please.
But I mean, I think the 1992 riots, I think I recall at the time thinking the Insurrection Act was inappropriately invoked.
I'd have to go back and really study the 1992 riots to see the extent of the violence.
But I do think that you're asking that indicates why the 2020 riots are way closer to an insurrection than anything happened after the 2020 election.
And the reason you're afraid to say that it is an insurrection is purely for ideological and partisan ends.
No, that's not true.
There's riots, there's riots every week in America.
The Democrats were saying the Black Lives Matter riots were good, and bailed out.
The Democrats were saying be violent every week.
Everybody get the clubs, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in, get in,
I want to let Stephen finish this off.
When we're talking about an insurrection, I think all three of us here would agree that if there was a congressional session or a state legislative session and people were voting on it and BLM rioters went up and they tried to firebomb the house to stop the vote, I think all of us would agree that's an insurrection.
But you guys, you guys, you guys, you guys, hello, oh my god, I almost finished a sentence.
Are you okay?
Way more violent stomach capitals than Trump people.
You keep bringing back the amount of violence.
The amount of violence isn't relevant.
All of us here agree that, obviously, over the entire course of the BLM riots, over the course of the BLM riots, there was lots of violence.
I think everybody on this side of the table is okay with charging and convicting anybody that was guilty of a violent act.
However, violence, no matter how much, does not make an insurrection.
It's the obstruction or rebellion against the United States for the Jack Smith obstruction charge obstructing an official process like certifying the vote.
We're going to go to Darren now.
Let me ask.
Let me ask.
So first of all, it wasn't just violence.
Aspects of the BLM uprisings that involved, at one point, Trump was forced to go into a secure bunker in the White House.
They broke through the Treasury.
He called in the National Guard then.
I have a question.
I have a question about the 14th Amendment for destiny or anyone.
So let's assume that it doesn't require a conviction.
In your view,
Who is most appropriate to make that determination?
The answer, the real answer is it's hard to tell.
Personally, I don't like the way the 14th Amendment Section 3 is written.
I've got a lot of friends who'll hate me for saying that.
And I think that the Supreme Court probably will rule against it.
Because the problem with the 14th Amendment is the self-executing part of it means basically anybody involved in that balloting process of putting them on the ballot could make that determination.
So you basically agree it has to go up to the Supreme Court and be decided before he can be justly removed from office?
The Declaration of Independence, and you want to talk about insurrection, I want to fix this peacefully.
Let me say this.
But I have a right, not from the Declaration of Independence, it already points out what's there, to abolish a government when the majority of us agree we're done with it.
So and you got all these movies about civil war the Democrats are putting out Obama's putting out you guys better Hope that doesn't happen We're trying to fix this peacefully, but this is a load of crap to claim that Republicans and conservatives are this super viral evil white supremacist terror group they're planning crap no one's buying that and conservatives and populists and America first or see how we're being set up and
You stay set up, but Donald Trump is the one setting you up.
Well, this is my question.
Trump said be peaceful and go to the Capitol.
We're going to have a 10-day Senate investigation.
I was there.
Did Trump have his people?
Were you there?
There's a million hours of footage.
Trump had seven different states create seven false sets of electors that perjured themselves.
I know this.
And they shipped all of those to Congress.
When I try to have people that I know put clips of me saying don't go on the Capitol, they would take them down.
Or we show clips of people pulling off their Antifa gear, putting on Trump gear.
Where's the video footage of all the Antifa gear?
Oh my God!
How many Antifa were arrested and charged?
Yeah.
You guys are talking pretty, pretty candidly about me.
You know we're not playing clubs tonight.
Why didn't Trump call in the National Guard as soon as the ride started if Antifa was there?
He asked for 10,000 National Guard a month before.
No, he didn't.
He mentioned it two days before.
Why didn't he call them in that night?
Why didn't he call them in?
Call in the National Guard.
Look, there's Antifa.
He would have ended it in 20 minutes.
So that's another myth that he had the National Guard on standby.
Kash Patel said that.
No, he asked for it.
Let me finish.
Kash Patel said that, Trump asked for it.
That's the source of that.
Kash Patel and Donald Trump, after the fact, claimed that they had the National Guard on standby.
Neither of them testified to that under oath.
Do you know who did?
The Secretary of State, Chris... Department of Defense.
Yeah, Secretary of Defense.
Christopher Miller, testify.
Trump didn't have it on standby.
He asked for it and was refused by Milley.
I could pull up, watch the post-op.
He was refused?
No, Milley specifically said that's not true.
Oh, Milley?
Was that between his phone calls with Xi Jinping?
And the Secretary of Defense, a man who he would have to call to call in the National Guard.
The Secretary of Defense specifically said under oath that Trump never did that.
Under oath!
Did Trump- Under oath!
Under oath!
They tell people two men can have a baby.
Can two men have a baby?
Why do you- Can two men have a baby?
I thought this was January 6th.
No, no, stop, stop.
Alex, stop.
Alex, let me ask you a question.
You're criticizing me for quoting somebody under oath.
What is your source?
If I have- I'm quoting somebody that said something under the penalty of perjury.
Your source is-
You just know it?
That Donald Trump said it to the public?
No, we're live on air here just like when this guy said that, oh, you know, you're claiming this was done.
You don't have proof.
Those clips are all there.
Everyone's going to pull those up.
They're going to see them.
So there's clips of Donald Trump calling in the National Guard?
No, no, I'm talking about the last point.
You didn't answer my question.
No, no, I remember the articles.
You didn't answer my question.
You're not listening.
You didn't answer my question.
You want my answer?
Yeah, I do.
When Trump got firebombed and the White House got attacked, he called for the National Guard and Milley said, I'll resign if he doesn't.
He then asked the head jurisdiction, which was actually General Flynn's brother, for 10,000 troops and it was in the news.
I don't have a computer in front of me.
January 6th, January 5th.
No, no, he asked two weeks before that they wanted- It wasn't in the news.
Okay, well, boom, gotcha!
Everybody get it!
Bill, show it!
Go ahead!
I'm on air right now!
He requested- I don't have a computer!
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Tell me what you're telling me.
You're just hoping, listen, they're gonna get you.
Tell me what you're telling me, that he requested 10 days- No, no, watch X Tomorrow.
Is that what you're telling me?
Listen to me carefully.
Watch X Tomorrow.
Okay.
And it's going to be General Flynn making this claim?
You'll have 5 million views, and it'll be you, and it'll be all the news articles where Milley says he'll resign if Trump's National Guard, and then they did it again, and then General Flynn's brother... That wasn't for January 5th, that was the Rockingham City protests.
I know, I know, I know.
That's where it begins.
And he asked again, and they also... Yeah, it's all there.
Okay, but you're making the claim that Trump had... No, you say, show it!
I'm here, I'm here!
Why would Trump care if Milley would resign after all the deep state?
If they're all part of the swamp, why wouldn't he just do it anyway if that's what's right?
Trump is the ultimate sort of one that asks you, you're not going to answer that question either.
What's going to happen is they're all going to get it.
And that's the whole, they're all gonna show it, and then we'll see.
Yeah, this is making me think about media manipulation in general, and how sometimes you see things, sometimes you don't, sometimes things are real, sometimes they're not, and it leads me to my next question, general for everybody.
And by the way, all six of you are doing phenomenally, especially you, Glenn, killing it from Brazil, my man.
Would you guys think this election was stolen?
Absolutely not.
As Professor Epstein and others have said, they do it way before suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop, giving you 96% Google Democrat links.
I mean, it's all the stealing's done before in the algorithm and the censorship of the control.
I remember five years ago when I was being deplatformed, they were denying I was being deplatformed and saying there was no censorship.
Now we know from the weaponization hearings that all this is going on and now they're telling us you can't vote for him because he said we won't let you vote for him.
Why is it, if the election was being stolen, why did every single person that Donald Trump trusted to investigate come back and say there was no evidence?
It wasn't every single one.
It was not a whole bunch of his lawyers.
Most of his legal counsel said that the few that he had an affair with were crazy.
You just went in two seconds from everyone to most.
I said everyone that he trusted.
Every single person that Donald Trump trusted to investigate, meaning the Vice President, the Department of Justice, the Cyber Security Division of the Department of Homeland Security, all of his White House counsel, every- I know how it works, I know, you're farming TikTok clips, okay?
That's what we're doing right now.
But the reality is, is almost every single person that he asked to investigate
Two minutes ago you said all of them, now it's almost.
He didn't ask Sidney Powell for her to go and investigate.
She brought cockamamie schemes to him and he said, oh, maybe these are okay.
Which, by the way, he also said she was crazy.
You just said all wouldn't say there was fraud.
Now most... Get the full quote, kind of like you're missing the rest of the 14th Amendment there.
Get everything I'm saying.
I know that context hurts people like you.
You live and you breathe 10 second clips.
Anything longer than that destroys everything you're trying to claim.
No, no, no.
They got you again.
You just said all his lawyers told him he lost and we're going to show you the majority saying he won.
Alex, tell us specifically which lawyers said he actually won.
Gotcha!
Besides Eastman, Powell and Giuliani.
Who is on his team here planning widespread election fraud?
Look, we're live on air.
I know we're live on air.
We're going to get you.
Let's ask Glenn.
What do you think, Glenn?
Do you think this thing was stolen?
I think the election was rigged.
I don't, I'm not somebody who thinks the election, that there's evidence conclusive that the election was stolen.
I do think we should be a lot more attentive to when election processes get changed out of the blue.
Like, oh, because there's COVID, we're going to have a ton of new conventions for how we do mail-in ballots.
I think there's a lot of potential for fraud there.
I don't think there's evidence that I've seen, at least, that's conclusive that
Is this fake?
No, I'm not somebody who thinks there's evidence that it was stolen.
Well, how would you define the difference between rigging it and stealing it?
Rigging it is when institutions of authority cheat or act corruptly in order to manipulate public opinion to prevent stories from getting to them like those news stories about Joe Biden and the way that he exploited his family connections in Ukraine and China to profit for his family and lying about it and saying that it's Russian disinformation.
We're good.
Dumping ballots that were legitimately cast or fabricating ballots in favor of one candidate or the other that actually weren't cast, manipulating the machines in order to have the loser be the winner.
That's what I would distinguish between rigging and stealing.
Do you think that Donald Trump asking Jeffrey Clark to go and threaten the DOJ that if they don't sign on to a false letter trying to bully states into claiming there was mass election fraud by claiming the DOJ had actually done something when they hadn't?
That was testified to under oath.
Do you think that would be considered an act of corruption?
The whole point is, if Trump legitimately believed that the election was stolen, as Democrats believed in 2000, 2004, 2016... This is right.
No, that's not right.
It's not answering the question.
I'm answering the question.
I just can't do it in seven questions.
If Trump believed genuinely that the election was stolen, then all of those steps that he undertook to try and present to Congress the way to alleviate the stolen election, to have courts reverse the stolen election, to have Mike Pence exercise what he thought was his constitutional authority,
Might have been wrongful, but they weren't illegal, and they most definitely weren't a coup.
If he thought that the election was stolen, he was allowed to tell the DOJ that they needed to sign on to a false letter claiming they'd found election fraud?
Otherwise, he would replace Rosen with Clark?
That was something he was allowed to do?
False letter.
All this stuff's crap.
The DOJ hadn't found anything, so the DOJ attesting that they had found something wouldn't be false.
That's right.
I know.
In this world, we need evidence, Alex.
I'm sorry.
Oh, evidence.
It's evidence for evidence, yeah.
I know.
So, so... Did Truman have a baby?
Isn't there a sitcom called Two Minute Baby?
Yeah, it's a great movie.
Oh shit, I'm sorry, my bad.
No, but I mean, we were sitting here, like, guys, they said it was worse than Pearl Harbor in 9-11.
Like Glenn says, this is... Alex, you pointed out, oh, that the votes, they went up way at night, they went up way high, Trump was winning and all of a sudden Biden pulled ahead at like
Red Mirage!
For months, before the election, he kept saying, mail-in ballots are rigged.
Don't vote by mail.
So, do you think that Republicans are gonna vote by mail if Trump says not to?
So, Republicans... But that's chicken and the egg!
Let me finish!
No, let me finish, and then you can.
Republicans didn't vote by mail because Trump said, I don't... it's not safe.
Democrats voted by mail.
Mail-in votes were counted at the tail end of the vote count, as they always are.
So what happens?
So Trump pulls ahead early in the night, just like everybody said was going to happen if you were paying attention.
They start counting the mail-in votes.
Biden's moving up.
They start counting more mail-in votes in these states that are in the big cities, which are primarily Democrats.
What happens?
Biden pulls way ahead in the big cities, just like everybody that was paying attention would have known.
That's why they had to, all over the, block the windows out, kick everybody out, claim water mains broke, let me talk, let me talk, and then magically, on the surveillance cameras, just keep loading the machines over and over again, but let's, you're right, let's stop.
You're right, no, no, I agree with you.
Trump actually lost, so why are you so scared to let him run again?
I'm not scared to let him run.
So you support him being on the ballot?
I support whatever the Supreme Court says because I think they should define what insurrection is.
I think that's fair.
I'm not saying I'm on either side.
But let's go back to the pulling out votes or tabulating votes multiple times.
Did you actually watch more than the 14 second clip that Giuliani put out there where they
Purportedly pulled out ballots from under the table.
Let me ask you a question.
No, no, no.
Why in Michigan and Georgia did they block the windows?
No, no, no.
No, no, no.
No, no, let me ask you a question.
Why?
Ask them.
I don't know why.
Why did they say a water main broke and later admitted it didn't?
Ask them.
These all went to court.
These all, all these were, why are they in court?
Let me stop you.
You guys, hold on, stop.
Let me stop you.
No, no, no.
Can I say one thing?
I'll give you the floor.
I'll give you the floor.
Let me say one thing.
Go ahead, go ahead.
I was found guilty by two judges in Texas and Connecticut, and then they had a jury trial on how much damage is.
Trump, they changed the law, has a judge who said at the beginning of the real estate hearing, he's guilty.
And then Letitia James said in a video, we've already found him guilty.
She was so dumb she said it.
We already found him guilty.
He's guilty.
And then Trump doesn't get a jury trial in New York.
So you're pointing to the judiciary and the corrupt lawyers that have run this country down the ground.
So who are you pointing to?
Wasn't that because his lawyer didn't check the jury trial?
January 6th, what an insurrection.
Also, the videos that you're referring to, the running them multiple times... And we're not going to get the Democrats no violence.
And we're not going to get the Democrats no violence they want in 2024.
But let me tell you, you guys keep looking for one.
Once you guys start the fight and launch martial law, you're going to actually get the real thing.
And then you'll know what it is.
Alex, how long have you been calling for martial law?
How many decades now?
Also, all the examples you're bringing up have literally been- Oh, the COVID lockdowns were martial law!
Oh my god, and they didn't last forever, like you guys- Guys, we shut their ass down!
No, you didn't shut down anything.
We beat their fucking ass!
No, the Supreme Court ruled against Biden- Biden won the election and it stopped.
Biden won the election and it stopped, so you shut them down?
Who told you?
Are you part of Biden now?
Let me ask you a question.
Is, uh, is, uh...
No, wait, why are we getting caught about the Georgia stuff?
Is Rachel Maddow right?
Why are we talking about COVID right now?
No, he brought it up.
If Biden, is Biden right?
You take the shot, you're protected.
Is that true?
I think what Biden did, I think what Biden did was, here's what Biden did for the shot, okay?
What happened was, Rappensperger and everybody in Georgia looked over all the tapes you're claiming about, but the ballots being ran three times, not only was that information false, Trump was told that it was false, Trump knew that it was false, Trump repeated it over and over again, including in a call to Rappensperger, and for
Finally, Giuliani has come out saying that it was false, but it was his First Amendment right to lie about it when Ruby Freeman took him to court for defamation because he lied about something you could clearly see on video evidence.
Okay, well this is a question, Darren, firstly, do you think, if you want to talk about it, do you think the election was rigged or stolen, but also is it protected speech to question an election and claim that it was stolen?
Of course it is!
So then you agree that Trump was wrong when he said it was a stolen election?
Well, it depends what specific claim he's using.
It's a definitional one.
Let's say when Trump kept pushing that Dominion, that Dominion was switching votes and it calls him Georgia.
That, I don't believe in the Dominion stuff.
Yeah, I don't either.
It was a lie.
Trump was lying about it.
He was lying about it.
He was lying.
But see, we're going to have to be honest here.
The point is, is that the State Department runs around the world looking at everybody else's elections, and the number one thing you get sanctions for is taking a candidate off the ballot.
And that's what Democrats are doing right now, and America sees that.
The Democrats are not doing it.
That's going to go to the courts.
Republicans actually filed a suit in court.
It's not the Democrat Supreme Court of Colorado.
It's not the Democrat Secretary of State in Maine.
You just said the Democrats aren't doing it!
They are doing it!
Alex, in Colorado.
Goddamn, that's a lie.
Alex, in Colorado, who filed a suit?
Six people.
How many of them are Democrats?
What is this?
Democrats?
No, no.
How many were Democrats out of six?
How many?
I don't know.
Liz Cheney's a Republican.
How many were Republicans who filed the suit?
I don't know.
Five of the six people that filed the suit in Colorado to get Trump off the ballot were Republicans!
Liz Cheney's a Republican.
So stop saying Democrats!
Democrats don't want Trump off the ballot!
Glenn's actually responding.
Poor shit!
That's not what happened.
What happened is the only people who have standing in Colorado to bring a suit are people who can vote in the Republican primaries, which means either Republican voters or independent voters.
Although the suit was brought in their name, the lawsuit was spearheaded and was paid for and was organized by a Democratic Party-aligned group called CRU that boasted of this and took credit for it.
So yes, the suit was brought in their name.
Yeah, Glenn, we had some audio feedback, Glenn, if you can hear us.
We're going to request the... We had some buzzing, Glenn.
I want to make sure that everything you said is clearly heard.
So we're going to fix that and then get back to you.
Glenn, go ahead and talk again.
Let's go back.
Let's try it out.
Yeah.
Anyway, I don't know how much of that you heard, but what I was saying was that in Colorado, in order to have standing... Hey, Glenn, stay there.
We're going to have to reconnect with you.
I want to hear this.
So I can say what he's saying.
He's saying that it was brought by a Democratic institution, but they needed Republicans.
Not just a Democrat institution, it's a notorious lawfare outfit.
But how many Democratic states said, okay, he can stay on the ballot?
So they don't just say like every Democrat just wants you to throw Trump off the ballot.
You're right, the Democrats don't want him off the ballot.
If you were to ask me, I would say let the voters decide.
I think other candidates would have a better shot than Trump to beat Biden.
I honestly do.
Well, who?
I think Nikki Haley.
There's no way she would get the nomination.
World War 3 Bird Bites.
I think she would defeat Biden.
I really do.
We actually have a tweet from Vivek Ramaswamy claiming that the, what did he call it?
He called it a happy entrapment day, talking about January 6th.
Do you guys think that it was an entrapment?
By 100%, Donald Trump entrapped all those poor people to be there.
100%.
That's why I told him to be peaceful.
That's why I said don't be peaceful.
We want a 10-day investigation.
That's why I said be peaceful.
Because Trump is always calling for supporters.
He also called for them to fight like hell and Giuliani says that's a trial by... Fight like hell means for our freedom and our vote and our country.
Okay, and people can say things that they don't mean in order to escape.
Hey, when you go to a high school football game, a pep rally, and then the cheerleaders go, fight, fight, fight, fight!
Trial by combat?
That doesn't mean anything either?
That's a legal term.
I think the thing that's most instructive, the things that's most instructive to see what Donald Trump wanted to happen that day is that when he sat down and he watched the violence unfolding on TV, when he saw the people fighting with cops, when he saw, when he got notification that Ashley Babbitt had been shot, Donald Trump did not take steps to stop the violence that day.
Instead, him and Giuliani made phone calls to senators and congressmen trying to get them to stall the vote.
What do you guys think ethically about people in politics telling people to go fight?
Do you find it to be misleading?
Look, we're not a neutered population.
I mean, I have Democrats, during the impeachment for this, they shut it down when finally Trump put a five minute video on of Democrats saying, attack them at grocery stores, attack them at gas stations, attack!
We need civil insurrection!
What do we think about the term battleground state?
Nobody is upset because Donald Trump said fight like hell.
People are upset because for months or years, really even in 2016, Donald Trump has consistently attacked and undermined the electoral process with absolutely no good reason.
He was a Russian agent and set the deep state on him for the four years of his administration.
Is there any evidence Trump's a Russian agent?
No, but that's why he wasn't convicted or charged with any crimes for it.
No, but they were the ones saying that the American voters were manipulated by the Russians.
Wait, wait.
Was he charged?
Alex, was he charged with a crime for that?
They tried.
Hillary is currently saying Trump is going to steal the election.
Why is Hillary saying Trump is going to steal the election?
Why is Hillary saying Trump is going to steal the election?
Why is Hillary saying Trump is going to steal the election?
Why is Hillary saying Trump is going to steal the election?
Why is Hillary saying Trump is going to steal the election?
I'm about to stand up, just so you know, and that would be good TV.
But I'm not gonna do it.
Well, he won't stop!
I can't even finish this statement!
I will dominate!
What we need to do... And you don't answer questions!
Guys, what we need to do... No, I do answer questions!
Listen to me for a moment!
We are!
That we don't speak over each other.
What we do is we listen to each other, take turns.
It becomes way better.
Is it okay that Hillary is on TV this week, three times I saw, saying Trump's going to steal the election?
Why is she allowed to?
Rent free in your head right now.
The problem with Trump's speech... Why should Democrats say it, but Republicans can?
You keep trying to change the subject.
Hillary shouldn't be saying that.
I agree.
Hillary shouldn't be saying that.
Who is she?
She's a private citizen.
But I think you're allowed to say people are in a still election, whether you're right or wrong.
That's why Trump isn't being charged for it.
Trump, you said it yourself, he's not being charged with incitement, he's not being charged with insurrection.
That has nothing to do with him saying a particular thing.
Did Joe Biden try to get the votes certified for Hillary Clinton?
Did Hillary Clinton try to force Joe Biden in 2016 to certify the electoral votes?
No, because I think the landslide was so big.
The Lance... Biden had a pretty big... Wait, hold on, what do you mean the Lance?
Didn't Hillary win the popular vote?
Hillary won the popular vote.
Biden won by more than... So Trump didn't win the 2016 election.
What?
Trump didn't win.
No, which one?
He didn't win the popular vote.
2016.
With Russian help, right?
He didn't win the popular vote.
I, from the evidence I've seen, he had a huge landslide.
They tried to steal it with illegal alien voters, but it's still so big.
Oh, come on.
We're not all privy to the election that exists in your head.
I know, there's no illegal aliens.
There's voices that talk to you, don't give us the same kind of information.
Democrats are voting.
The rest of us on earth don't get anything.
We've been down from the mothership.
We've got to go find where people are in reality.
Here we go.
I'm so sorry.
People know you're wrong.
The states with the illegals are getting more.
California just got six more congressional seats.
We need you to come up and...
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm tied down.
There's no invasion!
There's no border!
Do you guys think that there was federal involvement here?
Or if there was, what the extent of it was on January 6th?
I think there were probably federal agents undercover.
Do I think that federal agents committed crimes and led people into the Capitol building?
Absolutely not.
And there hasn't been any case brought by any of these 700 convicts
None of them brought that up in court.
Because they're being prosecuted in the District of Columbia.
Because there's no evidence of it.
Absolutely no evidence of it.
They won't let them put defenses on.
Let me tell you something.
They said Rams was a hero and did nothing wrong.
Now they finally indicted him because they know it's a weak spot and their operation only lasted for six months.
Let me tell you, we're not playing clips for tit for tat here, but everybody's gonna, I want everybody on X to get these statements and put all the clips of women putting onions in their eyes and the cops fake arresting people and high-fiving and saying, I'm a federal agent, I just helped run the attack.
They're gonna string all these videos out.
So here's the thing.
Like Brian said, there's probably some informants on the ground.
I think one of the Proud Boys, one of the ladies in the Proud Boy was an informant.
So she was on the ground.
She didn't go into the Capitol building, I don't believe.
The problem is with what Alex does is he pushes these conspiracy theories.
These ideas that illegal aliens were voting.
There's no evidence of that.
I think with the illegal alien voting thing is what's happening is they're coming in and then they're being counted in the census, which then adds more electoral votes.
Okay.
It gives more congressional districts.
That's fair.
That might be happening.
I haven't researched that.
They're indictments all over the country.
They're not voting.
They're indictments of illegals everywhere voting.
Got them again.
Hit them hard.
Hit them hard.
They're not voting.
Alex, that's a conspiracy theory.
Like two people?
Maybe five?
A bunch of cities have passed laws where illegal aliens can vote.
No, they haven't.
No.
Not in the federal elections.
Oh, the illegals are voting in elections though?
Not in the federal ones.
I know that some cities try to have them voting in local matters.
I don't know how many of those are successful.
Illegal aliens shouldn't be voting, okay?
But they're not.
They're not voting in federal elections.
I don't know why you would care though.
Why would you even care?
That's a conspiracy theory, Alex.
There are going to be 100 million views of you guys.
X is going to eat you guys alive.
I'm glad.
I can't wait for it.
I don't know why you care about illegals voting when you think Trump can just flip the whole election anyway.
Who cares?
He can just ask Pence to throw it all out.
I never said I thought Trump could flip the election.
Do you think it was okay when he asked Pence to do it?
I already told you five times I think that was a bad theory.
I didn't say it was a bad theory.
Do you think it was allowed?
Do you think it was an attempted coup?
Do you think you can ask the Vice President to unilaterally determine the outcome of the election?
No.
Trump was exploring every option.
The main thing he wanted was a 10-day investigation.
No, Trump wanted Pence to throw out the election to declare him the winner.
Imagine if Trump would say, like, I don't believe Joe Biden can be on the ballot.
Imagine if federal judges... And that would go to court, and the courts can decide that.
What would Republicans be doing right now?
Biden hasn't said that.
Biden hasn't said that.
If Republicans were trying to take... Trump spent four years saying Obama shouldn't go on the ballot.
If Republicans were trying to take Joe Biden on the ballot right now, what would you say?
Let the Supreme Court decide.
It depends on how they're going to do it.
Even this conservative Supreme Court, I'd say let them decide.
Let's find Glenn Greenwaldi.
Yeah, we should.
But, Darren, you've been... Are Republicans having an impeachment committee right now?
What are you, Darren, what's on your brain right now?
Because I'm looking at you thinking.
Well, I can attempt to answer the question about
Federal involvement, because my reporting, or reporting at Revolver News, is largely responsible for changing the national conversation in that direction.
And notice they first threatened to sue you.
I'm going to leave you in a minute.
Take a piss.
They first threatened to sue you.
Now they've indicted Epps.
You've been vindicated.
Yeah, in fact, I have a video.
This is about Ray Epps.
You just mentioned, Alex.
It's clip number three, and it's about 25 seconds long.
We're going to play this, and then Darren, I want to hear what you're about to say.
Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol!
Into the Capitol!
No!
No!
No!
Peaceful way!
Fed!
Fed!
Fed!
Fed!
Fed!
Fed!
Fed!
Tomorrow, I don't even like to say it because I'll be arrested.
Fed!
Well, let's not say it.
We need, we need to go, I'll say it.
Alright.
We need to go in.
Shut the fuck up, Boomer.
To the Capitol.
Oh, well wait, Ray Epps didn't do anything because he said peacefully at the end, right?
We didn't move past him.
Well, no, he said go into the Capitol.
But he said peacefully.
It's still illegal to go into the Capitol.
Well, so what?
But peacefully was the operative word.
Yeah, I thought peacefully made it all okay.
No, going in is illegal.
Trump didn't say storm the Capitol.
He didn't say go into the Capitol.
You're right, he's gonna get six months in prison, so.
No, I mean, you guys want to hear the argument for federal involvement or not?
Not really.
Okay.
I want to hear it.
Alright.
Well, there's a lot of dimensions to it.
We can start with the RayApps issue.
Here's a guy, you saw that, that was only part of the clip, there's much longer clips about Ray Epps, but here's a guy who's the only guy caught on camera as early as January 5th, repeatedly calling for people to go into the Capitol, and prefacing his seemingly rehearsed remarks in each case, saying, I'm probably going to go to jail for this, I'm probably going to get arrested for this, you need to go into the Capitol.
The next day, he flew across the whole country, presumably to go hear Trump's speech.
He skipped Trump's speech.
Instead, he was a veritable Where's Waldo, everywhere on January 6th, directing people, go into the Capitol.
It's in that direction.
That's where our problems are.
Then amazingly, he's pre-positioned right at that initial decisive breach point on the west perimeter of the Capitol, and he's whispering into somebody's ear just seconds before the bike racks are broken through.
He texts his nephew, I orchestrated it.
On paper, think about it, he's like a 6'3", former Marine, who is wearing camo gear and a Trump hat, and he just happens to have had a leadership position in the Oath Keepers.
The most demonized and heavily prosecuted... He used to, right?
He doesn't anymore.
The most demonized and heavily prosecuted militia group associated with January 6th.
And the regime doesn't touch him.
However, initially, his behavior was considered to be so egregious he was one of the first 20 people added to the FBI's most wanted list about January 6.
He was prominently featured in the New York Times' ominously titled
Day of Rage.
Of all the clips the New York Times could have found and chosen, they chose Ray Epps to represent their thesis that this was a pre-planned insurrection to storm the Capitol.
And then, when the discussion of federal involvement came in to be, one of our major pieces at Revolver News, literally the next
Yeah.
...than Epps' own lawyers.
And now, almost three years after...
The government finally says, okay, we're going to hit you with a wrist-slap misdemeanor, as though people are so simple-minded to think, well, if the argument hasn't been indicted, therefore he's a fed, if we indict him now, even if it's a misdemeanor, even three years after, no matter what the circumstances, this constitutes a refutation and totally wipes away the mountains of suspicious evidence surrounding the character of Ray Epps.
That's just the case of Epps.
There are many other things.
Can I just touch on that real quick?
So, you mentioned he, you mentioned a few things I want to touch on.
Sure.
So, you talked about how he whispered in somebody's ear and moments later that guy went in the Capitol.
That was Mr. Samsel.
Yep, that's right.
And Mr. Samsel actually testified under oath.
I believe he is convicted.
He said that Epps actually said, told him, calm down, the police are on our side.
Well, he's changed his story.
I don't, I would rest, I'm just... Did you write the original Revolver article?
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
I set aside three days to go over Ray Epps' stuff and it took me six hours to see.
It was one of the stupidest conspiracies I've ever seen in my entire life.
The other thing I just want to... Yeah, go for it real quick.
So, you said that he didn't get convicted, he didn't get charged until...
Three years later.
Okay.
Just recently.
So, the people who were charged with anything but misdemeanors were people who used violence and people who went into the House chamber, where the joint session was, and the people who were involved in a seditious conspiracy.
It had to be a conspiracy.
Ray Epps acted alone here.
Well, no.
That's an open question.
As far as we can see, he acted alone.
Anything else beyond that would just be a conspiracy theory.
So, he falls into the same category... Well, seditious conspiracy is technically a conspiracy theory.
It doesn't mean that it's not true, right?
No, seditious conspiracy is a charged conspiracy theory.
It's a theory of the case!
A theory that there is a conspiracy that took place.
So, he doesn't fall into any category that any of the other protesters fall in, because he didn't fall into any of those three categories.
So, he got charged with misdemeanor.
Other people, the conspirators,
The people who use violence and the people who went into the House chamber are the ones who were charged with felonies.
Yeah.
Yeah, but he's out to the ellipsoids.
He's telling people in advance of the speech we need to go to the Capitol because somehow he got it in his mind that everything would end up at the Capitol.
I'm pretty sure he's doing it in his, as Trump is making the speech, not before the speech has begun.
No, he began before the speech began.
There are timestamps on the video.
Then you can go back and watch it on your- the Revolver story's up there.
For every single thing that you assert about him, that he's in video whispering into a guy's ear, you say it in the rest of your article, all he's doing on the day of, when the protesting's getting violent, is going up and down telling people, don't fight with the cops.
Don't fight with the cops.
The cops are on our side.
That's what he's saying the entire time.
The idea that he said that the entire day, but the one guy whose ear that he whispered into, that unfortunately we don't have, you know, audio capture of, that he and Sam Searle testified to, is he said, hey,
No, no, no.
If you want to say that, why was he removed from the FBI list, I mean, why was he removed from the FBI list?
Like, all the information is out there.
He said that after his video was identified, and people on X started to identify him, and then because all of his online stuff is incredibly easy to find, he started to get phone calls, he started to get harassed, he started to get threats, so he called the FBI as soon as this was brought to his attention, and he told the FBI, hey, this was me, and here I am, and this is what's happening, and the FBI took him off the list.
Your timeline is wrong.
He called the FBI when he saw himself in the videos.
Wrong.
Yeah, a friend told him about it.
And he's that.
Yeah, that's what that's what he said.
That's what he testified.
He called the FBI very shortly after January 6 because of his picture being on the most wanted list.
He wasn't taken off the most wanted list until the middle part of 2021.
There were multiple months span between him calling the FBI in the first instance and being quietly removed.
Yes, it is.
That's not true.
No, that's not true.
I can tell you why it's not true, okay?
Because what you did, because I read your article, is you looked at two archived versions of the website and you didn't have a 12-month archive.
For some reason, you assumed that the recent snapshot that you took at 2021, you think that that was the first time the page has been changed.
That was just the first time the page has been archived.
I don't think the FBI has made a statement on it, but what
What Epps testified to was that he either saw a video of himself or a friend saw a video of himself or a friend saw him on the list and then people were making videos and then he called the FBI and he said, hey, I need to talk to you and this is what's going on.
If he was a Fed, why would they remove him from the list when everybody's clearly looking at the list?
He was one of the only people removed.
Why would senators be defending him so vigilantly?
That's a great question.
Why was he quietly removed right when the question of federal involvement became a major part of the national conversation?
So you're saying he said we need to go into the Capitol peacefully and you point out correctly that in many instances caught on video he's engaged in what you could call de-escalation of the crowd and he's not
Urging people to violence.
That's all correct.
I never said he's urging people to violence.
He was absolutely a provocateur and his mission as stated and as implemented and as orchestrated by his own Verbatim text was he wanted people to go into the Capitol
Peacefully.
That might be the case, and if that's all you're saying... It's not all!
No, that's everything!
Nobody here is saying that he didn't say that and he didn't want people to do that, but the claim is that there's some sort of... That's illegal!
That's fine!
He can be charged for it!
Do you think anyone here cares if he gets charged for that crime?
The issue is you're saying that he was doing it under the direction of a federal agency.
Yeah, are you saying that- The 6'3 guy that looks like he's dying of type 2 diabetes and arthritis is somehow some intimidating marine captain that's sending people into the capital.
That was your claim that you've provided zero evidence for, and you don't in either of the articles that you write about him.
We've got Glenn Beck on the horn.
Glenn, we've been talking about Ray Epps, we played a video, I'm not sure if you saw it.
Glenn, not Glenn Beck.
Oh, did I say Glenn Beck?
Greenwald.
Greenwald, thanks, Glenn.
That's so funny, Glenn.
They're hard to tell the difference between nowadays, though.
That's so funny.
What's happened, dude?
Well, I just, I mean, I only heard the last four minutes of the conversation, but I'm still always amazed by, I really don't understand the argument, because the FBI in the U.S.
security state before January 6th was saying that they regard the greatest threat to national security not as being ISIS or al-Qaeda or
Hamas or Hezbollah or China or any other foreign threat, they regard the greatest threat as being right-wing domestic extremists, in whom that was included on many lists, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and all of the people in the groups that they said orchestrated January 6th.
Multiple.
So I just want to understand what the claim is.
The claim that the FBI was not involved in the groups that organized January 6th and didn't have informants with them that day?
They weren't instigated.
That's your claim.
It came out that the vice president of the Oath Keepers was an FBI informant.
The Proud Boys had at least three and as many as eight and the New York Times itself reported that there were
I think so.
Yeah.
Brian, you wanted to say something?
Yeah, so I'm just confused.
So you're saying that Ray Epps was actually a federal agent who was indicted, who pled guilty, and is likely going to get six months in prison?
Is that your argument?
Well, the New York Times predicted... Wait, wait, wait.
About Epps, you know, so a couple of things there.
You don't find it a little bit strange?
Wait, wait, wait, I'll get to you.
I promise you.
I promise you I'll address that.
But let's just consider the context.
The context in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, by the words of Steve Sherwin, who was in charge of the prosecution, their posture was one of quote-unquote shock and awe.
They were going after everyone.
They were hitting them very hard.
Now again, think about central casting.
On paper, Ray Epps, he's the 6'3", former Marine in camouflage gear with a Trump hat, the only guy caught on video as early as the 5th telling people to go into the Capitol, who's there on the 6th.
Directing people of the Capitol, who's right there pre-positioned at that initial breach phase.
And this, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and,
We'll defend.
Definitive in the sense that, oh, I don't think he was working directly for the FBI.
I don't even know if he was directly working for the federal government.
He was an asset.
He was acting on behalf of a third party.
He was not an authentic actor on that day.
That I will say with a great deal of confidence.
But wait a second.
It's a victory.
Let me say one thing.
I've been gone for 10 minutes.
It's a victory.
They went from saying he's an angel, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times.
He's perfectly.
They've been forced to indict him.
Alex, quick thing on that.
The criminal complaint acknowledges that he engaged in quote-unquote felonious behavior, but among the mitigating factors that they cite is, oh, this poor guy was a victim of all these conspiracy theories.
It's pretty remarkable.
Well, he was, though.
He absolutely was.
He was.
Why didn't you answer my question?
Why were people writing
I want to just quickly answer the question about, your question basically, if he was an asset, why did they go after their own asset?
Why would they indict their own asset?
That happens all the time.
In fact, that's almost the norm, that ultimately when the assets... In the mafia, when they have undercover people, they'll indict them just as a cover.
When the assets become liabilities, they indict them.
In fact, we don't have to go too far into the past to get a case of that.
There is the Michigan Fednapping case.
I think you need a better argument.
Really fast, really fast.
I haven't been able to get my point.
So, you're saying that Ray Epps is a federal agent... Well, I didn't say that.
I said he was acting on behalf of the third party.
He's an inauthentic actor on January 6th.
Even though there's no evidence of this.
And then you're saying he's turning around and he's suing Fox News for defamation, which is going to open up...
All sorts of cans of worms with discovery that he's going to have to provide legally in front of a court.
You think that if he was a federal agent he'd be suing Fox News for defamation?
They know they control the jurisdiction but he did say in a text message that day during and I orchestrated the attack.
You think he's going to sue for defamation?
He was driving to his nephew that asked him if he was there.
And he said, I orchestrated it.
He said, I orchestrated it.
To his nephew.
Why would a federal agent text such incriminating evidence to his nephew?
Why wasn't he indicted before?
We made him the centerpiece of that congressional hearings.
He was all over the news.
They were forced to do it thanks to Tugger Carlson and Professor Darren Beattie's work.
Wait, why do you trust Tugger Carlson when he said he lied to you?
Tucker Carlson said Sidney Powell was crazy.
Tucker Carlson left Fox News because he didn't believe the election fraud claims, that he was being forced to push on TV because of Trump.
Why would you trust Tucker Carlson, of all people?
Tucker, early on, thought it was wrong.
Now he says he was wrong about that.
Now he says he thinks the elections are crazy.
Let me answer your question about the discovery.
When a lawsuit goes away, the answers change.
Listen, whether you're right or wrong, you have a right to question the elections.
The Democrats do all the time.
No one wants to take that right from you.
Brian, you were saying?
Yes.
I didn't say that.
I didn't say that.
It was me.
I think?
Islamic Terrorism
By the way, if I can just add a nice little colorful detail there.
The author of the Ray Epps puff piece that asked none of the questions that would get to the core of his involvement there.
It's a total puff piece, you can read it yourself.
The author of that, his previous work, includes the CIA authorized account of the Sinaloa cartel.
Yeah, the idea of the New York Times doing clean-up work for the deep states is insane.
What Glenn Greenwald was saying is key.
I remember the New York Times headline.
They can pull it up in there.
We're not showing videos or clips.
It would be too much here.
I remember the New York Times headline like 15 years ago.
97% of Islamic terror plots were hatched and run by the FBI.
That was the headline.
We're getting so far away from the point, though.
Including the first World Trade Center bombing, by the way, which is... Alex, Alex, Alex, just one really quick thing.
You said Ray Epps was one of the last to be charged.
He isn't the last to be charged.
There's 1,200 people that have been charged.
Who said he's the last to be charged?
1,250, I believe.
Who said that?
Alex said they waited three years.
Yeah, they waited three years.
That's insignificant.
Do you realize that they're still indicting people and they expect that they're probably going to... I mean, I was going to keep putting words in my mouth.
They had puff pieces.
He was on ABC.
No, no, let me finish my point, Alex.
Oh my God.
So, do you realize that they're still indicting people?
There's likely going to be hundreds of people still indicted.
Ray Epps didn't get any less a sentence than anybody else that did anything like him.
Well, first of all, they could have hit him with more serious charges than they did.
He addressed me.
What charge do you recommend?
What charge would have been a fair charge?
May I respond to what you said?
Yeah, let Alex respond.
I want to hear Darren's response.
My God!
The man is like a chicken with his head cut off for three days, including the day of the event, running around saying, go in the Capitol.
He's ramming signs into people.
He testifies, I orchestrated this attack.
He did not testify, though.
And then, there was a Jan 6th committee.
They asked about this text message, he said, I did that.
Text, yeah, the text, he didn't testify that he orchestrated it.
No, he testified to the Jan 6th committee!
They sent the message to his nephew, yes.
No, he testified to the Jan... No, he didn't.
That he orchestrated it to the Jan 6th committee?
He's...
You keep interrupting me because you can't... You're not telling the truth.
I'm Michael Jordan slamming on you?
And what's going to happen is, everybody's going to get this clip.
He testified to the Jan 6th Committee.
They said, is this your text message?
He said yes.
Yes.
I told my nephew, I orchestrated it.
Now stop.
Let me finish my point.
Thank you for being honest with us.
You keep acting honest!
He said I orchestrated it!
You keep acting like... He testified that he said to his nephew that he said that.
In a text message.
Yes!
And he did orchestrate it.
He did testify.
So the point is you keep acting like my victory is a failure.
Where's the evidence that he orchestrated it?
I'd love to see that.
He said it!
To his nephew!
I text my friend's things all the time that are embellishments.
Let me finish my point.
They're all over every major corporate channel saying this poor little baby.
They're saying he was a fed or an operative or a provocateur for some NGO.
He didn't do anything wrong.
And when it got so obvious, they finally indicted him with a slap on the wrist.
And then you're sitting here saying he didn't testify.
He just testified.
Whoa.
No, he said he didn't testify that he orchestrated.
He testified that he sent that text to his nephew.
That he orchestrated it.
But no, then they asked him.
Alex, then they asked him if he actually orchestrated it, what was his answer?
Uh, in the transcript he said, uh... It wasn't that he orchestrated it.
So if I send somebody a message saying a bank is robbed, I robbed the bank!
Have you ever embellished a text message to anybody that you know?
Like you, like maybe not, maybe not you, I can't see you doing that, but maybe...
Actually, I'm kind of understanding.
Alex, you start bringing up a good point.
If I send a text message saying I robbed the bank, can I get charged with robbing a bank if I didn't do it?
If they got evidence.
Exactly!
Exactly!
They need the evidence!
It's not like he's there saying go into the building.
It's not like he's there saying go into the building and ramming signs.
You're right.
He's not there saying go in for three days.
He's not there ramming signs.
You're right.
Ray Epps is innocent.
He's not there ramming signs.
Can we get back to my question?
You guys are indefensible.
My question is, what should Ray Epps have been charged with?
What law did he break that, instead of what he was charged with, I think, was obstructing the proceeding?
Let him respond!
No, he was not charged with that.
That's the interesting thing.
He was charged with what was it?
He was not charged with obstruction of an official proceeding, which would have been a very easy charge and a fairly typical felony charge given to us.
So, wait, wait, let me answer this comprehensively.
Exactly.
So, first of all,
It's extremely strange, given how conspicuous and egregious and concentrated his behavior was, that he somehow was able to avoid the obstruction of official proceeding charge, number one.
Number two, there are even more serious charges they could have given him.
In fact, in the series of videos that we put out, there's one specific exchange he had with another guy.
He said, when we go in,
Leave this here.
We don't want to get shot.
Not fully been charged.
His case hasn't even gone to a district judge yet.
So let me give you a sense.
Let me give you a sense.
Because when we're evaluating these things, we have to compare them to standards applied to others.
Oh, let me stop you.
You'll go next.
Owen Schroyer is a
Saying don't go in they charge him and in the charging documents say Owen's lying.
He doesn't work for Infowars.
That's in the charging documents, the sentencing documents.
The judge says I'm putting you in these months in federal prison because you just questioned the election again and gave three examples.
Owen spends months in a federal prison.
Why don't you talk about the deferred deferred agreement that he had in
No, I agree, I will.
Code Pink runs around in protesting.
He put tape over his mouth when they were letting leftists run around and throw red paint in Congress.
And they said, sir, you can't do that.
And he agreed that he wouldn't do it.
And he didn't protest.
He went to Congress as a journalist.
He was in a restricted area, though.
No, he was on.
Listen.
Listen, listen.
Owen is there with me saying don't go in.
He agreed he would not protest.
He was there saying don't go in the Capitol.
And you're not going to defend him going to prison.
But he pled guilty to everything that he got charged with.
Because it's a rigged D.C.
court.
Or you could explain it.
It's funny because the problem is on our side.
We've got testimony under oath.
We've got judicial rulings.
We've got jury trials.
We've got full videos.
We have all of these pieces of evidence.
I can't finish a single statement.
Yeah, the problem is... Let me tell you something.
Steve, my reporter, deserves to go to jail for being there and trying to keep people from going to the building.
He pled guilty!
He had a deferment!
He did!
He pled guilty!
What do you do in a rigged D.C.
court?
Fight your case!
Yeah!
Innocent fight!
Oh yeah!
If you have evidence that you're innocent, fight!
But there was no evidence because he broke the agreement that he signed and then he pled guilty and said, I broke the agreement that I signed and agreed to the sentence that the sentencing guy got.
And Trump should be able to run for office.
Also, this entire argument has been you, again, arguing for an insurrection, for a rebellion.
All we have, everything we have over here is actual testimony under oath, actual judicial rulings, actual rulings by judges, actual rulings by Supreme Court.
We can provide these arguments, we can provide the evidence, we can provide the testimony, and all you do is go, oh, well, I don't trust the courts, oh, well, I don't trust statements made under oath, oh, well, oh, hasn't the FBI done this in the past?
You can skirt by providing hard evidence... I gotta be able to finish one thing.
You can skirt by on providing any hard evidence for literally a single claim that you've made today.
There hasn't been any evidence provided to support
Any of the claims made today, and you are hand-brushing away every single other claim that's made by people that were loyal to Trump, by people that Trump trusted over and over and over again, and at the end of the day, like, what could you possibly be advocating for besides an insurrection?
I can't even finish my thing.
I think it's because when I talk, you get really afraid.
I appreciate that.
When I defended Ellen, you just said, here you are advocating for insurrection again, exact quote.
A guy saying, don't go in the Capitol as a reporter, and you don't even stand up for the First Amendment.
Do you trust the courts?
I don't think most Americans do, and that's when you have real revolutions.
Okay, if you don't trust the court, real revolution.
What do you do in a real revolution?
Hey, listen, we're not trying to go there right now.
We are there right now, we just were.
It's January 6th, if there was any time to go there.
Don't worry.
Don't touch me.
If there is one, you're going to lose.
Sure, we'll see, okay.
Didn't like four people dying on January 6th from obesity and meth?
If these are the people we have to fight, it'll be okay.
Oh, Ashley Babbitt, you're dehumanizing her?
Was she on meth?
I don't think she was one of the four that died from meth.
Did she deserve to be shot?
She died from the gunshot.
She was trying to climb into an area where federal agents were saying, if you climb in here, I'm gonna shoot you.
Federal gods?
Federal gods?
I'm sorry, do federal agents not have the right to shoot people?
So you would've pulled the trigger on her.
You liked that.
If I was one of the federal agents there and I thought it was appropriate to do so, yeah.
Their job is to protect the people inside.
Do I like that?
No, you guys were the ones cheering on the other side of that.
You guys were cheering for it the entire time.
Wait, I want to know, what do we do if we don't trust the courts?
We don't trust the courts, we don't trust the president, we don't trust- Hey, does Julian Assange deserve to be in prison?
I'm not here to talk about Julian Assange or the rest of your friends, okay?
Tell me, what do we do if we don't trust him?
There's a reason he won't answer the question.
The reason why is because he answered rebellion and insurrection.
We are going to get back to-
I talked about Owen, who was there peacefully and said, don't go in, and he said, you're defending insurrection.
Everybody's gonna play that quote.
That's not true!
Okay, I think, and you know what, I agree.
I think claiming that that is a defensive insurrection is different.
You were defending, maybe, Owen?
Yes.
Okay.
Now, I want to get back to Darren, because there was a question that was, uh, we took a tangent, and also, Glenn, I think you look like you're about to say something, so if you wanted to speak first.
Yeah, but, but, Darren, go ahead first on, on, just to close the re-eps thing, but I do want to say something as well about what I've been hearing.
I'm fine.
What charges do you think he should have gotten?
Oh, I think he could and should have gotten far more serious charges.
The first example is the easiest and most readily available obstruction of official proceeding, which is basically the standard charge for people who have done far less egregious things.
No, but it really isn't, though, because the only people in charge with that, I believe, are the people who went into the House chamber.
The people that walked through the Capitol did not get charged with that.
No.
First of all, that's not the case.
And second of all, that's not an ironclad law pertaining to the application of that charge.
Secondly, there's a far more serious conspiracy charge that the government had available to them if we use the standards that they've applied in similar January 6th cases.
It was way worse!
Way worse than Joe Biggs or Stuart Rhodes.
I mean he's literally... Where's Stuart Rhodes saying invade the Capitol?
Where's Stuart Rhodes attacking people or ramming signs?
Ray Epps did that!
Stuart Rhodes literally said that if Trump doesn't impose the Insurrection Act that we need an insurrection and he said storm the Capitol and he went into the Capitol and he hurt police officers.
And you call for people to- Joe Biggs said- Joe Biggs went into the Capitol.
What did Joe Biggs say?
I got- Either Joe Biggs or Stuart Rhodes.
Stuart Rhodes did not do that.
No, one of them, I forget which one it was- Joe Biggs.
Was- he said that- Yeah, Joe got- No, no, no, you're not letting- you don't even know what I'm gonna say.
You're in jail, he doesn't deserve- You don't know what I'm gonna say though.
One of them called for people to defend the White House and shoot to kill the National Guard and any other authorities.
Let me just answer really quickly.
Let me, let me, I did say that on air and I told him he was wrong to his face.
So I'm going to be honest.
One thing.
Wait a second.
Before it happened, he did say if Trump calls us out for a civil war, I was like, dude, I'm not for this on air.
Well, you're right.
That's very quick.
I agree, there's a lot of rhetoric on both sides, that's true.
You wanted an example of somebody who didn't go into the Capitol, who got obstruction from the official proceeding?
Thomas Caldwell.
That's one of many.
What did he do?
I'm not familiar.
I'm going to be honest, Stuart Rhodes did say what he just said.
So, you put that together with... No, I did, there was some rhetoric.
It was dangerous.
So, I mean, if you put that together with the planning, him and Biggs were planning on two different ends, one Oath Keepers, one Travelers.
There's no proof they planned it.
Well, if you look at the Telegram messages.
An undercover agent recorded the conversation in the garage.
But have you looked at the Telegram messages where they're basically instructing people where to go and where they're at and that saying, hey, we stormed the Capitol, we took the Capitol.
Yeah, there's no doubt there was LARPing without Trump's directives of some people talking about that.
Wait, why don't we trust their messages, but we do trust Ray Epps bragging to his nephew that he orchestrated it?
No, I just said they were talking about it.
Yeah, Glenn, let's be honest.
Let's let Glenn finish this one off, because then I have another question for you guys.
Yeah, the whole thing, like, listening to them.
Honestly, it's like listening, I don't mean to be insulting, I'm just saying this, you know, it's what it sounds like, like, 7th graders who are in civics class and have this understanding of how the US government works, like, oh, the FBI investigate, and they discover crimes, and then they go to the courts, and the courts are very honest, and the courts are apolitical, and the courts make rulings,
Everything that has happened in January 6th, and you can even look at the people they picked and choose who to expand the law, the people who ended up getting prosecuted on felony counts even though they were non-violent had these incredibly novel interpretations of law that were used against them to turn non-violent demonstration and non-violent political protest into felony by taking this
Post-Enron law and giving it a stretch meaning that it never had before and the reason so many of them plead guilty is because they know that if they go into court they're gonna have rulings against them because a lot of these judges especially in Washington are not only Democratic Party judges but the entire system is furious to watch people go and put their
I think?
Then you're going to end up with this image of what the three of them have, which is this idea that this was one of the worst attacks in American history.
The courts have ruled everything the government did in this case is consistent with their longstanding view before January 6th, that these groups are criminal groups.
They need to be criminalized.
Trump's movement is a threat to the United States, and the entire part of January 6th was designed to define them as an insurrectionary movement so that they could criminalize them, which is exactly what they're doing.
890 convictions are guilty, please.
Two acquittals.
Two.
How many of those were accused of violence?
Two.
892.
I believe 170 or so were for violent acts.
A tiny, a tiny number, a small percentage.
Yeah, and the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is and they should be.
But non-violent.
Let's talk, go ahead.
You understand that usually what happens in the United States with non-violent protesters or even with violent protesters is they don't get charged with anything.
A tiny percentage of people who use violence throughout all of the Black Lives Matter protests ended up in jail because the ideology in which they were protesting was one that was considered positive and friendly.
It's not the same though.
If you want to actually make these- Let me just back up briefly and I'll shut up.
I'll take a five minute break.
Let me finish.
It's not the same to compare Black Lives Matter protestors and protestors who entered the Capitol building during the certification of the election.
Those are not... Democrats have bombed the U.S.
Capitol.
Democrats have bombed it.
They burned down courthouses and burned down police stations.
And they had within them people who were insurrectionary.
And they got charged, as they should have.
They got charged.
There are plenty of them that were charged.
There are plenty that were charged.
Can I just say one thing?
I'm going to say one thing.
I'm going to take a break here.
Yeah, we're actually all going to be taking a short five minute break.
I'm just going to say this right now.
Ladies and gentlemen.
We saw billions of dollars of stuff burned down.
We saw all the killings.
And we never said all Democrats are involved in that.
Biden gave a speech yesterday that was Hitlerian, in my view.
Literally saying everyone in D.C.
was a terrorist.
They're all bad.
You can't vote for Trump.
We're taking him off the ballot.
America's going into martial law to stop him.
Our republic is in danger.
I've got the transcript right here.
Yeah.
Everyone in D.C.
is a terrorist?
That's a Biden direct quote?
Is that Hunter Biden or Joe Biden?
I know you love Hunter, but the point is, this was a hysterical diatribe.
This is dangerous.
So Alex, what if instead of the Capitol is the White House, and there's thousands of people at the White House fence, and they push through the fence, do you think those people deserve more of a criminal penalty than people that were rioting in, I don't know, LA?
No, I mean, if it turns out they were under the directive of a foreign power... No, no, it was just a bunch of Americans.
Do they kill a cop?
It's the crime they commit.
If a bunch of Americans, when Trump was in the White House, stormed the White House fences... With guns.
With weapons, and made it past the fence... Oh, like Ashley Mabin got shot?
No, no, made it past the fence... Oh, they shot Ashley Mabin?
The Trump supporter shot Ashley Mabin, okay.
Made it past the fence, and they were...
At the doors of the White House.
Do you think that they would act?
When Trump asked for the National Guard to stop that, Milley said no.
Trump didn't ask for the National Guard.
He didn't ask for the National Guard.
Milley's on record saying, I threaten to resign if Trump was troops.
That was for January 6th.
That wasn't January 6th.
That was weeks before.
You just said about the White House.
Yeah, but nobody... See, I'm giving you specifics.
Nobody was actually... I'm giving you specifics.
Did anybody cross police barricades into the White House?
You know what I saw was the police, after a little bit of a fight, opened the doors and waved people in, and a bunch of... They didn't wave people in.
No.
Oh my God!
Everybody, get the footage of the police waving... There's one clip out of 40,000 hours.
There's hundreds.
There's hundreds.
There's no hundreds of clips of people waving people through the door.
What I saw was people breaking the windows, climbing through broken windows, unlocking multiple doors, and letting other people in.
Once in, police were forced to basically de-escalate the situation and make sure that the Congress people were protected.
At that point, they were outnumbered 10 to 1, the Capitol Police, to the rioters.
At that point,
Those videos where they're walking alongside people, they're funneling them into the... I was there, I was there.
You weren't in the Capitol, and I give you credit for that.
You knew when to turn around.
The Wall Street Journal said I was cowardly on top of a car, commanding people to invade.
But thank God Jack Posobiec...
Because I didn't have a Twitter then.
Put the video out of me saying don't go in.
I got through in the middle of it.
I'm glad you didn't.
And yet you made the right decision.
When you're there with 300,000 people, a million in town, and they don't even know what's happening in front of them.
They're being guided in.
A lot of those innocent people that just walked to the Capitol have been sent to prison.
All right, we're going to take a, well actually we're not going to be taking a break, you may be, but I want to ask you guys, we're talking about these people in prison, these prison sentences, so we're going to, I want to talk to you briefly about if you think these prison sentences that some of these people are getting are justified or not, and then we're going to be taking questions from the audience from Zero Hedge Premium, so if you haven't signed up at zerohedge.com, sign up for the premium service, and you may be able to get a question before we wrap.
But what do you guys think?
I mean, let me start with you, Darren, because I haven't heard from you.
By the way, I don't want to wrap, I mean, I say take a break,
A lot of people are tuning in now.
I'll keep having this debate all day long.
Yeah, we might keep going.
Um, but Darren, what do you think about the prison sentences in general that these people have been getting?
Um, I think they're completely overblown and they're, you know, it's consistent with what we're talking about.
This amplification of January 6th into this false domestic terrorist act and, you know, the stakes.
What are the stakes involved?
The reason it's being amplified in this fashion is to justify the further weaponization of the national security apparatus against Trump supporters and to suppress the energies associated with Trump's movement.
Therefore, you have these crazy sentencing.
I think they're all crazy.
Even those top sentences for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, 20 years, 18 years.
It's simply insane when you think about, you know, again, all of it has to be comparative.
Are people guilty of murder who get less prison time?
And the self-described, self-professed posture of the DOJ in the immediate aftermath of January 6th is one of shock and awe, which ominously, but kind of unwittingly accurately,
Um, recalls the Iraq war and the war on terror.
This is, this is not an accident.
It's very fitting that the Department of Homeland Security is the tip of the spear when it comes to this repurposing of the national security apparatus.
It was the Department of Homeland Security that said white supremacy is the number one national security threat and by white supremacy they mean Trump.
All of these people have also said January 6th was a white supremacist
Insurrection.
Hillary Clinton has said that MAGA is a white supremacist slogan.
So that helps to contextualize and clarify what they mean when they say white supremacy is the number one national security threat.
And so basically these people, even the people who committed illegal acts, are in effect political prisoners because of the political context.
of these prosecutions which are vastly overblown and could only make sense within this political context of the weaponization not only of the national security state but unfortunately now also the legal apparatus.
Let's go on the line with Glenn again and then all you guys but I just want to say something.
This is important folks.
In June of 2021 Biden put out a national security memorandum which you just mentioned saying
Right-wing extremism is the number one threat.
Then he defined that as white supremacism and then said, questioning open borders, questioning elections, questioning lockdowns, questioning four shots.
That's in the report.
I've shown it hundreds of times on air.
Literally declaring the people enemy.
Then he gives a speech with this red background with Marines.
I thought I was watching Adolf Hitler.
And then yesterday he gives a speech saying, they're taking over, they're a danger, we're at war, all off a riot at the Capitol.
At best, it's a riot, and obviously provocateur.
So, this is a branding of 80 million voters plus as a political enemy.
This is extremely totalitarian, extremely dangerous, and I was there, I know.
You're in a crowd of hundreds of thousands, tear gas is coming down, you can't even see what's happening at the Capitol.
You're saying, don't go in there, we've got a stage.
I go there, there's a stage, no one there.
I mean, we were set up.
And I was set up, and thank God that I waited 30-40 minutes.
I didn't know what to do.
I was like, this is weird.
How do I lead a crowd that's already left?
I was there.
And so all I'm saying is this is not the basis to indict populist Americans.
Yes.
Well,
And while they have one with China, this is madness.
It needs to stop.
I don't want a war with Democrats.
I don't want civil war.
I don't have some dream of this.
But this is the election strategy of Joe Biden is civil war.
Glenn, did you want to say something?
Yeah, I think this is really the nub of everything.
Like, I really do think that the three of them actually believe what they're saying.
I'm not, like, actually realizing this.
And the reason they believe it is because they don't know the history of the war on terror.
They don't know the history of the Cold War.
They don't know what the CIA and the FBI and the U.S.
security state have been constructed to do and the role that they played in our domestic politics.
Every single time that there's some new crisis, the CIA, the FBI, the permanent power faction in Washington, and it's not like some crazy conspiracy theory Dwight Eisenhower warned a bit on his way out of the presidency in 1961 when he called it the military-industrial complex because he had seen how it was growing beyond all democratic accountability.
Every time what they need to do is convince somebody to be scared of something, to be scared of communism, to be scared of terrorism, to be scared of domestic terrorism, and they convince people that some minor event, relatively speaking, in the history of the threats to our country, like the 9-11 attack, which is a terrible thing, but they exaggerated wildly the threat of foreign terrorism to basically institute the Patriot Act and
I don't
Weaponizing the justice system, and they're creating a precedent, I hope you guys understand this, where they're now taking a non-violent protest.
Remember, most of the people charged in January 6th are charged with non-violent protests, and they've made it now so that they can charge those people with felonies, and put them in prison for years.
That was the Q Shaman, four years in prison for a non-violent protest.
That's the precedent that you're endorsing with this narrative.
Stuart Rose.
They're non-violent crimes.
Biggs, Stuart Rose, and Enrique Tarrio.
They were sentenced to some of the harshest sentences out of all the January Sixers.
Who was the judge?
It was a Trump-appointed judge, Timothy Kelly.
Now, if you look at the worst convictions, the ones that received the largest sentences,
80% of them were actually under the sentencing guidelines.
80%!
These people didn't receive sentences that were any more harsh than anybody else in other crimes.
And these were people sentenced
from a Trump judge, a Trump appointed judge.
So you're all saying that that all the courts are rigged against conservatives or or Trump supporters.
But these are Trump judges.
Many of these were Trump judges that actually charge these, not charge these people, but sentence these people.
I think
We're good to go!
A lot of these have been done with a Trump-appointed judge.
The idea that these charges are novel, that people don't face prosecution like this, there's some element of truth to that, but this is also a novel situation.
We have never had a president in the United States try to resist the peaceful transfer of power like this.
This has just never happened before.
And you can keep screaming about Hillary Clinton, and you can keep screaming about BLM all you want and talk about the blown-up fire stations and the congressional halls.
The reality is that none of those situations were like this one.
If you want to keep appealing to those and saying those people should have been charged with crimes, we agree they should have been charged with crimes.
Well, let me ask you this.
Let me finish my one point one time without being interrupted by you.
Don't ask me this.
I know you came running back because you heard me talking.
You had to interrupt me.
I know you came running back.
You were so excited for it, okay?
I don't understand this rhetoric of mostly peaceful riot.
Yeah, it was mostly peaceful.
A lot of riots that have riot aspects to them have a lot of peaceful people there.
In a 10,000-minute riot, it's not always 10,000 people rioting.
It might just be 100 people rioting or 1,000 people rioting.
The reality was, there was one event on January 6th at the Capitol Building.
That event was a riot.
Okay, so let me just add some context here.
Well, they had three trials in Michigan, and one of them, it was a mistrial, and they let most of them off, and the other, they finally got a few convicted.
It came out in court that the feds went and found a bunch of basically homeless potheads, and just like Glenn was saying, the New York Times article, but they were more accurate, 97% of Islamic plots were hatched by the FBI.
Yeah.
With Whitmer, the same team involved in January 6 from the FBI went and set these people up and that came out in the mainstream news.
So we know they, this isn't, you guys were saying, we don't want to go back to 10 years ago.
You know, I've sat there for six, seven minutes, you know, out there smoking a cigarette while you're just going on and on and acting like you're being censored.
You're like, there's no example recently of them doing something corrupt or bad.
Never said that.
This is a great point that Alex is making.
You don't need to go back to the original war on terror.
You don't need to go back to the ample antecedents that exist going way back into our nation's history.
Just go back to the mission case.
The parallels to January 6th are striking.
Almost half of the so-called plotters turned out to be either informants or federal agents.
One of those federal agents had to recuse himself from the trial because he beat his wife on the way home from a swingers party.
The second one had to recuse himself because he was moonlighting in his private security firm and leaking details of investigations in which he was involved.
But in every single, it wasn't just that there were informants.
Every active step instrumental to this so-called plot was undertaken by one of the informants or one of the agents.
One of the informants, as I mentioned him, Steve Robson, in the context of does the government ever burn its own informants?
Almost all the time.
How many of the BLM riots were instigated by FBI?
How many of the BLM riots were instigated by our own intelligence agencies?
What?
Well, they had agents in there.
In fact, one of the guys, Sullivan, one of the guys, Jake Sullivan, he had a very complicated relationship.
Antifa basically excluded him because of his relationship with the government, and they thought he was a Fed.
Absolutely, the Feds infiltrate BLM.
He got excluded because of his relationship with the government.
He got excluded because that guy was insane.
Because he was screaming at people to do all sorts of violent stuff constantly.
Nobody wanted to be around him.
At some point, he was on video in the Capitol saying, I told you we were going to stage it.
I told you it was going to happen.
But again, for Sullivan, there's no evidence that Sullivan communicates anything like that.
Why is it that when BLM
BLM pro-rioters, I guess you could say, aren't arrested as much as you want.
Like, you know, you say that January Sixers were arrested at a much higher rate than the rioters.
That's true.
Okay.
How come you don't say that?
And much more property damage as a result of BLM.
So here's the thing, though.
Why don't you accuse those who aren't prosecuted for those riots of being federal agents?
Well, in some cases, they probably are.
But at that scale, it's hard to... Maybe they just have more there.
How do you know?
If you want to go conspiracy theory, I mean, let's touch all the bases.
But, I mean, Michigan is on record... Can I interject?
Can I interject first?
The idea, again, that for the FBI to be infiltrating these groups is a conspiracy theory, again, requires an understanding of the FBI that's childlike.
And what Destiny was saying before is, oh, we're just using what they've done in the past and therefore concluding they must be doing that in the future.
He just ignored all the evidence we've been presenting for the last two hours, including the fact that the FBI, by their own admission, had informants in all three of the leading groups that organized January 6th and were talking to informants on the ground at the Capitol.
Who is the head of the FBI?
Who's the head of the FBI?
As far as January 6th defendants are concerned, it is true that they're getting sentences similar to what people get when they're charged with felonies.
The point is that it is insane that non-violent protesters are being charged with felonies in the United States.
That is what never happens.
And pointing to Black Lives Matter is not to say
Oh yeah, that's whataboutism, so we're admitting that this was an insurrection, and that is true.
The point is that what the government is doing, if you look at the disparate treatment between the two, is picking and choosing which movement they like ideologically and politically, and which they don't, and punishing much more severely the one that they don't, which is what January 6th is about.
Going into the Capitol building with weapons saying, hang Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence.
No, that's not a violent crime, but are you saying that doesn't warrant a felony conviction?
That's absurd.
People are actually calling for the hanging of the Vice President of America.
I'm going to be honest.
I'm going to be honest.
No, no, Alex, hold on one second.
The majority of people who were charged with felonies in January 6th are non-violent offenders.
What did they do, Glenn?
What did they do?
They created an interpretation of the law that was enacted after Enron, that was designed to criminalize accountants from obstructing fraud at the corporate level.
Every single- It's the meaning of it to mean that if it's a non-violent protest, any non-violent protest now at the Capitol- No, no, no.
What did they do?
You're glossing over the facts.
You're glossing over the facts, Clint.
People get six-month sentences- People get six-month sentences for going in the damn thing and being waved at by police.
No, but here's the facts.
The people who got the felonies were either violent, they're taking part in a conspiracy, or they went into the House chamber.
Those are the people who got it.
The people who walked into the Capitol building- That's not true!
It is true!
Look it up.
No, it's not.
It absolutely is true.
Google it.
I just gave you a specific example earlier.
Conspiracy?
Conspiracy?
Give me an example.
What did he do?
Thomas Caldwell.
He was not violent, and he did not go into the Capitol.
What did he do?
Let's talk about Thomas Caldwell for a minute.
To Glenn's point, keep in mind that when you're saying that BLM wasn't treated the same because of the government, you're not just alleging the federal government at that point, you're alleging every single state government and city municipality that's in charge of arresting people are all on the same page.
Almost all of us in D.C.
Wait, the feds are in charge of prosecuting everybody in every state?
Thomas Caldwell was part of the seditious conspiracy.
He was part of the conspiracy by the Oath Keepers.
That's why he got charged with a felony.
When Black Lives Matter happened, every single blue state mayor and every single blue state governor waited on the side of the writers because they were petrified of being demonized as being racist if they didn't support everything the Black Lives Matter movement did.
So yes, the Black Lives Matter movement had corporations.
The reality of our government that you don't understand.
No, no, the reality of our government that you don't understand is that police orders don't come down from the federal government or even from the governors.
Policing is done at the municipal level.
The idea that governors are dictating... No, this is federal.
This is federal.
No, the BLM rights are not all federally prosecuted.
These are state crimes that are happening within states.
They're not happening within states.
The idea that the governors themselves...
Let me ask a question.
Since when does the left... Since when does the left... Since when does the left... Since when does the left... Since when does the left... Since when does the left... Since when does the left...
Isn't that weird?
Why are we forgetting something?
We're forgetting one thing and that is that you can commit a crime, you can commit a felony and it doesn't have to be violent.
There's plenty of felonies on the books that aren't violent including breaking into a federal building
Breaking through police lines and going into the Senate chamber as Congress people are trying to certify an election.
How is that going over your head, Glenn?
Let me ask you this.
I'm asking you this and everybody.
Please answer my question.
Is this as bad as Pearl Harbor?
Or is this as bad as 9-11?
And all I'm telling you is, is this
This Biden announcement that currently the number one threat is the Trump supporters and Trump must be taken off the ballot.
You can punt to the Supreme Court, but they're literally trying to preclude Americans from voting for who they want.
That's the election theft and our face.
Why do we have to keep going back to that?
That's the third time that question was asked and unanswered.
Yeah, I mean, who cares?
They're taking somebody off the ballot.
I want to talk about Thomas Caldwell.
It's no big deal.
And Darren, maybe you can answer this.
Who is he?
What did he do exactly?
And what was he charged with?
Well, I don't need to get into that so extensively.
I was just saying, here is somebody who is not violent, who did not go into the Capitol, who was charged with
Construction of an official proceedings.
No, it's a seditious conspiracy.
Well, there was later a superseding indictment.
That's a felony he was charged with.
Biden's entire campaign is January 6th.
Not inflation, not war with Russia, not open borders.
I mean, give me a break, man.
We had a million plus people there, a few hundred not in fights with the cops, and you act like it's the biggest thing since... It's a pretty big deal.
That's when a president tries to overturn a legitimate election.
That's a really big deal.
You had all your investigations and you lost every single one.
When you lose in court, you go to the next day.
Remember in 2016 when all the conservatives said, well you know what, if we would have lost the election, you know what we would have done the next day?
We would have went to work.
Well here you are four years later still crying about the outcome of the election.
So if Biden's going to win by landslide, why are the Democrats not on the ballot?
It's up to the Supreme Court to decide.
Can I just say what my dream is?
My dream is that Ed and Brian and Destiny have to actually live through a real coup so that they can then come back to the set and be like, oh my god, you know what?
I'm so sorry for saying that what happened in the Capitol for three hours against the most militarized and powerful government to ever exist in human history got anywhere near a coup or an insurrection.
A coup or an insurrection.
Let me say this and I'll shut up.
I will leave for 10 minutes.
Let me ask this one question to Glenn.
I will leave.
I want you all to answer this.
Humor me.
I agree, because Glenn is a really great writer, I really respect him, I've followed him for decades.
Can everyone describe a coup to me?
Because usually it's helicopters taking over media, killing the opposition, troops, and then you're claiming women with American flags and being waved in by police as a coup.
So define to me, all of you first, and then Glenn, and then the professor, what is a coup?
Since this was the most devastating evil coup ever.
Coup is trying to enact a scheme to try to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power.
Like Russiagate?
No, they didn't take any action.
They tried to remove him on a line.
There's nothing illegal done there to try and remove him.
The intelligence agencies censoring fake dossiers?
Oh, that was illegal?
The dossier was... Saying his election wasn't legitimate?
Did they try to remove him?
They took it to Congress.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
You admit then that Trump tried a coup and you think Russiagate was also a coup then?
Do you want to do that?
No, I don't, I don't agree with Trump and the coup.
I'm asking you, I'm asking you, like, do you know about Pinochet?
Do you know about Hitler?
Do you know about, do you know about the legitimate coup?
What is a coup?
Hey, you're the smart guy.
Stop.
Focus on Trump.
Define me a coup.
I just did.
Did you not listen to me?
Glenn Greenwald.
Glenn, you're a well-respected journalist.
You look at coups around the world.
What do they usually look like?
I know, Destiny is now the incredible giant of journalism and the constitutional scholar I used to be, as Destiny said.
But anyway, a coup is generally when people in power or people who are trying to get into power marshal the force of the armed factions of that country and use it to eliminate the legal process and take over.
So for example, if Trump had called in the military on his side on January 6th, or he had gotten the military to block people from trying to remove him from office on January 20th, that is always what we say is a coup.
Nothing that looks like what happened on January 6th.
The other thing I just want to correct, Destiny seems to have this, like, debate me sort of thing point that he thinks he keeps making that's so smart, which is when you say... Why did he waste so much time on catty comments?
There must be something better for him to say.
You're the one that does throw in lines.
There must be something better for him to say.
We're about to change gears.
Let Glenn finish this thought, and then we're moving to our audience questions.
I don't
I'm against all rioting, just to be clear.
Isn't it admitting that the one that you start with is wrong?
You're just trying to show that you're not applying consistent principles when your ideology is... If that was the case, that when you're accused of defending a coup, then you argue why it's not a coup.
That's how the argument works.
If somebody says, I think that Trump engaged in a coup... One of the ways that you show that it's not a coup is by saying that the things that you like that are done, that are far more insurrectionary, are things you won't call an insurrection because those
No, Glenn, I'm sorry.
No, Glenn, that's called an appeal to hypocrisy.
The way that you argue against something being a coup... Why has Trump not been charged with it?
Why have they not charged Trump with insurrection?
You just say he... Jack Smith already said why.
Go read some of his documents if you haven't already.
It's like the main Secretary of State.
She says he's guilty.
If you don't think it's a coup, then we agree on what the definition of a coup is.
If we don't agree on the definition of a coup, which you said it requires military presence, I don't know if any of you have necessarily said...
Alright, well, it's not going to get resolved tonight, although we have tried to resolve it.
We're not shutting down, we're just moving to the next phase of the organization.
Actually, we'll go to comments.
I do want to shut it down, I want to move on.
I've actually been instructed to move on, so that's what we're doing.
By who?
By the producers of the show.
Let's move on.
ZeroHedge.com.
I mean, we can, if you guys want to go in circles and yell over each other for another ten minutes, I don't want to do it.
I want to go to these comments.
I bet there was a 6'3 marine, ex-marine that told you to do it.
Thanks, dude.
Shut up.
No, but I mean, listen, listen.
This is the heart of it.
Coups are militaries seizing the telecommunications and the government institutions and killing their opposition.
Trump was in New Orleans.
Trump did not do that.
That's a bunch of fucking people being led into the Capitol.
It's not a freaking coup, man.
An electronic coup, you know.
But let's go on.
These are from ZeroHedge.com from some of the premium users of the website have sent in some of the questions.
This one's actually a question for what they call the Blue Team, which right now is going to be the three guys, Ed, Brian, and Stephen.
The question is,
The New York Times acknowledged that there were FBI informants in the Capitol on January 6th, and then they give a link to the New York Times article.
Given the agency's history of entrapment, is it a stretch that some agents may have provoked the riot?
And then there's a follow-up question.
Why was law enforcement so ill-prepared for the insurrection, in quotes, despite the presence of informants?
So the first question, first part of the question is, is it a stretch that some agents may have provoked the riot?
So informants are something the FBI has been using for years, decades.
No.
Is it illegal?
They can do it as long as they do it within the legal means.
If an informant is in the Capitol breaking the law, that doesn't mean that the FBI is behind it.
Informants are also people who live their lives.
Like, I could be an informant for the FBI, I could go and murder somebody.
That doesn't mean the FBI had me murder that person.
So I think there's a lot of misinformation there that gets conflated with facts.
And number two,
Do I think it's possible that an FBI agent could have done that?
Sure, anything's possible, but put out the evidence.
There isn't evidence of this.
The whole Ray Epps thing, show us the evidence that he actually works for the FBI.
You're right, he just said I orchestrated it.
He just said I orchestrated it.
I brought the bag.
Come arrest me.
Should I get arrested?
I just said I brought the bag.
He just said I orchestrated it, you're right.
He just said I orchestrated it, you're right.
Did Ray Epps say that he was an FBI agent?
You guys are just coming to that conclusion.
We're not saying he works for them.
If I had to guess, I'd say Southern Probably Law Center.
Probably.
If Ray Epps set them up, why isn't a single other person there attested to that?
If he whispered into people's ears, if he was leading breach teams, why didn't any of the arrested people, why didn't a single person come out?
Out of the 250,000.
I'm asking why, I'm asking this though, the next reasonable question.
Why hasn't a single person come out to testify?
Because we exposed him.
Because he's the leader there.
And he's there doing it.
He did it on video.
He said, I led this.
I did this.
You're not answering my question.
I'm saying why hasn't anyone else come out?
I attested to this, not a single person.
You know what an orchestra is, right?
I went to school for music.
The conductor leads the symphony.
And all the musicians have to see the conductor and would tell you, that's my conductor.
And he says, go into the Capitol.
Why doesn't anybody else say, that was my conductor?
You know, the follow-up part of this question, why was law, I think law enforcement was so ill-prepared for the insurrection, again in quotes, despite the presence of informants.
This is from Space Worm, just so you know, Space Worm from Zero Edge.
Well, half of them were sent away for crowd control.
I think the ill-preparedness came because Trump's deployment of the National Guard in the past, especially in D.C., had caused a lot of people to be uncomfortable with National Guard being present in the Capitol when the certification of vote was happening.
So, as they were having conversations prior to establishing security, I think they took a lot of extraordinary bureaucratic measures to make it so that, I think that day, if the National Guard was going to be deployed, it either had to be, I think, Miller or Walker.
I think one of those two had to be the direct authorization.
Let me respond briefly.
We have you one hour ago saying Trump never called for National Guard, and you just said they refused it.
I got your ass!
That's correct.
You got me.
So when the National Guard was deployed, the only area that they were allowed to do... They blocked it.
The Pentagon blocked Trump.
You just admitted Trump wanted it and didn't get it.
You got me.
They only deployed 340 people.
That's right.
You got me.
The scope of the mission...
I'm murdering Ashley Babbit?
I'm a good shot?
Oh my god, I'm murdering... But you love me!
You love me!
Okay, so here's the thing.
340 people were authorized to be there, but in order to actually call them, it was an extraordinary process.
When you read the J6 committee in the Situation Room and Sund and everybody else complaining, where's the National Guard, where's the National Guard?
There was a whole bunch of stupid bureaucratic red tape and optics concerns that people had to cut through to get them there.
So you're claiming that this is staged.
You're claiming the FBI was behind it.
In 2019, you said...
You specifically said, I almost had like a form of psychosis where I thought everything was staged.
So do you still have that psychosis?
Well, I said almost a form.
So do you almost still have that form of psychosis?
Let me quote it for you.
That's out of a larger context about when you're lied to.
In a court deposition.
I said a larger context deposition.
About Sandy Hook.
Which is a larger... You said you called Sandy Hooks a hoax and you said it was fake because of this.
Sure, so you want me to talk now?
Okay, go ahead.
Yeah, so I said a larger context, which is a larger five hours, eight hour deposition, right?
I said a larger context.
I just told the truth.
I'm explaining that the public's been lied to so much, there's a major loss in confidence where people then don't believe anything they're told and that's dangerous.
That's not what you said.
That's not the context you said it.
That's not the context you said it.
But I read it.
I know what I said.
I read the deposition.
So put the full thing out.
I don't have it with me, but I read it.
Somebody Google it.
The point is, stop.
You're scared to let me talk?
No, go ahead.
So, that's a whole other PR firm thing, things out of context, to blow that stuff up.
PR firm is telling you what to say in court?
No, no, you're not listening.
Let Alex finish the short question and then we're going to go back to the user's question.
Madeline Albright told Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, I ordered 500,000 children killed because I thought it was a good thing to do, I'd do it again.
She's a great person.
I questioned Jussie Smollett, I questioned W.E.B.
Nixon in Iraq, I questioned everything, and I'm proud of everything I've done, and all that stuff is PR firm garbage.
When I talk about the general public,
Because the media lies about almost everything, loses trust in anything, that creates a general form of psychosis, and it's very dangerous.
I talk about that every day on my show.
And Joe Rogan just last week said, you know, Alex Jones isn't totally right, but he means to be right.
Informative than CNN.
They lie on purpose.
And the public has lost trust in the system.
That's dangerous.
What do you do?
So that was the full discussion.
Let me give you another example.
They say in court.
Jones in a custody battle said, I'm an actor.
Everything I say is fake.
I've offered a $1 million reward for that.
I didn't say that.
They wanted to put like now a 15 year old video back then.
It was like a nine year old video of me as the joker saying all these horrible things, take drugs, kids, you'll die.
It's great.
So kids wouldn't take drugs.
Reverse psychology.
Hold on, hold on.
They wanted to introduce that in court, and my lawyer said, when Jack Nicholson plays the Joker, he's not really the Joker.
And when Alex Jones is in Waking Life, or Scanner Darkly, or any of this stuff, when he's being an actor, it's not what he really means.
In the scope of when I'm- Are you being an actor now?
No, no, see- How do we know?
How do you know?
How do we know?
Maybe you still have psychosis.
But see, that's the game you're playing.
No, I'm not playing a game.
I'm serious.
I am not.
This is a serious problem.
No, when I'm on this show, this is Alex Jones, the analyst.
Alex Jones, the pundit.
I'll get to you in a moment.
Yeah, Glenn's about to jump in.
This game, that I don't mean what I say, Ray Epps said I orchestrated it.
That's a real thing.
Yeah, we're all playing a sort of character right now.
We're all on a stage.
I was actually in that Twitter space with you, with Elon Musk.
What was it?
Four weeks ago or so?
And you tried to claim that you didn't push the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory.
We're getting a field here.
I'm basing this on the whole psychosis thing.
This is a field.
This is not in the scope of the discussion.
Yeah, we really gotta stick to the question.
It's on the user's question.
You lied in that space.
You did push it.
You did say that was fake.
You did.
I have the quote right here.
Let me read the quote.
Okay, Ed, we're done.
We're done.
I want to hear from Glenn.
Glenn's about to speak.
I said, in the context of everything I've done, I wasn't the platform for questioning a school shooting.
They dredged that up afterwards and I barely ever talked about it.
It wasn't even on our radar.
But you said it was fake.
No, no, if I'm on the air for- You said after examining it for a year, you found that it was fake.
Alright, you know what?
That's it, that's it, that's it!
That's it!
We're done with this fucking conversation!
We're moving on to the user questions.
As told, Glenn, you had something to say?
Glenn, please, Jake.
When there are six people here presenting all kinds of evidence that you're not equipped to deal with, I think it's just a pathetic way to try and end this debate.
And the last thing I want to say is it's really giving like a kind of amazingly vivid mindset into the minds of Trump-era liberals who have really come to see
The US security state and the courts and prosecutors as their political allies in their war that they're waging against people who disagree with them.
And they have this like very romanticized view of what the FBI is, what the DOJ is, how the court systems work, how the federal government works.
And all of this reveals this so well because what's happening here is so manifest, which is that all of these agencies are being abused because the Trump movement is considered the gravest threat to establishment power in this country, which is why the bipartisan establishment is against it.
To try and make this about Alex and Sandy Hook is a really pathetic way to end the debate.
I think you guys have done a good job defending your views.
I think you should leave it at that.
And we definitely have to go because it's been three hours.
Well, we're not done.
We're going to keep talking with some questions.
Not right now.
Can I answer the users' questions?
Yeah, I would love to, but give me one second.
The only reason I scream is because I don't have a mute button for the people right now.
I would prefer not to have to use my voice.
I think you did a great job being here.
Thank you.
I think Glenn needs to go.
We'll stay.
Glenn, give us a three-minute closing comment.
All I'm trying to say is I didn't launch any wars, I didn't lie about WMDs, and to bring that in is...
I don't know.
There's a larger lie when we're lied to and lose trust, then out of that when no one knows what's true, it creates a lot of problems.
So the reason I went back to that is because in that Twitter space...
You said that you didn't push it.
You said that you just regurgitated other people's information.
And that's not true.
No, that's not true.
I want to shut this down.
I don't want to move to the next thing.
It's not that I'm scared of this.
I'm sick of it.
I made my bones on this.
I barely ever talked about it.
They introduced 22 minutes in these court cases over a decade.
22 minutes, dude?
No, I didn't.
That's not what I'm doing.
You guys bring it up.
And fine.
Madeleine Albright said she killed 500,000 kids, she'd do it again.
I killed no kids.
Come on guys, this is cheap as fuck.
Let's talk about what the people are paying.
We have some legitimate people here.
I don't know, but Glenn says he wants to leave.
I love Glenn Greenwald.
Glenn's gone.
Glenn's gone.
We're hanging out with me tonight.
Okay, we're going to the second question.
Darren, did you want to follow up?
I wanted to answer the user's question about the lack of preparation.
Because it involves a lot more than the question of the National Guard.
For additional context,
There's the Norfolk memo coming out of the Norfolk office of the FBI.
Extensively cataloging threats to the Capitol including maps of tunnels, all kinds of indications that there was going to be a major event at the Capitol on that day.
There was extensive government infiltration of every single militia group imputed to January 6th.
And there was a stand down?
Wait, wait, wait.
Up to the very, very highest levels.
We know that Enrique Tarrio had an extensive conversation with the head of Metro PD Intel.
And that's just one example.
We know the VP of the Oath Keepers was an FBI informant.
We know there are at least eight other informants in the Proud Boys, including informants who are texting their handlers simultaneously as they were in the Capitol and as the events unfolded.
We know of the Oath Keeper Jeremy Brown.
Who has been attacked and persecuted by the government.
Why?
Because when he was approached by JTTF agents in December of 2020 to recruit him as an informant, he recorded the exchange and the encounter and put it out there on the internet.
The JTTF agents said, there's something going to happen in January.
We want you to be an informant for us.
We know that there are several influencers, including Milo,
Who parlored, or whatever the tweet version is for parlor, put out a message on January 5th saying, I was just approached by federal agents, whatever they have planned on the 6th is huge, don't go there.
That's just a number of examples.
Oh yeah, and there was Donnell Harvin, he was the head of the Homeland Security Office for the DC Fusion Center.
His predictions were remarkably specific and accurate.
His office came up with the idea that we need to have body bags.
We need to focus on the Capitol at 1 o'clock.
Specifically, we need to be concerned with explosives planted on side streets that could serve a diversionary effect.
Therefore, allowing for an attack on the Capitol.
These are just some of the highlights of examples of the government being in a position to know in advance what was going on.
And it wasn't just that there was an ordinary level of security at the Capitol, which is inconceivable when you think of the fact that there was a major proceeding there, that Trump was there giving his speech.
Ordinarily, there would be threat assessments, which there weren't.
It's not just that there was ordinary level of security.
There is a uniquely absent security on that day, uniquely poor security on a day with a major certification proceeding, on a day in which President Trump was there to give a major speech on a very controversial question directly pertinent to that proceeding.
So Darren, there's 1,250 people who were indicted thus far.
How many of them brought up as evidence in court that they were enticed or led into the building or led to do crimes by federal agents?
Well, there are actually quite a few.
How many of those?
I wouldn't count them, but it's not non-existent.
Was any of that evidence actually admitted in court?
In some cases, yes.
As you can imagine, the judicial process is very aggressive in pushing against any types of entrapment defenses and many defense lawyers, in some cases, reasonably so, want to dissuade their clients from entrapment type defenses because their goal is not to uncover the truth about entrapment, their goal is to do the best for their clients in those specific cases.
So out of 1,250 cases, not one of those defenses were actually pushed forward by any of those defendants?
No, I didn't say not one.
There are some, but not as many as you would think, but not because this isn't relevant to the truth, but because if you're a lawyer, even a good faith lawyer, you are
Uh, required to give advice to your client that's not, oh, what's most likely to uncover the full truth about the broad event of January 6th, but what's most likely to keep my client out of jail or to minimize the time that my client ends in jail.
The truth is exculpatory.
Right.
I would think that evidence that a federal agent led you to commit a crime or acted in a way that made you want to commit a crime would be pretty, pretty exculpatory evidence right there.
Yeah, it would, in certain cases.
And, like I said, there are people who are pursuing that.
There's a significant backlash to that within the judicial system, so even given how much it's rigged now, it's additionally rigged when it comes to those specific types of defenses, because they're so subversive to the larger narrative that the government's trying to promote.
Why wouldn't McCarthy put any Republicans on the J6 committee then, and investigate this?
Well, McCarthy isn't exactly someone who's aggressively interested in pursuing the truth on this either.
Okay, why not appoint like a special counsel or appoint something separate then from Congress?
Well, I think that would be a fantastic idea, but again... Why didn't Trump do it?
Why didn't Trump do it?
Trump's not in a position to do it right now.
Yeah, but right after J6, before he gets kicked out, I want to point out... Well, I mean... Or why not in the days before, if he thinks that there's... I mean, there is not really a window of opportunity for that to happen.
A lot of other stuff is going on.
Doesn't it suck, then, that, like, you can provide absolutely no smoking guns?
I provided a ton of evidence.
No smoking guns.
I provided overwhelming evidence.
You've given a bunch of... You have not provided evidence for anything.
I don't know.
I can, well, you really want to hear a good faith answer to that?
Why it's partisan?
Well, let's start with Benny Thompson.
Now... No, no, I know the people on it were all partisan.
That's true.
But that's because McCarthy wouldn't put forth his nominees after Pelosi said no to two of five.
Well, first of all, I think those two should have been allowed.
I'm not asking you that.
I'm asking why didn't McCarthy put forth two other ones?
Because he didn't want to legitimize a process that was totally illegitimate.
So how convenient for you, then, that now we can also say the entire J6 committee... No, it's not convenient for me.
It's convenient for the regime.
No, it's convenient for you.
It's convenient for the regime not to have a legitimate and disinterested fact-finding commission to truly get to the bottom of the real questions that matter in relation to January 6th.
But there is no disinterested fact-finding.
You guys say Comey was biased, even though he was a lifelong Republican.
You say Raffensperger was biased, even though he was a lifelong Republican.
You guys say that Barr was biased, even though he's been a lifelong Trump supporter and a Republican.
Yeah, you say Ray is biased, like every single person.
Absolutely.
Yeah, so then there are no unbiased fact-finders.
I didn't say there are none, but the specific names you mentioned, absolutely.
How about William Barr?
How about... Yes.
So all these Trump appointees, Trump... Yes, he made terrible appointments.
That's the best person ever to hire people, right?
Well, I didn't say, that's not my contention here.
Who would be able to investigate this?
I think there are some people who could.
I think Jim Jordan who could.
Jim Jordan would be your example of an unbiased party.
Jim Jordan was literally part of the investigation.
I would say for there to be a legitimate committee, it would have to include people who are genuinely interested in pursuing not only the questions that Benny Thompson and the hyper-partisan Democrats wanted to find out, but people who are sympathetic to the other side who would be willing to pursue the questions that I've raised and have been raised
That were not addressed at all in the committee, because all they were interested in was demonizing Trump and setting up a criminal proceeding for Trump.
They weren't interested in getting to the bottom of the questions.
Why was there uniquely poor security?
What was going on with the level of federal infiltration?
These questions are all asked as part of the 847 page report.
I invite you to read it at some point.
The reality is that McCarthy at any point could have put five Republicans that he chose on that committee.
But because Nancy Pelosi said no to two of them,
I think banks in Jordan that were actively being investigated or would have been the subjects of the J6 committee, he said no to anything, and now we get to say it was all a sham?
Even though the majority of the people interviewed were Republicans?
Even though, as was stated earlier, every single person near Trump... You're banking a lot on the Republican issue, but it shouldn't be a surprise to you, many Republicans, institutional apparatus of the party,
It's not necessarily friendly to Trump.
There are many Republicans that are hostile to Trump.
If every single person in government, if every Republican, if every Democrat, if every judge, if every person in the United States that is in Trump's peripheral ends up hating Trump or not wanting to work with Trump, at what point do you say... Well, we're not saying every... At what point do you say... Christopher Wray is not... At what point do you just say... I've been gone for 10 minutes, let me respond.
You can't just run back in here and cut me off, okay?
At what point can we not say...
Maybe Trump was actually genuinely a horrible person.
Or maybe Trump actually genuinely didn't try to circumvent legal processes in order to coup the government.
Or at least, uh, whatever you would call him asking Pence to unilaterally elect the government beforehand.
Biden is trying to make it his number one campaign issue about January 6th.
It should be the number one campaign issue.
Wow, not inflation, not open borders, not human smuggling.
Would a president try to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in U.S.
This actually takes me to the next question.
history?
This is going to be our final question of the night.
No, Trump's not been convicted of anything.
This is a, uh, this is a question from, uh,
Spread C. And the question is, will Destiny address, quote, is white supremacy the biggest domestic threat faced by the United States?
And I open it up to the panel after you give an answer there, Stephen.
Um, domestic threat?
I don't know how the FBI judges domestic threat.
It wouldn't surprise me if there's a lot of crossover with, like, white supremacy groups and them being, like, organized like a domestic threat, but my guess would be domestic threats in the U.S.
is probably fairly low to the total security of the U.S., so I don't really care that much about it.
I don't know.
But that's the official policy, is white supremacism is the number one threat.
That's, what is that?
That's not a policy, that's a statement.
No, that's an executive order in June of 2021 put out by the White House.
What are the negative policy choices, or what are the bad things that are happening because of that declaration?
They try to skew crime numbers.
They say everything is that.
I mean, this is like a major deal.
Skew crime numbers?
Say everything is that?
What do you mean?
Do we not count crime by black people anymore?
Didn't we just get all of the crime against Asian people?
No, the other guy says number one crime is white people.
They say the number one crime is white people.
They do it statistically by manipulating the numbers, yeah.
I don't think the FBI is in charge of manipulating the numbers.
The FBI is not involved in crime statistics?
I didn't say involved in crime statistics.
I'm pretty sure you can go to the federal... There's a name for the site that has... I don't believe you're like hiding under a rock somewhere.
You've got to know he gave a speech for an hour yesterday.
Yeah, but you're saying the MAGA people are terrorists, they're about to take over.
I mean, you don't know?
You just said it's good that Biden is running on January 6th.
I think January 6th is a huge deal, yes.
The president trying to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power is a really big issue.
And that's why he can't be allowed to be voted for.
No, that's not why he can't.
He's not allowed to be voted for.
He's claiming you can't vote for him.
Trump is claiming they want to steal an election.
So we've got to tell him about it.
We have to be clear about what's really happening.
The standard Democrat voter, these people don't care about the so-called insurrection.
That's not Biden's audience.
Biden's audience is to speak in support of this phony legal theory that's being served as a pretext to remove him from the ballots.
And therefore, you know, in the defense of- I agree.
He's trying to rally the deep state saying Trump's going to persecute us and arrest us.
If we don't stop him, because they've committed all these crimes.
So, I mean, fact is, the Supreme Court's looking at it.
They actually decided to take the case, so it doesn't matter what any of us think.
The Supreme Court's going to rule on it.
And I think, you know, whatever they decide is what we're going to live with.
Well, let me ask this.
What happens if Trump gets re-elected?
What do you mean, what happens?
Well what do you think?
He's still got criminal investigations, criminal trials.
So you mean if he gets re-elected before being sentenced, if he's convicted?
Yeah.
I think he just takes over being president.
He'll pardon himself or give the presidency- And I don't- he didn't persecute his political opposition when he was in.
I don't think he's going to try to do that.
He asked Barr to investigate Hillary.
Quite the opposite.
Trump's own bureaucracies were undermining him.
As far from him using the bureaucracies to go after others, his own bureaucracies were circumventing his own president.
Well, that happened with Biden as well, wasn't it?
But everyone can see the establishment after Trump.
No?
Yeah, Hillary's emails.
Yeah, Hillary's emails was under Biden, right?
What about the Hunter Biden investigation?
There's no acknowledgement there?
Hunter Biden investigation, that's... Yeah.
That's Biden's DOJ.
Hunter Biden, he was charged, he was convicted on the... And that's because the Democrats want him to step down for Newsom.
Oh my God, there's a reason why, yeah.
So now the Democrats don't want Biden to step down.
Who are the Democrats?
The debate continues.
The dominant Democratic Party wants Biden to step down.
It's been all over the news.
And they're putting pressure on him to do it.
You're saying that's made up?
He's not going to step down.
How does he step down?
Because you still need to have a primary.
And it's past the deadline.
He's frozen out the other candidates in his primary.
The deadline has passed.
So if he was to step down right now, Harris would likely be who the nominee would be.
Well, it's too late for news.
I think he'd miss out on several states.
We've, uh, we've, we've really run... Answered that question really well.
Go ahead.
We hammered that one right to the ground.