Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 9, 2025 - Blood Money

01:56:23

The Deep State's Biggest Nightmare - Men Like Stewart Rhodes (pt1) - Blood Money Eps 283

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	all right guys we got a new section to the america happens website called the whistleblowers forum where you could go on there and anonymously or using your name post anything that you want and contact other whistleblowers to talk about
	what's really going on out there Alright guys, welcome to the latest episode of Blood Money.
	This is a very exciting episode.
	We got the one and only Stuart Rhodes on the Blood Money Podcast.
	How you doing, sir?
	What's up, brother?
	How you doing?
	Man, pleasure to have you on.
	So, Stuart and I actually started hanging out when you were released.
	I don't remember what date it was, but it was January 20, or when was it exactly?
	Well, we saw each other on the 21st.
	21st, exactly.
	But I was released pretty much midnight on January 20, the morning of the 21st.
	Before we start talking about...
	January 6th, man, I want the viewer to get to know you.
	Tell us about your journey leading up to January 6th, what you were doing, your life journey.
	I mean, take all the time you want, sir, and tell us what brought you to that point where you felt it was necessary to go and have your voice be heard.
	Well, I mean, all throughout our history of Oath Keepers, we've supported other people's right to free speech, and that's what we were doing on January 6th.
	Yet another security mission for free speech.
	Because the entire Trump administration, starting at his inauguration, we've been on the ground.
	We were in D.C. on January the 20th, 2017, when Trump was first inaugurated, when he first won.
	And Antifa had already declared they're going to shut down the inauguration by attacking people.
	And they did.
	They showed up and, you know, had the toe black.
	They're called Black Block because they all dress alike.
	So it's very difficult to identify them.
	One of them can smash a window or throw a brick at somebody and then fade back into that, you know, a crowd of people that are dressed identically.
	That's their strategy.
	So we saw them raging through the streets in D.C. that day, and we went out as volunteer escorts for people that were vulnerable.
	So women, children, elderly, that's who Antifa, they're kind of like jackals.
	That's what they want to attack, is people that are vulnerable.
	But that's, you know, that's been our pattern throughout the history of Oath Keepers.
	Thousands of security operations across the country.
	In fact, nine of them in D.C. prior to January the 6th, all without a hitch.
	And so that's our background.
	That's what we were doing on that day.
	Same thing we did November and December.
	There were two huge rallies in D.C. over the election in November and December of 2020. In each one of those, we were protecting events on the Capitol grounds or close to Capitol grounds.
	And on January the 6th, there were two permitted events on Capitol grounds.
	One was for Latinos for Trump.
	It was known as Area 7, like right next to the Senate Park.
	And the other one was Ali Alexander's event right outside the east side doors on the grass, which is exactly the same place they'd had multiple other events because people filled the street in between the Supreme Court and the Capitol.
	That's where the audience winds up being.
	So obviously on January 6th, that event, Ali Alexander's, did not go off because of what happened.
	Everyone just ran up on top of the steps themselves and were protesting there.
	But that's why we were there.
	And that's why the Oath Keepers that went inside, that's where they were going.
	They were going to the Capitol to protect people there at an event outside the east side doors.
	And then when their own protectees went up the steps, they followed them up the steps.
	They've been escorting speakers for Ali Alexander's event from the VIP section of the Ellipse from President Trump's rally.
	As planned, they escorted them from there up to the Capitol to attend and speak at Ali Alexander's event.
	And Roger Stone was slated to be the keynote speaker that day.
	And members of Congress were going to come out and speak at that same platform.
	I think Margaret Trilly Green was scheduled to speak.
	Josh Hawley and a bunch of other members of Congress were scheduled to speak that day.
	Oath keepers.
	I mean, obviously the name is indicative of people not keeping their oaths and not being gentlemen, not being honorable.
	Right.
	So Oath Keepers, when I started, I started in 2009. So I'd worked in Ron Paul's office in Congress as a staffer there, and then I also worked on both of his presidential campaigns.
	And at that time, I was in Nevada, and I was pretty much part of the Ron Paul revolution at the grassroots level.
	We took over our central committee for Clark County, which was the dominant county in Nevada.
	And then I went as a state delegate to the state convention.
	And I was on the platform committee.
	And so us Ron Pollars, you know, pretty much took over.
	This is kind of a precursor to what happened with the MAGA movement.
	The Ron Pollars absolutely took over their local central committees and took over the GOP at the grassroots level.
	Problem is, is that the corrupt GOP leadership shut us down.
	Like at the Nevada convention, they were going, we were more organized.
	We were going to sweep the delegates to the national convention.
	And so the state chair suddenly popped up and Slammed the gavel and said, oh, we're out of time here.
	We can't use this room anymore.
	We're at a casino in Reno.
	You know, they're 24 hours a day.
	So this is like, no, this doesn't make any sense.
	We ran down to the desk and said, hey, you know, we're in this room back here.
	Can we use it longer?
	And I said, sure, that's fine.
	You know, so it was just a pretext and excuse to shut down the convention.
	And all the McCain people suddenly left, like ran out of the building so they can deny us a quorum to continue on.
	And they just said, oh, we're going to reconvene at a later date.
	They never did.
	So, you know, the corrupt GOP stole the nomination from Ron Paul back then.
	Who was the chair of the GOP? I can't remember.
	Some woman, you know, some executive from one of the hotels.
	So, you know, this happened across the country.
	It happened in Hawaii.
	I know it happened in multiple other state conventions.
	Same thing.
	The Ron Paulers were going to sweep it, so they just violated their own rules.
	Same thing that the Democrats did to Bernie Sanders.
	You know, the inside baseball.
	The party elites saying, oh no, that's too much democracy.
	We can't have that.
	We can't have, you know, that happen.
	So they stop it.
	And that happened, that's the part of themselves, corrupt.
	And we've had, we the people on both sides of the spectrum, have had to fight against party leadership.
	And so, you know, that's what happened in 2009. So I realized that Ron Paul was not going to win.
	The nomination, we're going to be stuck with John McCain.
	At that time, I didn't know on the Democrat side whether it was going to be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
	And I frankly didn't care.
	Both of them I thought were atrocious.
	So I knew we were screwed.
	Either way, we were in trouble.
	So I wanted to focus on the men with the guns, the men that would be asked or told to follow orders that would violate your rights.
	And, you know, a big wake-up call for a lot of us was Hurricane Katrina.
	Where you saw, this is during the Bush administration, where you saw the local New Orleans mayor and chief of police issue orders to disarm all the people in the city, like just going house to house and taking guns away, and they did.
	And unfortunately, you had police officers who'd been brought in from all over the country, as far away as California, to help, and they wound up.
	Following these unlawful orders to disarm people that were just trying to protect their own homes.
	And that was pretty awful abuse of the Second Amendment.
	Later determined by a court to have been an illegal order.
	But the problem is, at the time, it didn't help the people who were being disarmed.
	A judge later on saying that was bad is kind of cold comfort when you have your guns taken from you by a police officer.
	And all you're doing is trying to protect your own home from looters.
	That was a big wake-up call that the police in this country and National Guard, military, when they're used domestically, you know, they need to know where the lines are on the Bill of Rights.
	They need to know about their duty and responsibility to refuse orders that violate that.
	They can't just follow orders.
	That's the excuse the Nazis gave at Nuremberg, and we're like, no, that's not a valid defense.
	So I served as a paratrooper in the Army, so back in the 80s, back in the Cold War.
	And when we were, when I went through, they used to use My Lai, the My Lai Massacre, was the example that they used to say, okay, here's a violation of laws of war that you have to, you know, things like this, you have to refuse to follow such orders.
	So in the military, you're on the hook either way, because if you follow an unlawful order, like Lieutenant Kali did in the My Lai Massacre, and he shot women and children, and his defense was, I was just following orders.
	That's not a valid defense.
	So, follow unlawful orders, you can be court-martialed, and at Leavenworth, use lawful orders, same thing.
	In fact, in wartime, if you refuse a lawful order, you can be shot.
	So, that's the big thing we learned in the military, is that, hey guys, you've got to know the laws of war, and follow them, because you're on the hook either way.
	You have to make sure you know what you're doing.
	So, the same lesson should apply to the Bill of Rights in our country.
	And what you do and don't do on the job if you're a police officer.
	Unfortunately, that's not what they're taught.
	They're taught.
	Here's case law that allows you to do searches.
	They might study a few cases from the Fourth Amendment.
	And after that, they're just sent out.
	And they're not really taught about the Bill of Rights.
	They're not taught where the lines are.
	So that's what we originally started Oath Keepers for, was to cure that problem.
	But also...
	We called it Reach, Teach, and Inspire.
	You know, reach out to all those who have taken the oath, both current serving and former, remind them of the oath they took, teach them more about the Constitution.
	They swore an oath to defend because the oath is just that.
	I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
	That's the same oath.
	Whether it's the military version or civilian law enforcement officer, it's the same basic oath.
	All the way from the president down to your local dog catcher.
	Everybody is required under Article 6 of the Constitution.
	Everyone is required to take an oath to support the Constitution.
	This seems like a lot of, like, willful, you know, what they say, like, willful ignorance of justice.
	It's almost like willful ignorance of justice is being embedded into our police forces in order for them to ignore the Constitution.
	And we hear the same sort of thing with our courts.
	It seems intentional.
	Well, they're all taught, and this is also what happens with Congress, is they're all taught, well, it's the court's responsibility.
	To tell us when we've gone too far.
	That basically, unless and until some judge says you can't do that, they just do whatever they think is right until that point.
	And Congress does that all the time, right?
	You know, you hardly ever hear a congressman discuss, well, do we have the constitutional authority?
	That's what I loved about Ron Paul.
	That's why I worked for him.
	He was known as Dr. No, because he'd say, well, I'm looking at my copy of the Constitution.
	I don't see that listed in Article I, Section 8. Among the powers of Congress.
	So my answer is no.
	Whether it's a Medal of Freedom award for Mother Teresa or whatever it was, he would just say, nope, I don't see it in the Constitution.
	I'm going to vote no.
	Period.
	But you don't get that from most politicians.
	Most of them, well, the courts will let us know and we've gone too far.
	Until then, we're here to do the people's work.
	We're going to pass policy and whatever we think is right.
	That's their mindset.
	That's not their oath though.
	Their oath is important to defend the Constitution.
	I swear to do whatever I think is right until some court tells me no.
	That's how they behave though.
	When it comes to police officers, they want that kind of loyalty.
	Whatever we say goes until the judge says no.
	So until the judge says no, you will follow all orders that we give you, period.
	That's the mindset of the politicians.
	That's the mindset.
	It's obviously the mindset of the mayor of New Orleans and his police chief.
	They're going to do what they want to do.
	They don't care about the Second Amendment.
	What's that?
	Wow, wow, man.
	It's just so corrupt because it pits you in a law-first situation.
	It's like if you've got to wait until the courts and how expensive lawyers are and that sort of thing.
	It sounds like more of a war of attrition through denial of the Constitution than actual law.
	Well, it's ruled by men, not by the law.
	Like I said, you're expected to do what they tell you to do in your chain of command until some judge says no.
	And that's not how it works, though.
	Like in the military, that's just not going to work.
	If you violate the laws of war, you're done.
	You can't say, well, I didn't know it was a violation of the laws of war because the court hadn't told me yet.
	That's not going to fly.
	You get court martial for violating the laws of war.
	That's not going to be a valid defense.
	It can't be like, well, I just didn't know.
	I'd wait for a court to say no.
	But that's what they're setting up, though.
	That's what I'm saying.
	That's why I use that example to show how absurd it is.
	We know when we're in the military, we have individual responsibility to know the laws of war and then to say yes or no.
	I mean, the default is to obey orders, obviously.
	But if you get a blatant violation of the laws of war, like with Lieutenant Connolly or Abu Ghraib.
	Abu Ghraib is the modern example of that.
	We had, you know, you had people who were MPs and a lot of them reservists brought over to Iraq and ended up working in this prison and they're doing things that are obviously in violation of laws of war.
	They go along with it and then later they get slammed for it.
	So, what's the answer?
	The defense can't be, well, a judge had not yet stepped in and told us that what we were doing was somehow wrong.
	That's not going to fly.
	It didn't work.
	That's not going to work.
	And it gives too much power to judges.
	It's ridiculous that that much power is to judges.
	Right.
	So, like, you know, that's the problem that Jefferson and Madison had out of the gate.
	What did the Federalists do when they were in power?
	You know, they passed the Alien and Sedition Act was the first thing they did.
	So you had people being put in jail, in prison, for criticizing the president.
	They're calling John Adams his rotundancy, making fun of his way, and things like that.
	And he was pissed.
	And a lot of the Federalists at that time were basically monarchists.
	You know, you look at Alexander Hamilton, for example.
	He's pretty much a monarchist.
	They wanted an American version of a king.
	And so they wanted respect for the new government, respect for the presidency.
	And so they signed in the law and they passed it through Congress.
	The Alien and Sedition Acts made it basically outlawed political opposition.
	And so, but then the Jeffersonians came in, Jefferson and Madison, I believe it was called the Democrat, no Republican, I forget the name of the party.
	But it was basically the beginnings of the Republican Party in many ways.
	But they came in and swept in the election of 1800, swept out all the Federalists, except for in the courts.
	The Federalists were entrenched in the judiciary.
	And that's where Jefferson started going head-to-head with the Supreme Court.
	But big point, though, nowhere did the Supreme Court of the United States ever overturn any conviction under the Alien and Sedition Act.
	They just failed back then, very much like today.
	The judiciary was on the side of that, that use of power by the Federalists.
	And so the Federalist appointed judges were never going to curtail their side.
	Same with the left now in this country, right?
	Right now.
	All the judges in D.C., whether they're Republican or Democrat, are part of the establishment.
	And so they were going to hammer Trump and all of his supporters, and they did, relentlessly.
	But we just had our own revolution of 1800. With the revolution of 2025, Trump's been swept back in a very populist uprising in a way.
	Now we dominate politics.
	But like Trennis told me the very morning when I got out of prison, I saw Trennis out there in front of the D.C. jail.
	He said, hey, we've taken the high ground, but now we've got to push it into the sea, which means we've got to defeat the deep state.
	You can't just rest right now on your laurels and just, you know.
	And to celebrate, oh, we won.
	And too many, I think too many Trump supporters are doing that.
	It's like, oh, Trump's in, we won.
	It's all over.
	It's not over.
	You've got to defeat the enemy.
	And you want to battle, but you haven't won the war.
	You know, they were, so they went very hard on trying to make you seem like a brute.
	They tried to make you seem like a terrorist, a domestic terrorist.
	The reality is that, I mean, hanging out with you, you know, we're talking about law, we're talking about you studying law, being in the military, serving.
	I mean, tell us a little bit about your background, your journey leading up to, you know, taking a stand that you took.
	Well, so, you know, my personal history is I come from a working class family.
	That's ironically what Kamal would say, right?
	But both my mom's side and my dad's side.
	My mom was half Mexican.
	And grew up.
	She didn't know her father.
	Her father died in World War II. But she grew up in her, you know, migrant farm worker, Mexican-American family.
	She was traveling from work camp to work camp as a kid.
	And she was the first person in her family to graduate from high school.
	So, you know, I come from a very poor background.
	background on my mom's side, my dad's side is working class like Detroit auto workers in Flint, Michigan, up there with the, worked for GM, my father did for many years.
	He was in the Marines.
	That's where they met.
	He was in the Marine Corps in 29 Palms, California, and she was a senior in high school in Fresno, Fresno High, and they went on a blind date.
	That's how they met.
	So that's my background is, you know, military service on both sides.
	And that's kind of why I served the military.
	I thought it was my civic duty.
	So I joined at 18 years of age and I served as a paratrooper until I was disabled in a parachuting accident.
	I have a compression fracture in my spine and two steel rods in my back from my service to the military.
	But after that, then I went to college and eventually started off at UNLV. I mean, at community college and then transferred to UNLV and graduated from UNLV. I mean, it's not hard in a state school, but I graduated summa cum laude from UNLV. Then I wanted to go to D.C. and see what that's like, but I wanted to work for a constitutionalist.
	The only one I could find at that time was Ron Paul, you know, so I contacted his office, and I'm from Nevada.
	He's from Texas, but they went ahead and hired me.
	I worked as his legislative correspondent, you know, lowest guy on the totem pole, just answering emails and letters.
	But that was a good experience.
	And ever since then, I've counted myself as a Ron Paul Republican, which is, like I said, the precursor to the MAGA movement.
	We got a lot of Democrats crossed over.
	That was a really big lesson for us, was all the Democrats that left.
	The Democratic Party, because they saw that Hillary Clinton was a war-mongering, you know, neocon, basically.
	And they realized that Ron Paul was the only sincere candidate who was sincerely anti-war.
	And so they came over by the droves.
	And we're seeing that now with Trump, you know, Democrat walk-aways.
	So the original walk-aways, frankly, were the Democrats had crossed over for Reagan.
	But then after that, you know, with Ron Paul again, and now with Trump.
	And we're going to get into your experience post-January 6th in a sec, but what have you identified as the biggest problem that's destroying this country?
	What are the things that are...
	So I forgot to mention, after I worked for Ron Paul, then I went to law school and I attended and graduated from Yale Law School.
	That's where I went to school.
	And I was at Yale Law School.
	Just like a week into my first year when 9-11 happened and we saw the reaction on the political right to 9-11 was this great urge to unleash the executive branch to go after the bad guys.
	And at that time, because I'm much more libertarian-minded, I wound up in opposition to a lot of things that the Bush administration were doing.
	I'm a constitutionalist.
	And a lot of things they were doing in the name of the war on terror were very dangerous.
	And I kept warning conservatives that all this power that you're amassing in the hands of the executive branch in the presidency to be used against, you know, radical extremism or against jihadists is going to be turned inward on you.
	That's why I kept warning them.
	It's like, hey, when you create this monster, DHS. You know, the FBI being able to write their own search warrants called National Security Letters under the Patriot Act.
	You know, Quiet Skies program, all that stuff.
	That's going to be used on you.
	And sadly, I was right.
	Because as soon as Obama came in, it's like a switch went off.
	It's like, oh, we're no longer going to focus on jihadists.
	We're going to switch over and focus on, you know, right-wing extremists and white supremacists.
	And they began to label on all the rest of us that.
	That's what started to happen to us.
	Wow.
	So the Patriot Act, obviously, was more geared.
	I mean, even at that time, I knew that this is bad news.
	You know, to me, that was cancel culture 1.0, at least in recent history.
	I think, you know, cancel culture goes way further back.
	But, you know, Phil Donahue, for example, he was a Democrat voice that when he went against the Iraq war narrative, I mean, he was quickly canceled after being very successful on television for a very long time.
	Right.
	Yeah, and so you saw, it's a mindset.
	I look at it like this.
	It's kind of like politics in general tends to be this way in the United States.
	Imagine a big, huge football stadium, and one half of the audience, their face is painted red, the other half, their face is painted blue.
	When the red team has the ball, everyone with their face painted red cheers, and they don't want to hear anything about restrictions or the rulebook.
	How dare you try to stop our team from doing what's necessary to win?
	And then the blue side, of course, when the red team has the ball, the blue side are going to howl and scream for the ref to look at the rulebook, and rulebook's the Constitution.
	But when the blue team gets the ball, same thing.
	All of a sudden now their guys can do no wrong, and if you criticize their guys, you're un-American.
	You're a traitor of your country if you criticize what they're doing.
	In the name of whatever it is, whatever the emergency is.
	In the name of the war on terror.
	COVID, whatever it is.
	So both sides tend to do that.
	They both tend to support their side 100%, especially in wartime, especially in times of emergency.
	And that's where when something's bipartisan, that's when you really should be scared.
	So when the Patriot Act was bipartisan, that meant you're being screwed by everybody.
	Both sides of the elite, uniparty, like Pat Buchanan called it, they're both Two different wings and the same bird of prey.
	The establishment is going to grow its power and they will use emergency to do it.
	And that's just human nature.
	So we saw that after 9-11.
	We just looked at the attention of Japanese Americans, including U.S. citizens.
	They were detained because of their race and that was seen as just fine because it was during wartime.
	So people tend to go along with expansions of power during times of emergency and war.
	And that's when the establishment will take advantage and they have a shopping list of things they want.
	They've always wanted.
	That's what we saw with the Patriot Act.
	Massive, huge, friggin' pile of legislation that you couldn't possibly have read being passed through Congress because it was called the Patriot Act.
	If you vote against it, well, they're just not patriotic.
	I remember even back then when I questioned the Iraq War, I mean, I'd get attacked.
	When I was like, you know, there's no weapons of mass destruction there, but the brainwashing was so heavy via media that...
	There were some weapons of mass destruction because the U.S. government sold them to Saddam.
	We had sold him mustard gas, I think it was.
	Right.
	So he had some biological or chemical warfare, but that's stuff that the U.S. government saw.
	Yeah.
	You know, people like, especially when you're with the Republican Party, I mean, both of us, I think, are libertarian at heart.
	But, you know, people often blame Barack Obama as the downfall, start of the downfall of this country.
	I tend to give almost 50-50 credit between George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
	What do you say to that?
	Well, I'll go way further back than that.
	I mean, the creation of the Federal Reserve and And then the creation of the CIA, those are two huge to me, and the FBI. Those are three big, huge benchmarks in the creation of Deep State.
	So the Federal Reserve, it's not a reserve, it's just private bankers that took over our money system.
	That was a major coup by unelected elites to control the money, finance.
	And then you had the creation of the CIA right after World War II. And Truman signed that into law and later lamented that he had been fooled, that he had agreed to the creation of the CIA only to be a conduit.
	This is going to sound familiar, right?
	We have too many different silos for intelligence.
	We need to have one that we can gather all the information for the president, and then he can just be briefed by that one entity.
	That's the whole purpose of the central.
	Intelligence Agency originally, just to bring together all the intelligence being brought in from the different branches of the military, bring it all together, and then be able to brief the president.
	That's why Truman signed it.
	He never intended them to have their own action arm or be able to exercise their own foreign policy.
	That's what rapidly happened.
	And so later on, Truman called it out and said, hey, that's not why I signed that.
	That wasn't my intent.
	So, and you saw the same thing after 9-11, right?
	Oh, boy, now we need to, because there are too many different agencies out there not communicating, we need a DHS. We need to bring it together under DHS. That was the justification for creating DHS, which became its own, you know, another fiefdom, its own secret police version of what the FBI had already been doing.
	Now DHS is running around sending out confidential human sources and trying to recruit people, like they tried to recruit Jeremy Brown.
	I believe a couple of the guys around that little team that tried to recruit him were DHS agents, not just FBI. Wow, it's crazy, man.
	It's so crazy.
	So, all right.
	Now, take us through, you know...
	So, my big point, though, is that the shadow...
	We should call the shadow government.
	I work for Ron Paul.
	You have your permanent washing, permanent bureaucracy, but then you have your unaccountable CIA. And then you can tack on the NSA onto that.
	And then the FBI has been its own little secret government.
	You know, J. Edgar Hoover ran that place like his own personal fiefdom, which it was, even though he was notoriously known as a crossdresser back then, which, you know, wasn't cool in politics back then.
	He was in there for life as director of the FBI because he had dirt on everybody.
	Everyone knew that he bugged their hotel rooms, their bedrooms.
	He would watch who they slept with.
	He'd follow them and tell them.
	You know, and tap their phones.
	And so they all knew that he had all the dirt.
	So no one ever tried to fire J. Edgar Hoover.
	No president dared ever try to fire him because he knew, you know, he knew who they were sleeping with.
	Which is basically the prototype of the black male industrial complex.
	Oh yeah, exactly.
	That's my point.
	That's what it was like in the old days of wiretaps and guys sneaking around with cameras.
	Imagine what it's like now with total information awareness.
	Even with everything out there being run through the NSA, they know exactly who's doing what.
	And that's what they use to control them.
	Absolutely.
	So that's why I'm saying that a real big, important benchmark is the creation of the CIA and the FBI. Because both of them have worked as secret police and as their own shadow government from the start.
	They're both part of it.
	And they both use the same methods of blackmail.
	You bet.
	Wow, wow.
	All right, so you're seeing, you know, I'm imagining you're going through law school, you're working with Ron Paul, you're seeing how this country is being stolen from us, you're seeing our freedoms taken away.
	And now lead us up to, you know...
	That's a big part of why I started Oath Keepers.
	So the example we would use to the public was, okay, Hurricane Katrina.
	And a lot of people on the conservative side can understand that.
	It's like, okay, yeah.
	They were confiscating guns.
	They shouldn't have been doing that.
	But for me, it was what I did during law school.
	I researched the application of the laws of war to American citizens.
	And that was under the Bush doctrine of, well, you know, in the war on terror, the president will designate, if the president designates anyone to be an enemy in the war on terror, he can treat that person under military jurisdiction.
	And they said, does it make a difference if he's a U.S. citizen or not?
	So I saw that.
	I was like, this is incredibly dangerous.
	And so I researched the application of laws of wars to Americans.
	And it started with Lincoln.
	Lincoln was the first president that said, hey, if you're a Northerner aiding the South, I'm going to hold you in military detention and even try you in front of a military tribunal.
	And he did that.
	He held 15,000 Northerners far beyond the habeas statute.
	At the time, the habeas suspension statute that Congress passed said you can hold them for 30 days.
	But at the end of 30 days, you must indict or release.
	That was the habea statute.
	But Lincoln held them for far beyond that, for months and years.
	And then he tried about 5,000 of them by military tribunal.
	So I researched all that, because the Bush doctrine was claiming the same power, that we're going to run the laws of war.
	You are an enemy.
	If we declare you an enemy in the war on terror, we're going to move you over to the military silo, the military track, and now you're going to be tried or held and tried under military jurisdiction, period.
	And that's obviously not constitutional.
	So I stood up against that when I was a student at Yale Law School.
	I wrote about it.
	And that paper that I wrote about that won their top prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights for the whole university.
	And then after that, I was awarded as a Yale Law Research Scholar to keep studying that issue.
	So for about a year I was a Yale Research Scholar.
	So my point being that back then, because it was a Republican administration, you know, hey, I was winning awards at Yale Law School, and they figured out my work is so good, that should be a research scholar.
	That was then.
	This is now.
	If you criticize the left, you know, after that, when they came into power with Obama, it switched over.
	And if I'd have been going to law school during the Obama years and criticizing Obama, I probably wouldn't have gotten any traction at all.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	This is the way it is.
	You know, we've heard on the Blood Money podcast that Lincoln wasn't necessarily what's advertised and what's propagandized.
	What's your feeling about Lincoln?
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, he grossly violated the Constitution.
	In fact, ironically, the seditious conspiracy statute they used against me is a Civil War statute.
	You know, the treason clause is pretty clear about what you do with an American accused of making war on the United States or aiding its enemies is you try them for treason.
	And the Treason Clause in Article III requires two witnesses to the same overt act.
	In order to convince someone of treason, you have to have two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court.
	And what the founders were trying to avoid is what they had seen in the Star Chambers in England where people were tortured and coerced into confessing, false confessions.
	Let's earmark that for later discussion.
	But yeah, they wanted to...
	Get away from a system of being tortured behind the scenes and confessing.
	They wanted confession only in open court.
	And they also wanted two witnesses, the same overt act, because they didn't want speech to be the trigger for being declared a traitor and then executed.
	They didn't want that to be on speech.
	They had to take an overt act.
	They wanted two witnesses to be sure that it wasn't just some kind of trumped up, you know, false charges.
	So that's what they put into the Treason Clause.
	Civil War comes along, and the Lincoln administration doesn't want to have to put every northerner they think is aiding the enemy.
	They don't want to put them through a treason trial because with all those restrictions, they want to do what they want.
	So they created the...
	So this is conspiracy statute, which has no act element.
	It just says, if you find that two or more persons agreed to resist with force...
	The authority of the United States, you may find them guilty of seditious conspiracy.
	That's all it says.
	No act required.
	And if you finally took material steps towards the furtherance of this conspiracy, none of that's in there.
	That's it.
	No act element.
	That's what they used against us.
	That's what they used against me.
	And they did use my speech.
	That's the whole point of not having an act element, is it allows them to facilitate the targeting of free speech.
	So, there you go.
	Wow, wow.
	Tell us about the Civil War.
	I mean, you're obviously a well-studied individual.
	What could you tell us about the Civil War that the common person does not know?
	Well, so the big one, so everyone knows about Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, right, on his own.
	He just said, hey, I'm going to suspend habeas corpus because in Maryland, you know, we're reaching an insurrection in Maryland, which was going to go over to the side of the South.
	They didn't want that.
	So that was the excuse for him.
	On his own, sui sponte, suspending habeas corpus.
	But then Congress did pass, like I said earlier, Congress did pass a habeas suspension statute for the Civil War.
	What people don't understand, though, is that that one said, hold them for 30 days, but at the end of 30 days, you either indict or release.
	That's what the law was.
	Lincoln ignored that.
	And under his wartime powers, he said, hey, this is a war.
	So as the war, you know, the commander-in-chief, if they're the enemy, I'm going to hold them to military detention.
	And he did.
	He held them for years, the 15,000 Northerners.
	I'm not talking about Southerners, because in the Civil War, the South became its own country.
	And even though the North, of course, didn't want to recognize that as legitimate.
	They treated each other like two foreign nations.
	They had truces.
	They had ceasefires.
	They exchanged prisoners.
	There was an expectation that the laws of war would be obeyed.
	So they were treating each other like nations.
	But that's not what we're talking about.
	We're not talking about southerners that were captured and then held the military attention.
	That happened, you know, hundreds of thousands of them, right?
	We're talking about northerners, northern citizens who weren't part of the breakaway south, who were accused of aiding the enemy in all time, which is treason.
	But like I said, they don't want to use the treason clause.
	They created the seditious conspiracy statute.
	But even that wasn't freewheeling enough for Lincoln.
	He just went ahead and used military jurisdiction.
	And he held 15,000 people for some of them for years.
	About 5,000 were tried by military tribunal.
	And some of those were executed.
	So you got no jury trial, no grand jury indictment, no jury trial.
	None of the things that are listed out in the Bill of Rights.
	You're treated like an enemy in wartime, like a foreign enemy in wartime.
	So that's what Lincoln did, and people don't understand that.
	And that's what, in many ways, laid around as a model for what was done in the War on Terror.
	But after 1866, after the war was over, Lincoln had been assassinated.
	One of the guys who was slated to be executed was named Milligan.
	And he filed a claim with the U.S. Supreme Court that I'm being, you know, improperly held.
	And the Supreme Court took the case.
	It's called ex parte Milligan, 1866. It's one of those rare Supreme Court cases where they're deciding on emergency powers and war powers after the emergency is over, after the war is over.
	So in 1866, the Supreme Court put the genie back in the bottle.
	They said what Lincoln had done, the Lincoln administration had done with the attention of American citizens under the laws of war, you know, Northerners, that was unconstitutional.
	They said he, because he's a Northerner, because he wasn't part of the breakaway South, he had a right to a jury trial for the charge of treason.
	It was improper to put him in military jurisdiction.
	So that was, you know, like I said, putting things back to rights.
	It wasn't until World War II with FDR that the U.S. government once again claimed this authority under the laws of war to detain even U.S. citizens and put them on trial for military tribunals.
	And that happened in a case called Ex parte Queren, where you had two German Americans born in the United States who had gone over to the Nazis and trained in Germany and came back on a U-boat to become saboteurs.
	They came ashore to go, you know, blow up factories and power lines and things like that.
	They got caught by the FBI. But then they put them in military jurisdiction and said, we're going to use military tribunal on these people.
	And in that case, this was during World War II, during the emergency, during the war, the Supreme Court said that was fine.
	We can apply military jurisdiction, that what mattered is what they were charged with.
	If they're accused of violating the laws of war, then military jurisdiction is proper, is what the court ruled.
	And that's the precedent that the Bush administration reached back to.
	So, ex parte clarin was a wartime decision, and just like with Korematsu, right?
	During World War II, Japanese Americans were being rounded up, many of them born in the United States.
	They're U.S. citizens.
	When they complained, in the Korematsu case, the Supreme Court overstamped that.
	So, that's fine.
	You know, it's wartime.
	We're going to go ahead and let the President do that.
	So, that's my point about wartime courts versus peacetime courts.
	In wartime, like during the War on Terror.
	People tend to want to just, hey, do whatever it takes to win the war, and courts are the same friggin' way.
	Judges are just like anybody else.
	They're human.
	They're going to do what they think is right, their patriotic duty during a war.
	That's what we saw.
	That's our cycle.
	During wars, during emergencies, during COVID. Oh, COVID hit.
	This is an unprecedented pandemic.
	So during this pandemic, in order to have an election, we've got to go ahead and...
	You know, change the rules.
	And so they directly violated multiple state, blatant violations of state election law in the name of the emergency.
	You had state judges and people inside the executive branch, you know, election officials, violating the law passed by the legislature.
	But that was seen as okay because it's COVID, because it's an emergency.
	And that brought us to the crisis of 2020. The Supreme Court of the United States When Texas sued Pennsylvania, pointing out that Pennsylvania is obviously not following their own state statute, and that triggers a violation of Article 2, because Article 2 of the Constitution says that the state legislature shall determine the manner for selecting electors, right?
	So it didn't say anything in there about or state judges, it didn't say anything about executive branch officials in the states, just the legislature.
	So when the legislature, like for example in 2000, In Florida, with the whole hanging Chad thing, the Supreme Court stepped in and said, under Article 2, you have to follow Florida election law.
	You're not doing that.
	So the Supreme Court enforced Florida election law through the conduit of Article 2. Article 2 is pretty clear.
	You've got to follow whatever law is passed by the state legislature.
	And that's why in the Bush v.
	Gore, the Supreme Court stepped in and gave the election to Bush, because they were enforcing Florida election law.
	Same exact thing should have happened in 2020. When Texas sued Pennsylvania, that's what's known as original jurisdiction.
	That means that the Supreme Court, in any dispute between two states, the Supreme Court is the trial court.
	They're the ones who sit as the trial court.
	You don't have to go to a district court in some federal district somewhere and then appeal to the appellate court.
	You go straight to the Supreme Court.
	So Texas sued Pennsylvania.
	The Supreme Court of the United States should have heard that case and should have decided it for President Trump in 2020. But because they didn't do that, they ducked their responsibility, refused to even hear the case.
	And Alito and Thomas were like, hey, wait a minute, we have no discretion not to hear this.
	It's under our original jurisdiction.
	But the scuttlebutt out of the Supreme Court, a whistleblower, said that Robert screamed at Alito and Thomas and said, if we do this, if we step in, Like we did in 2000. If we step in and give the election to Trump, they will burn down our cities.
	That's what Roberts was screaming at Alito and Thomas.
	And he might have been right.
	So I think the terrorism of the left all through the summer of 2020, burning down cities, declaring sovereign territory and, you know, Chaz and Chop and all that, I think that was actually effective at coercing the Supreme Court to stay out of it when it came to the theft of the election.
	I mean, it almost seems as though we see this reoccurring thing where catastrophe, war, emergencies are used to basically take away our rights.
	I mean, that seems to be something that's been going on since the war.
	Absolutely.
	It's been going on through our history.
	That's why I bring up this Alien Sedition Acts.
	That was during what they call the Quasi-War with France.
	The French Revolution just happened.
	The radicals of the French Revolution had taken over.
	And the Federalists at that time were accusing, this is very similar to today too, right?
	They were accusing Jefferson of being in allegiance with the French, with the Jacobin radicals, French radicals who are overthrowing their own monarchy there.
	And the Federalists were saying, this is a dangerous...
	Basically the communism of their day, right?
	They're so radical, so extreme, they're going to wipe out personal rights.
	That was the accusation thrown at Jefferson.
	He was in allegiance with these radicals from France, and the Jeffersonians should be seen as enemies.
	And same thing today, right?
	What do they say that all those Trump supporters are?
	We're all Putinists, right?
	We're all following Putin's talking points.
	We've all been brainwashed by Vladimir Putin and Trump's a puppet of Putin.
	Same accusation.
	What's different?
	You're a domestic enemy in alliance with a foreign enemy.
	That's the accusation.
	So that was used against the Jeffersonians back then, Jefferson and Madison, when they came up with their new political party against the Federalists.
	It didn't work.
	So that smear didn't work and just like the smear against Trump supporters did not work.
	I mean, was the Civil War, you know, backtracking to the Civil War, just one more question about it.
	Was it really about what they tell us?
	Was it really about, you know, saving the slaves?
	Is there more to it?
	Because it seems as though, right after the Civil War, you almost have this invasion of the British judicial system upon our culture.
	You know, then the groundwork is set for the Federal Reserve, and then 1913 the Federal Reserve happens.
	I mean, is there more you could tell us about?
	Yeah, I mean, so...
	Out of the Civil War came like an ultra-nationalism that was then used, yeah, it was then used to, you know, create, I think it led to a more centralization of power, absolutely.
	So that's the problem, is that emergencies, like the ratchet goes one way.
	You go up...
	In power, like the Civil War, right?
	The President can do pretty much whatever he wants.
	The Supreme Court trimmed that back with ex parte Milligan, in the case I talked about.
	But it doesn't go all the way back.
	It just goes back.
	It goes back a little bit.
	Then it gets ratcheted up.
	The next emergency, boom, then it goes back a little bit.
	It's a one-way ratchet.
	It keeps going up and up and up and up and up.
	And that's what we see throughout our history.
	You know, World War II, yes, the Korematsu decision was terrible.
	Detention of Japanese Americans.
	That was all bad.
	But that ratchet of centralization of power, or you can look at the Great Depression, same thing, right?
	That ratchet of power never goes back to where it was pre-emergency.
	It always gets, you know, it's a little bit higher up each time.
	And that's true of all of our emergencies throughout our history.
	Yes.
	And so it's a very rare, very rare situation for them to curtail their power.
	That's why I bring up the ex parte milligan decision.
	That's why the Supreme Court kind of put the GD back in the bottle and said, oh, no, that's just going too far.
	But, you know, of course.
	No surprise, FDR crosses that line again when it comes to laws of war.
	Today, after I wrote my paper, I wrote my paper in 2004 before I graduated from Yale Law School, and I condemned what they were doing as a clear violation of the Treason Clause.
	A few months later, in the Hamdi decision, this is the Supreme Court case about one of the Americans.
	There were two Americans held in military attention here in the United States.
	One was Yasser Hamdi, one was Jose Padilla.
	So the Supreme Court heard the Hamdi case, and in that case, Only, I believe it was only Thomas and Alito said no.
	And Thomas wrote the dissent.
	Scalia sided with the, no, wait a minute.
	It was Scalia.
	My bad.
	Scalia and Alito said no.
	Thomas actually sided with the leftist on the court.
	You know, one of his old law clerks had been John Yoo, who worked for the Bush administration.
	So I think he had a lot of influence on Thomas.
	Only Scalia and Alito said, hey, this is clearly a violation of the Treason Clause.
	This is what you do with an American accused of making war in his own country.
	It requires a trial for treason.
	You can't just hold the military attention.
	But the Supreme Court sided with the Bush administration.
	And so today, right now, that's the current law.
	The current law, if you don't understand this, the current law is that any president right now, if you wanted to, could detain any American, just accuse you of being an enemy in the war on terror.
	And snap you up into a military brig.
	That's what's going on right now.
	That's the current good law.
	Is there any foreign power that has had the most influence on taking away our rights in terms of tangibly within the United States?
	Has there been such a foreign power that's influenced us in a negative way?
	Yeah, I mean, the federal courts.
	You live under a rule of basically oligarchy of judges now.
	And yeah, they look increasingly towards international law, right?
	You've got Supreme Court justices now.
	I think Kagan's one of them, right?
	Where they point to, and I know that before she passed away, what was her name?
	One that just died.
	Ginsburg.
	So she was pointing to international law all the time.
	These are internationalists.
	That's what I saw at Yale Law School.
	I mean, Yale Law School, when we first got there, the dean gave a speech where he said, this is like one of those powerful blocks of buildings on the planet because everyone in the world comes to Yale Law School, you know.
	So, and it's very influential.
	They see themselves as internationalists.
	You know, the super jet set, super rich, don't see themselves as citizens of any country, right?
	They see themselves as like a super national elite, and that's how they behave.
	And so, yes, they're always looking towards You know, whether it's the United Nations or the International Criminal Court or whatever, or the Davos Group or whatever, or the Bilderberg Group, you know, they see themselves as their own separate entity that decides what really happens.
	Legislatures, you know, structures of government in the big picture to them don't really matter.
	It's who holds all the money.
	And then through that, they control the politicians.
	So take us through now, you know, January 6th, man.
	I want to hear about your prison experiences, number of days, what they did.
	I want to hear all of it.
	So this is the point about January 6th, though, is that the prosecutions of all of us on January 6th and the event itself that day, we were going to have challenges to the slates of electors.
	And John Eastman was absolutely correct.
	You had illegitimate slates that were not run in the state.
	I don't need to see the proof of fraud.
	All I know is that the state laws that were designed to prevent fraud and also designed to make it easier to discover and identify fraud were directly violated.
	So of course it's harder.
	To prove election fraud when they don't follow the state laws that either prevent it or identify it.
	So that's what happened.
	I only look at, okay, did you follow state election law?
	The answer is no.
	That means your frigging election in that state was illegal, full stop, under state election law.
	But that also triggers under Article 2. It's now a constitutional violation.
	Because you didn't follow the method established by your state legislature.
	That made it unconstitutional.
	Again, full fucking stop.
	Why do I got to go beyond that?
	I don't need to.
	So that election, that's why the left and the establishment will never talk about constitutionality or legality.
	All they'll say is that this was the fairest, most secure, most fairest election ever.
	And they'll say something like, no meaningful election fraud was found that would have changed the outcome.
	That's what they say.
	They never say, "Oh, this was a legal election or a constitutional one." They don't want you thinking about that.
	They don't want you looking at that.
	So it's kabuki theater and sleight of hand.
	Just think about whether or not – no court of law accepted any of Trump's arguments.
	They were all dismissed.
	That's true.
	Including the Supreme Court of the United States when they didn't do their friggin job.
	That threw us into a constitutional crisis.
	That's what we were there to protest against in November and December and January, as well as another big rally in Atlanta.
	And every one of those Oath Keepers, like we've always done throughout the Trump administration, we were there to protect Trump supporters against Antifa or Black Lives Matter.
	Black Lives Matter jumped into the fray in 2020, but before then it was Antifa in the streets attacking Trump supporters.
	And we've been very successful across the country at stopping that.
	In all of our security operations, every single one No one that we were protecting ever got hurt, whether it's an individual we were guarding or an event.
	No event we were ever securing got shut down.
	Antifa just couldn't do it.
	But on the flip side of that, no Oath Keeper ever had to use force.
	No Oath Keeper ever shot anybody, pepper sprayed anybody, hit anybody with a baton, kicked or punched anyone.
	Just never had to use force because Antifa was afraid to close on us because they knew that we had a large number of retired police officers.
	Who can carry nationwide?
	If I've got a current serving sheriff deputy or current serving constable, for example, with me in D.C., guess what?
	He can carry a gun.
	And they do.
	And so Antifa knows that among the Oath Keepers, about 30% of our membership were cops.
	And they knew that we always had armed police.
	They just never knew who it was.
	They can't tell, right?
	We're all dressed alike, kind of like they do.
	So we're all wearing 5'11 shirts and looking like we're carried concealed.
	They have no idea which guy has a gun, which one doesn't.
	I think it was a big factor along with our professionalism.
	We just, you know, we did not yell and scream at them, didn't, you know, didn't throw insults back at them.
	We were just quiet professionals, and we were very effective.
	That's the backdrop.
	So the backdrop, you know, you'll see the leftists say, oh, Oath Keeper is one of the most violent organizations, you know, on the radical right.
	And it's like, where's the violence?
	You know, we deterred violence.
	With our presence, we can certainly if we had to, but that's the whole point is that because we're competent and they are afraid of us, they don't close and so we don't wind up having to do anything.
	That's been our pattern all the way through January 6th.
	In fact, on January the 6th, show me the video of an oath keeper beating up a cop.
	It doesn't exist.
	It's not there.
	All right.
	So, you know, January 6th.
	Tell me what you witnessed, what happened over there.
	Take me through the events of that day.
	Sure.
	So, as we said before, the U.S. Capitol, right outside the east doors on the grass, was where Ali Alexander's event was going to be taking place.
	Members of Congress were slated to speak there.
	Roger Stone was the keynote speaker.
	And so we had a security detail on Roger Stone.
	They'd been with him the night of the 5th and on the 6th.
	That was one detail.
	The other detail was the Alexander speakers, they were starting off at the Ellipse rally with President Trump in the VIP section.
	So that team, which is the Florida team led by Kelly Meggs, they went into the VIP section at President Trump's Ellipse rally, sitting with their protectees, all of Alexander's speakers.
	At the end of that rally, they then escort those speakers, as planned, to the Capitol.
	And this is important because, you know, the whole thing about, well, you know, President Trump told them to go to the Capitol.
	He didn't do that.
	What he said is, now I know you're going to go to the Capitol, or now you're going to go to the Capitol.
	He's describing what they had already planned to do.
	He knew that just as of November and December, Trump supporters were going to walk from the Ellipse rally.
	Go walk to the Capitol to attend other rallies that were already planned all around the Capitol.
	There were like nine permitted events scheduled that day for around the Capitol.
	And this has been the pattern.
	November and December, same thing.
	In November, there was a huge rally at Freedom Plaza.
	Alex Jones led the march all the way to the Capitol, but they already planned on doing that.
	There were events scheduled to be around the Capitol, in the street, in between the Supreme Court and the Capitol.
	A huge crowd.
	I was there for that.
	That's the pattern, and that's what they were going to do on January 6th again.
	So our guys marched people, escorted Ali Alexander's speakers to the section where they were going to be to give their speeches in front of the Congress.
	So that's what they were doing that day.
	And then the other contingent of Oath Keepers were with Latinos for Trump about a block north of the Capitol.
	Next to the Senate office buildings was the Latino for Trump rally.
	And that had been scheduled before Trump's announcement of his rally on the Ellipse.
	Latinos for Trump had already reserved that space up there next to the Senate buildings.
	And in fact, the organizer for Latinos for Trump, Bianca Gracia, she was frustrated because when Trump announced his rally at the exact same time, it was obviously going to suck away the audience for the Latinos for Trump rally.
	It's just reality.
	But the point was, there were already Planned, permitted events scheduled around the Capitol, even before President Trump announced his rally.
	So that's why when he said, now you're going to be going to the Capitol, he's recognizing something that was already long before planned that was going to happen.
	So it just drives me crazy.
	And people are like, oh, here's Trump ordering his people to attack the Capitol.
	He's just recognizing the reality they were already going to go to the Capitol.
	That's it.
	So that's what our guys were doing.
	They marched those people up to the Capitol, escorted them, and then some of their protectees ran up the steps along with everybody else, and there you go.
	That's what happened.
	Our guys got sucked into the Capitol.
	We went in 20 minutes after Congress had recessed.
	They walked up the steps and went in through doors open from the inside by somebody else.
	And yet, you know, the media out of the gate on that day highlighted the Oath Keepers going up the steps, called it an assault stack, all kinds of stupid crap.
	I don't know how they expect you to walk up a flight of steps.
	As a group, you can't go abreast.
	You're going to go in a file, right?
	You're going to go in a line through the crowd.
	That's all they did.
	They put their hands on each other's shoulders to maintain contact through a crowd.
	We had trained them to do that on security missions.
	When you're escorting a VIP through a crowd, you'll put your hands on each other's shoulders to make sure that your VIP doesn't get mixed in with the crowd.
	That's how you do it.
	But they took that image like, oh, look, here's an assault stack.
	They're in a military formation.
	But they didn't go in until 20 minutes after Congress recessed.
	So they didn't cause a recess.
	They didn't lead anything.
	They were going in 20 minutes later.
	But because of who we are, they targeted us because of who we are.
	It's like, oh, here's the Oath Keepers.
	Let's make them the poster boys for J6. They focused on the two groups that the left has aided for years.
	Because we stopped them in the street, and they probably were effective, too, in the street against Antifa.
	And we've worked together, just so you know, we've worked together in the past.
	Both groups have worked together side by side.
	Like in Berkeley, in downtown Berkeley, Martin Luther King Park, twice we worked together.
	And in Portland.
	So we've always been, a lot of times we'll be at the same events.
	They're doing their thing, we're doing our thing.
	We do coordinate on occasion.
	But the point is, though, the two groups have been aided by the left for a long time because we stopped Antifa in the streets.
	They don't like that.
	So we're already hated.
	So when J6 happened, the leftist media out of the gate was like, oh, here's the Oath Keepers, here's the Proud Boys.
	And that was the narrative right there.
	Out of the gate was the narrative was that President Trump, as the kingpin, ordered the attack on the Capitol, and the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys were his.
	You know, Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, Stuart Rhodes, leader of the Oath Keepers, they're his lieutenants to carry out the attack.
	That's the narrative right there.
	And that was set from day one.
	And all of our prosecution since then, everything they've done since then, has been to create that false reality, to make that true.
	That's what they've been doing.
	I mean, you know, I've got to mention this, because people that don't understand, you know, they're like, oh, how could the whole mainstream media get it wrong?
	I went through something like that.
	I had a corrupt Republican sheriff, as you know, called me the third assassin.
	Called me a sovereign citizen.
	The entire mainstream media around the world ran with it without even opening up a dictionary to look at some of the accusations it's making.
	Like, I'm a sovereign citizen, which implies that your first number one point of sovereign citizens is that you're anti-government.
	But then I've ran for office in 2022. I've been supporting candidates since 2000. I've been involved in politics actively since 2008. But they don't do that research.
	They just ran with it.
	And it seems as though you're talking about that same thing.
	Kind of a story, but whereas, I mean, I got fortunate because I have a lot of patriot friends that stood up for me that have audiences.
	It seems as though you guys pretty much were overtaken by the tsunami of lies.
	Well, sure.
	I mean, like my old boss Ron Paul once said, he said, truth is treason in the empire of lies.
	And that's true.
	So if you're telling the truth, like if you're telling the truth about their theft of the election, then of course, in their mind, you're committing treason.
	And the corollary to that is, well, the lies are loyalty.
	In the empire of lies, truth is treason, and lies are loyalty.
	So the media is going to spin the lie.
	The big lie is that this was an insurrection, and it was an insurrection inspired by and led by Trump as the kingpin.
	That's the big lie.
	But that's used, it's like a Reichstag fire.
	Wag the dog, manipulation of a real event.
	Yes, there was a real protest outside the Capitol.
	And then, you know, I think it made it easy to get inside.
	They wanted people to get inside so they can just shut it all down, shut down the count, and then project onto us what they were doing.
	They were committing a coup.
	They were in the process of ceding an illegitimate imposter who did not win the election.
	They're installing him through fraud and through illegality.
	But to cover for that, they don't want us looking at that.
	That's why J6 is a manipulated event that was used to distract attention from what they had been doing.
	They committed a coup in 2020, stole the election.
	COVID was part of it.
	All of that was just a huge setup.
	They'll allow them to stop Trump and take power back.
	To cover for that, though, they've got to magnify J6 into something way beyond what it was and make it look so bad that everyone's focused on that.
	J6, J6, J6. That's what they did.
	And that's why it was stupid to go inside.
	And that's what I told my guys when they came out.
	When they came out, I was standing outside trying to find my security teams.
	That's what I was doing.
	And I was standing up for what I was seeing.
	It's like, hey, what do you expect?
	This is kind of like the Boston Tea Party.
	Or this is like when the Patriots trashed the governor, Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts.
	You know, just prior to the revolution, they trashed his mansion and threw all his crap out in the street because they were pissed off at what he was doing.
	So I said, this is very much like that.
	People are pissed at their elections being stolen, and this is a protest.
	And I defended what I saw.
	But then after my guys walked up to me finally, Meng's team, and said, hey, we went inside, my first response was, that was stupid.
	And the reason why I said that was stupid is because, not because they had done anything wrong.
	I don't think they committed a crime at all.
	But just because we're oath keepers, I knew that we would be targeted, that they would use their entry to target us, which is what happened, you know?
	So I want to make it very clear that I'm not condemning my people.
	I think they got sucked into it along with a bunch of other people.
	Like 1,500 people went in the Capitol, right?
	And my guys inside connect themselves honorably.
	They did nothing but help.
	In fact, they helped police officers on multiple occasions.
	But because of who we are...
	Because we've been targeted by Southern Public Law Center, ADL, the entire left-wing media for, you know, over a decade have already been targeting us and demonizing us.
	I realized that by them going inside, you know, they're making it easier for our enemies to demonize us, which is what they did.
	So, we were singled out.
	Yeah, how much of this is, you know, because it seems as though this has been happening for a long time.
	How much of this is an attack on the men, attack on the protector?
	Oh, absolutely.
	You know?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So, you know, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are both expressions of, like, we can call it manhood culture or warrior culture.
	The Proud Boys are street fighters.
	Some of those guys are veterans, too, though.
	I want to say it's just nothing but street fighters.
	But that's their, they're about, hey, they're about manhood.
	They're about men standing up and protecting our civilization, right?
	So, and Oath Keepers is very much the same way.
	We're about our oath, but hey, what's the oath to?
	It's to the Constitution.
	It's to, you know, our North Stars, our Constitution.
	But it's no denying it.
	It's two different versions of a warrior culture in manhood.
	And of course, the powers that be don't want men to stand up.
	They want you to stand up when they want you to go fight for them.
	But once you're done fighting for them, you can be their can of fodder, whatever war they want to send you into.
	That just makes them money.
	That's cool.
	They'll celebrate you and call you a hero and everything.
	But when you come home after that, you're dangerous now.
	You're toxic masculinity, right?
	And of course, when the left overtly took over under the Biden administration, it was a war on manhood in the military, too.
	They didn't want traditional...
	Let's put it bluntly.
	They didn't want white Christian patriotic males in the military.
	They wanted to purge us out because that's in their mind.
	That's their enemy.
	And they also don't like, just so you understand, they don't like what they call white adjacent males.
	Like I was in prison with a couple of Marines.
	One of them was white and one was black.
	The black guy's name was Rob.
	Hardcore Marine.
	Super fit.
	We used to work out with them.
	And we would joke with Rob, like, oh, hey, Rob, you're white adjacent.
	That's what they call you now.
	Because if you're a black man, but you have to adopt traditional American conservative values and like a warrior mindset, you're patriotic, that means you're a wannabe white man.
	You're white adjacent.
	You got a kick out of that.
	So they will couch it in terms of race to divide and conquer us, but really it's ideology.
	They're radical Marxists.
	They don't believe in human nature.
	They don't believe in inherent rights at all.
	They think that man is infinitely malleable.
	They can just shape you into whatever they want.
	That's why they deny gender, they deny reality.
	And their whole goal is to get you in a state of confusion about what's right and wrong so that whatever the party says is now the true right.
	It's just whatever the party says.
	Going back to Orwell, right?
	Two plus two equals five.
	If the party says so, then that's the truth.
	That's what they want.
	And so they have to destroy anything that gets in the way of their ability to do that, they see as a threat.
	And obviously, if you're a traditional American, you love your country, you believe in God, you believe in natural rights, you believe in the Declaration of Independence, they see you as the enemy.
	And they're right.
	You are their enemy.
	Absolutely.
	And they hate manhood.
	They have to destroy it.
	Absolutely right.
	They want a bunch of beta males that are too soft to resist them.
	And their epitome of a man is actually a tranny.
	Yeah, yeah.
	On the Blood Money podcast, we've done so many episodes on different subsections of this topic, like health, like these receipts that have estrogen in there, like the plastic bottles while you drink, that feminize you.
	In fact, a lot of the frontline doctors, the people that were telling the truth during the COVID situation, whatever that was, They have protocols, which is like estrogen blockers and filtering your water and even taking testosterone supplements to basically counteract all the poison that we're given.
	So it seems like chemically, psychologically, physically, they just want to destroy anything masculine.
	Absolutely.
	They want a bunch of beta cucks.
	That's what they want.
	They want, yeah.
	I mean...
	You know, I've known a legislator at the state level in the West who is a hardcore gun rights advocate.
	This is a female.
	And she went in and she once told me, she said, all the women in the legislature are radical lesbians on the left.
	They hate heterosexuality.
	They not only hate heterosexual males, they hate heterosexual females too.
	Like I said, they've taken the Marxist...
	The Marxist critique of society and war on society to the ultimate level.
	They just hate normality.
	They hate heterosexuality.
	So, you know, it's just not the men.
	It's women, too.
	They really want everyone to be gay.
	I mean, that's so crazy, because then what, like, just world ends, like, after a few generations?
	I mean, it's just such a state ideology.
	I don't know.
	I mean, maybe they have, I mean, you know, of course, they've At the elite level, they want depopulation because they look at us as useless, you know, useless, no longer needed workforce, right?
	I think, what was her name?
	Austin Fitz?
	Catherine Austin Fitz?
	She talked about that years ago.
	She said that, you know, she's had conversations because she's running in financial circles at the elite level around the world.
	She had conversations with elitists basically saying it's almost time for the purge.
	You know, because of robotics and AI, they look at us, okay, before they needed workers, they needed a massive I think that's true.
	I think the world elites look at most of the people on the planet as being excess, unnecessary eaters.
	They look at us like cattle, so they're going to purge us.
	I think that's what's happening.
	But along the way, the leftists in this country are like useful idiots.
	They will use them, and they have used them.
	To destroy our society and dismantle it if they can.
	But it's not working.
	I was kind of cool in prison.
	I saw that black, Hispanic, white, these are all working class guys, right?
	That's where they come from.
	Probably any of them are rich or higher educated.
	A couple of doctors here and there.
	A couple of lawyers.
	I was one of the lawyers.
	But very few.
	Most of the guys are working class.
	And they love Trump.
	And they love him.
	Because he got persecuted, because he's now the felon in chief, but they also admire him as a man.
	He's a self-made millionaire businessman and they admire that.
	They admire his business acumen and they also admired his balls when he stood up and when he got shot.
	That's why I got this tattoo on my arm.
	I don't know if you saw that or not.
	I got that after he got shot because I saw the reaction of the men in my unit.
	They all stood up and cheered, pumped their fists in the air, and they're like, hey, you know, Trump's an OG, his original gangster.
	So, you know, these are men, and so they come from their own warrior culture.
	I had some conversations with a few of them about gang culture, and I said, hey, man, they said, what do you think about...
	You know, the gang violence in the cities with black-on-black crime.
	I said, well, I think it's a perversion of the warrior culture.
	You're destroying your own communities.
	You're not protecting your own communities or providing.
	You're actually destroying it.
	So it's just a perversion.
	It's a perversion of the warrior culture.
	And they accepted that.
	Like, okay.
	Because they knew I'd serve them as a paratrooper.
	And so that's another kind of interesting lesson.
	They really respect military service.
	And in many ways, they're very patriotic.
	You know, they love our country.
	They hate the feds.
	A very common tattoo is FTF. You know, fucks the feds.
	Some guys have it across their forehead or on the back of the side of their neck.
	FTF. They can't stand the federal government, but they still love their country.
	And a lot of them, they would love to serve in the military.
	A lot of them said they wanted to, and they were younger, but they got wrapped up in gang crap and got sidelined and wound up in prison, and so now they can't serve.
	So I think there should be federal parole.
	And give a guy an option of going and serving in the military.
	Throw him on a friggin' aircraft carrier out in the middle of nowhere.
	He's not going to be able to hurt anybody.
	Give him a trade.
	Give him some work.
	Give him some structure.
	Give him something to feel proud about.
	Steer the polluted or corrupted warrior culture or the gang culture.
	Steer that into a more positive one in the military.
	That's what I think is a big part of the solution.
	So you got wasted manhood and wasted manpower sitting in prison.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, you know...
	That's part of the war on manhood right there, is, you know, put them in prison.
	You know, and we could get into the conversation of, when you talk about gang culture, how music was influenced by individuals that were also funding the prison industrial complex.
	We're going to get into that conversation, actually, because I think there's a lot of parallels here between January 6th, which I believe was a COINTELPRO operation, which is, you know, you look at COINTELPRO. Pro of the 60s and 70s, how they went after the black community, Black Panthers.
	It was all about taking their guns away.
	California laws for guns start to change based upon, essentially, an FBI co-intel pro operation.
	Real quickly, I just want to mention for the viewers, you know, you could see under Stewart's name right there, right next to Stewart's name, his GiveSendGo account.
	Very simple GiveSendGo account.
	I highly encourage the viewers to help Stewart out.
	I mean, you know, man, you just spent a lot of time in jail.
	You came out, you're trying to figure your life out.
	Hey, I'll be straight up.
	Like a lot of the guys, lost my home, lost my truck, lost my motorcycle.
	I really hurt.
	Lost my Harley.
	But we're just rebuilding.
	I mean, I haven't been able to work in three freaking years, you know, and we're starting from scratch.
	I got nothing right now, actually.
	But I just started working for Condemned USA. I'm now their new national spokesman.
	That's good.
	They need help, too.
	So I would encourage folks to be absolutely pleased if you can.
	You know, throw me a few bucks in my Give, Send, Go.
	It helps me get started again.
	And I would say the same for other J6ers.
	You know, we need your help.
	You know, we're walking out of prisons with nothing but the clothes on our back.
	And that's just the reality.
	But I also encourage them to support Condemned USA. So Condemned USA was started by Trent Evans, another J6er.
	He was facing 20 years in prison, too, for 1512 for obstruction of official proceedings.
	But thankfully, I was knocked out by the Supreme Court.
	But he started this organization to help others who are still in.
	And it goes far beyond J6ers.
	So Condemned USA helped me when I was in.
	They helped pay for my attorneys and also give me support.
	In fact, when I got out of prison.
	Huge support structure for us and part of the J6 support community has been really fantastic.
	So that's why I'm working for them now, because I want to help other people.
	And we've got people in state courts now being prosecuted.
	You've got Tina Peters is a good example, election official out of Colorado.
	She was hit in a lawfare at the state level.
	She was hit by the Colorado state courts to criminalize her calling out the election as being stolen.
	And they criminalized it.
	Same thing they did against President Trump in Georgia and New York.
	Same crap.
	The lawfare continues at the state level.
	Anywhere the left is in power, anywhere the Democrats are in power, they're going to use lawfare against conservatives.
	It's just reality.
	Whether you're an abortion protester, whether you're a clean election advocate, they're going to try to hammer you.
	Or if you're just involved in a self-defense situation like Daniel Penny was in New York, right?
	So we had a situation here in Texas.
	I'm back in Texas now, thank God.
	But in Texas, they had that one, I forgot the name, but he was an active-duty military army soldier who was driving an Uber in Austin for extra money, and he ran into a Black Lives Matter protest, and a white guy with an AK-47 pointed his rifle at this driver.
	I think his last name was Perry.
	But he pointed the rifle at the driver, and this guy's a soldier, so he pulls his pistol out and shoots him.
	Because if you're pointing a rifle at me, that's a lethal threat right there.
	So he shoots the guy with the AK, righteous self-defense.
	He's found guilty, of course, in Austin, Texas, radical leftist stronghold.
	He's found guilty of murder, then has to go to Governor Abbott to pardon him.
	That's an example of a law fair that could happen in any leftist jurisdiction that could come after you.
	So that's why you need groups like Condemned USA. We're basically the ACLU for the political right.
	So I would encourage folks to go and support them too.
	Go to condemnedusa.com and you can subscribe to become a monthly donor.
	That's what I recommend.
	Five bucks a month.
	You're not going to miss it.
	If you can do that, it helps us carry on the fight.
	You know, let's talk a little bit about, you know, we were talking about how they poisoned the music, destruction of the black community.
	You had this, you know, great society in the 1960s, 1964. Lyndon Baines Johnson, who I think is one of the most destructive.
	Yeah, destroy the family.
	Right.
	Yeah, destroy the family.
	So black women are being conditioned to believe they don't need a man.
	Well, women in general are being conditioned to believe they don't need a man.
	And then, so in the black community, they shattered their families.
	They did.
	They shabbed their families.
	They poisoned the music in the 90s.
	I saw it myself.
	I was a music video director.
	The music that we would get went from being like public enemy de la soul, you know, socially conscious music to all of a sudden, you know, I'm banging hoes.
	I'm doing this drug.
	I'm drinking lean.
	I'm, you know, pharmaceutical drugs, blah, blah, blah, which now brings us to our culture today where, you know, kids are dropping dead from fentanyl left in a row.
	Well, it's also drill rap, right?
	So now it's all about shooting.
	Everyone's being shot.
	I've heard lyrics like, can we cuss on here or not?
	Cuss away, brother.
	One aspiring rapper, I was in Alexandria jail, and you had guys in there, almost all of them from D.C., right?
	They either go to the D.C. jail or they go to Alexandria.
	They're all inner-city D.C. guys, and they're rapping about killing each other.
	That's a big thing.
	They're rapping about...
	One lyric was...
	Something about homicide, making niggas mama cry, you know, about killing each other and making that and glorifying that.
	So that's what they're saying.
	That's what they're singing about it.
	And you got guys in there, there were guys in there for murder, still rapping about, you know, and they're going to get more props when they go to prison because they're in there for homicide.
	They're going to have a higher status.
	So it winds up being, it really is a revolving door.
	They expect to go to prison.
	They're going to get out of prison.
	They're going to go right back to what they were doing because prison does not give them an alternative.
	They're not being taught a trade.
	They're not being given anything they can use on the outside when they get back out.
	They're going to go right back to it because it's all they got.
	Be fair to them.
	That's all they have.
	I know innocent people that have gone to prison and come out criminals, basically.
	They have no choice.
	Let's talk about, okay, so 1960s, right?
	We have the silver rights movement.
	We have, you know, a great society comes in, gives incentives to get rid of the father in the black community.
	But you have individuals like, you know...
	Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, later on in the late 60s, 70s, the Black Panthers, who are all about family and community.
	So that would have been akin to what the Oath Keepers were in that world, or the Proud Boys.
	But they start this COINTELPRO operation, which is that they start spying on all these guys.
	They start embedding feds within these communities, basically to destroy them.
	Tell me some of the parallels between that and January 6th.
	Well, I mean, yeah.
	So I've got my operations guy on January 6th.
	He goes by WIP. His name was Michael Green, a black veteran.
	He was an ex-cop and also a military veteran, combat vet.
	He was talking about that.
	He talked about the history of Black Panthers and I guess the Rainbow Coalition is what they started.
	And he was talking about that.
	It's like that's when the feds really clamped down on them.
	them, whenever they started breaking apart from any ideas of racial identity and start focusing on, hey, all people, white, black, Hispanic, Native American can come together and work together.
	That was seen as dangerous by the FBI.
	That's when they really targeted them.
	They started breaking down racial barriers.
	They want divide and conquer along racial lines in this country.
	That's part of their strategy.
	So yeah, so I think there's a lot of parallels.
	Any organization or movement that threatens to unite people, like the people of the earth, together is going to be seen as a threat by the elites.
	They want you divided.
	So, yeah, especially racially.
	They don't want black, white, Hispanic Americans coming together.
	That's what's wonderful about Trump.
	Like I said, prison is very racially segregated.
	You know, there's a white table and a span table and then there's black tables.
	And you don't, you know, very few people mix.
	A few that would go and sit with other people.
	But it's very segregated.
	Racial lines.
	But yet, I saw, like I said, in my art, we got our own table.
	Our own TV. They're all divided a lot of times by where they're from.
	Some guys are from Philly.
	They have their own table.
	Other guys are from D.C. They got their own table.
	That kind of thing.
	Then you had your Mexican gangs, like the Pisces, and different gangs that had their own little cars, too.
	But they all loved them.
	That's the thing.
	And when I'm talking to them, they all love our country.
	That's what's really weird about it.
	But no surprise to me, frankly.
	These are men.
	These are Americans.
	And they would love to be full citizens again and serve their country.
	The vast majority would love to be in the military as an alternative to prison.
	And I really believe we should be doing that.
	God forbid that white boys and black guys and Mexicans that are men that are protectors all of a sudden, because then the jig is up.
	Government falls after that.
	The corrupt government falls the minute that happens.
	That's right.
	So that's what's cool about what Trump did.
	That's the working class revolution.
	It really is.
	That's why he got the highest percentage in recent history since 1960 among black men and also the highest percentage among Hispanic men, because these are men.
	That's all.
	Then they see a man, they recognize a man when they see one and they respect him.
	That's it.
	He jumped up and he reacted like a fucking man when he got shot.
	He pumped his fist in the air.
	He was pissed.
	He was mad.
	First, you can hear him like, where are my shoes?
	He's got a good presence of mind.
	He wasn't crying like a bitch.
	He wasn't curled up in a fetal position going, oh, save me, help me.
	He was like, first of all, give me my freaking shoes, and then I'm going to pop back on my feet and react like a fucking man.
	You can't fake that.
	It's just an innate expression of a warrior heart.
	And so he reacted like a man.
	That's how a man should react.
	He should be pissed off.
	You shoot at me, I'm fucking pissed.
	Now it's my turn.
	That was his reaction, right?
	And everyone saw that.
	So the whole country saw it.
	Like I said, all the guys in my unit cheered.
	They're like, Trump's an OG. That's a big compliment among prisoners.
	He's an original gangster.
	And then one of the guys in my unit, big black guy nicknamed Tiny, which is ironic, but he's like, no question.
	Trump's legit.
	So it was really cool to see that.
	But yeah, so it was a manhood thing.
	And you're right.
	The working class coming together behind Trump, the elites are going to have a hard time dealing with that.
	And the more we can do that, the more we can break down these artificial barriers of race, I think the better.
	I'm all about it.
	Yeah, definitely.
	Wow, wow.
	Look at the Proud Boys, man.
	When I saw the Proud Boys on January, back in December and December of 2020, and then on January 6th again, a lot of them are Blacks or Hispanics.
	They have a large number of minorities inside the Proud Boys.
	A lot of them don't know that.
	But the media wants to paint them as a white supremacist organization.
	It's pretty hilarious, you know?
	I mean, it's the funniest thing hanging out with Enrique.
	Like, I was with him when he confronted Fanon.
	And, you know, you got this Cuban dude with, like, an accent.
	From Miami, and he's a white supremacist.
	He's part black too, right?
	He's a mix, right?
	Black and Hispanic, right?
	Man, it is just wild.
	That's all they got.
	If you're a traditional American, I mean, they want to say that America is a racist nation, right?
	Inherently racist, white nationalist, that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, all that's a white nationalist document.
	So yes, if you're a black and Hispanic guy like Ricky Torrio, You're still a white nationalist.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, it's just so insane.
	Look at the sales of...
	Let's go back to Public Enemy and NWA and look at the sales of records and how many white boys were buying that stuff.
	I mean, the whole thing's insane.
	I mean, we grew up with hip-hop culture.
	We grew up with adopting a lot of black culture in the white community, you know?
	And it's insane that this psychological operation works so well on people.
	They don't even take the time to research it a little bit.
	I know.
	Well, look at Trump.
	He used to be...
	He got awards from black...
	Was it NAACP? He got an award for helping black communities, right?
	With work.
	So, yeah.
	It's just really weird.
	It's just bizarre.
	Yeah.
	So, take us through...
	Alright, so January 6th happened.
	Take us through what happened next, your arrest, how they came after you.
	So, right out of the gate...
	They focused on the other people walking up the steps, and this is the big tell, is February 16, 2021, Benny Thompson, member of Congress in Mississippi, he's the guy that went on to be the co-chair of the so-called J6 Select Committee, right?
	It was him and Liz Cheney.
	So, but February 16, 2021, Benny Thompson files a lawsuit as a member of Congress, and a bunch of other Congress critters jumped in, against Trump.
	Giuliani, Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys alleging that we all conspire together with Trump as the Kingpin to attack democracy, to stop the count, and then disenfranchise Black voters, is what they said.
	Basically saying that, oh, because you challenged the election and you tried to do an insurrection against...
	By the way, I apologize about the balloons.
	I have no idea why that happens.
	For some reason, in this software, whenever you make a...
	Do you notice that?
	That balloons start coming up right now?
	Can you go like this?
	I don't know.
	I think certain gestures, all of a sudden, balloons come out.
	So apologies about that, but keep doing what you do.
	Okay.
	So, yeah.
	The point is, though, is that February 16, 2021, this is just weeks after J6. Here's the narrative.
	The Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, follow the orders of Trump, the Kingpin, to attack democracy and disenfranchise Black voters.
	These are two white supremacist groups.
	Go to the balloons again.
	There it is right there.
	That's the narrative.
	That's how early it was set.
	Just understand that.
	February 16, 2021, just like six weeks after J6, that was the narrative set.
	That Trump did it.
	The Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were his lieutenants.
	And that's why we were singled out.
	The only people that were charged with citizen conspiracy and all of that were members of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys because that helped them to create the narrative.
	And then they pressured us.
	We were all thrown in solitary confinement.
	It took them a year to arrest me because I hadn't gone inside the building.
	I wasn't fighting anybody outside.
	I was just standing there exercising my right to free speech.
	So they had to go stack up, coerce testimony.
	They had to go coerce other Oath Keepers, and then rolling over, taking a plea deal, and agreeing to testify against me.
	That's when they charged me.
	And two of our guys did take that deal.
	Two of our guys, Todd Wilson from North Carolina and Josh James from Alabama, two of our state leaders, succumbed to the pressure and they pled to seditious conspiracy.
	They pled guilty to being in a plot to attack democracy.
	So when they got that, and of course they used that all over the media, saying, look, two of the Oath Keepers have confessed that there was a plan, there was a plot, and this is all being used to ratchet up to getting President Trump, to build up this fake case against him.
	It's all about getting Trump in the end.
	He's cast as the kingpin from the start.
	Everything else is just, hey, we got to make sure that we build up to him to prove that there really was an insurrection, a planned conspiracy, and then we put Trump on top like a cherry on top of the sundae.
	That was the plan.
	That's why everyone was being coerced up the chain of command to roll up to Trump.
	So, I had guys in my own organization, they were told, if you will testify that Stuart Rhodes, or sign an agreement, statement that Stuart Rhodes planned to attack the Capitol and told you to go inside, we'll let you go.
	And two guys took that deal, and they did go.
	They were not held in solitary confinement.
	They were not held pre-trial or anything, or pre-sentencing.
	They were free.
	And then at sentencing, they're finally sentenced.
	Both of them were sentenced in December of 2024 by Judge Mehta.
	This is the same judge who put me in prison for 18 years.
	I refuse to take a deal.
	I will never, ever confess to a crime I did not commit.
	It's just a matter of personal honor.
	And I will never bear false witness.
	And because I was at the top of the Oathkeeper Pyramid, other guys being encouraged to roll over on me, right?
	The only person I could have made a deal to roll over on would have been President Trump.
	In the freaking way I'm doing that.
	That's it.
	But they sent us all a letter.
	In fact, when I got arrested, I got arrested in January 13, 2022. Other Oath Keepers had already been held for a year.
	Jessica Watkins, Kenny Harrelson, Kelly Meggs, in particular, my co-defendants, but others also, other Oath Keepers, had already been held for a year.
	Then they grabbed me and right off the gate, solitary confinement.
	I was denied pretrial release, first by a magistrate here in Texas.
	I think her name is Johnson.
	Yeah, so she denied me pretrial release.
	This is the other big thing people don't understand, is that in this country, the presumption of innocence is dead.
	You're presumed guilty, and they will treat you like a guilty person until you prove your innocence.
	This is pretty much like Pelosi said, right?
	She's kind of right about that.
	And not just under the Biden.
	It's certainly true under Biden if you're a Trump supporter.
	You're automatically guilty.
	But it's also true for a lot of other Americans, too.
	The denial of pretrial release happens across the country, and they make up excuses for why they do it.
	It's supposed to be only if you're a flight risk, an actual flight risk, or some imminent danger to your community.
	But they just do what they want.
	So because I, like the judge in D.C., the magistrate in Texas denied me pretrial release, so then I had an appeal to the judge in D.C. That's Judge Mehta, radical leftist.
	He denied me also.
	My only priors were speeding tickets.
	That's all.
	I've never been arrested or charged with a crime in my entire life.
	But they said, oh, somehow, because of my military experience, because I knew how to use encrypted chats like Signal, you know, and because I had knowledge of how to acquire weapons, because I've been a lifetime gun owner and used to work in the gun industry.
	That was their excuse for denying me pretrial release.
	No actual articulation.
	And I've been out, right?
	This is a year after J6. So for an entire year, I hadn't attacked anybody.
	I hadn't done anything.
	I hadn't fled the country.
	I haven't, you know, attacked democracy again.
	So I'm just living my life.
	But yet they see, okay, he's been out for an entire year and done nothing.
	But now all of a sudden, he's so dangerous, we must deny him pretrial release.
	It's just bullshit.
	The whole point was to put me in solitary confinement, which they did, over a year.
	Pre-trial, during my trial, and after my trial, in solitary.
	And they do that as a way to try to break you and coerce you.
	To make you roll over and sign a confession.
	That's what they did to all of us.
	And some guys bent, broke.
	How is that not...
	I mean, that to me sounds like terrorism.
	It sounds like terrorizing somebody.
	Oh, it is!
	It's almost like, you know those Hezbollah videos or whatever, ISIS or whatever, there's a dude sitting there with a blindfold, a bunch of guys behind him with guns to his head, and then he's reading a statement going, you know, America is, you know, like...
	It's no different.
	Or like prisoners of war, like John McCain, when he was, you know, in the Hanoi Hilton and he went on a broadcast, that's why they call him Somburg, right?
	He went on a broadcast for the North Vietnamese.
	Denouncing his own country and denouncing his own side.
	Saying, yes, we engage in war crimes.
	I'm a war criminal.
	You know, the United States government is committing war crimes.
	He went and did that.
	He was their songbird.
	He did that.
	He aided the enemy.
	I won't do that.
	I did consider myself, in many ways, a prisoner of war.
	And I know Special Forces veterans Jeffrey McKellips and Jeremy Brown feel the same way about it.
	And I think it's true.
	You know, domestic enemies of our Constitution took over our government and held us as hostages.
	And they were trying to coerce us.
	Same drill.
	They're trying to coerce us into helping them with false narrative.
	That's the problem with taking a plea deal.
	And I get it.
	Guys who were accused of, like, simple assault or whatever and took a deal.
	I know a lot of them are good friends of mine.
	I understand that.
	But for the ones that pled to seditious conspiracy, by pleading to seditious conspiracy, They really helped the enemy because they said, okay, yes, we were engaged in a conspiracy.
	We admit it now.
	And then they're willing to then turn around and test a lie against others.
	Like these two guys agreed to a stack of shit that said that I planned since November to attack the Capitol.
	And one of them said also that, I think it was Todd Wilson's statement.
	He signed on to a statement that says, yes, and Stuart Rhodes was in communication with someone in the White House.
	Total bullshit.
	That's what they wanted to do.
	Yes, there was a plan, and yes, it was connected to Trump.
	That's what they're trying to build.
	And that's why, like, Kelly Meggs was given the same offer.
	He was told, hey, if you will say that Stewart told you to go in the Capitol, you can go home right now.
	And to his honor, he refused to do that.
	He refused to do that.
	My co-defendants Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, and also Thomas Caldwell all refused to take any such deal, you know, to their honor.
	You know, so they conduct themselves very honorably at trial.
	And I got nothing but respect for that.
	But the ones who pushed out, who wimped out and rolled over, I got no respect for them.
	What's sick about it, though, is that those two guys that rolled over and pled to suspicious conspiracy and agreed to test the lie, they were sentenced to probation only.
	You know, the rest of us got 18 years, 14 years on down the line.
	They got no prison time.
	Probation only by Judge Mehta.
	Even though they confessed to this dangerous crime, right?
	This is good to show you it's just a bunch of crap.
	Judge Mehta knows that there was no actual conspiracy.
	These two helped him build the false narrative.
	So he's rewarding them.
	Lies are loyalty.
	He's rewarding them with no prison time.
	They never saw a day in prison.
	And then they get pardoned.
	When President Trump issued the proclamation for a pardon, they're among the ones who were pardoned.
	So two guys committed seditious conspiracy, right?
	Supposedly.
	They got pardoned by President Trump, and yet here are the ones who went to trial, who refused to turn on him, refused to help the false narrative at all, refused to confess to crimes they did not commit, refused to test a lie against anyone else.
	We got a commutation only.
	There's 14 of us, either Oathcubers or Proud Boys.
	All of us went to trial, faced the music and acted honorably, and yet we're hit with a commutation, not a pardon.
	I don't understand that.
	I certainly don't blame President Trump.
	I think it's someone in his circle, one of his lawyers probably, that decided that was the right way to go.
	But it's just baffling to me that the guys that rolled over and betrayed him, you know.
	And of course, there was no actual conspiracy.
	He committed no crime.
	But the ones who were willing to further the false narrative, they get pardons.
	We don't.
	So tell me about some of the things that they did while you're in prison to make your guy's life miserable.
	I mean, one year in solitary, I gotta tell you, Stuart, I spent five hours in jail when that whole third assassin hoax thing happened.
	Right.
	It sucks.
	It's madness, man.
	I mean, I left the prison and the first thing I did is bought a notebook and a pen because...
	I was surrounded by four walls this entire time.
	I felt, I mean, it was just so humiliating and nasty to be in that situation and not be able to be too productive.
	No, you're put in a concrete box and you have no, you know, that's it.
	That's your life.
	All you can do is just endure it, you know.
	And I'm sure lights are on 24-7, right, when you're holding cell you're in.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, very bright, very bright too, yeah.
	Yeah, that's what they do.
	So like I said, first I was taken to Oklahoma.
	It was an old state penitentiary.
	This is Cimarron.
	We could go outside, but only you're in cuffs.
	You walk out to a dog kennel, chain link, you know, concrete.
	Slab with chain link all around it, and that's your exercise outside, is in that dog kennel.
	And I can see across the yard, there's other guys playing basketball and volleyball.
	Some of those guys are like, you know, arm robbers, murderers, whatever, but they're out there playing basketball and volleyball, and I'm being walked around like a tenable lector.
	You know, they held me in solitary.
	I have to be cuffed before I can leave my cell.
	To then go to the shower, and you go into the shower cell, they uncuff you when you're in there, locked in there.
	Take your shower, then you get cuffed up again back to your cell.
	That's what I was in.
	Cuffed.
	Want to go outside for a little bit?
	Sure.
	Go out and I can walk in a dog kennel, you know, about 15 feet long and about 8 feet wide.
	I can pace back and forth in that dog kennel for an hour.
	Cuffed on the way there, cuffed on the way back.
	Treated like I'm some kind of dangerous person.
	No excuse for that.
	All of that's done to coerce you.
	There are guys who are...
	You're in there with guys who have assaulted staff or assaulted other inmates.
	You know, someone like Shank somebody or whatever.
	That's who gets sent to what they call the whole secure housing unit, the SHU. Or someone who has requested it because, like, they're a pedophile or they're an ex-gang member that's worried they're going to be murdered out on the yard.
	Those are the guys that voluntarily request.
	Being held in what they call segregation, right?
	So I'm not asking for any of that.
	In fact, I would appeal it as a Cimarron.
	I go sit in front of this panel, including the assistant warden.
	I'm like, hey, I don't want to be in here.
	Put me in Gen Pop.
	Oh, well, sorry, but word comes down from the U.S. Marshals, we got to keep you in this for your own protection.
	It's like, hey, I'll waive.
	I'll sign whatever you want.
	It's like, well, you're just too high profile.
	That was the excuse given.
	But really, the bottom line, though, was try to coerce us.
	I was never in any danger from any inmate.
	Never, not one time, and all the time I was in jails or prison, did anyone ever threaten me in any way.
	In fact, they all give me fist bumps, and they all thought we were freaking heroes.
	So I think all the other J6s had the same experience.
	Never had an issue with any inmate, or any CO for that matter, too.
	But the COs are following orders.
	In fact, they even apologized.
	I have multiple COs apologize.
	They're like, hey man, we know you shouldn't be here.
	We know you shouldn't be here at all.
	We know you're a political prisoner.
	And we know you shouldn't be in the friggin' shoe.
	You shouldn't be in solitary.
	We know that.
	But we have no choice.
	That's what they would tell me.
	And we're sorry, but we have no choice.
	What did you learn in there?
	What did you learn in there about just anything that you learned?
	And especially about the other J6ers that you were in there with?
	Well, we were all going through the same experience.
	I wasn't with the other guys in the CTF in the DC jail.
	I only got there after like post-conviction.
	They wouldn't put me in there before that.
	It's like my co-defendants were in there in CTF and they were able to look at a lot more video than I ever could look at.
	I wasn't allowed to see any of that.
	In the Alexandria jail, I never had access to a law library.
	In fact, no time.
	Pre-trial or during my trial that I have access to a law library.
	Sure, I'm a Yale Law graduate.
	I can't look up any case law.
	I can't do anything to assist with my own defense.
	Zero access to a law library.
	The only discovery I could get was on a laptop, and I had to be taken from the Alexandria Jail, transported in chains, right, to the basement of the D.C. Federal court and down in the basement in the holding cell that would give me this laptop to look at for a couple hours.
	You know, that was pretty much it.
	So that's been very inconvenient.
	Judge Mehta made it very inconvenient for me to even look at my own discovery.
	Extremely difficult.
	So, but all he had to do is put me in CTF with the other guys.
	I could have gone and accessed all the video and everything right there.
	But nope, he refused to do that.
	He wanted me held separate in Alexandria.
	So, in solitary.
	So, you know, how do you do your own defense when you're in solitary confinement the whole time and there's no access to a lie library?
	What do you do?
	I get two hours a day to make a phone call.
	They would let me out of my pod, out of my cell.
	We were in a 12-man unit, so you got 12 solitary cells, right?
	You're in a cell by yourself with the toilet.
	You get out for two hours a day along with one other guy to make phone calls, take a shower, watch a little TV. Maybe run the stairs or work out and do whatever you want to do out there and use the microwave.
	That's it.
	So two hours and then you're back in.
	So you talk to one other guy and then you can walk around and talk to the other guys through their doors and then you're back in your little hole.
	You're back in your concrete box the rest of the time.
	That's your life and lights are on all the time.
	It's like they're making the process as miserable as possible.
	Legally speaking, this is just really scary that these judges are doing whatever the hell they want.
	How do you address this sort of thing?
	I've heard things like, if you actually look at...
	The Constitution, you know, original law, common law, whatever.
	When you are not following the law according to the Constitution, you are really committing treason to the Constitution, hence and therefore you should be removed.
	That's my layman's understanding.
	Tell me what...
	Yeah, absolutely.
	That's correct.
	I mean, Article 6 of the Constitution requires that every officer...
	Executive, judicial, and legislative, at every level of government, federal and local and state, must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, period.
	And judges take that oath, too.
	So when the judges are sworn in, they swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all means foreign and domestic.
	When they become judges, though, then the culture is, well, the judges tell you what the Constitution is.
	And it becomes, you know, kind of by default.
	That the Constitution says whatever the judges say it is.
	But that's not the oath they took.
	They didn't say, I swear to support and defend whatever I say.
	That's what they're really doing, though.
	That's how they behave.
	So impeachment, removal from office is one answer.
	You could also, all these courts are created.
	They're all created by statute.
	They could be uncreated, too.
	You could get rid of a lot of these courts.
	So that's something Congress can do.
	You can't even get Congress to impeach a judge who's in blatant violation of his oath or in blatant violation of your rights.
	So we'll see.
	We'll see if this Congress has any stones.
	We'll find out.
	I mean, would the Republican vote by itself be enough to get rid of these judges, or do we need Democrats?
	Sure.
	No, they could be impeached.
	It would take the same impeachment process as what you go through with the presidency.
	They could do it.
	The majority, the congressional majority right now could do it.
	I just don't know if they have the balls to do it.
	We'll see.
	I mean, I've heard there was an original 13th Amendment, which was, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but that was aimed at essentially making sure our legislature was free of bar agents, you know, attorneys.
	Judges, whatever.
	And that was supposed to be a proper checks and balances, but you have 75% attorney, and I know you're an attorney as well, but you have 75% attorneys in Congress.
	How much of that is affecting?
	Because if you have...
	Congressional members that are also attorneys, right?
	But now they don't want to piss off the bar.
	They don't want to lose their bar license.
	We've seen what happens with people like Rudy Giuliani that step out of line.
	I mean, how effective would that be?
	That just seems like a lot of conflict of interest.
	So I'll say this, that lawyers tend to be, and I know this from going to law school, right?
	Lawyers tend to be very risk-averse, which is a nice way of saying.
	Cowards, but also really focused on their own prestige and position.
	So lawyers, people that go into law school, I think it self-selects for people that really value personal prestige and position, but also personal security, don't want to rock the boat, and they're risk averse.
	They're afraid of risk.
	So you wind up with a perverse mix of bad qualities.
	People that are cowardly, but also very arrogant.
	And all about themselves.
	And that's just what you get with law school.
	I mean, of course, there are good lawyers out there.
	But it self-selects.
	This is the problem with government, right?
	The sociopath will self-select to seek that power.
	That's who wants to go and become a lawyer.
	And that's who wants to go and become a public official, are people that are self-selecting because they really value power.
	They value power and prestige and their personal wealth.
	That's who gravitates towards government.
	That's why I think we'd be much better off in just a lottery system, you know, where everyone goes into a lottery and just like jury duty, you get a sign.
	Hey, it's your turn to go to Washington, D.C. for a couple of years.
	And go deal with all the crap, and then you can come home.
	That would be a much better system.
	Because when you have a system that self-selects, who wants that power?
	Who wants that position?
	Who will go through the crap of an election and then go serve in D.C. are the ones that want it.
	And then when they get there, what do they wind up doing?
	They all become millionaires, right?
	That's the real scam right there.
	That's the play.
	They become a Congress senator because they want to be in the club, and they all wind up being millionaires.
	So until you fix that, but I think a big part of it is the legal system.
	You know, law schools teach, it's basically professional, finishing school for professional liars.
	You're taught to be a zealous advocate for your client, to advance your client's position, whatever that is, you know, and you get people that, and I saw in my own class in law school.
	You know, most of them are leftist, and most of them are, you know, say they're against big insurance companies, against big corporations, you know, that they claim that they're, you know, they're for the working man and all this stuff.
	But yet, what do they wind up doing when they get out of law school?
	Almost all of them go work for some big, huge firm that does a lot of corporate defense.
	They're defending insurance companies.
	They're defending big corporations that are doing things that are screwing up the environment or violating people's rights.
	But they go work for them because that's job security.
	Or they go work in Congress and they wind up benefiting those same big corporations, Wall Street, all these lefties are like anti-Wall Street, anti-corporation, and anti-globalism, and they wind up defending these various entities as lawyers because they value their own personal prestige, their own personal safety, and their job security more than anything else.
	Other methods.
	Is there other methods?
	I mean, other than Congress impeaching these individuals, can't you just sue them?
	Can't you say, hey, you just broke, you know, and individually go after them and breach their judicial immunity because they violated the law?
	Well, that's what Pam Bondi could do.
	So in addition to impeachment, yes.
	She could, I mean, hey, if you're a federal judge, you're not immune from being prosecuted.
	So they could assign special prosecutors to go investigate.
	I think there's collusion.
	Like in my case, there were two cops caught red-handed committing perjury.
	You had Harry Dunn and Officer Lazarus.
	Both of them testified on the stand at my trial that they were together on J6. And the reason they had to testify that is because the Oath Keepers actually helped.
	The Kelly magazine's team went into the Capitol.
	They helped de-escalate a confrontation between Harry Dunn.
	This is a big black police officer, like six foot five or something.
	But he's on his M4, about ready to open fire on a bunch of Trump supporters that were yelling at him.
	He did a yelling match.
	And our guy saw that and realized this could be like Ashley Babbitt, you know, times 10 or 20, because he's got an M4 with, you know, a.30 magazine in his rifle.
	So they stepped in between and de-escalated the situation, put their backs to Officer Dunn, put their hands out towards the Trump supporters and calmed things down.
	And at first, when he first gave the first interview with the FBI, Harry Dunn admitted that the Oath Keepers had helped him.
	But by the time he came to our trial, he takes a stand and they have him testify, oh, wait a minute.
	No, I was mistaken.
	It wasn't the Oath Keepers who helped me that day.
	It was some other group of guys dressed like that with helmets on and khaki uniforms.
	I was confused.
	It wasn't the Oath Keepers that helped me.
	In fact, the Oath Keepers were hostile.
	The Oath Keepers were threatening.
	That's what Terry Dunn testified.
	And then he had Officer Lazarus and they said, oh, we were together.
	So yeah, Officer Lazarus also witnessed this.
	You know, potentially violent confrontation with the Oath Keepers, threatening Officer Dunn.
	So Officer Lazarus gets up there and says, yeah, I was with him.
	I saw that.
	Well, later on, that was found to be a complete lie.
	Officer Lazarus was in the tunnels under the Senate at that time.
	Steve Baker from Blaze Media found the video that showed where Officer Lazarus was.
	He could not have been with Harry Dunn because at that time, he was...
	In the Senate tunnels.
	So that catches both those police officers in a lie.
	They perjured themselves on the stand.
	And no doubt they were coached to do that.
	So what I want to see is they should be prosecuted for perjury and then there should be, they can make a deal then to testify against the prosecutors who suborn their perjury, who solicited it and coached it and helped them do it.
	The conspiracy to commit perjury and subordination of perjury.
	And then also misprison of a felony are all crimes.
	So that's what should happen.
	Go up the ladder from those two police officers, you can start right there, roll up that ladder.
	Then the prosecutors can make a deal and testify against the Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General that told them to do that.
	And I believe there's probably cooperation and communication.
	um between the law clerks of the judges and the prosecution I wouldn't be surprised at all there's not cooperation and collusion between the law clerks and and the prosecutors too because they're all radical leftists they're on the same team they're all the same on the same plan get trump so why wouldn't there be cooperation that's why I want to see investigation into not just communication between the fbi and and the uh and the prosecutors And the J6 Select Committee and
	their witness tampering, manipulation, all of them did the same thing.
	The J6 Select Committee, they obviously coached in suborn perjury and had false testimony.
	That's why they had to hide all the original videotapes, destroy them all, to show, like they had, like Hutchison, for example, that girl that got up there.
	What was her name?
	I forget her first name.
	I mean, sorry to interrupt you, bro, but, like, real quick, like, destruction of evidence, fraud upon the court.
	I mean, there's so much...
	Right.
	Relonious crimes happening.
	Right.
	But it's systematic.
	It goes on all the time.
	Like, look at the coercion, the coerced confessions.
	Like President Trump said in his Meet the Press interview, he's like, I know the system.
	He does now.
	It's a nasty system to tell a guy either two years or 30 years, take your pick.
	You can plead out the two years, or you can be...
	You know, go to trial and get 30 years.
	What are you going to do?
	Most guys are going to take the two-year deal.
	So they'll confess to a crime they did not commit because they're being coerced with the threat of 30 friggin' years of prison.
	They'll go ahead and roll over and confess to it.
	So it's a coerced confession.
	But yet, when they sign that confession, in there will be boilerplate language that says, oh, I am in fact, I'm confessing to this because I in fact did commit this crime.
	Everything I'm saying...
	Did happen.
	And I'm not being coerced in any way.
	And they sign that.
	They're being coerced into signing a statement that says they're not being coerced.
	Everyone knows it's coercion.
	The friggin' defense attorneys know it.
	The client sure friggin' knows it.
	The prosecutor knows it.
	And the damn judge knows it too.
	They all know the guy's being coerced into confessing to a crime.
	But they still believe and pretend because he signs and says, I'm not being coerced.
	That's the legal fiction.
	And then the same guy then is Again, dude, sorry to interrupt you.
	That just seems like terrorism, dude.
	I've seen terrorists do this sort of thing where they coerce people into making statements because they have 1847 to their head.
	Or in the Stalinistic show trials.
	If someone was put on trial by Stalin in all these show trials to justify his purges against possible political rivals, that guy would be tortured.
	They'd threaten to shoot his wife and kids.
	He'd be coerced into confessing.
	Then they put him on national television standing there confessing his crimes.
	Most of them were executed right after that.
	But the reason why they were doing that is because their families were being threatened.
	That's coercion, right?
	Obviously.
	So either you torture the guy into a false confession like they used to do with the Star Chamber in England, or you threaten his family and he goes ahead and sacrifices himself for his family.
	That's coercion.
	What's the difference here?
	You're going to face...
	They sent us all a letter.
	When I was in solitary confinement, I get a letter from the prosecutors that says, you know, through my lawyers, that says, we consider this analogous, you know, this charge of seditious conspiracy, which you've all been charged with, we consider this the same as treason, so therefore we're going to ask the court for life in prison when you're convicted.
	They sent that to all of us, all of us Oath Keepers that were on trial.
	So we're being threatened with life in prison.
	That's why those guys rolled over and were like, oh, I don't want to face life in prison, so I'm going to go ahead and confess, even though I know I'm innocent, not guilty at all.
	They confessed and succumbed to it.
	The rest of us did not.
	That's the bottom line.
	So that coercion, you're being threatened with life in prison, or 30 years, 40 years, whatever it might be, that's what makes people go ahead and confess to a crime they didn't commit.
	But then they tell them also, Now we want you to cooperate.
	Part of your plea deal is I'm going to assist.
	And so now when you assist, you're holding over your head that if you don't do what we say, we're going to coach you.
	And that's when your defense attorney walk up to you and go, okay, here's what they want you to do.
	They want you to confess and say that, you know, Stuart Rhodes told you to go inside.
	That's part of your deal.
	Not only do you say you did it, but he told you to do it.
	And that's what those guys signed on to.
	So they're being coerced to plead guilty themselves, but also being coerced to then lie against someone else.
	That's the coercion.
	And the defense attorney knows it, the prosecutor knows it, the defendant knows it, and the judge knows it.
	All across America, in thousands of cases, people are being coerced like that.
	You're going to go and testify to X, Y, and Z. If you don't, the deal's off.
	Okay, I agree to say that, even though I know it's not true, but hey, this gets me off.
	Now I'm going to help put somebody else in prison.
	Happens all the time.
	Now let me ask you, and we're almost up to two hours, and I do have to cut it before we hit two hours just because we have a limit for these podcasts.

▲