Feb. 3, 2021 - Bannon's War Room
48:46
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
Well the virus has now killed more than a hundred people in China and new cases have been confirmed around the world. | |
| So you don't want to frighten the American public. | ||
| France and South Korea have also got evacuation plans. | ||
| But you need to prepare for and assume. | ||
| Broadly warning Americans to avoid all non-essential travel to China. | ||
| That this is going to be a real serious problem. | ||
| France, Australia, Canada, the US, Singapore, Cambodia, Vietnam, the list goes on. | ||
| Health officials are investigating more than a hundred possible cases in the US. | ||
| Germany, a man has contracted the virus. | ||
| The epidemic is a demon and we cannot let this demon hide. | ||
| Japan, where a bus driver contracted the virus. | ||
| Coronavirus has killed more than 100 people there and infected more than 4,500. | ||
| We have to prepare for the worst, always, because if you don't and the worst happens, War Room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Pandemic. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Okay, no cold weather, it's open and hot. | ||
| You're in the War Room, live in the nation's capital. | ||
| It's still the militarily occupied Washington D.C. | ||
| and Capitol Hill, Wednesday, 3 February, Year of Our Lord 2021. | ||
| Now with, I think, over 33 million downloads on the podcast, and that's just the fifth way to distribute live, On Dischannel 219, Comcast 113, Real America's Voice, the streaming service of the Trump Revolution, John Frederick's radio network throughout the nation, of course Rumble, all that, and simulcast in Mandarin, GNews, GTV, and blown through the firewall later in the day to mainland China. | ||
| We go live immediately to the Diaspora. | ||
| In fact, I just finished my weekly interview with GNews, GTV. | ||
| In Europe, in London. | ||
| Firebrand is the book. | ||
| Matt Gaetz is the author. | ||
| We're honored to have Matt Gaetz here. | ||
| Okay, we've been all over this situation in Wyoming with Liz Cheney. | ||
| Walk the audience through. | ||
| Today is a huge day on Capitol Hill for the Republican Party because of two situations. | ||
| Congressman Green from Georgia and Liz Cheney. | ||
| About leadership. | ||
| Walk us through Liz Cheney, and particularly, why did Matt Gaetz, the firebrand, everybody should go buy the Gaetz book, okay? | ||
| Buy Gaetz's firebrand, the book. | ||
| It's amazing. | ||
| This guy's a fighter. | ||
| Why does Matt Gaetz, from one of the most patriotic Districts in the country on the panhandle of Florida. | ||
| Why is Matt Gaetz in the cold of Wyoming giving what I think was one of the finest speeches about populism and particularly prairie populism I've ever heard to what I hear is the largest audience that's ever come together for an event in Wyoming that didn't have a rodeo associated with it. | ||
| How do you end up in Wyoming sticking your nose in Liz Cheney's business? | ||
| Well, the people of Wyoming are great Americans, and in a lot of ways, Steve, Wyoming is the most American of states. | ||
| On the frontier, a little hard to get to, folks are tough and resilient, and I believe there is an energetic populism out in this country that the establishment is trying to extinguish in Washington, D.C. | ||
| Right now. | ||
| And I mean, one of these battles is literally playing out today at 4 p.m. | ||
| at the House Republican Conference. | ||
| Right now you have the establishment figures like Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden. | ||
| They're trying to make sure that within the eight square miles of Washington, D.C., the America First movement, the MAGA movement, does not have any oxygen, any opportunity, because our ideas are better. | ||
| We ignite more energy out in the country. | ||
| So my entire premise for going to Wyoming is that if this is going to be a battle for the soul of the Republican Party, and if we want to win this battle, we cannot fight it on the home turf of the establishment inside the Beltway. | ||
| We have to go out into the country and we have to show that we're not going to be the party that goes back to the Bush years, the Cheney years, the Romney years of Invading everywhere and inviting everyone across our borders illegally. | ||
| We're going to still put our country and our people first. | ||
| So that's one thing that is like sending a shock through the system of the Republicans. | ||
| The other major force in Washington today driving everything, and I don't think people see it, is that a lot of these corporate PACs have withheld donations from Republicans. | ||
| I was recently on a conference call with our Republican conference and here was the message we got. | ||
| Well, don't worry. | ||
| They'll come to their senses. | ||
| They'll come back to us. | ||
| And it just sounded like battered spouse syndrome. | ||
| Well, maybe if we just love the PACs more. | ||
| It's probably our fault. | ||
| You know what we should have said? | ||
| If the Democrats want to be the party of big corporations and big PACs, let them have them. | ||
| You know, we should be able to go to the people to fund our campaigns. | ||
| We should not be reliant on this. | ||
| And you know what? | ||
| If you break free of the chains of, like, these lobbyists and, like, kind of the way they control this place, you actually don't need as much money to win campaigns because the people believe in you. | ||
| That's what Donald Trump proved in his movement. | ||
| And I think we've got to ensure that we don't lose that. | ||
| But, I mean, each and every day the establishment's coming for us. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Yeah, go, go. | ||
| On top of that, it also gives you the opportunity to be the party of great reform, right? | ||
| Widespread reform. | ||
| To the whole, you know, funding system, to how much corporates are involved, everything. | ||
| But let's talk about The reality. | ||
| There were two pincer moves put on you, right? | ||
| Because that was a global event for the populist movement globally. | ||
| For you to go there as the firebrand, okay? | ||
| And to take on the Cheneys. | ||
| Two things happened simultaneously. | ||
| In Politico, that next morning, it talked about all the lobbyists having the event for Liz Cheney. | ||
| Right? | ||
| That answers the question. | ||
| The corporate PACs are going to give us to us, Liz Cheney's our girl. | ||
| Remember it was like 10, National Polls highlight, Politico had it in the morning column, you know, that sets the day. | ||
| Also... | ||
| The President of the former President of the United States, George Bush, came out and specifically hugged, you know, gave a digital hug to Cheney, the father, to basically say, we're on your side, we support you, don't worry about Gates and these guys, these are bad guys. | ||
| Well, they think that's good for them. | ||
| I mean, think about it. | ||
| In the time that Liz Cheney has had to respond to these critiques, she's gotten the endorsement of George W. Bush, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and the lobbyist and PAC community. | ||
| And instead, what we had was the largest political rally in Wyoming that did not include a rodeo element. | ||
| And so, I mean, I think that this is a sharp contrast. | ||
| This is drawing into, I think, a very bright imagery The questions that we have to answer as Republicans and as people on the political right in this country, and we are not going to just win this by kind of talking about it. | ||
| Steve, we have to organize around these ideas, around better candidates, and my concern is that though today we have the votes to remove Liz Cheney, that somehow the establishment's going to find a way to, you know, kick the question, avoid a vote, and What do you mean by that? | ||
| Tell our audience what you mean by that. | ||
| You've got the votes to remove her right now, right? | ||
| You and I both know that the establishment can win with less votes, right? | ||
| Because they are masters of the process. | ||
| They're established for a reason and they're good at it. | ||
| The chapter in my book, I wrote about it, is two parties, one scam. | ||
| Because this is not a town where it is like red team versus blue team anymore. | ||
| And you guys see it every day. | ||
| What about, in this, what are you going to try to, how are you going to be a part of what happens at 4 o'clock? | ||
| Walk people through, what actually happens? | ||
| Do you have a speaking role? | ||
| How does McCarthy play this? | ||
| Because, quite frankly, McCarthy, the Machiavellian, look, he's the pledge chairman, like in your fraternity, but the Machiavellian side of him says, a wounded Liz Cheney is better than a Stefanik. | ||
| Who's on the rise and is associated with Matt Gaetz, right? | ||
| The last thing I want is a Matt Gaetz, you know, I got Jordan, it's bad enough. | ||
| I don't want a Stefanik or Lee Zeldin or somebody who's associated with these crazy Trump MAGA people, America First. | ||
| She may not be a populist, but she's close enough and she's not a wounded Liz Cheney. | ||
| How does McCarthy try to break your grip? | ||
| I don't think there's any love lost between Kevin McCarthy and Liz Cheney, but if you're in leadership, the most dangerous thought is that you could ever be dislodged from leadership, or that anyone could be dislodged from leadership. | ||
| So even though I think that within the Republican leadership there's a healthy amount of resentment toward Liz Cheney, the strongest impulse they have is to stop the notion that anybody could be removed because they no longer have the consent of the governed. | ||
| She's not just in leadership. | ||
| She's head of the Republican Conference. | ||
| This is like in British Parliament. | ||
| It's a joke. | ||
| The Republican Conference is a joke if everybody knows that we have no power in this town. | ||
| We can't impact legislation. | ||
| we can't impact the executive agencies of government. All we have is messaging. | ||
| And so if like the leading person carrying the message everyone in America knows is less popular with Republicans than Muammar Gaddafi was with Libyans, you know, at the day of his removal, you know, I think that it starts to just become like a fiction of our message, not our actual message. | ||
| And then the question becomes, where do we go for the real messengers and the real inspiration? | ||
| And I look out to the states. | ||
| I look at like Governor Abbott standing up for his people, Governor DeSantis standing up for his people, Governor Noem standing up for people. | ||
| And I think that may be the future of our populism is to look to these states that are actually showing an effective resistance to what we see in D.C. | ||
| She called the President and said he called the mob together. | ||
| She called the deplorables a mob, right? | ||
| She directly insulted the President and of course on page three of their theory of the case, what they filed yesterday was her quotes right there. | ||
| Her quotes were the first thing that they talked about, okay? | ||
| So how can we continue to go forward? | ||
| And why did the President meet with McCarthy and not make it a bigger deal? | ||
| Jason Miller's out. | ||
| They're starting to take ads out. | ||
| You're out. | ||
| Did the President have an opportunity with McCarthy to say, hey look, I like you, you're down here to kiss the ring, but I'm not backing off of Cheney, right? | ||
| Because I'm defending the deplorables, because she went after not just me, she really went after our supporters. | ||
| Well, I enjoyed spending time with the President this last weekend down in Florida. | ||
| He was all kinds of encouraging regarding our effort to keep this movement alive. | ||
| And the people in the Republican leadership, they want to extinguish our movement. | ||
| On many days. | ||
| I always come on this show to ask you questions, not to answer yours. | ||
| But today we're pressed for time and you are the star. | ||
| But you tell me this, Steve. | ||
| What happens if the sun goes down today and Liz Cheney is still the head of the Republican conference? | ||
| What message does that send to our people? | ||
| It's a terrible message to our people and quite frankly it plays directly into the hands of the Democrats. | ||
| Rachel Maddow, and now I happen to think that this will lead to a, with leadership like yourself and others, I think people will finally start to realize we can't go forward with these guys. | ||
| There should be no third party. | ||
| We've got to take over the Republican Party as a populist thing by committee men. | ||
| We've got to get in there. | ||
| People got to get serious. | ||
| This audience is the one to do it. | ||
| And I think if they see it today, they think you're a mob. | ||
| They don't care anything about you. | ||
| And now you've had Gates, you've had the President, you've had everybody try to be polite and nicely. | ||
| Now it's time that we've got to force these guys, we're going to have to force change on them. | ||
| The way to force change on them is you're going to have to confront them, you're going to have to get emails, you're going to have to call, you're going to say, this is not right. | ||
| Look, it's terrible. | ||
| I think they have to remove... That hasn't happened yet, by the way. | ||
| I know that. | ||
| Our membership has not heard enough from the country about this being a touchstone issue, the way they did with Boehner. | ||
| So, Rahim, you're the master messenger. | ||
|
unidentified
|
How do we ensure that... Well, we had Mark Meadows back in the Boehner. | |
| Mark Meadows was the master. | ||
| Oh, right. | ||
| He took Boehner down. | ||
| There is no tactician on our side that had the capability that Meadows did when he was in Congress. | ||
| But what is the message that we carry to our people to try to inspire them to hold their members of Congress accountable to removalist changing? | ||
| The most powerful thing that came out of Wyoming is people said, look, they were upset with the vote. | ||
| But what they're most upset about, she never talked to him in advance about what her logic was. | ||
| And afterwards, she has not she has not contacted anybody. | ||
| Team Cheney hasn't done it. | ||
| They maybe talked to a few of the heads, but they haven't come out and made a case of why she did it. | ||
| And this Saturday, when they're going to have the state meeting, they're requesting her to come to defend herself on both the censure and the resignation. | ||
| She looks like she's not going to be there either. | ||
| It's just the arrogance of an aristocrat. | ||
| Liz Cheney would need a tour guide to find her way around Wyoming probably. | ||
| The answer to your question is, you know, the question is what message do we send to people? | ||
| The question that people want answering is, is it even possible to affect change anymore? | ||
| You know, does flipping a person even do anything? | ||
| So the most effective message that you have to present to people is change can be affected, but you also have to prove it to them that it can be affected. | ||
| And I don't know how you prove it to them without, for instance, going full scale after the system. | ||
| And the system goes right down to all of the things that people... | ||
| That Newsmax doesn't necessarily like talking about, right? | ||
| Which is things that were not right in the election that need to be solved. | ||
| And I've yet to see anybody on the Republican side actually do a full autopsy report into all of those things, no matter which side it comes down on. | ||
| But they just haven't bothered. | ||
| So people are just like, if they don't care, what do I care? | ||
| Navarro probably put together the best evidence, right? | ||
| We're going to talk about that after the break, but right before we go, I want to wrap up with Cheney. | ||
| What's going to happen today, and what is Matt Gaetz, the firebrand, going to do in that 4 o'clock meeting to make change happen? | ||
| Well, I'm going to make sure that everyone in the Republican conference knows that if the establishment starts shooting at the outsiders, the way Liz Cheney did to Thomas Massey, that the political bullets aren't just going to be flying in one direction. | ||
| That if they're coming for us, we're coming for them first. | ||
| And they may lean on the PACs, but we're going to lean on the people, and there are more of us than there are of them. | ||
| Okay, we're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to return with the author of the book, Firebrand, Congressman Matt Gaetz. | ||
| We're going to go next into the trial. | ||
| We're going to talk about the impeachment trials coming up. | ||
| Gaetz was a very important player in the first impeachment, and needs to be an important player in the second. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| We'll return on Real America's Voice in the War Room in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room Pandemic with Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| The epidemic is a demon and we cannot let this demon hide. | ||
| War Room Pandemic. | ||
| Here's your host Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Okay, we're here with the Firebrand. | ||
| He went out to Wyoming. | ||
| I want to say something. | ||
| It's the best speech you've ever given. | ||
| And you've given some great speeches. | ||
| I'm a huge fan of yours, of your speeches. | ||
| You've got some smart guys around you. | ||
| Darren, Sergio, etc. | ||
| But, I didn't see their hands in that speech. | ||
| That was pure Matt Gaetz. | ||
| And there's a lesson there. | ||
| That, because we're very close to the people out in Wyoming. | ||
| We have them on the show all the time. | ||
| You moved people out there. | ||
| They weren't expecting that. | ||
| They're not expecting people to come from Washington, D.C. | ||
| to understand this kind of frontier republicanism, this prairie populism. | ||
| And you, that speech was important, not just for what you said about Cheney, but how you kind of laid out the tenets of what this is all about. | ||
| Fight for your people. | ||
| You know, go against their dislikes. | ||
| Don't let the powerful run over the weak. | ||
| And as we apply those forward-leaning elements of prairie populism to this impeachment trial that we have coming up in the Senate, I have to tell you, Steve, I think so far the President has gotten a low-energy defense. | ||
| I believe it is an essential element of the President's defense to show how his concerns about this election were valid and appropriate. | ||
| And the entire way to frame the First Amendment argument is not in some like, you know, oh well we're allowed to say bad things, but instead to come out and say, | ||
| You know, we have an obligation to our people, to our movement, and we have rights under the First Amendment to point out when election officials departed from the law, when ballots were counted that shouldn't have been, when Donald Trump won an overwhelming landslide among people who actually showed up in person to vote, but then you have these like millions of mail-in ballots kind of floating around that then tip the balance in some of these states. | ||
| The evidence in Nevada, in Michigan, I think is deeply compelling. | ||
| You don't have to talk about any machines, you can just sit there and talk about the vote. | ||
| I haven't said a word about a machine. | ||
| I'm talking about the way the law was violated by people who took it into their own hands. | ||
| Hang on, hang on. | ||
| This show started, War on Impeachment, with Jason and Rahim and myself back in September or October of 19, because nobody was talking about the impeachment. | ||
| You and Jordan and Meadows all came in all the time. | ||
| You guys had a philosophy of that early on, when you first started talking about it. | ||
| Their prosecution was so thin and bloodless, interagency process, all this. | ||
| You guys had a well thought through, we would see you, you would come here, talk to us weeks in advance of what you were working on, how you were thinking it through. | ||
| You're also a great trial lawyer. | ||
| You could hear the thinking of it all the way through it, plus you had a team that was organized. | ||
| Here we saw and we said, people understand this is not a legal process, it's a political process. | ||
| That 88 page document they put, their theory of the case is literally to destroy President Trump in the American people's eyes. | ||
| They know they're not going to get one more vote and to destroy the MAGA movement underneath it. | ||
| And the New York Times did it in the 10,000 word that came out Remember, no conspiracy, but no coincidence. | ||
| The day before, put it out there, which is all incorporated in their document. | ||
| The President's document coming back, quite frankly, the case on the constitutionality and due process are fine. | ||
| Once you get past that... | ||
| There's nothing. | ||
| I don't even like those elements of the defense. | ||
| I think Rand Paul did a great job smoking out the Senate, but there is no chance of a conviction because of those 45 votes deeming this an unconstitutional exercise, and so let's go out there and put up an affirmative defense on this election activity that was inappropriate and on just the entire... Stop. | ||
| That's the most brilliant thing that's been said. | ||
| We have a free option here. | ||
| Ran Paul by that move. | ||
| Brilliant. | ||
| Brilliant. | ||
| Those 45 can't reverse it. | ||
| There cannot be a conviction. | ||
| This is the first time it's been... This is exactly right. | ||
| We have a free option, what you call finance. | ||
| You have a free option. | ||
| It is impossible for those senators to go... You agree? | ||
| Totally. | ||
| So let's not play to the Senate. | ||
| Let's play to the country. | ||
| Let's play to our people. | ||
| Let's give them something to be excited about. | ||
| Now, early on, first of all, the President knows that his best defenders are, at the risk of being immodest, are Jim Jordan, myself, Andy Biggs, Lee Zeldin, Elise Yes. | ||
| Yes. The A team that defended him in the last impeachment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Yes. And there were some among us who checked to see whether we could be the ones to go defend him in the Senate. | ||
| Because we would be honored to. And the word we got back from House Ethics is that we could not, as sitting members of the House, go and defend him in the Senate. | ||
| You've already run that by him. | ||
| Okay, so you know this better, and your theory of mine, this is exactly my guess. | ||
| Go to the low-hanging fruit. | ||
| Would you then step down from Congress? | ||
| Would you resign in order to defend the President on the way that you want to defend him? | ||
| I love my district. | ||
| I love representing them, but I view this cancellation of the Trump presidency and the Trump movement as one of the major risks. | ||
| Absolutely! | ||
| If the President called me and wanted me to go defend him on the floor of the Senate, that would be the top priority in my life. | ||
| I would leave my house seat, I would leave my home, I would do anything I had to do to ensure that the greatest President in my lifetime, one of the greatest Presidents our country has ever had, maybe the greatest President our country has ever had, got a full-throated defense that wasn't Crouched down, that wasn't in fear of losing some moderate Republican Senator, but that was worthy of the fight that he gave to the great people of this country for four years. | ||
| The people of, I think, of your district would overwhelmingly support you if you said, I'm going to step down to go defend the President against the stealing of this election. | ||
| I don't think there's any question. | ||
| Here's the question. | ||
| Given you have Navarro and Matt Brainerd, all this data, all this information out there, Wood, Matt Gaetz, if you step down tomorrow morning, do you have enough time to rework this and to file those briefs? | ||
| Because you've got to put the pre-trial briefs in next Wednesday, I think you guys, or Tuesday for the prosecution, Wednesday for the defense, or Monday for the prosecution, Tuesday for the defense, and then you start Tuesday afternoon. | ||
| Do you have the time to mount the offense that you think needs to happen? | ||
| Well, I'm not one to turn in assignments late, but I do not believe this is a case that's going to be won on the briefs. | ||
| I think that this is a case that we have to make to the American people, that if there are not fundamental changes to the way that we manage elections, we cannot have the confidence in this democracy that the people deserve, confidence in our republic. | ||
| And if we don't do that, then we're just the surrender caucus, we're the surrender movement. | ||
| I'm here to win. | ||
| Win so much I get tired of it, because that's what I was promised. | ||
| I just want to make sure we're clear about this. | ||
| You think it's important enough for the future of this movement and this Republic and the Constitution of the American people that President Trump actually has an obligation that has to argue what went on with the irregularities in this thing and it has to be done in the well of the Senate next week. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| I do, and I have to disagree with my friend Sean Hannity on that, because Sean would say, this is so ludicrous, we should just not even show up. | ||
| I think this is a platform to keep fighting, and we only get what we fight for in this movement, and we need to do it with an aggressive defense of the President. | ||
| And in that aggressive defense, you're prepared to tell your district that, hey, for the good of this nation, the good of this presidency, I am prepared to step down if I have to, if ethics says that, and go representing in the well of the Senate next week. | ||
| If that's what it came to, I would do it. | ||
| And Matt Gaetz, you think, as a trial lawyer, you think you have enough time with data out there, information, whether it's Navarro, Brainard, whoever, Phil Kline, you have enough ability to pull that together to mount a real defense next week. | ||
| I've never lost a case at trial, and I can't imagine the floor of the Senate would be the first place I would lose. | ||
| And, as importantly, structurally, which nobody's ever said, that what Rand Paul brilliantly did last week is set a floor. | ||
| We have a free option. | ||
| Do you agree with that? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| I mean, this is like an offensive play where the other team has already jumped off sides. | ||
| You have a free shot. | ||
| So, you know, don't go small. | ||
| Don't lay up. | ||
| Go big. | ||
| So people that are telling the President, if the phrase election fraud crosses your lips or anybody on your side, you will automatically be found guilty. | ||
| You will be found guilty and they will strip away your ability to run again in 2024. | ||
| That is not accurate, according to Matt Gaetz. | ||
| That's nonsense by virtue of the brilliant tactics of Rand Paul. | ||
| Give me, okay, before we wrap up, the two or three things you would focus, if you were actually in the well of the Senate next week, if the President says, hey, I love it, I love Gates, he's my guy, bang, got the other lawyers going to do the other stuff, I want Gates to do this. | ||
| Walk us through the two or three things. | ||
| First off, do you bring Trump as an, not a witness, do you include him as an advocate because he can sell it best? | ||
| Or, and tell us the two or three things you'd do to open the case. | ||
| I would make sure that we painted a clear picture of the legitimacy of the President's concerns, and that would be my leadoff hitter. | ||
| I probably wouldn't lay out my entire strategy on the war room before, but my leadoff hitter would definitely be that the President was making Legitimate claims about an election that was devastating in terms of its impact on our trust and our confidence in the Republic. | ||
| Would there be any ability after you finished, in your mind, having never lost a case, that the New York Times, the paper of record of our beloved Republic, with five Pulitzer Prize winners up here on this thing, that the New York Times and CNN and the Washington Post would never be able to say again, this was baseless and there was no evidence? | ||
| Mr. Matt Gaetz. | ||
| Among the people that I talk to outside of the Beltway of Washington, outside the press corps, there are intense concerns that are valid and appropriate and I think we could showcase them effectively. | ||
| And you believe, having been a trial lawyer, that there's enough of the 3,000 affidavits, you believe you have enough evidence? | ||
| Well, we looked at this in the House impeachment. | ||
| I mean, there is so much evidence of stuff that is unexplainable. | ||
| And by the way, courts didn't look at a lot of this. | ||
| Everyone wants to be like, oh, the Trump campaign lost in court. | ||
| That's nonsense. | ||
| We lost on the sufficiency of pleadings and standing, not on whether or not the weight of the evidence was sufficient to show fraud. | ||
| And I think sufficient fraud to definitely impact the outcome in several of these states. | ||
| What will you do to try to make this happen? | ||
| Well, I'm here with you, Steve. | ||
| That's what I do to try to make everything happen. | ||
| That's how all things happen. | ||
| Okay, good. | ||
| I want to say something. | ||
| This is, I think, a seminal moment in this entire thing. | ||
| I believe that you need to talk to the President of the United States, the 45th President of the United States, that just ended his first term a couple of weeks ago, immediately. | ||
| I think this is very important. | ||
| The key point here is that people, and I love Sean Hannity, he's a great guy, you're giving You don't understand enough of what happened. | ||
| Matt Gaetz, we have a free option. | ||
| It is impossible for those senators to reverse their vote. | ||
| That's the brains of this. | ||
| Matt Gaetz, go with God. | ||
| This is what a fourth turning is about. | ||
| People you've never heard of before, come up and be real heroes, real leaders. | ||
| You're a leader, you're a hero, you're a patriot. | ||
| People gotta buy the book and they gotta go to your site. | ||
| MattGaetz.com. | ||
| Come help me out. | ||
| Okay, Matt Gaetz, American patriot, you just heard it right here. | ||
| He's volunteered to resign from Congress and take the lead in the President's defense of the stealing of the 2020 election on November 3rd and days thereafter. | ||
| Matt Gaetz, we're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to return with analysis and commentary. | ||
| We want to hear everybody, what they got to say in the live chat. | ||
| Hashtag War on Pandemic. | ||
| Good luck today at four o'clock. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay, we'll be back in a second. | |
| Pandemic. | ||
| With Stephen K. Banham. | ||
| The epidemic is a demon and we cannot let this demon hide. | ||
| War Room. | ||
| Pandemic. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Banham. | ||
| Okay, we have a bunch of stuff to go through. | ||
| We've got to talk about that breaking news. | ||
| That was pretty historic. | ||
| Matt Gaetz, who is beloved down there in his district and loves the Panhandle District, Pensacola, and all the places down there, just said he'd volunteer because the ethics committee says they can't defend him as congressman. | ||
| He would step down and lead the defense. | ||
| And he brought up the most important point here, and I wanted Matt to come in and talk about it. | ||
| The brilliant move of Rand Paul sets a floor to this. | ||
| Those Senators can't then go back, because they've already said it's unconstitutional, they can't go back. | ||
| I'm going to vote for something that's unconstitutional. | ||
| I'm going to vote for something that's unconstitutional. | ||
| They're finished. | ||
| Their political careers are over. | ||
| You box them in. | ||
| We literally have what in finance is called a free option. | ||
| And those are very rare in life. | ||
| You have a free option here. | ||
| And this is why I keep saying, all the people on the thing are saying, but Bannon says you can't talk about machines. | ||
| I don't say that. | ||
| What my point is, is that the machines are a whole different category of what we've got. | ||
| We have enough low-hanging fruit. | ||
| Remember, it's 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, 12,500 I think in Georgia, 8,300. | ||
| There's enough low-hanging fruit here. | ||
| You don't have to get into the esoteric, detailed complexity of the machines. | ||
| That has to be solved immediately for the elections going forward. | ||
| I'm focused on the third and victory. | ||
| We have victory within our grasp. | ||
| That's what John Eastman laid out. | ||
| That's what these states wanted the electors back. | ||
| Rahim, you guys at the National Pulse have done such an extraordinary job, but now we actually have someone who would argue it, right? | ||
| And you actually have Peter Navarro on our show last night put forward the one, he's put it all in one volume. | ||
| Plus we have Brainerd. | ||
| Brainerd came on and said, category, I have the evidence. | ||
| Professor Clements, you have the evidence. | ||
| Everybody knows we have the evidence, the low-hanging fruit. | ||
| Why do you think the establishment doesn't want it put on there? | ||
| Cortez said it on the National Pulse. | ||
|
unidentified
|
P.C. | |
| wrote for you, the great Steve Cortez. | ||
| You're putting them on trial. | ||
| You're putting every state legislature and everybody that looked the other way and allowed this to happen. | ||
| You're putting them on trial. | ||
| This has to happen. | ||
| And right now, and the President, and everything we've said on this is correct, please, and I said this on the John Fredericks Radio Network, I'm going to say it here, go to the National Pulse, go to the source, you must read the source documents here. | ||
| It's very important, very important for everyone in this audience to read two things. | ||
| You must read They're filing this, I think it was 80 pages. | ||
| You have to see how they tie it together. | ||
| You have to see how they're backing off of, he got everybody worked up that day because they know they can't prove that because of Rudy's... I did a whole podcast on it, I don't know how long, reading it to you. | ||
| Get your podcast. | ||
| But get the document in front of you and go back to the 77 days. | ||
| You've got to read this. | ||
| I know you hate the New York Times. | ||
| Somebody cut and pasted it for you if you don't subscribe, which I'm sure many people who listen to the War Room don't. | ||
| So you've got to get that. | ||
| Tie it all together. | ||
| You see what they're doing. | ||
| They want to purge Trump. | ||
| They know they can't win the votes. | ||
| They want to purge Trump in the eyes of the American people. | ||
| So it's kind of the moment we've been waiting for, which is to hear somebody say, I can do it. | ||
| I got it. | ||
| I understand it. | ||
| that are bringing this, right? | ||
| And so walk through how big a deal the Gates thing is. | ||
| So it's kind of the moment we've been waiting for, which is to hear somebody say, I can do it. | ||
| I got it. | ||
| I understand it. | ||
| I don't lose in trial. | ||
| Give me the, you know, put me in coach, right? | ||
| And I think that's an extraordinary moment. | ||
| I think it should lead a lot of the news cycles today that you have. | ||
| Look, let's go back to this. | ||
| That a rising star in the Republican Party would sit there and say, I will step down from Congress tomorrow morning to lead the effort and I can be ready for trial in five days. | ||
| I think he could be ready in four days and take a day off, quite frankly. | ||
| That's how sharp he is. | ||
| And what about the evidence? | ||
| Are you that confident of the evidence? | ||
| So what I'm confident in is going through this document, this 80 pages yesterday, it's actually very clear that this was put together with the expectation that Trump's lawyers don't put up a defense. | ||
| This is put together in such a shoddy way. | ||
| It's written as a script, as a TV, as a film script. | ||
| Because they're going to use it as a film script. | ||
| Right. | ||
| It's not written as a legal document, and it's not written as anything other than an emotionally compelling device. | ||
| But I think that's smart. | ||
| Of course it's smart, especially if you know that Trump's lawyers, his current lawyers and his previous lawyers, don't want to put up as rhetorical a defense on the day as well. | ||
| you know this thing will come down to see this again is all pathos and the victory will come from pathos ethos and logos together right the the emotion the rhetoric the logic the evidence and the uh you know what underwrites it all which is our elections fair right that's the That's the ethos of this whole thing. | ||
| It's the ethos of the whole argument. | ||
| If the ethos of the argument of the lawyers of the President, the 45th President of the United States, is going to be, hey you can't do this because the Constitution says that you can't do this, you're not convincing anyone of anything and in fact what you're going to end up doing is putting Republican voters off voting Republican again in 2022 or whenever. | ||
| Right? | ||
| Whenever you're going to put them off, they're going to look at you and go, you aren't down for the fight that we chose you for, I'm out. | ||
| And so when you go through this 80 pages, I think Matt Gaetz could have a first draft response by the end of today. | ||
| Walk me through the angles of attack. | ||
| Because you've gone through this document and you're saying, listen, this is not, and people, this is not a court of law. | ||
| This is a theater. | ||
| The Senate well is the most revered, you know, only two, you know, you had Athens but you really had the Senate of Rome and you had Parliament, right? | ||
| This, the Capitol, is the, you know, the greatest deliberative body in the world. | ||
| In that well, the historic well, you're going to get a chance to, and this is why, for the President, They're going to remember this a hundred years from now, because what they've accused you of is so heinous. | ||
| They've accused you of instigating a violent insurrection against the United States, and that's going to live forever. | ||
| And here's the thing. | ||
| They have, in that document, backed off of a lot of their turbo-charge. | ||
| It came from the speech, and they've gone back and they've basically grafted on the New York Times, 77 days, to say your entire effort to show that this was fraudulent and illegal is really what stirred people up. | ||
| That's what stirred them up to come all around the country. | ||
| That's what has to be defended. | ||
| So give me the angles of attack that Gates has got to take. | ||
| The Freudian slip was quite funny there because I was actually just about to start talking about Benjamin Franklin's appearance in the cockpit. | ||
| Do you remember that? | ||
| Do you remember the story of that? | ||
| So this was pre-Revolution and Franklin was summoned to what was known as the cockpit. | ||
| It's where they literally had cockfights near Parliament, near the British Parliament. | ||
| And he was summoned there so that the Parliament could berate him, to humiliate him. | ||
| And it wasn't really tradition to address the way he addressed for that appearance and kind of hold himself to the way he was held, and even speak to parliamentarians the way he spoke to them there. | ||
| And they, he waited and waited and waited and took their bashings and took their insults and took their berating and he stood there just sort of surveying the scene and understanding that, hey, you're actually, what you guys are doing is death throes. | ||
| What you guys are like is a wounded animal lashing out. | ||
| And this is what a gate in the Senate chamber would be like. | ||
| You know, and that's what... I can't stress it enough that there is nobody they would like less in there representing the president than somebody like Matt Gaetz. | ||
| Yeah, because he's theatrical and he understands media. | ||
| And he's smart, and he's... and he represents something that they really, really wish would just go away. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Which is nation first, country first, America first. | ||
| What is your... It sounds like you have a problem with the way they wrote this as a script. | ||
| That's why everybody should read it. | ||
| No, I think it's genius. | ||
| My problem is that we didn't do that. | ||
| My problem is that every single time... You didn't listen to my podcast. | ||
| Because you would have heard this. | ||
| My problem is that every single time they outmanoeuvre us on theatrics and presentation, and I understand that there are still Republicans out there who will look at the President's 14 pages and go, yeah, but I mean it's technically correct. | ||
| Of course it's technically correct, but we're not trying to be technically correct. | ||
| You're not trying to sell technical correctness To a lady out in Wyoming who needs her mind changed over this. | ||
| Or a family in Florida. | ||
| You know, you can't sell people technicalities. | ||
| It just doesn't work. | ||
| You might like it watching this, because guess what? | ||
| You're watching this, you're probably quite a political junkie. | ||
| You're probably quite the nerd. | ||
| As are we. | ||
| But when you talk about selling ideas, you have to have theatrics. | ||
| You have to have rhetoric. | ||
| You have to have pathos. | ||
| It all has to be included. | ||
| But what the Democrats are missing is the ethos and the logos, and that's where we should be bundling all of that into one package, and Gates can do it. | ||
| You've seen the evidence. | ||
| You've gone through Navarro, you've had Cortez on your show, you've published so much of this stuff. | ||
| Natalie Winters and the team over there. | ||
| You've published, really, I think the seminal document so far, as far as an argument was Cortez's, put them on trial. | ||
| Do you see the evidence here that could be presented to counter what is in both the New York Times and both in their indictment? | ||
| For sure, for sure. | ||
| Quite easily as well. | ||
| I mean, you look at some of the language that they use and how they contradict themselves in this very document. | ||
| Again, let's go back to the first impeachment. | ||
| What we got them on, what we were doing on this show every day, remember one of the biggest stories was when we caught I can't even remember the guy's name. | ||
| Glasses, grey hair. | ||
| I suppose they all look like that. | ||
| One of these bureaucrats, right? | ||
| And he was saying, oh, I heard about this at this point in time, whereas his staff member had actually testified the day before that it was a different time. | ||
| It was the detail. | ||
| We got them on the detail, and we got them on hypocrisy, and we got them on lying, and there's so much of this in here. | ||
| I went through this yesterday, and it's so very clear that you can get them on the words that they use in this very document. | ||
| Quote, only hours after his mob first breached the Capitol did President Trump release a video statement calling for peace. | ||
| He told the insurrectionists, we love you, you're very special. | ||
| Hold on a minute, that's not the full story. | ||
| Where's the story about how that video went up and Twitter removed it immediately? | ||
| So that people, even if they were checking their phones mid-riot for a statement on Twitter from the President, could see it. | ||
| They couldn't. | ||
| Let's, you know, it's the Charlottesville lie again, right? | ||
| We love you, you're special. | ||
| He wasn't talking to the people who had bashed in things in the building. | ||
| He's talking to the people that he told earlier in the day to walk peacefully to the Capitol and protest peacefully. | ||
| There's so much of this in here, where they give us an open goal, where they give us words and phrases and sentences that are self-contradictory. | ||
| I mean, I'll give you more. | ||
| It was never clear who President Trump blamed for this asserted fraud. | ||
| Well, how do you incite an insurrection against Congress if it wasn't clear that he was blaming Congress? | ||
| President Trump accused a combination of corrupt state election officials, fraudulent voters, doctored voting machines, and unspecific shadowy actors. | ||
| Again, no mention of Congress, Congressman. | ||
| Their claims are farcical on the face of it, but the problem is, I guarantee you, just like during impeachment, we're probably one of about 20 people who have gone through this whole document. | ||
| Why has more conservative media not gotten all over this document? | ||
| Because it takes work. | ||
| You can't write an opinion piece on it. | ||
| But is it because do you think there's a lack of people just sitting there going, hey, Trump's made a decision. | ||
| He's just going to do it this way. | ||
| We're going to just have the Democrats beat up. | ||
| Because I got to tell you, the polling numbers at the end of this, if this goes unanswered, if this goes unanswered and the president's lawyer's response leaves all that unanswered. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| They argue. | ||
| I think rightfully so about due process and certain elements of that, right? | ||
| But it leaves all these charges. | ||
| Remember, look at the term you started with. | ||
| His mob. | ||
| His mob. | ||
| All of the deplorables. | ||
| And this is the way they're going to try to expand this out to all you guys are domestic terrorists because we proved it in the well of the Senate and the vote was 55-45. | ||
| It had the most bipartisan support ever in an impeachment. | ||
| It's these times in my life I wish I'd listened to my mother and actually gone to be a lawyer. | ||
| Oh God. | ||
| Okay, we're going to take a short commercial break when we return. | ||
| We're going to have more analysis of this and Raheem's going to pipe in about Liz Cheney and this great speech Matt Gaetz gave out last week in Wyoming that really laid out the tenets of prairie populism. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to be back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Pandemic. | ||
| I will fight to the end, just watch and see. | ||
| It's all started, everything's begun, and you are over. | ||
| Because we're taking down the CCP. | ||
| Spread the word all through Hong Kong. | ||
| We will fight till they're all gone. | ||
| War Room, Pandemic, with Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| The epidemic is a demon, and we cannot let this demon hide. | ||
| War Room. | ||
| Pandemic. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Welcome back to the War Room. | ||
| Big day. | ||
| Matt Gaetz just announced that he would actually step down from Congress in order to lead a real defense of the president. | ||
| This is not a hit on the president's lawyers. | ||
| They've been working on this, this strategy of going after the due process and and other technical aspects, by the way, very well founded. | ||
| And obviously, you had to make those constitutional arguments. | ||
| But we saw yesterday, which we've been predicting, that the Democrats are coming. | ||
| They're not using it as a legal trial. | ||
| They have no legal basis for any of these arguments. | ||
| But as Raheem Kassam so rightly says, it's a script. | ||
| It's a script for a TV series. | ||
| And they're going to have a multiple day. | ||
| Remember, they go first. | ||
| So after three days, one of the reasons that we We're able to beat back the impeachment the first time is that their arguments are so thin the first time. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And they've been so lack. | ||
| They were so they were not compelling. | ||
| And they were terrible TV when presented. | ||
| Remember, Rahim, when they had when you had the the committee meetings. | ||
| And we were able to, this show started as War Room Impeachment, War Room kind of became a rallying point for people. | ||
| They didn't really have a war room set up at the White House at the time. | ||
| They eventually got one. | ||
| But, you know, the Mark Meadows and the Matt Gaetz's and the Jim Jordans, all those guys, you know, we'd hear from them, they'd come by, they'd be on the show, you know, others, banks, the other people associated with this and able to do it. | ||
| Now you've got a totally different situation. | ||
| Seems like nobody's around. | ||
| They've taken a very narrow cast view for our audience. | ||
| This is where Gates, and I'm so glad he was able to come on today, because really we're here to talk about Cheney at first and then after some conversation we want to broaden it out. | ||
| He gets it because he's a savvy guy. | ||
| We have what is called a free option. | ||
| A football analogy is like they call off sides and you get to run the play. | ||
| This is a situation where, you know, Rand Paul's brilliance of bringing up that vote last week about the constitutionality of it, you already got 45 votes in, you can't, you can't, there's not votes to impeach the President. | ||
| The same haters, Sass, Romney, this crowd, is there. | ||
| You've locked in. | ||
| So throw the ball downfield. | ||
| Throw the ball downfield. | ||
| You've got essentially a free play. | ||
| This is what people around the President and Sean Hannity, I love Sean Hannity, you're just dead wrong. | ||
| You're taking the party line of McConnell and Graham and you're trying to sell it. | ||
| They're saying, oh, if he mentions it, they will impeach him, they can't do it, they've already voted it's unconstitutional, they can't come back and say, oh, upon further review, it's actually constitutional, I'm going to go after this guy because of that. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| It's actually, it's actually, it's actually, it's just not, it's not just illogical, it goes against the physics of politics. | ||
| So Rahim Kassam, given that Gates has volunteered to do it, you're convinced, as I am, although we would love to have months to prepare for this, there's enough evidence out there, and Peter Navarro, I want everybody to go to Navarro Reports, I want to also put up in the live chat, look at Navarro's report, look at Brandon's, we're going to start putting out all the evidences out there, and talk to Professor Clements and get the 500 affidavits, he thinks it makes it as evidence of the 3,000 that are out there of hard evidence. | ||
| So Rahim, Where do you think we stand and how do we effectuate Matt Gaetz actually taking over and leading the defense here to actually bash back at the TV movie that they're going to be presenting. | ||
| Jamie Raskin, these guys, are going to be presenting next week. | ||
| Well, I think all these people need to come together immediately, right? | ||
| In person, in a conference room. | ||
| I'll bring the donuts, right? | ||
| Literally sit together in a conference room. | ||
| Navarro, Cortez, Gaetz, all these guys. | ||
| Cameron will make the coffee? | ||
| In one room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That swill he makes back in the galley of the war room? | |
| it's not taking them off your team the best of the house uh... but no they need to uh... need to right now regent this afternoon all you know will find the space will get in the space you know you we got a conference table right here use it uh... that's the first step to all this and then you know by the end of the evening i think by the end of this evening even you could have a You could have a draft 80-page outline, by the way, of what the response looks like, what the rhetorical response looks like. | ||
| Because look, we don't want another situation. | ||
| What did we have last time? | ||
| Who was that guy that got up there for the Republican side? | ||
| Very boring, very dull. | ||
| The lawyer, excuse me, technically you can't, you know, doesn't work. | ||
| And then actually we had some flashes of brilliance. | ||
| Pam Bondi gave, you know, wonderful arguments up there. | ||
| But there wasn't enough of that. | ||
| And remember, at the same time, they're going to have slides and pictures and images, presentations, everything that our side was, again, underprepared for last time. | ||
| And so you've got to think about how all of that comes together as well. | ||
| I think there's plenty of time, but there's obviously plenty of work here. | ||
| I want to get back to your question, though. | ||
| You asked me, You know, why is conservative media not getting into more of this stuff? | ||
| Why aren't they going through these reports, these documents, picking holes, picking flaws? | ||
| Because you know, you know that if and when Matt Gaetz releases his version of the brief, that Axios and Politico and CNN and everyone will be poring over it looking for typographical errors. | ||
| Right? | ||
| I mean Jonathan Swan writes like three paragraphs in his theatrical piece about what happened in the White House with Sidney Powell. | ||
| He writes three paragraphs on typographical errors that Sidney Powell made in her thing. | ||
| This is what they do and our side doesn't do it. | ||
| Why, for instance, has nobody noticed that today Politico has basically admitted that Ron Klain is the President of the United States and not Joe Biden? | ||
| Why has nobody noticed that Joe Biden is being given his presidential daily brief at 5.30pm today when the business of government is over? | ||
| Why has nobody noticed that the latest COVID spread details that we're getting actually flies right in the face of what Fauci's been talking about, about vaccinating children. | ||
| Why isn't anybody picking up on our CCP Jake Sullivan story? | ||
| I mean, the conservative media is as feckless as the conservative political establishment. | ||
| And why do you think that's so? | ||
| Lazy! | ||
| It's lazy! | ||
| They're overpaid, they're overfed, they're definitely over-watered, and they just, they phone it in. | ||
| Everyone in conservative media now wants to be a talking head, wants to write op-eds. | ||
| That's all they want to do. | ||
| Punditry. | ||
| They don't want to do the work. | ||
| You know, when I leave this room, I don't go home and start tapping out op-eds. | ||
| I just don't. | ||
| I go home and I start going through the documents. | ||
| That's years of training. | ||
| That's years that he's been banonized. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| I don't like pundits, right? | ||
| I want to make sure we go back, we're going to have time, is that you're announcing, okay, here's what we need to do, just for information. | ||
| You've got to go to Rahim's podcast. | ||
| He did a podcast one hour yesterday and actually went through the documents. | ||
| You've got to, we've got to put up, Navarra Reports has put it all in one volume. | ||
| So you can go to the thing, it's all in one volume now. | ||
| I think it's got an introduction by Stephen Cortez, right? | ||
| We've got to put up again the Cortez piece from the other day on National Pulse. | ||
| You've got to get that into the live chat and push that out. | ||
| That was said, hey, let's turn the guns around and put the Republican Senate on trial. | ||
| Right? | ||
| Trump's not on trial. | ||
| The Republican Senate's on trial. | ||
| And I also want to get Brainard's analysis. | ||
| We'll pull all that out. | ||
| There's enough evidence here of just the basic old-fashioned voter fraud and ballot fraud that Gates can make a very compelling argument. | ||
| You have to be weaponized on that. | ||
| Every member of the audience has to understand these facts, then has to become a force multiplier and force them out. | ||
| I think this case potentially could take a very different direction in the next 48 to 72 hours. | ||
| It's going to need the posse of the war room to make that happen. | ||
| OK, we're going to get a short commercial break. | ||
| We'll be back in the next hour. | ||
| We've got some surprises, a couple of surprise people going to drop by here at BN. |
Export Selection