Feb. 12, 2021 - Bannon's War Room
48:42
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 U.S., Singapore, Cambodia, Vietnam, the list goes on. | ||
| Health officials are investigating more than a hundred possible cases in the U.S. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government. | ||
| When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins. | ||
| This is not whataboutism. | ||
| I am showing you this to make the point that all political speech must be protected. | ||
| I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Maybe there will be. | |
| There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives. | ||
| You've got to be ready to throw a punch. | ||
| You have to be ready to throw a punch. | ||
| Donald Trump, I think you need to go back and punch him in the face. | ||
| That I thought he should have punched him in the face. | ||
| I feel like punching him. | ||
| I think I'd like to take him behind the gym if I were in high school. | ||
| If you were in high school, I'd take you behind the gym and beat the hell out of him. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, I wish you were in high school. | |
| I could take him behind the gym. | ||
| I will go and take Trump out tonight. | ||
| Take him out now. | ||
| When was the last time an actor assassinated a president? | ||
| They're still gonna have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. | |
| And you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. | ||
| I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House. | ||
| Please, get up in the face of some Congress people. | ||
| People will do what they do. | ||
| I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. | ||
| We're gonna go in there, we're gonna impeach the ****. | ||
| This is just a warning to you Trumpers. | ||
| Be careful. | ||
| Walk lightly. | ||
| And for those of you who are soldiers, make them pay. | ||
| If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence, or Jeff Sessions, who would it be? | ||
| Does one of us have to come out alive? | ||
| And nothing that we heard today, while titillating and surely satisfying to viewers of right-wing media, none of it defended the tragic consequence of Donald Trump's speech, which was the death of a police officer, which was the ransacking of the Capitol. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We heard nothing. | |
| Nothing. | ||
| Okay, live from our nation's capital, an occupied nation's capital, and Congressman Ted Lieu told us why. | ||
| because the deplorables refuse to bend to the military occupation, the use of law enforcement, the use of our justice system, and the use of our media and tech oligarchs against 50% of this country. | ||
| The 50% that supported Donald Trump and the 50% that continues to have questions about this election. | ||
| Not so sure it was discussed today. | ||
| We're gonna get into that. | ||
| You're in the war room. | ||
| Friday, 12 February, the year of our Lord, 2021. | ||
| Now, I think we're over now, 35 million downloads. | ||
| We're live nationwide on radio, John Frederick's Radio Network, on Real America's Voice, the streaming service of the Trump Revolution, Dish Channel 219, Comcast 113, and everywhere else on Telegram and Rumble, G News, GTV, and Mandarin. | ||
| So ubiquitous. | ||
| And we'll talk later about how you can get it. | ||
| We've got Boris Epstein here first. | ||
| Talk about the trial. | ||
| Also California, New York. | ||
| I want to go to Rahim. | ||
| Rahim, your thoughts today, surprisingly, The defense of the president, Rust, I think was only using 25% of its time. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think it was four hours of the, I think it was 16. | |
| Yeah, I think it may have even been slightly less than that. | ||
| It certainly felt like slightly less than that. | ||
| And look, I said on my podcast, you know, I've got a podcast now. | ||
| Somebody told me about that. | ||
| So I got this podcast, right? | ||
| I said this afternoon, I waited till they had concluded their arguments. | ||
| And I said, look, for me, this is a seven and a half out of seven and a half. | ||
| Right, and it's a 7.5 out of 10, but they decided that they're not going to try and go for 10. | ||
| They're not playing for 10. | ||
| Playing for 10 includes going for the election fraud, walking people through the fraud case in and of itself. | ||
| And while that was alluded to today with this call, they talked about the call with Brad Raffensperger and all of the, you know, the find the votes, the find the votes that President Trump was talking about, on that call they didn't get into any further election fraud detail. | ||
| So for me, what they did with Showing the hypocrisy, holding up a mirror to the Senate, putting the Senate on trial, really, for what they had said. | ||
| It's the same thing we've been saying in here for two, three weeks now. | ||
| Put the Senate on trial. | ||
| They did that on the basis of, hey, can you prosecute this president for the same speech that you guys use day in and day out? | ||
| Can you prosecute the president when you guys have said, Does he need to come out of the elevator alive? | ||
| Put a bullet in him? | ||
| Things that are further and worse and way beyond what the President ever, ever has said. | ||
| And the last and most interesting constituent part of what happened today for me was playing through the full clip of the President. | ||
| There will be a lot of people out there in the country that never heard what the President said at the Ellipse and I confess myself to not hearing the whole thing, having heard the whole thing or perhaps forgetting part of it. | ||
| And just playing out some of those whole clips where the Democrat impeachment managers cut right at the moment for their pathos The Trump defense allowed that clip to play out and you heard the President saying things like, go peacefully. | ||
| You heard the President saying things like, cheer the Congress on. | ||
| You heard the President saying things like, we build, we do not destroy. | ||
| And I think that was incredibly powerful. | ||
| So Boris, the technical aspects from the legal side. | ||
| Give us your assessment. | ||
| Do you agree with Rahim that it was a 7.5 out of a 7.5 that they didn't go the full? | ||
| I would actually say that would be half, but 7.5 out of 7.5. | ||
| I thought it was a little workmanlike. | ||
| What were your thoughts? | ||
| Too many numbers for me. | ||
| Too complicated there, Steve. | ||
| Good to be with you. | ||
| Great to be with Raheem. | ||
| As always, my screen is frozen. | ||
| Can't see Raheem's outfit, but I'm sure it's absolutely fantastic. | ||
| Good Shabbos to everybody. | ||
| Celebrating. | ||
| Now, my perspective is, today was good. | ||
| You know, we criticized the Trump legal team, the defense team, when there were shortcomings earlier in the week. | ||
| I thought today was strong, unlimited mandate that they came in with. | ||
| But, they did not stick just to procedure. | ||
| They did not stick to just the unconstitutionality of all this. | ||
| They absolutely went and hit hard on the fact that there was no incitement. | ||
| And then, by bringing up all of the times that Democrats have challenged elections, They actually did hit on the fact that it is appropriate, it is legitimate to question elections, to question outcomes. | ||
| So while not hitting the third of my three vectors, the first being that this is unconstitutional, the second that there was no incitement, which the defense team hit hard and on point right on target, While not hitting the third, the fact that there was widespread voter fraud, election fraud in this election, they did talk about it, they did address it by saying that it is legitimate to question elections. | ||
| So I thought today was good, and the proof is in the pudding. | ||
| If you look at the responses on Twitter, you look at the responses from members of the Senate who were a little bit more negative, or in some cases a lot more negative, Earlier in the week, that's not what you're seeing. | ||
| So, today is what it needed to be. | ||
| I continue to think that it would have been good to use all the time, even just to play positive videos of President Trump, but that is not the way that team chose to go, and that's okay. | ||
| But I continue to believe that today was a positive day, a good day, and it puts a total nail in the coffin of the cynical sham of an impeachment, and it actually did make the House managers, the Democrats, Jamie Raskin, Eric Swalwell has a total joke. | ||
| Congressman Plaskett. | ||
| It made them look really, really bad, Steve. | ||
| Okay, for you and Rahim. | ||
| And Rahim, you go first, then Boris. | ||
| We were up against what I called a made-for-TV fantasy. | ||
| That these guys went in for full pathos. | ||
| But it was quite compelling in the fact of their use of video, and they made it like a TV drama. | ||
| Right? | ||
| Totally made up, totally cut, you know, unfairly cut. | ||
| Today you had both a legal argument with Gravitas, real lawyers up there, you say really arguing a defense, and then you did have the strategic use of video. | ||
| Do you think that that, in the overall, because this is not a legal setting, it's political theatre, do you think that they were able to counter the casual viewer, the low information voter, cutting in on broadcast TV and seeing it? | ||
| Raheem first and then Boris. | ||
| Look, if the last two days have been the full theatrical movie, then today was the DVD extra making of, behind the scenes, and | ||
| The answer to your question lays within whether or not you believe that seeing things behind the scenes, seeing things in an extended cut, seeing things in an extended format can change the mind of somebody who's experienced a suspension of disbelief for the last two days. | ||
| To say, oh yeah, President Trump said fight like hell, cut the clip and that's all there was to his speech. | ||
| The answer to that question, unfortunately, is probably no. | ||
| Probably no. | ||
| The people who were dug in enough into the first two days were things they're not going to change their minds. | ||
| But who this will change the minds of is probably Bill Cassidy. | ||
| Probably do another circle back on himself as a result of hearing the arguments today. | ||
| It'll probably Gird the loins of the America First movement out there who have been feeling quite underwhelmed by the lack of communication from Trump's team over the past couple of weeks. | ||
| Our audience. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| And what it will do is it will put the Democrats and the media on their back foot now. | ||
| They have questions to answer. | ||
| They have behavior to answer for. | ||
| And I think that's incredibly powerful. | ||
| You're seeing what's happening in the White House and we'll get into that of course today as well. | ||
| But I think it takes the Trump team back onto at least one front footing, at least one half-part offensive. | ||
| Now if they put Peter Navarro in there tomorrow and you have a whole thing about the election fraud, that's a super victory. | ||
| So right now, just so the audience understands, this is the question time for the Senators. | ||
| There's no more tomorrow. | ||
| We've got Real America's Voice. | ||
| There's no more. | ||
| I think there's good questions. | ||
| I think there's questions tomorrow, but there's no more presentation. | ||
| There's no more presentation. | ||
| And there's no more rebuttals. | ||
| I think they're going to do away with the rebuttals, right? | ||
| They're just going to have the questions and move on. | ||
| I think that's what they're, they currently obviously want to get out of here. | ||
| There may be a closing statement, still closing arguments, but as of now, it seems like it may be just a question and answer, four hours total. | ||
| I'm hearing 10 a.m. | ||
| start tomorrow. | ||
| Steve, I thought Rahim gave some great points there. | ||
| I would liken today to a surgical strike. | ||
| The Trump defense team went and looked at the whole argument from the left, from the House managers. | ||
| And they took it apart piece by piece by piece. | ||
| You had Jonathan Turley go out on Fox News and saying that the defense team, the Trump team, landed some haymakers today. | ||
| And that's always positive. | ||
| Turley is someone who comes from the middle. | ||
| So, you know, we've got to be fair judges here, right? | ||
| And we've got to take a look and see what happened. | ||
| The last two days, the Democrats overreached. | ||
| And I gave this quote earlier in the week, I believe to USA Today or Politico, saying that they are sure to overreach. | ||
| And they did, when Raskin has to pull back a quote. | ||
| When Swalwell's proven to be using misleading evidence, when their videos are proven to be misleading, the Democrats overreached, and today the Trump team came in, and in a very strong, very tactical way, really almost a medicinal way, they dismantled it. | ||
| And I thought it was very well done, very well put. | ||
| I've tweeted to that effect. | ||
| And now it's question and answer, and then it's on. | ||
| Here's what it does. | ||
| Rahim alluded to this. | ||
| It freezes the picture in the same place where it was after Rand Paul's vote. | ||
| At 55-45 most likely, unless Cassidy really just hates being in the Senate and votes the wrong way. | ||
| I want to make sure that they're feeding us the live chat, and Raheem, that you're on this. | ||
| There's no doubt, Boris, that President Trump's hand was in this. | ||
| The other day, I think the problem people had is that Cassidy and these guys, a lot of them looked like they were winging it, or they were not prepared, or they didn't have the level of preparation that the prosecution had, the managers. | ||
| Today, much more organized, right? | ||
| They start with other people. | ||
| They had the video. | ||
| The videos were cut and they were cut great to Rahim's point. | ||
| They extended certain videos, even if you were a supporter of President Trump, maybe you forgot about it, etc. | ||
| Did you see, got about a minute? | ||
| The director's cut. | ||
| The director's cut. | ||
| Boris, do you see the president's hand at work here, given his expert understanding of television? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| The President is the most powerful, strong brander, communicator likely in the history of this country. | ||
| And what you saw today was expert television, expert branding, expert communicating. | ||
| It was visual. | ||
| It was informative. | ||
| It was to the point. | ||
| Absolutely see the President's guidance in making sure that today was strong. | ||
| And as I mentioned earlier, a surgical strike right to the heart of the cynical sham of this impeachment. | ||
| And the lying Democrats. | ||
| So I think the beauty of going second is now that the Democrats are left looking so terrible and really grasping for straws. | ||
| You know, Congressman Plaskett said, oh, well, a lot of people in the video were black. | ||
| That's not true. | ||
| Nancy Pelosi was in the video. | ||
| You know, Chuck Schumer was in the video. | ||
| And by the way, Chuck Schumer talking about, you know, unleashing the whirlwind. | ||
| Chuck Schumer was one of the weakest people I've ever met in my life. | ||
| So let's take a short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to come back with you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You got it. | |
| Be back in a moment. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Mr. President, Senators, this attack was on live TV, on all major networks in real time. | ||
| The President, as President, has access to intelligence information, including reports from inside the Capitol. | ||
| He knew the violence that was underway. | ||
| He knew the severity of the threats. | ||
| And most importantly, he knew that Capitol Police were overwhelmingly outnumbered and in a fight for their lives against thousands of insurgents with weapons. | ||
| We know he knew that. | ||
| I'm just following this, not to belabor the point, but the president on inauguration day spoke to people that he was swearing at, and he said, I promise I will fire you on the spot, no ifs, ands, or buts, if they speak down to or disrespect their colleagues. | ||
| Now, it's not a colleague being questionated, but isn't this sort of well short what he pledged on inauguration day? | ||
| As I've said, Josh, it doesn't meet our standard. | ||
| It doesn't meet the president's standard. | ||
| And it was important that we took a step to make that clear. | ||
| And that included not just No, I have not discussed it with the President. | ||
| apologies directly from us at the highest levels there, but also a step to suspend him for one week without pay. | ||
| And that, in our view, was an important step to send the message that we don't find it acceptable. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Was the president involved in this discussion at all? | |
| No, I have not discussed it with the president. | ||
| It was a decision I made and with approval of the chief of staff. | ||
| Okay, we got breaking news before we get to this. | ||
| Mr. Rahim Ghassan. | ||
| Yeah, so it appears Bernie Sanders just asked the question. | ||
| Senator Sanders asked the question. | ||
| I'll summarize. | ||
| It was something along the lines of, are you making the case that there was fraud in the election? | ||
| Does the Trump defense team imagine or claim that there was fraud in the election? | ||
| Or whether he, I think he used the phrase, or whether he told the big lie. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Bernie Sanders, I think, put it out there, at least in the tweet that's out. | ||
| The tweets are coming out. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Whether Trump actually won the election or whether he told the big lie, point blank. | ||
| Odd of Bernie Sanders to quote Adolf Hitler, but okay. | ||
| That's the world we live in. | ||
| So the meat of this is the response from the Trump defense team, and that appears to be very little meat at all. | ||
| They've skirted around this question. | ||
| They haven't appeared to answer it in any detail, and they in fact have said, you know, my judgment is irrelevant on this. | ||
| Okay, Boris, I want to bring you in. | ||
| We're going to get back to the cold open in a second. | ||
| Two big stories there. | ||
| What about that? | ||
| Bernie Sanders said something we've talked about. | ||
| We knew this was going to come up. | ||
| They're going to say, hey, look, I'd like your presentation. | ||
| It was a little short, only a couple hours. | ||
| You got a day and a half to go. | ||
| Did he win or did you tell the big lie? | ||
| How would you handle that? | ||
| Well, I would have held that specifically, I would have attacked the wording of the big lie. | ||
| Say that that's a term that's coined by Hitler. | ||
| By the way, Bernie Sanders did his honeymoon in the former Soviet Union, so he's no stranger to anti-Semitic regimes and praising their terminology, but very disappointed that he would use that term, the big lie again coined by Adolf Hitler. | ||
| So I would attack the phraseology, and then I would also talk about the widespread election fraud, voter fraud, over 200,000 fraudulent votes in Wisconsin. | ||
| The fraudulent votes allegedly in Georgia and Pennsylvania, the lack of checks. | ||
| I would have done all that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Now, the mandate for these attorneys... Hold on, hold on. | |
| Let me finish. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let me finish. | |
| Go ahead. | ||
| The mandate for these attorneys has been made very clear. | ||
| And that's the parameters they're playing in. | ||
| And I thought within that mandate, today was good. | ||
| And actually, I thought that answer was good. | ||
| They could have said no, which would have been disappointing and would have been disheartening to the MAGA base, the lifeblood of the Republican Party in America. | ||
| What they said is that this is not what it's all about. | ||
| Bernie Sanders is obviously trying to play games here. | ||
| So I thought within the parameters of what this trial is, what the sham is, that answer was actually okay. | ||
| Given that tee-up, would I have knocked it out of the park? | ||
| Probably. | ||
| But that's me, and that's the choice I would make, but I am not representing a client here who seems to have made a decision. | ||
| But would you have let across your lips the F-word? | ||
| Because they say right then, remember, this is Lindsey Graham and McConnell, if the F-word crosses your lips, they're voting to convict. | ||
| Given the good day you had, would you have taken the bait? | ||
| I believe that this legal team is acting based on guidance from its client. | ||
| And as an attorney, your number one guide is always what your client tells you to do, especially in a criminal prosecution, in this case an impeachment trial, where it is a prosecution. | ||
| This is the defense team. | ||
| They're defending a client. | ||
| The client is the 45th, hopefully 47th President of the United States. | ||
| If this is his guidance, if this is what he told them to do, and they're acting on it, then they're acting appropriately. | ||
| And I, if I were in the same boat, if I were told as an attorney, this is your mandate, these are your parameters, stay within these lanes, I would absolutely do so. | ||
| I would never act against the wishes of my client. | ||
| Rahim, you said earlier, on a 7.5 scale, which is what the scale that the client wanted, they did a 7.5. | ||
| Would you have taken the bait? | ||
| I would have played them the clip that they played earlier in the day of Bernie Sanders talking about the voting machines back in 2005 and played Bernie Sanders' own claims about election fraud back to him. | ||
| Hold on. | ||
| And then I would have gone back to the point and said, okay, under your seats there's a packet and in that packet is Time magazine and the Navarro report. | ||
| Please take it home and study it. | ||
| We'll be back tomorrow. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| I want to go now, I want to bifurcate this discussion. | ||
| We're going to get to the, by the way, that was the congresswoman from Virgin Islands that talked a little over the top. | ||
| Thousands of insurrectionists with weapons. | ||
| I've only seen, what, a couple hundred even indictments. | ||
| We don't even know what the rest are. | ||
| And most of these, I think, are still for wandering around the Capitol unescorted, right, or into a public building. | ||
| I haven't seen, you know, the final, but certainly not thousands of insurrectionists with weapons slightly over the top, Congresswoman. | ||
| But I want to get to the Nikki Haley, the Peggy Noonan, the article on The Hill that popped right before the 12 o'clock noon saying, hey, there's so many Republican senators now ready to cut Trump loose that they're not going to vote to convict, but they're finished with him. | ||
| This whole pressure today that this is this process is purging him. | ||
| from uh ever running again they said he's not viable in 2024 that's what the hill article said with unnamed sources and these senators being saying hang on i want to go to the Jen Psaki part of it let's do that first since you guys want to do it this is normally the type of story i try to avoid but Both of you guys, who are serious, understanding the physics of media in this city, have convinced me that this is actually signal, not noise. | ||
| Rahim, what's the buried lead there? | ||
| And then you've got some breaking news on this, Boris, to jump into. | ||
| Tell people, what's the story? | ||
| Why is it important? | ||
| Yeah, let's just recall here, the Vanity Fair report from this morning says that a White House official tried to quash a story about his relationship with another reporter by issuing threats and using derogatory language to a female reporter. | ||
| So, T.J. | ||
| Ducklow, works under Jen Psaki, is dating Axios political reporter Alexei McCammond, who covered the Biden campaign. | ||
| Behind the scenes, Ducklow had previously lashed out at Politico's Tara Palmieri, who was reporting on the story. | ||
| And it didn't stop there. | ||
| He apparently said to Tara Palmieri, I will destroy you. | ||
| But in addition to that, and this is where, you know, I will destroy, yeah, whatever little man, like, you know, nobody's going to get particularly upset about that. | ||
| Here's the thing. | ||
| He says that Palmieri was, quote, jealous that an unidentified man in the past had wanted to F McHammond and not you. | ||
| Ducklow also accused Palmieri of being jealous of the relationship with McCammon. | ||
| Now listen, you're part of an administration, a regime as I say, that has gone around talking about, you know, women's rights and and how woke you are and... Orange man bear! | ||
| And Biden goes up day one, remember, says anybody speaks to anybody in a disrespectful tone you will be fired on the spot and what do we see here? | ||
| A one week suspension without pay. | ||
| So that's about, you know, 1900 bucks from his $8,000 a month salary. | ||
| And number two is Jen Psaki being asked, was the president made aware of this? | ||
| She says, no, I made the decision. | ||
| So Boris Epstein, let's say you, by the way, this is the reason all the college educated women in the suburbs and millennial women hate Trump, right? | ||
| This is the reason they hate Trump. | ||
| Boris, what's your take on this? | ||
| First of all, so much for compassion and kindness, which is what Jen Psaki was tweeting about just hours, literally her tweet before T.J. | ||
| Duckle was, compassion and kindness is back. | ||
| That's obviously BS. | ||
| Joe Biden saying that he would fire somebody on the spot, quote unquote, for being disrespectful is obviously a lie. | ||
| But here's the interesting thing here. | ||
| This week without pay, I mean, obviously it's just a slap on the wrist. | ||
| Anthony Scaramucci got fired. | ||
| For having a late-night phone call in which he used some curse words, and yes, they were inappropriate, and somebody who was on the show may have been mentioned. | ||
| He did not sexually harass a female reporter and claim that she was jealous of another female reporter sleeping with him, okay? | ||
| I mean, first of all, T.J. | ||
| Ducklow, you know Brad Pitt, let's be honest, okay? | ||
| Take it easy, buddy. | ||
| The hubris there runs so deep. | ||
| But just think about that difference. | ||
| The Mooch gets canned. | ||
| You know, the Mooch has lost his mind, obviously, and now gone all, you know, upside down. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And he's, who knows who he's backing these days. | |
| $50,000 to the Lincoln Project. | ||
| But is the big, hang on, we got to go to break here. | ||
| Here's the question. | ||
| Is the big, is the thing here that they didn't even tell, is this show you the mental decline of Biden? | ||
| They won't even get him in the loop on something like this. | ||
| They clearly, to make that type of decision about a sensitive topic like this, particularly about female reporters, these relationships and the types of language that was used. | ||
| That's big. | ||
| The Biden thing is big. | ||
| It's obviously Ron Klain's the president. | ||
| That's what Jen Psaki said. | ||
| Ron Klain's the president, apparently. | ||
| The other thing, it's the hubris and the arrogance of Democrats in dealing with the media and how they treat them. | ||
| I've dealt with the media for, what, 15 years now. | ||
| I would never think of speaking to a reporter or a human being in that way. | ||
| It is absolutely unfathomable. | ||
| But the Democrats are so used to the media being in their pocket. | ||
| That when they're not, they blow up. | ||
| And that's what you see here. | ||
| So those are the two buried leads. | ||
| Biden not being in power, and the fact that the Democrats are so arrogant. | ||
| Don't forget Tara Reade. | ||
| The reason they probably didn't... Tara Palmer. | ||
| No, Tara Reade. | ||
| The sexual allegation made against Biden during the campaign. | ||
| Don't forget that if they had read Biden into the situation, they'd probably give Ducklow a slap on the back. | ||
| Said, attaboy. | ||
| That's noise right there. | ||
| Okay, we're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| Dr. Johnson joins me. | ||
| I'm asking Boris to hold over. | ||
| We've got to deal with the coordinated hit of Aunt Peggy Noonan, Nikki Haley, and the U.S. | ||
| Senate in the Hill newspaper. | ||
| All next, War Room Pandemic. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We rejoice when there's no more, let's take down the CCP! | |
| 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, you've got the Wall Street Journal, you have Politico, and you have the Hill newspaper. | ||
| All three of them hit today in, I think, a coordinated strike. | ||
| You had Peggy Noonan with the pearl clutching in her op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, right? | ||
| Orange man bad, orange man has to go. | ||
| You had Nikki Haley that came in strategically and said, we've got to cut ourselves loose from Trump and move on. | ||
| He's not part of the Republican Party that I know. | ||
| We've got to move forward. | ||
| Really, the great piece was the hilt. | ||
| Right when the curtain was coming up at noon, right when we're going off, the hilt comes out with a thing that Republican GOP senators think Trump's done, and no matter, they don't need to convict because he's done in 2024, given the power of the prosecution. | ||
| This is before, ladies and gentlemen, understand, this is all unnamed leaks from multiple senators before the defense had even, the curtain hadn't come up, and they had said, hey, this thing is so overwhelming, this guy's done, toast, we're cutting him loose. | ||
| Boris Epstein, I want you to talk about this. | ||
| This is the physics of information warfare. | ||
| What's your assessment of this? | ||
| My assessment is that the Republican establishment has been coming for President Trump for a long time now. | ||
| They've continued to come at him and us, the MAGA movement, and they've continuously failed. | ||
| So it's obvious what happened here. | ||
| The establishment, Nikki Haley and others, these unnamed senators, Which, by the way, is so weak. | ||
| If you really don't like President Trump so much, just put your name on there. | ||
| Just have a little bit of fortitude. | ||
| A little bit of fortitude. | ||
| Just put your name in the story if you are so sure, okay? | ||
| But so they seemed, all these establishment folks, seemed very confident that today would not go well, and then so you have all these stories piling up this morning. | ||
| But now, today was good, it was strong, I would say even great by the Trump legal team, and now all these people have egg on their face. | ||
| And it is the continued story of the battle of President Trump versus the Republican establishment, which is 100 to 0. | ||
| The establishment has not won once yet. | ||
| President Trump continues to beat him back and beat him back and beat him back, and he is very much the lifeblood of this Republican Party. | ||
| President Trump, the 75 million voters who came out for him, who voted for him, We are the lifeblood of the party, the lifeblood of the country, and that is why if President Trump were to run, I'm confident he would be the 47th president of the United States, the second president since Grover Cleveland. | ||
| Grover Cleveland and him would be the only presidents elected twice. | ||
| Rahim, you went from being a blogger to then actually getting in political campaigns. | ||
| You're one of the guys that was the messaging guy, strategic communications for Brexit, right? | ||
| Pretty big event in British history. | ||
| And we're there for the rise of Nigel Farage and UKIP. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So you know how to... Hence the herringbone, right? | |
| Yes, like the Oxford professor. | ||
| Did Nikki Haley, did she jump the shark today in being so brazen about it? | ||
| It's a good question. | ||
| I think I'll go back to what I said this morning and that is that she was rushed out. | ||
| She was rushed out because she knew that there wasn't any Lincoln Project fire coming in today. | ||
| So Nikki Haley has... Remember, the rules of politics is you always have to have somebody to your flank. | ||
| Right, and she no longer had anybody to her more establishment flank to attack the president, to attack the president's defense today. | ||
| But to, you know, not to attack it overtly, but to undermine it, to undermine the theory of it, to undermine the idea that he can come back from what happened. | ||
| Dr. Jan, we're going to get to in a second. | ||
| I've got to go to the Lincoln Project now. | ||
| Did I read correctly? | ||
| Is the FBI looking at this because of text messages? | ||
| So, Boris, you first, then Rahim. | ||
| The Lincoln Project. | ||
| Is Rahim correct? | ||
| There's nobody to the flank of Nikki Haley because the project has been so sanctimonious To President Trump. | ||
| And remember, I said they were important because of the kind of money they had. | ||
| They could make a difference of two or three percentage points. | ||
| What you know in Arizona, it was 8,300 votes. | ||
| Now, the illegal alien and all that would flip it, but they clearly worked the McCain side of the Arizona establishment out there. | ||
| Boris, how big a deal is this? | ||
| Is the Lincoln Project over? | ||
| Are they going to implode? | ||
| I think they're imploding right now. | ||
| They're going the way of Michael Avenatti. | ||
| Same exact thing. | ||
| The darlings of CNN, the darlings of MSNBC, on TV all the time, and then BOOM! | ||
| The truth hits. | ||
| And everybody, we've all known that John Weaver's a bad guy. | ||
| We've all known that Rick Wilson's a bad guy. | ||
| I had no idea about John Weaver's pedophilia and all of that, but everybody's known that John Weaver was blackmailing, effectively, his former clients to keep paying him. | ||
| Rick Wilson's a bad guy. | ||
| I'm extremely disappointed in George Conway, who cried in victory. | ||
| He was so happy. | ||
| When we won in 2016, you know, Steve Schmidt is out of his mind, obviously, and he was part of the reason that John McCain lost in 2008, Steve Schmidt was. | ||
| So, if you look at the personalities of the Lincoln Project, they're actually very similar to Michael Avenatti. | ||
| Just complete blowhards, doofuses, with big time skeletons in their closets. | ||
| You have, Rahim, you've been on this Lincoln Project from day one. | ||
| Yeah, and by the way, let's not forget that I believe John Weaver signed up to lobby on behalf of the Russian government not so long ago. | ||
| Now he ended up being called out on that. | ||
| And had to, you know, had to pull out of that. | ||
| But, you know, you want to talk about who the baddies are. | ||
| I mean, he's got baddie written all over him and yet his colleagues at the Lincoln Project were very happy to entertain him, very happy to work alongside him. | ||
| By the way, I have to mention this. | ||
| I love, love, love the excuse that they first came out with, which was, we barely knew him, we never really met him. | ||
| Guys, this is a $90 million dollar organization. | ||
| Let me ask the audience at home, would you start a $90 million dollar a year organization with somebody you had barely met? | ||
| Right. | ||
| And he raised money. | ||
| Boris, how do people keep, particularly tonight as the questions go on, ladies and gentlemen, they're going to come back and ask the question Bernie Sanders asked at first. | ||
| They're going to come back and say, hey, love what you guys did. | ||
| Where's the beef, right? | ||
| Did Trump, is it the big lie, or, you know, are you going to talk anything about Georgia or Wisconsin? | ||
| They're going to continue to press him. | ||
| Boris, we've got more questions tonight. | ||
| It may roll into questions tomorrow. | ||
| This thing's going to wrap up, though, pretty quickly. | ||
| How do people follow you, Boris? | ||
| I know you're going to be giving blow by blow on your social media. | ||
| How do people follow you? | ||
| Steve, thanks for having me, Rahim. | ||
| Good to talk to you, as always. | ||
| That's true. | ||
| No joke. | ||
| more by Rahim Alinka Project. That's true, no joke, very strong. Steve, thanks again. | ||
| Boris Epstein, at BorisEP on Twitter, Boris underscore Epstein, Boris underscore EPSHTEYN on the gram, coming in hot on the gram, as always. Have a great weekend. Stay strong. | ||
|
unidentified
|
God bless, and good Shabbos. | |
| I mean, I want to bring in the War Room Pandemic Woman of the Year for 2020, Dr. Li Ming Yan from Hong Kong University. | ||
| She's defected from Hong Kong early on to come to the West to tell the truth about what was going in the Wuhan lab that now everybody realizes something. | ||
| And I want to make a note. | ||
| WHO today reversed themselves. | ||
| I think it was Tedros himself, understanding he's going to go to Harvard, and there's going to be, I think, a big diaspora of Chinese there. | ||
| Lao-Beijing U.S. | ||
| Division is going to be there to meet him in a protest. | ||
| They said today, they totally reversed what happened yesterday, and they said, hey, hey, we haven't come to a final conclusion about the market. | ||
| And in fact, then the buried lead was the Chinese refused to give him any raw data. | ||
| They said, no, just talk to some of the personnel in the lab. | ||
| Just question them. | ||
| Remember the guy said, we talked to the guys in the lab. | ||
| They said, there's nothing to worry about. | ||
| It didn't come from a lab. | ||
| No experiments here, boss. | ||
| Hey, can we see the data? | ||
| No, I don't think it's going to happen. | ||
| So WHO, and who tells you this all the time? | ||
| A woman who's put it all on the line, not just a hero to her people. | ||
| And a hero to the diaspora, a new federal state, whistleblower movement, all that, but she's a hero to the American people. | ||
| The response we get every time she comes on is absolutely overwhelming. | ||
| So Dr. Yan, here's the thing, and I told Boris, I was kidding him, I'm not going to book any more guests that don't have like big page one stories. | ||
| It's a huge story in the Washington Post. | ||
| And you know, it's being the Jeff Bezos, Washington Post, it's got to be great headline. | ||
| Scientists said claims about China creating the coronavirus were misleading. | ||
| They went viral anyway. | ||
| And this is a story about Dr. Li Min Yan, her reports and the war room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| They got to get to the war room posse. | ||
| I think I think the way you calculated this has had a hundred times more reviews, more more analysis or more people reading it than any other scientific paper. | ||
| And they went to full meltdown. | ||
| Full meltdown. | ||
| So Dr. Yan, a hat tip, they went to meltdown. | ||
| But here's it, if you go to the story, we're going to deconstruct it more next week, we've got some time. | ||
| Oh, Natalie's going through, she's behind the report. | ||
| Natalie Winters is the best, and I want to give her a lead, so we got, so this doc, they go through the whole report, and some guy that runs some journal, he reaches out to our Dr. Gallo, and he says, Gallo, you're the guy, you're a virologist, you're a guy, you know China, you've got to get all over this. | ||
| And the whole thing is like, oh, he came, even the post says he came up with some technical issues. | ||
| His biggest problem was why would the PLA do this to themselves or something like that? | ||
| However, Dr. Yan, when I said, doctor, we're going to have you on and I want to focus on Gallo, she goes, oh, can we talk about the institute in China that's named after him? | ||
| I go, what? | ||
| So I was, oh, yeah, they got to be institute named after him because he's in bed with these guys. | ||
| Dr. Yan. | ||
| And if we can get it, we're going to try to put it up on screen. | ||
| Tell us about this article, which tries to trash you once again, as you don't know anything, you know, you have no earthy idea what's going on. | ||
| You're only a postdoc running the lab and you're the fact witness about CDC because this was a WHO reference lab. | ||
| You told me originally, hey, this WHO triple is a total phony. | ||
| They're not going to, she told me, they're not going to get any raw data. | ||
| Guess what happens? | ||
| No raw data. | ||
| So I'm glad we got Natalie Winters on. | ||
| Dr. Yan, thanks for joining us. | ||
| I've just seen who wrote this report. | ||
| This woman who blocked me on Twitter a couple of weeks ago for calling her methodology into question. | ||
| Joan Donovan. | ||
| Oh no, this is fantastic. | ||
| Dr. Yan, we're so glad to have you here on a Friday, early Friday evening. | ||
| Tell us about the Washington Post's full-on assault on you. | ||
| So the Washington Post, the journalist, actually I I don't think he understands too much about scientific things. | ||
| But the thing that comes to me is because Harvard has somehow published, is going to publish a report that just attacked my Ian's report, that that is cloaked science. | ||
| And that one is also published today on some websites, their own website, without any interview with me. | ||
| So journalists want to know why I choose preprint to publish it. | ||
| But after my explanation, I showed him I tried many other ways to publish my report and even tell people through media, but it all failed because my voice is blocked. | ||
| This journalist actually had published the word I told him, and also I pointed to him that, for example, why I didn't go to CNN is because I asked for a live interview, but they refused. | ||
| Instead, they lied and smeared me. | ||
| And also I told him, Proof Gamble, Dr. Gamble, he attacked me. | ||
| It's because he had deep tie with Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Last December, just after two months, he published that attack and China government liked it very much and gave him the top prize of the year from China. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Hold on. | ||
| This is a key point. | ||
| I know we're going to get that. | ||
| I want to get that to Cameron. | ||
| If you got it, I want to get to Denver and put that up in the next segment. | ||
| But here's the beauty of it. | ||
| Correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Yan, in the, you know, thousands of words of the Washington Post hit piece on you today, and we're going to get it up into the live chat so everybody can see it. | ||
| Did they mention at all Dr. Gallo's close relationships with the Chinese Communist Party? | ||
| Did they mention he had gotten awards? | ||
| Did they mention he was one of the biggest viologists? | ||
| Was there any mention of that in the article? | ||
| No, although I have sent them the link and also evidence. | ||
| And I also told them it is equally collaborative. | ||
| They should ask those universities and professors who attack me whether they get Chinese Communist Party or linked cooperation or institutional support. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| OK, we're going to come right back, Dr. Yang. | ||
| Hey, democracy dies in darkness. | ||
| And here's where your lies die. | ||
| When you don't tell the truth. | ||
| Why do you write this whole article and have Gallo as the main guy attacking Dr. Yan and you never mention? | ||
| You never mention his relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Right before we go to break, I gotta tell the posse in the live chat, you gotta calm down. | ||
| I think there's already three marriage proposals for Dr. Yan. | ||
| Dr. Yan, the guy's saying, Dr. Yan, we love you, Dr. Yan, will you marry me? | ||
| Guys, calm down. | ||
| Dr. Yan's gonna be back after a commercial break. | ||
| She's a hardworking researcher. | ||
| She's got stuff to do up there. | ||
| Dr. Yan, we're gonna return. | ||
| Take a short commercial break. | ||
| Rahim Kastam, Stephen K. Bannon, and the posse in the war room. | ||
| Interviewing Dr. Li Min Yan from Hong Kong University in a second. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Pandemic. | ||
| We will fight till they're all gone. | ||
| We rejoice when there's no more. | ||
| Let's take down the T.T.D. | ||
| 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. | ||
| For our Chinese audience that watches and listens to us in Mandarin, I tell you, your country has produced a hero that is greatly admired here in the United States of America because courage is contagious. | ||
| And her courage has been emblematic of this entire fight. | ||
| Now the Washington Post is going after her once again with another gun-decked article. | ||
| But Natalie Winters and the National Pulse is all over it. | ||
| Raheem, what have you guys just found out in the last couple of minutes? | ||
| Two things real quick. | ||
| Number one, who published Lincoln Project's donor list this morning? | ||
| That would be me. | ||
| National Pulse. | ||
| Right. | ||
| CNBC story just dropped. | ||
| Lincoln Project backers consider cutting off donations after misconduct. | ||
| That's the physics of information warfare. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| Number two, just while you were talking, I looked through the Shorenstein Center that has done this kind of report that led to the Washington Post thing, right? | ||
| They're the ones that are going after Dr. Liu Yanyan. | ||
| Literally the first thing I do is type into Google Advanced Search, Shorenstein Center, China, and the first thing that pops up is Creeping Freedoms in Chinese Press by Shi Guangli, Shorenstein Fellow, Spring 1999, Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tsinghua University. | ||
| That would be Xi Jinping's alma mater. | ||
| And, by the way, would also be the university that CNN This is the whole deal that Trump's Department of Education went after. | ||
| These guys are taking hundreds of millions of dollars, these Ivy League schools, undisclosed where they're taking it from, the Chinese Communist Party, they're up to the neck in this, the Confucius Institutes, everything else. | ||
| So, Dr. Li-Ming Yang, I want to go, but we've got a couple of minutes. | ||
| I just want to make sure that you're putting out another report. | ||
| You stand by everything you said in that, and you're prepared to challenge anybody that will come forward and show you where it's wrong, instead of all this kind of generalized, oh, she doesn't know what she's talking about. | ||
| You're prepared to stand your ground. | ||
| Is that correct? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| At this Washington Post article said, at the end, they also quote my word that I have the response. | ||
| Point to point, no matter if it's Dr. Gamble or John Hopkins, Professor Nancy, the bioweapon expert, and the other people, they attacked and criticized my work, and also dismissed my reputation. | ||
| Let's do it, point to point, in scientific and fact, and it will be published soon, within a few weeks, because I already prepared the draft. | ||
| And also, there are more reports I'm going to publish. | ||
| So let me show you. | ||
| People can follow this on my Twitter, see this photo. | ||
| I'm working on, with many people, to translate this PLA textbook published in 2015. | ||
| It's about, written by the top bioweapon expert, General Xu Dechang in China, talk about SARS. | ||
| It's also artificial and also their UNIQLO modern bioweapon plan. | ||
| If you read it, you will understand why SARS-CoV-19 is an unrestricted bioweapon to the Western countries. | ||
| All the things can be solved. | ||
| I will go through it in my Twitter first and also with a formal report. | ||
| I'm working on that. | ||
| Dr. Yan, just one last thing. | ||
| We only got a couple of minutes, but you had told me this whole WHO thing that was a total sham. | ||
| Right now, I just want you to tell the world, will the Chinese Communist Party and the PLA, will they turn over the real raw data to the WHO so that they can do an independent report? | ||
| Or American doctors, people from Western Europe, the rest of the world, India, will they ever turn over the raw data? | ||
| Don't I mean, I want to tell you as Western people don't be too naive. | ||
| I mean, China government definitely won't give you anything because this is their confidential bioweapon plans. | ||
| And it was planned for over decades. | ||
| And it will be shown by my report later based on their PLA textbook. | ||
| Dr. Yan, how do people follow you during the day and give all your coordinates? | ||
| Because I'm sure they're going to be trying to take you down on Twitter. | ||
| they produce the drugs in the document, or how they sell it with invoice. | ||
| So how could you expect this from CCP? | ||
| Dr. Yan, how do people follow you during the day and give all your coordinates? Because I'm sure they're going to be trying to take you down on Twitter. | ||
| What is your, what coordinates do you have that people can get to you? Actually, still I use my Twitter account, Dr. Limeng Yan, if you search over 70,000 followers. | ||
| And if one day they pull me down, I think maybe they can find me from all those media, Wallroom, and any other platform who want give me live interview is welcome. | ||
| I'm open to all type of the influential platform and the media to tell people the truth. | ||
| Because everyone deserves the truth. | ||
| If they dare to give me I won. | ||
| If they dare to give me I won. | ||
| CNN is also okay. | ||
| Yeah, I don't think they're going to do that. | ||
| I don't think Sanjay Gupta wants any part of you, right? | ||
| You're just too tough. | ||
| Dr. Yan, the prayers of everybody in the War Room audience, the whole posse are with you. | ||
| You're a great hero to us. | ||
| Our Woman of the Year for 2020. | ||
| And the way things are going, you'll be Woman of the Year for 2021. | ||
| So thank you very much. | ||
| Honored to have you on the show today. | ||
| Thank you, sir. | ||
| Never ask me for my coordinates. | ||
| Tell us about the podcast. | ||
| How do people get to it? | ||
| The podcast is at TheNationalPulse.com. | ||
| You caught me off guard there. | ||
| TheNationalPulse.com forward slash podcast or on any podcast platform. | ||
| And if you have multiple of them, subscribe across multiple platforms. | ||
| Doesn't hurt, only helps. | ||
| Here's the great thing, and this is why we're trying to break new talent all the time. | ||
| Natalie Winters is a rock star of National Pulse. | ||
| The Washington Post And the Shorenstein Center ought to understand something. | ||
| And Dr. Gallo, you've got the ultimate honey badger now drilling down on all your stuff. | ||
| And the Washington Post and the editors of the Washington Post should be ashamed of yourself when we come up with how Gallo is in bed with the Chinese Communist Party, in bed with them, recently. | ||
| Dr. Yan, who called these people out, she's also a witness of fact. | ||
| And every fact she's told us has borne out. | ||
| Every fact she's told us about how the CCP lied. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Let's be clear about this as well. | ||
| The Washington Post places Chinese propaganda inside its paper in exchange for money. | ||
| Talk about that. | ||
| China Daily pays for inserts in the Washington Post and not an insignificant source of advertising revenue for them either. | ||
| So here's what we're going to do. | ||
| Tomorrow morning, we've got two things. | ||
| We're going to bifurcate the show. | ||
| The first part, Peter Navarro is going to show you the receipts. | ||
| He's going to make the argument of what he thinks the lawyers should have done about answering Bernie Sanders' question. | ||
| Here's the overwhelming evidence. | ||
| He will present that. | ||
| And then the second half of the show, we're going to have Frank Gaffney in here. | ||
| We're going to talk about the Biden administration's response to the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| There is not a more important geopolitical issue in the world and something that affects your personal life. | ||
| So this is going to be two hours. | ||
| One hour over to Dr. Navarro, the other to Frank Gaffney, myself, and others as we talk about the CCP. |
Export Selection