All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 30, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
01:00:33
Episode 3138: Elites Removal Of Your Voice
Participants
Main voices
s
steve bannon
23:12
Appearances
Clips
m
mike lindell
00:05
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
unidentified
So I don't have a highly produced video, but I do have a few words that I think this court should follow and think about in this case.
The United States is the oldest modern democracy, well over 200 years, far different than any other country in many ways.
And what makes us different is the experiment we launched, which is this thing called elections.
We have elections.
And that means when it comes to decide as to who should lead our nation, it's the people of the United States of America that get to make those decisions.
Not six voters in Colorado who've picked and chosen who they want to file a lawsuit against.
And this court should not interfere with that fundamental value, that rule of democracy.
It's the people who get to decide.
And this lawsuit seeks to cancel that principle.
This lawsuit is anti-democratic.
It looks to extinguish the opportunity for millions of Coloradans Colorado Republicans and unaffiliated voters to be able to choose and vote for the presidential candidate they want.
In fact, the leading Republican presidential candidate.
And by many measures, the candidate most likely to win the presidency.
They want to extinguish that opportunity by preventing him from running for office.
It is anti-democratic.
This is a case of lawfare that seeks to interfere with the presidential election.
We argue here that this, at its basest level, this is election interference.
The petitioners here, the six voters, have appointed themselves private attorney generals.
They can pick and choose and file lawsuits against whom they seek to disqualify.
And they rely on exceptionally weak and frankly in some cases fringe legal and logical theories to try and tilt the playing field of this election by wiping out President Trump's ability to run for election well before anyone has an opportunity to vote.
They're asking today for a number of historical firsts.
First, this is the first they are asking this Court to be the first ever in American history, in American history, to disqualify a presidential candidate under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
I point, we've pointed the Court, I believe, to, or we will, Horace Greeley, who ran in 1872 as a Democratic presidential candidate.
He had paid for Jefferson Thomas's bail.
He was roundly accused, loudly accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States shortly after the Civil War when he ran.
Lots of debate on that issue.
No one ever once thought of trying to disqualify him from voting.
They took their arguments to the people for them to make that decision.
Eugene Debs Socialist Party USA candidate in four elections in 1920 ran from jail.
He had been convicted of sedition for giving aid and comfort to enemies during the First World War by trying to stop military recruitment.
He was convicted of that.
He ran from jail.
He was never disqualified.
No attempt was made to disqualify him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The case of Eugene Debs is often regarded as a low point in American history.
A low point when it comes to First Amendment protections.
And for good reason.
People should be able to run for office and shouldn't be punished for their speech.
The petitioners asked this court to be the first state court in American history to disqualify a presidential candidate.
They are asking for the first time in American history to disqualify any federal candidate, the state court to disqualify any federal candidate.
This is the first time in Colorado history anyone's ever tried to disqualify a presidential candidate under the 14th Amendment.
Asking the Secretary of State to go back and research a candidate's behavior, that's also a first.
Never been asked or demanded before.
Even right now, there are 50, about 50 cases, either pending or have been nationwide, specifically attacking President Trump.
This is not a new tactic.
This is the first where a dismissal is not automatically, I shouldn't say automatically, but promptly been granted because of the weakness of so many of these arguments.
They're asking for the first time that the January 6th report be treated as evidence in this court.
In a court of law, that politicized hearing, that's what they're asking is that this court rely upon that as evidence.
And frankly, they're asking this court to be the first in the country ever to embrace a number of legal theories that have never been accepted by a court, state or federal.
There's a lot of firsts they're trying in this case.
They're legal theories.
I mean, we're arguing we shouldn't even be here.
And we've argued that multiple times.
This is a federal issue, perhaps the most important federal issue we can have.
And it's for Congress to set these standards, for Congress to provide guidance, not for the petitioners to come up with theories and try and convince you that they may be right.
We've argued that the 14th Amendment's not self-executing and the preemption of political question.
And we understand this court's ruled against us in every instance.
But nearly every court that's ever looked at presidential qualifications, and I'm not just talking about issues involving President Trump.
You should just expect this to be regular occurrence.
I live in Denver, Your Honor.
I understand sirens, unfortunately.
I don't really like this car because it's right next to my house.
So it's not just President Trump.
You may recall that there was a little bit of controversy about President Obama's citizenship.
And there was some controversy about candidate senator and presidential candidate McCain's citizenship.
And there was controversy about Senator and presidential candidate Cruz's citizenship.
And there's one or two instances where those went to trial.
But the vast majority of them were properly dismissed.
The overwhelming weight of evidence is that this case should not be here.
Now, I want to talk a little bit about some of these specific claims.
The claim that there was an insurrection.
What constitutes an insurrection really needs to be grounded in historical usage.
Because if you don't ground it in historical usage, you're just making it up.
Now, I'm not accusing the court of making it up.
I'm accusing the petitioners of making it up.
But look, you will hear from Professor Delahunty that there are lots of definitions of what an insurrection is.
It's been going on, that word's been in English usage for a couple hundred years, probably more.
I haven't quite looked at the etymology of it.
And there are a lot of definitions.
Your Honor, I submit I could construct a legal argument or a law review article defending pretty much any one of those definitions.
And when there are numerous definitions, that means there's really none.
You might as well pick a definition out of the hat.
And the petitioners have picked a definition out of the hat that suits them.
That's their job.
I get it.
But frankly, They're making up the standards so that it fits the facts of January 6th.
And I'm sure they'll try and come up with an argument that it'll just fit the facts of January 6th, and it'll never fit any other facts, and there can never be any consequences.
But the bottom line is, they're making it up, and they're picking a definition out of the hat.
What constitutes an insurrection needs to be grounded in historical usage, because that's what the law demands.
That's what equality under the law demands.
That's what fairness, so we understand what the standards are by which we comport our behavior.
Not post-facto making it up to try and figure that out.
The term engage.
The term engage means to do something.
Frankly, no one really knows what that means, but I think we can all agree it means to do something.
That's what the word engage means.
Okay?
There's substantial historical evidence that engage does not mean mere incitement through words.
It doesn't mean that.
And frankly, President Trump didn't engage.
He didn't carry a pitchfork to the Capitol grounds.
He didn't lead a charge.
He didn't get in a fistfight with legislators.
He didn't goad President Biden into going out back and having a fight.
He gave a speech in which he asked people to peacefully and patriotically go to the Capitol to protest.
I understand that there are several experts that are going to testify.
And one's going to testify that President Trump, he just didn't do enough.
He should have done more.
Now, that's a case of Monday morning quarterbacking.
But he's saying, you should have done more.
You didn't do enough.
Should have done more, should have done more stuff earlier.
I can come up with all kinds of theories this professor will say as to why you should have done enough stuff.
And that professor is no doubt a learned man and very thoughtful on this.
But his basic argument when it comes down to it is they're claiming President Trump was negligent.
And we reject that factual claim, of course.
And you'll hear evidence that that characterization is completely wrong.
But more fundamentally, the entire theory is wrong.
The failure to do something is the opposite of the word engage.
It's the opposite of the word engage.
And we've argued engage requires specific intent.
Someone doesn't just sort of stumble into starting an interaction.
They have to have the intent to do that.
And you'll hear evidence that President Trump took very specific actions to try to prevent violence, to take precautions that he didn't want there to be violence on January 6th.
And on January 6th, he called for peace.
And he used the word peace at least four times in his speech at the Ellipse and two tweets and a video message.
So he asked for peace.
Now, the petitioners have played a couple videos.
The cards are stacked against you, I guess.
I've been here before, Your Honor.
I promise it's going to be an equal opportunity problem.
I'm assuming your clerks are not timing, taking time against me when the sirens go by.
Stop that timer, please.
So my next point is, thank God we have a First Amendment.
I'm very thankful for the First Amendment.
Spent most of my career defending the First Amendment.
Now there's a reason it's the first, not the second, not the eighth.
As I debate with my friends who like the Second Amendment.
It's the First Amendment.
And it's free speech.
And I referred to Eugene Debs before.
Eugene Debs was thrown in jail.
He had to run for president from jail because of his speech.
And it's properly condemned, that case, today.
And in fact, even then, his sentence was commuted very shortly after the election of 2020.
None of President Trump's speech ever called for violence.
Just the opposite.
None of it ever called for insurrection.
Did it call for political pressure?
Yeah.
Did it use a metaphor to fight in the political context?
Yes.
And I don't think even the petitioners would allege that President Trump, when he says fight, he wants to get into a fistfight with people.
None of his speech called for the overthrow of government.
None of it.
Any objective reading, the plain language of his speech, was clearly not directed towards violence.
Now, the petitioners are going to have an expert.
An expert on speech.
An expert who says right-wing speech.
He understands what right-wing extremist speech really means.
And he's basically going to argue, when you strip away all the academic language and you look at what he's saying, he's going to say, look, President Trump used a bunch of dog whistles.
And of course, a dog whistle is a whistle that has a very high pitch that humans can't hear, but dogs can hear.
Okay.
And he's going to say, President Trump had this sort of dog whistle.
I don't know if he'll use the phrase dog whistle.
But he used a speech that really these far right-wing extremists could understand and mobilize on.
But us mere mortals, we missed it.
We didn't understand it.
But those folks understood it.
He's going to say that normal, commonly used English doesn't count.
Because there's this subjective special language out there that is sort of underneath it all that has been unearthed by the sociologist.
And only right-wing extremists and people very learned in sociology and right-wing extremism can understand.
And he's going to say that with his expertise he's been able to decipher what we normal mortals cannot.
And his decipherment is going to basically say that President Trump was really ordering people to be violent.
Even when he said peaceful, patriotically, even when he sent out tweets that said be peaceful, that's not really what he meant.
And the right-wing, those right-wingers knew it.
He meant something else.
This turns our American values on their head.
It is fundamentally anti-First Amendment.
He is saying that when we look at political speech, we don't look at it in an objective way.
We don't look at the plain meaning of the words.
We look at this secret, hidden interpretation that no one in this courtroom, or well I mean maybe someone in this courtroom besides him can understand.
Maybe he thinks I understand it and no one else can.
I will submit I was in Georgia on January 6th helping with an election.
But the right wing can understand it.
But no one else.
That is anti-First Amendment.
In fact, that has been soundly rejected by our courts, and properly so.
We look at what people say as we commonly understand them.
And the common understanding of peacefully and patriotic means don't commit violence and support your country.
That's what it means.
Let's talk about the history and meaning of Section 3.
You're going to hear from two professors.
You've gotten about 40,000 words of briefing on sort of the meaning of Section 3.
You've rendered an opinion against us.
And I understand, that's a conditional opinion.
You want more evidence.
And you want to hear more argument.
And that's what we're providing.
And so I'm going to ask you three things.
All right?
First, I'm going to ask you to reconsider your footnote 5 and your order.
I'm not, Your Honor, because I'm not going to take up the time.
But I'm simply going to ask you to reconsider it.
Okay?
Thank you.
And I think those cases deserve a much closer reading and I respectfully say I believe that they were improperly mischaracterized.
Okay?
So that's my first request.
My second request is When you look at the experts in our position, and I think the court ultimately agrees, is that they're testifying as to what the law is and what the history is.
And Your Honor, rightfully recognize that there's other folks out there.
So I'm just going to give you a lineup of the other folks.
On one side, the petitioners cite Baud, and Paulson, and Graber.
Three professors.
Baud, Paulson, and Graber.
And on our side, we cite Tillman, and Blackman, and Lash.
And I'd like you to take particular care to look at Lash's, Professor Curt Lash's articles.
And because he's done a more thorough analysis of the historic history behind the 14th Amendment and Section 3, the congressional debates, and the ratification debates, not just what legislators said, but how it was understood by the public as well.
You're going to get an overview of that.
You're going to get argument on that.
But I'm going to urge you to take a look at those others closely.
And third, as we've said, we think this is a legal argument and not appropriate for rules of evidence.
It's in.
The court will provide its analysis.
We have talked to the petitioners about, frankly, including the expert reports, the law professors, as demonstrative exhibits to review.
That's fine.
But I think what you're going to see is, when I talked about the lack of firsts, There's a reason presidential candidates have not been knocked off, or no one's even attempted to, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
There's a reason this is a unique case.
There's a reason cases like this have either never been brought or quickly rejected.
There's reasons for that.
And the reasons are grounded in the text and the language of the 14th Amendment.
You're going to hear about the Secretary's Authority from Ms.
Hillary Rudy.
This is sort of an interesting case in the sense that my understanding is petitioners are calling Ms.
Rudy and haven't even spoken to her.
And we haven't even spoken to her.
So it's going to be an adventure.
But having had some experience in that office, I'm confident you will see that this case is a radical outlier from the Secretary's past practice, in addition, obviously, to the 14th Amendment.
Let's talk a little bit about the evidence before the Court today, or this next week.
To be sure, the petitioners have spent about 10 months preparing their case.
As you have described, we've talked about this as a mantra.
I'll submit volume does not equal quality.
A lot of attorneys does not equal a good argument.
A lot of stuff in front of the court does not equal good evidence.
The court shouldn't confuse a vigorous effort with a good argument or with good evidence.
If anything, the fact that they have to put on so much and make one inference and pile one argument on top of another shows the weakness of their case, not strength.
After all the time they have prepared this case, this is what they've got.
They've got the January 6th report.
They got two police officers out of hundreds, perhaps thousands of police officers there.
and not commanders, but two police officers.
And they've got three professors.
Two law professors to testify about the law and a sociologist to testify about the coded language.
That's what they've got.
And they've got one House member.
I'm sorry.
One House member.
So that's what they've got.
And at the end of the day, the start of the day, this case is frankly about the January 6th report.
This is their effort to get court to endorse the January 6th report.
That's what it comes down to.
The video montage with overlaid sound that you saw in this opening argument, that's a pretty good production.
And the reason it's a good production is because the January 6th committee hired a television producer to produce this stuff for primetime TV.
The January 6th report made 411 findings, and petitioners have asked to introduce 408 of them.
Many of which this court has allowed conditionally and allowed argument against.
But this report is poison.
And I mean poisoned very bluntly.
It is a one-sided political document of cherry-picked information, no adversarial process, with a preordained conclusion.
It omits a number of other arguments.
It ignored other witnesses before it.
And it ignores other explanations and causes.
It has very much.
Let me ask you this, Honor, and obviously I'm asking rhetorically.
If someone walked into court and said, hey, here's how this court case is going to work.
I, on my side, the prosecutor, I'm going to get all kinds of time, years, year and a half, to investigate witnesses, to take statements, to gather evidence, okay?
And people who strongly disagree with my viewpoint, they get no time whatsoever.
They don't get to interview any witnesses.
They don't get to get any evidence.
They get none of that.
But I get all of it.
I get to do all of that.
And on top of that, you're not going to hear the case.
I'm going to choose my own panel.
I'm going to choose my own judges.
I'm going to choose my Democrats and a couple of Republicans that agree with me.
I get to choose them.
And then what I'm going to do is I'm going to hire a television producer, and I'm going to time this for an election, and I'm going to put all that out there.
And I want you to render legal opinions based on the quality of that evidence.
I think you and everyone else would be rightfully, would be repulsed by that process.
But that's what the January 6th process was.
And you are going to hear from a congressman involved in this, Just the deficiencies and the problems of that January 6th process.
And so what the petitioners are doing is they're trying to shove this January 6th report as evidence for this court.
They're asking the court to endorse that process.
They're asking the court to endorse that one-sided, poisonous report.
There is a reason Democrats, for the large part, love that report and cite it.
And there is a reason Republicans, for the most part, hate that report and condemn it.
And the reason why is, that report is a political document, first and foremost.
This, however, is a court of law.
Like you, we, like the petitioner's attorneys, have spent the majority, perhaps all of our adult working lives, as officers of the court, defending one of the greatest American institutions, one of the greatest world institutions, as fair courts that conduct themselves according to the rule of evidence, that work hard to come with good decisions.
That's what we do.
That's what courts do.
That is not what the January 6th report was.
And we should hold ourselves here to a much higher standard than that poisonous January 6th report.
We should allow in only real evidence that's subject to cross-exam.
It is properly authenticated by people who actually have knowledge of that.
That's what this court should be about.
Not importing A bunch of stuff from the January 6th report that really has little, if any, credibility.
You'll also hear from two police officers, and we want to be very respectful of those police officers.
But like any human being, they had a very limited viewpoint on what happened on January 6th.
And we're going to ask that you limit the testimony to actually what the officers knew.
Not what they guessed at, not what they summarized, but what they knew and what they saw.
Their actual experience.
And we'll point out that, frankly, I mean, there's a reason these officers are here, and it's because of their intense dislike for President Trump.
You're going to hear from a member of the House of Representatives, and we're going to give you a member of the House of Representatives, too.
There you have it, Your Honor.
And then you're going to hear from three experts from the petitioners, two are going to testify to what the law is, and then you're going to have the sociologist whom we've already spoken about.
That's it.
At the end of the day, their evidence is a January 6th report.
Everything they bring in is part of the January 6th report.
I won't say everything, but the vast majority of it.
Our evidence.
I've refrained from naming witnesses.
I'll continue to follow that convention.
But you're going to hear that President Trump took very specific precautions to prevent violence on that day.
As President.
You're going to hear that the organizers of the rally at the Ellipse You're going to hear that the rally at the Ellipse was peaceful.
There was no violence.
You didn't have a crowd that was intent on violence before or after President Trump's speech.
You're going to see that President Trump's communications on January 6th called for peace.
They called for respect of the police.
Certainly, two police officers that were involved in violence, you're going to see that.
From them.
But we also have at least one witness who's going to say, look, I saw very, very little.
I saw a peaceful crowd.
Nearly everyone was peaceful.
That's a different perspective.
And so it's impossible, we think, to say, the mob did this, the mob did that, the mob, the mob.
There are a lot of people with a lot of different actions, a lot of behavior.
There was not a mind-meld mob.
That President Trump supposedly mobilized.
And then you're going to hear about how the January 6th report was a completely partisan, unreliable document.
This case here is about President Trump's right to run for office.
That right is the flip side of the coin for people to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice.
People can't vote without candidates.
Candidates aren't really candidates if people can't vote for them.
It's the same side of the coin.
And so we've talked about the right for the people of Colorado to vote for someone for office.
And that's very closely bound with the right of Donald J. Trump to be able to run for office.
And the petitioners seek to deny millions of Coloradans that right.
And they seek to deny President Trump his rights.
Now I understand the posture that this is merely a state disqualification case.
And it's not.
This is a 14th Amendment case.
And it's dressed up as a state proceeding.
95% of the evidence is the 14th Amendment.
Maybe it's 92%.
But the overwhelming majority of the evidence in this case is about the 14th Amendment.
And the overwhelming argument is about the 14th Amendment.
And the consequences are about the 14th Amendment.
And it asks the court to interpret the 14th Amendment.
That's what this case is about.
It looks like a duck.
If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.
It's a duck.
This is a 14th Amendment case.
Okay?
And so I want to bring... It's a constitutional case.
It's sort of what lawyers dream of being able to litigate.
We don't dream in law school of litigating Section 1204 qualifications.
We dream of litigating constitutional law.
And that's what this is.
It's a constitutional case.
And so I'm going to bring you to my last point.
So I've been, I'm old enough and overweight enough, to where I've been litigating election law in the state of Colorado for well over two decades.
And this is the third Presidential candidate ballot access case I have litigated.
Now obviously I'm familiar with the law nationwide.
And there is a rule in election law.
And that rule, it's called the rule of democracy.
Maybe I'm making it up a little bit.
But it's the rule of democracy.
And that rule says that when something is close, and when there's a unique and strange argument on the other side, Okay?
When there's a question or an ambiguity or a stretch, the rule of democracy says we err on the side of letting people vote.
That's what the rule says.
Now, we've made preemption arguments.
We've argued about holding office, that the 14th Amendment applies to holding office so that Congress has the choice to remove a disqualification.
We shouldn't short-circuit that.
We've made arguments about officer of the United States.
We've made arguments about engagement and insurrection of the First Amendment.
All of that stuff.
And to date, the court has either deferred those or oftentimes ruled against us.
But what I'm asking this court to do is apply a rule of democracy.
When something's close or ambiguous or a stretch or an unusual argument, you don't interpret it as a way to cancel the opportunity for people to choose their representatives.
You don't interpret it as a way to cancel the ability of millions of people to be able to vote for the leader of the free world.
What you do is you interpret it to allow people to vote.
Because there is no doubt That the six electors don't like President Trump.
And I would submit that maybe their attorneys don't like President Trump.
And their experts.
And I know the police officers don't like President Trump.
They don't like President Trump.
And they have every right to vote against him.
But there are millions of people in Colorado and across this country who are inspired by President Trump.
Who view him as someone who protects their interests And is going to create a nation, help build a nation that they want to live in, and that they want their children to live in.
Millions of people look to him for hope and inspiration.
And who are the petitioners to prevent those people from not being able to vote on that?
Who are they?
Well, we're arguing that they shouldn't be able to stop those votes.
That when millions of people are inspired by a candidate, and millions of people may hate that candidate, What we need to do, and what the rule of democracy says, and what makes America great, is we get to vote on that person.
We don't stifle it.
We don't short-circuit it through a court proceeding.
We're confident that that's what the framers thought about when they drafted the 14th Amendment.
We're confident that that's historical usage.
We're confident that our legal arguments and our evidence are appropriate and carry the day.
And part of the reason we're confident is because those arguments and that evidence fits within the long tradition of American democracy and of American law to allow an election to go forward rather than short-circuiting it and engaging in what we would consider anti-democratic behavior.
Thank you very much, Your Honor.
Do the inter-readers...
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Okay, you've heard the opening arguments and this is going to be a very important trial.
Here's the reason.
It is a total kangaroo court.
This 14th Amendment, as President Trump's lawyer argued, should be, it's a 14th Amendment case, constitutional case, should be in a federal court, which wouldn't take it.
Because it's so ludicrous, but you've got a radical judge and the links to her radicalness, Laura Loomer's got up and I think Grace and Mo have it on the, up on the site.
You should read her, her links to Judge, I think it's Sarah Wallace, who actually gave money.
Gave money to a group that's trying to keep Trump off the ballot and her excuses?
Well, I didn't really understand that's what they were doing.
She did not recuse herself.
The Trump lawyers have been working on this and this is why this is kind of like a summer storm out of nowhere.
They had all types of motions before her and thought this thing would not start for a while and she just ruled against it.
Including today, she opened up and said she's not going to recuse herself.
Now look, this has nothing to do with the law.
What you're watching is the demise of this country.
These radicals, these globalist radicals, that are trying to destroy this country by the invasion they are allowing to happen, and also the global turmoil they're causing, By sending hundreds of billions of dollars over to the child trafficking and money laundering operation in Ukraine.
These radicals, and this is what happened in Colorado when you had a billionaire who wanted to push the LGBTQ agenda, turned Colorado to a purple state.
They control the appeals court, they control the Supreme Court.
As Mike Davis laid out, this is a bench trial.
This is not a jury trial.
There's no jury there for President Trump's lawyers to address.
This judge is made up her mind.
You're seeing a classic, and people never thought this would ever happen in the United States of America.
You're seeing between New York City on the financial trial and in Denver, Colorado, on this made up ballot access to the 14th Amendment, accusing President Trump of actually being an insurrectionist.
This wild legal theory that as soon as it came up, and remember, please always remember, Don't forget this.
We're not going to bury the lead here.
All of this was done by, quote-unquote, Republican billionaires that put the money up for Leonard Leo and that crowd over the Federalist Society to write the bogus initial constitution with two, you know, unknown constitutional lawyers that Alan Dershowitz blew the water the day it came out.
Because the day it came out, I said, I can smell it.
I smell the rat.
This is they can't beat him with Nikki Haley.
They can't beat him with DeSantis.
They're going to try everything.
Understand this.
There is nothing the elite class will not do to take your voice away.
There is nothing they will not do.
They will break any law.
They will go against any custom and tradition we've ever had.
And to me, this only makes Trump more powerful for all his imperfections.
For all his imperfections.
Because it's not Trump, it's you.
They are scared to death of your ascendant power.
What just happened in the house, they're petrified of it.
They're petrified of it.
What you're seeing in Denver now is the manifestation of the radical left that's on it.
But it was started, it was started by the same people that are backing Glenn Youngkin, the same people that were originally backing the Santas, the same people putting money into Nikki Haley.
At any level, and in any venue, they will come after to stop your champion because he puts you in the room and empowers you.
This was all, let me repeat this, this was all started by a bogus, half-baked argument made coming out of the Federalist Society, and Leonard Leo's crew, and the billionaires that back him.
Who basically want courts to rule in favor of their corporations and their money-making.
They do not.
They care as little about this Republic as the radical left.
Let me repeat that.
They care as little about this Republic.
They gloss it over in a more, oh, you know, we're for limited government.
We're for fiscal response.
They're not for any of it.
They're not for any of it.
There is in on the fix as the most radical Democrats.
Led by the neoliberal neocon cheerleading squad over at the Murdoch News Network.
That's why this in Denver.
This is not good.
Okay, here's what's going to happen.
She's going to rule that Trump's an insurrectionist and going to recommend to the Secretary of State immediately with a court order that President Trump be removed from the ballot for 2024.
A rigged appeals court controlled by radical Democrats is going to support that.
And then a Supreme Court also with radical judges.
is going to support that.
So the state of Colorado's legal system will have spoken up to the Supreme Court.
Oh, and they're going to slow walk that.
They're going to slow walk the appeals and they're going to slow walk going to the Supreme Court because they want to drag this.
This is not a legal argument.
It's going to be a media and a political argument.
They want to drag this as far into next year as possible.
Number one, to give DeSantis and Nikki Haley and soon-to-be Glenn Youngkin, oh, well, Trump's going to be off the ballot.
I have to be the candidate.
Trump's not even going to be in the ballot.
And other states are going to come up.
They're going to see Colorado.
Other states are going to come up.
It's all going to happen.
He has to be off the ballot.
This is going to empower the neoliberal, neocon, phony Republicans coming forward.
unidentified
Look at this.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Colorado did it.
As Mike Davis said, this will be struck down in the Supreme Court, but hey baby, you gotta get there.
That's gonna be a federal, maybe you go directly to the Supreme Court, but Colorado's, they're not gonna expedite, let's make these decisions right away.
This judge will rule on this this week or next week.
The appeals court's not gonna sit there, they're gonna slow walk it so it takes longer to get to the Supreme Court.
Will it be overturned?
Obviously.
As Dershowitz and other constitutional lawyers tell us, and we'll have many of those experts on this week, but I want you to hear the opening argument.
The opening argument is the same nonsense you heard on the J6.
Left very little impression with the American people, as we know from the polling.
But this is to take whatever they got and to try to, in information warfare, weaponize it so it goes in the primary season and goes in the next year and just puts a doubt on people's mind.
Was Trump even going to be on the ballot?
How can possibly Trump win if Colorado, he's not even on the ballot in certain states.
Cause sure as the turning of the earth.
Other states like, let me pick a couple of random ones.
Oh, I don't know, Michigan, right?
We have that that great crew in Michigan, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Governor.
Hey, you're gonna see some other states jump in right here.
Oh, Trump's off the ballot.
Nikki Hale's gonna sit there with her knitted brow.
Birdbrain.
And sit there and go, you know, attack on Israel's an attack on America, the one that's trying to get us into the war, into the into the war as possible, when over the weekend, the first of all, Biden says it's got to be a two state solution.
I'm not even sure that's the official.
I don't think it's the official policy of the Israeli government.
He's saying, oh, we have to have a two state solution.
We're only doing this for a two state solution.
Maybe it's time he come forward and tell us exactly what the plan is.
What are our intentions here?
One of the leading entrepreneurs in Israel, One of the wealthiest men in Israel, and obviously a political opponent, Netanyahu.
But he's making the case that Netanyahu's government, his part of the coalition government, has got to go for incompetence.
He's making the case.
I'm just reporting it.
Netanyahu blamed, over the weekend, blamed the intelligence agencies, blamed the intelligence for not warning him about the Hamas situation that they knew about.
He retracted that, but he said the quiet part out loud.
So in this firestorm, you've got the neoliberal neocons, not the America First.
The America First, we want the border closed and we want the deportations to start.
And we want to make sure we fully understand, even in the Taiwan situation, I'm all, Ben, oh you're just, because you're so anti-CCP, you see the CCP under every bed, you're crazy.
Hey, he ought to come forward and tell us a plan on the in South China Sea in the in defense of Taiwan.
I'm all for that.
Let's do it.
That case will be but that case will bury Ukraine.
Now you are having wins and look everybody run around with Mike Johnson's police Mike Johnson's.
Hey.
Mike Johnson's in for a couple of days, and a lot of what you're hearing is rhetoric he would have to have.
The key thing is look at his actions.
He has done a hard throwdown on bifurcating Ukraine in the Israel funding.
He has said he's going to put forward, and I don't believe that even Ukraine will come up if he sticks to the Hastert rule, but even on Israel, which I say should take a backseat to the southern border and must take a backseat to the southern border.
By the way, we're live-streaming in the courtroom, and you can get the live-stream up on my site right now so you can hear what's going on.
You should pay attention to this trial, because it's going to show you the lawfare they're prepared to use.
Even on Israel, he's saying there's not going to be one penny.
Mike Johnson has committed, and that's why we'll get a tweet up that came out earlier, I think from Jake Sherman, about looking for offsets or pay-fors.
Mike Johnson has said, which the media hasn't really picked up, that there will not be one penny added to the national debt for the support of Israel.
The $14 billion will be coming out of cuts, real cuts in other places.
Now, I adamantly, I think he's doing a great job on bifurcating and going against McConnell and the collaborationist Republicans in the Senate.
We're gonna try to come with the only way they get their 60 billion for their child trafficking and money laundering and bioweapons operation in Ukraine, and God knows what else.
Hey, baby, when you get in there and look at Ukraine, when there's a real investigation in Ukraine, when you pick that scab, there's gonna be a lot of pus that runs out of that.
113 billion dollars so far?
What in the hell, and we don't even have any accurate reports whatsoever of what's going on in the battlefield.
Look at all the nonsense and lies you've been spun from MSNBC and CNN and all these Admiral Stavridis and all these experts.
Go back and look.
All of it's wrong.
All of it's been wise.
We have no earthy idea of the pus that's under that scab, but it ain't gonna be pretty.
So the fight there, at least Johnson's bifurcated that.
For those of you that have an understanding and not the people from the cheap seats that are all weekend this and that and the other thing.
Come on, man.
This is the National Football League.
This is the National Football League.
Drives me crazy.
Tests my patience, but I'm a patient man.
Johnson's bifurcated it.
And this is about the hammer of the of the neocon.
unidentified
Look out.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
You think Murdoch News Network, who just got smoked in the speakers thing and everything they told you was a lie and would have led to the destruction of this country if you had followed there?
Oh, you're the agents of chaos.
All weekend revved up in such a neocon.
You can't even watch it.
You can't even watch it.
It's obnoxious.
They want us in every war all over the place, American troops, American planes everywhere, and none of their kids serve.
Or Very few, but none of the Starr's kids serve.
Go out of their way not to serve.
No, yeah, but they want to send you all over there and want to send all your money.
unidentified
The border comes first!
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
I gave a speech on Friday down in Carolina.
We're going to have the video.
I just laid down to folks, hey, the debt crisis and another huge article, but they can't sell the bonds, the tsunami of treasuries, you can't sell them.
The financial crisis we have interlocked with the invasion of our country with 10 million invaders.
And now Axios, one of their top stories is that, oh, the public school system is about to be overwhelmed with new migrant children.
Like, the poor African-American and Hispanic American citizen children in the public schools, what they need right now is more chaos and, you know, have to get more teachers that know foreign languages and have to go for more money they don't have and make their own learning environment even crappier than it is.
That's exactly what they need.
That's terrific to American citizen children who are African American and Hispanic.
Let's do that.
Let's make it even better.
Let's make their time even more trying.
Any African-American, Hispanic parent that votes for these criminals in office, and by the way, not only do you have to secure the border and deport 10 million, you must, I don't care about impeachment anymore, you bring criminal charges against every official that had anything to do with this.
You aided and abetted an invasion of our nation and you must pay criminally.
They want to talk about lawfare?
Hey, wait for it, baby.
Because you have tried actively to destroy this nation.
And if you don't think to fix... Look, I don't care if you hate the sound of Trump's voice, and you hate his image.
If you see what the established order is trying to do to him, and you like where your life is with the established order, then hey, then you're loving it.
If you maybe have a question of exactly how these globalists are destroying this country in front of your own eyes and up in your grill and laughing in your face while you pay for it, both with your taxes, your retirement money and your greatest asset, your children and grandchildren.
Then maybe Trump has got something going on because they got a show trial in New York to liquidate his business.
They've got four indictments, 91 charges, 700 years in a federal prison, and various bogus other charges, criminal charges, that are all laughable.
And now, to top it off, because we don't have enough, they've got to take him off the ballot.
Why do they have to take him off the ballot?
Because on the ballot in Colorado, they know he's going to win.
Why do they have to take him off?
Why do they have to do this in what's a constitutional case?
Why do they have to do it in a state court?
And they're going to have other state courts.
Because they know if he's on a fricking ballot, he wins.
There's no Democrat.
Newsom, you saw Newsom, this clown show over with the CCP?
That's going to beat him?
Or did you see our vice president on 60 Minutes over the weekend?
60 minutes, that's like child abuse.
You can't, that, the interview was so softball, but she's so, there's something bizarrely out of touch with her.
I don't think people could see a commander in chief there.
I just, I'm just, hey, I'm just throwing it out there.
Right?
Who's going to be Oprah?
Big Mike?
This is what we're going to come with?
Don't think so.
If Trump's on the ballot, Trump wins.
Let me be pretty blunt.
If Trump's name's printed on a ballot, Trump wins.
Even in Colorado.
Look at the polling.
Look at actually this.
Vanderhay and Allen, two cheerleaders for the corporatist globalist elite, put out the most brutal takedown as the lead story called behind the curtain on Biden.
If you're a Biden supporter, you're sitting there going, oh my God, this is horrible, terrible, everything, every aspect of it.
It's only going to get worse.
You know why?
Because, and Rasmus has got a poll out today, 86% of the American people are quite petrified that what we're doing right now in Israel is going to lead to a bigger conflict in the Middle East and may lead to a global conflict.
Hey, American people must be paying attention.
Must be paying attention.
Must be paying attention.
And at home, Jewish kids can't even go to college.
Look at Cornell.
At Cornell, they're up there, and they're in the dining hall that has the kosher food on a Sunday afternoon, on a slow, quiet Sunday afternoon, with the beautiful changing of the leaves, the autumn as it is up there in that part of New York.
And of course, You know, the pro-Palestinian crowd, the one egged on by AOC and the squad, are saying, oh, we want to get in there and slit their throats.
Want to get in there and slit their throats.
You saw what happened at Cooper Union.
Cooper Union, one of the most, oh, touchy-feely, you know, most liberal institutions in Manhattan.
Banging on the door, I think, in the library.
Those four or five young Jewish students, if that mob had gotten through that, if that door had been let go, those kids would have been torn apart.
They'd have been torn apart just like they were torn apart on the 7th of October.
Okay, we've had a little bit of a truncated show to start this week off.
We had to do this though.
It's a must.
You had to see what's going on.
You had to see the nonsense in this court.
You're watching something that no one in America would ever thought would have happened.
And that is kangaroo courts every bit as deadly as the Nazi judges.
And Stalin's show trial on those two regimes, that's come to the United States of America.
And the only way we're going to stop it is to defeat these people.
There's no compromise here.
You can't compromise on this.
One side's going to win and one side's going to lose.
And they understand that if Trump's name's on a ballot, he wins.
And if he wins, you win.
So they're going to do everything now to take him off every ballot, besides bankrupting him, liquidating his business, sending him to prison for 700 years.
They will leave no stone unturned to defeat you.
Let me repeat this, to defeat you, to take your voice away, because they're petrified now.
You've started to change the cartel, and I told you this wasn't going to be perfect.
Right?
We got work to do.
You got Ramparts to man.
No CR, no CR in January.
We strongly disagree with Speaker Johnson and we're gonna fight this.
Remember, you can't get any more hardcore than the War Room and the War Room Posse.
We have a lot of work to do.
But you saw in Denver, Colorado, the great state of Colorado and one of the greatest cities in this country, Denver, Colorado.
Think how much history has been made there, and history is made today as a kangaroo court, detestable kangaroo court, tries to take Donald John Trump off the ballot.
Back in a minute.
unidentified
We rejoice when there's no more, let's take down...
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bound.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Okay, we're gonna have to get to the ramparts.
The 5 to 7 o'clock show tonight is going to be jammed.
But so much we're going to do that we wanted to do this morning and things are going on today.
Obviously, make sure you're back here.
I also want to make sure I keep skipping Arizona.
Arizona, Arizona, Arizona.
Watch Arizona.
The same thing's going to happen here.
Arizona, Michigan.
Wait for it.
They must take.
Let me repeat this.
If Trump's on the ballot, he wins.
They understand the hard, cold reality of this.
If Trump is on a ballot, he will win.
And they will do everything now to remove him from said ballot and take your ability to make a choice away from you, away from you, away from you.
If you're prepared to stand here and let that happen, right?
Just go back to your game of pickleball.
But if you're not, we're going to grind this out.
And quite frankly, this should not have popped up like it popped up, but I'll save that for another day.
It's time to get focused on immediately what we have to do to stop this.
But this is one of the strategies to overwhelm.
President Trump over the weekend said $100 million in law fees.
This is the opportunity cost.
This is they're trying to break him.
They're trying to get his attention diverted, right?
Is it now the polling in Iowa and place are coming out the polling against Biden is overwhelming.
But they're trying to overwhelm him.
They're trying to destroy that hundred million dollars.
Could that have gone into the campaign for his victory?
The hundreds of millions of dollars they're having to pay because the Murdoch News Network continues to drive the Keebler elves and to try to give them any traction.
And this baby, trust me, connect Murdoch to Leonard Leo, to Colorado, to the dying campaigns in the sand.
And don't tell me Nikki Haley's resurgent.
I heard her speech at the RJC.
Nobody, no MAGA is going to support that.
It's all Israel first and not America first.
And we need to get focused on America first.
Israel's our ally, but America first.
If we don't stop this invasion, if we don't stop this spending, there's not going to be an America.
And if there's not America, you're not going to be there to assist and be an ally to Israel.
Do not put the cart before the horse.
We must focus and we must prioritize like adults.
Mike Lindell, they're trying to put you out of business too.
Tell us how we're, we only have a couple minutes for you today, unfortunately, because everything else going on, but I need to know, the audience wants to know, how are we getting to full capacity on the factory floor out there?
unidentified
Well, we're running the biggest sales ever, Steve.
We've got a few days left.
As everyone knows, our commercials came out this weekend.
But you at The War Room can get things for the lowest, even lower than the prices out there commercially.
We have our towels, the six piece towel sets.
Flash on them for The War Room for $29.98.
This is our six piece towel sets, 50% off.
They actually work.
They actually absorb.
There they are.
All the colors.
Get them now.
All the colors are in.
All these new colors.
They're absolutely the most amazing towels ever.
Get them for all your Christmas gifts.
You're supporting my pillow in every way.
And then also, remember to call that number 800-873-1062.
800-873-1062.
Or go to mypillow.com and use that promo code WARROOM.
Go down to the War Room Square.
You're going to see another special there.
These are my slippers, everybody.
The original slippers with all the sizes, the wide sizes, small, large, medium, women's, men's.
mike lindell ▲ ● ▼
For $39.98 and on TV, they're all over TV right now on sale for $49.98.
unidentified
We're doing this special for the War Room Posse that have got us up to capacity by the success of the MyPillow 2.0, which you can also get that for 50% off.
$39.98 for the queen size, king size just $5 more.
The best pillow in history, everybody.
And so please keep supporting us, Steve.
That keeps me going because I've got a lot of other stuff and this has been a distraction for me to try and get my pillow when they attacked my pillow.
But I'm keeping going over here to secure our elections and everybody, if you keep my pillow going, my employees, it keeps everything going.
Bye.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
We'll have you back up at 5 o'clock tonight.
Thank you.
We've been truncated because of the situation in Colorado.
Thank you.
Mike Lindell.
Keep a hammer heavy.
Back on tonight.
It's going to be packed.
Okay.
Charlie Kirk.
And his team is going to pick up and they're going to have some observations on the situation in Denver.
Maybe even pick up a little bit of the trial.
Real America's Voice is obviously going to have it up.
We're going to live stream.
We're live streaming that on my account and maybe if Grace and Mo can put it on the Worm account.
Also, we've got the new app, the Build Blaster.
It makes your life, many of the ramparts, so much easier.
This was designed and created by Grace Chong and a team.
And it's, as you know, Grace has been all over She will put people on blast in a second, so this is a way to make your life easier as one of the cohorts here in the vanguard, in the minoritarian, what do they call us?
The minoritarian vanguardist, right?
Vanguardism, which is a pretty damn good explanation.
Back here, 5 to 7, Pacifica followed after that.
We'll have an update of what's going on in Colorado.
Also, a lot of what's going on at the border, what's happening in Israel, the expanding war there with the Persians, also talking about China, the South China Sea, all of it, and capital markets in the economy.
Not a better day!
To kick the week off and leave you with Billy Joe Shaver, I might say the late Billy Joe Shaver and John Anderson.
Get thee behind me Satan will take us out.
Charlie Kirk's next.
We'll see you back here at 5 o'clock.
unidentified
Get thee behind me Satan, for I command it in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Get thee behind me Satan, for I command it in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Christ. I'm...
I looked into the mirror and I couldn't see myself.
The demons that were in me had turned me wrongside out.
I knew inside my soul I was headed straight for hell.
But I couldn't for my life figure out how to help myself.
And I said, get thee behind me, sin, for I command it in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Yeah.
Get thee behind me, sin, for I command it in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Yeah.
Get thee behind me, sin, for I command it in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Get thee behind me, sin, for I command it in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Get thee behind me, sin, for I command it in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Yeah.
Get thee behind me, sin, for I command it in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
♪ Don't write the man dead in the name of the Lord ♪ I could see my loved ones weeping as they lowered me in the ground.
No words were spoken over me I almost thought I died Then I knew I wasn't dead
▲
Export Selection