June 12, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
48:56
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
On this vote, the yeas are 216, the nays are 207. | |
| The resolution is adopted. | ||
| Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Pray for our enemies. | ||
| Because we're going medieval on this, people. | ||
| You're not going to free shot all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you've tried to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big lie? | ||
|
unidentified
|
MAGA Media. | |
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | |
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. Here's your host, Stephen K. Bamm. | |
| It's Wednesday, 12 June in the year of our Lord 2024. | ||
| History was just made moments ago on the floor of the House of Representatives. | ||
| Natalie Winters will co-host for me from Palm Beach. | ||
| We've got Congressman Andy Biggs alive from Capitol Hill. | ||
| Congressman Biggs, walk us through what just happened. | ||
| What just happened is most Republicans, one Republican voted to hold Merrick Garland, who's the Attorney General of the United States of America, in contempt of Congress. | ||
| For failure to respond to the subpoena even after we gave him every benefit, every break. | ||
| Three committees subpoenaed him and he basically thumbed his nose at us. | ||
| We had a hearing and he refused and acknowledged that he was not going to give us the documents, the evidence that we had requested multiple times and so we held him in contempt. | ||
| Next step is it will be referred. | ||
| Okay, this is only the third time in the history of this republic this has ever happened that Attorney General's ever been held in contempt of Congress. | ||
| Let's go back to the basics because you've been on this kind of from the beginning. | ||
| What is the big deal about this tape and why are they making such a big deal about holding them back? | ||
| What about her, the tapes, all of it? | ||
| Why have they decided to draw the line in the sand against the Republican House, which you guys have been pretty amenable to them up till now? | ||
| Why this issue? | ||
| Why the line in the sand now? | ||
| There's the deal. | ||
| A special counsel, her, interviewed Joe Biden and also interviewed Joe Biden's biographer. | ||
| The transcript, they gave us the written transcript. | ||
| We wanted the audio because Mr. Herr, basically, the nub of what he said is Joe Biden committed crimes. | ||
| He committed crimes by taking illegally classified information when he left the White House after his vice presidency. | ||
| He had them all the way back to the time he was a U.S. | ||
| Senator for almost 50 years ago, brother. | ||
| And so he had those. | ||
| And then not only did he wrongfully have those, He actually disclosed still classified documents to his biographer and told his biographer they were classified. | ||
| So Herr actually had every element to prosecute Joe Biden for. | ||
| However, Mr. Herr decided that he wasn't going to prosecute or file charges because he said Joe Biden's memory was faulty and he would be sympathetic to a jury because he would seem like a Uh, an old man with a faulty memory with good intentions or whatever. | ||
| So. | ||
| We, as we look into whether he's should be impeached, Joe Biden should be impeached for that and other things. | ||
| And also if we're, when we're looking to oversee to say, well, is that the appropriate remedy? | ||
| And is that the way that a special counsel should conduct an investigation of a sitting president that became, uh, We have that authority under the constitution to actually acquire this information. | ||
| Mr. Herr said that Joe Biden demonstrated faulty memory, but the transcript indicates that, but the audio is important because the DOJ just two weeks ago, Steve, admitted in a court proceeding that they actually edited the transcript. | ||
| And the cases are very clear on this. | ||
| If you've edited the transcript or they've been changed or we can find out that they've been changed, then the subpoena party, which is us, Congress, has a right to get the audio because that's the best evidence and we can determine how material your changes were and we can determine what was going on. | ||
| They don't want us to have that evidence because, quite frankly, we believe That it will demonstrate two things. | ||
| Number one, Joe Biden engaged in criminal conduct. | ||
| And number two, that mentally he does have middle acuity problems. | ||
| And so that's why it's so important for us to have this information, because with those two pieces of information, we can make the determination whether to impeach. | ||
| We can make a decision whether we need to legislate differently and change policy. | ||
| To say this is a huge deal is to understate it because there's only a third time in the history of this Republic that an Attorney General, sitting Attorney General, has been held in contempt of Congress. | ||
| Let me go back to your first point. | ||
| Are you saying that you need to hear the tapes because you, after reading the report and having testimony from her, you actually believe you need to hear the tapes to satisfy yourself and other members of Congress, I guess, but you're a former prosecutor, that crimes were actually You don't buy H.E.R.' | ||
| 's assessment? | ||
| You believe the crimes might be committed, but you need to hear that audio tape to come to your own independent decision on that? | ||
| Your own independent judgment on that? | ||
| Yeah, here's the deal. | ||
| H.E.R. | ||
| determined crimes had been committed. | ||
| Steve, he basically was saying, I'm making a prosecutorial decision using prosecutorial discretion to say, I'm not going to prosecute. | ||
| Well, we need to know how valid that was. | ||
| And one of the things that drove that He said he was a feeble old man that had troubles with his memory, had trouble communicating. | ||
| And thus, it's imperative for us to actually hear that best evidence to see if that warranted what Mr. Herr's decision was. | ||
| So, I mean, in my opinion, we already have impeachable evidence against Joe Biden on that issue alone, just on the classified. | ||
| But we also have it on all the, you know, selling of access and And influence peddling and that type of thing. | ||
| Those all come together. | ||
| But Mr. Herr made a decision and we need to determine how valid that was and the audio would help us determine that. | ||
| That's why I want to hear it. | ||
| You've said he the Merrick Garland thumbed his nose at two or three committees already on this very topic. | ||
| Not even other things. | ||
| There was a whole bunch of consternation of whether you were going to get the vote and this has been like delayed a couple weeks. | ||
| Are people in the house now? | ||
| Because of this saying, yes, we've got to hear these tapes and that they're actually an interest in going forward with a potential impeachment if the audio is as bad as you think it may be? | ||
| Yeah, I think I think there is more interest in that. | ||
| Look, I'll be the first to admit that. | ||
| I think that that your case, I think, is elevated interest. | ||
| I think President Trump's case is elevated interest, but I think the reality that Merrick Garland Basically cannot defend his decision. | ||
| And people understand when you say, look, we just want to hear the hear the tape. | ||
| Let's let's hear what what actually was said and judge the veracity of the this script. | ||
| I think people say, yeah, that's not an unreasonable ask. | ||
| And so for him, for Merrick Garland to take the position that he did, he basically is saying, I don't care how rational it is. | ||
| And it speaks to a political purpose, that the Democrats are engaged in a political cover-up, and people don't like cover-ups. | ||
| I want to go back to this. | ||
| You're a former prosecutor. | ||
| Is Merrick Garland trying to stand, or Jamie Raskin and his arguments today, are they trying to take a high moral ground on some reason? | ||
| Or is there any reason a prosecutor wouldn't normally turn it over to a supervising group? | ||
| Because you have a duty and an obligation by the Constitution of oversight. | ||
| No, here's the deal. | ||
| The arguments that they're making are specious. | ||
| The case law is pretty clear. | ||
| Garland's hiding behind at Raskin's arguing. | ||
| And can you see any rationale, yourself being a former prosecutor, | ||
| just not to turn it over? | ||
| No, here's the deal. | ||
| The arguments that they're making are specious. | ||
| The case law is pretty clear. | ||
| It's all on our side. | ||
| Their argument, which is, I think, really bad, is, I mean, Merrick Garland, | ||
| they made this weird argument that if we put it out there, maybe somebody will get hold of it with AI | ||
| and create deep fakes. | ||
| Like there's no deep fakes that you could make of Joe Biden already, okay? | ||
| So that's nutty. | ||
| Then the next thing that they're saying is, hey, we've got this deal where sometimes we interview people, and if they think that it's going to be released, we can release a transcript. | ||
| But if they think that an audio is going to be released, then they're going to clam up. | ||
| That's about as loopy as you can get when you think about it, because the case law on this is pretty clear. | ||
| I mean, the case that they're relying on basically said because Richard Nixon released the transcript of the audio tapes, he waived privilege. | ||
| And so for them to try to make a privilege argument or to say that they have to protect witnesses, that's almost nonsensical. | ||
| So there's no moral high ground for them. | ||
| That's why it smacks and feels very much like they're trying to cover something up. | ||
| They just don't want this out there. | ||
| And Mike, don't be shocked if this thing goes on. | ||
| They try to drag this thing out past the November election because the last thing they want, in my opinion, is for this audio recording to be in our hands before the election. | ||
| Because it would give us impetus to actually Determine the validity of, of the prosecutorial discretion claim made by Mr. Herr. | ||
| This now, let's go to process. | ||
| This goes to the, to the U S attorney. | ||
| What, what happens next? | ||
| Well, that's the deal is if, if he's, if Merrick Garland is going to play it straight, like he said, he was going to play it straight. | ||
| This should go probably to David Weiss. | ||
| Um, uh, who's, who's the guy who just prosecuted Hunter Biden, but he's also the guy that gave Hunter Biden the sweetheart deal. | ||
| And it's almost impossible to determine where David Weiss is on this stuff, but that's where it should end up, where David Weiss gets it and should prosecute this because this is a contempt case arising out of Merrick Garland's withholding of evidence. | ||
| And so, at the end of the day though, that means, correct me if I'm wrong, that means, was Merrick Garland, would he have to recuse himself or would he be the overall decision maker? | ||
| Don't they have to go up and run it by the guy that heads DOJ, the Attorney General? | ||
| Well, you would think that's what happened, but Merrick Garland has assured us that David Weiss is an independent a counsel, special prosecutor, and that he can operate | ||
| totally independently. | ||
| Now, we all view that with great deal of skepticism, right? | ||
| So the proof will be in the pudding. | ||
| Does he actually send this over to Weiss and say, it's up to you? | ||
| And will Weiss have the spine, let's put it that way, to actually engage in a prosecution? | ||
| Which is why I'm viewing this very skeptically. | ||
| So this is why I've been encouraging my position is that the speaker has the authority without | ||
| Congress, without even taking a vote, to appoint a special house counsel to actually engage | ||
| in kind of a civil prosecution, if you will, of this contempt citation. | ||
| Is this show us now more combative? | ||
| You've been pushing, whether it's the border, whether it's DOJ, the rule of law, you've been one of the people on the tip of the spear, I think because you're a former prosecutor, to say we have to be much more aggressive in our oversight, we have to be much more aggressive in what they're doing with the rule of law. | ||
| Do you think today is a signal, and a signal sent to the Democrats, you guys are tired of playing happy clappy and you're going to start taking some action? | ||
| I think this is a shot across the bow. | ||
| I think there's another big item that myself and Gates, I'll say Massey, Burleson from Missouri, a few others we've been working on, if it comes to pass, you will hear about it in the next day or two and it will be another shot across the bow to say we're tired of the weaponized DOJ, we're tired of the weaponized federal government. | ||
| That's what we're pushing hard on now, Steve. | ||
| And yes, the reality is we've sent a signal to them that we've had enough. | ||
| Because I'm a big believer, and I've told you this before, the pendulum is so far to the left right now and it is attacking Americans of all stripes, but particularly conservatives. | ||
| And when it does, we're not going to get back to equilibrium until we actually bring this back and impose pain On the left, like they've imposed pain on conservatives and everyday Americans. | ||
| And that is the way you get back to equilibrium. | ||
| And by equilibrium, I mean a fair and impartial administration of the law. | ||
| You can't have freedom if you don't have the rule of law. | ||
| Congressman, can you hang on for just one second? | ||
| Short break. | ||
| We've got a couple more questions. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Real quick. | |
| War Room. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Vance. | ||
| Congressman, just real quickly, I know everyone, you know, Morning Joe's about it every night, | ||
| Rachel Maddow, they talk about, you know, retribution, revenge, all that. | ||
| That's not what this is. | ||
| Just walk our audience through, because you're a pretty even-handed guy, and guys like John Yoo and Andy McCarthy. | ||
| When you say the pendulum has to be brought back through action, what do you mean by that? | ||
| Well, what I mean is, right now the weaponization is so far and so manifest and spread in the federal government, and they're inflicting pain on people. | ||
| And a lot of times the pain isn't a conviction necessarily, it is the process itself. | ||
| They're trying to bankrupt people and harm people. | ||
| To get back to the rule of law, you have to let them experience the pain of that. | ||
| So, for instance, in the Merrick Garland case, what I've suggested Is two things. | ||
| First of all, you actually have House counsel, which is nonpartisan. | ||
| I believe that actually they're ready to actually take civil action to enforce this contempt citation. | ||
| So that would be one way. | ||
| The other way is actually to appoint a special House counsel from the Speaker's office who is ready to go out there who is a bulldog and will litigate this and demand an injunctive relief if necessary. | ||
| Basically go forward and say, look, if you're not going to prosecute it, we want it civilly and cause them to have to respond. | ||
| If the other side is always on the offense, then you never get back to equilibrium because we're always defensive. | ||
| And so that's why I'm saying we have to use the courts. | ||
| We have to use litigation necessarily. | ||
| We have to use the funding that we're supposed to have. | ||
| Those types of things are critical. | ||
| So I've mentioned the litigation, and I think that we can make that effective. | ||
| But Steve, I just have to tell you, don't be surprised if you see a lot of people who talk like I do about funding, who refuse to actually do something on funding, and they'll vote to just continue funding at the current levels for DOJ. | ||
| That is unacceptable. | ||
| That's unacceptable. | ||
| We have to hold them accountable. | ||
| If you're not going to hold somebody accountable, then you'd have no business being here. | ||
| Congressman, social media and website, people are going to want to follow this closely. | ||
| You're one of the leaders of this, a former prosecutor, a very tough hombre. | ||
| Where can people go? | ||
| Please go to bigs.house.gov. | ||
| That's where you'll find links to all of my stuff, my newsletters. | ||
| On my videos, everything that we put out, and I put out a lot of information because I'm trying to keep people informed, but that's the best way to get me, Steve. | ||
| Congressman, thank you for taking time coming off the floor to do this. | ||
| Appreciate it. | ||
| I know you're busy. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Appreciate it. | |
| Natalie, you've been at this for investigations, Fauci, you know, everything to do with CDC, all of it. | ||
| Your thoughts today, only third time in American history, and finally, it looks like the sleeping giant may be waking up. | ||
| Your thoughts, ma'am? | ||
| I would just say let the subpoenas fly. | ||
| I'm glad we're holding Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, but there are so many more people that we need to go after. | ||
| Just pulling a number out of my head, how about the 51 intel officers who lied? | ||
| These are the people that we need to pull in. | ||
| And forced to answer questions. | ||
| I don't really even like the private deposition type style interviews where they then take | ||
| a few months to slow roll the release of everything they admit to. | ||
| I think we need in public hearings sort of in the style of Anthony Fauci, but I think | ||
| we actually need to send our best and ask meaningful questions. | ||
| But look, Merrick Garland, I'm glad we're holding him in contempt of Congress, but it's | ||
| a little late and these House Republicans need to get their act together and actually | ||
| bring about some accountability and I think we need to make sure that we don't allow them | ||
| to just sort of move the goalposts or use frankly what the left is using, I think in | ||
| some cases on us, these kind of limited hangout type strategies that we've been discussing | ||
| Very frequently on your show, whether it's Peter Doshak or Hunter Biden, where they give the base some red meat, right? | ||
| The Fox News viewers, they think it'll appease them. | ||
| But let's actually roll in the same way that the Democrats do on people who defy congressional subpoenas. | ||
| I think you may have a little bit of experience with that, but it just shows you the double standard going on here. | ||
| Hang on, I'm gonna come back to you in a second. | ||
| You're my co-host for this hour to talk about the meltdown that the Rachel Maddows, they're clearly worried, right? | ||
| Because it's non-stop about us having retribution, you know, going after them unfairly. | ||
| It was you and I at CPAC who first said, it was CPAC, where I corrected you first and I said, Steve, it's not retribution, it's justice. | ||
| It's justice. | ||
| Perfect. | ||
| That'll be a red-letter day. | ||
| Julie Kelly now joins us from the actual Wharram itself at the nation's capital, Capitol Hill. | ||
| Julie, historic day. | ||
| You have been the tip of the spear of this. | ||
| You've dealt with Merrick Garland's Justice Department for years and what they've done to American citizens across the board, not just J6, Donald Trump, but also so many others. | ||
| Your thoughts today, ma'am. | ||
| I mean, I really applaud the Republicans for following through on this and for House leadership for making this happen. | ||
| You know, who knows what happens from here, but it definitely will get the attention of the American people and to find out exactly why they voted for this contempt of Congress. | ||
| And of course, quite frankly, not or refusing to release the audio version, the recording Of Joe Biden's interview with Robert Herr is probably one of the least offensive things that Merrick Garland has done since he has been U.S. | ||
| Attorney General. | ||
| To your point, weaponizing his office against Donald Trump, his associates, people like you, Peter Navarro, and then 1,400 and counting January 6 protesters. | ||
| At the same time, Steve, as you know, following the classified documents case in Florida, what a dirty, sloppy, corrupt, Racket, the special counsel's office is. | ||
| And now all the details we're learning about the raid at Mar-a-Lago on August 8th of 2022 that Merrick Garland himself bragged about personally authorizing. | ||
| And that has become a disaster on many levels, not the least of which a motion this week filed by Trump's team that again accuses Jack Smith's office and prosecutors and FBI investigators of mishandling evidence while they were at Mar-a-Lago and then, of course, after they left Mar-a-Lago. | ||
| So we're supposed to believe that Donald Trump willfully took, hoarded all of these national security files and materials and hid them in Melania's bedroom suite where the FBI agents rummaged through there. | ||
| But then when the FBI actually got a hold of them, we know they were doctoring photos. | ||
| They were putting cover sheets on top of some of these files to make it look like that's how they were found. | ||
| And now they've said from the very beginning, the defense attorneys, that this has been sloppy while the raid was going on. | ||
| And they did not follow proper FBI protocol in the handling of not just classified files or papers that were responsive to the warrant, but also privileged communications, including apparently correspondence between Donald Trump and his attorneys. | ||
| What's so interesting is why... | ||
| Because people are kind of lost the fact that what Merrick Garland held back the tapes is the same, you know, except I think a bigger crime than what President Trump is. | ||
| I mean, you've kind of got this Jack Smith made up, you know, the Raider Mar-a-Lago. | ||
| They brought down the, you know, the special operations teams that could start firing at people. | ||
| They ransacked the place. | ||
| They put phony things on there. | ||
| You're saying that the 27th, 28th, and 29th, I think originally, Was gonna be where Jack Smith was put on trial with collusion between National Archives, White House Counsel's Office, Jack Smith. | ||
| You've got all that. | ||
| Is the Biden thing, because that was also classified documents, are these audiotapes that bad? | ||
| Is that why they have to, that's why he would take a contempt, a contempt charge because the audiotapes in the Biden situation is that bad, ma'am? | ||
| It must be. | ||
| Not only we can imagine what Joe Biden sounded like these two days of interviews. | ||
| I mean, we can read it in the transcripts, these rambling passages where he goes on and on about things that had nothing to do with the investigation, bringing up his son's death. | ||
| And then later claiming that Robert Herr was the one who brought up the death of his son when the transcript demonstrates that Joe Biden himself did because he couldn't even get the years right in his mind as to where he was or when he would have taken these records after he was vice president and then take them home. | ||
| So, but again, I want to underscore and go back to some other points about Merrick Garland. | ||
| Merrick Garland is very good at attempting to conceal videos or any sort of recordings from the American people. | ||
| He was the one, his Department of Justice for years tried to keep all of the security footage from the Capitol on January 5th and 6th out of the hands of the American people. | ||
| Even under the hands of defendants. | ||
| And so now we have Republicans in Congress, Barry Laudermilk who is chairman of the subcommittee investigating the J6 committee and January 6, now posting big chunks of that video. | ||
| So Merrick Garland, his DOJ, hopelessly corrupt. | ||
| Uh, double standard of justice, as we all know, heavily weaponized all of his authority against people on the right and concealing evidence that the American people deserve to see and hear, whether it's the recording of this transcript or whether it's videos related to what they call a domestic terror attack. | ||
| Uh, and you know, one of the worst things that's ever happened since Pearl Harbor. | ||
| That would be their made-up stuff about J6. | ||
| I know you've got to go to a speech, but I just want to hold you through a break for a second. | ||
| But can you get us up? | ||
| We've got about a minute. | ||
| Can you start to get us up to date? | ||
| Because I understand the motion to dismiss didn't go through. | ||
| What's actually happening in the Mar-a-Lago situation? | ||
| Well, there was one motion to dismiss. | ||
| There are probably eight or nine defense motions to dismiss this case. | ||
| This was one of the, I think, more far-fetched ones that she denied this week, but she still has selective addictive prosecution motion, and this motion was related to suppressing evidence that was collected during the Mar-a-Lago raid because the warrant Julie, just hang on for one second. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Julie Kelly is with us. | ||
| through on that warrant, and they want to suppress that evidence and now dismiss it | ||
| for spoilation of evidence that they seized at Mar-a-Lago that day. | ||
| Julie, just hang on for one second. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Julie Kelly is with us. | ||
| Natalie Winters is with us. | ||
| We're rolling on a Wednesday afternoon, a historic Wednesday afternoon for only the | ||
| third time in the history of this republic, a sitting attorney general has been found | ||
| in contempt of Congress. | ||
| Back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm going to get you. | |
| We're just inches away from victory and that's when we decided to give up. | ||
| Join us. | ||
| And thousands of American patriots for the summer convention that all are invited to. | ||
| You're going to hear how we're going to win in 2024. | ||
| With the biggest speakers in the movement. | ||
| Featuring President Donald J. Trump and Charlie Kirk. | ||
| Donald Trump Jr. | ||
| Vivek Ramaswamy. | ||
| Governor Kristi Noem. | ||
| Dr. Ben Carson. | ||
| Tulsi Gabbard. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Steve Bannon. | |
| Candace Owens. | ||
| Laura Trump. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator Rick Scott. | |
| Kimberly Guilfoyle. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Congressman Matt Gaetz. | |
| Ben Johnson. | ||
| Jack Posobiec. | ||
| Lee Zeldin. | ||
| Congressman Eli Crane. | ||
| Brandon Tatum. | ||
| And more. | ||
| June 14th through 16th. | ||
| 2024 is our final battle. | ||
| If you go to SlashWarRoom you get a 25% discount. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The ballot majority is rising like never before. | |
| Join us for the People's Convention. | ||
| This is a new ball game everybody. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You send a message, we play to win. | |
| Register now at tpaction.com slash peoples. | ||
| If you go to slash war room you get a 25% discount. | ||
| We're having a show of force by the war room. | ||
| Natalie Winters will head our team up there. | ||
| She'll be broadcasting live. | ||
| So will I. I'll be up there. | ||
| Got the whole team. | ||
| It's going to be wild. | ||
| Great. | ||
| President Trump's coming. | ||
| Do not miss it. | ||
| If you're up in the upper Midwest, in the Michigan area, Ohio, all of it, make sure you make it to Detroit this week and it'll be incredible. | ||
| Make sure you put in war room. | ||
| You get 25% discount. | ||
| Julie Kelly. | ||
| We're blessed to have you in the nation's capital. | ||
| You're actually coming for some pretty big events. | ||
| Before we talk about Nancy Pelosi, what could possibly happen tomorrow, ma'am? | ||
| So, as you know, the Supreme Court's term ends at the end of this month, and we are awaiting two big opinions. | ||
| The first, of course, is related to presidential immunity, whether a president, former president, is immune from criminal prosecution for acts in office. | ||
| That's out of the Jack Smith January 6th indictment, so we're waiting for that. | ||
| But the one I'm most looking forward to, I think, Is the opinion in Joseph Fisher, and that is one of the January 6th defendants, one of 350 plus who have been charged with 1512 C2 obstruction of an official proceeding. | ||
| That is the post and run document shredding statute. | ||
| Matt Merrick Garland's DOJ, Lisa Monaco, Deputy Attorney General, have weaponized against J6ers. | ||
| And it sounded like during oral arguments on April 16th that a pretty strong majority, or at least a good majority, of the justices were very skeptical about the DOJ's weaponizing of that statute, intentionally misinterpreting The broad language in that statute to criminalize political dissent and to criminalize political demonstrations. | ||
| So we could get that tomorrow morning. | ||
| Opinions are announced at 10 AM. | ||
| I will be standing by for that. | ||
| And Steve, if they do reverse how DOJ has used 1512 C2. | ||
| This will create a you-know-what storm at the D.C. | ||
| Federal Courthouse just down the street here because you have at least 17 judges on the D.C. | ||
| District and Appellate Court who allowed that count to move forward, refused to dismiss it against J6ers even though they knew this was not the intention of the law. | ||
| And you are going to see a deluge of motions at that courthouse asking for release from prison, to vacate convictions, to drop the cases. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The judges are preparing for it. | |
| But hang on, but hang on, hang on. | ||
| That's the motions and everything for these guys to get out of jail, but this could be one of the most important Decisions in Supreme Court history. | ||
| This is why they've been on the Supreme Court attacking them relentlessly to trim their sales hoping if they reverse this This will be a firestorm You will actually the Supreme Court will have said that not just the Justice Department but the federal judiciary including appellate courts have essentially weaponized the whole judicial system against a group of American citizens. | ||
| That has never happened before in the history of this republic, ma'am, or am I mistaken? | ||
| No, you are correct and I've had other defense attorneys describe it just that way. | ||
| This will go to the heart, the heart of the January 6th prosecution will be ripped out if this felony count is overturned. | ||
| And you're right, there's nothing that's been similar to this in American history. | ||
| And it will speak directly to the wrongful prosecution of January 6th protesters and it will support all of us who have been describing January 6th defendants as political prisoners because you will have the Supreme Court's imprimatur In terms of reversing how the DOJ and federal courts illegally, unlawfully used this statute to turn political protesters, many of whom committed no other violent act, to turn them into convicted lifelong felons. | ||
| And as you know, we have at least one individual, Matthew Perna, who committed suicide after he was told His plea deal for 1512c2 would result in a few years in prison, and this has destroyed many lives. | ||
| There has to be accountability. | ||
| I know we talk about it over and over on this show, but these judges and the former Chief Judge Beryl Howell, the current judge James Bosberg, they have to be held to account for what they've done to 350 plus J6ers. | ||
| And the whole concept, the American judicial system. | ||
| And President Trump is charged with this too, correct ma'am? | ||
| Correct. | ||
| This represents half, two of the four counts in Jack Smith's four count indictment against Donald Trump for January 6th. | ||
| So this could have repercussions all over the political spectrum. | ||
| And people are telling me, Chuck, and we'll get to this later at another time, but Chuck is all bound. | ||
| If it's got to be October, she's going to go. | ||
| It's out of control. | ||
| And that's why this decision of Fisher is so enormous. | ||
| And this is why they're attacking the Supreme Court. | ||
| Payaletta told you today to trim your sails on these decisions. | ||
| Immunity and Fisher. | ||
| Real quickly, I know you've got a bunch of speeches tomorrow night, but talk to me about the revelation of Nancy Pelosi and what she said in the car on the documentary footage. | ||
| Well, just think if the Fisher ruling is against the Department of Justice. | ||
| And now you've got another angle of the January 6th narrative completely disintegrating, and that is, of course, blaming Donald Trump for not deploying the National Guard. | ||
| And now we have Nancy Pelosi on tape. | ||
| Whether it was staged or not, not really sure what her motivation is. | ||
| She knew her daughter was filming her. | ||
| She knew what was happening that day. | ||
| She knew that this film would be produced at some point, saying that, I take responsibility. | ||
| This is what she said in the car driving from the Capitol to Fort McNair. | ||
| I take responsibility for the Capitol not being secure. | ||
| Now of course it was her responsibility. | ||
| She was the Speaker of the House. | ||
| Her Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, and Mitch McConnell's Sergeant at Arms, Michael Stenger, repeatedly rebuffed calls for the National Guard by then-Capitol Police Chief, Steve Sund. | ||
| So we've been told the American people, the J6 committee, this was Donald Trump's fault. | ||
| It never was his fault. | ||
| It's actually a few individuals and agencies who were responsible for deploying the National Guard. | ||
| We now know it was delayed until after five o'clock that day. | ||
| This relates to the piece on my sub stack about Mark Milley and Ryan McCarthy. | ||
| So this has actually created more questions about the deployment of the National Guard. | ||
| And now Nancy Pelosi, knowing that she said that in the car, knowing this this footage existed, House Republicans got a hold of it. | ||
| And now Nancy Pelosi and MSNBC are trying to spin it. | ||
| But she said what she said, and she always was primarily responsible. | ||
| And the question is, why did they leave the Capitol so intentionally unsecure on January 6th? | ||
| Julie Kelly, where do people go to get your substack, your tweets, the website, all of it? | ||
| Your book. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
| Declassified with Julie Kelly at Substack. | ||
| I'm also a contributor to Real Clear Investigations. | ||
| I post a lot of breaking news, court motions on X, Twitter, Julie underscore Kelly 2. | ||
| Julie Kelly, thank you. | ||
| You almost look like a host there in the boardroom. | ||
| We're going to have to sign you up. | ||
| Thank you, ma'am. | ||
| Natalie, your thoughts, first off, you've been at this war for now a couple, three years, probably going on four years, maybe five years. | ||
| The Pelosi tapes and why they're coming out now. | ||
| I mean, we're in the run-up to an election. | ||
| You have this massive Fisher decision that's going to come out. | ||
| But why is it taking so long? | ||
| Why are all these things happening now? | ||
| Why is the Pelosi tapes happening now? | ||
| Did the Democrats just better at stonewalling? | ||
| Are they just better at the slow roll, ma'am? | ||
| Well, if we're throwing in other names for potential War Room co-hosts, I think we gotta have Mrs. Justice Alito in the running, because I think she would be an epic War Room co-host. | ||
| I think she's who you should choose. | ||
| No, no. | ||
| When I'm gone, I want you and Martha Ann to co-host together in D.C. | ||
| Then I have one more question for you. | ||
| Can we change the logo to have the pride flag with shame in the middle? | ||
| Hey, she says she thinks them up in her head every day. | ||
| You guys can do whatever you want. | ||
| I love her. | ||
| Julie Kelly's tough, but Alito's at the next level. | ||
| The feminine touch in the war room. | ||
| But no, to answer your question, you know the mainstream media works. | ||
| In Lies of a Mission, and I think you've got to juxtapose with the way that they typically handle stories that are unflattering, right, of the regime. | ||
| The typical playbook is the Russian disinformation story. | ||
| It's the Hunter Biden hard drive story, right? | ||
| It's the Russia collusion hoax. | ||
| We know that's sort of the jugular that they always go for. | ||
| But I think they know that that's not working, and frankly, I think that's why we saw this sort of shoddy attempt at a limited hangout when it came to the Hunter Biden gun conviction, right? | ||
| They know that the American people are no longer falling for what could only be described as their BS, complete and utter BS, when it comes to just dismissing things as either, you know, products of Russian disinformation campaigns, or frankly, even just the D word, disinformation. | ||
| Itself. | ||
| So I think that's why you're starting to see the just curious times, this kind of trickling out of information, because I think they know their old playbooks, right? | ||
| The Praetorian Guard that you so, so frequently talk about. | ||
| It doesn't really have the same effect anymore, right? | ||
| You can only dismiss something as disinformation so much. | ||
| And frankly, I think the appetite of the American people for this, you know, democracy drivel, right? | ||
| We've been beating into our heads for years now. | ||
| I think they're realizing that it's not cutting through, right? | ||
| That was sort of, I think, their second ditch effort after all the lawfare. | ||
| But I think that for them, maybe even the projection is too much. | ||
| You can't be the party that's prosecuting your political opponents and still, you know, standing on a shining hill and screaming about how we need to preserve and protect our democracy. | ||
| So I think we're really in—I mean, I'm pretty black-pilled, but I think we're in very interesting times, where they know their old tactics are no longer working, and they know that they quite literally have to throw their opposition in jail in order to silence us, because their typical tactics have kind of fallen—they're making moot points. | ||
| And seeing this, in seeing the tactics not work, is this also why, and by the way, I'm gonna hold this, your answer until after the break, but is this why, because you know, as you know, we curate this, you do this every day. | ||
| For a living and think this thing through on the information warfare side. | ||
| I've never seen a level of fear that you can see in these people now from Rachel Maddow being I'm gonna be thrown in jail to AOC to to Comey and McCabe is deputy. | ||
| I mean morning Joe every day. | ||
| It's non-stop. | ||
| I know part of it is say Oh Trump's on retribution. | ||
| You don't want to vote for him, but there's something You know, it's almost like a, we call it a primal scream from a dying regime, but you can now feel it. | ||
| I'm going to ask you to give us your assessment. | ||
| Is that another misdirection play or something to convince voters because they won't take the disinformation anymore? | ||
| Or is it more serious than that? | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Natalie's on the other side. | ||
| Birchgold.com. | ||
| You think turbulence? | ||
| They just held the Attorney General in contempt. | ||
| Not a strongly worded letter. | ||
| Birchgold.com slash Bannon. | ||
| The end of the dollar empire. | ||
| Gold as a hedge against turbulence. | ||
| Hello, I'm Steve Stern, CEO of Flagshirt.com. | ||
| A third-generation, veteran-owned small business. | ||
| I believe that the American way of life is for all of us. | ||
| I'm asking you today to visit Flagshirt.com. | ||
| Help keep the American dream alive. | ||
| Be a flag waver. | ||
| Carry a nation's heritage. | ||
| Use coupon code ACTION10 for 10% off site wide and buy a flag shirt today. | ||
| Action, action, action. | ||
|
unidentified
|
A lot of people were shocked with your, you know, endorsement of Donald Trump. | |
| I mean, you're all about women's rights issues. | ||
| I mean, what was the reason for the big change? | ||
| Is Donald Trump not for women's rights issues? | ||
| I mean, I guess a lot of people were asking. | ||
| He's trying to make America great again. | ||
| That's for women too, right? | ||
| That's true. | ||
| I mean... Okay. | ||
| Well, there you go. | ||
| I know. | ||
| Does him getting convicted, like, change the way you view him? | ||
| Nope. | ||
| Not at all. | ||
| I mean, do you think it'll help his chances, like, getting, like, re-elected or, like, you'll hurt him? | ||
| I think it helps him more. | ||
| Oh, it actually more. | ||
| Yeah, absolutely. | ||
| I think people see the injustice and what happened and they want to vote for him more than ever. | ||
| I know. | ||
| I wanted to ask you, so it seems like a lot of celebrities are kind of like voting for Trump now. | ||
| I mean, why do you think people are kind of like changing their way of like... I think we're just, we just did our research and we're just, you know, we're not brainwashed anymore by the left. | ||
| I can say that about myself. | ||
| All these years I've been brainwashed and I'm not anymore. | ||
| Natalie, you can smell the fear on one hand. | ||
| I think one of the reasons is what Amber Rose, the American people, and how she's just so straightforwardly cuts through all of it. | ||
| Your thoughts? | ||
| Well, to answer your previous question, because I think it ties in with that wonderful clip there, though I usually don't trust celebrities, I guess a broken clock is right once a day, twice a day. | ||
| You know, Steve, when you look at the timing of things, I think that that is one of the most important things when it comes to following the news, understanding how the left, the regime works and narratives, right? | ||
| They have a process, the wash, rinse, repeat from the pages of the New York Times to the Washington Post. | ||
| to lead MSNBC. | ||
| And it's not just lies, but it's more precisely it's lies of omission, right? | ||
| And I think timing is so important to these people. | ||
| You know, we always talk about pattern recognition here in the war room. | ||
| And make no mistake, Steve, the day when we heard that your appeal was not going to be | ||
| granted, do you know what was so interesting about the previous day? | ||
| You and I were here hosting in Palm Beach, and we said stuff that we typically always | ||
| say on air. | ||
| Media Matters, they took the quote from it. | ||
| The criminals and traitors around Biden, you should be very worried. | ||
| We also led the CNN political kind of roundup daily newsletter that day. | ||
| Now that's sort of curious because we say things like that pretty frequently on this show, right? | ||
| But it's interesting to me that the timing of all this seems to converge and that the day after that we come out strongly advocating that we go after these people, and I don't even like the term go after because it's justified, it really is justice, it's not retribution, that you see them start to weaponize the state against the people that they know are an actual existential threat to the existing rules-based order, to the administrative state. | ||
| to the swamp, again, that's too cutesy a term, but to the permanent political class, right? | ||
| And when you look at their outrage to a statement like that, the criminals and traitors around Biden, | ||
| you should be very worried. CNN was in meltdown over that. | ||
| You know what? The criminals and traitors around Joe Biden should be worried. | ||
| I'm missing the mark. | ||
| I'm missing the point where that's a controversial statement to make. | ||
| But that shows you how far down the rabbit hole we've gotten, where these criminals and traitors feel emboldened to get away with it, because you know why? | ||
| They do. | ||
| Because they have dozens of intel officers who will weaponize their security clearances to lie to the American people with no shame. | ||
| And when they're followed up by Fox News just yesterday for comment, if they still stand by their signatures on that document, they said, of course, of course we do. | ||
| They know they can get away with it. | ||
| Maybe they'll get a vote to be held in contempt of Congress, but really, realistically, what's going to materialize from that? | ||
| They know the House Republicans that we have are controlled opposition. | ||
| The people who are actual fighters, I could count not even on two hands, on one hand. | ||
| But that's what we're up against. | ||
| We're up against people who think it is an outrageous thing to say we are going to go after and arrest criminals and traitors. | ||
| That's not a hot take. | ||
| That's called the rule of law. | ||
| Natalie, where do people follow you, ma'am? | ||
| Natalie G. Winters on all social media platforms. | ||
| I can't top that. | ||
| Media matters. | ||
| If they're doing their job, I'll have a clip right there. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Natalie Winters, spectacular. | |
| I'm practicing. | ||
| Thank you very much, friend. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| We'll see you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You're going to get a lot of reps, as they say in football. | |
| We'll see you in Detroit, ma'am. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| Natalie G. Winters. | ||
| Mike Lindell. | ||
| We've got big news, I think, on the Robin Voss situation. | ||
| Absolutely, Steve. | ||
| I'm just reading it here. | ||
| I just got it. | ||
| It was filed about 10 minutes ago, everybody. | ||
| And I want to do a shout out to the great lawyer, Kevin Scott, all the work he's done in Wisconsin to get this thing filed today. | ||
| And now the Wisconsin Election Committee or Commission, whatever you call it, is They've got to make a decision now. | ||
| There's no other way they can not say that this recall will be on July 9th, everybody. | ||
| Tuesday, July 9th. | ||
| Great work for everybody on the ground. | ||
| This took months, Steve. | ||
| This was the second recall. | ||
| We learned a lot from the first one. | ||
| And the second one was, we had it all together and they've done such a great job. | ||
| Robin Voss is up. | ||
| Mike, real quickly, we only got a couple minutes, real quickly, why is this so important? | ||
| Tell this audience, the blockers, like in Georgia and in Wisconsin, particularly Wisconsin, | ||
| because this election could come down to Wisconsin. | ||
| Why is this so important? | ||
| You guys, all of our things to secure our election platforms and everything we've been | ||
| doing, all the stuff that they did illegally in 2020, Robin Voss has blocked everything | ||
| to make that the status quo, basically. | ||
| Let's do the same stuff that went on in 2020, and he has blocked everything we've done for | ||
| our party and for the grassroots and everybody, for the mega movement, everything. | ||
| Robin Voss blocks everything we do, and he's the Speaker of the House, so you start at the top. | ||
| You get rid of him, and the doors are going to open for us in Wisconsin. | ||
| It's so important. | ||
| We got to roll to the Six O'Clock Show. | ||
| I got a minute. | ||
| Give me a deal. | ||
| Our audience wants deals. | ||
| What do we got today? | ||
| This is the last day, the last airing till next year, everybody. | ||
| This is just exclusive to War Room Posse. | ||
| It's our mattresses, 100% made in the USA, six month money back guarantee, 10 year warranty, save up to 50% and you take an additional $100 off with free shipping. | ||
| If you've ever thought of a bed, this is the best bed in history and it's gonna be at the best price ever, ever. | ||
| And go to MyPillow.com, you can get it there, or you can call the 800-873-1062. | ||
| All the specials of the year. | ||
| Last name for this one, everybody. | ||
| Okay, MyPillow.com, promo code WORM. | ||
| MyStore.com, promo code WORM. | ||
|
unidentified
|
800-873-1062. | |
| Mike, we'll see you tomorrow. | ||
| Six o'clock, EJ and Tony, we're gonna break down the economic numbers, capital markets, all of it. | ||
| Want to thank Real America's Voice Manning the War Room in DC. | ||
| Want to thank Real America's Voice in Palm Beach with Natalie. | ||
| Want to thank Real America's Voice in Denver with the great crew there and of course our crew here. | ||
| Stick around a couple of minutes. |
Export Selection