July 3, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
48:57
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is what you're fighting for. | ||
| I mean, every day you're out there. | ||
| What they're doing is blowing people off. | ||
| If you continue to look the other way and shut up, then the oppressors, the authoritarians, get total control and total power. | ||
| Because this is just like in Arizona. | ||
| This is just like in Georgia. | ||
| It's another element that backs them into a corner and shows their lies and misrepresentations. | ||
| This is why this audience is going to have to get engaged. | ||
| As we've told you, this is the fight. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All this nonsense, all this spin, they can't handle the truth. | |
| War Room Battleground. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Dave Brat sitting in with Stephen K. Bannon in the War Room today, July 2, Year of Our Lord 2024. | ||
| It's my honor to have a very special guest on, friend for years. | ||
| He's visited Liberty University, CEO Summit, been one of our honored speakers, and that would be the former Attorney General. | ||
| For the United States of America and another Midwesterner and so friendship and bonds in many ways. | ||
| Matt Whitaker, welcome to the War Room. | ||
| How are you feeling today? | ||
| Just please feel free to introduce us and let us know what your tenure in the Justice Department looked like. | ||
| Was Lady Justice blind and what has gone wrong? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, Dave, it's good to be with you. | |
| I'm joining you from Arizona today. | ||
| I was in Nevada yesterday doing some events with my friend Pam Bondi and the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Whatley, talking about election integrity and swing state battleground issues like the border. | ||
| You know, at the Department of Justice, when I was there, you know, we worked really hard to to apply justice evenly. | ||
| We believed in the Constitution and the equal application of the law and equal protection of the law. | ||
| And we fought every day to continue to uphold really one of the basic tenets of our American | ||
| constitutional republic, and that is the rule of law. | ||
| And this current attorney general, Merrick Garland, has completely shredded that. | ||
| And, you know, he has targeted all of the awesome powers of the Department of Justice against one individual and anybody that supports it. | ||
| And that's why you have right now Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, the host of this show, in jail for contempt of Congress and why Merrick Garland, who was recently held in contempt of Congress, has already ruled that the law doesn't apply to him. | ||
| It's a sad day. | ||
| But, you know, we have Really, kind of the Supreme Court right now that is helping uphold the rule of law. | ||
| If you look at this opinion just yesterday, Dave, you know, they wrote an opinion for the ages. | ||
| They understood this wasn't about the 2024 election. | ||
| This was about trying to sustain this constitutional republic for another 250 years and beyond. | ||
| Yeah, let's go there in one second. | ||
| But I didn't properly introduce you because you were the Attorney General Justice Department under President Trump. | ||
| That's the most important part of the description, under President Trump. | ||
| And you just told us on The War Room that Lady Justice was blind and you were executing justice under the Constitution. | ||
| And on this show, you know, we love to offer receipts, evidence for those claims because The left media is overwhelmingly huge and powerful and not proportional to what we can offer up. | ||
| Do you have any examples or receipts that you can offer to illustrate how the Trump Justice Department was impartial, fair, and objective, like you said? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, you know, so I was in charge of it between Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr. | |
| And what I did when I was in charge is I made sure that investigations were done without | ||
| fear or favor, but at the same time, they weren't politicized and that we again, we | ||
| followed the law and the facts. | ||
| We didn't direct the awesome powers of the Department of Justice, you know, and and I | ||
| think about, you know, some of the some of the things that the special counsel, Robert | ||
| Mueller did before I took over his investigation, you know, and we were able to kind of help | ||
| land that plane. | ||
| Bill Barr ultimately issued the results of that. | ||
| And I knew that they had nothing on Donald Trump and that in that firing the special | ||
| counsel would have been a terrible idea and that landing the plane and getting the report. | ||
| would be the right thing for our country moving forward. | ||
| But instead, what you're seeing now out of Merrick Garland is a weaponization where they are using | ||
| novel legal theories, whether it's in the Washington DC case | ||
| that two of the four charges have been ruled not applicable to the facts and circumstances of that case | ||
| or if the Supreme Court and their immunity decision from yesterday. | ||
| I think all of these things are a clear contrast. | ||
| And the bottom line, Dave, and if you ask for receipts, | ||
| all you have to do is look at what was happening on the border. | ||
| We had it safe and secure, a large part of that because we run the immigration judges | ||
| and we also reduce violent crime in our major cities. | ||
| Something that is out of control right now. | ||
| Yeah, unbelievable. | ||
| So yeah, we got the Supreme Court yesterday on immunity. | ||
| As you said, huge case. | ||
| The court doing a lot of good stuff. | ||
| The left is losing it over that decision. | ||
| One of the Supreme Court justices, I think, Sotomayor, And so why don't you lead us through. | ||
| You know, SEAL Team 6 being commanded to kill somebody. | ||
| And Roberts dismissed that idea as, you know, nonsense, silliness, not seriousness. | ||
| And so why don't you lead us through, right? | ||
| President Trump was in power for four years and no one went to jail. | ||
| Uh, the Democrats are in power and, as you just said, uh, Stephen K. Bannon, Navarro, and President Trump could go to jail as of January, uh, I mean, July 12th. | ||
| I think they just backed it up two weeks this morning. | ||
| Uh, but could have gone to jail too. | ||
| And so, uh, give a, give us an understanding at the, at a high level what, uh, what the immunity decision involves and, uh, any of the other Supreme Court decisions, uh, that you want to weigh in this week. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, well, they did a lot of important work, including dispatching with the poorly reasoned Chevron deference, which I think is going to have a big impact in paring back the administrative state. | |
| But, you know, I think the immunity case from yesterday acknowledged what has been a longstanding tradition for, you know, our really, at least since our Constitution was passed, 234 approximate years ago, you know, there's always been | ||
| these kind of core constitutional functions of the president that he couldn't be criminally | ||
| or civilly held liable for. | ||
| Obviously, the Department of Justice ignored that tradition and that doctrine. | ||
| And so the Supreme Court had to insert themselves and say what the law is, even though everyone | ||
| up until that point understood what it was. | ||
| But again, you had this overaggressive, novel legal theories targeted at one person, President | ||
| in order to put him in jail. | ||
| It's that simple. | ||
| And the cases are falling apart. | ||
| And I think the most interesting thing, you know, you talk about the delay in the New | ||
| York City sentencing case. | ||
| I think one of the most interesting things about this immunity doctrine is, is they're | ||
| going to have to go back through all of the evidence in that case and determine whether | ||
| any of it is, shouldn't have been admissible under this new Supreme Court precedent. | ||
| So that's going to take time. | ||
| You know, Judge Chutkan in D.C. is going to have to do the same thing on the indictment. | ||
| They're going to have to do the same thing down in Fulton County. | ||
| As well as down in Judge Cannon. | ||
| And Judge Cannon seems to be the only one that understands the deliberateness that's required in a very important case in American history. | ||
| And then you're not going to do a flat dash, sort of Soviet-style show trial like they did in New York City in order to, you know, sort of get Donald Trump. | ||
| Right, right. | ||
| You said something a very interesting way. | ||
| You said both criminal and civil immunity have been around with us for 250 years. | ||
| The press has said we've had civil but not criminal, and they're just hyperventilating on this criminal piece. | ||
| And so are you saying, roughly speaking, that that's been the practice and the precedent and it's been well understood? | ||
| And the left is really, really just hyperventilating over nothing here? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, it's not just me. | |
| It's a large majority of the Supreme Court and constitutional I don't think there is any way around it. | ||
| that the separation of powers obviously requires some form of immunity for the official acts | ||
| of the president. | ||
| And I don't think there is any way around it. | ||
| The Nixon case from the 60s and 70s sort of got us to a certain point on the civil, and | ||
| that was where sort of the outer bounds of presidential immunity was founded and recognized | ||
| as being a, you know, a round for the history of our country. | ||
| But you know, I think Justice Roberts in the majority opinion laid out pretty clear, you | ||
| know, sort of the historical practices and why that this is ridiculous to suggest as | ||
| Jack Smith tried to suggest the special counsel in the oral arguments that there is no immunity | ||
| at all, no matter what the act is of the president. | ||
| And I just want to say something about these hypotheticals of Sotomayor you mentioned. | ||
| These are nonsense. | ||
| These are sort of Democrat fantasies. | ||
| And don't advance the ball at all, because at the end of the day, it's not a matter of | ||
| the president ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent. | ||
| That's obviously, we all acknowledge, that's illegal and wouldn't happen. | ||
| And there's a lot of other people in that chain of command. | ||
| What might happen, though, is one president ordering his Department of Justice to indict a former president on novel legal theories. | ||
| And so that's, you know, that's happened. | ||
| And it's what's going on right now. | ||
| So that's why we need presidential immunity for official acts. | ||
| Yep, outstanding. | ||
| All right, Matt Whitaker, you have very calming, rational, objective ability to explain complex things and make them very simple, probably because you're such an honest man. | ||
| Pleasure to be your friend. | ||
| Thanks for coming on The War Room, brother. | ||
| How do people reach you, follow your writing and your thinking, because they should do that? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, a couple things. | |
| First of all, obviously, I'm praying and supporting Steve, you know, as he has to, you know, be a political prisoner in Connecticut for the next four months. | ||
| But Whitaker.tv is my website and all my social media channels are MattWhitaker46. | ||
| Great. | ||
| Thank you, Matt. | ||
| Thanks for coming on. | ||
| We'll have you on way more in the future. | ||
| God bless you. | ||
| Keep up the great work. | ||
| You bet. | ||
| All right, Ben Harnwell showing up, our favorite international reporter on the scene coming in from Rome. | ||
| Ben, what do you have for us today? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hey, Dave. | |
| Well, look, there's something that we had actually planned with Steve to hit over the last few days. | ||
| And of course, for obvious reasons, we weren't able to do it. | ||
| And that is the fact that 10 years ago, there was a very big conference in the Vatican, notionally with a view on discussing whether there ought to be limits from a Christian perspective on wealth creation. | ||
| Now, I actually organized this conference, and it was something I was trying to push at, because there's a current coming through the Vatican, as has been from the beginning of this so-called pontificate, or anti-pontificate, if you'd like to call it that, that has really very Marxist undertones to it. | ||
| The Pope has said on a number of occasions that the root of all social evils That's basically a Marxist thing. | ||
| So we put on this conference without sort of obviously being hosted inside the Vatican, without trying to go up, because obviously the Pope himself is the Lord and Master of the whole of Vatican City State. | ||
| So without being too ingracious, we just wanted to push some of the ideas that the Pope and many of his colleagues Just assumed to be true. | ||
| And they seem to think that wealth is a bad thing in and of itself. | ||
| They never really talk about wealth creation. | ||
| They talk about wealth distribution a lot, but they don't talk about wealth creation. | ||
| So we somewhat subversively put on this conference for an organization I used to run called the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, the Institute for Human Dignity. | ||
| And the keynote is a three-day conference. | ||
| And the keynote address was given by one Stephen K. Bannon when he was still back at Breitbart. | ||
| This is in June, obviously, 2014, a full year before Trump came down the golden escalator. | ||
| And it's interesting. | ||
| Now, I've put this article up. | ||
| It's, I think, brought top Second post on my feed on Getter. | ||
| I'll post it again along with this hit. | ||
| And it's interesting rereading this. | ||
| As I say, Steve and I had planned on doing this quite in depth, but obviously he was whisked away from us. | ||
| Because looking at this, this sort of shows Steve's Analysis and analytic capacity, because there are so many issues that he raises here, like the rise of a global populist movement. | ||
| This is 10 years ago, like a full year, as I say, before Donald Trump threw his hat in the ring. | ||
| And so many of these things, the nature and presence of Islam, obviously, the nature and presence of Russia, by the way, and Putin. | ||
| On the world stage, so many things that are now basically in the front pages every day. | ||
| Steve was talking about these 10 years ago. | ||
| There is, however, one thing here specifically is why I'm delighted in a certain sense, delighted to have the opportunity, if we're going to discuss this, this, this, this keynote address on the show, that to do with you, because you actually come up in this conversation. | ||
| Because then, obviously, June 2014 would be a time very much in your own, large, in your own psychology, right? | ||
| And we were talking about this upset Seventh District, right, in Virginia, where an unknown economics professor, primarily, successfully, Eric Cantor, who was the then House Majority Leader, which never happened before since what? | ||
| 1899, from when the position was first created. | ||
| And that, Dave, was like an absolutely... Steve here basically says it's the biggest election upset in the history of the American Republic. | ||
| And in many ways, Dave Bright, you are the proto-Trump. | ||
| Because what you did there, and of course Trump underspent in 2016 compared to Hillary Clinton, I think was like Two to one or something. | ||
| But your ratio, your ratio spending compared to Eric Cantor's is even more mind blowing. | ||
| It was 40 to one, right? | ||
| He spent, he threw in five million dollars and you'd raised two hundred thousand of which apparently you didn't even spend all of it. | ||
| I'm just going to correct you on one thing quick. | ||
| It wasn't me, it was God and the people. | ||
| But I know you know that, but you keep going. | ||
| Yeah, but you know, God requires his, he does require his agents here on Earth to be open to his will. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| And Steve here mentions that That Eric Cantor had produced a receipt at an elite steakhouse in D.C. | ||
| that spent over 200,000 on one on one on one dinner, which was being tied. | ||
| And you and you successfully play with this guy. | ||
| Now, I just want to ask you now from the vantage point. | ||
| And then, of course, you said two terms. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I just want to ask you from the vantage point of 10 years on now, having seen everything that followed, are there any lessons that the Republican Party and Republican Party activists and MAGA can learn about, can still learn and absorb 10 years on about what happened back in the 7th District in Virginia? | ||
| Yeah, well, the War Room, in short, is the answer. | ||
| I won't go on and on, but it's our big three issues that you weigh in on, Ben, every day. | ||
| It's the border invasion, it's the $7 trillion budgets, and the funding of the administrative state, the forever wars, and it's the Uniparty, right? | ||
| I've gone off on a couple books, Return of the Strong Gods, and then Glennon's book, National Security and the Double Government. | ||
| Back when I ran, I was still kind of a Madisonian, naive, Midwestern Christian guy, right? | ||
| And what have we learned? | ||
| Man, we've learned the three-letter agencies, the Trumanites, what they're called in that book, are in charge of the world around us. | ||
| And you're the best on that reporting. | ||
| You understand what the globalist forces mean. | ||
| And that's what where we can do even better is defining very clearly, right? | ||
| Is that China or the Wall Street or the global money, the billionaires, the Soros, the Davos crew, the defense establishment? | ||
| But yeah, I learned money runs the world and it's not even our side. | ||
| The money owns the Congress, right? | ||
| We just saw Paul Ryan was in possession of the dossier in 16. | ||
| So you learn things, but you cannot believe how bad they are until you see some of those bombs drop. | ||
| And so I think you understand it all. | ||
| I just learned the money piece, the power piece. | ||
| And then even since I lost, there's been a drop in this country of religiosity and patriotism, and they're highly correlated, right? | ||
| Like 95%. | ||
| And that's what we're learning, without that strong moral foundation. | ||
| And that's why I'm so proud of all the work you and Steve Bannon are doing in Italy, the gladiator school, pushing the Catholic faith. | ||
| And so there's my two minutes of fame in short. | ||
| Well, you mentioned, you know, about the decline in religiosity, even since you were in Congress. | ||
| You know, as an economist, this is actually your fault, isn't it? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Because you've done a lot of research work on just underpinning how important... | ||
| No, no, it is. You have. | ||
| On how important a moral Christian background is to a well-functioning, wealth-creation economy. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Yeah, no, that's right. | ||
| The left is hyperventilating right now because they're thinking that, you know, President Trump might do SEAL Team 6 and all these things John Roberts called fantasy. | ||
| That can only happen if America loses its moral fiber. | ||
| Right? | ||
| Which it hasn't yet, but that's what we have to maintain, and that's what the War Room, right? | ||
| Steve Bannon's always talking about the Judeo-Christian West, which is roughly a synthesis of Greek reason and a Judeo-Christian religion that goes back to the rabbinic tradition, which was based on reason, and which produced everything great in the West, right? | ||
| Human rights language comes out of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the rule of law, the constitution, Moses, the universities, Harvard's motto was truth for Christ and church. | ||
| And yeah, for me, there's no other tradition, right? | ||
| That's kind of the joke, right? | ||
| I always challenge a lot. | ||
| Can you name me another worldview that you live by? | ||
| Seven billion people in the world are religious, and one billion are not. | ||
| But the open society people want to exclude seven billion religious people. | ||
| So the open society crew, Soros and all them, are not too open. | ||
| You mentioned about the importance of this Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization, and that's something here, looking at the transcript of Steve's speech back in his Vatican address back in 2014, something he repeated. | ||
| It runs right throughout his address, the importance of this Judeo-Christian foundation. | ||
| And what I found most amusing when Steve came to prominence, and in fact, by the way, The BuzzFeed journalist who sat in and attended this conference, he recorded this thing, right? | ||
| He didn't publish it. | ||
| He recorded it. | ||
| And it wasn't until Steve was thrown into prominence when he was tapped after the victory by Donald Trump as being the new White House chief strategist that this guy, Lester Fader, the journalist, went back, listened to the whole 40-minute address, transcribed it word for word and published it. | ||
| And what I found amusing, and by the way, when BuzzFeed did that, and I always point this out, within 24 hours it had over a million hits, the page on the BuzzFeed website. | ||
| And they put a badge on the website saying, like, one million hits. | ||
| And then they take it down pretty quickly and I said to the journalist, you know, Lester, why did you take this down? | ||
| And he said, oh, because we didn't really want to reveal just how popular what Steve had said was with people and how much it was resonating. | ||
| Why? Because back at that very point, you had people like Nancy Pelosi calling Steve an anti-Semite | ||
| and a white supremacist. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Terrible. | |
| And this speech that he gave, as it were, before he was famous, | ||
| as I say, he's talking about the importance of the Judeo-Christian basis of Western | ||
| and civilization, it's in pretty much every other sentence he gets. | ||
| And then the Democrat slander machine comes in and just paints him as an anti-Semite. | ||
| Well, how can an anti-Semite give a speech talking about the absolute importance of the Judeo-Christian basis? | ||
| I mean, does it make sense? | ||
| And then, of course, that's why I think, rather dishonestly, BuzzFeed intervened there and took that badge off. | ||
| Hey, Ben, let me say one word, because I want to get into a deeper dive with you on this, too, but this fascism, anti-Semitism thing, you know, I've been reviewing my history books a little bit, too, and National Socialism in Germany, Hitler was at first a communist and then a socialist. | ||
| And there's no getting around that, right? | ||
| And then the left creates this fascist term because they needed something new. | ||
| They couldn't be saying, you know, socialism is a bad thing, right? | ||
| There were the Marxist socialists and then there were the nationalist socialists of Hitler's stripe. | ||
| And all of it's a disaster. | ||
| And so I want to carry this conversation on with you. | ||
| But wrap up in a minute what you want us to conclude on. | ||
| I got to go to the next clip. | ||
| With a minute 30 left. | ||
| So give us a minute of where we're concluding and where the conversation is going to take off next time. | ||
| That's so important what you just said. | ||
| It really hits to the very heart of how contemporary politics is framed and how the left takes semantics far more seriously than we do on our side of the political spectrum. | ||
| You're absolutely right. | ||
| You go back to the 1930s and you basically see that the Soviets were pushing international socialism. | ||
| And Hitler was pushing national socialism, right? | ||
| It's basically, it was exactly the same, apart from Hitler wanted control over his country and to implement a socialist agenda, but he wanted to control it. | ||
| He did not want to cede authority to Moscow. | ||
| That was the fundamental difference between, you know, because of course, international socialism, Soviet communism, otherwise known as the Soviet Right. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| was what was an empire. It sought to expand and Hitler was trying to... | ||
| Right. | ||
| he wanted to implement the same agenda only he wanted to be the guy doing it. | ||
| And what the left have done, which is one of the great successful lies and hoaxes | ||
| of modern history, is that they've convinced everybody that Hitler was | ||
| right-wing and he wasn't. He was left-wing. He was a socialist. It's there in the name. | ||
| National Socialists. It's not hidden from view. | ||
| National socialists. | ||
| Nope. | ||
| And he's the one that inserted socialism back in the party name, just as a historical factoid, right? | ||
| If the left wants to challenge that, they can look it up. | ||
| But yeah, fascinating. | ||
| And so, Ben, let's keep this going. | ||
| I think what you just said right there is this creating language games out of whole cloth on the left. | ||
| And our side, unfortunately, doesn't pay enough attention to ideas. | ||
| Except for highly educated, influential thinkers like you. | ||
| And so, let's keep teaming up together, going in-depth. | ||
| And, Ben, where do people get you? | ||
| Thanks, Dave. | ||
| On Getter, which is my social media platform of choice, at Harnwell, which is simply my surname, Harnwell. | ||
| Thanks so much, Dave. | ||
| God bless. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yep. | |
| Great job, Ben Harwell. | ||
| Everybody follow Ben Harnwell. | ||
| He's getting to the core ideas of the Judeo-Christian West, the underpinnings of everything we do on The War Room. | ||
| God bless you all. | ||
| See you next time on The War Room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All this spin, they can't handle the truth. | |
| War Room Battleground with Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| How much greater power is given to the executive? | ||
| Well, if you look at yesterday, it's quite interesting. | ||
| Power is actually taken away from the executive. | ||
| One of the things I think MSNBC gets wrong, because you guys are the ones that follow | ||
| us most closely, is look at we're the ones that fought the warrantless from the Justice | ||
| Department to make sure that you can't wiretap, you can't look at people. | ||
| We adamantly fought that. | ||
| The progressives and liberals wanted it because I guess they want more government control. | ||
| We totally fought that. | ||
| Also, the deconstruction of the administrative state, what happened yesterday on the Chevron | ||
| deference actually takes power away from the executive branch. | ||
| So you could argue, well, hey, the MAGA guys, if they're so, uh, for Trump fascism and for Trump ultimate power in the imperial presidency, why did they just do this? | ||
| Because President Trump will be president for a while, but then there'll be other presidents. | ||
| This is the way to permanently start to take down the Leviathan. | ||
| And I find it ironic that it's the MAGA movement that has been at the forefront of the deconstruction | ||
| of the administrative state, but also taking away powers of basically surveillance of the | ||
| American people, including the folks over at MSNBC. | ||
| We don't want wireless searches. | ||
| We don't want warrantless searches of folks. | ||
| So we are actually more on the sides of what we consider civil liberties. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We've got about 10 minutes here. | |
| So we're going to hash through a couple other quick things here. | ||
| So we're going to be jumping around. | ||
| Going back to the January 6th committee, part of you not testifying was the fact that you | ||
| made phone calls to Donald Trump, then the president, on January 5th. | ||
| Two phone calls. | ||
| I think people already talked about that. | ||
| In a war room, you said that day... Don't give the short quote, because I'm going to have to block... All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. | ||
| Good God, man. | ||
| Okay, stop. | ||
| And now we're on the point of attack tomorrow. | ||
| I'll tell you this. | ||
| It's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. | ||
| It's going to be quite extraordinarily different. | ||
| All I can say is strap in. | ||
| What did you talk... | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| Hang on, hang on. | ||
| That had nothing to do with it. | ||
| Go back and please have your producers do the research. | ||
| That was the Green Bay Sweep, where I talked about everything. | ||
| We were on the eve, and let me go back to the first part. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| And you're talking about Mike Pence? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Vice President Pence? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| What we're trying to do, what I have worked on, and what the show said for over 30 days was a contingent election. | ||
| Not being able to certify, not having Trump electors. | ||
| If you notice, I never mention in this Trump elector thing, because I told people the state legislatures will never flip to Trump electors. | ||
| It's impossible. | ||
| They'll burn down the state, but you can get to a point Legally and logically, that they can't certify the Biden electors. | ||
| And if you get below 270, we kick it to the House. | ||
| The rules say we kick to the House for a contingent election. | ||
| In the contingent election, we win. | ||
| All we have to do is get to the House. | ||
| That's the endgame. | ||
| Get to the House for a contingent election. | ||
| How do you get there? | ||
| The first step is obviously some of the states will send letters in. | ||
| We want them rescinded. | ||
| But Those, those, it's going to take you two days. | ||
| The arguments and debates in front of the world to show you exactly what the evidence is, that you don't have to go to court, show you what the evidence is, is going to switch people. | ||
| They're going to sit there and go, you know what? | ||
| Let's send it back to, let's send it back to Pennsylvania. | ||
| Let's send it back to Arizona. | ||
| Let's send it back to Wisconsin. | ||
| They can't ascertain and certify the Biden electors. | ||
| That was the whole point on the show. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And that's why I said- In the contingent election, Donald Trump. | |
| wins 26 Jamie Raskin who's in Donald Trump would have been the president yes | ||
| because we on it goes it doesn't go by individual house where it goes by state | ||
| we're seeking to Donald Trump be the president United States on January 20th | ||
| sworn in on inauguration day Vaughn what don't you get here He won on 2020. | ||
| What I'm trying to do is use the... I'm trying, I'm trying... Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. | ||
| I'm trying, I'm trying to use, I'm trying to use the rules of the game as it's set up. | ||
| The Electoral County... | ||
| No. | ||
| You were not talking to him about the contingent election? | ||
| No, no. | ||
| There were personal and private conversations that he's exerted executive privilege on. | ||
| You were not in the White House. | ||
| No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I just told you I'm under executive privilege. | ||
| Let's go back to this. | ||
| The rules of the game are set up. | ||
| I'm going to the Supreme Court about executive privilege. | ||
| I don't think I can break that executive privilege and talk about it. | ||
| I'm going to the Supreme Court about executive privilege. | ||
| I don't think I can break that executive privilege and talk about it. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hang on. | |
| You have the opportunity and you're not. | ||
| I don't have the opportunity. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you talk about potential violence on January 6th at all? | |
| Okay. | ||
| The violence hurt us. | ||
| Why do you think I want to adjudicate about what the federal government's role in this is? | ||
| The violence killed the whole thing. | ||
| We only got to the first part of Arizona and then it stopped. | ||
| We had, let me repeat, two hours per state. | ||
| There were seven states that came back and said, we would like you to review this, the certification. | ||
| That is two hours per state, per chamber. | ||
| I have 28 hours. | ||
| I have 28 hours on global TV to put forward the receipts, the receipts that you people refuse to review, put up by federal officials called congressmen and senators in front of the world, and then to get to say, guess what? | ||
| We can't actually certify this. | ||
| These states, it's below 278. | ||
| We've got to go to contingent election. | ||
| It's Jamie Raskin that said, hey, I don't think Bannon calculated that Liz Cheney, the one person from Wyoming. | ||
| We win 26-24. | ||
| That's my whole problem. | ||
| Where were you on January 6th? | ||
| January 6th, I was right here. | ||
| January 5th, I was right here. | ||
| Were you at the Willow Hotel? | ||
| I was at the Willow Hotel for that weekend. | ||
| That's an open thing people have talked about. | ||
| Rudy and people, we had a war room there, they had lawyers, they had media people, they had everything like that. | ||
| I think part of, Steve, I think there is a MAGA movement, a populist movement in this country. | ||
| Right, we talk about Project 2025. | ||
| We talk about the deconstruction of the administrative state. | ||
| These are all based in substantive policy and the future of the United States of America. | ||
| I think where a lot of folks See the concern about the future and what that looks like is through an unreasonable means to attain that power. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And they see it through the talk about the contingent election that places Donald Trump into power. | ||
| It's not a contingent. | ||
| What are you talking? | ||
| Have you lost your mind? | ||
| Ask Jamie Raskin. | ||
| It's the way the system was set up. | ||
| We were playing by the rules of the system. | ||
| The contingent election, the contingent election was set in by the electoral count, 18 or 7, so we never have to... | ||
| Hang on, hang on. | ||
| You talk about democracy. | ||
| Why is that poll, why did the poll and the people say that Trump's democracy? | ||
| MAGA is a small d democracy project. | ||
| You're right now on your network and the New York Times had an editorial. | ||
| Biden's gotta step down. | ||
| You have taken away the vote in the primary of all the primary voters of the Democratic Party. | ||
| Now, the New York Times and part of MSC has determined that Joe Biden can't beat Donald Trump, therefore he must regroup. | ||
| Steve, you guys could win on policy. | ||
| We are winning on policy. | ||
| We are winning on policy. | ||
| Vaughn, we won in 2020 and we're winning bigger. | ||
| We are winning on policy. | ||
| You guys won on policy. You guys could win in 2024. But you guys have sowed, and your show included, have sowed distrust | ||
|
unidentified
|
in the institutions of the United States. Does that give you pause at any point? Watching the attacks on January 16th? | |
| I know you condemn January 16th. | ||
| MSNBC has beaten the January 6th horse to death, and that's why it's not resonating with the people. | ||
| But people are still talking to me. | ||
| Steve, you know I talk to people, and they talk about violence. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| They're ready to lock and load. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Can you tell me that? | |
| Hang on. | ||
| And you know that. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| The people that are concerned are people that are on your side of the football on MSNBC, and you should be concerned in that we are going to win, and you're going to see, and you saw yesterday, MSNBC had the most... Folks are concerned about having a stable democracy. | ||
| And the folks that I talk to, there's a great number of folks that are foreshadowing violence, saying that they are ready to lock and load and use violence. | ||
| You're not talking to our people, because we're winning. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| If Donald Trump loses in November, they tell me they're ready for violence. | ||
| No. | ||
| You will have to, you will have to. | ||
| Well, I have not heard anything even close to that, because we proved the precinct strategy. | ||
| But you don't want violence. | ||
| You do not want that to happen to the United States of America, right? | ||
| Vaughn, we took down a speaker. | ||
| It's insulting even to bring up the question. | ||
| We have taken down a speaker. | ||
| We have taken down a majority leader, the most powerful, minority leader, most powerful guy. | ||
| We've taken down the RNC. | ||
| Now hang on. | ||
| No, no, not me, not me. | ||
| The MAGA movement is winning everywhere, including in the battleground states in the polls. | ||
| This is why Trump's up. | ||
| This is why they're removing Biden. | ||
| Our movement is not just peaceful, we are uber peaceful while at the same time the weaponized Justice Department is trying to put people in prison. | ||
| Why not hold those that did attack the Capo on January 6th accountable and have them serve their due time? | ||
| You talk about justice all the time. | ||
| Why not? | ||
| Vaughn Hilliard, Vaughn Hilliard, you must not have watched MSNBC last night because, hang on, if you had watched it, hang on, if you had watched it, if you had watched it, it wasn't just the Chevron deference, the other bigger case was Fisher being overturned. | ||
| There were 52 individuals out of the more than 1,000 that had that sole charge against them. | ||
| No, but others have been added. | ||
| Out of 1,000. | ||
| If one person in this country, if one citizen of this country goes to a federal prison because Andrew Weissman and MSNBC worked with the Justice Department to take something that was thrown out 6-3 and Judge Brown Jackson... That's part of the court system. | ||
| The Supreme Court did its due work. | ||
| No, it should have never come in the first place. | ||
| It's outrageous. | ||
| Are they out of prison today, sir? | ||
| Are they walking out of prison today? | ||
| day, sir? Are they walking out of prison today? By the way, another over 100 has it as an | ||
| additional charge to get to get along. | ||
| Those who attack. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, I'm not going to let you off the hook. | |
| Vaughn, I'm not going to let you... Vaughn, you're not going to get off the hook on this, brother. | ||
| You're not going to... You give all the happy talk about some theoretical. | ||
| I'm talking practical. | ||
| Could you not see right now how it was weaponized against American citizens? | ||
| You said they'd blow it off. | ||
| Only 52 guys. | ||
| If one American citizen, Vaughn, is in... | ||
| You do disagree. | ||
| Did I see Vaughn Hale, you're down outside the D.C. | ||
| Gulag sitting there going, where are the 52? | ||
| Put as much energy, put as much energy, put as much energy. | ||
| Maybe the courts interpreted the law. | ||
| That is where it was. | ||
| The Supreme Court did its work. | ||
| No, no, no, no. | ||
| This was gunned down. | ||
| This is going to cause, you talk about adjudication, this is going to cause a massive investigation. | ||
| This is going to cause a massive investigation of Merrick Garland, Weisman, MSNBC, the collusion and collaboration that went on, and it's going to cause a massive investigation of the federal judiciary in Washington, D.C. | ||
| that went along with this. | ||
| How did this happen? | ||
| When Judge Brown Jackson writes her independent opinion, but with the majority at 6-3, that's when questions should start being answered. | ||
| This is an outrage to the American people. | ||
| It's an outrage to civil liberties in this country. | ||
| If there is a President Trump in 2025 and you say that individuals should be prosecuted from officials currently in the Department of Justice today? | ||
| No. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No No, it is policy. | |
| It is 100% policy. | ||
| How did we get to this point? | ||
| How did this get weaponized? | ||
| How did Trump get 700 years potentially in prison? | ||
| How did all this happen? | ||
| Here's what's going to happen. | ||
| Both in an empowered House, With a judiciary committee that's very focused, number one, in the House, by, under the Constitution, and the rules of law, and about evidence, you're going to see, and I believe, in the executive branch, they're going to also start investigations by DOJ into what happened here. | ||
| We're going to get to the bottom of the weaponization. | ||
| And I realize that people are upset. | ||
| Andrew McCabe's all upset about what went on. | ||
| You make falsehoods though, Steve. | ||
| That's not falsehoods. | ||
| You said about the FBI search warrant execution of Mar-a-Lago, you said, quote, this was an attempted assassination attempt on Donald Trump. | ||
| Potential. | ||
|
unidentified
|
100%. | |
| And that the use of deadly force was authorized by the director of the FBI, Merrick Garland. | ||
|
unidentified
|
100%. | |
| You said this was an attempted assassination. | ||
| That was a statement of fact that you made to millions of Americans. | ||
| It is a statement of fact. | ||
| It is a statement of fact. | ||
| And that is, it is not a statement of fact. | ||
| It is a statement of fact. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You have no evidence that they told the government it was standard procedure. | |
| It was not, hold it, it's not, Vaughn, Vaughn, Vaughn, Vaughn, don't give me. | ||
| Are you not concerned? | ||
| Vaughn, don't give me the nonsense that you guys spew every day. | ||
| First off, there is no standard procedure when you're going down for a bunch of documents to the winter White House of a guy who's been president. | ||
| So don't give me the standard procedure. | ||
| And if you look at it, why did it have, not just about being armed, why did it have the combat medica- Do you know that they were not going to attempt to assassinate Donald Trump? | ||
| I have no earthy idea. | ||
| Listen, why do you have a combat medic? | ||
| Why was there a triage program? | ||
| Why was there a trauma center that they set up? | ||
| Why was all that set up? | ||
| That has to be investigated, and it will be investigated. | ||
| The vast conspiracy? | ||
| Why did Matthew Klein... When Merrick Garland sat there and perjured himself, In front of the House Judiciary Committee, Oversight Committee, a week ago, when they asked him a point-blank question, say, walk me through how the number three guy in the Justice Department, right, just on a week after Trump announced that he was going to run for president again, how does he second himself up to be a sideman to Alvin Bragg in New York City? | ||
| When is the last time a guy's gone from a senior-level main justice to a local DA's office? | ||
| Answer that. | ||
| And he says, I have no idea what you're talking about. | ||
| That is a bald-faced lie. | ||
| And that will be proven to be a bald-faced lie. | ||
| You people that have gone after and had this lawfare against, you know, people at school boards and Catholics playing the rosary. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| You people. | ||
| I mean that MSNBC is a collaborationist propaganda mechanism. | ||
| Are you saying that our news network should be investigated? | ||
| I think your news network will be investigated. | ||
| By the Department of Justice? | ||
| No, I think that first it's going to be investigated by the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee. | ||
| The House Judiciary Committee should investigate news organizations? | ||
| No, what they should do... Hang on, when you have Andrew Weissman Who's in the middle of all this, as one of your major- I'm not talking about Andrew Weissman. | ||
| I am talking about Andrew Weissman. | ||
| I'm talking about his organization. | ||
| Does he not- Is he not a paid- Yeah, but he appears on the show. | ||
| No, he doesn't appear on the show. | ||
| He's a paid contributor to MSNBC. | ||
| Don't give me a- He doesn't randomly show up on the show. | ||
| He's one of the most significant paid contributors to MSNBC, and he's up here every day, on every show, doing advances. | ||
| Don't play the dumb- This is embarrassing for you. | ||
| If you're gonna bring it, bring it. | ||
| But don't sit there and go, oh, he's a guy who appears on the show. | ||
| That's not true. | ||
| He's the central legal theoretician over at MSNBC that every day you pound this. | ||
| Well, guess what? | ||
| That's going to be investigated. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're going to see- What is investigated about? | |
| The collaboration. | ||
| The Fisher- What is- It shouldn't be- It's not random, Vaughn, that the Fisher overturned- I'm not sure what law has been violated. | ||
| The law that put these guys in prison, they should be released immediately. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But I don't know what... They took the Enron... And somebody, a former Department of Justice... Who was on Enron? | |
| And that's all... | ||
| Well, we'll have to find out. | ||
| That's what an investigation's about. | ||
| But the lack of due process... You're suggesting that in 2025 news organizations should be investigated for a law | ||
| that you can't even define. It's my news... by the way, by the way, am I not... am I not... am I not... am I not... | ||
| you're putting me in jail on the run up to... I'm going to prison on an illegitimate committee, right? | ||
| And you're saying that lawfare is not working in this country when they're trying to liquidate Alex Jones, they're putting Gateway Pundit into bankruptcy, Epoch Times just got hit with a DOJ, that Steve Bannon's going to prison. | ||
| Are you kidding me? | ||
| Those are the biggest- Were you in talks with the Trump campaign to rejoin them here in 2024? | ||
| Absolutely not. | ||
| War Room, 10 times more powerful and more needed than War Room. | ||
| We're the kind of augmented media arm of the MAGA movement. | ||
| I did the campaign one time. | ||
| There were discussions in 2020 about bringing me back on by some of the senior donors who thought things were a little off track. | ||
| But now, War Room is much too important to the MAGA movement and particularly President Trump and his campaign. | ||
| How does Trump win in 2024? | ||
| Simple. | ||
| Just keep doing what he's doing. | ||
| Is it the independents that need to switch over? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| People have made the decision. | ||
| It's getting out the vote. | ||
| Just get the message, the same messaging you've got, and right now it's three verticals, right? | ||
| It's seal the border, start the mass deportations, stop the illegal alien invasion, number one. | ||
| It's to get your hands on the financial madness that's going on. | ||
| Because remember, in the first couple of days of his second term, you'll have the reversion of the tax cuts, will hit the debt ceiling, | ||
| and will still have, as you know, on Capitol Hill, they won't do a, they'll do a CR, so we'll | ||
| have the federal budget for next year to deal with all three of those together. So it's to get | ||
| that organized. And the last is, and probably the most important up front is to end the | ||
| forever wars. And so those are the three pro-action, and by the way, there's plenty of time in the | ||
| day left over to have people work every day to deconstruct the administrative state, and also | ||
| in his justice department, to do what they should do to start investigations of how | ||
| the justice department weaponized the legal system against the MAGA movement, and President Trump and | ||
| his followers. | ||
| There's going to be plenty of time for that and I understand it upsets people at MSNBC when I say this. | ||
| This is going to happen. | ||
| And I'm a betting man and I believe Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco and senior members of | ||
| the Justice Department will be imprisoned for many, many years. | ||
| Last question for you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, sir. | |
| Because we've only got one more question left, of course, I'd like to follow up on that. | ||
| But what does the MAGA movement look like after Donald Trump, five, ten years from now? | ||
| I think the MAGA movement, I think you see it right now, and one thing, on the spectrum of MAGA, I believe that President Trump, who's a very kind-hearted guy and a big-hearted guy, I would say President Trump is a moderate in our movement, and I think the MAGA movement is shifting day by day farther right. | ||
| Donald Trump is a moderate in MAGA? | ||
| Oh, definitely, President Trump's a moderate. | ||
| I don't think there's any doubt about it. | ||
| Where does it go ten years from now? | ||
| Well, I think it's even a shorter term than that. | ||
| I think in President Trump's second term, particularly on policies against the Chinese Communist Party, on economic nationalism, on the forever wars, particularly on the deportations, you will have a large center of gravity that's much farther to the right than President Trump on what the solutions will be. | ||
| And you'll have President Trump, and President Trump will try to unite the American people, and we'll understand that. | ||
| Our policies, I think, are much tougher, much harder about the sovereignty of this nation, and particularly working-class people, about bringing jobs back and breaking Wall Street, breaking Big Tech, because right now we're not capitalism. | ||
| Right now we're a capitalist, a late-stage capitalist society with very few capitalists. | ||
| 90% of the American people are 80% have no stake in the game. | ||
| They have no real financial or real assets. | ||
| That's got to change. | ||
| And so more economic populism, more economic nationalism, I think is all to come. | ||
| I strongly believe that in 10 years, we will have attracted the, what I call, American | ||
| first Democrats like Fetterman. | ||
| If you look at Sherrod Brown, if you look at Fetterman, we disagree on huge amounts | ||
| of policy, particularly on cultural and social policy. | ||
| But if you look at the underlying economics, like the U.S. | ||
| steel takeover and some of the things Sherrod Brown, unfortunately, he won't be in the | ||
| Senate much longer. | ||
| But if you look at the Fettermans and the Sherrod Browns, when they talk about economic | ||
| policy, I think that they're much closer to the farther right-wing populist economic nationalists | ||
| than we are to the Mitt Romney and the neoliberals and the Wall Street crowd and the big tech. | ||
| We are hurtling towards, from late-stage capitalism to techno-feudalism, where the vast majority, | ||
| including the lower middle class, with the working class, are cut out of the system. | ||
| That is going to be the big fight I believe going forward where Bernie Sanders talked about it. | ||
| I think you'll see a new generation of people that could reach across to the guys like Federman and say, hey, we got to work. | ||
| We disagree on a lot of stuff. | ||
| Let's put that aside. | ||
| But in this basic policies of economics, and particularly putting American citizens first, that that's where we go. | ||
| And I think that's the next phase of the MAGA. | ||
| America first was phase one. | ||
| American citizens first is phase two. | ||
| And I think we're going to go there. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And I think there's going to be huge political fights about that. | |
| Vaughn, thanks, man. | ||
| I appreciate it. | ||
| Thank you, sir. | ||
| Thank you. |
Export Selection