Nordstream, J6, and Everything Else the Media Won’t Tell You with Jack Posobiec, Kash Patel, and Andrew Kolvet
With Charlie out on assignment, Jack Posobiec steps in to talk with Andrew Kolvet about the New York Times’ major new story on the perpetrators of the Nordstrom pipeline demolition. Is the blast really the work of an unknown “pro-Ukraine group,” or is the Biden admin just trying to sow doubt about its own actions while mollifying an angry German ally?!Kash Patel weighs in, then gives his own reaction to the latest January 6 news and the press’ shrill, over the top reaction to it.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Press Conference on Nord Stream00:14:07
All right, Jack Pesobic, guest hosting here for the Charlie Kirk show.
While Charlie's on assignment, we've got a huge hour.
Andrew Colvett, producer Andrew, joins us to talk about Nord Stream 2.
And then we bring on Kash Patel.
What's going on with Jan 6?
What's going on with this footage?
A ton of stuff to get into.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at AndrewandTodd.com.
We've got a lot going on today.
We're going to talk a lot about Tucker Carlson and the release of the January 6th tapes and what this means for us and what it means for our country.
We've got Kash Patel coming up later in the hour to discuss with that in great detail.
But first up, I want to bring here on producer Andrew Colvet.
And now, producer Andrew, we don't always, you know, have the, I think this may be one of the first times that you and I have done the show like this together.
Is that right?
I think that's right, Jack.
I think that's right.
But we have lots of sidebar conversations.
We have lots of sidebar conversations, and there was a sidebar.
I appreciate you picking up what I was putting down there.
We had a sidebar conversation yesterday when we were talking about what to get into on the show today.
That I said, you know what, Andrew?
We just need to have you on the show and we need to have this conversation.
And credit where credit is due, man.
You put this together.
You absolutely put this together.
And it was something that I had been noticing, but I was running around these past couple of days.
I was doing events.
It was all over.
I was with my kids doing a digital detox.
We're doing that on Sundays for Lent.
And you picked up on something that I hadn't actually seen through.
And it had to do with the Nord Stream situation.
Can you explain that for everyone?
Yeah, no, we were chatting late last night, kind of wondering what the heck was going on with Tucker and why didn't we see any more tapes?
And, you know, I do want to get into that because I think it's really fascinating.
What we do here behind the scenes at the Charlie Kirk show is, I mean, we are analyzing all the news from every single possible angle.
Our team is 24-7.
24-7.
So here we are.
I mean, it was like, you know, 12 o'clock East Coast your time.
But I put together something.
And normally hosts don't call for, you know, guests don't call for clips.
And I'm grateful for you to be hosting our show, Jack.
But there's a clip 70, if you guys can cue that up.
This was actually what kind of keyed me off on this.
I saw this briefly last week and I thought there's something more to the story here.
And this was John Kirby doing a presser.
And the press is asking.
It's saying, Chancellor Schultz from Germany is coming.
Why don't we get this two-on-two press conference like we normally do?
Where's the pump and circumstance?
Where's the pump and circumstance?
Where's the dinner with all the celebrities coming in?
Where's Schwarzenegger?
You know, like going to the White House.
No, absolutely.
Any of those things.
Absolutely.
Totally under the radar.
Absolutely.
Now, the timing of events here is really key.
So let's go ahead and play Cut 70 and then we'll go from there.
Cut 70.
We consider not having a 2 plus 2 press conference with Schultz.
We would love for there to be the regular 2 plus 2 press conference.
So I think Corinne addressed this issue yesterday.
I don't have anything to add to what she told you.
This is a working visit and it's very the agenda, which is tight-knit because it's just not an expansive.
Not going to be meeting with the president all day.
It's a tight visit, working level visit on pretty significant issues.
And it just wasn't part of the schedule for either leader here to do a press conference.
So you get that, Jack.
This is a working visit on significant issues, and we don't have time for him to take questions.
I mean, that's crazy.
No, it's absolutely crazy.
They do press visits, you know, press conferences on much lesser countries like it's, you know, at the end of the day.
And Dylan Mulvaney from TikTok, the TikTok trans thing got more press than Olaf Schultz when he came to the White House.
No, absolutely.
So here's the order of events that you have to keep in mind, right?
So you've got Schultz comes right after the Seymour Hirsch bombshell that the U.S. is responsible for blowing up Nordstream.
You don't understand that there's a German component to that because it's not just about Russia being the source.
They're not just the sellers.
It's the customer.
The customer was Germany.
And Germany had put a lot of money and a lot of political capital into this pipeline as well.
And now they are the ones who are stuck not having that cheap gas come in.
And guess what, boys and girls?
You may not like Russia, but that is going to have economic impacts on their families, on their society, on their jobs, on their manufacturing base that they're trying to cling on to.
This is going to have huge ripple effects through Germany.
And now you've got this huge piece coming out by from, and by the way, yes, an actually respected journalist like Cy Hirsch coming out and saying, no, it was the U.S. that did your trade partner, another NATO member that did this to you.
That's right.
So they get together.
It's a working high-level, very important topics to discuss.
And remember the background here as well, Jack, that Ukraine wanted tanks.
They wanted German tanks.
Germany didn't want to send them, right?
So there's all of this geopolitical tension going on.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is flexing on Germany and applying pressure on Germany.
And then, you know, so we see them meet at the end of the week, right?
End of last week, no pomp and circumstance.
And then just a couple days later, and Jack, I credit you for kind of connecting the dots with this.
A couple days later, the New York Times intelligence suggests pro-Ukrainian group sabotage pipelines, U.S. officials say.
And Jack, you were the one that said this was not deep investigative work by the New York Times.
This was a press release that was published by the Intel agencies.
So what's the connection here?
We don't get that press conference.
Germany's upset.
Conveniently, a couple days later, that a New York Times bombshell puts distance between Biden and blowing up Nordstream.
And now here's the kicker.
Now, why would pro-Ukrainian forces, why would that be something that was allowed to be published in this geopolitical landscape?
Well, I venture to guess, and admittedly, this is speculation, but that there was a phone call made, probably a perfectly perfect phone call between the Biden administration and Zelensky and said, hey, listen.
Which, by the way, and I'm just going to throw this out there for everybody, like, Andrew, you've done some stuff on high levels and you've had some kind of phone calls like this.
Like, you're not just some schlub out there.
Not about blowing up pipelines, but yes.
It's not about blowing up pipelines, but you've done some high-level stuff.
I get how the leverage works.
So, anyways, Biden calls.
The admin calls or back channels, however, this gets communicated to Zelensky and says, listen, we're about to drop this story.
It's going to come out in the New York Times in a day, and it's going to mention that these were pro-Ukrainian forces that did it.
So Zelensky goes, Well, I didn't want to blow up the pipeline.
I had nothing to do with it.
Ah, well, you know what?
If you want another $150 billion, you know, if you want that billion-dollar deal, you better fire that process because they're already at war with Russia, right?
They're already at war with Russia.
So there's, you know, this is a convenient scapegoat for them to point out and say, well, it was them that did it.
This is similar, by the way, to the killing of Pablo Escobar, which was conducted by U.S. Delta Force, a special team in the 1990s.
But it was credited to the Colombian military.
And this, no, come on.
That was obviously Grimbraz that did that.
It's very similar to something like that.
It's not the first time special forces have used a convenient third-party force to sort of get the quote-unquote get the credit for the kill.
In this case, the kill being a pipeline.
But also, I think the audience was the German people.
It also, by the way, gives them a convenient out if they ever need to throw Zelensky under the bus, if they ever need to cut off funding to Ukraine.
You look at things going on now in the East.
It's not looking good in Bakhmut and some of these other areas.
It gives them an absolute out if they need one for all of this.
But I do wonder, Andrew, you know, going with this phone call theory, do you think that they tried to get Schultz to come out and toe the line with them?
Do you think that may have been the initial plan to say, all right, we're going to come out and we're going to announce the results of this investigation and make it some big thing?
And Schultz was like, no, I'm not doing that.
I'm getting on the plane.
I'm out of here.
I can't go along with it.
Just go publish in your newspapers.
I think there's two competing theories.
One is Schultz was mad as hell and he said, you better fix this.
And what's the truth?
The other theory is that he said, I need you to tell the German people some different narrative.
They need to hear something.
You need to give me cover fire right now because.
But what both of them show is that Schultz is effectively under the thumb of the Biden administration.
That's what it shows.
That's what all of these movements show.
I want to talk about relieffactor.com.
I want you guys to check out relieffactor.com, 100% drug-free, knee pain, back pain, joint pain, elbow pain.
Check out Relief Factor Energy.
Help makes your body make nutrients readily available.
Relief Factor Sleep.
I know a lot of you are probably having trouble sleeping.
Relief Factor Sleep could be the best solution for you.
Everybody goes to bed.
Not everybody sleeps.
We're all about helping people live lives that are filled with connection, exploration, passion, and emotion.
That is what his life is all about.
Make sure you guys are sleeping well.
It's a major part of life.
Check it out right now: relieffactor.com, relieffactor.com.
What went on with Nord Stream 2 and this pipeline?
Why would the U.S. do this?
You know, and Andrew, I'd love if we can play.
So we've got clip 69.
It's Cy Hirsch responding.
It sounds like this is his initial reaction, by the way.
That's what's so good.
It's just audio.
But we've got to play this.
Play clip 69.
It's short, but of Cy Hirsch reacting to the pro-Ukrainian group of Sabbath, you know, that sabotage the pipelines.
What?
That can't be true.
They can't be that stupid.
Are they that stupid?
All right, what do I care?
I'm going to go look at the New York Times now.
Oh, my God.
Intelligence suggests Ukrainian.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Okay.
No, I haven't seen it.
No, I can't comment on that stuff.
What do I know?
I've written a couple of other things about it.
I'm going to write something next week again about it.
And that's the way I do it.
Amazing.
I never heard that before.
You're telling me that now for the first time.
Just hearing it now.
I love when we give people's first reaction and stuff.
And it's, I think it's the first reaction that everybody basically had to this, that it was just a joke.
It was completely ridiculous.
But, but, Andrew, if you'll indulge me, because people are asking also why.
Why would the U.S. do this?
Why would the U.S. put this forward?
And I want to play this clip from Russell Brand, which I think just lays it out in a very tight way for everybody.
Play clip 73.
The Nord Stream pipeline, which, you know, was blown up mysteriously.
Guess what's happened?
Since it's been blown up, the U.S. has done a load of gas deals with European nations.
Wow, what an extraordinary coincidence.
The U.S. is set to double its gas exports to the UK under plans to clamp down on rising living costs by weaning Britain of Russian energy.
That was always the intention to just take over gas exports from Russia.
Why?
Take my word for it.
You simply want to change the structure of energy dependence.
You want to change that structure?
By blowing it up.
For years, we've tried to get the Europeans to be interested in different pipeline routes.
It's time to do that.
You want to depend more on the North American energy platform, have pipelines that don't go through Ukraine and Russia.
But there is a pipeline going through Ukraine and Russia.
Not anymore.
There isn't.
If Russia invades, there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2.
We will bring an end to it.
How will you do that?
I promise you, we'll be able to do it.
So, nothing to worry about here then.
I mean, that's amazing.
That's like, that's what John Oliver tries to do, by the way.
But the fact that Russell Brand has the truth on his side, he doesn't need these like 10-minute segments and laugh tracks because you're laughing because he's so funny.
He's so eloquent.
I know Charlie's talked about that.
I've talked about that on Human Events Daily, how this is, you know, we always say, you know, it's like the old French line, Sherche Lefemme, you know, look for the woman in international relations.
I always say, Sherche Le Petrol, follow the gas, follow the gas.
Once you understand that, you'll understand what's going on.
But, but, Brad, he just puts it in such a funny way.
He's absolutely hilarious.
He's very ukulein.
He's very smart.
Incredible appearance, by the way, just destroying John Heilman, someone who really had truly deserved it, on Bill Maher this last weekend.
And the way he's able to do it in just one minute, whereas John Oliver would have taken a 10-minute segment with piped-in laugh tracks and all the rest, it's absolutely ridiculous.
So, I think, I think, Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong, but did is this narrative dead for them?
Did they just know that?
I think it was dead on arrival.
But again, when you put something in the pages of the New York Times, you have to understand that all the mockingbird media are just going to run with it anyways.
Rogue Operation and DOJ Trial00:14:37
I have a question, though.
I have a question.
So, my question is: so, this is the, so if the official story is that Ukraine blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, so are we going to continue financing Ukraine and financing the war because they're just blowing up pipelines all over the world now?
Well, no, because Putin's bad.
No, no, no, but because it's bad pipeline, bad, right?
Because Putin bad.
So, but think about it, right?
This is a rogue operation that they conducted.
It directly targeted, by the way, a rogue operation on a NATO country, which is Germany.
Ukraine is not a NATO country.
So, you're saying Ukraine did, like, are we going to hold hearings?
Are we going to have an investigation?
Are they going to call this guy?
He was just a Congress last, what, like five weeks ago?
Bring him back in.
Jack, you're asking, you're asking some very dangerous questions.
Hey, Zelly.
Hey, Zelly, old buddy old pal.
Can we call you up on the phone?
Maybe Alexander Vimman could leak us the transcript.
The way he's leaking, and we'll talk some more about the way we've got the leaked documents on Andrew Vinman.
But it's truly amazing to me that even if you follow through the official narrative of this, even that doesn't make any sense because you then have to say, so wait, we fund this, we support this, we're just going to go along with this.
It's ridiculous.
Adrian, am I wrong here?
No, I mean, I think what you're seeing is a lie compounding on a lie, compounding on another lie, and eventually the lie will collapse on its own logic, right?
But the question is, will the media report the truth?
And we don't know.
It's true.
And they don't, and the thing is, they don't expect you to buy it.
They expect you to not do anything about it.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell with My Pillow is launching the My Pillow 2.0.
That's right.
You heard me, My Pillow 2.0.
When Mike Lindell, great American patriot, invented My Pillow, had everything you could ever want in a pillow.
But now, 20 years later, he discovered a new technology that makes it even better.
The MyPillow 2.0 has a patented, adjustable fill on the original MyPillow.
And now, with a brand new fabric that is made with a temperature-regulating thread.
For exclusive listeners, the MyPillow 2.0 is buy one, get one free offer with promo code Kirk and get your best sleep ever.
MyPillow 2.0 temperature regulating technology is 100% made in America and comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Go to mypillow.com and click on the Radio Listener Square to buy one and get one free offer.
Enter promo code Kirk or call 800-875-0425 to get your MyPillow 2.0 now.
That is mypillow.com.
Promo code Kirk.
Check it out.
Okay, we are very excited here to have join the discussion, the one, the only Mr. Kash Patel.
Cash, thanks Joe Much for joining us here on the Charlie Kirk Show.
Hey, thanks so much for having me.
Good to see you again, Jack.
I think it was just a couple days ago.
We were on stage together.
I know you're on stage, but the best panel at CPAC, I'm told.
Indeed, for sure.
The absolute best.
So, so, so, Cash, we've been talking about Nord Stream.
We've been talking about this ridiculous story.
Cy Hirsch is laughing at them, but I want to switch gears and get into the Jan 6 tapes.
And by the way, you did a fantastic job on Tim Pool the other night.
Absolutely.
Congratulations, though.
I have to say, how many of those hoodies do you have, dude?
Like, it's every time.
It's not the same.
It can't be the same.
I have two.
It's, you know, I appreciate the Tim Pool thing.
Yeah, that was a lot of fun.
But all the stuff I wear is just for my foundation.
And like I said, we're raising money to give away to whistleblowers, to Jan 6 families in need.
Actually, ABC just today did a massive hit piece on my foundation for giving away money to whistleblowers and Jan 6 families.
They're like, Cash is in legal jeopardy because he didn't do X, Y, or Z.
This is exactly what, this is exactly what I was talking about on that stage.
And Michael Knowles came up after us and, you know, he understood the assignment where I said, you need to stop looking at hit pieces as something to be scared of.
Conservatives need to understand these are badges of honor.
If you aren't getting written up, are you even doing anything?
And I'll mention that to Media Matters, who are fantastic fans of this show.
So please go ahead and write this up.
Like we take all of those, we laugh about them.
We try to get you to write us up.
Do you even understand how this works at this point?
You are our free paid promotion.
And we thank you so much.
This guy at ABC actually followed us around CPAC, stayed in the breakout panels, and then took two weeks.
Actually, it seems like he took almost two months writing this thing up.
So I'm going to blast out the ABC news story on the Cash Foundation.
And then I'm going to say thanks for the new relaunch of the Cash Foundation and go buy this hoodie and go help us fund.
You think I'm going to stop funding whistleblowers?
I'm going to double down now.
This is the most silly thing I've ever heard it.
Are we going to stop helping Jan 6 families or active duty service members who are sidelined because of their beliefs in not taking the jab and things like that?
No.
Well, I'm just going to go more harder.
Well, let me ask you about that because we had that incredible moment with Ashley Babbitt's mother and we were able to give her standing ovation at CPAC.
I think that was just one of those special moments that just kind of happens.
But, you know, switching it back to the tapes.
So the Tucker Carlson access to the tapes, the tapes have come out.
It hasn't been a ton of footage yet, but what's come out, I think, has been phenomenal at what we've got.
But I want to ask you from your perspective, because you've got the legal mind on this because you've been in these cases, you've been on both sides of it.
What would you have done with access to these tapes?
So as, you know, putting on like my former federal public defender hat where I defended lots of these types of cases, where you score big usually is when you can show a Brady violation.
Is the government had a piece of evidence that showed somehow your client may have been innocent?
Not that it exonerates him, but just maybe.
And that's that word is exculpatory evidence, right?
And so, video footage of like you know, the whole scene that's pretty powerful stuff.
It's the best type of evidence, like maybe, I don't know, a police officer opening the doors, beckoning you in, and then escorting you down the hallway, right?
And then being charged with trespassing.
That's pretty, that's pretty good stuff.
So, I, you know, I'm glad some of the material is getting out there.
I think I would have taken a different approach rather than release, you know, QAnon Shannon or whatever that guy's name is.
I can never remember it.
It's too many, too many vowels in one short little area there.
But he's kind of a divisive character.
And, you know, he got charged with a couple of crimes and he got sentenced and pled out to like, I think, 42 months or something.
I probably would have gone with, you know, there's like 500 or so individuals charged with very low-level misdemeanors or very low-level felonies, basically just trespassing, like being somewhere they shouldn't.
And if you could have a defense attorney find video footage that says my guy was charged with this bogus trespass and incarcerated for it, and we actually have video footage, like you said, Jack, of the police officer saying, come on in.
That's the one I kind of would have led with because it would have literally shown the Department of Justice withholding evidence, lying to a federal court, overcharging a defendant, even though they knew he was innocent, just because they could ram him through the system.
That's the ultimate way to piecemeal through that.
But it's a big lift.
You have to get defense attorneys to go look at all this video.
You have to then have the gall to go into federal court and say the DOJ lied.
It's not easy to do.
I've done it.
You get attacked mercilessly for it.
But if you could prove that in one of these cases, I think that would have been a better route because more people who are less agitated on either side of Jan 6 could have said, oh, wait, look at that.
I think you're exactly right.
And by the way, I appreciate the fact that we've had so far, I've only seen two people actually in positions of power speak out on the fact that we still have these detainees that are behind bars, some of them without trial, some of them who are sitting there for, as you say, just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, taking pictures, taking selfies.
Norm McDonald had that great tweet up.
The great Norm McDonald had that tweet up about how the violent terrorists were abiding by the velvet ropes as they walked through Statuary Hall.
And the only people that I've seen speak out about this, President Trump, of course, has come out and said they should all be released.
And then President Bukele, El Presidente, down in El Salvador, they've actually said more about the Jan 6 detainees than any sitting elected Republican.
Gosh, what is going on with this party?
You know, wow, I don't know if I know the whole answer to that, but as a former federal prosecutor who did, you know, who requested detention of actual terrorists, I know people, you know, my concern is due process.
Did some of these people by the way, like people who are trying to blow up a police facility down in Atlanta?
For just, you know, just as an example, a total hypothetical that I bring off the top of my head.
Right, right.
It's just a coincidence, Jack.
These things don't happen.
But my thing is due process.
And it's not just the DOJ.
You can't have these detentions take place without the judges saying, okay, I agree with you, DOJ.
I'm remanding everyone to custody.
That's my problem.
What you're doing is trying to slow roll people into plea agreements because you're like, oh, you're in detention.
And, you know, we'll get to your trial in like a year and a half.
And now it's been two years.
I'm not saying all of them shouldn't be, but some of them should be released.
Can you explain that for everybody?
Because we hear this all the time.
Media says, oh, they pled guilty.
They pled guilty.
But again, they beat and beat and beat people.
They do this, do this with Jacob Chansley, the QAnon shaman.
They say, well, he pled guilty.
He pled guilty.
Why is it that they want the plea deal so bad?
Why do they push people into it?
And why do people eventually sign it sometimes?
Look, as a public defender who did probably thousands of cases and tried 60 jury trials to verdict, it's because it's the fastest resolution of the case.
And also for the defendant who you're representing, you're like, hey, we'll get to your trial in like a year.
Sorry, I'm going to work my tail off to get to your trial.
Or the government comes in and says, okay, six months jail time, you got to plead guilty and then you're out.
It's just the nature of the justice system, unfortunately.
especially when your client is incarcerated.
If they're out on bond, totally separate story.
They can ride it out, do their thing, live their life.
But most of these individuals on Jan 6 have been denied bond.
And I think that's where the crux of the problem is.
A lot of these judges said, there's two things you have to evaluate when you're looking at bond.
Which is totally unconstitutional because as you say, we have video of them not committing.
They're not using violence.
They're not committing violence.
They're the wrong place at all time.
It was a horrible misunderstanding.
Again, not talking about like the 50 to 75 people that actually committed violence.
By the way, many of whom who are still not even been arrested, the people who took down the barricades, for example, people like Ray Epps that were actively urging people to go into the Capitol, people cutting down fences.
Those have never been identified, even though we have them on video.
Well, he's an FBI source.
It'll come out eventually, is my opinion.
Because you don't need to identify your own assets.
You could break the law.
But that's my problem is this two-tier system of justice, whether it's Jan 6 or Hunter Biden or what have you, insert whatever, Mar-a-Lago, RussiaGate.
They've just created this multi-tier system of justice in America, and the judges have allowed them to do it.
They can't do it on their own at DOJ.
And we've got a judicial branch, not entirely, but in some part, especially the concentration in D.C., that for some reason has said, you could be a federal prosecutor, you could be a federal lawyer, a Democrat, and literally bomb a New York Police Department police vehicle car with Molotov cocktails, set the thing ablaze and destroy it.
And the DOJ will throw out all the minimum mandatory requirements, all of the rules, and the judge will essentially give you probation and thank you on the way out at the sentencing hearing.
Literally, oh, you're a good person.
You're a good person for setting a law enforcement vehicle on fire.
Who of the January 6th people that are detained in prison right now set a cop car on fire?
And Charlie and I are going to get into this very subject next segment when we come in, well, in the next hour, when he comes back and we're going to talk about Atlanta, we're going to talk about the exact same situation and the fact that they were using these tactics, these firebomb tactics.
But cash, there is another point here that I think people understand is that, and I'd love to see if there could be perhaps a congressional remedy for this or a federal remedy.
If you're a Republican or a Trump supporter, there's no way you get a fair trial in D.C. There's just no way.
Oh, yeah.
That's, I mean, look, we saw what happened to Sussman during Durham.
We saw what happened to Denchenko, anything related to Trump world, you're not getting a fair trial by this.
And then Bannon, Stone, Flynn, et cetera.
And the only thing, so look, this DOJ has masterminded jurisdiction in the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Jurisdiction does not have to reside in Washington, D.C. They've chosen that on purpose.
The only way to fix it is you got to take back DOJ and have an attorney general saying, you know what?
I found venue jurisdiction in Kansas, and that's where these guys are going or Texas or Idaho.
There's a lot of different ways to get jurisdiction established.
They just rest on the easy, easy button that says, we're going to do it in Washington, D.C. because it's Washington, D.C. Right, because I've sat through, I've sat through jury selection in these trials.
I was, I was in, in every single one of the cases that I just mentioned, with the exception of Flynn, because I didn't go to a jury.
I sat through the jury selection and it's just like lib after lib.
It just comes up on the jury, every single one.
So if you've got Donald Trump associated with you in any way, you're done.
There's no chance.
You're just done.
No, you're absolutely right.
And it's literally the destruction.
The flip side is the opposite, obviously.
It's the destruction of the jury system and the judicial process in the United States of America in 2022 and 2023, which I literally never thought we would actually be talking about.
But you have to have a DOJ that's willing to see that for what it is, like you called it out.
And they just don't care.
They're just like, here's our safety net.
We can build as crappy of a case as humanly possible.
And as long as we take it to a DC judge and a DC jury and we say Trump, they're just going to be like, you're dead.
Which ultimately, of course, that's what Merrick Garland is weighing right now with this grand jury on President Trump, which, of course, he knows that if he convicts, if he's willing to convict Trump in the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., that he will be convicted by a DC jury.
He will.
Yeah.
And I think you're right.
And I think there's some jurisdictional arguments there for the president, especially since he resides in Mar-a-Lago in South Florida.
And, you know, the events took place in Mar-a-Lago.
They'll say it was taken from D.C.
Schumer Protects Jan 6 Narrative00:05:17
Yeah.
So it was taken from the White House.
The White House is in D.C. They'll find jurisdiction, et cetera.
They'll find it right.
That's what I'm saying.
You're totally right.
That's the problem with this, these government gangsters like Garland and Ray.
I mean, you've literally read the book.
They do it because they can.
Now, Producer Andrew, you had a question for Cash regarding these Gen 6 tapes.
And I know people were saying that I've been stepping on your line.
So I want you to be able to ask the question, please, Andrew.
The floor is yours.
Glad you're learning your lesson.
Don't let anybody tell you that Jack Pesobic is not teachable.
I will tell you.
I may be Polish, but yeah.
All right.
So, so this started again, Jack.
You and I had a late night conversation as we're talking about today's show, and we were both surprised.
I think it's fair to say that we did not see more J6 footage.
And then you start contrasting that with some of the media meltdown that we saw.
And you saw it from legislators.
You saw it from Chuck Schumer.
So, Cash, I'm very curious to get your take on what you think's happening behind the scenes.
You know, Bannon's come out hard on this.
We saw tweets from Cheryl Atkinson, you know, alleging that there was backroom discussions and Tucker basically took the night off.
So I want to play this clip here: 66.
This is Chuck Schumer yesterday.
This clip went viral.
We all saw it, but I want to play it again and look specifically: is this a veiled threat?
And then everything that's going on behind the scenes with Fox with the Dominion lawsuit, $1.6 billion hanging over Rupert Murdoch's head.
Play cut 66.
Let's talk about it.
These lies continue tonight.
Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight now that he's seen how he has perverted and slimed the truth and from letting him go on again and again and again.
Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it.
Ah, so Cash, because democracy, you've got to take Tucker Carlson off the chessboard.
What's going on here?
It's Democratic, by the way.
Yeah, it's very Democratic, right?
Let's suppress free speech.
Extreme democracy.
So I think what, look, take a page out of Donald Trump's book.
Just keep it simple.
Simply, the characters involved don't want anything about January 6th out there to alter the narrative that the fake news media and the unselect committee have established, which is everybody there was an insurrectionist, guilty of treason and sedition.
And there's no possible way anyone was overcharged or is in detention that shouldn't be.
They don't want that narrative touched.
And what Tucker is doing by, or anybody is doing by putting out the videotape, is threatening, like we talked about in the prior segment, threatening the structure of that reality or fiction that they've created, in my opinion.
And then when you combine the legal efforts, even Rupert Murdoch's not, you know, impervious to $1.6 billion lawsuit.
That's a lot of money.
So I think they all get together.
And Schumer specifically knows the heads of Fox News, the board, the ownership, the new management team, they don't like Trump.
So they have an out to cast their fishing rod line there and say, hey, pull this down.
The reason, by the way, though, for the importance of the Jan 6 narrative and that why they freak so much out and that you can see the Uniparty really just spreading their arms out to protect this thing so much is because that's how they get away with essentially explaining away the color revolution that we saw domestically here in the United States in 2020.
They can get away with the George Floyd riots.
They can get away with Antifa.
They can get away with lockdowns, but not locking them down.
They can get away with the attacks in Portland.
They can get away with Seattle and the shootings and Chaz and all the craziness that took place there.
All the insanity of 2020.
They can get away with it by saying, don't think about that.
January 6th.
You must remember January 6th.
January 6th is the only thing that happened.
And all of the things that we did, including the military occupation and militarization of Washington, D.C., under which Joe Biden took his oath of office on January 20th, 2021, just 14 days after January 6th, it was all justified because of January 6th.
Even though obviously one happened before the other, everything that we did with the ballots, everything that we did with drop boxes, it was all done because of January 6th.
Don't you see?
That's why it's so important, Cash.
No, you're right.
And the political optics and the hypocrisy of it, you know, when I was chief of staff at DOD, when and now it's been proven unequivocally that Donald Trump acted preemptively to authorize the security posture of 20,000 National Guards, men and women there.
And Pelosi and Schumer and company refused it, but then flipped to the Biden inauguration and they wanted downtown D.C. to look like downtown Kandahar.
They cared more about optics than actual security.
And the only person that did care about security was Donald Trump.
He acted and they shut it down.
Trump Prioritized National Guard Security00:00:40
Cash, where can people go to get more information?
Where can they find your coordinates?
Thanks so much.
At Cash on Truth Social, at KASH on Truth Social, and the Cash Foundation, where you can get these one-of-a-kind hoodie and help us fund whistleblowers.
Forget ABC and the fake news.
We are never going to stop helping whistleblowers, Jan 6 families, active duty law enforcement, and military personnel.
Thecashfoundation.com is where I live.
Thank you.
All right, guys.
Hey, do Charlie a favor while he's gone?
Go in, subscribe to the podcast, leave us a five-star rating, and then give us a great review and tell them that you love when Pozo hosts.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.