Feb. 11, 2021 - Epoch Times
20:27
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Good evening. | |
| The second impeachment trial against President Trump is officially underway. | |
| However, new evidence has been revealed which throws a wrench into the narrative that President Trump incited an insurrection. | |
| Some of this evidence comes in the form of affidavits from the FBI which show that the Capitol breach might have actually been pre-planned. | |
| Other evidence came from Mike Meadows, who said that President Trump offered to deploy as many as 10,000 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. ahead of January the 6th. | |
| However, his offer was allegedly turned down. | |
| And furthermore, yesterday, 44 senators voted against holding a trial at all because they said it is unconstitutional and illegitimate to try a former president, which means that the outcome is pretty much already determined. | |
| Let's go through these stories together. | |
| This is your daily Facts Matter update, and I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times. | |
| Now, let's start today's discussion by talking about the impeachment. | |
| Now, to start with, according to Mark Meadows, who is the former White House Chief of Staff, President Trump offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. prior to January the 6th, which is, of course, the day that the Capitol breach happened. | |
| During an interview with Fox News, here's what Meadows said. | |
| Although Trump had been vocal about offering Capitol Police a National Guard presence at the Capitol on multiple occasions last month, his offer was rebuked every time. | |
| And furthermore, he said that,"...we also know that in January, but also throughout the summer, that the president was very vocal in making sure that we had plenty of National Guard, plenty of additional support, because he supports our rule of law and supports our law enforcement and offered additional help." And even furthermore, he went on to say that... | |
| That accountability needs to rest where it ultimately should be, and that's on Capitol Hill. | |
| Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we reached out to both the Pentagon as well as the office of the Washington, D.C. mayor for comment, but I've yet to hear back. | |
| However, a fact like this, that President Trump offered to send as many as 10,000 troops to Washington, D.C., is somewhat of a wrench that was thrown into the narrative that he incited the riot. | |
| And the entire impeachment, by the way, is centered around the allegation from the Democrats that President Trump incited the violence at the Capitol in a speech that he delivered over at the White House. | |
| However, besides the fact that he offered to provide National Guard troops ahead of the event, there is another growing body of evidence eroding the incitement allegation. | |
| That growing body of evidence comes in the form of criminal complaints as well as affidavits which indicate that the Capitol breach on January the 6th was pre-planned. | |
| Which, of course, totally undercuts the allegation against President Trump that he is guilty of incitement of insurrection. | |
| So what exactly is this evidence? | |
| Well, a number of FBI affidavits that were filed in support of different charges against people who breached the Capitol building show evidence of pre-planning. | |
| Now, by the way, if that's the case, as these affidavits suggest, then that would reinforce the argument against impeachment. | |
| Namely, that the people who attended the event could not have been incited by the president to break into the building if they had already pre-planned to do so. | |
| Senator Lindsey Graham, during an interview, he said it this way. | |
| There's mounting evidence that the people who came to Washington pre-planned the attack before the president ever spoke. | |
| And furthermore, Donald Trump Jr., he said in a tweet last month... | |
| If these federal law enforcement agencies had prior knowledge that this was a planned attack, then the President of the United States did not incite anything. | |
| Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we reviewed some of these affidavits, and they indeed showed evidence of pre-planning. | |
| For example, an affidavit filed in the case against Thomas Caldwell said this. | |
| As described more fully herein, Caldwell planned with a few other people, Donovan Crowell, Jessica Watkins, and others known and unknown, to forcibly storm the U.S. Capitol. | |
| Evidence uncovered in the course of the investigation demonstrates that not only did Caldwell, Crowell, Watkins, and others conspire to forcibly storm the U.S. Capitol on January the 6th, they communicated with one another in advance of the incursion and planned their attack. | |
| Now here, before we move on, I want to make a very special mention, that these people in that affidavit have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law yet. | |
| And we're in America, and they are innocent until proven guilty. | |
| But that's not the point. | |
| In these affidavits from the FBI, they are presenting evidence of pre-planning. | |
| Which, if that's the case, does indeed undercut the argument that people were incited to insurrection by President Trump's speech. | |
| However, regardless of those facts, the impeachment trial in the Senate is now officially underway. | |
| Yesterday was the first day in the Senate impeachment trial, and over the course of about four hours, House impeachment managers, as well as President Trump's attorneys, presented their arguments for and against the constitutionality of the trial. | |
| And in the end, all Democrat senators, as well as six Republican senators, voted to go ahead with the trial, saying that it is constitutional to have an impeachment trial against a man who no longer holds office. | |
| Now, one thing to really note here, though, is that in this vote, 44 Republican senators voted against holding the trial, saying that it is unconstitutional to impeach a man who no longer holds office, that the trial itself is illegitimate. | |
| So given that fact, by the way, it is highly unlikely that the impeachment will actually succeed. | |
| Because regardless of the facts of the case, you have 44 members of the Senate who think that the endeavor itself is unconstitutional, that the trial is illegitimate. | |
| And so they are very unlikely to vote to convict President Trump. | |
| And for your reference, by the way, the Senate requires 67 votes to convict the president, meaning that at least 17 of these Republicans would have to vote in favor of impeachment. | |
| Now, the Democrats made the argument for impeachment this way. | |
| Conduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president, in your second year as president, in your third year as president, and for the vast majority of your fourth year as president, you can suddenly do in your last few weeks in office without facing any constitutional accountability at all. | |
| This would create a brand new January exception to the Constitution of the United States of America. | |
| That was their argument. | |
| However, President Trump's lawyer responded by saying that the idea of January amnesty is nonsense. | |
| He added that, Basically, he's making the assertion that it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president. | |
| And furthermore, one of the attorneys for President Trump argued that the trial should be dismissed because Trump was not afforded due process in the House of Representatives, which voted to impeach the president without hearing witnesses, presenting evidence, or allowing for committee deliberation. | |
| Now, of course, in their defense, the Democrats said that they had to rush the proceedings because President Trump was going to soon leave office. | |
| However, the lawyer noted that... | |
| The Democrats' rationale for rushing the proceedings fell flat, considering that they delayed sending the article of impeachment to the Senate for 12 days after adopting it. | |
| And he went on to further say that... | |
| In other words, the House leadership spent more time holding the adopted article than it did on the whole process leading up to the adoption of the article. | |
| Now, one interesting part of the trial yesterday was when a lawyer for President Trump played this clip. | |
| Who I may well be voting to impeach. | |
| Donald Trump has already done a number of things which legitimately raise the question of impeachment. | |
| I don't respect this president, and I will fight every day until he is impeached! | |
| That is grounds to start impeachment proceedings. | |
| Those are grounds to start impeachment. | |
| Those are grounds to start impeachment proceedings. | |
| Yes, I think that's grounds to start impeachment proceedings. | |
| I rise today, Mr. | |
| Speaker, to call For the impeachment of the President of the United States of America. | |
| I continue to say, impeach him! | |
| Impeach 45! | |
| So we're calling upon the House to begin impeachment hearings immediately. | |
| On the impeachment Donald Trump, would you vote yes or no? | |
| I would vote yes. | |
| I would vote. | |
| I would vote too much. | |
| Because we're going to go in there, we're going to impeach the motherf***er. | |
| But the fact is, I introduced articles of impeachment in July of 2017. | |
| If we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected. | |
| My oath requires me to be for impeachment, have an impeachment hearing. | |
| He needs a scarlet eye on his chest. | |
| Representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against this president. | |
| It is time to bring impeachment charges against him. | |
| Bring impeachment charges against him. | |
| My personal view is that he richly deserves impeachment. | |
| I'm here at an impeachment rally, and we are ready to impeach, Bob! | |
| Now that clip shows Democrat politicians calling for President Trump's impeachment beginning as early as 2017. | |
| The lawyer then accused the Democrats of using impeachment for purely partisan purposes, and warned that should the trial actually go forward, it would set a precedent for the future, wherein legislatures could go after former politicians and officials based on the partisan whims of that moment. | |
| He said it this way. | |
| Under their unsupportable constitutional theory and tortured reading of the text, Now, if you'd like to read all these arguments yourself, if you'd like to see which senators voted to hold the trial, or if you'd like to watch the videos that were played during the impeachment trial in the Senate, all those links will be in the description box below this video for you to check out. | |
| And by the way, while you're down there looking for those links, take a quick moment to vote with your finger and smash that like button. | |
| You already know that videos that are like this, talking honestly about what is happening in this world, are routinely censored by big tech, or they're throttled, meaning that the reach is reduced by the algorithm. | |
| It's very cool. | |
| However, when you smash that like button below this video, you are forcing the algorithm, the same algorithm that likely suppresses videos that are like this, you are forcing that algorithm to share this video out to potentially thousands of more people, letting the truth be known far and wide. | |
| And now, by the way, this is a great opportunity for me to introduce our sponsor for today's episode, and I'll do so from the sound room. | |
| That's right. | |
| The sponsor of today's episode is a great company called Home Title Lock. | |
| And the reason it's a great company is that it helps protect you from fraud. | |
| The way that it all works is that the title to your home is likely stored in a database somewhere online, which is all well and good except for the fact that hackers, they can break into that database and download your home's title and then fake your signature on something called a quit claim deed, making it look like you sold your home to them, to these fraudsters. | |
| I mean, it's not true, but the bank doesn't know any better. | |
| And so then these fraudsters will then start to get loans against your property and basically suck all the equity out of it. | |
| And you won't know what's happening until you start getting the collection calls to your own phone number, right? | |
| And so common insurance plans, the bank, and common identity theft programs actually don't protect you against home title theft, but home title lock does. | |
| If you're a member with them and this ever happens to you, they will spend up to a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees to restore your home's title. | |
| And so if you are interested in checking it out, the link will be in the description box below. | |
| Or you can go to HomeTitleLock.com and register your home address to see if you are already a victim of home title theft. | |
| And then if you want to join their program, you can use promo code Roman, Roman, like my name, Roman, and you can get 30 days of free protection. | |
| Again, that link will be in the description box below. | |
| And Home Title Lock, thank you so much for sponsoring this episode. | |
| And now Roman in the studio, back to you. | |
| Now let's talk a little bit about what happened over in Florida. | |
| According to the sheriff down in Pinellas County, their water treatment system was hacked and the amount of sodium hydroxide, which is a substance also known as lye, was increased to more than 100 times its normal levels. | |
| So basically what the sheriff is saying is that some hacker got into the city's water treatment computer system and tried to poison the entire city. | |
| Now, just for your reference, by the way, these water treatment facilities use sodium hydroxide in very small amounts to control the acidity in the water, but it can be very corrosive if used in larger amounts. | |
| In fact, sodium hydroxide is the same chemical that's found in drain cleaners as well as oven cleaners. | |
| And according to the University of Florida Health System, poisoning through sodium hydroxide can cause breathing difficulties, it can cause severe abdominal pain, vision loss, as well as a rapid drop in blood pressure, and even potentially death. | |
| And so in terms of what actually happened, here's how the sheriff described it. | |
| This is somebody who is trying, as it appears on the surface, to do something bad. | |
| It's a bad act. | |
| It's a bad actor. | |
| This isn't just, oh, we're putting a little bit of chlorine or a little bit of fluoride or a little bit of something. | |
| We're basically talking about lie, that you are taking from 100 parts per million to 11,100 parts per million. | |
| Now, the water plant which was targeted is the main source of drinking water for the entire city of Oldsmar, which has about 15,000 residents. | |
| And so the way that this all played out, according to the sheriff's statement, is that the city of Oldsmar's computer system was remotely accessed at 8 a.m. | |
| and then again at 1.30 p.m. | |
| by an unknown suspect. | |
| A plant operator who remotely monitors the city's water supply, he said that... | |
| Now, the sheriff said that the people in the city were not in immediate danger, stating that... | |
| At no time was there a significant effect on the water being treated, and more importantly, the public was never in danger. | |
| He further added that even if the operator had not caught this hacker, it would have taken more than a full day for the contaminated water to enter the city's water supply. | |
| And now the local sheriff's office, the FBI, as well as the Secret Service are investigating the situation. | |
| And as of right now, no one has been arrested. | |
| And according to the sheriff, he said that it's not exactly clear why Oldsmar, which is a seemingly random small city in Florida, was the one to be targeted. | |
| Senator Marco Rubio, who is from Florida, he said it this way on Twitter. | |
| The incident should be treated as a matter of national security. | |
| And that seems to indeed be the case, because if they can hack one city's water supply, there are potentially many other cities that could be hacked as well. | |
| If you'd like to read more about this hacked water supply, that link will be in the description box below this video for you to check out. | |
| And now let's talk a little bit about Texas. | |
| Now, we already discussed in an earlier episode about how a judge down in Texas blocked the Biden administration's freeze on deportations. | |
| Well, just yesterday, a federal judge down in Texas extended that suspension of Joe Biden's deportation freeze by another two weeks. | |
| That basically means that for the next two weeks, at least, the deportations of illegal aliens will continue as usual. | |
| Now, the basic argument here is that the federal government cannot make immigration enforcement changes without consulting Texas. | |
| In his ruling, the judge said it this way. | |
| The irreparable harm that would accrue to Texas if an extension of the temporary restraining order is not granted before consideration of its motion for a preliminary injunction is more substantial than any harm incurred by the defendants. | |
| Now, by the way, that is a very, very legalese way to say basically that the judge extended the temporary restraining order by another 14 days because the state of Texas would face more harm than the federal government if the extension was not granted. | |
| By the way, the judge in that case is a U.S. District Court judge named Drew Tipton from the Southern District of Texas, and he was appointed by President Trump. | |
| Now, the broader context here is that last month, the Attorney General of Texas, a man named Ken Paxton, sued the Biden administration over its order to pause deportations. | |
| He asserted that the White House would be violating its agreement with the Department of Homeland Security if they froze deportations. | |
| And that's because the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, oversees immigration as well as U.S.-Mexico border-related security issues, and they require an 180-day notice to any change in immigration policy. | |
| Here's what his lawsuit said. | |
| Now, on that first day of the new administration, which was, of course, January the 20th, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo directing the immediate pause and removals of any non-citizen with a final order of removal, except as noted below, for 100 days. | |
| Now, that order would still allow for the removal of illegal immigrants who were either engaged in or suspected of terrorism, espionage, or those who were convicted of an aggravated felony. | |
| However, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, that order, that memo, would effectively suspend 85% of all criminal alien deportations. | |
| And here's how it was laid out in the Texas lawsuit. | |
| This memo affects nearly every illegal immigrant with pending deportations, including those whose removal was ordered following a full and fair hearing, and those who are not entitled and do not claim to be entitled to further immigration benefits. | |
| Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment, However, the story has actually developed since then. | |
| Separately from all of this, two days ago, the White House press secretary, she announced that illegal immigrants who are convicted of either assault or driving while under the influence will not be deported under new guidelines that were provided by the Biden administration. | |
| Here's what she told reporters: "The priority for the enforcement of immigration law will be on those who are posing a national security threat, of course a public safety threat, and on recent arrivals. | |
| Nobody is saying that DUIs or assault are acceptable behavior, and those arrested for such activity should be tried and sentenced as appropriate by local law enforcement. | |
| But we are talking about the prioritization of who is going to be deported from the country." And given that statement, it looks like the immigration battle between Texas and the federal government will continue into the foreseeable future. | |
| If you'd like to read that judge's full statement, the full lawsuit from Texas, or the recent comments from the press secretary, all of those links will be in the description box below this video for you to check out. | |
| And lastly, I'd like to mention once again that on the very same day that Joe Biden was sworn into office, YouTube made the unilateral decision to demonetize our channel. | |
| We can now no longer run any ads before, during, or after our program. | |
| And of course, the Super Chat feature has been disabled, meaning that we pretty much cannot monetize this content, at least via YouTube. | |
| And basically, if you understand, which you're likely to do, how independent journalism works, when you cut off advertising to an outlet like the Epoch Times, you are essentially doing what? | |
| You are strangling our reporting, right? | |
| That's exactly what it is. | |
| You can call it You can call it demonetization. | |
| You can give it some fancy term. | |
| But what it is, it's a stifling of the freedom of the press. | |
| When you cut off funding, when you cut off advertising to an independent media outlet, you are essentially outright censoring them. | |
| And so I would implore you to do this. | |
| I'll throw a link in the description box below this video to a page where you can subscribe to the Epoch Times. | |
| And I hope that you do. | |
| It only costs a few dollars every month. | |
| However, with a subscription, not only will you be supporting honest journalism here at The Epoch Times, but you will also have uncensored access to all of our reports, all of our investigations, and if anything ever happens here on this platform, you will have access to all of our video programs, including Facts Matter, Crossroads, American Thought Leaders, and all the rest. | |
| So I hope that you click on that link in the description box below, subscribe to The Epoch Times, and join us on this journey of exploring truth and tradition through honest journalism. | |
| And lastly, if you haven't already, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm. | |
| Subscribe to this YouTube channel so that you can get this honest reporting delivered directly to your YouTube feed while you still can. | |
| And until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times. |
Export Selection