Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 25, 2024 - Fresh & Fit

02:21:47

Andrew Wilson VS Destiny Debate!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to the Fresh Red Podcast, man.
	I'm joined by two people that I call my buddies.
	Good guys, contrary to what people might say.
	Andrew Wilson and Destiny.
	Today, I'm going to be hosting a debate between them on, was January 6th an insurrection?
	Okay, the way this debate is going to go is we're going to have opening statements by both parties for five minutes where they're going to identify their arguments.
	Their stance, who they are, introduce themselves to you, etc.
	That's going to be five minutes uninterrupted.
	Then we're going to have three minutes where each of them are going to be able to lodge their arguments for three rounds of that for three minutes going back and forth.
	And then we're going to have two rounds where it's an open five-minute dialogue.
	I'll be timing each round, staying as a neutral moderator.
	So guys, if you're not familiar with Destiny or Andrew Wilson, please go subscribe to both their channels.
	I'm cool with both these guys.
	Obviously, we don't agree on everything, but I respect both these guys as skilled debaters, and they're good colleagues of mine, so please go check out their channels on YouTube and on Rumble and all the platforms that they're on.
	DominiqueLiberal on Twitter, the PaleoChristCon on X? Just PaleoChristCon, yeah.
	Yeah, on X. So go check them out on all the platforms, guys.
	I'm happy to be able to host this debate.
	So other than that, we're live on all platforms, YouTube, Rumble, etc.
	Check us out at rumble.com.
	And Andrew, I will turn it to you to go ahead and start with opening statements, and I'll start the timer.
	Okay, I appreciate it.
	Thank you to the entire Fresh and Fit audience for coming out and to DGG as well.
	We're here today to debate if the events of the January 6th Capitol riots were an insurrection or if they weren't.
	Simple.
	It's a simple debate prompt.
	They either were or they weren't.
	Looking into the idea of insurrection itself, it isn't exactly clear what the meaning of it is.
	It does always seem to be tied together with violence or some will to overthrow a government law, government system, government itself, or resistance to that law, or something akin to this.
	The Supreme Court hasn't given us any guidance on this as they wash their hands of it, and to date, not a single person has been charged or convicted of insurrection who participated in any of the J6 rioting.
	This includes Donald Trump himself, who was acquitted of inciting insurrection.
	You would think, with no clear guidance of what an insurrection is, a lack of anybody being prosecuted for this supposed insurrection who participated, and a president acquitted of inciting one, that that would be that.
	The events of January 6th were a protest that turned into a riot.
	This is nothing new.
	Democrats do it all the time.
	In fact, Destiny in 2021 completely agreed with my current assessment.
	Please, if you don't mind, play clip one.
	Okay, we will make that available to you.
	Bills is going to roll it up right now.
	And I will go ahead and give you an extra five seconds on your thing.
	Okay, go ahead and play the video, please.
	If you think the majority of the people there were actually trying to do that and all they managed to do was, like, kill, like, one woman got shot by the cops, you're fucking delusional.
	I think most of the people probably showed up to protest because they were fucking mad and then shit got riled up.
	They were probably, almost for sure, I would say, some genuine bad actors there that had fantasies of invading the fucking Capitol and shit.
	Now, I think I heard from the FBI. I don't think every single person who went there, their goal was to destroy the White House or destroy the Capitol building and take it over.
	Because if they were, we would have saw way more shit.
	Okay.
	Now, just so you know, I have no visual on my end when those play, and I'd appreciate it if you guys could put the visual up on my end as well.
	Okay.
	In fact, Destiny even agrees such rioting and political violence is part of the democratic process, akin to voting, he says.
	He said this to justify the George Floyd or BLM riots, that such riots were just one side of the Democrat coin and baked in to our Democrat process.
	The tail's in, and just the other half of democracy, he says.
	Of course, he later denied this.
	Please play clip two.
	Okay.
	And we'll get this so that you can see it, Andrew.
	Give us one second.
	I'm going to stop the clock while we...
	Right now, we're two minutes...
	Hold on, Bills.
	I'm going to start the clock once, back up once, to be fair here, once the clip is up.
	Can you see it, Andrew?
	I cannot see the clip, no, on my end.
	He's gonna make it visible to you here in a second.
	Great.
	And I stopped the clock just so everybody knows.
	Bear with us, guys.
	We're using a million different things.
	OBS, Zoom, all this other stuff.
	Shout out to Bills in the back, working hard.
	Can you see it now?
	I can see something.
	There we go.
	Okay.
	Perfect.
	So we will roll the clip now.
	I'm gonna start the clock back up.
	Bills, go ahead.
	...a disingenuous sack of shit.
	Because, as I've debated you in the past, you started talking before January 6th ever occurred about how the BLM riots were justified.
	It was just the other side of the coin of voting.
	Of course, once you realize that grip wouldn't do as well for you when you were debating the Rittenhouse shit, you completely 180'd your position.
	Hold on.
	Did I ever say writing is the other side of the coin of voting?
	Probably did.
	That's a really strange statement, but I did.
	That's a really strange statement, but go ahead.
	Okay.
	Activism and riots are one side of the coin and the other side is voting.
	I don't think there's conspiratorial at all.
	I think that effecting political change like this is fine.
	That's part of the goal.
	Activism and riots are one side of the coin and the other side is voting.
	Okay.
	And we're three minutes and 20 seconds in.
	Go ahead.
	So why the radical change of heart on this topic from Destiny?
	This complete 180?
	Well, that's simple.
	He hates Donald Trump.
	A simple motivation, but at least understandable.
	He also hates Trump supporters.
	In order for him to justify that he wants them all to be unalived, he needs to brand them all as traitors and insurrectionists.
	In this way, he can build a case that Trump supporters are evil, and so it is justified to use violence against them.
	To recap that, Trump supporters are evil, therefore anything which happens to them is fine.
	Going so far as to say his friend Pisco, to his friend Pisco, the only reason he wouldn't have liked Trump to have been unalived...
	By this would-be assassin is because it would motivate Republicans.
	This, of course, gives us an entailment that if it wouldn't motivate Trump supporters, he would be fine with Trump having met his demise in this assassination attempt.
	And this is the last clip.
	Play clip three, please, and then I'll wrap this up.
	Okay.
	We're four minutes and 20 seconds in.
	I'm going to stop to watch while we pull this up.
	Proxy, 424 seconds, but I'm adding another five from the first clip, and we're pulling it up, so.
	So far beyond that, so far.
	Okay.
	I'll start the clock back up once we roll the clip.
	Can you see it, guys?
	Can you see it, Andrew?
	Oh, sorry, he's screen sharing it right now.
	Give us one second, we'll pull it up.
	Thank you, audience, and thank you guys for bearing with us here.
	Many things going on.
	We want to make sure that Andrew can see it as well as the audience.
	Yep, I can see it.
	You can see it?
	Okay.
	Bills, go ahead.
	I'll start the timer back up.
	So far beyond that.
	So far giving a fuck beyond any of these fucking losers.
	But go ahead.
	Can I ask you a question?
	And you don't have to answer if you want to.
	Yeah.
	Do you wish the attempt had been successful?
	Do I wish that the attempt had been successful?
	Fuck, am I even allowed to say anything about that?
	You don't have to answer that.
	Here's what I'll say.
	This is what I will say.
	A failed attempt is probably the worst outcome of anything that could have happened.
	I'll say that much.
	I disagree.
	I think a successful attempt, if that had happened...
	Well, actually, hold on.
	We might agree.
	The successful attempt would be an attempt at that point.
	So, guys, we just hit pretty much the five-minute mark.
	Destiny, if you're okay with it, I can let this kind of go on another minute or so, and I'll afford you an extra minute and give you six.
	Are you okay with that?
	Yeah, you can learn most.
	You sure?
	Okay.
	All right, then.
	So we'll complete this out.
	I'll time it.
	Whatever I gave Andrew, I will give to you as well on your opening statements if you're okay with that.
	Go ahead, Bill.
	Roll the clip back.
	Thank you, Destiny.
	Whatever.
	It might be the worst thing that happened.
	But if it was the worst thing, it was just because of the country's reaction afterwards, basically.
	Which is possible, yeah.
	So, ultimately, destiny needs to be able to provide us with what an insurrection actually is.
	An actual working legal definition or even a personal one so we can work off of that to understand the mindset of a person who claims this was an insurrection, even as nobody ultimately is prosecuted for an insurrection.
	He, to date, hasn't done this for the same reason the Supreme Court and higher courts won't.
	If they do define it strictly and categorize it strictly, then it's likely Democrats and even Republicans are engaging in them all the time.
	Non-stop, in fact.
	I am, in fact, willing to, in the ultimate spirit of good faith, concede that if destiny just can't really define an insurrection or tell us what goes into that category and not into the category of a riot, That he really has no business calling anybody an insurrectionist, especially when nobody's been charged with an insurrection in regards to J6. Nobody.
	And certainly not convicted.
	I will concede, however, if he concedes Democrats are likely involved in insurrections all the time, using violence for political change.
	I'll concede Republicans maybe as well if his definition is that broad.
	However, that will eliminate his moral high ground for the justification of do what you want to them because they're traitors.
	That would also make you a traitor.
	With that, I'll cede my time.
	Note in that video that the entire audience, when he was asked this question by Pisco, said, yes, we would have preferred that Trump was unalive during that assassination attempt.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, so I have approximately 6 minutes and 45 seconds there.
	Destiny, I will reset the clock and allot you the same exact amount of time to stay fair here.
	Let me know when you are ready, and I'll restart the clock.
	Yeah, I'm ready whenever.
	You ready?
	Okay, I'm going to start it now.
	I'll give you 6.45, and go ahead, brother.
	All right.
	I believe that the subject matter of the debate is whether or not January 6th is an insurrection or would be considered an insurrection.
	Originally, I thought there was going to be a 1v1 debate against me and Andrew, but I can do a 1v2 debate against my 2021 less educated self as well.
	I have no problem speaking to arguments I've made in prior clips.
	I have no problem speaking to current arguments made by Andrew.
	So we can head down that road.
	I think that the first thing that we need to acknowledge when we talk about the structure of the United States government is that the Constitution of the United States It's the supreme law of the land.
	The Constitution is what powers our three branches of government, and it sits above every other part of our government, and every part of our government must comport to the Constitution.
	I think this is a foundational American belief and principle, and if you don't share on this foundational belief, then we're never going to connect in any sort of meaningful way when we talk about how U.S. law or U.S. process or procedure or whatever should be carried out.
	So that being said, there was an amendment to the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and Section 3 of that amendment basically goes on to say that any prior oath-taker that has engaged in or aided in an insurrection is no longer allowed to hold office, essentially.
	Now, the question that we come to today is trying to define what is an insurrection.
	And while in modern times it seems like An insurrection is a term left to a dictionary or a term left to internet debaters.
	At the time that the 14th Amendment was framed, what was an insurrection was pretty well understood.
	An insurrection includes four vital elements.
	One is an assemblage, meaning a group of people that have come together.
	Two is resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	Three is you have to do this by way of force or intimidation.
	And four is it has to be for a public concern or a public cause, not a private thing that one might be interested in.
	Just for some understandings of when we say an assemblage, we can look to in 1861, Justice Benjamin Curtis said a combination or conspiracy by which different individuals are united in one common purpose.
	So not just a bunch of people in a city protesting different things, but a group of people that are united in one common purpose.
	We can look to Justice Samuel Chase.
	In the case of Freeze, in the year 1800, he says, if a body of people conspire and meditate in insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States, a statute such as the ECA, the Electoral Count Act, which is what they were united on January 6th to insurrect against, they were opposing the execution of that.
	They are only guilty of a high misdemeanor, but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, which we did see on the day of January 6th, regardless of if every member engaged in force or just one, they are guilty of the treason of levying war, and the quantum of force employed neither lessens nor increases the crime, whether by 100 or 1,000 persons, is wholly immaterial.
	Doesn't matter if you have an insurrection of 50 people, 100 people, or 1,000 people, you only really need two people there to make it an insurrection.
	Uh, In terms of whether or not they were resisting a law or interfering with the cause of government, we can quote here, An insurrection against the United States requires resistance to any statute or some public law of the United States.
	This is a quote by a judge in, I think, 1826.
	Curtis spoke this to a jury.
	He says, The law does not distinguish between a purpose to prevent the execution of one or several or all laws.
	An insurrection could be directed at a legislature as well as at executive officials.
	William Rall declared that an effort to coerce repeal of a general law to be an overt act of levying war.
	And Justice Fields' opinion in the Great House court case held that any effort to coerce the conduct of government constituted an insurrection, such as when people went to the White House, or I'm sorry, went to the Capitol to coerce Pence to overthrow the election, which is what Donald Trump told them to do.
	By force or by intimidation.
	Quoting Justice Marshall in 1807, the most comprehensive definition of living war against the king or against the United States, which I have seen, requires an assemblage of men ready to act and with an intent to do some treasonable act and armed in warlike manner or else assembled in such numbers as to supersede the necessity of arms.
	You don't necessarily need weapons to do it.
	You could just have the numbers of people there threatening to use force or intimidation.
	And then for a public purpose, obviously, the insurrection is to, I'm quoting Judge John Kane here, insurrections to redress by force national grievances or to form real or imaginary evils of a public nature.
	Obviously, they were protesting the vote.
	That's what they were there to do.
	This is obviously a public issue.
	So, to recount, for the Assembly, there were hundreds of people that breached the Capitol building.
	There were thousands that trespassed on federal land.
	For two, there was a clear resistance to the federal law.
	The trespassers were there to contribute the Electoral Count Act.
	There was a plethora of evidence brought up in the Anderson v.
	Griswold case about this, where, quoting the judges on that case, they said,"...substantial evidence in the record showed that the mob's unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the 12th Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election." The third element, the resistance made extensive use of force.
	This is self-evident just by watching any of the videos.
	To quote the Colorado Supreme Court again, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol.
	Obviously, there were calls to hang Mike Pence and people marched, very famously, with 1776 signs, which, as many in this audience might be familiar with, was a very popular insurrection in U.S. history, or a rebellion even, one might say.
	And then for a public purpose, it was obviously for the public purpose of resisting what they perceived to be as the stealing of the election.
	There are ways to try to counter this argument.
	We can either use nonsense definitions of insurrection, but that doesn't really matter.
	The only thing that matters was the public understanding and the legal understanding of insurrection at the time the 14th Amendment was created and when Section 3 was framed, because that's what the Constitution demands, that we look at what was thought of as an insurrection when the language was added to the Constitution.
	We can try to divert by talking about BLM or anything else, and I'm happy to dive into all of those examples.
	If we are going to concede on the original argument that January 6th satisfies all four elements of what I consider an insurrection to be, if we want to concede that and move on to analyzing any particular BLM action or whatever, that's totally fine.
	We can talk about the likeliness to work, of which an insurrection has never been defined as.
	An insurrection doesn't necessarily have to lead to the overthrow of a government.
	That would be understood as a rebellion.
	Every insurrection is not a rebellion, though every rebellion starts as an insurrection.
	And then when we say, this is a common one as well, why was no one charged with an insurrection?
	People can be charged or couldn't be charged with crimes for a variety of reasons, but for purposes of the 14th Amendment, nothing in there requires the criminal conviction of the crime of insurrection, only that an insurrection occurred and that one engaged in it or aided it.
	All right, and that is 6.40.
	Okay, so just five seconds shy.
	That completes the opening statements.
	Really good arguments from both sides here.
	We'll go into round one.
	I'll turn it back.
	So we just completed opening statements, guys.
	Each party had six minutes and 45 seconds to make their original stance and their first opening statements.
	We'll go to round one.
	I'll set the clock for three minutes.
	Andrew, let me know when you are ready.
	Yeah, I'm ready.
	Okay, timer is going now.
	Go ahead, three minutes.
	Yeah, so let's start with this idea of my definition.
	What the hell do I care about your definition?
	Nobody has been prosecuted for any insurrection by any definition.
	Destiny comes through and he gives us this list.
	He says, one, an assemblage.
	Okay.
	Two, resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	Okay.
	Three, by force or intimidation.
	Okay.
	Four, for a public purpose.
	He has just outlined basically almost every single political riot I've ever heard of.
	That is what that has outlined.
	So let's see an assemblage.
	This would cover a riot, a bunch of people assembling, resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	That could be shutting down roadways for commerce.
	That could mean anything.
	By force or intimidating, if you have Black Lives Matter, other groups like this who are out there saying no justice, no peace, that would be very intimidating.
	And then for public purpose, very nebulous, All of this is completely nebulous language.
	He has not actually given us a definition at all.
	By the way, if you could cam me while I'm talking, I'd appreciate it.
	He has not given us a definition at all.
	He's just kind of given us this loose, nebulous framework for what is or isn't an insurrection.
	So let's kind of dive into a couple more things here.
	He says people can or can't be charged for a variety of reasons.
	That's not saying anything.
	So what?
	Yeah, that's true.
	Maybe they committed insurrection and they weren't charged for insurrection, but also maybe they did not commit insurrection and that's why they weren't charged with insurrection.
	That's a non-argument.
	He says that these elements, third element, self-evident Colorado Supreme Court using 1776 signs.
	People use 1776 signs all the time and have absolutely no interest in any type of rebellion whatsoever.
	It's very common for people to have those as bumper stickers.
	That doesn't mean that they're going to be engaging in any kind of rebellion or insurrection at all.
	He also, as he talks about these various rulings, he says treason of levying war comes in.
	Obviously, insurrection seems to have something to do with levying war against the United States, or at least some type of start to levy war against the United States.
	He still has not actually demonstrated any of this.
	He's just given us this really nebulous idea.
	An assemblage resisting any law or interfering with the course of government proceeding by force or intimidating for public.
	This is very nebulous.
	So unless Destiny is going to concede that anything which meets this criteria is an insurrection, then I'm not even sure how to go forward with this debate.
	How in the world can he say essentially almost any riot on planet Earth Or any assemblage, even a peaceful protest where they shut down the roads, is an insurrection.
	That can't be true.
	That just can't be true.
	Okay.
	We ended there at about 2.57.
	Andrew, you're up on our channel.
	They can see you.
	I don't know if it's on your channel.
	Yeah, we're good on mine, too.
	Okay, perfect.
	I just want to make sure that we're there.
	But you are definitely up on, and whoever's speaking, I always make them the main person.
	So, Desti, I'm going to put, this is round one.
	I'm going to put three minutes on the clock for you.
	Are you ready?
	Yeah.
	All right, go ahead, brother.
	Well, I think my definition is pretty clear.
	There is an assemblage.
	There's a clear resistance to the implementation or the execution of some federal law.
	The resistance has an aim to make use of force or intimidation, and it's gathered for a particular public purpose.
	BLM almost automatically fails on the fact that these were not usually demonstrations against federal law.
	I don't know the federal law or the federal thing that was being resisted by BLM. But again, I'm happy to dive into any particular BLM supposed insurrection or riot if you'd like.
	But again, I mean, that has nothing to do with January 6th.
	And if you want, then you can see that entire argument.
	We can move on to analyzing individual BLM instances.
	But again, you'd have to show that there was some implementation or carrying out of some federal function for it to be an insurrection against the United States government.
	States might have their own definitions of state insurrections.
	I'm unaware of any.
	I think we're good to go.
	We can complain about people being charged with an insurrection or not, but whether or not somebody is charged with an insurrection, again, has nothing to do with the event itself.
	For instance, if I were to look and see at any number of BLM riots, if I were to look at a riot, would a challenge to that riot be, well, was anybody charged with rioting?
	If I could show you a riot where people clearly engaged in a riot, where there was a mass of people that were engaged in violent behavior that involved the destruction of some property or violent activity, but I would say, well, look, nobody was actually charged with rioting, would you say then that, well, I guess nobody was actually, or there wasn't a riot that actually happened?
	Nobody would make that claim.
	There's a whole list of reasons why a prosecutor may or may not charge for particular crimes.
	In this particular case, there were really good reasons not to head down that We're good to go.
	So, yeah, again, if there's an alternate definition that wants to be explored for an insurrection, then I welcome that.
	But that definition, it needs to comport with the historical and legal understanding of what an insurrection was.
	Otherwise, it's just meaningless, meandering, opining.
	That means nothing when we should be thinking, like, what was the definition of insurrection at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted.
	Okay, that's two minutes and 40 seconds.
	You don't want to use the rest of the 20 seconds, Destiny?
	Okay.
	If this ends up going into a whole bunch of BLM stuff, we can get to that, but that has no bearing on whether J6 would be considered an insurrection or not.
	Okay, so two minutes and 57 seconds.
	That completes round one.
	I will restart the clock.
	We'll move into round two.
	I'll turn it back to you, Andrew.
	Let me know when you're ready, and I'll turn the clock on.
	So I'm not claiming that this has anything to do with BLM. I'm doing an internal critique and saying that if you're going to apply these nebulous standards to this, then you must apply them to this.
	If this category, if category A over here, also would include everything which includes a riot, then we would need to know what the delineating factor is.
	He claims here there must be some federal element.
	However, that's not in his definition.
	His definition does not include any federal element.
	To go over his definition again, an assemblage resisting law by force or intimidation for public purpose.
	It doesn't say anything about a federal element.
	He just pulled that out of his ass.
	I don't know where the hell he got that, but it's definitely not in his definition.
	If it was, he should have said that that was in his definition.
	He keeps going back to this illogical idea that just because X doesn't happen doesn't mean X isn't true.
	Yeah, that's true, but it also doesn't mean X is true.
	So making the claim that, well, wait a second, Andrew, just because they weren't actually charged with insurrection doesn't mean they weren't guilty of insurrection.
	Well, that's nice, but it doesn't mean they were either.
	And I have the evidence on my side as none of them were actually prosecuted.
	None of them were prosecuted for insurrection and Trump was acquitted for inciting insurrection.
	So the evidence is on my side.
	He would actually have to demonstrate that this was an insurrection and that they were all wrong, that they were completely incorrect in not charging it this way.
	He just keeps saying, well, there's a variety of reasons why they didn't.
	Well, that's nice.
	Couldn't one of the reasons be because it wasn't an insurrection?
	Yes, that seems to be a very obvious reason, doesn't it?
	But going back to my opening, I just want to kind of point out that Destiny has changed his entire idea on this, whereas at first he claimed in 2021 this was in no way an insurrection, that it fit the criteria of a riot better from anybody who's looking at it objectively.
	I agree with him.
	That's exactly what it fits.
	But he still has not demonstrated at all that this was actually an insurrection.
	He just says, well, I have this nebulous definition.
	He also says, give me a counter definition.
	It's not my burden to give you a counter definition.
	What do you mean?
	I'm not calling him insurrectionist.
	You're calling him insurrectionist.
	I don't have to define for you what that means.
	You have to define for me what that means.
	Giving me these four elements here is meaningless unless you can tell me what goes in those categories specifically that does not go in the category for rioting.
	Because as I look at an assemblage resisting any law by force or intimidating or for public, that could all just be rioting.
	That does not really tell me what goes in the category.
	You didn't include federal anything.
	So I would like for you to actually expand on this definition so I can understand what the hell you're talking about and why the J-6ers specifically fit this criteria.
	All right.
	That is two minutes and 49 seconds.
	Destiny, I'll turn it to you whenever you're ready.
	And we are in round two right now, the bottom of round two.
	Yeah, so people, like, again, so there's two parts to the insurrection, two elements that I don't think would fit.
	So the first one is an assemblage.
	That would clearly fit a riot, I think, but it would fit a riot and it would fit an insurrection.
	The second part is resisting a particular law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	There are plenty of riots that aren't riots to resist the implementation of the law or to interfere necessarily with some government proceeding.
	We can imagine a million reasons why people might riot outside of a baseball game.
	People might riot in protest to a statement that was made or in relation to the outcome of a sporting event.
	There's tons of people that can riot that aren't rioting with the goal of resisting the implementation of a particular law or trying to interfere with the course of some government proceeding.
	So the part two, the second element I've listed really wouldn't comport with most riots.
	And then the third one is the third element by force or intimidation.
	I would say that riots generally have a forceful or intimidating aspect to them, although they generally happen spontaneously.
	Usually they're not planned in advance to use like force or intimidation.
	So to quote Justice Greer, quote, legal authorities carefully distinguished planned insurrections from spontaneous riots.
	Justice Robert Greer charged the grand jury in the United States v. Hanway that a defendant who was not leagued with violent resistors to federal law could not be prosecuted for treason.
	Greer insisted that spontaneous riots were not insurrections, that insurrections required a commitment to use force to resist law, not spur of the moment violence.
	Most riots just kind of like happen.
	It's pretty rare that they are planned in advance.
	And I think we all agree that if they are planned in advance, it takes on a much different character and arguably could call under it like different types of crimes.
	If people are, you know, engage in rioting, it's not good.
	But if people are literally planning it out in advance, we are calling in a whole bunch of different crimes there than just the simple thing of calling a particular thing a riot.
	And then for the fourth thing, when we say for a public purpose, the fourth element, this is the second thing that I don't think most riots would necessarily be in opposition to, that we are insurrecting for some sort of public grievance relating to like the actions of a particular government.
	So you might riot, for instance, BLM might riot against police violence, but there's not a particular federal statute or federal law there.
	In terms of me specifying the federal part, well, I mean, J6 was an insurrection against a federal entity.
	Again, if we want to talk about state insurrections or something, I guess we can.
	But the differentiating factor here is why I have the federal part is because we're talking about federal insurrections.
	And especially for the 14th Amendment, the federal insurrection part is what we're kind of talking about.
	I'm not even sure if you can do a state interaction.
	Maybe you can.
	But I mean, like summarizing this argument, like the Colorado court found that Donald Trump acted as part of an assemblage that he helped bring into being.
	He called the people there.
	Trump was resisting the enforcement of federal and constitutional rules.
	He was contributing to the 12th Amendment, and he was resisting the Electoral Count Act.
	Donald Trump, he took numerous illegal actions to prevent the peaceful transition of presidential power.
	This is like a function of the government.
	He engaged in an ongoing and ongoing course of conduct in reproducing vital resistance to the people's transfer of presidential power.
	And he was attempting to decide to support.
	Whether or not somebody's charge doesn't matter.
	That is time.
	So, what I'll do is, that concludes round two.
	Andrew, I'll turn it back to you unless you want me to give Destiny a little bit extra time and I can give you that extra time as well on the back end, but I'll let you choose that.
	Yeah, I'm fine.
	He can finish.
	Okay, Destiny, go ahead and finish, and I will add that to you.
	Yeah, my final statement is, okay, if you look at the Colorado Court case, they found that Donald Trump acted as part of an assemblage that he helped bring into being.
	It said that Trump was resisting the enforcement of federal and constitutional rules, that Trump took numerous illegal actions to prevent the peaceful transition of presidential power.
	He engaged in an ongoing course of conduct aimed at producing violent resistance to the peaceful transfer of presidential power.
	He attempted to incite his supporters to attack Congress, which they did.
	And that Trump's speech occurred sufficiently close in time and place to when and where the insurrection took place to be considered an incitement.
	Like, every single part of this, like, very easily and very cleanly meets the definition of insurrection.
	If we want to argue that my definition isn't clean or that my four elements aren't being met, that's—well, I don't know how we can argue that.
	I think all four elements are being met.
	If we want to argue that, well, every single riot would, you know, fall into this, then we could say, well, fine, Destiny, I agree.
	For your definition of insurrection, fine, January 6th was an insurrection.
	Now let's talk about these other events, and we could talk about whether they fit or don't fit.
	Or you can give me your own definition of insurrection, and then we can go from there.
	Okay, that added an extra 55 seconds.
	So we're going to round three.
	Andrew, I will give you that so you will have three minutes and 55 seconds to take your time.
	So I'll start at the clock now.
	Yeah, so again, trying to put the burden on me to give you a definition of your claim is insane.
	As we went through your definition here, it's really funny because I'm going to use your own logic back to you.
	Just because they weren't charged with an insurrection doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, they were actually charged with elements of rioting.
	So I'm going to say it was actually rioting.
	And I'm also going to say that, wait a second, your definition here seems to be more about rioting than anything else by your own claim.
	An assemblage would fit a riot, says Destiny.
	That's his first claim.
	Resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	It wouldn't fit rioting itself, says Destiny, even though rioting itself is against the law.
	What do you mean?
	Of course it's impeding the law.
	How could it not be impeding the law?
	Rioting itself is against the law.
	I don't know where the hell you came up with that.
	By force or intimidation, Destiny concedes riots require force for a public purpose.
	He concedes that's a riot.
	So really under his definition, this is just a riot.
	The only thing that we're arguing about here is number two, resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	Let's try this again.
	resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	A riot itself is resisting the law because it's illegal to riot.
	So I don't understand how that, again, would not just be a riot.
	All of these things seem to fall into the category of what people were charged with, which is much more along and akin to rioting than it is any type of insurrection.
	He still hasn't told us the distinction that fits in this category, why this isn't a riot, even though everybody was charged under that kind of branch of rioting and not charged for insurrection.
	This is a garbage definition.
	It's totally nebulous, right?
	And he keeps on saying, well, wait a second, Andrew, why don't you go ahead and concede that unless you can go against all four of these points, why don't I actually have to do that?
	All I need to do is say, okay, all these four points fit a different criteria better Than insurrection.
	And apparently he agrees.
	He agrees on.1,.3, and.4.
	The only thing he argues is.2, but his argument for.2 makes no sense because rioting itself is illegal, so therefore you are resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	Well, the government proceeding is to enforce law.
	You would be interfering with the government enforcing law if you're rioting.
	So all of these fall under the better criteria of riot, which is totally consistent in my mind because that was the criteria in which people were charged, not with insurrection.
	And I really need Destiny to answer to that.
	Okay, that was two minutes and 40 seconds.
	You still have a minute left, Andrew.
	You're going to concede that round then?
	Yeah, I'll let him go ahead and answer to it.
	Cool.
	So I will turn it back to you, Destiny.
	We're in round three, and this is the second part of round three.
	So your turn, Destiny.
	I'll start the clock back up for you.
	Breaking a law and resisting law are not the same thing.
	Usually when people riot, they're not rioting with the purpose of making arson or murder or whatever other crimes are being broken to make those legal things.
	Usually they're breaking laws not with the intent of resisting the implementation or the execution of those laws or resisting or contravening the execution of some function of government.
	When people were rioting on January 6th, the goal of that was to stop I think?
	And again, I don't know, we can move on this over and over again, but again, if I can show you in Kenosha, if I can show you in Seattle, if I can show you a riot, if I can give you a video of cities burning, people screaming and throwing shit, of property being destroyed or damaged, And then you were to go, wow, that kind of looks like a riot to me.
	I would go, yeah, it kind of does.
	However, nobody was actually charged with the crime of rioting.
	So do you change your mind on that?
	Probably wouldn't affect your opinion at all.
	Again, whether or not you levy a particular charge at a person is way different than whether or not a particular event was a thing.
	Remember, when you levy a charge at somebody, a criminal charge, what you're really saying is that you can take a person, an individual, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no reasonable mind would agree that something else could have happened in front of a jury.
	That's what criminal court is for.
	Proving that somebody engaged in a crime beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court is not the standard that we use to declare a particular thing a thing.
	You don't have to prove in criminal court beyond a reasonable doubt that a thing was an insurrection or that a thing was a riot unless we were charging somebody with an actual crime.
	Okay.
	That's 1.50 on the clock.
	So that concludes round three, and I'm going to turn it to you gentlemen, and you guys can let me know what you want.
	We can either do another round of three minutes uninterrupted debating, if you guys want to formulate your arguments a bit more, because I know there is some disagreement.
	I would like to do one more round.
	You would like to do one more?
	Destiny, are you okay with that?
	Okay, and then after that, so we'll go into a fourth round with a three-minute debate time limit where it knows interruptions.
	Then after that, we can get into the five minutes of discourse between you two where you can actually speak.
	Is that fair for everybody?
	Sure.
	Cool.
	All right, so I will go ahead and reset the clock.
	This will be round four.
	Take it away, Andrew.
	Yeah, so this is an absurd argument.
	We'll go right back to Destiny's logic again.
	He says just because somebody wasn't charged with X doesn't mean X didn't happen.
	This is complete and total obfuscation, by the way, because ultimately what's going on here is that these do fit the criteria much better for a riot, and under the purview of rioting, these are the types of charges which were levied at these people.
	Destiny says specifically, under point two, And he didn't answer to this.
	He said, resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding wouldn't fit rioting.
	Yes, it does fit rioting.
	It fits rioting better than anything else I can think of.
	Yes, you are immediately, upon rioting, resisting the law.
	And you are obstructing the law immediately.
	That is what a riot is.
	It's an unlawful assembly.
	So how he could say this, in fact, each point, he concedes on point one, an assemblage that would fit a riot.
	An assemblage would fit a riot.
	That's point one, he agrees.
	Okay?
	Point three, by force or intimidation, he agrees on point three that that is a riot.
	Okay?
	He agrees on point four.
	He conceded on that as well.
	And then he just conceded on point two.
	He couldn't exactly tell us why resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding wouldn't fit a riot.
	Of course it fits a riot.
	All of these, in fact, fit the events of January 6th perfectly.
	And if he's conceding that, hey, these fit a riot perfectly, the events of January 6th were a riot under this definition, which he essentially has conceded is true, then the charges were appropriate that this was a riot and not an insurrection.
	This could not have been an insurrection.
	His own definition proves that this is more akin to a riot.
	He still hasn't really told us, by the way, what an insurrection is, just these kind of four nebulous points.
	But these four nebulous points fit a riot perfectly.
	Perfectly.
	And he's basically conceded to three of them on the outset, and then on the second, he's basically conceded that as well.
	Because resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding would fit a riot by its very nature.
	The reason it would fit a riot by its very nature is because it's immediately an unlawful assembly.
	You're resisting the law, you're resisting the police, you're resisting, resisting, resisting.
	So, whether that's done at a federal level or a state level, I think it would still meet the same fate of being more akin to a riot.
	This definition really moves towards a riot and not towards an insurrection.
	He has not told us the distinction yet, and so again, I think that the entire reason he wants this only painted as an insurrection, even though nobody's ever been charged with an insurrection, even though Trump was cleared of inciting an insurrection, is so that he can make justifications for why the other side deserves what it It's because there are a bunch of traders.
	Thus far, no.
	I'm sorry, this definition or this logic adds up.
	The logic of saying, well, just because they weren't charged with a thing doesn't mean it wasn't the thing.
	Fine, but that doesn't mean it was the thing either, and by your criteria, it seems like it was this other thing.
	Okay, that's three minutes and ten seconds.
	I will make the clock the same for you, Destiny, to keep it fair.
	I will start the timer if you're ready now.
	Yeah, I guess we're just going to loop on these points.
	Resisting a law is not the same thing as breaking a law.
	If you could show me that there was a particular riot where people assembled, and the goal of that riot was when they were rioting, they wanted to riot to make rioting legal, and that they had gathered in order to change the law in a particular area, and they were going to use force and intimidation to do it, we're here to riot today because we're going to make rioting legal, then sure, then we could argue that that's probably an insurrection.
	But, I mean, these are the four elements that were historically understood at the time.
	Nobody had any issues at the time charging people with crimes of insurrection.
	Nobody had any confusion at the time historically.
	Maybe there was Shays' Rebellions, the Whiskey Insurrection, the Burr Insurrection, John Brown's raids.
	You had convictions of, you know, like a Pennsylvania farmer, I think, set fire to a house of a tax collector in 1794.
	He was charged with an insurrection.
	John Fries and friends made a show of arms that resulted in the release of persons charged with federal tax evasion.
	That was considered an insurrection.
	In 1847, when Hispanic and Native Americans attacked occupying American officials in New Mexico, that was considered an insurrection.
	In 1851, when Pennsylvanians obstructed official efforts to capture an alleged fugitive slave, that was an insurrection.
	In 1856, when there were rival forces in the United States that were violently resisting the laws on slavery, that was considered an insurrection.
	These aren't just like riots where people are like, We're mad and we're breaking the law by being violent.
	It was they were resisting the law.
	They were resisting an actual federal law claiming that that particular law shouldn't exist.
	They were trying to air a public grievance through force or intimidation with an assembled group of people in the goal of overturning that particular thing through violent action.
	And then on this final thing, there is a difference between resisting law and breaking a law.
	Just because you're engaged in a riot doesn't mean that you're resisting the implementation of the law.
	People that are engaged in riots aren't usually rioting to make riots legal.
	That's what would make that the equivalent.
	And then just the crime of X is not the same thing as the event of X. I don't know why we could send this.
	Nobody was charged with insurrection, therefore there was no insurrection.
	If I walk into a room and I see a person's throat cut, can I not say that there was a murder here if nobody was charged with murder?
	If I see 20 people setting fire to a house and they all run away and nobody gets charged with arson, can I not say that an arson happened?
	If I look on video and I see that there's 500 people blowing up, you know, some shit, and they managed to run away, or the cops, you know, can't arrest any of these people or charge them with, like, the formal, I guess, crime of rioting.
	Does that mean there was no riot that took place?
	The crime of X is different than the event of X. And right now, we're talking about if January 6th was an insurrection, not did any individual person engage in the criminal behavior of insurrection.
	That would be a separate conversation.
	If we want to have that conversation, we could, but we would have to first conceive that an insurrection did indeed take place on January 6th.
	And I believe that the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in good analysis and they decided that an insurrection had taken place because it comports with all four elements that I gave to an insurrection that were commonly understood in the historical and legal record around the time that the 14th Amendment was passed when they were putting insurrection in the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to prevent prior oath takers from holding office again who had engaged in insurrection.
	Okay.
	So that completes round four of the three-minute uninterrupted rounds.
	If you guys are okay with it, we will move on to the five-minute round where you guys are able to actually have open discourse.
	Well, I have a quick counter if Destiny wants to agree to this for the purpose of fairness.
	Are you okay with that, Destiny?
	I'm willing to do two rounds of internal critiques, and I'll allow Destiny to start with an internal critique if I can move to an internal critique after.
	So two five-minute rounds of internal critiques.
	Does that sound fair?
	What do we mean when we say internal critique?
	What does that mean?
	It means that I'm just here to answer your questions for five minutes, and you're here to answer mine.
	Sure.
	Okay, I'll let you go first.
	Okay, so just so I make sure I have this right so I can moderate it properly, is he going to question you, Andrew, and you're going to answer?
	Yeah, he gets round one, five minutes, and then I get round two, five minutes.
	Okay, so basically, okay, so it's essentially a Q&A between the two of you where, okay, so Destiny, if you're okay with that, we can do that, or we can go to just open discourse between the two of you where you...
	I think I feel like I'd probably, because I feel like...
	Part of my argument is going to be that he hasn't put forth, like, a positive position yet for me to even attack or interrogate, so I'm not even sure what I would do on the Inquisition round.
	So I feel like it would be better to just do back and forth.
	Okay, well, if you want to do back and forth, I'm prepared for that, too.
	Okay, but you guys are good with no more—you don't need any more three-minute rounds to solidify your stances?
	No.
	No?
	Okay.
	So I will go ahead and set the timer here for five minutes.
	I will—I guess who wants to kick it off?
	I can kick it off real quick.
	So, Destiny, would you agree with me that the motivation for demonizing the opposition political party often revolves around calling them traitors, accusing them of treason, and pushing for some type of villainization that they are against the country, they are against you, they are against everybody?
	For another debate maybe, but that's not at all any of the subject matter here.
	Well, I think it is.
	I think it ties in because I believe that the motivation for why you're claiming that the other side are a bunch of insurrectionists, though you have no direct evidence of this, and your own criteria is just that of basically a riot, that your motivation is just to demonize the opposition.
	Sure, but this isn't a debate over my motivation.
	I could be motivated by a hundred million different bad faith factors, and literally none of them would be relevant to this conversation.
	It could be the fact that the DNC actually paid me money to give this precise argument, and Kamal is on the phone with me right now, and it wouldn't have any impact on this particular debate.
	I think it would.
	I think that the motivation for why you're making the argument itself would have an impact on the debate.
	But I am willing to concede that if you just want to keep it to the material, we can.
	Let's move over to point two then.
	Point two, you say resisting any law or interference with the course of a government proceeding wouldn't fit rioting itself.
	How does that not fit rioting itself?
	Of course it does.
	Well, let's say, for instance, the purpose of a riot was because you felt like the law wasn't being enforced.
	It wouldn't make sense to call that part of an insurrection.
	Let's say, for instance, that there was a lynching of a person, and you felt like the cops weren't upholding their duty or whatever, and so you decided to have a protest that turns into a riot, and you all show up with the goal of protesting and rioting because you felt like the law wasn't being carried out here.
	You wouldn't really call that an insurrection because they're not trying to contravene a legal process.
	Just because, again, you engage in unlawful conduct doesn't mean that you're trying to resist the implementation of the carrying out, resisting the laws.
	That would be the same case with insurrection then.
	Insurrection would also require intent, right?
	Yes, yeah, correct.
	Yes.
	So the intent would be the contravening of the Electoral Count Act.
	When people say we need to march and make our voices heard on January 6th to the Capitol grounds where people are going to protest, they're protesting the execution of the Electoral Count Act, which demanded that Vice President Pence count the electoral votes.
	Donald Trump didn't want that.
	He made it very clear in the days preceding him, Bannon, Eastman, Chesbrough, and everybody else that was working alongside him, Sidney Powell, everybody else, was saying that we need to prevent Pence from counting the electoral vote.
	That was the execution of a lawful government function.
	Yeah, but even if all that's true, Destiny, it still wouldn't matter because the events of January 6th themselves, the intent of the people could have just been to riot.
	not indeed to commit to any sort of treasonous insurrection activity.
	And you have failed to demonstrate this time and time again, how this actually would meet the criteria of an insurrection.
	Them showing up...
	And just like your take in 2021, right, when you say, hey, look, the damage would have been way worse, way worse if they had shown up with the purposes of actual insurrection or some type of 1776 mindset.
	This is the most armed nation on planet Earth.
	How in the world can you say these people showed up specifically in order to do that?
	That makes no sense, man.
	None of that argumentation was sequitur.
	People very quickly obviously showed up to protest the certification of the vote.
	They were called there by Donald Trump on January 6th.
	If it's a non-sequitur, then you in 2021 were using a non-sequitur when you made the argument that from the appearance of this, it could not have been an insurrection.
	2021 Destiny was incorrect because 2021 Destiny didn't have the historical context to understand an insurrection.
	If you want to bring him on here and talk to him, you can.
	I am talking to him.
	You're not you.
	I am 2024, Destiny.
	I have learned more things.
	I have done more studying.
	I have read more papers.
	I've done more research on this.
	There is actually a strong understanding of what an insurrection is, and there was a strong historical understanding of what an insurrection is.
	And the idea that a bunch of people were called on January 6th, the date wasn't a mistake.
	When Donald Trump sent them down there to protest, when he said we need Mike Pence to do the right thing, what was he talking about?
	about.
	He wanted him to contravene the law, and that's what people marched down there for him to do.
	Donald Trump said 30 minutes before this began that this needed to remain a peaceful protest on Twitter.
	No, he didn't.
	He never said that.
	I actually have the tweet.
	I have the tweet.
	He did say that.
	In the speech, he said to fight like hell.
	And in the speech, he said that we need to go down.
	I'm talking about his tweets.
	Why would a person put out a tweet to be peaceful if their intent was insurrection destiny?
	Why would a person call a protest on January 6th?
	What do you think they were protesting?
	What do you mean?
	People call protests all the time.
	That doesn't mean that the purpose of the protest is insurrection.
	What was the purpose of the protest on January 6th?
	The purpose of the protest was to go out and show support for Donald J. Trump.
	For what?
	Well, there was a variety of reasons.
	No, give me...
	Wait, wait.
	Are you telling me we can't understand what the January 6th protest was about?
	You can't say no, no, no.
	Are you saying there wasn't a variety of reasons why people didn't show up?
	Nope.
	I think there was one clear reason.
	Oh, there was only one reason why everybody showed up.
	One clear reason.
	10 seconds.
	Correct.
	Okay, what is the one clear reason?
	There was not a variety of reasons.
	Some people didn't show up just because they wanted to see what was happening.
	Some people didn't show up just to support the president.
	Some people didn't show up because they really liked to go to protest.
	Everybody showed up for one reason, right?
	I didn't say everybody showed up for one reason.
	I said they were called there for one reason.
	That was to protest the certification of the election.
	Guys, guys, guys, that is time.
	I'm happy to let this play out longer if you guys want and add an extra minute to the clock.
	Are you guys okay with that?
	Yeah, we can add an extra minute.
	I'll add an extra minute to the clock, and this is still round one of the open discourse, but just try to limit it to one minute, and then we'll go into round two of it, and then we can go from there.
	And if we need more rounds at the five-minute mark, we can absolutely do that.
	So I have a problem with him ascribing motivation to all.
	He says there's one clear reason why everybody showed up.
	That's clearly not true.
	That doesn't even logically make sense.
	He could never demonstrate in a million years that there was only one clear reason why everybody showed up.
	That's a nonsensical argument, Destiny.
	That's not the argument that I'm making.
	That was the argument you made.
	January 6th is an insurrection.
	Not, did every single person on January 6th engage in the crime of insurrection, or did every single person on January 6th go with the intent to commit an insurrection?
	I said that there was a clear reason why people were called there, because there was.
	Donald Trump called people there to protest, not on January 5th, and not on January 7th, and not in a random part of D.C., and not in a random part of the country.
	He called them on January 6th to the ellipses that was less than a mile walk away from the Capitol building, which is where he sent every single person after his speech.
	He called them there on the day of the certification of the vote.
	That doesn't tell us their motivation.
	That doesn't tell us their motivation, Destiny.
	That doesn't tell us their motivation, Destiny.
	So then do you admit then?
	Do you admit then?
	No, I don't admit anything.
	Even if I grant your logic...
	They happen to do every single thing that an insurrection is called for without actually engaging in an insurrection?
	Guys, give me a chance to respond.
	Not only do I concede nothing, but your logic...
	We ran out of time on that round.
	So what I'll do is this.
	I can see that this is a dynamic conversation and clearly it's going to go out the bounds sometimes of a timed round.
	So what I'm going to do is I'm just going to go ahead and set the clock for 10 minutes.
	That completes round one of the open discourse.
	But I see that this is a dynamic argument.
	Me just stopping it randomly at five minutes would probably be stupid.
	So I'm going to let it play out.
	I'll put 10 minutes on the clock and have you guys go at it.
	Is that okay with both of you?
	Yeah, I'm fine with that.
	Destiny, are you okay with that?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Because I don't want to interrupt you guys again like that, so I'll just go ahead and put 10 minutes on the clock, and I will start it right now.
	You guys can pick right off where you left off, Andrew.
	Sorry about that.
	So to respond, right, and I'll be more charitable with the time back your way now that we have 10 minutes, Destiny, but it's actually an illogical argument to make to say, even if Donald Trump had some certain intent in his head, that would not mean that the people who were showing up for the protest had that intent.
	So the thing is, both ways, it's a double entendre for your own logic.
	Either one, you claim, wait a second, there's one clear reason everybody showed up, or two, no, there was no clear reason why everybody showed up.
	They had multiple motivations, even if Trump himself had a different motivation.
	This is illogical argumentation.
	I'm sorry, but this would never be applied to anything.
	If somebody says, hey guys, we're all going to show up.
	That's not an argument either.
	I'm making the argument right now.
	If somebody were to make the call and say, hey guys, we're all going to show up to go and blow this building up, and a bunch of people showed up, and then a bunch of them marched for the crowd, and then they all went and a building got blown up, we wouldn't say like, oh, well, we don't know what the intention of the crowd was.
	We don't know what the intention of the leader there was.
	We don't know what actually happened, because we can't divine the intention of every single individual person.
	That's a ridiculous straw man.
	We can say that's You can call it a straw man, but the idea that in order for me...
	Okay, hold on.
	What would I need to show then?
	No, no, no, wait, hold on.
	What would I need to show?
	There's no spurging.
	Let me respond to the argument.
	You can respond to my argument.
	You made an argument.
	Let me respond.
	And then you can ask the second argument.
	I think that that's fair.
	So when you're talking about this from a logical standpoint, when you say...
	Oh, if somebody called and said, hey, we're all going to blow this building up, yes, I would agree that you could probably ascribe the motivation to it then.
	Can you show me a tweet or any type of anything from Donald Trump saying, hey, guys, show up, we're going to do an insurrection?
	No, you just made this shit up.
	Okay, fine, so I can.
	So as part of Donald Trump's speech, I'll give you two quotes.
	Our country has had enough.
	We will not take it anymore.
	And that's what this is all about.
	And use a favorite term that all you people really came up with.
	We will stop the steal.
	Today, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election.
	We won it by a landslide.
	This was not a close election.
	The first quote.
	The second quote.
	We must stop the steal.
	And then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.
	When he says stop the steal, when they're at the Capitol building on January 6th, and when the election is being certified, what does stop the steal mean there?
	Wait a second.
	So, first of all, you're attributing to Donald Trump's rhetoric here something which he may not have intended.
	None of that actually shows or demonstrates that he was calling for an insurrection on the Capitol.
	You are just kind of ascribing that motivation onto it for the purposes of convenience.
	You have to show me there where he calls, like your example was, if I say we're all going to show up and blow up this building, that was your example, and then people show up and do it, we can understand their motivation.
	I agree.
	You have to show me where he says, okay, guys, we're all going to show up and do an insurrection.
	You can't then take words that don't say anything about an insurrection and say, but I think he meant that, though.
	So then just before I answer this, what would I have to show you to show that an insurrection was what Trump was planning?
	You would have to give me the criteria, first and foremost, of something which fit the criteria of an insurrection better than some other thing.
	And you would have to make it refutable to that thing from what people were charged under.
	So if the criteria is, I'm going to give you what I think an insurrection is, and it fits a different criteria better than an insurrection, and under that criteria, that's what people were basically charged under, then it sounds like the other thing makes more sense than an insurrection.
	So are we going with the argument that for X event to have happened, like some person needs to have been charged with the crime?
	No, your logic there is faulty as well.
	Then why do you have the second element there for me approving?
	Hold on, you can't just talk for 20 minutes and then as soon as I say one sentence you handle for another 20 minutes.
	You can't ask me a question and then move to another question.
	I can ask you a question and then ask another question as part of my question.
	Yeah, but I wasn't even able to respond.
	You gave two elements to what I needed to prove.
	The second one was that I have to show why people weren't charged with a crime.
	I've answered this thing 50 million times.
	We can center on justice on one point if you want.
	Just because somebody hasn't been charged with a crime of X doesn't mean that an event related to X didn't occur.
	This is Yeah, but the opposite would equally be true.
	The opposite is also true.
	Just because they weren't charged with the crime of X doesn't mean they committed the crime of X either.
	I'm not making that argument.
	You're using this argument as a way to negate my argument.
	Yes.
	It's called a counter-argument, yes.
	No, hold on.
	That would be like you saying, John couldn't have murdered Jane because John wasn't there.
	And then I say, well, no, that's not true.
	And then you're going, well, just because John was there doesn't mean that he murdered Jane.
	Nope, the opposite.
	That's not the element that I'm giving.
	Nope, the opposite is true.
	I've given you four clear things.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	The opposite is true.
	Would you like to give me an argument or give me a definition of insurrection?
	Stop, stop.
	Stop, stop.
	Hang on, hang on.
	The opposite is true.
	I'm not saying that—so you say, oh, John murdered Jane, but that can't be true because he also may not have murdered Jane.
	You're making the claim, John murdered Jane.
	And so I say, okay, that's your claim that he murdered Jane.
	Can you define for me what the criteria would be in which you would consider this to be murder?
	And you go, well, and then you define for me something that is not murder or fits some other criteria better.
	Would not a rational human being, including you, take that and understand, wait, if it fits this other criteria better, it probably isn't actually murder.
	What part of my...
	Can you give me an example?
	I'm just curious.
	And I shouldn't even engage with this.
	So just up to this point, you've given me no definition of insurrection.
	You seem unwilling to...
	It's not my burden.
	I understand that, but I'm just saying you've given me no definition of insurrection.
	No, I'm not going to...
	I'm giving you nothing.
	It's not my burden to prove.
	So my question would be, can you give me a riot?
	That's not my burden.
	Can you give me a riot that would fit all four points that I've given of what I've defined as insurrection?
	It's not my burden to do.
	Well, then you must accept my definition of insurrection.
	I don't need to accept.
	Why would I need to accept your definition?
	Because you're saying that my definition of insurrection isn't valid because it also applies to riots, and I'm telling you very clearly, no, it doesn't, because riots don't typically happen in a planned manner to contravene the execution of some government function or the implementation of some particular law.
	That's not what your definition says.
	I said it's resisting some law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	Yeah, so you're just changing your definition.
	I'm not resisting.
	Do you think that resisting a law is the same thing as breaking a law?
	I think that it could be synonymous inside of people's minds, but no, I could see the distinction with merit.
	But when you say resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding, that sure sounds like a fucking riot to me, Destiny.
	Okay, can you give me an example of a riot where that happens?
	Yeah, where BOM burned down a police station.
	That seems like it's resisting the law.
	Yeah, so that's – what law were they resisting the implementation of?
	The law of arson, the law of rioting, all sorts of laws.
	So you're telling me that those riots were trying to make it so that arson was legal?
	Can you point me to a tweet?
	Can you point me to a statement where somebody was saying we're rioting because we think that the laws against arson are – Can you show me in your definition where it says that the purpose of the insurrection is so that they can make something else legal?
	Because that's nowhere in your definition, Destiny.
	Resisting any law or interfering with the force of a government.
	Doesn't say anything about making something else legal.
	You just made it up.
	No, you're saying that they're resisting the law of arson.
	Nobody's arguing that the law of arson is bad.
	Just because you're breaking a law doesn't mean you're resisting the law.
	What's the or?
	Or for what?
	It says, or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	Would you not consider, if somebody interfered with the FBI, for instance, for that to be interfering with the course of a government proceeding?
	Or if somebody interfered with police officers, that that would be interfering with the course of a government proceeding?
	Police officers are not federal police officers.
	If you want to talk about interfering with, if you want to talk about, if you want to, where you are, because we're talking about January 6th.
	It's not.
	We have your definition.
	It's not required.
	Where did January 6th happen?
	We have your definition.
	Why would I be arguing about the definition of an insurrection in a state when we're talking about an insurrection that happened on the Capitol grounds?
	Well, then can you show me in your definition where it says it must be federal for an insurrection to occur?
	I don't need to.
	We're talking about an insurrection that occurred on the Capitol grounds.
	Well, then if it doesn't, it doesn't matter.
	So then any of the criteria which would apply at the state level would still apply at the federal level for rioting.
	It's the same thing.
	I don't know if insurrections are state-defined.
	I'm not aware of that in the historical record.
	Well, you can't have a state insurrection?
	I'm not aware of something.
	Can you show me?
	We're in a historical record.
	I'm just asking why you couldn't have one.
	Because I'm not aware of any having occurred historically.
	That doesn't mean you couldn't have one.
	You just claimed that it's possible.
	I didn't make a claim.
	Oh, okay, then no one is claiming here that an insurrection is possible.
	No, you are making a claim.
	You're making a claim on your four points.
	I am making a positive claim that there could be a federal insurrection because I have a historical record of there being statements about insurrections federally and historically.
	I've never had a statement about a state insurrection.
	I'm not aware of any of those.
	Yeah, but you not being aware of any doesn't mean that the criteria could not apply to a state insurrection, correct?
	That's correct, but we are talking about an insurrection that happened on federal grounds, so we're obviously talking about federal insurrections.
	Yeah, I agree, but your definition doesn't require federal anything.
	That's not what your definition requires.
	Okay, I think if the only holdout you have is that your definition of resisting a particular law just means that you are breaking a law, then I think I'm satisfied.
	No, no, it's not.
	Or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	This could be localized for non-localized purposes.
	No one here has made any claims about a non-federal insurrection.
	Okay, well, if those are your two holdouts that you think- Okay, well, what is or interfering with the course of a government proceeding mean?
	What does that mean?
	The record that I'm invoking, we're especially talking about things relating to insurrection, and we're talking about the invocation of insurrection, which is my understanding has only ever happened in federal law and in stuff relating to the United States government, not a state government.
	If you want to show me it happening or show me a historical record or a state constitution or a state criminal statute that references insurrection, then we can talk about that if you want to.
	What?
	What does or interfering with the course of a government proceeding mean, Destiny?
	Or interfering with the course of the implementation or the execution of some particular federal law.
	It has to be federal?
	Yes, because we're talking about the federal government.
	No, that doesn't mean it.
	Hang on.
	Hang on.
	So you're doing a classic kind of destiny bait-and-switch where you say in this particular case it would because that's what we're talking about.
	Okay, that's fair, but that doesn't mean that that's what the definition says.
	The definition itself does not say that it must be federal.
	It doesn't say that.
	Hang on.
	It doesn't say that anywhere.
	What does or interfering with the course of a government proceeding mean?
	What does it mean?
	Real quick, guys, that is 10 minutes.
	What I could do is, because I see that there's a discussion here between federal, you know, if an insurrection could be federal or state, I will go ahead and reset the clock.
	I think maybe this is something that we can kind of hone in on.
	Can an insurrection be, obviously we're talking about it from federal level, but can also be at a state level.
	Do you guys want to shift that conversation to there and make this run specifically for that?
	Are you guys okay with that?
	I don't know.
	State insurrection.
	I'm just not even aware of that even being a thing.
	I don't think I've ever heard of that.
	Were the DC cops local?
	I'll put the clock for five minutes.
	The DC cops were federal.
	No, all of them were federal, eh?
	The District of Columbia is federal.
	So they have no state police there at all?
	What state police would they have there?
	I don't know.
	I'm just asking.
	I don't believe so, no.
	I'm pretty sure even the National Guard there directly, like the chain of command goes up to the president, not a state governor.
	Do states have state governments?
	Yes.
	Okay, well, I don't understand why you couldn't have an insurrection against the state government by this definition.
	You should consult the historical record and come with an example next time.
	Well, just because you never have one, I'm asking you if you can.
	I'm not here to debate whether or not you can have an insurrection against the state government.
	Well, I don't understand that if your definition doesn't include federal.
	No, this is like asking if the murder occurred on January 6th.
	In that case, I would only be talking about murder as it's defined in federal law, not in state law.
	We're talking about an insurrection on whether or not January 6th was an insurrection or not, so I'm only going to be appealing to federal law or federal historical understanding of an insurrection against the United States.
	So I don't know why we're saying, well, what about a state insurrection?
	I don't know.
	I'm not even aware of a state insurrection as a possible thing.
	I've never heard that reference before.
	It's not semantic.
	It's legal and it's historical, and that's where the understanding is.
	No, I'm fine with a semantic distinction.
	I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it.
	I'm actually just trying to make one.
	So you agree that you gave me a definition that it nowhere includes the word federal, correct?
	I also didn't give you a definition that includes the word human, or that includes the words like in this present point of time and not like in the future or time traveling in the past, or that doesn't include like dimension C-138, or that like there's a million other things that I didn't include.
	Yeah, I don't know what that has to do with anything.
	Because why would I include the definition of against the United States when we're talking about an insurrection that happened on federal grounds?
	Because your definition of an insurrection matters.
	Okay, well, in that case, I will simply add on my second part.
	Aren't you appealing to a state court, for instance?
	What are you talking about here?
	Appealing to a state court for what?
	Aren't you appealing to a state court for this definition?
	Isn't that what you said?
	Did I get that wrong?
	Right now I'm appealing to federal history.
	What are you talking about?
	Well, I'm asking, where did you get this definition?
	Let's start with that.
	There is a writer who studied—I think it was constitutional law specializing in the 14th Amendment.
	His name is Mark Graber, and these are the four qualifications that he basically lists out, and then he goes through a number of historical examples to say as much.
	There's also a much longer paper written about the—I think it's like the sweeping power of Section 3, written by, I think, Baud and Paulson, who write like a 130-page paper where they go through listing the historical understanding of insurrection.
	Does he say in this paper that it's a requirement that this be done at the federal level?
	I don't think anybody talks about state insurrections.
	I don't think you can levy war or engage in insurrection against a state.
	I'm just not aware of that.
	I've never heard of that brought up before.
	Yeah, but I'm just asking.
	For instance, when you say treason, if I were to give you a definition of treason, I don't know if you can commit treason against the state of Iowa.
	I think that's only a federal crime.
	I have no idea either.
	That's why I'm asking.
	Well, I can't say for sure because maybe there is evidence of it out there, but I didn't know how to debate that because there's a debate about federal insurrection.
	All I'm doing is doing an internal critique to try to figure out if this is consistent across the board, your definition.
	I'm not even saying that there's necessarily anything wrong with it.
	But what I am saying is that there's something wrong with the fact that it seems to fit rioting far better than it would an insurrection.
	So if we go over these one at a time, an assemblage would fit a riot.
	That's what destiny says.
	by force or intimidation fits a riot, that's what Destiny says.
	I don't know.
	Well, it's an assemblage of people for a common purpose.
	An assemblage of people, yes.
	So they've come for a common purpose, okay?
	And then two is to resist any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding, right?
	Resisting a law.
	That's not just breaking a law, but you're there to resist a particular law.
	There's one you really don't like.
	And then three, you're showing up.
	Yeah, but we have the or there.
	We have the or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	Wouldn't that be even resisting police?
	Wouldn't that qualify?
	No, a government proceeding would be like the Senate confirming an officer of the executive agency.
	You would have to demonstrate that.
	I don't believe that that's true.
	I think that you can interfere with government proceedings, even absent there being some actual proceeding that you're interfering with.
	I think that this could be done with just localized laws.
	That's fine.
	And if you would like to introduce your own definition of insurrection, you can do that.
	Because I'm unaware in the historical record of anybody suggesting that interfering with police officers is a matter of insurrection or can lead to an element of insurrection.
	Are there laws against rioting?
	I don't know.
	I'm not sure.
	I know there's laws against things that happen in rioting.
	I don't know if there's a law of rioting.
	Are you resisting those laws when you're rioting?
	No.
	You're not resisting those laws when you're rioting?
	No, unless you're literally rioting to say we should make rioting legal or we need to get rid of the prohibition on rioting.
	And that is five minutes.
	Why would that be a qualification to resist the laws?
	Because breaking the law and resist...
	Do you acknowledge that breaking the law and resisting the law are not the same thing?
	Well, tell me what the distinction is so I'm not confused anymore.
	Breaking the law is when you do something that's illegal, and resisting the law is saying that this particular law shouldn't exist.
	Yeah, okay, but if you're rioting, how do you go about resisting a law?
	Well, you could riot for the purpose of overturning a particular law.
	Yeah, but you're resisting other laws then, right?
	No, you're not saying that rioting should be made legal.
	Yeah, but even if you weren't, you would still be resisting laws that were on the books against rioting.
	So if I can't divorce—okay, we can just disagree here.
	Do you think that resisting and breaking the law are the same thing?
	I didn't say that they're the same thing.
	I said that necessarily if you're rioting to resist some other external law.
	So let's say I think that there's some— Hold on.
	Do you agree that you can engage in rioting and accept that you might get arrested for rioting?
	Yeah.
	Then that defeats your entire argument.
	You can engage in rioting without resisting the law of rioting.
	Actually, that makes my argument.
	That makes my argument.
	So the thing is, is that even if I concede that it's true, that you could be rioting with the expectation that you get arrested for this X thing, right?
	You could do this for murder as well.
	You could do this for basically anything.
	You could commit any crime with the expectation that you could be arrested for the crime itself.
	But that would not say that you're not resisting rioting.
	Whatever the current laws were that were on the books about that crime.
	You're saying that the necessity here is that you are resisting some other thing.
	Fine.
	But you're also resisting laws by the very nature of rioting.
	So I don't know why you would have to have something which is externalized while you yourself are still breaking laws.
	How are you resisting the law?
	How are you resisting laws of rioting by rioting?
	What does resist mean to you?
	I can give you an example of this.
	Let us assume for a second that people are rioting in an abortion clinic because they want abortion overturned.
	I think this is the spirit of your argument, right?
	So they're rioting in an abortion clinic.
	They want abortion to be overturned.
	You would agree with me then that they are pushing against abortion, but they're still breaking laws while they're rioting, right?
	So they are resisting current laws, even though they're resisting another current law.
	And I don't think that you would consider that to be an insurrection, even though it could fit all of the criteria of these elements.
	It's an assemblage, for sure.
	You're resisting some other law that you don't like, or you're interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
	You would say that that fits criteria, too.
	You would say that this is by force or intimidation, and you would say it's for a public purpose.
	But that clearly is not an insurrection, Destiny.
	The issue is that abortion is not like, this isn't a federal law.
	I could just grant you that and we can move to the state example since you seem unable or unwilling to differentiate between state or federal law.
	Let's assume for a second that it was.
	Let's assume for a second it was a federal law.
	Okay, you know what?
	Actually, we can do that.
	Let's say that the federal government passed a law either allowing or not allowing all abortion.
	The government either allows it, everybody can have an abortion whenever they want, or nobody can have an abortion.
	Let's say that I gather a group of people and I say, listen, fuck this abortion law.
	We're all going to get together and we're going to go protest.
	And we're protesting.
	The goal of our protest is we want to get rid of The abortion thing, whether it was pastor or made illegal, okay?
	We want to get rid of this law.
	And we're going to show up with a whole bunch of fucking people, and shit's going to get ratty, and we're going to, you know, we know what we're doing, okay?
	It's a day in Capitol Hill that they're going to sign the law into whatever.
	We march down there, and in the course of protesting, like, it becomes a riot, and the riot and everything there was because of that particular law being signed into practice.
	I would say, yeah, that was an insurrection.
	You've shown up with a group of people.
	You're resisting the passage of some particular law.
	You're showing up through force or intimidation, and you end up exercising that, and then it's for the public purpose of a particular law that impacts everybody in the United States.
	I would say that is an insurrection, yes.
	Would you say it's not?
	Would you say that's not an insurrection?
	Yeah, I would say that it would not be an insurrection, at least by this criteria.
	That would just seem to me, again, to be a riot.
	That would seem to fit the criteria, again, of a riot better than an insurrection.
	I still can't exactly figure out the delineation point, and I'm trying to.
	Now, to be fair to you, it is nebulous.
	I understand it's nebulous, but I'm also not the one who's making the affirmative claim you are.
	So you're saying that if a bunch of fucking dope-smoking hippies wanted to resist the federal law of being able to smoke marijuana on federal land, and they all showed up and they got stoned, and then they started rioting, that that would be a fucking insurrection?
	If they went there with a common purpose, they were trying to resist the implementation and execution of a particular law.
	Yeah, theoretically it could.
	Well, no, they're just resisting, right?
	They're just resisting a law.
	They're saying we're here to protest the fact, man, that we can't smoke weed on federal property, man.
	So they all grab their blunts and they start toking up in protest.
	Ten seconds.
	Ten seconds.
	Hang on, I just want to make sure.
	You think that that would be an insurrection?
	The historical record, it could be yes.
	Do you have any definition of insurrection whatsoever?
	I don't need to give you a counter-definition.
	If you're not going to give me a counter-definition, the riot definition doesn't include necessarily a public purpose.
	I've already given examples of riots that wouldn't fit my definition of insurrection, and I really only need to give one and I automatically win.
	A riot could very much be in response to a particular sports team winning a game.
	Boom.
	That's an example of a riot.
	It doesn't fit my definition of insurrection.
	I've differentiated the two, and unless you're going to give me any countervailing definitions, I automatically satisfy that element of my claim.
	Yeah, but I already did.
	We're interfering with the course of a government proceeding in and of itself.
	I think that the necessity of rioting in and of itself...
	What if you blockade a federal highway?
	Wait, the necessity of rioting in and of itself?
	Wait, what?
	Hold on, wait a minute.
	To be clear, do you acknowledge that I just gave you an example of a riot that wouldn't be an insurrection under my definitions?
	So I think that that would even be appropriate.
	I think that you could give me tons of definitions of riots that would not fit this definition of an insurrection, but that would not mean that this definition doesn't fit the definition of riot better than insurrection.
	You understand?
	Wait, so if somebody was protesting and it got really violent after a sports game, how would my definition fit that better than insurrection?
	What if they were blockading a federal highway?
	Would that be interfering with the course of government proceedings because there's a federal law that says you can't blockade byways on federal highways?
	I mean, this is the thing.
	I don't know.
	I don't think that counts as a proceeding.
	Do you see what I mean, though?
	This becomes so broad that we can begin to just add all sorts of things and call them insurrections.
	What is the government proceeding?
	Let me give you an example.
	So if we're going to be totally good faith here, which I've been trying to be this entire debate, and I think you would concede that, if we're going to be really good faith here, Do you really believe that if a bunch of hippies showed up to smoke a bunch of dope on federal property, okay,
	and a few of them got wild and started a fire and kicked some shit, right, and fucking, I don't know, somebody got beat up with a bat because there was tens of thousands of them who showed up for that protest, do you really believe that that would fit the criteria of what most people think of, including you, as an insurrection?
	If they didn't go, they're united by a particular public purpose.
	The public purpose was they were going against this federal law.
	They don't want the federal law.
	They're resisting that federal law.
	So we don't have to waste more time on this.
	If you want to stack this enough, all I'm going to end up doing is saying that, yes, I would agree that this would be an insurrection.
	You're not able to demonstrate.
	This is why I'm asking you historically, can you give me an example of an event that you don't think I would want to classify as an insurrection?
	I don't think I need to.
	But if you're just going to give me examples, but you're just going to need to build these events more and more.
	I'm going to give you the ultimate example right now.
	Yeah, I would say that was an insurrection.
	Nobody in good faith anywhere is going to agree with you that if a bunch of hippies showed up to resist the marijuana law on federal property and then a few of them started a riot, that they would consider that insurrection against the United States.
	I don't believe you believe it.
	I don't believe your audience believes it.
	I don't believe anybody believes it.
	So if that is the case, that it's so broad that that will encapsulate that, I'm actually fine leaving the debate there too.
	Okay.
	I mean, again, it doesn't really matter what we would consider to be an insurrection.
	The only thing that really matters is what the historical record says at the time was considered an insurrection.
	Yeah, well, I don't know.
	Because nobody's prosecuting anybody for it, so...
	You don't have to...
	Well, you're just retreading.
	Technically, I think this might be a gish gala when you keep bringing up arguments that have been rebuked over and over and over again.
	I don't think it was gish gala.
	But again, we agree that we can walk in and see, wow, this person was murdered, and go, oh really?
	Who was charged with murder?
	Okay, fuck.
	Or wow, wow, there sure is a riot here.
	We saw that a riot happened.
	Well, who was charged with rioting?
	Well, fuck, I guess.
	You don't need a charge of a particular crime, and the barrier or the bar for charging somebody with a particular crime is probably a lot higher than declaring an event a thing itself.
	It doesn't make any sense to say because somebody hasn't been charged with a particular thing.
	It also doesn't make any sense to say that because they haven't been charged with a particular thing, that means they're guilty of the particular thing either.
	That's the law in that argument.
	I've pointed it out multiple times.
	My criteria is not— It doesn't actually flow with this correctly.
	My criteria is not because they weren't charged.
	That's why it was an insurrection.
	I would never use that as part of my criteria.
	Yeah, well, hippies everywhere.
	Don't show up to federal property to protest by smoking weed.
	Because if a couple of you start a fire, you're going to get brought up on insurrection charges that nobody ever.
	That's insane.
	I don't know why we keep bringing up insurrection charges.
	No one's talking about a criminal charge or a criminal proceeding here.
	Yeah, criminal charge or criminal proceeding.
	That would be a charge, right?
	Yeah, nobody's talking about that here.
	Nobody's talking about criminal charges here or criminal proceedings here.
	But you would still consider that an insurrection, right?
	An insurrection doesn't have to be a criminal matter.
	I just want to make sure that you would still consider that an insurrection.
	If all four elements of what I said were met, then yes.
	All right, fine.
	Well, then I'll leave the debate there.
	I'm good with that.
	So what I'll do, so we went seven rounds here, and I was just timing it and everything else like that.
	I see that there's obviously a difference of opinion and definitions of what fits what, etc.
	So what I'll do is I'll go to closing arguments.
	I'll put, are you both okay with three minutes on the clock to make your closing argument?
	Sure.
	Or I can make it a little bit longer if you guys want, and then we can close that after that.
	Yeah, whatever you guys want to do, I'm fine with it.
	Are you okay with three or do you want more?
	Three is probably fine.
	Three minutes?
	Okay.
	Who wants to go first?
	Well, I open first, so usually the person who opens closes last.
	Okay.
	So, Destiny, I'll turn it to you.
	I'll put three minutes on the clock, and you can put your closing arguments here.
	And this was a fantastic discussion, obviously.
	You know you have a good debate when the chat is like, you know, almost 50-50.
	So, I'll go ahead and turn it to you, Destiny, and you can give us your closing arguments, and then I'll go turn it to Andrew.
	Yeah, I mean, historically, there have been examples of things that were considered insurrections that were incredibly small in nature, right?
	I don't know if anybody died at all in the Whiskey Rebellion.
	I'm pretty sure everybody that got arrested for that was, like, acquitted.
	It was just people basically essentially protesting the whiskey tax laws.
	This wasn't a massive deal that had, like, explosions and gunfire and deaths everywhere.
	I think that we just don't tend to view things as insurrections as much anymore because we don't tend to have insurrections as much anymore because that's kind of become the new norm as the United States has traveled through or journeyed through time.
	I think that the four elements that I gave, I think, were pretty clearly met on January 6th.
	I think I've demonstrated that we can imagine a ton of events that are riots that wouldn't fit the four elements.
	I understand that Andrew has a really hard time understanding the industry resisting the law versus just breaking the law.
	Just because somebody goes out and they engage in rioting doesn't mean that they are trying to resist the law of rioting, that they're trying to make it so that rioting is legal.
	That's the goal of that particular riot.
	Oftentimes, riots can be said to come together to protest other types of things where people feel like the law isn't being executed in a reasonable manner.
	To say that a bunch of people that show up and end up rioting as a result of a protest that's against, say, a cop they feel like wasn't fairly prosecuted is the same as a bunch of people showing up to resist the certification of the vote as laid out in the Electoral Count Act is just not at all the same thing.
	But we can continue to misread the second element of this, and I understand why.
	And that's because if you grant the definition or any definition of insurrection, January 6th almost certainly follows from it.
	And the only way to escape January 6th as being labeled as an insurrection is to use either a ridiculous type of definition that literally nobody historically has ever agreed to.
	And again, you will never find historical citations, people that use these very unique and contrived definitions of insurrection.
	people that use these very unique and contrived definitions of insurrection, or you set the bar of evidence as being unbelievably high, which is saying something like Donald Trump needed to say, hey, everybody, we're going to go do an insurrection.
	Or you set the bar of evidence as being unbelievably high, which is saying something like Donald Trump needed to say, hey, everybody, we're going to go do an insurrection.
	And absent that, even if he's telling people to fight like hell, even if he's tweeting the day before, Vice President Pence has the ability to overturn the election, even if he's saying like, you know, we need to go down and march and fight like hell and take our country back, none of these things are going to matter if they don't actually use the word insurrection, which I guess means there's no such thing as an insurrection ever having, having occurred in all of his history.
	I would say that if you argue with somebody who doesn't believe in a particular definition of insurrection, ask them, has any insurrection ever occurred ever?
	Which would you consider an insurrection?
	And then once they start to consider something as an insurrection, say, hey, well, what are the elements that make this an insurrection?
	Or even more, you could say historically, what have judges and lawmakers considered an insurrection?
	People like Andrew will never do that.
	Instead, they will just play word games all day and try to say, well, riots fit.
	And what about states and all these other things aren't really relevant to defining an insurrection, which, however you define it, January 6th clearly was.
	All right, okay.
	That was two minutes and 30 seconds.
	I will turn it to you, Andrew, to make your closing arguments.
	And then, Andrew, from what I understand, you wanted to open up the phone lines, right, and have a discussion with the people after?
	Yeah, I'm fine with that.
	Even if Destiny has other places to go, I'm willing to stick around for call-ins.
	I've always done that on the Crucible.
	Sure.
	Right now as we speak, Bill's is firing up the phone line, so we'll get that phone number out and put it on the screen.
	Destiny, if you want to stay, you can telegraph it to your audience and we can answer some questions for the people.
	But I will turn it to you, Andrew, to make your closing arguments.
	Well, it's really funny, this appeal to authority.
	Destiny grabs this entire nebulous definition from some guy that he respects on the internet and then claims that this is some authoritative definition.
	This is the authoritative definition because I read it from some guy on the internet.
	Oh, okay, great.
	Even though the courts themselves have not ruled on this, and nobody was charged with insurrection, nobody was charged...
	Again, one more time, nobody charged with insurrection.
	Trump acquitted of inciting an insurrection, which, again, nobody was charged with.
	Talk about nebulous definition.
	He says, I'm playing word games.
	Meanwhile, he takes time today, all day, to assemble a four-point, you know, kind of, this is my definition, completely based on some other guy on the internet, which is crazy to me.
	This is Destiny's personal definition.
	Personal definition of what this means.
	And it clearly fits three of the criteria for rioting right off the gate.
	We only had an issue with two.
	And then when we apply these, and remember my opening statement.
	I said in my opening statement, this is going to become very broad, right?
	There's no way that we're not going to be able to call all sorts of things insurrections that clearly are not insurrections.
	We come up with the idea of what if a bunch of dope-smoking hippies all show up with the united purpose of smoking dope on federal land in order to resist the federal law.
	And then a couple of them start a fire, and one gets beaten up with a baseball bat or something like this.
	Suddenly, that's an insurrection.
	Clearly, nobody would think that that was an insurrection.
	Clearly, nobody would think that.
	That's a completely unreasonable standard, right?
	But it's the destiny standard.
	And the reason, again, that he had to have such a broad definition, the reason that he needed this, and he needed me to come in and give him some definition he could do an internal critique on is because his idea that this was an insurrection is only there specifically to villainize the opposition for the purposes of demonization so that when bad things happen to them he can call them traitors that's it That's the whole game.
	It's been his whole game now for a while.
	And this is what got him on Pierce and all these other things, which I recently reviewed, was that take.
	And so in order for him to justify that take, he has to make you a traitor because you don't believe that that was an insurrection that nobody was charged with.
	Okay, 2.15.
	Guys, that was a fucking fantastic discussion.
	Obviously, people are going to have different viewpoints on where they go, but that's, I think, the beauty of any discussion like this in debate.
	Good debate always has people with different viewpoints saying, like, oh, I think this guy did better, I think this guy did better, so great discussion from both.
	I am going to open up the phone lines right now.
	I think the number is going to be BlockTalkBills?
	Yeah.
	So, guys, the number is going to be 515.
	605-9740.
	Yeah, I still remember, yeah.
	So that is going to be the phone number, guys, to call into the show.
	You can interact with us, whether it's me, Destiny, or Andrew.
	Start your show now.
	Press 1 to hear.
	Your show is scheduled to start in 33 seconds.
	And Andrew, how do you normally run this?
	Yeah, 505-605-9740, that's the number to call in, guys.
	Again, that number is...
	Usually just whoever calls in, they have a single question, they answer the question, and then move on to the next caller, maybe like 30 seconds, very quick, back and forth, so you can get to as many callers as possible.
	Usually that's how I do it.
	Okay, no, that's cool, because we're going to have...
	Your show will go live in five seconds.
	Four, three, two, one...
	Okay, so guys, the number to call in is 505-605-9740.
	Again, that number is 515-605-9740.
	We're manning the phone lines here at Fresh and Fit.
	So if you call in, if you super chat, we'll go ahead and put you at the top of the list.
	Get you in there faster.
	As usual, super chat is the last four bits of your number.
	And I think we just opened up the lines.
	Okay, so do we have anyone on now?
	I know we literally just opened them, but...
	Yeah, we do.
	Okay, so as usual, guys, normal rules.
	If you want to skip the line, super chat the last four digits of your numbers in, and we will go ahead and get you on the line.
	Let's go ahead and hit the first caller here.
	We got 6327, you're up.
	6327, you're up.
	Go ahead, 6327.
	And I'm going to be hosting a Zoom call after this, guys.
	Andrew, if you don't mind dropping in on Castle Club after this.
	Of course!
	At your service, thank you so much for hosting this and you guys coming in on your day off.
	You're welcome, too, if you want to jump in and talk to my community.
	Hey, you guys ready for me?
	But yeah, go ahead.
	But we'll do calls for a bit, and then we'll switch on over to Castle Club.
	And I appreciate you guys doing that for me if you guys want to come.
	Thank you, Andrew, and if you want to come in, that's the awesome.
	We got someone online, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay, brother.
	Tell us your name, where you're from, and hit us with your question.
	My name is Rick from Miami, Florida.
	The question is for Andrew.
	Very frustrating on his side to see the debate on his side, so I really do need an answer of what his definition is for an insurrection.
	Are you asking me my definition?
	Andrews.
	Yeah, I'm not going to give you one.
	It's not my burden.
	I feel like that's a cop-out.
	Okay, so that's all.
	No, well, then you need to learn how to debate because you not knowing how to debate doesn't mean that I'm copping out.
	It's not my position.
	The affirmative position, the person calling people insurrectionists is not me.
	Wait, how are we supposed to have a debate on a January 6th as an insurrection if you don't even have a definition of insurrection?
	Why do I need to have a definition to note that whatever definition that you could come up with would be too broad to apply to this?
	That's not a logical statement.
	Hold on one sec.
	Hold on one sec.
	He came in with some facts.
	He came in with some points, but you didn't.
	Okay.
	Andrew, do you want to respond to him on that?
	I think we missed like...
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	We were having an exchange.
	I missed the actual question.
	I think his main criticism is he wants to know what your definition of insurrection is.
	Is that correct, Haller?
	Correct.
	Yeah, it's not my burden.
	It's not my burden.
	Okay, how is it my burden?
	So let me ask you a question, caller.
	Okay.
	Let's assume for a second I didn't know what murder was, and you were trying to give me the criteria for what murder was.
	Could I logically give you a criticism for why that actually would fit something else that I do know what it is better than the idea of murder?
	Do you understand that, caller?
	Yes.
	Well then, what is your criticism?
	I think what you're asking me is if something that you think fits another definition, would you be able to apply to that definition?
	And you could.
	No, that's not what I'm asking you.
	However, you're not providing an actual argument to that.
	Like, all you're saying is, well, this could fit something else.
	But you're not saying why.
	No, I'm giving what's called an internal critique.
	An internal critique doesn't necessitate an argument.
	Hold on, this doesn't make sense.
	If the debate has to do with whether or not a person was murdered...
	If that's the debate, was John murdered, and the entire debate is just you critiquing another person's definition of murder, but you're unwilling to put forth your own definition of murder, the implication is that you were never prepared to debate the actual topic of the debate, which is if somebody was murdered.
	That's not the implication.
	That doesn't even make any sense.
	So, Destiny, let me ask you a counter-question.
	My argument is that is arguing in bad faith.
	Not only is that not arguing in bad faith, it's arguing in the best faith.
	Destiny knew for sure that he had the burden, not me.
	Let's get the next caller on.
	How could you possibly deal with the topic if you don't have a definition of insurrection?
	Well, let's try.
	I was just getting to that.
	So let me ask you, Destiny.
	Let us assume for a second that you weren't sure exactly what murder meant.
	You weren't exactly sure what the criteria was.
	Another person was calling this group of people a murderer, right?
	You had kind of an idea, maybe, of what that was.
	And so you went to them and you said, okay, can you tell me what you mean by murder?
	And they gave you some other criteria that fit way better with something other than their definition of murder.
	Why would that be illogical or in any way unreasonable?
	That's not illogical and that's not unreasonable, but that would only mean that you would be successful if the debate was, is Destiny's definition of insurrection satisfactory insofar as defining January 6th as an insurrection?
	But that wasn't the debate.
	It wasn't just my definition.
	Yeah, it was.
	Do you agree that the prompt of the debate was January 6th an insurrection?
	Yeah, why does that mean that I have to...
	How can you answer that?
	Wait, do you not have to answer the prompt to a debate?
	Yeah, so I'm not taking that.
	I'm neutral on it.
	It could have been.
	I was willing to concede that.
	Oh, you have no position?
	I was willing to concede that it could have been.
	I said, write my opening in good faith.
	I'll make concessions based under A, B, and C criteria if he can make these demonstrations.
	You never did.
	Okay, so then, just to be clear then, just so we're all...
	So the prompt for the debate was, was January 6th an insurrection, and I came in with a positive, and you came in with no position.
	No, it wasn't no position.
	It was that it's possible that it was, possible that it wasn't.
	That's no position.
	I was willing to hear you.
	No, it's a neutral position.
	That's not no position.
	That's no position.
	If somebody's looking...
	I'm sorry, is neutral not a position?
	Not really, no.
	Oh, no, not really.
	Does that mean no or yes, Destiny?
	Is neutral a position or isn't it?
	For the purposes of having a debate, no.
	Oh, for the purposes of having a debate, you can't have a neutral position.
	Destiny, Stephen Bonnell III, the best leftist debater on planet Earth, ladies and gentlemen.
	Neutral on a debate topic is not a position.
	Not to have as a debater.
	That's correct.
	There's a debate saying, is God real?
	And one person shows up and says, I'm arguing the freedom.
	God is real.
	And the other person says, I'm a neutral position on that.
	Oh, I guess you've never debated with an agnostic before who's neutral.
	They're neutral on it.
	Not in a debate on what—that would be a debate on agnosticism or gnosticism.
	No, it could be a debate on whether or not God is real or not real.
	Why couldn't you go into a debate agnostic about God being real or not real, Destiny?
	Can you explain that real quick?
	Because definitionally, an agnostic doesn't take a position on or doesn't think they can have knowledge of God.
	They do take a position.
	They take a neutral position.
	They don't have a knowledge of God, so why would you debate a gnostic person or somebody an agnostic person?
	That makes no sense.
	Or somebody on narcissism who doesn't have a position on the existence of God.
	So agnostics can't have a neutral position about whether or not God exists or not, according to Stephen Von Elba III. A person who's agnostic, you wouldn't listen to the debate on whether or not God is real or not.
	They would say, oh, well, I can't have information about the existence of God.
	And you'd go, okay, well, actually, you wouldn't have this.
	Well, then I guess 50% of the debates on modern-day debate are incorrect because people have a neutral position, an agnostic position, like Matt Dillahunty, a guy you talk to about whether or not God is real, where Matt Dillahunty says, listen, I'm agnostic on it.
	He could be real.
	You just haven't demonstrated to me that he's real.
	Matt Dillahunty's wrong in all of those debates, right, Destiny?
	He would be if that was the prompt of the debate.
	Yes, if the prompt of the debate was, is God real or not real?
	I'm doing the triangle.
	I'm doing the triangle.
	You come in and you go, oh, well, I'm agnostic.
	Then you go, okay, well, why the fuck are you in this debate?
	You don't have a position on it.
	Then bring in somebody that feels, an atheist who wants to have a strong position of, like, he's not real, or an atheist who has a strong position.
	That makes no sense.
	You can still have a neutral position.
	That's absurd.
	I don't know.
	How in the world are you the world's best leftist debater if you don't know you can take a neutral position in debate?
	This is like saying you want to have a debate between two people between who is God or what is God, and one person is Catholic and the other person is an atheist.
	It's a nonsense position.
	Everybody knows this.
	This is like a debate game right now.
	Oh, everybody knows it, so it's true.
	It's a debate game, yeah.
	Just like everybody knows it's an insurrection, even though they can't charge anybody with an insurrection.
	I didn't say everybody knows it's an insurrection.
	I saw the historical record since it's an insurrection.
	Uh-huh.
	Okay.
	So what I'll do here is we'll move to the next caller here.
	Let's, Mo, you got it up?
	5584, you're up.
	5584, you're up.
	Alright, welcome to the show, 5584.
	You got Myron Gaines, Destiny, and Andrew Wilson in the house.
	Hit us with your question, please, quickly, because we got a lot of people on the line.
	Holy shit.
	Hello?
	Yeah, go ahead, bro.
	You're on air.
	You can hear me?
	Yeah, we can hear you, man.
	You're on air.
	Oh, hello.
	So, I just wanted to ask, do I have to solely debate on this topic alone, or can I just talk about other topics as well?
	You want to keep a topic specific, please.
	Yeah, just on this alone, yeah, because otherwise people are going to be calling up for every damn.
	Yeah.
	This is hoping.
	I mean, neither of them actually gave a definition on the topic at all.
	Like, Destiny, what was your definition of insurrection?
	An insurrection has four crucial elements.
	One is that there's an assembly of people for a common purpose.
	Two is that you're resisting a particular law or you're interfering with the courts of government receding.
	Three is that you're doing this by way of force or intimidation.
	And then four is you're doing it for a public purpose, not like a private one.
	You're not showing up to, like, steal something or you're not showing up because you're, like, upset about, like, how a sporting event turned out.
	There's, like, a public interest in it.
	Damn.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, Collar, he said that at the top of his argument, bro.
	Caller, he said that at the top of his argument, dude, and he was referencing the 14th Amendment.
	You might have missed that.
	No, I'm just saying, no, I agree with him that it was an insurrection, but wasn't Andrew's whole point that January 6th was not an insurrection?
	I believe that was his whole point.
	Well, Andrew doesn't have a point because he rejects my definition of insurrection, and then he appeals to some universal definition of riot, which I'm not even sure he's given.
	And then he appeals to, well, this is what everybody would think a riot is.
	And then he appeals to, well, nobody would agree that hippie people engaged in your definition of insurrection or committing an insurrection.
	So I guess Andrew's just agnostic on the question of whether or not J6 was an insurrection because he doesn't have a definition of what an insurrection is.
	Okay, but I think you answered his question, Destiny, so we can move on to the next guy.
	Yeah.
	All right, brother.
	Thank you for calling in.
	We're going to move on to the next caller again, guys.
	515-605-9740.
	Shout out to Mo and Bill's manning the phone lines in the back.
	If you superchat in the last four digits of your number, fnfsuperchat.com, we will go ahead or rumble right?
	Whatever you want to do.
	We're live on all the platforms.
	We will get you to the top of the list.
	Last four digits of your number.
	Who's up next?
	4086.
	You're up.
	4086.
	Go ahead, 4086.
	Shout out to the production team in the back, man.
	Making this fucking flawless.
	Go ahead, bro.
	Yeah, hello.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes.
	Welcome to the show.
	Yeah, I got a question for Andrew.
	I'm not trying to debate on it.
	It's just a question.
	I'm just trying to gauge what you think about this.
	So, Andrew, if there was like a leader or whatever, per se, of the country or whatever, right?
	and you genuinely thought, like genuinely wholeheartedly believed that this leader was like an evil person or whatever, and they're going to bring rain and terror to your country or whatever.
	Do you think it's morally justified to take him out before he causes some harm?
	That's really context specific.
	Possibly.
	What if you believe that this leader is the next Hitler or whatever?
	Do you think it's okay to take over or stop them from...
	Again, that claim is really context specific.
	I'm going to tell you it's possible.
	Yes.
	But I'm not sure, because it would be under some type of, again, it's like a nebulous concept, the context behind this.
	So I'm not sure.
	Maybe it could be.
	There's a possibility, but that doesn't mean yes or no.
	I'm not sure.
	I would need context for this.
	Okay, so I mean, just take some shooting, for example.
	Mm-hmm.
	Right, so I mean like suppose that guy that did it or whatever legitimately thought that like Trump was gonna be the next Hitler.
	Do you think he like he was in the like almost a moral right or whatever to try to take him out?
	No.
	Okay.
	Why?
	Well, so we're not allowed to, in this nation, assassinate our political opposition.
	And if you want to know why that would be immoral, it's because that would be murder.
	But if you want to know why that would be illegal, it's because there's a crime against killing people.
	That's why it would be illegal.
	It's a crime.
	You can't kill people.
	Just to be clear, I don't think assassinations are allowed in any country.
	Do you think it's okay to just stop them?
	Just stop them from taking office?
	Like physically force them and prevent them from taking office?
	I mean, I'm trying to follow this.
	Maybe it could be, but what do you mean?
	You mean, is it okay to physically stop Trump from taking office?
	Like, if a bunch of people pulled up and just, like, forcibly, physically, we're saying, like, we're not going to allow you to be president because we think you're going to be awful, do you think it's okay to do that?
	Yeah, that would be criminal.
	Yeah.
	You can't do that, no.
	Okay.
	All right.
	That's it.
	Thank you.
	No problem, man.
	We'll move on to the next caller.
	Again, 515-605-9740.
	Superchat, last four digits of your number to cut the line.
	Go ahead, Mo.
	3990-3990, you're up.
	Go ahead, 3990.
	Hello, everyone.
	Can you guys hear me?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Andrew, I have a question.
	Can you define me a chair?
	Do you want, well, it depends on, this is like the sandwich argument, right?
	So what is a sandwich?
	What is a chair?
	This kind of thing.
	So when you look at the essence of a thing, right, it is possible that all definitions could fall short to an essence of a thing, but that doesn't mean we can't recognize the essence of a thing.
	This is why if we were to take the idea of a bunch of hippies smoking a fucking blunt in a forest somewhere to resist federal law and then they started burning the forest down because a couple of them got too rowdy, calling that an insurrection wouldn't fit the spirit of what that means.
	So while you're looking at both the definition, you're also looking at the application.
	So when you ask, can I define a chair?
	Sure.
	Can I give you a definition of a chair which you can't pick apart?
	Likely not.
	But isn't that what you're doing right now?
	No, it's not what I'm doing right now.
	Because there's still an essence to the thing.
	There's still something which we're perceiving to the thing, which makes it a chair.
	The same way it makes it an insurrection.
	So if it's a criterion of a riot better, and when we see it as a riot, and everybody sees it as a riot more than they do an insurrection, which is why it was charged that way, it seems like it falls under riot better.
	Who's charged for a riot?
	Well, they're charged under the purview of rioting.
	I thought they were charged for trespassing and stuff.
	Yeah, well, trespassing as well.
	That's not a riot, though.
	These are going to be tangential laws.
	What is a tangential law?
	What does that mean?
	Let's say for a second that you're arrested for, I don't know, for trespassing, right?
	Certainly that's not going to fit the definition of an insurrection, right?
	Yeah.
	Is there a federal crime for rioting?
	Well, maybe not, but it would be on the purview of what rioting is.
	I don't know what that means, purview of what rioting is, when we talk about criminal charges.
	I don't know what that means.
	Okay, well, do you agree with me there is rioting?
	I don't know if rioting is a public, or is a federal crime.
	I'm not sure.
	Okay, I get that, but do you agree with me there is rioting?
	I agree that riots exist, yeah.
	Yeah, and do you agree that you and I could likely agree on what a riot is?
	I don't know.
	You don't want to give definitions for anything.
	Well, I mean, if I gave you examples, do you think we could agree, like, if I showed BLM footage of their riots, do you think that you would agree that those were riots?
	No, I would ask you very specifically, was anybody charged with a riot?
	And if they weren't, then I would say that by your earlier definitions of insurrection, these must not have been riots.
	What definitions did I give you of insurrection?
	You made it sound like a necessary element of an insurrection having occurred was an individual being charged with a crime of insurrection.
	No, that never happened.
	Then why did you bring that up over and over and over again?
	Well, no.
	So you're taking, you're conflating two different ideas.
	So idea one is nobody was charged with an insurrection, which means the powers that be also, when they saw this under their purview, probably didn't think that it fit the criteria for whatever an insurrection is going to be.
	And so we have to untangle this idea.
	And then we move on to idea two, which is your definition may fit something else better than it fits actual insurrection.
	Okay.
	Then you'd have to show me for a particular BLM riot that somebody was charged with the crime of rioting.
	And if they weren't charged with them, they were charged with something else, I'd say, oh, people probably didn't think it was a riot.
	You would have to demonstrate for me how this was actually an insurrection.
	I already did.
	I laid out four necessary elements, the things that wouldn't encompass a riot.
	Okay, well, I would say that Chaz and Chop was like an open rebellion or insurrection.
	Would that be a fair demonstration?
	No, because I would ask you for a single historical example, either judicially, legally, or through any kind of historical writing, where they say that you can engage in an insurrection against a state.
	I'm not aware of that being possible.
	I don't think insurrections are fine for states.
	But if you can show me an example, then I say, okay, fine, then Chaz was an insurrection.
	Yeah, okay, but the definition itself, right, if I were to define it that way, right, like Chaz Chop, and I'm not, right, but I'm saying I can at least look at that and say this is something akin to this, of what I would expect to see under the criteria of X, Y, and Z. That's my point.
	Maybe, but you never gave me a definition for insurrection, so I'm not sure.
	I mean, it's a good thing that Andrew doesn't think there are no riots during the BLM protests because no one got convicted.
	So that's a good takeaway, I guess.
	But thank you, guys.
	That's it. - All right, so we'll move to the next caller.
	So guys, I'll just discuss with my team how we'll do it.
	We'll answer a few more phone calls here, and then what I'll do is we'll stay live on YouTube and all the other platforms.
	As you guys know, obviously, go check out Destiny.
	Go check out Andrew Wilson on their respective YouTube channels.
	They're streaming as well.
	This is, you know, multi-stream between all the different platforms.
	I think between all of us guys, we've got like 50,000 plus, around 30,000 to 50,000 watching us.
	And what I'll do is I'll send a Zoom link to all the Castle Club members and we'll answer questions exclusively with the Castle Club members.
	And I appreciate you guys doing that for me.
	But we'll answer a few more phone calls for guys that are just watching the show regularly.
	But we'll stay on, but we'll answer questions from Castle Club members only.
	But we'll do that in a bit after we answer some more here.
	Who's next on the line?
	We'll try to get through as many of you guys on.
	1143, you are up.
	1143, you are up.
	And before we bring him on, Destiny, Andrew, do you guys want it where he just asked a question, then we just move on, then take him off the line, you answer the question, then go on so we get more people through.
	However you want to do it, bro.
	Okay, because I know you normally do this on your thing, so I want to try to make it...
	That would be better is have the caller say what they say and then disconnect them.
	Otherwise, it's like a back and forth.
	Okay, we'll do that then.
	So, caller, go ahead.
	Say your name, where you're from.
	Ask your question, and then we'll have them respond to your question and move on.
	Get as many people through.
	1143, go ahead.
	Go ahead, brother.
	All right, I'll remain unnamed, but I just want to point out that...
	The particular government proceedings that BLM of the movement was interfering with were the various court cases related to police brutality.
	So does BLM meet the criteria of an insurrection?
	I wouldn't define an entirety of a summer of protests or riots or insurrections as a particular insurrection.
	Also, I don't think that...
	I'll ignore the federal state distinction right now.
	What?
	One entity.
	Sure, but if we look...
	They identify themselves consistently as BLM through the whole summer.
	Say that again?
	And they profess themselves in favor of a certain type of outcome in various court cases relating to police brutality and demanded forcefully with intimidation that the government bend to what they wanted the outcome to be.
	How does this not make BLM an insurrection?
	My guess is going to be that if we went through every single BLM riot, that we could probably find some that I would say might meet my definition.
	If we ignore the state-federal distinction, we might find some that meet my definition of insurrection.
	And that Trump is a bad president because he led an insurrection, then Kamala Harris directly provided aid and support No, because I don't think any court has reviewed any of that behavior and found any of it to be an insurrection, number one.
	And number two, I don't believe that providing bail money is considered part of...
	Whoa, whoa, whoa.
	No court has said that this is an insurrection either.
	That's not true.
	The Colorado State Supreme Court did.
	Why wasn't anybody charged then, Destiny, with insurrection?
	Because it wasn't revealed Because the court wasn't reviewing it for a criminal proceeding.
	It was the Colorado State Supreme Court.
	They don't have the authority or jurisdiction to hear.
	And what has the Supreme Court said?
	The Supreme Court said that they didn't really want to deal with it.
	So they basically axed it.
	Right.
	So we're just operating off of your definition.
	Under your definition, he's meeting the criteria for these being insurrections because he's saying that this is now federal.
	That these are impeding and resisting federal laws at this point.
	And so if that is the case, you have to concede.
	No one is resisting the federal laws.
	It's just you haven't demonstrated that.
	The federal execution of what law?
	Well, wait a second.
	Weren't they resisting the federal laws of how police are able to deal with suspects and things like this?
	Were they?
	Was that what police reform was?
	None of that is federal.
	I mean, that's what the caller is saying, though.
	No, it's not like he was saying they were protesting particular court outcomes.
	That's the judicial system, not the legislative system.
	So I understand that government is confusing, but these are two totally different things.
	I don't know if you can have an insurrection protesting court decisions.
	I'm not aware of that ever being the case.
	If you can engage in insurrection or rebellion against a court decision, I'm not aware of that.
	All right.
	We will go on to the next caller.
	Who's up next?
	And we'll take a few more of these guys, then I'm going to drop a link in Castle Club for Castle Club members to come in and ask these questions.
	7579, you are up.
	7579, you are up.
	Go ahead, brother.
	Hey, what's up, y'all?
	Y'all hear me?
	Got you.
	Hey, I got a question for Destiny, and I think Andrew can pick up afterwards.
	So, based off of your four points that you gave for what would make An insurrection.
	Technically, none of your points make it necessary for there to be violence.
	You say in point three, force or intimidation, but it doesn't necessarily have to be violence.
	So based off of that, wouldn't any legal protest where you're advocating for a certain political cause or anything like that in a public space, wouldn't that also, by your definition, count as an insurrection?
	intimidation part is important.
	The quote that I borrowed from here was from Justice Marshall in 1807.
	He said, quote, The most comprehensive definition of levying war against the king or against the United States, which I have seen, requires an assemblage of men ready to act and with an intent to do some trees that will act and armed in warlike manner or else assembled in such numbers as to supersede the necessity of arms.
	So I don't think you necessarily have to engage in violence, but I think that having the people there with the purpose of, like, intimidation and being ready to act with violence, I think is easily enough to satisfy.
	No justice, no peace.
	You would have to point to a particular thing.
	Yeah, I'll point to Chaz Chopp.
	So do you think that if you were to take over a big portion or even a small, tiny portion of a state and consider it to now be neutral from the United States itself, that that becomes a federal matter?
	I don't know.
	Was it considered a federal matter?
	Well, don't you think that that is resisting federal law?
	If you make the claim, we are seceding this area from the United States, how would that not be federal?
	Were they seceding it from the United States?
	That's what they claimed.
	Or were they seceding it from Washington or whatever?
	What?
	Were they seceding from the United States of America, or were they seceding from the state or the city?
	They said that this is a neutral zone, we are seceding.
	So they no longer accepted USD, they no longer employed or recognized interstate travel?
	I'm not sure that even if you were to have a secession, that that would mean you couldn't accept USD anymore.
	Why would that matter?
	Because, well, it seems like if you're going to secede from a country, it feels like part of that would be establishing your own government, establishing your own foreign relations and ambassadors.
	Yeah, but you can still have USD, and they did.
	They were trying to do that.
	They had their own armed militant group, who was there armed, definitely intimidating, refused to allow people to come in and out of the zone.
	They were trying to start their own economy, their own gardens.
	They had annexed the buildings which were around them.
	That definitely seems like they're resisting federal law.
	You're not allowed to secede in the United States.
	That's a big no-no.
	I don't remember this being—can you tell me what statements or what they made?
	I don't know the details of this.
	What did they make or what statements did they make about federal secession?
	Yeah, so Chaz Chop, they considered it the neutral zone.
	There was multiple statements made that this is no longer part of the United States.
	By who?
	We are taking this over just by the people who were there.
	By the people.
	So if a random person says a particular thing, I thought you said earlier that we couldn't read intent into the Donald Trump crowd.
	You said earlier that we couldn't read intent into the Donald Trump crowd, despite the fact that people were hanging signs saying 7076, hang Mike Pence, and the statements that Trump had made.
	But you say such an inference is fine.
	I didn't.
	I said the inference is fine because of the collection of statements that Donald Trump had made, collecting the people there for a given purpose that they actually managed to succeed in doing.
	It makes perfect sense.
	You can just be talking over me before I can make the point.
	It doesn't help your point.
	No, it actually doesn't make any sense.
	Because your claim is that you can read into the hearts and minds of these people based on what you perceive their actions to be.
	It's like, okay, fair enough.
	So if the people who are there are doing the exact same thing, they're saying, okay, this is now a neutral zone.
	We're seceding from the United States of America.
	Why can't we read that into their actions as well, Destiny?
	I mean, it makes no sense.
	I would.
	I would absolutely do that, but I don't know of any statement like that.
	And you can't name a single one, so I don't know what I'm supposed to—I don't know what I can work off.
	If Chaz Chop, if there was such a statement—let's just assume that there was for a second—would you then consider that to be an insurrection?
	If they said that we are going to secede from the United States of America, and they had, like, some organized violent wave and all the other elements, I would say, yeah, this would count as an insurrection.
	Easy, sure, easily, of course.
	Gotcha.
	All right.
	But you wouldn't say the same for January 6th because you haven't even given a definition of insurrection, but that's the difference between good faith and bad faith, by the way.
	No, no, no.
	That's not bad faith for me to do an internal critique in your definition when I can at least take your definition and say, wait a second, all of these apply to a different category, and that was established very well.
	You're critiquing my definition without even having a definition of your own.
	I don't need to have a definition to critique yours.
	That's absurd.
	You can't.
	That's illogical and absurd.
	Stop using illogical.
	It doesn't mean anything.
	You're abusing the word, okay?
	What does it mean?
	The debate was over whether or not January 6th was an insurrection.
	If you only came to that debate to critique my position, and I shouldn't even let you get away with this.
	You said earlier that you were neutral on it.
	You're not neutral on it.
	The answer for you is you can't compute the question.
	It's undefined.
	You don't have a neutral position.
	If you don't have a definition of insurrection, you can't possibly take it.
	It's like dividing by zero.
	The answer is not neutral or nothing.
	You just have an undefined position.
	Well, I know you don't like this.
	You don't even have a definition of a term.
	Yeah, I know you hate this, but...
	That is true.
	That is illogical.
	That's actually an illogical statement to say that I would need to have a definition of anything to critique your definition of it if I have something else that I can make a comparison to that fits with better that you agree it fits better in.
	I don't know why you don't get that.
	Okay, what would your position be on if I were to ask you?
	Is January 6th...
	Did...
	What the fuck?
	Are you okay?
	What's your answer to that?
	Is January 6th...
	Did you just go...
	Yeah.
	Why?
	Was January 6th a...
	What's your answer to that?
	Would you say you're neutral on that?
	Well, that would be incoherent.
	I wouldn't even understand what you're saying.
	Thank you.
	I agree.
	Yes.
	Insurrection, that term is incoherent to you because you have no definition for the word.
	So I'm uttering nothing to you when I say insurrection.
	You have no way to compute the question, so you can't say that you're neutral on it.
	The same way that you can't say you're neutral on it being...
	Well, I don't know.
	I don't know how fucking language works, then, when you say, okay, this is a snicker bar, and I don't know what a snicker bar is, but I can't make comparisons to other things so that I can at least understand where you're coming from with what a snicker bar is.
	Okay, Destiny.
	That's correct.
	That is correct.
	What if I showed you a bar and you're like, that's not a Snicker bar.
	That looks like a chocolate wafery thing with caramel on it.
	Yeah, that's a Snicker bar.
	Isn't that great how that works?
	Actually, this fits way better with a Milky Way.
	That's actually way more like a Milky Way.
	No, it's not quite a Milky Way.
	It's a Snicker bar.
	And you're like, well, I don't even have that.
	Well, then it would fit that criteria of a Snickers bar, the ontology of a Snickers bar, better than the ontology of a Milky Way.
	That ontology is non-existent for you because it's undefined.
	You have no definition of what a Snickers bar even is.
	You don't need to have a You need to have a definition for you to understand an ontology of a new concept.
	What are you talking about?
	That's crazy.
	We're arguing over whether a thing is a thing, whether A is B, and for you, B is undefined.
	So you can't even be agnostic on the question.
	You just, you can't compute it.
	It's...
	Gibberish to you, like when I utter gibberish.
	No, this is gibberish to me.
	This makes no sense.
	There's absolutely no reason why, if you've never, even if you were to grant, I'd never even heard the term insurrection before, that I couldn't understand if you came up with a term for insurrection.
	I said, well, fit this other criteria better, why it is that you couldn't concede that that was true.
	That's this absurd logic.
	And yes, Destiny, it's illogical.
	Okay, we can move to the next caller.
	I'll take a few more of these.
	Castle Club, guys, I'm going to send you guys a link in Castle Club.
	We can join in and be the people that ask these guys the questions.
	And don't worry, we won't have your face on camera because we're streaming on all the platforms.
	So we're going to protect your identity.
	If you want to be on camera, maybe we'll do that.
	But in general, we'll just have your voice play.
	Who's up next?
	And whoever is 7983, I see you donated, but you're not in the phone line.
	Okay, 7893, get in there.
	Who's up next behind him?
	1-7-5-3, you're up.
	1-7-5-3, you're on the air with Destiny Myron and Andrew.
	Go ahead.
	1-7-5-3.
	There you go.
	What's up, brother?
	Yes, sir.
	How are you guys doing?
	Good, man.
	What's your question for the panel?
	Quick question.
	It's tangentially related.
	Andrew, why do you think Trump didn't call anybody during the riot?
	There were three hours.
	Cops had their shit kicked out of them.
	He didn't call anybody, except for his lawyer and stuff.
	But like Nancy Pelosi, that's usually the defense.
	She was the high queen of all capital security.
	Why didn't Trump call Nancy Pelosi?
	It's not within the purview of the debate.
	I don't care about your diatribe.
	I don't care about your emotional state.
	This is not within the purview of the debate.
	Alright, next up, 8-4-3-8.
	You are up.
	8-4-3-8, you are up.
	Hey, can you guys hear me?
	Go ahead, brother.
	I appreciate you having me.
	I have a quick question for Destiny.
	It's kind of like, at the end of the debate, toward the end, he conceded to Andrew's example of the hippie rebellion, a hippie insurrection, If that's the case, then wouldn't you also have to say that the inauguration for Trump in 2017, the overturning of Roe v.
	Wade at the Supreme Court, and the...
	I'm sorry, go ahead.
	Nobody said anything?
	We're just listening, Colin.
	Yeah, just listening to you, bro.
	Go ahead.
	Wouldn't you have to say that those two events, and then, of course, you have the White House bombing after the George Floyd death with Trump and everything, wouldn't you have to say that those would fall within the same definition as well?
	I would have to go through the facts of each of these, but if you can show me that there was an assembly of people that united for a common purpose, that they were there to contravene some type of federal law, that the resistance's goal was to make use of force or intimidation, and that they were there for something that was in the public interest, then whatever you're going to give me here, I'm going to say, well, yeah, if it's my definition of insurrection, then I would say these were probably insurrections, sure.
	All right, thanks.
	Also, wait, hold on.
	Real quick, not only would I say that, you should say that too.
	Let's say, for instance, let's say that when Roe v.
	Wade changed or whatever, let's say the federal government was going to do a particular thing.
	They were gathering to—let's just say they were doing a ban on it.
	Let's say that you had—let's say that Kamala Harris was marching with these people, chanting and cheering them on, and saying, like, we're going to stop the government from banning abortion, okay?
	They're going to sign this law today.
	We're not going to let them do it.
	We're going to make our voice here.
	We're going to go and— We're going to do what we need to do to make them not pass the law.
	They show up when it's going to be signed.
	She's outside cheering them on as they break into the Capitol building.
	They go in.
	When we talk about whether an insurrection is occurring or not, and we talk about the 14th Amendment, you shouldn't want her to be president again.
	You should say, hey, you took an oath to the Constitution, and now you're engaging in insurrectionist behavior.
	You're violating your oath to the Constitution.
	I don't want you running for office again.
	We should all think that.
	I would think that all of us should have that feeling, that if somebody has engaged in or aided in helping people engage in insurrection, that you shouldn't want this person who was in office to run for office again, I would say.
	Alright, we'll move on to the next caller.
	And guys, just so you know, we're going to drop the Castle Club link.
	Sorry, the Zoom call link in Castle Club right now.
	So get in there and then raise your hand in the Zoom call.
	And we'll answer one or two more calls and we'll go over to Castle Club guys only.
	But we're going to drop the link right now.
	Castle Club guys, go ahead and join CastleClub.tv.
	You know how to support free speech on our side.
	But we'll take a few more callers while we get that set up on our Zoom side.
	Who's up next, Mo?
	4849...
	Okay, 4849.
	4849, yes.
	You're on there with Destiny Myron and Andrew.
	What is your question, brother?
	Hey, can you guys see me?
	Yes, welcome to the show.
	All right, cool.
	So, this whole debate was over a definition of, was this event the thing of insurrection?
	So, if you were to pick something like, we'll say, there's a shape, and we were going to debate whether this shape was a square or not...
	Andrew's argument seems to be that, oh well, that maybe fits the definition of a rhombus or a parallelogram better, and that basically those definitions are mutually exclusive.
	I think that a lot of people would agree that the January 6th event Does fall under the definition of a riot, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it also wasn't an insurrection.
	So if you say, oh, hey, this shape, well, it has four sides, and each of the four sides is parallel, and say, well, oh, well, that's a rhombus, or that's a parallelogram, that's not actually a square, then, like, okay, but you haven't said what a square is, and Destiny is...
	Put forth not just a personal definition, but the legal definition that's agreed on to by lots of courts, and that's how we do lies.
	You know, we use courts' opinions to figure out whether this falls under the courts' Like, the federal definition of what everybody agrees that is.
	And so the saying, oh, well, I don't have to define what a square is, if it's my definition of a rhombus, fine, then I don't see what we're arguing.
	Because it seems like Andrew conceded that all of the criteria that Destiny laid out for his definition of insurrection Andrew conceded that it fit within that definition.
	It seems like he agrees, but he doesn't like the name.
	Bro, hang on, hang on.
	You cut out.
	Me and Destiny both missed maybe 15 seconds there.
	Oh, sorry.
	Do you know where it was that it stopped?
	Basically, I'm just saying that the definition of right in insurrection is not mutually exclusive.
	And so that just because he says that, oh, this fits my personal definition of a riot, does not necessarily mean that it's also not an insurrection.
	And the fact that they were trying to prevent some function of the government from happening, some law from being followed or carried out by the U.S. government, that's the defining factor.
	That's the thing that makes it an insurrection.
	We can say that it was a riot.
	Cool.
	But it was also an insurrection.
	Okay.
	Anything else?
	Would you say...
	And this is why I'm saying that you need to have some sort of way of saying this is not an insurrection other than saying this is a riot.
	Yeah, we've already been over this, though, multiple times.
	I know you don't understand the argument, but that doesn't mean it wasn't made.
	But you haven't said why it isn't.
	Oh, I understand.
	I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is.
	I never have to tell you why the thing...
	You're arguing that it's not an insurrection.
	If you're just going to cut me off and not let me answer, then we're not going to have a productive combo.
	Let him make his point.
	Who's the burden of proof on here?
	It's on both of us.
	No, it's not.
	Who's the burden of proof on?
	Well, if the burden of proof to say that it's not an insurrection is on the person who's claiming that it's not an insurrection.
	No, it's not my burden to say it's not.
	It's not my burden to say that it is.
	Then you have no position on whether it's an insurrection.
	The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not for me to negate said claim, but for them to prove it.
	That's the distinction.
	Do you understand that?
	No, would you say you have no claim that it's not an insurrection?
	No, no, no.
	Answer my question.
	Do I need to negate a claim for you to be able to prove it?
	Can't you prove a claim?
	Well, if you're...
	Answer my question, dude.
	It categorically does not fit the term...
	Yeah, I know.
	You're not answering the question, right?
	The term insurrection.
	All right.
	All right.
	Whatever you say, bro.
	I know you don't want to answer.
	It's fine.
	All right.
	We'll go to the next caller.
	And just so you guys know...
	Yeah, just as a real quick thing.
	So, like, the prompt was, was January 6th in insurrection.
	Debating my definition of insurrection doesn't satisfy the prompt.
	It only satisfies attacking my position.
	But even if you did manage to completely defeat my position, not by actually showing...
	Because you're not even really defeating my position.
	You're just making my position incoherent.
	But by doing so, you're also admitting that your position is incoherent as well.
	Right?
	If you can prove that I don't have a good definition for insurrection...
	Do you remember it to...
	If you can prove that I don't have a good definition for insurrection, then you can prove that my position of saying it is an insurrection is incoherent.
	I would have to use some other word.
	You haven't even given a position at all.
	So at best, you've only put us both at neutral, which is...
	Do you remember in the beginning of the debate where I gave you the criteria for the concessions that I would make if you were willing to concede on X, Y, Z point?
	Yeah, but we're not here to just argue.
	Does destiny have a satisfactory definition of insurrection, which is what the debate has become?
	But if I have no negation, but we end up on neutral because your definition is incoherent, then do you remember when I said in my opening statement that the goal of that was to show that you no longer have the moral high ground because everything's a fucking insurrection at that point, and that means you're as much of an insurrectionist as the people you're accusing of being insurrectionists.
	That's the point.
	To be clear, that wouldn't make everything an insurrection.
	That would just make all riots an insurrection.
	Yeah, I was being hyperbolic.
	Okay, well that's kind of hard when you're also being illogical.
	But the idea is that all you're doing is producing us both at the same position, which seems odd at the end of the day.
	Why?
	Depends on what the goal of the debate is.
	The goal was to show that both of us are neutral on whether January 6th was an insurrection.
	You know that you don't actually believe that.
	You believe it wasn't, right?
	If you're neutral on whether or not January 6th is an insurrection, your claim is voided.
	But then so would yours be, unless your claim is— What claim am I making?
	My claim is only that you can't demonstrate it was.
	If I say that January 6th was an insurrection, you wanted to challenge that position, generally the challenge would be that January 6th wasn't an insurrection.
	Not that January 6th doesn't comport with Destiny's definition of insurrection, or I think Destiny's definition of insurrection is incoherent.
	That's a different kind of debate.
	Well, no, I don't think it's a different kind of debate in saying loaded things like, well, generally this means doesn't mean anything.
	So ultimately, if I can reduce this to a neutral position, then your claim that this was an insurrection is false.
	Okay, but then your claim that it wasn't an insurrection is also false.
	I never made such a claim.
	What is your claim?
	Your claim is just that you're neutral, you have no position on it?
	My claim was that I could be swayed either way, that you could convince me.
	The debate wasn't here to sway you.
	Well, no, you can't be convinced because you can't even accept the definition of insurrection, so that's just not true.
	Well, I can be convinced, and you just saying you can't be convinced doesn't mean anything again.
	So are you unconvinced by historical courts that have convicted people or used these definitions of insurrection in order to write legislation or in order to write constitutional amendments?
	What do you think the founding fathers meant?
	Not founding fathers, I guess.
	What do you think the framers of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment meant when they said insurrection?
	I think that they're tying it to rebellion.
	Because every time I saw it, it seemed to coexist with rebellion.
	Every single time I see this, it seems like it's a lead towards rebellion.
	If you agree that it meant rebellion, why would there be so many people that draw distinctions between insurrection and rebellion?
	Yeah, until it comes to charging time.
	When it comes to charging time, it seems that if they can't draw it 20%.
	Hold on.
	Why do you keep—just because you're talking about charges, criminal court and call— Well, if you're going to appeal to authorities here based around legal definitions, it's perfectly acceptable for me to appeal to the legal authorities, which are refusing to charge under this criteria, Destiny.
	They're refusing to charge under this criteria for insurrection, and it seems every definition that I can find for this is somehow vaguely associated with rebellion.
	It's associated with it because they believed every rebellion started with an insurrection, but that doesn't mean that every rebellion is an insurrection.
	That's why they used rebellion or insurrection, for instance, in Section 2 of the Second Confiscation Act.
	You can't give any historical things, though.
	So I think if there was a big open— So for instance, they say in any rebellion or insurrection, inciting and setting foot on, assisting or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection, which is set on a Section 2 of the Second Confiscation Act, they're not—they're two different things.
	That's why But the reason that I think that the Supreme Court especially didn't want to hear this is because they would end up, like you, giving a definition which was so broad that it would encompass all sorts of things that we don't really perceive of as being insurrections, because we really associate insurrection and rebellion with the same kind of idea,
	which is exactly why I don't believe for a second, while you're over there saying you're good faith, that you believe for a second that if a bunch of dope-smoking hippies to kind of resist federal law No, a couple of them did.
	They started a small fire, let's say, right?
	Not a huge blazing forest fire.
	They just started a small fire.
	There was a little bit of rioting there, right?
	Somebody got beat up.
	A couple of them had maybe some melee weapons.
	I don't think we would associate that with rebellion, and so I don't think we would associate that with insurrection, which is what I think we associate with rebellion.
	I'm sorry, because I don't know the logical structures of argumentation as well as you do.
	When you say people probably wouldn't do that, what kind of an argument are we making there?
	When you say that people probably wouldn't think that's an insurrection, what kind of logical appeal are we making to challenge my definition?
	The people probably wouldn't think...
	What is that?
	So hang on.
	Again, we're going to untangle two different ideas.
	So I already gave you the critique of your definition.
	When you ask me what you, Andrew, what do you associate with this thing?
	Which is your direct question.
	What types of things do you associate with this?
	I tell you.
	Then I say, if that's the type of thing that I associate with it, I also think most people associate that type of thing with it as well.
	So these are two different ideas.
	I don't care what most people – I'm looking at the legal and historical understanding of it, right?
	So in the Amy Warwick Prize case, the Supreme Court said insurrection against the government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the government.
	A civil war did not begin.
	A civil war didn't begin with insurrection?
	No, a civil war did not begin because of J6. It says insurrection against the government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion.
	That's correct.
	So there was an insurrection against the government.
	It didn't culminate in a rebellion.
	Those are two different things.
	And I can show you Supreme Court cases where they said they did everything.
	So your idea here of, well, they probably thought they were the same.
	But your definition, unfortunately, is too nebulous here for us to associate this specifically with only the idea of insurrection when there's other ideas that fit it better.
	Is there a single historical scholar, Supreme Court case, writer or framer or lawmaker ever that you can cite to that says that there is a nebulous, there's no understanding of what insurrection is?
	Well, actually, yes.
	So the Supreme Court justices themselves have stated this.
	I do have a quote from one of the Supreme Court justices who said, this is not an easy thing to tackle because the idea of it is contested in somewhat nebulous.
	I believe, in fact, that was Justice Roberts who said that.
	And what was the full quote here?
	I would have to pull the quote up, so I'm paraphrasing, right?
	But it was something akin to this idea is actually, it's a hard associative idea.
	This was from Roberts himself.
	The Supreme Court clearly did not want to weigh in on this because they were afraid of making a definition like your own, which would be so broad Are you disputing this?
	Let's start with this.
	Are you disputing that you think the Supreme Court didn't weigh in on this because they were afraid that they could make a definition of this which was so broad that things would fall under the category of insurrection that they really didn't want to fall under that category?
	I don't think the Supreme Court made a strong statement about insurrection.
	Yeah, what do you think, though?
	I'm asking what you actually think.
	They didn't.
	They didn't really rule on the insurrection.
	I know they didn't rule on it, but why do you think they really didn't want to hear it?
	Why do you think it is that this is kind of such a hard concept for people to kind of get their minds around?
	It's because it is somewhat nebulous.
	It is associated with rebellion.
	And yes, there's precedents for these things, but the precedents don't directly apply to what J6 was.
	It doesn't matter.
	The issue wasn't the issue.
	Hang on, man.
	Let me finish my point.
	You can respond.
	Other things do seem to associate with it better.
	That's the point.
	Your definition is far too broad.
	You knew it would be far too broad.
	The Supreme Court also knows this.
	That's why the Supreme Court themselves, I think, really didn't want to go in and rule on it because it would retroactively make a bunch of Democrats and Republicans That's great, and that's a bunch of reading into that Supreme Court decision that they had never said, but I'm pretty sure that the rationale that they gave and the issue was that different minds could disagree on whether or not an insurrection had taken place, and the idea that different states would make different decisions about it seemed to be very difficult for them.
	So it's nebulous.
	It's a little bit nebulous.
	They can't really agree because it's kind of a nebulous concept, right?
	Do you think that murder is a nebulous concept?
	I think that justification for murder can be very nebulous.
	Do you think that murder is a nebulous concept?
	Why are you rambling?
	No, I asked you a question.
	Do you think murder is a nebulous concept?
	No, I'm answering the question.
	You think murder is a nebulous concept?
	I'll try and answer the question whenever you're ready to let me answer.
	I'm going to repeat it when you're done rambling.
	Okay, well, I'm not going to ramble.
	I'm going to give you an actual direct answer.
	Certain aspects of murder when it comes to justification can be very nebulous, yes.
	Like, right to retreat laws can be very nebulous.
	Yes, that can constitute murder.
	It can be very nebulous.
	We have some concepts of it, but it's not really something which is easily graspable.
	Yes, it can be very nebulous, Destiny, yes.
	And yet we still have criminal convictions for murder.
	That's true.
	We do still have criminal convictions for murder, which does not demonstrate your point at all.
	It absolutely does.
	If a court is capable of determining whether or not a person can have a sufficient restriction to their life or liberty...
	They determined that none of them committed insurrection.
	That's what they determined.
	That's not what they determined.
	Yes, it is what they determined.
	Really?
	Where in the Supreme Court?
	Hang on.
	What did they charge him with?
	They charged him with insurrection?
	The Supreme Court is not a first review court attack.
	I'm not talking about the Supreme Court.
	I don't know what you're talking about then.
	I'm sorry, where in the 14th Amendment does it say the crime of insurrection?
	All you're doing is speed talking.
	What I'm saying to you is when you ask me, are certain aspects of murder nebulous?
	Yes, of course certain aspects of murder are nebulous.
	Can people still be charged over those aspects?
	Yes.
	Can they be prosecuted?
	Yes.
	But you say, well then there, you can prove it.
	Great, I agree.
	You can prove it.
	And when these people were prosecuted, they were not prosecuted for insurrection.
	So clearly, they didn't think it was insurrection.
	Or at least, it seems like they didn't think it was insurrection because they certainly didn't charge anybody with that.
	Gotcha.
	Just as a quick spiel or whatever, because Andrew has no concept of how law or courts or anything works in the United States, the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with somebody being charged with a criminal conviction of insurrection.
	Criminal conviction of insurrection has nothing to do with any of this.
	And the question before the court in Trump v.
	Anderson wasn't whether or not somebody had engaged in the crime of insurrection.
	And the big issue that they cited, too, for why they rejected that case was because Section 5 of the 14th Amendment said that Congress can pass laws in order to implement something, and they interpreted it as meaning Section 3 could be implemented via the Section 5 power of the Congress, and that's why they threw that case out.
	Total bait and switch.
	It's not a bait-and-switch.
	It is.
	Here's why it's a bait-and-switch.
	All I was saying was that you saying, well, it's nebulous, therefore a court can't decide that question.
	Courts deal with nebulous things literally all of the time.
	That wasn't my claim either.
	The idea that a court can't deal with something that's nebulous like insurrection, courts deal with things like murder or affirmative defenses like self-defense or anything else, is a ridiculous claim.
	And it shows the fundamental understanding of what courts are even supposed to do.
	Yeah, except that wasn't my claim.
	So here's the great kind of destiny bait and switch, right?
	He just did a typical bait and switch.
	What he did was he said this.
	He said, Andrew, do you think that a court can do A, B, and C, or they can in some way rule or adjudicate even with a nebulous concept?
	My answer was yes.
	I think that even with a nebulous concept, they can.
	In this case, right, even if we were to grant destiny's argument that they can do this under nebulous concepts, They still didn't charge these people with insurrection, even if that's a nebulous concept.
	What he did instead was he did a bait-and-switch and said, oh, but he doesn't understand the law, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	But this was a lead-in question.
	Does somebody need to be charged with insurrection for insurrection to affect her?
	Bro, let me finish my point.
	I just let you go through your whole diatribe.
	It's not a gish gallop.
	It's a gish gallop.
	You're repeating debunked arguments.
	You don't even know what a gish gallop is.
	You're just burning over me.
	I do.
	It's when you lay a whole bunch of bad claims on over and over and over again with the idea that the opponent can't actually refute them because you keep stacking the same bad claims over and over again.
	You made the claim.
	I'm refuting it.
	You're not refuting anything.
	You're repeating the same debunked arguments.
	This was a basic lead-in, and I proved the basic lead-in wrong, and so that's when he went off in the diatribe about, well, what the court, blah, blah, blah.
	What about the courts?
	What about the precedents?
	Well, it had nothing to do with the actual lead-in question, which is what I was responding to.
	That's a classic bait-and-switch.
	You said that the Supreme Court didn't rule on the definition because it was too nebulous.
	That's not why they rejected it.
	You asked me, why do you think the Supreme Court acts?
	And so I just gave you my opinion.
	I think possibly it's because this is a nebulous concept.
	They didn't want to weigh in.
	It seems that Roberts agreed.
	When he read initially what Roberts said, it seems like that's what he's saying there, is that there's going to be a lot of disagreement here because we can't quite agree on this.
	That sounds nebulous to me.
	All right.
	How about this?
	We'll take one more caller, and then we'll go to the Castle Club guys.
	Let's get the guy on the line.
	Yes.
	Go ahead.
	0789.
	0789, go ahead, hit the line.
	And then after him, I actually do have a potential topic of discussion for the panel.
	But let's get this caller on first.
	Go ahead.
	0789, you are up.
	0789, you are up.
	Hello, hello.
	Can you guys hear me?
	Yes.
	What's up, brother?
	Awesome.
	Great.
	Mr.
	Wilson, big fan, Absolute Cinema.
	And I have a question for Mr.
	Borelli.
	If I knew what sexual assault was, but I had no fucking clue what rape was, could you ever prove to me that a rape took place?
	Because I think...
	No, because whatever definition you give, whatever definition I give for rape, you're just going to say it was sexual assault.
	Yeah.
	No, true, yeah.
	If you had no idea what rape was, but you knew well what sexual assault was, then any single time I try to define, well, I think a rape has occurred, you would just say, no, I think this fits with sexual assault.
	You would never give a definition of rape, and then you would just use that to try to win the argument, yeah.
	You left?
	I think you left.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	All right, so...
	We'll go ahead and start switching on over to the Castle Club members.
	I'll hit a couple of these hands and then I do have something that I was going to bring up to the panel.
	Who's the first person on, Bills?
	Alright, we're going to go ahead.
	And just for the guys on Castle Club that are waiting, we're not going to put you on camera because we're live on YouTube and all the platforms, so I want to protect your guys' identities.
	But we'll go ahead and get the first person in that had something, Bills.
	Do we have them ready?
	Locals only, right?
	Yeah, locals only.
	Yeah, Castle Club, yeah, same thing.

▲