Knowledge Fight dissects Alex Jones’ February 12–14, 2020 rants: he falsely claims Trump purged "globalists," demands military executions of Chinese agents and U.S. Democrats, then pivots to debunking his own conspiracy theories—like the coronavirus being a bioweapon or not real—while mocking critics like Francis Boyle. Jones invites QAnon-linked Ivan Raiklin, who peddles baseless theories (e.g., Clinton changing states to run with Bloomberg), exposing his reliance on reactive outrage and fringe narratives over facts. Ultimately, the episode reveals Jones’ incoherent, fear-mongering tactics and his audience’s embrace of violent fantasies as political discourse. [Automatically generated summary]
So anyway, this is a podcast where apparently I have a lot of feelings about dunks and was unaware of the controversy from the last night's dunk contest.
So, but before we get down to any of that, we've got to take a moment, Jordan, to say thank you to some folks who signed up and are supporting the show.
Particularly because, you know, we don't say this all that often, but it is maybe nice to remind people we have foregone the option even of taking any advertising on this show at any point.
So it is all your support that makes this possible.
What I wanted to do is make a sound drop of like a bunch of times Alex saying, side issue.
Okay.
And then introduce this segment of side issues, but I forgot to do that.
All right.
One is I'm getting a lot of people who have like tweeted at me and sent messages about Coach Dave Dobbenmeier because apparently he's suing the NFL or wants to sue the NFL because he got too horny during the halftime show.
No, I mean, it's not great that anyone, you know, Jim Baker is more relevant than anyone.
But if we're grading it on a sliding scale, it's good that Alex Jones is so unimportant to people that they don't even notice that he's doing this exact same thing that they're clowning on Jim Baker for.
President Trump isn't waiting until he wins the election in 264 days to launch not the red wave, But the Red Storm nailed it.
Now engulfing the swamp and D.C. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of globalist operatives inside the State Department and the Justice Department and other agencies are being purged as we speak.
This has been a talking point on Alex's show at this point for a couple of days.
And honestly, it definitely sounds like something Trump would do since it's an outrageously anti-democratic move and it would help scapegoat why he's a shitty president and all that.
The problem is that I can't find any evidence that this is actually happening.
The hundreds and hundreds of people.
Trump did fire Sondland and Vindman as well as his brother.
And prior to that, former Ukrainian ambassador Marie Ivanovich had resigned at the State Department.
Beyond this, I don't really see any proof that there's a mass purging of people within the government.
And you'd think people would make a big deal out of that.
A post on Raw Story mentions an advisor to Mike Pence leaving her position and Trump withdrawing a couple of people he'd nominated for the positions of the Pentagon's comptroller and chief financial officer and the Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
So there are those, but that's still not really that much.
Outside of these examples, I can't find any other globalist purges that are happening.
And interestingly, all of these people that have been purged from the government really seem like they're just instances of Trump retaliating against people who weren't 100% on board with his clearly criminal and anti-democratic agenda.
But see, Alex's show starts with a voiceover of a guy saying, you want to fight against corruption?
Well, so does he.
So it would be painfully off-brain for Alex to just be like, hooray for explicit corruption.
He has to reframe it.
And this is the easiest way to do that.
This isn't Trump retaliating against government employees.
It's getting Soros globalist people out of the administration.
And it's not like five or six really egregious examples of retaliation.
There's a serious downside to this strategy that Alex is employing, and that's that it kind of leaves him without any plausible excuses for why Trump still sucks and isn't getting anything done.
Forever, the excuse has been that there's globalists in the mix who are sabotaging things and leaking.
But if he's now kicking out hundreds of ne'er-to-wells, that really easy and readily accepted excuse is going to be off the table.
And that seems like a bad play.
So it seems like the reality of what Alex is talking about, because it's not like tons of purges or anything.
No.
But what he's actually talking about is there was a story that came out on February 8th about National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien announcing some cuts to the National Security Council staff.
The feeling was that the council staff had gotten too big in recent years, so there was an interest in streamlining things.
O'Brien had been interviewed by NPR on January 11th, and he said that he'd hope to have 60 to 70 staffers off the council by the end of February.
But it's important to point out that they're specifically staffers that actually work for other government bodies, like the Pentagon, State Department, or the Department of Homeland Security.
These are people who are on loan to the National Security Council staff.
And this move isn't purging them or firing them.
It's really just sending them back to their home office.
I think this is what Alex is talking about.
He says the hundreds and hundreds of people.
I think he's talking about these people who Robert O'Brien is eliminating their role on the National Security Council, but not purging them.
They're just going back to the Pentagon or the State Department.
But what's important here is not, it's not that this is a purge of all dissent in the government.
What's important is that Alex is reporting it as if it is, and he's normalizing that idea.
He's making his audience comfortable with the idea that a president like Trump should be able to fill all government positions with people who are blindly loyal to whatever he wants, whether or not they're qualified for the position.
This should not be a surprise because this is what Alex does all the time, and he is not into democracy or a functioning government.
So on our last episode that came out on Wednesday of last week, we discussed how Alex had talked about Roger Stone, the sentencing recommendation was seven to nine years.
Yes.
Immediately after we put out that episode, things went a little bit wild.
And, of course, you've got the head prosecutor who thought she was going to get a job at the treasury who then resigned only to learn that that nomination was withdrawn.
Here's President Trump about Roger Stone yesterday afternoon.
unidentified
You seem from your tweet saying that you were upset about the Roger Stone safety.
When you're saying things like people wouldn't believe the conversations I don't have and I didn't talk to them, but I totally could have, it feels familiar.
So anyway, as it relates to Roger Stone, he was found guilty of a ton of crimes by a jury.
And his sentencing is coming up at the end of this month.
The prosecution, who worked for the U.S. government, recommended that Roger get seven to nine years in prison.
I'm editorializing here, but I assume this is partially inspired by his career of destroying people's lives, his long-track record of playing shady political games to help authoritarian rulers here in the United States and abroad, and his consistent behavior of trying to derail that trial that he was in as it was happening.
I'm just guessing that maybe if I were a prosecutor, I'd be like, hey, look, he's not been punished for a lot of really shady shit that he's 100% done.
You know, hey, maybe he doesn't have a criminal record, but you bet he does.
We've touched on the Rogers stuff, like I said in the last episode, but that was before all this news broke.
I said then that I don't really care about his seven to nine year sentence recommendation because I had no faith that he would have any punishment at all.
He's clearly indicating that dissenters and people who he perceives as crossing him will suffer consequences, and that for people he perceives as allies, he'll attack the foundations of the law to defend them.
We're entering seriously fucked up territory, and Alex is cheering for all of it because, of course, he is.
Alex isn't into democracy or functioning government.
He didn't realize it's customary to remove the political apparatus of the party that was in power.
Oh, isn't it in power?
Even if you're in the same party and you get into office, you remove the adjuncts that were working even for your own party, usually, because they are loyal to who put them in power, not even to the party itself or the people.
And so Trump had a major, major, major blunder when he did not remove those individuals.
And so they were working against him the whole time as Obama and Hillary and neocon deep state moles.
So now Trump says he's firing all never Trumpers.
Excellent.
And he is going to fire all anyone that's worked for Soros.
Excellent.
And anyone that's worked for the Clintons, excellent, excellent, excellent, excellent.
So here we have a very clear-cut signal that Alex is fully aware that the behavior he's hoping to see Trump engage in is the very definition of a dictator consolidating power.
The fact that he needs to stress this is a legal and lawful purge of people.
I can find no evidence that what Alex is describing is actually happening, that Trump is carrying out a large-scale purge of all the globalist Soros types in the government, but that's what Alex is reporting, and he's reporting it as a good thing.
So I consulted InfoWars website to see if they give me any clues about this situation.
And I found one interesting article about a guy in the State Department who was, quote, fired by President Trump as part of spring cleaning in the State Department.
The article goes on, quote, President Trump has taken a more active role in running the day-to-day affairs of the White House by grabbing the reins.
Trump is preventing himself from being isolated by his own staff, a real danger given how others have acted as gatekeepers by preventing information from flowing to the president.
From a January 26th, 2014 article with a shared byline from Alex and Paul Joseph Watson with the headline, Obama launches chilling purge against political enemies.
From the article, quote, throughout history, every culture has had maxims in law denouncing the openly corrupt sitting in judgment.
The Obama Justice Department is openly launching a night of long knives style purge of their political enemies that should send chills up the spine of all Americans.
This article is mostly about Dinesh D'Souza being prosecuted for campaign finance crimes, which he absolutely did.
And Trump is that because he believes that his class of person is safe.
I'm not sure if Trump said he's going to fire all never Trumpers, all Soros people, and anyone who worked with Hillary.
I can't find proof of that, but I wouldn't be surprised at this point.
The reason Alex is presenting things this way, however, is because if Alex says that Trump is doing these things, what could otherwise be seen as reorganizing of the Security Council staff is now framed as the long-awaited wish fulfillment.
This is Trump in the form that they've been begging for, who's now going to purge all their perceived enemies from office.
It's what Q wants.
It's all this stuff.
And there are two possibilities.
Either Trump is doing that, and Alex is cheerleading an authoritarian ruler, consolidating power and silencing all voices of dissent, or Trump isn't doing that.
And this cycle will just repeat all over again.
Weirdly, Trump still won't do any of the things that Alex insists he totally wants to do, but can't because of all these globalist meddlers, like release magical cures for everything.
So a new excuse will be needed.
And when that time comes, I'll predict that Alex will just get some high-level intel that there's another Soros mole in the administration that got missed in the last purge.
And they were what stopped us from getting the miracle cures all along.
And the cycle will continue over and over and over again because none of this means anything and Alex is just making it up.
See, I think the one thing that Alex should be like going on with Trump about is the recent release of all of the Pentagon stuff about how they've got alien UFO research going on and everybody's like, whoa, they might actually have something.
That's the one thing.
That's the one thing Alex should be like, Trump, release all the UFO shit.
Trump signaled that he's going to be pardoning Roger Stone.
A Pelosi says that she thinks it's illegal.
That the DOJ, who does standardize the recommendations from the top on what should be reasonable sentencing, Trump's whole justice reform movement is about having nonviolent people not serve as much time.
Through the Justice Department, say, I want you to not give this person a longer sentence than you normally would in the sentencing guidelines is 100% in his purview.
And that's like, it's a question of abuse of power for Trump to have the DOJ change their sentencing recommendations in this case.
It's not like the prosecutors in that case were just out to get Roger for no reason, and Trump is trying to defend an innocent man he has no connection to.
Roger was found guilty in a jury trial, and the prosecutors had their recommendation.
Clearly, Trump tweeted his disapproval and Barr made moves to adjust the sentencing recommendation.
That's all very clear, and it's a very overt case of corruption.
And the most likely reason it's going this way, as best I can tell, is because someone explained to Trump that he couldn't just pardon Roger.
That would almost certainly cause a severe reaction because Roger was sentenced for interfering in a case related to Trump.
So instead, you have your corrupt as shit attorney general meddle in the sentencing recommendation to create a pretext where Roger either gets a super light sentence, possibly no time at all, or the judge ignores the new recommendation and gives him nine years, and you can easily justify a pardon.
It's super important, though, that all these issues about whether or not criminal justice reform can be something a president does, advising the DOJ on general guidelines.
I would imagine that if the election is free and fair and the results are respected, he's just going to pull in HW and pardon everybody who committed a crime.
And so we can sit here and celebrate going after the Democrat deep state and the France and all these horrible people.
But I want back on Trump.
Is Trump just going to replace himself at the head of that?
Because Tim Cook comes over and has dinner with him and Ivanka and Jared.
And, you know, oh, maybe Apple's got a couple hundred plants over in China and he'll bring two or three over here.
So for that pat on the head, we're just going to let Apple and Tim Cook control everything and censor and block and not let people information be available.
Interestingly, this strategy of pointing the finger at Clinton's firing of U.S. attorneys to justify governmental firings has a very specific origin, and that is the George W. Bush Justice Department.
In 2006, they wanted to get rid of eight U.S. attorneys who they didn't like.
And to deflect criticism, the talking point they deployed was to say that Clinton broke with tradition and fired all the U.S. attorneys when he took office.
For one, it was Reagan who began the practice of replacing attorneys back in 1981 when he replaced 71 out of the 93 U.S. attorneys that were in place.
The 2006 firings were a bit of a different situation, though, because they weren't being done as part of a transition.
Since you might recall, Bush was initially, he took office in 2001.
This was very out of the ordinary.
And the Inspector General ended up releasing a report of an investigation that found that the firings were politically motivated, which was still frowned upon back then.
A whole mingling of the Justice Department and partisan politics.
So in order to deflect from what ended up being a pretty big scandal for Bush, they used the talking point that Clinton fired all the attorneys when he took office.
And since then, it's just been repeated ad nauseum in right-wing media whenever they need to justify a politically motivated firing.
Replacing people in these positions as part of a transition is a normal part of running a presidential administration these days.
But firing a bunch of people for political reasons three years into your term is not.
That is very abnormal.
And you can't just say, what about the Clintons and make all these troubling aspects disappear?
But that's what Alex is doing.
And what's fascinating is that this is what right-wing hacks do.
This is what Alex pretended he wasn't.
This is what Glenn Beck would have done in the Bush era.
This is what, I don't know, Rush Limbaugh would do.
Which we've noticed in the past couple months, he's been going pretty hard against Q.
And he also admitted when he was talking to, I think it was Steve Pieczenik, he was talking to, who said that he tried to co-opt it from the inside so he could make money off it.
And by the way, I think the Q thing's been disinformation from the start and makes ridiculously easy predictions like the vote for impeachment will be along party lines.
That's very easy to predict.
But I'm not going to fight with folks that are into Q and like it and like the research things.
That's healthy to do.
There's a sticker in there.
But he's going to kill Q. Am Q, Infowars.com.
Great.
Q is wonderful.
I've never been about infighting, so I'm not going to get into infighting with the universe.
Q.
So I bow to Q, you're all powerful.
And we just have the sticker there now that says it, I am Q, InfoWars.com.
Well, yeah, and I think that there's an interesting distinction between two, like the specifics of Nazism and all that, not necessarily matching up, but the larger themes being very reminiscent.
Yeah, and that the precision that's required with that language is something that I think even we aren't really necessarily equipped to handle, and certainly Twitter isn't.
No.
So I think is Twitter equipped to handle fake joke formats?
It's one thing, but they are Chi-Com and globalist funded.
As an ethos, they say America shouldn't exist.
So when you're a citizen that says the country shouldn't exist and you're working to bankrupt it and you're working to suppress other people, and all these Bernie Sanders people say they want to put us in death camps, Bernie's going to kill all of us.
So we hear there, too, though, just like to keep track of it, Alex is still pushing the outlaw the Democratic Party narrative, which is deeply upsetting.
It's they, you know, a lot of people who maybe have crypto sympathies for Nazis also do make the argument that it's international law, and I'm against that.
So, but the Nuremberg trials weren't some kind of like summary kangaroo court nonsense Alex wants to use to send his enemies to Siberia or Guantanamo or whatever.
Military tribunals are appropriate for matters related to military justice, which is to say crimes committed by enlisted persons.
There's a very specific term for the use of military law enforcement or courts on civilians, which is what Alex is advocating here.
That term is martial law, which you'd think Alex would understand considering he's made an entire career yelling dire warnings about it.
So we now have Alex saying that he would support Trump enlisting assassination teams to covertly murder the heads of the globalist structure or whatever.
It just can't be clear that what Alex wants is to live in the most brutally repressive dictatorship imaginable, just with his class of person not affected by that dictatorship.
Sending in the Marines, using military tribunals, martial law, outlawing rival political parties, assassinations of citizens who you politically disagree with.
This stuff is all pretty classic anti-democratic stuff.
That was because globalists made deals to build them up artificially because globalists own China.
So that was their own investment going straight up.
That said, anybody that is in bed with the Chi-Coms, once they got more arrogant in the last 20 years or so, they make you put one of their officers in your company.
Yeah, but I mean, what do you, yeah, I just like, it's one of those things where if we're, I've always said that he's like the weakest link of the right-wing propaganda chain.
And what worries me about this bullshit is how far up the chain does this kind of thinking go.
That's why he says it feels good to say things like kill them now.
It's because he's been holding back from openly expressing these violent fantasies for a long time and having to couch them in weird language, like take them out politically or wrapping himself into a pretzel of a sentence, trying to maintain some plausible deniability.
Right, but having to do those sorts of things are kind of uncomfortable verbally.
Now Alex can he feel like he can speak freely because Trump red purge or whatever.
He thinks that Trump is doing this.
He's executing a purge of hundreds of globalists and dissenters in the government.
And Alex knows what comes along with that historically: targeted killings.
Trump is not firing all of Alex's imagined enemies, but Alex is operating as if that were the case.
So what he's doing is creating a pretext for and justification for Trump to carry out political assassinations, which would be the next logical step down this road.
Alex is even creating a rationale to ignore the very understandable backlash that would come from Trump doing something like this.
Alex is saying that the Democrats would freak out, which naturally they would if the president were carrying out extrajudicial assassinations, but Alex is pre-framing it.
Is them freaking out because their supposed handlers are being taken out?
If Alex were specifically trying to prepare his audience to accept a dictator, he could barely ever do a better job than what he's doing now.
I think one of my biggest problems here is that not only is he normalizing this language and this kind of thought process for his listeners, but I can feel it hitting me.
Like, oh, is this the level of conversation that we're at?
I feel like, no, no, no, no, that's what I'm saying, but I can feel that desire to participate in it as like that's our conversation now, you know?
I'd like to bring up the virus over there in China.
I don't know if this has been discussed, and I'll try to make it quick, my friend.
This over there, what's happening with this virus, do you think they are using that as a false flag in the manner of now they're rounding up the protesters that were protesting over there and saying, oh, these people are loaded with a virus, but we're going to make it look like we're taking them out of their homes because of the virus.
Are they arresting these people and never to be seen again?
I'm not sure if he said it was a man-made thing, but the speech that Cotton gave that Alex has played has to do with it not coming from the seafood market and the origin not being specifically known.
So this is one of the coronavirus conspiracy talking points.
Like I said, I'm surprised we haven't heard it come up yet.
The basic idea is that some medications that are used to treat HIV are also being used to treat cases of coronavirus, and thus they must be the same condition, or at very least, coronavirus has parts of HIV mixed into it.
This is a really sloppy conspiracy, and it's pretty easy to explain why medications that are used to treat persons with HIV would also have applications in this context.
One of the big issues here is that the list of FDA-approved antiviral drugs is not a long list.
And a lot of the ones that do exist are used as part of normal treatment plans for people with HIV.
When a new virus pops up, oftentimes doctors will try the existing antivirals to see if they work.
And this will ultimately always be someone that you could claim is, quote, treating the new virus with HIV.
Since almost all antivirals could reductively be called HIV meds.
The issue here is that these drugs will not likely be effective in the treatment of coronavirus.
The issue is that the heightened panic surrounding the virus, there's a real fear that the demand for the antiviral drugs will increase to the point where people with HIV could have a more difficult time getting their meds.
The concern is that there are people pushing misinformation, like these antivirals are a cure or solid preventative measure against the coronavirus.
People would take that misinformation and rush out to buy out the antiviral meds, which will leave the supply not able to meet the demand of people who actually need them.
The actual picture of the situation is pretty complex.
There are some doctors who are experimenting with using medications that are used to manage HIV with patients who have the coronavirus, but that absolutely doesn't mean that they're a treatment for the virus, nor is it proof that there's some sort of coronavirus conspiracy going on here.
So Alex gets to this interview with Francis Boyle, and he once again repeats that timeline lie in the introduction, which again, I have to stress, like, you can't, if you're Francis Boyle, you can't allow yourself to be presented like this.
He joined us last week and said it needs to be investigated as a bioweapon.
And we've had one of Trump spokespersons come out and say the same thing just a few hours later.
So I wanted to get an update from Dr. Francis Boyle, who wrote the U.S. Biological Weapons Convention that then got adopted, most of it by the United Nations.
So everything is wrong about that timeline in the intro.
Like we pointed out a hundred times, the interview that he did was after Trump's science guy came out and made that statement.
But the other problem with the timelines here is that Alex is saying that Boyle's draft of the U.S. Bioweapons Act was adopted into the UN Biological Weapons Convention.
The UN version was adopted on March 6th, 1975, whereas the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act was adopted by the United States on May 22nd, 1990.
The U.S. version was built from the UN version, not the other way around, but Alex doesn't want that to be the appearance.
If Alex allows reality to exist here, he has to admit that his guest was someone who took international law and applied it to our own sovereign nation, which is globalism and the very definition of evil, according to Alex.
If it's the other way around, that Boyle wrote the law, which the UN then adopted, then he could pretend that it's just good Americana, that they ended up forcing the UN to enact exactly.
Well, it's a difficult position that this puts Alex in because the whole narrative was that Anthony Fauci is this hero who's coming out prompted by Francis Boyle's interview on Infowars that Trump heard and he forced Anthony Fauci to come out and blow the alarm.
So without me asking the questions here, you're the expert.
Right after you come on, right after Senator Cotton says it should be looked at as man-made, the Indian Institute saying it looks man-made, showing where it's clearly been gene edited.
So there's a good reason that people from the Department of Justice might have been making inquiries to Alex's dad a while back, and that's because Roger Stone was on trial and he was an employee at Infowars.
Now, as much as Alex wants to say his dad's barely involved in the company, on many occasions, Alex's dad, David Jones, has been presented as the head of HR human resources at InfoWars' parent company, Free Speech Systems.
When Alex was facing EEOC complaints from Ashley Beckford and Rob Jacobson, David Jones was the human resources director that he fielded media requests.
In other news stories, he's been given that title, and by all appearances, he's the person who's in charge of staffing and employee-related issues for the company.
On December 18th, 2018, Alex's dad was deposed in the Pepe the frog lawsuit.
But what's this?
He wasn't deposed as himself.
He was the corporate representative of free speech systems, which led to this exchange, which when I went back and read the deposition, I read it a while back, but now after the Rob Dew deposition, this is particularly funny.
Here's a question from the lawyer.
You understand you've been designated as the corporate representative of free speech systems at today's deposition, correct?
Response, who designated me that?
I suppose I was advised by email some time ago that they were going to have a corporate designate, and I had agreed at the time that I'd be willing if it was prudent.
Question.
Okay, and did anyone advise you that you were, in fact, going to be the corporate designee for free speech systems?
Answer.
I think I was advised, but I didn't really realize the full impact of that, but yes.
It seems like this is a pattern for Alex in his lawsuits.
Just making someone he thinks he can trust be the corporate representative for his company and having them go into the deposition completely unprepared and stonewall the whole thing.
He did that with Rob Dew in the Sandy Hook trial, and he did it with his own fucking father in this case.
It's a very clear strategy Alex and his lawyers employ to derail and slow down trials that they know they're going to lose.
And man, it's just wild to read that transcript of the 2018 deposition and realize that Alex was willing to put his dad in the position of being a pawn in that kind of a game.
The globalists are now trying to take out Alex's dad.
Alex made him the head of InfoWars Human Resources so he could have a person he trusts in that position.
And there are consequences to moves like that.
For instance, when one of your employees is facing federal charges, it may be a thing where your dad ends up getting a message from the prosecutors.
Or, I don't know, let's say another one of your former employees, let's just call him Jerome Coursey, tries to sue you.
And his contention is that he was wrongly terminated as part of the, you know, that's part of the discussion.
That might end up getting your head of human resources, in this case, your father, involved in that legal matter.
This is how narcissists operate.
When they're facing the consequences of their own actions, they're not able to accept them on reality's terms.
So the consequences themselves become a part of a larger attack, thereby allowing Alex to maintain and even expand his own victimhood.
Alex's dad, in his capacity as the InfoWars HR director, gets contacted by prosecutors or lawyers about legal issues related to former Infowars employers or employees.
That is completely normal and a predictable thing to have happen.
But to Alex, this becomes the globalist trying to investigate and take out his poor, innocent, completely uninvolved father because they're sick and they target your loved ones.
These are just really sad levels of Alex acting out his own issues on his audience.
It's wild to think that his dad hasn't checked this stuff by this point, just allows it to continue.
Or his dad must be way crazier on the John Birch tip than it's very plausible that he is far more of a zealot than we know because he keeps such a low profile and refuses to come on Alex's show.
It might just be that he's a smart version of that guy.
And the silencing of this American patriot who was punished for helping advise President Trump, getting President Trump to want to run for office, making President Trump believe he could win.
President Trump would not be president if it wasn't for Roger Stone.
So this is a very dangerous mentality that Alex is expressing because at its core, what it does is it makes it so anyone on your team can commit any crime they want.
When Alex says that Roger is being prosecuted because he helped Trump get elected, on one level, what he's saying isn't true.
But on a deeper level, it's also very not true.
The issue is that Roger is not being prosecuted for that.
He's going to prison for actual crimes he committed and was found guilty by a jury for.
I've never actually even heard Alex discuss the real charges that Roger was convicted of.
Not once have I heard Alex discuss the very clear open and shut witness intimidation that Roger engaged in with Randy Credico.
He never talks about the reality of the charges because the reality of Roger's actions has been replaced with a facade, which can be easily summed up as it doesn't matter what the charges are because he didn't do it.
And even if he did, they're only charging him because he supports Trump.
No matter what you do, if you're on the team, it doesn't matter.
This is just good old-fashioned separation of powers stuff.
It's not separation of powers when the executive branch intervenes to overrule the judicial on a matter that's specifically related to the criminal affairs of the head of the executive branch.
What Alex is describing is how a normal pardon might work.
But in this case, Trump would be absolutely out of line to pardon Roger, given that his conviction, again, by a jury, was related to impeding the investigation into the criminal affairs of Trump.
Pardoning Roger would be more or less just Trump.
It'd be him sending out a very overt message that if you commit crimes to protect his crimes, he's got your back and you won't do any time.
It's the definition of corrupt.
Yeah.
And I suspect that's why, again, they're going with the Bill Barr route first.
There needs to be a pretext for this since it really feels like, as eroded as our system is now, it still seems like that would be a breach of norms.
Like using a presidential pardon to get your friend who's in prison for lying to impede an investigation into your actions, it seems like even as bad as things are now, that's still too on the nose.
It is getting really frustrating that nobody in the media is willing to just point out that the big reason Trump is getting away with all of this shit is because we're all kind of afraid that if we hold him accountable, his supporters will start murdering people in the streets.
Like that is kind of a big deal that is unspoken underneath.
I'm not saying they will, but there's the fear of it.
Ah, yes, Jordan, the notoriously restrained and cowardly CPAC.
Who could forget how cookie-cutter and safe their speaker list was in 2019 when they had Sebastian Gorka, Diamond and Silk, Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, and oh, who's this? Donald Trump as speakers.
CPAC is not afraid to have complete shitheads and con men as speakers.
They just don't want ones who are bad for the brand.
That's why they disinvited Milo after people started talking about those pro-pedophilia comments he'd made in the past.
That's why they disinvited Gateway pundits Jim Hoft after he started spreading conspiracy theories about the survivors of the Parkland shooting.
That's why they didn't let Laura Loomer and Jacob Wall in.
They don't care if you're a lying shithead, just so long as you're not too embarrassing.
And at this point, Alex and Roger are really embarrassing.
Also, CPAC might not want to invite Roger because in 2018, he was involved in the first year of a rival conservative conference called the American Priority Conference, which was trying to brand itself as the CPAC for Trump people.
That conference, probably coincidentally, was held at a Trump hotel and involved a whole lot of shitheads saying dumb conspiracy stuff and selling idiots' knickknacks.
Incidentally, along with Roger Stone, the American Priority Conference 2018 also had speakers like Stefan, Laura Loomer, Mike Cernovich, and Anthony Scaramucci, whose speech apparently was mostly about how QAnon is real.
This is the lane that Roger belongs in.
And even fucking CPAC understands that.
They aren't afraid to have him come speak.
It's just that he's an embarrassing criminal asshole who belongs at a conference along with other losers like Laura Loomer and Stefan Molino.
For the junior varsity, super toxic brands welcome version of CPAC.
And that's a good call on their part.
You can't invite Alex because then he would make your event all about himself.
He's so desperate at this point that he could be completely welcome somewhere and he'd still show up in a tank with a bullhorn acting like he's breaking in.
No one needs that.
And he steals focus to a point where it's just like, just calm down, Dick.
So at this point, Alex, like, it's actually a little bit refreshing in some ways, even though what he does is terrible and awful.
But, like, we've been so starved for any different content because of all the obsession about the coronavirus.
And now, like, okay, you got the Rogers stuff really taking over and the DOJ and Trump pardoning, which leads him to the murder obsession on the last episode.
You hear him telling a story about some Somali immigrants who went on a spree of crimes, but were let go because, you know, the left is into letting non-white people get away with crime so as to bring about the end of civilization.
This is gossiping about a headline he might have skimmed, or more likely, it's just Alex making up a story in order to justify him going into a xenophobic rant, which is what he was going to do, whether or not he had a story to base it on.
This was a story from the Elko Daily Free Press covering a federal judge's ruling in Virginia that a Somali pirate could not have his sentence thrown out, which he was seeking because he claimed that his lawyer was ineffective in the underlying trial.
The judge said nope, and that Somali man is still in prison.
You'd think that based on the narrative that Alex is selling, this pirate would be exactly the sort of person the federal judge would release as a perfect religious virtue signal sacrament.
But it looks like the reality is the opposite in this case.
I couldn't find any evidence of judges releasing any Somali immigrants for stabbings.
So I started searching for Somali and spree, those words, to see if anything came up.
And there was one story from September 2019 out of Minneapolis.
But this wasn't about a Somali immigrant going on a stabbing spree.
It's about a guy named Harlan St. John getting arrested for going on a vandalism spree, smashing out the windows of Somali-owned businesses because as he told the police, quote, Somali people are selling meth and heroin to native people.
I wanted to be cute about this, but honestly, I have no idea what story Alex is talking about.
And that's kind of my main point.
If I, someone who's actively trying to figure out what story Alex is talking about, have no idea, people who are just passively listening have no clue what's going on and what's real and what Alex is just making up.
When people in positions like Alex are vague, it's because they're making things up.
If Alex really had a case of a small spree stabber who'd gone free because it was a religious sacrament of virtue signaling for the left to let immigrants commit crimes, it would probably be in his interest to actually cover the details of the story.
Go over that.
What's the name of the stabber, the alleged stabber?
What's the name of the judge?
What city did it happen in?
Fuck, what country did it happen in?
What are the circumstances of the case?
He doesn't do any of that because he's not covering the news.
He's creating a feeling, and that feeling is supposed to be purely anti-left and anti-non-whites.
So wait, the day before, Alex got a call from a guy who was saying that the virus was just a cover-up to round up people who are protesting against the Chinese government, which would lead you to think that it's not a race-specific bioweapon that got released.
I think it does kill some people, but there's no doubt that they're putting some fake videos out in China of like a man and woman laying there to create fear.
They're letting everybody videotape it to create fear.
You just said it was a race-specific bioweapon a minute ago and talking about North Korea, and now you have this caller who's saying that, nah, it wasn't the disease that killed them.
Steve had nothing to do with any of this, the Tom Clancy stuff, but he's notorious for pretending to be the real life Jack Ryan, and he associates himself heavily with all things Clancy.
This is probably, on my part, a complete stretch.
And I have no reason to believe that this theory even makes sense.
But there's something super weird about Alex incessantly trying to brand this the Red Storm, which happens to be a term that's only really widely associated with a former business partner of Steve Pieczenik's.
Most likely, it's just Alex trying to launch a phrase that he can put on some shirts.
But you have to forgive me if my mind wanders sometimes.
If I understand this caller's argument, he seems to be saying that, quote, the streets should be supporting Trump because they're also homophobic, transphobic, and opposed drag.
I don't know if that's a good argument when you're trying to present the idea that Trump is a uniting force.
As to Alex's point about Trump having record black and Hispanic support, it's good that he's not being specific about that because if he was, he'd probably be lying.
If you go back to a speech that Trump gave on the campaign trail back in 2016, he said, quote, at the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will have over 95% of the African-American vote.
I promise you, because I will produce.
This is in stark contrast to a November 2019 Hill-Harris X poll that found that, quote, an overwhelming majority of black voters, 85%, said they would choose any Democratic presidential candidate over Trump.
In reality, he's probably never going to get anywhere higher than like 10%, and that might even be generous.
That is not record-breaking, unless you're talking about it being a record for Trump himself, which is a little disingenuous.
I think this is all a little bit silly for Alex, a devout white identity advocate, to be bragging about Trump's non-white support while discussing with a caller how, quote, the streets and Trump can find common ground over their agreement that trans people shouldn't be allowed to exist in public and non-heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
So this caller goes on to talk about how great Alex's iodine is, and I don't trust him.
unidentified
Without the Survival Shield X2 and without Donald Trump, I'd still be a liberal left-wing crazy believing in mainstream media, pop culture, and Hollywood.
You guys helped me.
The X2 gave me the clarity and the focus to read between the lines and understand what's really going on out here.
So except in cases where someone is severely iodine deficient, Alex's products aren't going to do anything other than a placebo effect.
So long as his listeners are eating salt, there's nothing these products can do for them except trick them into thinking they're somehow seeing through the matrix.
Alex is being a real shithead when he cites these studies about iodine increasing IQ because he knows or has every reason to know these studies are not saying that if you take iodine, it will make your IQ go up.
They are showing IQ differences between people who had severe iodine deficiencies and those who did not.
Most of the studies that Alex would cite are actually about maternal iodine levels and the effect that can have on fetal development.
So not even relevant to this caller or Alex, who I should point out are grown adults taking iodine supplements.
And this is a classic case of Alex creating a fake problem for his products to solve.
He tells his audience that the globalists are trying to dumb them down and iodine can fight back against the onslaught.
The listeners take the iodine, have that placebo effect, which is accompanied by listening to a ton of Alex's shit unquestioningly.
They adopt his narratives without looking into any of it themselves and pretend that that's them seeing through the matrix, which they were able to do thanks to the miracle brain boosting power of iodine.
It's all just a really sad grift, but you can see that it definitely does work sometimes.
I mean, the scams, the scams.
The scams work, not the iodine.
Those aren't going to do shit.
So, Jordan, I have given you a stout.
We're going to crack open here a morning latte from the Toppling Goliath Brewing Company out of Iowa.
You've been talking about this for a few days with me.
We pull the trigger earlier.
We are going to intervene in the Roger Stone case.
And we're also going to be working with Mike Cernovich on this.
But I'm going to finance it to go in and show in the court records, which are very expensive to get all the particular records, with these jurors bragging that they're Democrats.
This other juror whose husband was a top lawyer on the Mueller probe, I mean, conflicts of interest that are incredible.
Remember, they called a few months ago for my arrest in the Washington Post.
Even though the Supreme Court's rule, it's totally normal to put out who jurors are for the intent of finding out they have a conflict.
So it's interesting because, I mean, what's going on here is that they're trying to create this argument that these jurors were biased in Roger Stone's case.
And like Norm is on here, and he even said, I don't even have the transcripts.
I don't, like, I'm just requesting them.
And if you listen to the language that's used here, like, it's very clear that they're just guessing.
You're entitled to a jury of your peers, and that's a fair and impartial jury.
Historically, what that's meant is that these are jurors who have not formed views of the case so significant that they're likely to affect how they evaluate the evidence.
In some courts, that means people don't know anything about the parties or the participants.
That's rare in a high-profile case.
Typically, they just have to be impartial.
They have to set aside whatever they've heard and commit to being able to try the case based on the evidence in the courtroom.
However, the participants are entitled to an honest answer with respect to sources of bias that jurors may have.
Now, Mike Cernovich is reporting that one of the jurors had run for Congress as a Democrat prior to the trial.
It's unclear to me as I sit here today whether that was disclosed to the lawyers in the case.
This juror has now come forward and written about her outrage over the resignation of the four trial prosecutors this week, suggesting that, in fact, she had very strong views at the time of trial.
His language is completely clear that he has no idea if that person who ran for office disclosed in the jury selection phase of the trial that they'd run for office.
He has no idea.
Norm is just speculating that it wasn't, but guess what?
Anybody who wants to speculate that it was brought up has as much ground to stand on.
They're not saying shit.
This isn't a claim.
It's just a narrative that's being built out of thin air, which makes sense considering all of this is just information coming from Mike Cernovich.
Largely, and then more specifically, give Trump the political cover that he needs to pardon Roger.
And that's all just weak shit.
Like I went and looked at what Cernovich was putting out.
And one of Cernovich's gotcha moments is showing that a juror had mentioned Roger Stone on Twitter in the past, though the jurors were asked if they'd posted on social media about the subject of the case, which would be Roger.
The smoking gun that's shown here is a juror, this one juror, retweeted a Bakari Sellers tweet that said, quote, Roger Stone has y'all talking about reviewing the use of force guidelines.
Not Alton Sterling, not Eric Gardner, not Walter Scott, not Sandra Bland, not Keith Lamont Scott, not Philando Castillo, not Terrence Crusher, not DeAntre Hamilton, but Roger Stone.
Think about that.
This is clearly not a tweet about Roger Stone.
It's about the treatment of African-American folks by the police.
Also, she just retweeted it.
That wasn't even her tweet.
I think you could very accurately say that you'd never tweeted about Roger Stone, even if you retweeted that.
This is thin fucking broth.
The rest of his proof is that she tweeted some negative things about Trump in the past.
And to that, I say, so what?
This wasn't a trial about Trump.
It was about Roger committing crimes.
It's very possible for a human adult to not like Trump and remain unbiased about a legal matter involving one of Trump's associates.
Just because Alex could never be impartial if he were a juror in a case involving a friend of Hillary Clinton's doesn't mean that normal people are incapable of that.
Like, for instance, I fucking hate Alex Jones, but I could be totally impartial in a case involving his cousin Buckley, for instance.
So this Cernovich stuff is really stupid and it would never hold up in court, but that's okay because it's not designed to.
It's meant to be a play for a public opinion narrative that provides cover for Trump to abuse his power and pardon his friend for trying to obstruct an investigation into him, which makes it particularly sad for Alex's lawyer to debase himself by lending this weak shit credibility.
Like, Barnes really needs to give Norm a call and get him up to speed that it's time to bail.
So Alex is like, you know, he wants Norm to talk about the case and Roger being innocent and all that.
But also, he's fixated on a headline that he's read about this Cambridge professor who's written a book basically making the argument that humans should stop reproducing.
It would be an ethical thing for humans to stop reproducing because of all of the systems that we've brought into the world that are destructive and that, you know, unpackaging, unpacking all of the things like capitalism.
Sure, sure.
All of the systems that we have are foreign to nature.
Now, Norm has got to be thrilled that he showed up.
Like, he's got to be at the point where, like, after Alex got drunk and yelled about wanting a bounty on the opposing council, he had to be like, it always goes bad when I show up.
And he's like, hey, we're just talking about Roger.
Everything's fine.
Alex is being a little bit, you know, saying we're going to intervene.
That's not.
But I can correct him.
You know, we can get by on this.
Now he's talking about how this professor needs to kill herself.
Well, there's also the employer-employee relationship, or at least like there's the business relationship.
And, you know, if you're Norm, you also recognize there's some performance on Alex's part that, like, maybe after the mics went off and they went to commercial, he apologized.
He used to post videos on YouTube of himself doing drugs, which he called trip reports, but he stopped that after he overdosed on fake weed back in 2010 and got clean.
He's advanced some real fun conspiracies, like he believes that Charles Manson is innocent, and some real not fun ones, like arguing that the Nazis didn't use Zyklon B in the gas chambers.
He since walked that one back a little bit, but in my book, if you're using your platform to spread Holocaust revisionism, that stays with you, even when you walk it back.
But the problem is that you didn't realize you were wrong before you started preaching that shit.
Realizing your position was wrong doesn't change the fact that you were still the same person, even afterwards.
After you made up your mind that you were wrong, you are the same person who thought it was a great idea to question well-established history of the Holocaust.
I think one of the big problems with YouTube creators being self-employed is that the only person who can fire them or punish them for their bad behavior doesn't particularly care that much.
And so he'll have a lot of these people who exist in fringe spaces on YouTube because you want to reach out to those audiences more and have the cool Owen Schroer guy cook destroyer.
You know, you have him on.
It makes some sense, but being on with Alex is just not good.
So we get to the 14th, and now something interesting has happened.
And that is that an interview with William Barr has come out where he's trying to do damage control about the fact that these prosecutors removed themselves from the case.
So now Alex has an interesting dilemma on his hands.
We know that Attorney General Barr has really come out against the president.
Some people are saying that it's elaborate theater kabuki and that it's to get Democrat heat off the Attorney General by saying don't send it stone to an exorbitant amount of time.
So by the 14th, William Barr had sat down for a highly staged interview where he basically made the point that Trump's tweet about Roger Stone's sentencing recommendation made it impossible for him to do his job as the attorney general.
You can kind of see what he means.
That tweet put him in a very bad position.
If he sincerely did believe the recommendation was too severe, he then had to choose to either not amend the recommendation for fear of appearing compromised by Trump's tweet or amend the recommendation and give literally every appearance of being compromised by Trump's tweet.
I have a strong suspicion that the interview he did was intentional and it was a calculated act designed to cut off criticisms that as attorney general, he was basically just acting as Trump's personal attorney and doing his bidding as opposed to protecting the interests of the country.
He sees the interview as a broadside attack on Trump.
And now Barr is on the outs with the Patriots, which is hilarious considering how much Alex loved Barr not a few days ago.
Steve is going to come on and bash Barr, which makes sense.
Barr is associated with the neocons who Steve fucking hates.
So this is standard stuff.
Just Steve working in some of his own material, going into business for himself on Alex's show, as they say in the world of wrestling.
But what I want to bring sharp focus to is how now Alex doesn't like William Barr.
And because of that, a whole new set of facts are available to him, like that Bill Barr is up to his eyeballs in the Jeffrey Epstein stuff.
Here's the thing: Alex didn't just learn that Barr's father was, quote, the headmaster of an elite New York City school that hired college dropout Epstein to teach math and physics.
That line I just read to you was from an August 2019 article in Time, and it wasn't news then.
Alex has known that all along, but he strategically doesn't mention it ever while he's in the cycle of presenting Barr as a hero, doing the heroic work of backing up the arch hero Trump.
Now that he said something in the interview that Alex sees as going against the dear leader, all of a sudden, Alex is aware of this long-reported piece of information.
So I was listening to this, and all I could think about was pro wrestling.
You may not know this, Jordan, but there are different styles of wrestling that heels and faces generally engage in because they're trying to elicit different reactions from the crowd.
You don't want a crowd generally genuinely cheering for the heel.
So you typically don't allow them to do moves that are too exciting.
A good recent example of this is Seth Rollins.
When he was a heel, he didn't do any of the high-flying moves that people really pop for.
But once he turned face, he started breaking out the superplex into a Falcon Arrow and the Phoenix Splash.
So when Seth was a heel, he knew how to do those moves.
He was perfectly capable of pulling them out at any point in any match, but he didn't because his goal was different in those circumstances.
That's what Alex does with information.
In that interview, Alex thinks William Barr has turned heel on Trump.
And now the move set has opened up and he can now connect Barr with Epstein.
Alex could have done that at any point, and it would have been just as true, but he never did because that would jeopardize the face reaction that he wanted the listeners to have towards William Barr.
This little thing is a gigantic tell about how Alex operates.
He knows so much more than he says on air, particularly about the people he's trying to paint as good guys who are actually trash.
It also strongly indicates that he was totally fine with having an attorney general in office who was up to his eyeballs in the Epstein stuff so long as they didn't dare question Trump.
So Alex also has learned on this February 14th, by the time this episode airs, he's learned that the Department of Justice has come out and said that they're not going to pursue prosecution against Andrew McCabe.
Another argument might be that it is also another placating move and that this prosecution wouldn't have worked out, but you could have left it hanging.
Sure.
But you dismiss it in order to also appear more fair in the face of all these prosecutors.
So because of the Andrew McCabe news, Alex is just ranting about all his standard enemies.
But John Brennan's in that bucket.
He has a couple of riffs he knows how to do.
And so that's what he's doing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's all pretty boring for the most part, except for that clip.
At the end there, you hear Alex claim that Brennan voted communist twice.
This is a wild piece of information that our country's former CIA director voted for a communist twice.
In reality, John Brennan has discussed publicly how he voted for the Communist Party candidate for president in 1976, Gus Hall, but he was never a member of the party.
In fairness, Gus Hall got over 58,000 votes in the 1976 election.
And if we want to get petty about things, he actually beat Lyndon LaRouche, who was running on the U.S. labor ticket that year.
Regardless, it's super interesting that a guy who in his younger life would have voted for a non-mainstream candidate in a general election, that they could eventually end up in charge of the CIA.
I don't think it means anything in the larger sense, but it's pretty fascinating as trivia.
Anyway, the reason I pulled this clip is because it's another prime example of how Alex cannot help himself.
He has to embellish everything to make his narrative sound bigger and more convincing.
There's no evidence that Brennan voted communist twice, but the fact that he voted communist once just doesn't do it for Alex.
He has to take an already interesting and surprising piece of information and turn it into a lie by exaggerating it because he knows his arguments suck.
On some basic visceral level, Alex knows that you can easily write off a guy voting for the Communist Party once in the mid-70s as a quirk, a whim.
Or maybe if you feel this way, you could call it an indiscretion of his youth.
So with the balance of the hour, Dr. Steve Pachinik joins us.
And I know you'll get into the whole history of it in the background, but there's a good chance Trump will end up seeing at least five minutes of this.
He calls it the clips, and people bring it to him.
I'll just leave it at that.
What is your just quick synopsis in five minutes, Dr. Pachenek?
I know the president knows who you are and your background of things you've done in different agencies and things.
As a private citizen, what is your five-minute synopsis for the president?
Five-minute synopsis of the president is very simple.
Number one, William Barr has to go.
I've said it a year ago.
The reason for it, not only has he really insulted the president and said an inappropriate thing, that the president can't, in fact, tweet and interfere with the Department of Justice.
This is Texas AM 2007, and it's Homeland Security.
It's the Department of the Army Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command.
And it's all the letters right here.
We can show TV viewers.
And this is the nano silver that we have put out by one of the top companies in the world, American Biotech Labs, LLC.
And this is the silver that the Pentagon found with the wound shell and ultimately private label.
That was the best for taking out all sorts of bacteria and viruses, including the SARS family that is the coronavirus.
And I'm not saying it's a panacea or a silver bullet, though it is silver.
It's one of the best silver systems you'll find.
It's sold out of the 16-ounce.
We have the one ounce and three-ounce left.
That is selling out quickly.
It also funds the InfoWar.
So get yours today.
It's for topical.
You can also ingest it.
InfowarStore.com.
Consult your physician, obviously, because even though it's approved for that, you still need to find out what's happening personally in your own life.
At the end there, Alex is saying it's approved for that.
And he's specifically talking about the gargle.
So now he's implying that there is FDA approval for this immune gargoyle.
And what you end up seeing here is really like, I've seen a progression of Alex testing the waters, no consequences happening, and it just getting more explicit, the lies that he's telling about the silver product.
And I mean, I don't know if there's ever going to be any consequences for it, but I mean, eventually he's just going to be saying crazy shit.
He's just going to be making factual claims that aren't true because he'll be able to get away with it.
Well, there's two things that I think he's thinking of, which is one, Trump's agencies are not going to care.
It seems unlikely.
Unless he directs them to, which is totally legal.
And two, he must be stoked that Jim Baker is getting all of that attention because if anybody is going to be the regulation, Alex gets to go under the radar, sell it as evilly and as inexplicably as he likes, and Jim Baker is going to be a lot of people.
Generally speaking, I have such a non-engagement policy with Alex, but like, if other people are going to take the information that we're putting out and act on it, nothing I can do about that.
I'm not going to not cover this for fear of like someone might.
But if there were a situation where I had good reason to believe what Alex was doing could actually hurt the people who are buying the supplements, then I would.
Yeah.
Then I would definitely make a report myself.
Right, right, right.
But this hasn't crossed that line.
It's just like unethical scam.
Anyway, Alex gets to talking to Steve, and this is really interesting to me because, you know, the term deep state, you know what that means, right?
Obviously, there was a big organic populist deep state.
I mean, a mom taking care of her children in the morning, making them biscuits and gravy is the real deep state, or a cop doing his job, changing an old lady's tire, or a doctor doing their job.
That's the real deep state.
It's just rubber meets the road.
But obviously, if the corrupt elements of the deep state keep trying to start a fight and get the fight they want, they should pray for Donald Trump's success.
America is so awake now, the military is so awake.
Everybody I know is so awake, and they don't want to go out and start having a civil war.
But if the communists and the Democrats and the Bernie Sanders of the world think they're going to have this big happy hunting ground in America, it's not going to go the way it did in Russia or other places.
Bernie's going to kill the ground.
How much danger they're in?
Can you speak to that if things were to go into a civil war?
See, Jordan, it's really interesting that when you listen to Alex for long enough, it just becomes a farce.
Everything is internally inconsistent.
Nothing means anything.
And things that were once seen as the words of villains expressing their evil plans are now the wise guidance of heroes you hope the president puts into motion.
In that clip, Steve is saying that when he takes over the Department of Education, he would make all youths do two years of compulsory service to the country, not necessarily to the military, but in service to the country.
This is legitimately one of the first things that Alex covered in the Obama deception.
The idea that Obama's chief of staff, Rah Emmanuel, had written a book called The Plan, Selling Big Ideas for America, which proposed that all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 would do three months of some form of community service.
Steve wants them to do eight times that much service.
Naturally, in the film, the argument was accompanied by shots of young black men in ROTC exercises to drive home the racism that was behind this narrative.
But let's not get bogged down on that very obvious aspect of the narrative.
Alex never thought that the act of suggesting some kind of mandatory community service was the same thing as creating the Obama youth.
Because if he did, he would have the same response to Steve, suggesting a more severe version of what Rahm proposed.
This was never sincere.
It was always just a cheap way Alex could attack Obama and a way he could stoke racist fears in his audience that they already had about a black president.
Not only is the president black, he's also creating a gigantic army of young black men.
It's an easy way to get away with this sort of shit.
And this case is a really good example of why.
Because if you really listen, it does make a lot of sense to explore some kind of mandatory public service program for the country.
And not just for the country's sake, but also for all the individual citizens.
The experience of volunteering at a soup kitchen or cleaning up a forest can be transformative for people.
And a lot of times, you know, folks need a little push to do things that benefit themselves as well as the larger society.
Because this is an intuitively pretty decent idea, it doesn't sound nuts for Steve to be suggesting it.
And unless you've listened to Alex for years and actually paid attention, you'd never remember that this was a major talking point of his anti-Obama coverage, that he was going to enslave your children.
Clearly, a philosophical opposition to mandatory public service isn't what was motivating Alex's coverage of Rom.
I think what frustrates me for those easy narratives is if we want on the left an easy narrative, we have 10 million of them that he has provided us instantly.
Like if you want an easy narrative, he came into office violating the emoluments clause.
In 2018, Ivan was a guest on the John Bachelor Show podcast.
In his bio, he doesn't mention working for the DIA.
However, there is this bit: quote: Ivan holds a BA in Russian, Spanish, Russia, and East European Studies, a JD, and attended the MS in Strategic Intelligence program at the Defense Intelligence Agency.
I guess the correct version of this claim would be to say that you have a master's in science in strategic intelligence from the National Intelligence University, which is a school that's meant to prepare people for work in organizations like the Defense Intelligence Agency.
That is where he would get the degree, or he would have got it at another establishment of higher learning.
So even if that piece of Ivan's story is a little murky, some pieces are a little clearer.
He's probably most notable publicly for trying to run for Tim Kaine's Senate seat in Virginia in the 2018 midterm elections.
Ivan had gauged the viability of his campaign by doing a 1,776-mile run through all the towns and cities in Virginia back in August 2017.
Apparently, that went well, so he decided to throw his hat into the ring.
Ultimately, he was denied inclusion from the ballot for the Republican primary, with the Virginia GOP saying that he failed to gather the required number of signatures.
Ivan claimed that he had enough signatures and he was being kept off the ballot for some unknown political reason.
According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, the Virginia Republican Party contacted Ivan on his Facebook page, which seems a little weird.
Seems like communications like this might be appropriate somewhere else.
Maybe.
I have no idea.
Anyway, they contacted him saying, quote, unfortunately, many of the signatures collected in the 9th congressional district were not valid, and for that reason, you were disqualified.
Odds are this isn't an issue of fraud or anything like that.
It's likely that a ton of signatures he got were fake names or non-registered voters, so they wouldn't make it past the verification step that the party goes through when putting people on a ballot.
So, you know, to get on the ballot in Virginia, you have to gather 10,000 signatures, but more importantly, you have to have 400 from each of the 11 districts in the state.
It's entirely possible that he had over 10,000 total signatures, but like 450 in the 9th district and 100 of them were bogus, and that'll end up getting you disqualified right there.
Anyway, Ivan decided to sue the Virginia Republican Party, a suit he would end up losing.
Things got a little bit ugly with Ivan claiming that the party had told him just go vote for another candidate, which prompted the Virginia GOP to release a statement saying he was full of shit.
They didn't use that kind of old English, but that was their main point.
But our friend Jared Holt over at Right Wing Watch was there.
And there's an interesting blurb in his article that he wrote about going to the event.
Quote, Ivan Reiklin, who's seeking election to the Senate in Virginia and has earned the endorsement of Mike Flynn Jr., stopped Jones near the vacant press pit, handed him a business card, and asked if he could speak in front of the assembled crowd.
Shortly afterward, Jones introduced him on stage.
Ranklin told the crowd that, contrary to reports, he had actually earned enough signatures to run in the Republican primary, but Republican Party officials had unfairly disqualified him.
But him speaking before Coursey defending QAnon might have been foreshadowing, because in August 2019, Raw Story reported on a conference that was being organized to raise money for Mike Flynn's defense that had a real heavy QAnon overlap.
The organizer had posted a ton about Q on Twitter.
The conference's logo was just a U.S. flag with the stars rearranged to form a queue.
Speakers included Q weirdos like Bill Mitchell and Joy Via, and one of the other speakers, you guessed it, Ivan Ranklin.
Hey, it's clear that Ranklin did serve in the National Guard.
I can find evidence of that.
As of 2010, he was a captain in the guard.
And I don't have any reason to necessarily doubt his claims that he was a green beret, but a lot of the other stuff in his bio just doesn't sit right with me.
A lot of it seems pretty dubious.
The Defense Intelligence Agency, particularly.
Oh, also in 2015, he tried to kickstart a documentary about Vladimir Putin called Putin: 15 Years Riding the Russian Bear, the cover of which is just a shot of Putin shirtless.
Well, Alex, I've been living here about three weeks, and that's mainly due to the wonderful and perfect economic policies put together by well, Alex, I don't have an office, and my wife won't let me call fascists at home.
If it's Bloomberg, we have to take a look and see.
The biggest indicator of my hypothesis being accurate is that if Hillary Clinton takes her residency and moves it from New York to Arkansas or elsewhere, that's going to be the biggest indicator that she's going to be the running mate with Bloomberg.
It might surprise you to learn that noted constitutional scholar Alex Jones and his Defense Intelligence Agency guest are completely wrong about the Constitution.
So this is just a very basic misunderstanding of Article 2 of the Constitution, which says, quote, the electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.
It's important to understand that until 1804, members of the Electoral College would vote for two candidates, and the top vote-getter would be president, and the runner-up would be vice president.
After that point, the process changed, and now electors vote separately for president and vice president, which is to say that just because in 2016 Hillary was running with Tim Kaine, that doesn't mean that every elector who votes for her for president has to vote for Kane for vice president.
This actually happened in the 2016 election.
There was an elector in Texas who voted for Mike Pence for vice president, but Ron Paul for president.
This is kind of rare, but it does happen from time to time because they vote separately.
This became a bit of a talking point during the 2016 GOP primary because Jeb Bush and Marker Rubio were both from Florida, and Ted Cruz and Rick Perry were both from Texas.
A lot of these shallow analysis and misinformed talk led people to believe that these combos of president and vice president could not happen.
But that wasn't true.
In reality, the conversation was that it would be super unwise for these combos to happen, and here's why.
If Bush and Rubio teamed up, all of Florida's electors could vote for Bush for president, but they could not vote for Rubio also for vice president.
And the same would hold true for Cruz and Perry in Texas.
If these dudes won by gigantic margins, it really wouldn't matter too much.
But if it were a close race, this could be a huge problem.
Since Florida has 29 electoral votes and Texas has 38, you'd never want to field either of these tickets, since you would essentially be playing at a severe disadvantage and risk the possibility of electing Bush or Cruz while Tim Kaine ends up getting the most votes for VP.
In terms of the current day, it's fair to assume that the Democratic Party would not want to have a presidential candidate and vice president from New York, since they have 29 electoral votes, and that would introduce some issues.
So what's interesting here is that the phenomenon that Alex and Ivan are discussing is kind of real, but they have literally no idea what they're talking about.
They think the Constitution doesn't allow people from the same state to run on the same ticket, which is absolutely not true.
However, behind that, their assertion that if Hillary were to somehow make herself from Arkansas now, it would be an indication that she's angling to not block electoral voting restrictions for her being Bloomberg's VP.
So Alex is presenting this headline as being like, it's a thing where he's offended at this notion of like cheating on your spouse being encouraged, right?
Well, Jordan, there's an important detail that might be motivating his coverage that he's leaving out.
This billboard says, quote, married to one man, but fantasizing about others, you need to try evident.com.
I guess he could be mad about that if he wants, but I don't remember him making a big deal out of all the Ashley Madison billboards that have popped up over the years.
Alex is actually just mad because this billboard, along with that text, includes a picture of Trump and Melania, but Melania is looking lovingly away from Trump and towards Justin Trudeau.
That article ends, quote, wanting to take care of your spouse in the context of a happy, stable, monogamous marriage is bad, but wanting to be a whore and stab your husband in the back is apparently something to be celebrated.
I mean, they really came to America from their squalid third world hellholes where women had no power as assassins of Stockholm Syndrome to conquer us because of our open hearts.
So anyway, Alex is a bit of a racist here towards the end of this.
Anyway, look, dude, this episode was rangy.
It was all over the place.
I think, like, when I told you at the beginning of this episode, like, you get to see these different stages over this course of three days.
Like, none of this is coherent.
You have the first day on the 12th, Alex is rambling about murder and just being like high on the hog because Trump is going to come to the defense of Roger.
And it means that he's clearing house and all these globalists are going to go and all of this.
And then the 13th comes and he's kind of settling in and like, we're going to get Roger this retrial because of the jurors.
And then he gets mad at his lawyer friend.
And on the 14th, Bill Barr has come out and done his face-saving interview.
And now Alex has got to turn things around, flip the script on Barr.
And I just think all of this is, it's just so incoherent.
And the content of his show, the narratives that he puts out are so dependent on whatever he's lashing out to, whatever the stimulus is that he's mad at or he's responding to, dictate the entire world that he presents to his audience.
And it's deeply unfair.
It's not fair to not allow your audience to have a consistent thread of reality other than we have shadowy, unnamed, mysterious bad guys that Trump needs to murder.
Well, I mean, I think it's something we talked about a lot, like in the earlier days of the show, was this sort of feeling of like adults have to show up eventually.
Like there needs to be adults dealing with this.
And adults weren't showing up.
And the realization set in gradually they're like, nope, that's not going to happen.
And if you would like to download the show, please go to iTunes or wherever podcastable apps are sold, download, leave a review, share with your friends, donate, do the whole thing.