In this installment, by popular demand, Dan and Jordan begin an analysis of Alex's monumental, very serious and sincere debate about whether or not January 6 was a manufactured event. Guest stars a-plenty! Incoherent yelling! This debate truly has it all.
We're gonna do what they say can't be done, so I have no time to fuck around on this and go with a long, bright spot talking about how much I love traitors.
Sounds a little uncultured and shit of me, but for the longest time I had a real aversion to believing that there was really much even to spoken word poems.
But in, you know, not the last few years, but as I've gotten older, I've gotten to really realize how much of a skill that is and how much artistry there is to...
And the big S that looks like a B. I mean, honestly, for all the jokes that people do make about German as a language, Rilke does make it actually very...
But there's just no fucking way this was going to all end up being one episode.
It's too much.
It's a mess.
Holy shit.
God.
Oh.
Sucks.
So.
Backstory here is that a little bit before, maybe on the 4th or so of January, it came to my attention that Alex was engaging in a debate on January 6th about whether or not January 6th was a manufactured event.
As I watched it, I realized, like, ah, there's stuff to talk about here, there's content, and then it just sort of cascaded to the point where I texted you and I said, this is going to be another fucking documentary coverage.
It's a three and a half hour long non-debate debate.
On the other side, you have the Krasenstein brothers, so that's two of them.
One of them I think doesn't talk much at all, and I fell into the habit of calling them Bed as a collective name because it's Brian and Ed, and I don't know which one is talking often, so they're just going to be called Bed.
The person who ran the site went anonymously, writing under that pen name of Tyler Durden for years, until it came out in 2016 that it was actually a man named Daniel Evandijewski, who is actually a former securities trader who got in trouble and banned from that field in 2008 for insider trading.
Kind of ironic that this scammy financial market guy was walking around pretending to be Tyler Durden, a fictional character whose primary ideology is rejected.
Yeah.
Kind of makes you think that maybe they didn't really understand Fight Club and just thought Brad Pitt looked really cool in that movie and they wanted to look cool.
I've not watched a ton of Tim Pool's episodes, but in every one I do, I go in expecting to hate Luke Radowski the most, and then inevitably, Tim will swing through and lose the crown to Ian.
Ian will just, like, outdo him.
He's an amazing blend of hostile, stupid, and kooky that never fails to disappoint.
Even Tim's audience doesn't really seem to like Ian that much.
If their Reddit is anything to go by.
Quote, they keep him around as a reminder of how dumb a percentage of the population is.
Quote, he's nothing but Tim's punching bag.
Quote, he's there so Tim can disagree and make Tim look smart.
Many people even suggest that the only reason that Tim has eaten around is because people don't like him so much, and that outrage is a constant source of negative attention, and in their business, all attention is good attention.
I was thinking about this as, like, the long term.
Like, where is this along the path of humanity when we look back in a thousand years?
Like, what was happening right now?
What will they remember it happening?
I think what's happening is, crazy it is, is Kanye's waking up a bunch of Jewish people and pointing them to God.
Like, last night on that Gavin McGinnis interview, I'll explain it.
Gavin was like, I don't know about that one, Ian.
Yeah, Gavin's like...
Because Nick was saying, oh, there's a cabal, or they were saying there's a cabal of people that are preventing Kanye from, you know, getting to another echelon of wealth or whatever.
There's a cabal, and Kanye's like, it's the Jewish people.
My thoughts are that what's going to happen is people are realizing if you're fallen, if you're a fallen Jew, if you no longer believe in this and you're just this atheist taking advantage of people, you're going to realize that God is great.
It's there for all of us.
We're all in this together.
And I think that what's happening is there's a...
There's going to be a revelation within Judaism and probably all the major religions on earth that there's going to be some sort of transformation where people come back to the faith.
And Kanye will be looked at as someone that saved the Jews.
There's the gag on 30 Rock, which is just so fucking funny.
The homonym show, which is just him, which is, what's his face?
Just being like, alright, the word is scent.
And the guy goes, I don't know, is this smell?
No, it's the other one.
You know, just the over and over and over again.
Here's the option, it's the other one.
And that's the bit.
Is that it's always going to be the other one, and you can never notice it.
And there is something fascinating in that, in that it is a joke, and also, there's a deeper truth that is being expressed by Ian through that, which is that language is fucking stupid.
It is sometimes a barrier to communicating with people who don't understand you.
I want to introduce our panel of incredible people, as I said earlier, and I'm going to start from the end and give you guys a chance to introduce yourselves.
So, two-thirds of the team that's on the side that thinks January 6th was not a false flag are the Krasenstein brothers, two dudes who pretty much everyone further to the left of Joe Manchin thinks are complete duels.
I will admit right out of the gate that I don't know all that much about them, mostly because I've never been interested.
The second they came into my awareness, it was really transparent how much of their existence on social media was predicated on farming engagement.
And so I just tuned it all out.
They came to prominence as Trump reply guys, which I always thought was a pretty sad kind of existence.
It definitely turned out to be a shortcut for mediocre people to amass large audiences.
We've seen a ton of people who got a lot of engagement out of that.
Most serious people would never get the invitation because this isn't a serious debate, but pretty much anyone who did would be able to get the invitation.
Right.
If you're someone on the left that Zero Hedge and Alex Jones are inviting to be on this debate, you either have a large audience that they view as swayable or you pose literally no threat to them pushing their heads.
Yeah.
The Krasensteins are in that latter group.
Alex knows these two wet noodles aren't shit and he can just run all over them.
I've just kind of seen him as a guy who accidentally backed himself into a role that doesn't quite work for him, and it ends up coming out in his product.
Destiny began as a very successful and talented professional gamer who had some libertarian leanings and a penchant for real heated language while he was gaming.
a lot of R and F slurs, maybe not consciously rooted in hate, but still not good.
Sure.
unidentified
Over time, as Destiny streamed, he found that he liked to have conversations with people while he was playing games, which evolved into him having a debate with a guy named JonTron in 2017.
This debate resulted in JonTron coming off pretty racist and xenophobic and with Destiny being the one arguing against him and shutting that stuff down and that was a big deal.
Because Jon Tron was a big YouTube figure in his own right and the host of the show Game Grumps.
So this blew the fuck up.
Destiny had found a niche, and he got into a groove where he started doing debates with racists and white nationalists, which is arguably the first place that Nick Fuentes got any real traction outside of overtly white nationalist media.
He debated with folks like literal Nazi Eric Stryker, a ton of weirdo racist grifters who came out of the woodwork after the 2016 election, and Lauren Southern, who Destiny would go on to become really good friends with.
It really worked, and I'll be the first to admit that some of those debates are pretty interesting.
Most of the folks that Destiny was talking to were not folks that anyone else wanted to talk to, so you were able to actually hear them articulate their position, Yeah, yeah, yeah.
At that time, there was a panic about what to do about this new alt-right.
The media had figured out that there were all these shows on YouTube that anybody can access that were talking about things like exterminating the Jews or how white people were genetically superior to other races.
No one knew what to do, and in that space, destiny shined.
Here was this guy who would take all comers and argue with these monsters and come out making them look bad.
Sure, he called the people the R-slur a bunch, but sometimes the F-slur, and maybe he seems a bit angry, but maybe it's weird that he insists it's okay for him to use the N-word in his private life for humor, but maybe he's the solution to these right-wing folks online.
There was the prevailing thought, and you can find people like Destiny or Vash express that they're more able to de-radicalize folks who got sucked into the alt-right pipeline because they're kind of cool.
They aren't afraid to use those slurs because they don't listen to the PC police.
The reason that no one else can reach these kids is because everyone else are a bunch of soy boys, and the kids who are being sucked into the alt-right pipeline can sniff that out right away.
But someone like Destiny is edgy, and the alt-right initiates will respect that edge.
I think there's some truth to that idea, but I also think it's ridiculously overblown.
I'm sure that these guys did have a better track record of getting budding alt-right people to reconsider their beliefs than someone like Jake Tapper, but I don't know if it's the real change that they're promoting.
The most high-profile example of someone who was pulled back from the alt-right by Destiny's content was a guy named Caleb Kane.
There's a New York Times profile about him, and he made the rounds on TV and web shows talking about how he was pulled back from the brink.
But then he disappeared, only to reemerge a few years later to announce that he was now a conservative.
At a certain point, I think Destiny began to resent the left-leaning audience that he'd gathered by debating racists and getting this media attention about pulling folks back from the alt-right, and that manifested in him going super hard against leftists and commies.
If you feel like your audience is going too hard in one direction to a point that it's past where you are personally, if you don't check that, you could lose your identity chasing what the audience wants you to be.
But I've watched a fair amount of his content, and I don't think his animosity towards the left is just house-cleaning and curating his audience.
There's a passion behind his hate of the left that you don't see in his dealings with people like Nick Fuentes and Lauren Southern, who he's been good friends with.
At least up until recently.
I don't know if that's changed.
I haven't paid attention to his shit in a while, because I tune in every now and again, and it seemed like...
Whenever I would see something, it would be like some personal drama nonsense.
Personal life is becoming content, and it just felt voyeuristic and weird.
But if you're on the right and you fall from grace, who fucking cares?
They're making all this shit up.
So it makes sense on just like a, if you are caring only about you first, psychologically, you are probably going to be healthier, not engaging at all.
I think that a lot of people have the, like, They say that Destiny is a right-winger, and I don't know enough to sign off on that, but from everything I can tell, it seems like he's just more of a liberal than a leftist.
Fairly center-left, which is kind of a little bit right, but definitely not far-right.
What their actual political positions are, those are kind of fungible in the moment, depending on how much shit is in the process of or needs to be done talking.
The other problem that I kind of have is that I really can't take away the fact that he has, essentially, through becoming really rich and famous through it, Almost created that debate space.
You know, like all of the blood sports type debate shit probably wouldn't exist in the way that it does if it weren't for Destiny and the sort of proof of concept that he had.
But, you know, I mean, for whatever you can say, other people without the particular skill sets that he had of yelling and arguing really fast probably could not have, you know, the job opening, but he fit that job.
Alex brings up two very important things in that intro.
The first is that he was there on January 6th, whipping the crowd into a frenzy with his bullhorn until just past the point where things got too hot, at which point he tried to calm down the crowd in vain.
Two people who were regular figures on his show for over a decade, Stuart Rhodes and Joe Biggs, were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their actions planning what went down that day.
Enrique Tarrio, who has appeared fewer times on InfoWars but still was a periodic guest, is also in jail.
Alex's employee Owen Schroyer went to jail for a few weeks because he violated a deferred prosecution agreement by being at the Capitol that day.
Alex is a very bad person to have on this debate because there are a ton of red flags about his associates, including uncharged people like Roger Stone and the seemingly totally forgotten Ali Alexander.
You know why they forgot about Ali and pretended they pretend now he doesn't exist and he was never the head of Stop the Steal under Roger's mentorship?
It's because he started working on the Yay campaign, and then it came out that he was sexually harassing underage boys.
According to the New York Magazine, quote, Stop the Steal founder Ali Alexander allegedly came on to these...
underage boys when they were teenagers asking for nudes from a 17 year old and pressuring a 15 year old to have sex with him.
He was texting with a 15 year old who he had promised access to his political connections and whined that they never sent him quote good jack off material.
In terms of the lead up to January 6th, Ali Alexander is an essential piece of it.
He ran Stop the Steal having inherited the name with the blessing of Roger Stone.
When Alex made those trips to various state houses, to bullhorn and try and sway the election, the two people who were with him were Nick Fuentes and Ali Alexander.
You can't pretend that he doesn't exist and isn't a major piece of this story just because to acknowledge him reveals how closely you're associating with a known pedophile.
Because, like, Milo, if you want to take him at his word...
It was very clear that he knew about this stuff prior to it coming out.
We've talked about him a little bit, but Darren Beattie is the guy who wanted to make his own drudge report since drudge wasn't far right and Trump-worshipping enough, and thus we got Revolver News.
He's not a Trump speechwriter.
In fact, he was fired from the Trump administration in 2018 after it came out that he spoke at the 2016 H.L. Mencken Club meeting.
That's an annual white nationalist gathering where he spoke alongside Pat Robertson and V-Dare editor Peter Brimlow.
Fun fact, the moderator, Ian, is one of the co-hosts on Tim Poole's show, and Peter Brimlow's...
Anyway, Darren hasn't written extensively about January 6th, but he has made it his business to spread a ton of conspiracy shit about that day and focus very closely on Ray Epps.
He better be thanking his lucky stars.
He's not yet included in the lawsuit.
Darren Beattie is the only person who no one cares is on this panel.
This is exactly where he belongs.
When the lineup was announced, even the Krasenstein brothers, people wanted to talk about it.
A little logistical problems intervened, and I wish I could be, but I'm really looking forward to participating.
And I just want to echo Alex.
I think what Zero Hedge is doing is so important, organizing these kind of substantive, structured debates among people who obviously disagree pretty strongly on things and yet nonetheless can have what I hope will be a civil and spirited debate, what I expect it will be.
So I'm really looking forward to it, and I appreciate being asked.
So yeah, when you think about how to have a civil, structured debate, I think what you should do is get Alex Jones and the streamer who yells at everyone and calls them the R-slur.
And then you know what?
You need someone to keep the peace and keep...
Whatever it was that that meant is what he means.
Get the fuck out of here with this farce.
I understand that you want the most attention possible, so you get volatile elements to gather into the room and have Glenn Greenwald sacrifice what little is left of his credibility to put some polish on this thing.
I understand that to make sure things do get out of control, you need an inept loser to moderate.
Forget it.
It's the recipe for memes and unlimited engagement on social media.
Just spare me the sanctimonious shit about how this is some kind of noble pursuit of truth and understanding that you're so amazing for doing.
Just wallow in the mud like the attention pigs you know you are.
For the entire panel, and anyone that wants to start it off, maybe we can start with you, Edson, just because you're on the end and we can move around, is January 6, 2021.
Was it an insurrection?
And before you answer, before you answer, I want to read this.
This is actually what the...
It's called 18 U.S. Code 2383, Rebellion or Insurrection.
Yeah, we kick things off and we're on shaky ground.
Ian very much thought that he was reading off a code that defined insurrection, which could then be used as a yardstick for the participants to measure January 6th against.
Does it meet this standard as it was coded into law?
it's a real nice way to have a decent question where you get people's perspectives on the board.
Unfortunately, that code doesn't define insurrection.
And this is a problem that Ian doesn't know that.
It's one thing to not have a handle on the law but it's another to be the moderator of a debate about January 6th where you plan to open with this and not realize this isn't the definition.
This is a further problem because in the aftermath of Colorado barring Trump from the ballot, it became a big deal that the Constitution provides no explicit definition of insurrection.
That was something that every media outlet discussed because it was an interesting offshoot of the story that will obviously come into play as this is heard in the Supreme Court.
They're probably busy complaining about how something was too woke that day.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 doesn't clearly define insurrection either, which is why if Ian had prepared to do his job, the first question wouldn't be, was this an insurrection?
It would be, how do we define an insurrection?
Right.
unidentified
Until that question's answered, you have no real reason to believe these people are using the same definition for the word, and their conversation's going to be incoherent.
It's kind of like I feel and opinion statements and even admitting that shit's subjective, so you can just reject that by having your own feelings and opinions.
You can tweet fine, and maybe, you know, you have a lot of engagement and stuff on Twitter, but this kind of talking, especially in this environment, is too slow, and it's ineffective communication.
It does pick up.
They do get a little bit better, but it is pretty rocky here.
It's just, like, this is one of those things where, like, Spending a decade as a comedian really points, like, before this guy spoke, you know, he says one word and is like, I could have this guy ripped to shreds by an audience.
Like, there's no chance that he should be talking anywhere near somebody who can do the job, you know?
I would say the plot from start to finish is quite obviously an insurrection.
The only way to get around that is to either justify an insurrection, which is what most conservatives do, they don't realize it, or to deny that an insurrection could ever happen.
Or if you're not aware of all the facts of what happened.
I think that Donald Trump and his cronies had a very coherent plan that they tried to enact from start to finish, starting with false claims of voter fraud, leading to false slates of electors, And I want to make sure that we don't...
He wants to pretend that's what they're doing, but he wants an argument.
He wants a fight.
He wants people yelling over each other because that's exciting, it drives traffic, and that will get more subscribers for Zero Hedge's premium service.
Now, he does want to eventually, as they're fighting, eventually say, gentlemen, gentlemen.
Also, I was there is definitely not an advantage in this debate.
In fact, some might say it critically disqualifies you from having your perspective taken seriously.
You were actively participating in the acts that took place that day, so how could you possibly come on here and condemn yourself as an insurrectionist?
And not only that, an insurrectionist failure.
Consider that dynamic, because it tells you a lot about the editorial choices in terms of who they have in this debate.
That concern is ignored, because of that.
The value of Alex as a source of attention-grabbing chaos is far more valuable than having a debate with substance among people who hold different beliefs.
By the Justice Department in at least five criminal investigations, and I was forced to testify in front of the Jan 6th Committee, which they've now been destroying their records because the records show the opposite of what they said.
Also, let's, I wanted to, I gave up on this, but I was going to start counting all the things that Alex brings up that should be dealt with in this debate, but just are going to be ignored.
So the first one I'm going to point out, even though I did give up on this because it's just too much, is that the January 6th is deleting, the committee is deleting the records because the truth is coming out and it shows the opposite of what happened.
Sure, that's not true.
Barry Loudermilk with Crowder Milk has said that some videos of depositions couldn't be located, but that they had transcripts of them.
Representative Benny Thompson sent Loudermilk a letter explaining why a few things were not officially archived along with the other evidentiary.
As you also note, on December 30, 2022, when the bipartisan select committee still had control of the records under the House rules, Vice Chair Liz Cheney and I sent letters to the White House Special Counsel.
and Department of Homeland Security regarding the select committees alone of some then-current material containing law enforcement-sensitive operational details and private personal information that, if released, could endanger the safety of witnesses.
As indicated in the letters, the Select Committee wrote to those authorities seeking their assistance and guidance in the proper archiving of such sensitive material to protect witnesses' safety, national security, and safeguard law enforcement operations.
This was part of the Select Committee's effort to accommodate the executive branch inappropriately protecting certain sensitive information.
While also complying with the archiving rules of the House.
The executive branch was still conducting its review of that material to provide appropriate archiving guidance at the time the select committee dissolved.
Accordingly, the select committee did not have the opportunity to properly archive that material with the rest of its records with the benefit of the executive branch's guidance to ensure witness safety, our national security, and law enforcement sensitive information.
All of it was still archived various other places and nothing was destroyed.
Alex is just lying, but that's the first of the things that he expects that he's just going to be able to assert with nothing.
Trump and all of us had a stage rented by the Supreme Court.
He was supposed to have another rally there.
We showed up.
Before Trump finished his speech, people were getting tear gassed and hit by bullets, and there were a bunch of provocateurs leading an attack against the police, and they broke through.
And then this million-plus people then got blamed as insurrectionists, and Biden gave a big speech yesterday saying they're all terrorists.
So here's the second thing here that Alex is going to assert and hope no pushback comes.
Trump and all of us had a stage rented by the Supreme Court.
For those unfamiliar with D.C. geography, the Supreme Court building is to the east of the Capitol, just across 1st Street.
What Alex is referring to here is that Ali Alexander fraudulently secured a permit on the northeast side of the Capitol ground across 1st Street from the Supreme Court building.
Ali had used a fake name for his permit, One Nation Under God, and had lied when they were told that the area that they were getting a permit for could only handle a maximum of 50 people.
Ali agreed to those terms, knowing fully well that the plan was to use Alex as a pied I have zero doubt that this is exactly what Ali was trying to do, but it's an open question whether or not this was done in concert with the other plans put in place by the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, or if Ali's chaos was just a side thing.
It's also an open question if Alex knew that's what Ali was aiming for, because it seems like you could make a decent case that he didn't.
When she was popping off and people were storming the Capitol, Alex was on his bullhorn, still trying to get people to go to the east side of the building.
So if his end goal was just what was going on in front of him, there's no reason that he would still want to usher people to the other side of the building.
I have no concrete evidence either direction, but Alex's actions kind of make more sense in the context of someone who is being used.
So this is the second untrue assertion that Alex doesn't want questioned, because doing so opens up the door to asking how, like, what was Ali Alexander?
And that would also introduce questions about why Ali would agree to limit participants to 50 people while working directly with Alex.
Oh, well, because I was lying.
Yeah, this would be a fantastic thread for Destiny to pull because even if Alex tries to deflect it, it still makes him look like an idiot with something to hide, and that's a defensive posture that Alex would just yell and move on and change the topic, but it would be an interesting thread to try and pull.
Which doesn't.
Get pulled.
The rest of this is just standard J6 conspiracy talking points, and it's not interesting.
It is true, though, that folks like the Proud Boys had begun rushing the building before Trump finished his speech at the Ellipse.
He's saying that people were hit by bullets.
He's referring to Ashley Babbitt, who wasn't shot until 244, about an hour and a half after Trump's speech finished.
He's blurring this all together because, like, he's working off vibes.
Kamala Harris didn't bail out people who were burned down buildings.
She tweeted a link to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which helps provide bail to people who can't afford cash bail.
If you can't afford to pay your bail, you're either going to need to accept staying in jail even though you haven't been tried, or you have to pay someone usually about 10% Which is bullshit.
Harris tweeted out a link to them, and she wasn't even Biden's running mate at that time.
If some of the people who were recipients of the Minnesota Freedom Fund's assistance were violent offenders, they were still innocent until proven guilty.
And as a representative of that organization said, quote, if a judge deems them eligible for bail, they should not have to wait in jail simply because they don't have the same income or resources as others with more privilege.
Alex is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks that Destiny is going to argue with him about the Black Lives Matter protests.
After Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people in Kenosha, Destiny went on a rant saying, quote, The rioting needs to fucking stop.
If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10pm, at this point they have my fucking blessing.
Holy shit, this needs to stop.
He tends to argue that this is taking out of context, and sure, on one level, the point he's making is that law enforcement is unable to contain the protests that dissolve into property damage, but he's also endorsing vigilantism to deal with protests that get out of hand.
No, sometimes, for some reason, when dudes are drunk and doing belligerent shit, they can suddenly be like Al Pacino in heat, being like, hey, you're just doing your job too, man.
We're not so different, you and I. Or a plausible explanation for this is that the people who stormed the Capitol are largely back-the-blue-type bootlickers, and when in the proximity of cops, they're likely to say something like, my uncle's a cop, or try to bond in some way.
If this person in the video were being escorted out but hadn't done anything to merit an arrest, I can easily see a cop giving them a fist bump to be polite and move things along.
The less likely scenario is that these were men who just engaged in surreptitious plots to stage a fake storming of the Capitol who decided to celebrate their crimes in full view of an obvious surveillance camera next to a metal detector.
Do you think any officer doesn't know that there are cameras everywhere in the Capitol, especially...
Right.
sure are plenty of messages where Alex's buddies and the Proud Boys, like Enrique Tarrio and Joe Biggs, are specifically telling their followers not to wear their traditional colors and to wear all black, like they say Antifa does.
Ray Epps did text his nephew that he orchestrated the event, but he's explained that he was full of adrenaline after the riot and talking shit to impress them.
There's a video of him saying that they should go into the Capitol the night prior, but if that's the standard for proving that you're a Fed, then half of the employees at Infowars must be Feds.
There's also a video of Epps saying something to another person just before they start pushing the barricades to overrun the police line on the 6th.
Epps and the person that he spoke to have testified that Epps told the guy not to attack the police.
That's what he said to him.
Sure.
If Alex has evidence...
To the contrary, he's welcome to present it, but he doesn't.
Otherwise, this is just one of the most pathetic cases of scapegoating I've ever seen.
Ray Epps got caught on camera doing the thing that everyone, or at least a lot of people, were doing.
And because the extremists like Alex needed someone to blame so they could keep their revenue streams flowing, they made him the target.
And now he's testified that he lives in constant fear.
He's found a bunch of shells on his property and stuff.
And three people on the panel haven't even made opening statements.
Alex is just grandstanding and rattling off his normal talking points and making up complete bullshit.
He knows that this is safe to do because none of this can get fully examined and scrutinized.
There's no time.
And if anyone tries to, there's six people on this panel.
It's gonna be so easy to drive the train right off the tracks at any point.
If you consider this from the standpoint of an attempt to do a sincere, real debate, it's already a complete failure.
However, if you really just want to make a spectacle where a juiced-up Alex Jones talks shit and hopefully fights with someone on the panel, things are starting off well.
Alex is clearly overstaying his welcome in this opening statement, which he wasn't asked to give.
And in doing so, he's clearly demonstrated that the moderator is asleep at the wheel and Alex is in charge.
Also, Alex says that the people who fought the police were led by, quote, provocateurs and other groups.
I don't know about the provocateur's part, but when he says the other groups, does he mean Oath Keepers and Proud Boys?
Because if he does, then yeah, that's definitely what happened.
A bunch of people were led to attack the Capitol by Alex's friends in those extremist groups, and simultaneously a bunch of non-violent participants went into the Capitol illegally trespassing and impeding the process of the certification.
But man, even for Alex, this is getting a little exhausting because generally when he's rambling on and on, he's alone on his show, which is socially somewhat normal.
Here, there's five other participants who are looking on and an idiot moderator not doing his job.
Stalin's secretary, Boris Bazhanov, which is way too close to the Rocky and Bullwinkle villain's name, he claimed that Stalin said this in his memoir, but there are some historical inaccuracies in that book, and there are examples of people saying this quote not attributed to Stalin going back into the 1800s.
So it's dubious at best.
You know, it's one of those things that maybe he said it, but it's not an original thought of his.
So as Stalin said, I care not who casts the votes.
I care who counts them.
Well, Biden doesn't care who casts the votes.
He cares who's allowed on the ballot.
So we've already won.
No one's buying this.
And when this happened three years ago, the Wall Street Journal had a print of retraction, but they said I was there as a coward telling people to attack.
Well, no, they wouldn't let me put the video on Twitter.
Before I was saying, don't go in.
But the truth is, it's coming out.
And so that's the bottom line here.
And this attempt by Biden to...
Cast the American people as the enemy in all these movies about martial law and civil war and race war.
That's their only hope because the corrupt, evil Democratic Party and its evil twin, the Republicans, they've lost power and populism is rising.
unidentified
Wait, the corrupt, evil Democratic Party has an evil twin?
And it's in the Declaration of Independence that it's our right and duty to get rid of a government that's destructive of what the people want.
But I'm not calling for violence.
We're winning this.
Politically, we're being cast as about to be violent in the next 10 months because all these indictments and all these attacks to not let Americans vote for who they want aren't working and are backfiring.
So when you're asking a question in a debate setting, one of the things that you should always be doing is considering what are the dialogue trees that come from this person saying yes or saying no.
What is your goal in saying, is the Confederacy an insurrection?
When you consider how debates generally go like that, with, I have this idea, you're going to respond to it, I'm going to respond to your response, or whatever.
Yeah.
Imagining that this could ever go like that is so dumb.
If you are asking self-evident questions in a debate...
Then you're either being a prick trying to make people feel stupid, or you're revealing how much of a waste of time this is, because the point of the debate is you running up against somebody who's denying a self-evident question.
The Insurrection Act was that because there were rebellions during Reconstruction at the end of the Civil War, and they were saying if you lead an uprising against the northern occupation of the South, you're precluded from running from office because they were worried about Southerners getting office again, like Jefferson.
No, so no, I do not support the Civil War or slavery.
Alex is so coked out or on too much brain force that he can't even follow a simple question.
The question was, do you think the Confederacy was engaged in an insurrection?
needs to ramble a bunch of bullshit meant to deflect from the actual reality that he does support the Confederacy and his relatives proudly fought for them.
It's all disconnected from the question that was asked, and Alex is doing that on purpose because his mind can't understand what is being asked, and more importantly, why it's being asked.
The question is being asked by one of the Krasensteins, who I can't tell apart, so like I said, I'm going to start calling them bed.
And he's asking this because it gives a baseline for if the very obvious insurrection is something Alex can call an insurrection.
As Alex rambles to avoid the point, Destiny accurately points out that Alex is not saying yes or no.
It has nothing to do with supporting the Confederacy or not.
It has to do with committing to a definition because Destiny wants Alex to stake a position.
If Alex says the Confederacy wasn't an insurrection, then nothing can be.
If he says that it was, then that allows you to open the door to refine the point down by trying to determine what it was about the Confederacy that made their actions an insurrection.
Alex doesn't want to commit to either because he likes to be slippery, and he kind of realizes that if he slows down and gets into details, even Bed is smarter than him.
So Alex gets into theatrics, pretending to be offended, and ascribing positions to Destiny that Destiny never said.
The ultimate irony is that Alex absolutely does support the Confederacy.
So Bette is trying to force Alex down this road of argument.
One, was the Confederacy an insurrection?
The obvious answer is yes.
Two, was anyone charged with insurrection?
The obvious answer is no, because those laws weren't on the books yet.
Three, this means it's possible to engage in insurrection without being charged with a crime of insurrection, which means that Trump can be considered to have engaged in insurrection without being charged with that crime.
Bed jumped the gun, though.
Alex only kind of admitted that the Confederacy was an insurrection.
He said it was a civil war, and he was probably getting ready to say, and you can call that an insurrection, but Bed rushed to try and get to, uh...
Stage two of this dialogue tree.
This is stupid because Alex is just going to say whatever he wants and he doesn't care about some dumb gotcha moment.
And this entire thing falls apart because of the flaw in Bed's premise.
This situation between the Confederacy and Trump are not analogous, because in the present day those laws do exist.
The people who are not being charged with the crime of insurrection when the law didn't exist isn't doing the heavy lifting that he thinks it is.
Ex post facto laws, which would charge people for crimes they committed prior to those things being a crime, are explicitly against the Constitution.
The U.S. was going to charge many of the Confederate leaders with treason, but decided not to prosecute them, and Andrew Johnson mass-pardoned every member of the Confederacy that wasn't charged in that group who ended up not getting prosecuted anyway.
So odds are that these people wouldn't have been charged with insurrection, even if those laws were on the books, probably because there'd just been a civil war and people were tired.
The easy way around this is to not get hung up on the word insurrection.
Like, the only reason that's a buzzword is because it's a word that's used in the statute that Colorado cited to bar Trump from the ballot.
In terms of the conversation about January 6th, that shit's just a distraction.
Go with sedition.
Multiple of Alex's close friends are in jail for that right now.
All of this, everything that's happened so far, is not really that important.
Unless this is not a debate about January 6th, but in fact is Trojan horsing a debate about the Colorado decision not to have Trump on the ballot, which...
I don't even know if that's the intent, but it seems to me that's the way things are going.
Because then the answer is, the land is ours, so if you don't want to be part of the United States, you have to go, South Carolina, and we'll put United States people back in there.
I love Darren Beattie being like, calm your racism for a moment, Alex.
Don't get ahead of the ball.
Big picture here, though, these guys are having different conversations about different things, and it's a complete waste of time.
Destiny, to his credit, is doing the best he can without just constantly jumping in, so I'm going to excuse him and Glenn from this, since Glenn hasn't said shit since hello.
Meanwhile, Alex is having a conversation about Trump being kicked off the Colorado ballot.
He's so far past caring about the question of whether or not January 6th was an insurrection, which makes sense.
In that minutes-long rant the moderator let him go on, he said that his side had already won, so he's just moved on to pretending this is just a talking head show on Fox instead of a debate about January 6th between his dumbass and people who don't agree with him.
Bed doesn't understand that Alex is having a different conversation and Ian doesn't know what's going on, so he's helpless to get things back on track, but he does try.
But you notice that when Alex is just ranting and saying bullshit unchallenged, Ian doesn't really do anything.
Ian does come in with the goods, though, and says that they need to disambiguate the legal and colloquial understandings of the word insurrection.
It could have saved us a lot of time from the jump, but oh well.
And then, as soon as the moderator has provided some sort of guidance to get us back on track, Darren Beattie comes in with some fake intellectual-ass nonsense about the Etymology of insurrection.
Making sure we're distracted off the point once again.
Darren is fairly right, though, that insurrection comes from the Latin root insurgo, which means to rise up, but it almost always has the connotation of rising up against something, generally specifically from within that thing.
This is intellectual masturbation, though, because everyone understands that over time words take on connotations, and generally speaking, insurrectionist is the negative version of revolutionary.
Call January 6th an attempted revolution if you want.
The Civil War is both comparable and not comparable to January 6th.
They're comparable in the sense that they're both attempts to overthrow the federal government of the United States, but if you try to say that, Darren is going to try and pretend that you're saying that they're comparable in terms of scale and impact because that's an indefensible position to hold.
And to be clear, the conversation that had to do with the Civil War wasn't, was the Civil War an insurrection?
It was, was the Confederacy an insurrection?
The question as it stands in the debate should be understood not just to be about the war, but the things that led up to the war that the Confederacy did.
Darren has fundamentally changed the subject of this conversation in order for him to try to set this trap and pretend that Biden thinks that January 6th is comparable to the Civil War in terms of scale.
That's because he's a rhetoric trickster.
There's literally no reason to accept the framing that in order to call January 6th I find this thought interesting.
Yeah, I actually think what Destiny and what Ed are saying are very important.
First of all, I was going to say that I think one of the problems with how these things are debated is that a lot of people these days have very binary prisms for understanding things.
A lot of that comes from YouTube debate where you have to declare yourself on one side or the other.
So Destiny said, oh, everybody either hates this insurrection, thinks it's an insurrection, or they deny it happens, or they think it's good.
So Bed asks about 1992 because it's a clear example of a time when the Insurrection Act was invoked to control an uprising, and yet no one was charged with insurrection.
This is kind of coffin nails to the argument that Alex is making, so he tries to deflect and bring up his incoherent talking point about Kamala Harris.
Sensing Alex is in trouble, Ian throws it to Glenn, who then laments about how polarized we've become because of online debates.
Guess what, dipshit?
You're currently in one of those stupid debates, and all the promotional material was real polarized, with your dumbass on Alex's side.
I guess it's...
It's like they say, let he without dignity cast the first stone.
Fucking condescending fuck.
Glenn goes on to then mischaracterize Destiny's opening point.
Destiny said that people would argue that January 6th wasn't the culmination of a concerted effort to overthrow the election carried out by Trump and his team.
Either A, think that no action could ever constitute an attempt to overthrow the government.
B, they actually support the overthrow of the government, whether they realize or admit it or not.
Or C, they don't know what actually happened that day.
Namely that, for me, this was a political protest that spilled over into a riot where a small minority of the people engage in violence.
I don't think we want to urge that to happen.
We don't want to defend that.
I consider that lamentable.
But the fact that it's laughable to call this an insurrection is actually demonstrated by the examples that they're using.
This was...
A three-hour riot that was extremely easily subdued.
It doesn't remotely compare to any prior insurrections, let alone to the Civil War.
The only people who were killed on January 6th were four people, all four of whom were Trump supporters, two of whom dropped out of a heart attack and one from a speed overdose because these were not exactly a well-trained militia.
And when Jack Smith went to charge Donald Trump with multiple crimes, he had a lot of options to charge him with, and he charged him with a lot of crimes, including very dubious ones.
He did not charge him with inciting an insurrection for reasons that I think we ought to ask ourselves why.
But the fact that this is such a minor event in history is demonstrated by the fact that the media who needed this to be a major event immediately started lying about what happened, saying that Brian Sicknick...
Was murdered when he had his head bashed in through a fight with a fire extinguisher, only to learn that actually he called his mother that night.
He was fine.
He died the next day of what the coroner said were natural causes.
Because the media knew that if you can't say that even one person supposedly perpetrating the insurrection killed anybody, pulled out a gun.
Let alone discharge the weapon, all of which is true.
And this dipshit is also failing to mention that two people, Julian Catter and George Tanios, were both charged with assaulting Brian Sicknick.
And not for nothing, but the media didn't just make up the story to sensationalize things.
They were reporting what the Capitol Police told them.
That could have been an instance of the police not always being the most honest when interacting with the media, or it could be an issue of bad information being conveyed by no intentional fault of anyone along the chain.
It's entirely possible that there was a miscommunication along the line, and this incident where Sicknick was attacked with pepper spray got mixed up with the incident on January 6th where Robert Stanford Jr. hit three Capitol officers in the head with a fire extinguisher and threw a traffic cone at them yelling, traitors.
He was sentenced to 52 months in prison and immediately sought out therapy to recover from what he describes as cult programming that led him to attack those officers.
What I'm saying is that there are explanations for the inaccurate reports about the cause of Sicknick's death that have nothing to do with the media lying about it.
because they're so desperate to turn this into a dramatic story if you can hear Glenn say this The fact that this is such a minor event in history is demonstrated by the fact that the media who needed this to be a major event immediately started lying.
It seems like an honest mistake that a sincere and nuanced journalist could make.
As for Glenn's point about the riots in 2020 being a bigger insurrectionary threat, my first question would be, do you think the fact that they didn't happen at the Capitol building on the day of the election involving a giant mob of people who believed they had the blessing of their god king to fight like hell to overturn an election might make this a little more serious than a burned police station or a looted target?
And once again, Alex just steamrolls Ian as the host and essentially decided that this is his show, which of course it is.
Alex doesn't want to talk about January 6th in this January 6th debate because he knows that Destiny at least isn't an idiot and he's prepared.
So he tries to distract off in Biden's speech from last night.
Well, I know from listening to Destiny and watching some of his streams and stuff, he subscribes to a position where you go on to debates, especially, this was his ethos with white nationalists and Nazis that he would debate with, is that 40% of the audience has already decided that they agree with you, 40% already agreed to decide with the Nazi, and then that 20% in the middle is the people that you really care about.
Well, actually, after they play the Biden clip, you can kind of see the first part where Destiny's kind of just like, I'm going to go ahead and take control of, pardon the expression, my own destiny.
Not much of those indictments are actually focusing on the three-hour right itself.
The unprecedented act that there is no answer for, that Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton have not engaged in, is using knowingly false election claims for months to try to pressure state electors to change their vote, and then when they wouldn't do that,
beg them to elect different electors, and then when they wouldn't do that, create a plot to create fake electors, and then when Pence wouldn't accept that, try to capitalize on that final three-hour No, they didn't.
These people are spinning themselves into knots about the definition of insurrection and the casual versus legal definitions, while all the while, like, they're having two completely different conversations, neither of which really get to the crux of the matter of why January 6th constitutes an insurrection.
To Destiny's credit, he very succinctly laid out how the event happened.
on that day was part of a much larger picture and that larger picture is what people care about and is the insurrection.
And along the way, you can hear Alex trying to lay out his standard talking point rebuttals, but Destiny will clear Yeah.
know the truth about those points.
A real tragedy is bad jumping in and trying to field this one about Hawaii, whereas Destiny definitely Better and quicker.
I hate to say this, but I think that Destiny might do better against Alex, Glenn, and Darren three on one.
What Trump did was Trump tried to get the states to certify an alternate slate of electors.
They refused because the court said there's no there there.
And then when that didn't go through...
Trump decided to get his own slate of electors above the states that were not certified and tried to use that to force Mike Pence to say that Joe Biden didn't win these electoral votes.
You didn't seem to have a problem with Alex and Ian playing a clip from a speech Biden gave last night and Alex rambling about Kamala Harris bailing out hardened criminals.
That sure was fine.
But now, when you want to discuss the context of what led to the events of January 6th, no, no, no!
The idea that Trump thought that he lost the election and he was knowingly lying and knowingly engaging.
No, he...
I guarantee it.
Whether you believe it or not, Trump believes that the election was stolen and he was using the legal recourses available to him at the advice of his legal advisors.
Most of his legal advisors said that this idea was crazy.
If you search hard enough, you can find anybody to validate an opinion.
But what you've just done is what I opened with, which is saying he thought the election was stolen, therefore he was justified to engage in insurrection.
I guess the best case scenario for Darren Beattie here is that Trump's a delusional moron who got tricked by nefarious legal advisors into trying to overturn an election.
I don't want to psychoanalyze people, but I wouldn't be too surprised if somewhere deep down Trump definitely knew that he lost, but his ego wouldn't allow him to accept that.
So he embraced a firm external posture of denial.
In practice, that would be indistinguishable from someone actually.
see how things are going to go.
Alex has accurately assessed that destiny prepared and isn't going to be tricked by his stupid evasions.
And the thing is, the reason is still the same, and I think we're seeing it right now, is because as long as you're the president, you can't go to jail.
So you can't vote for somebody because they make up a bunch of stuff and he's not found guilty anywhere, but you guys just parrot it over again like two men.
He doesn't know who he's dealing with here, though.
Destiny has debated a ton of really horrible people who say terrible things, and he's seen a lot of distraction tactics firsthand.
He knows how to deal with them.
If Alex thinks this kind of shit is a gotcha, he's in for a long day of yelling.
It's interesting to see here, though, that when Alex is floundering, the reinforcements come around, and there seems to be a little bit more moderation.
You've thrown it out because of counterfactual hypothetical that you've decided in your head about what would have happened if they'd lost the Revolution.
Let me just say, what happens is when you gather together to debate a particular question, you're supposed to debate that particular question, the particular question that we were presented with.
We're going to debate January 6th and whether it was an insurrection.
Now, I don't blame Destiny and Ed for not wanting to debate that, for wanting to debate a whole set of other issues.
If Glenn is so upset that Destiny thinks the question of whether January 6th is an insurrection involves the events that led up to it and caused it, why the fuck is he showing the same ire towards Alex for complaining about Joe Biden's recent speech and playing a clip from it, or his incessant shit about Colorado taking Trump off the ballot?
Seems like only one side is capable of being off-topic, and that's because Glenn's a goddamn dipshit.
But on the issue of whether there was a real belief on the part of Donald Trump that elections were stolen, I don't understand how anybody could doubt that, aside from the fact that you have to get into Trump's head.
In the last three elections that Democrats lost, in 2000, 2004, and 2016, a very large number of Democrats believed and asserted that the election was stolen.
The idea that George Bush was the real loser of the election, Al Gore won, was the view of every single liberal and Democrat that I knew.
In 2004, there were objections claiming that Karl Rove had...
Interfered in the Ohio vote with the Diebold machines and cheated to make John Kerry lose and George Bush win.
And in 2016, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats said that Donald Trump was the illegitimate winner, that Russia had helped him, and they tried to convince the Electoral College to abandon the certified results of the state.
Obviously, you go back to 1960.
And a lot of historians believe that election was stolen.
So it's not like Donald Trump was the first person to ever wonder or believe that an election was stolen from him.
It's a very significant tradition in American political history, if you know anything about politics before 2016.
And if Trump believed that the election was stolen, and while it's true, a lot of people in the Justice Department and a lot of people in the White House told them they didn't think it was.
He did have advisers and lawyers telling him that they think there was evidence of it.
Then the question is over, even on these We have other issues about whether or not Trump engaged in some conspiracy against the United States.
I remember 2004, and I swung in some fairly left-wing groups who hated Bush, and I don't think the Kerry was a victim of election theft thing was a hot talking point.
There was some talk about the Diebold voting machines, but that was because prior to the 2004 election, their entire software system, like all of it, was leaked.
Because all of it was leaked, people were able to pore over everything and identify all kinds of potential vulnerabilities, which were definitely there, but there wasn't evidence that the vulnerabilities were actually exploited.
The reason that Ohio was of particular interest was because Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell sent a letter promoting a Bush fundraiser that included him saying, quote, I'm committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year, which naturally raised some eyebrows.
This shit is apples and oranges compared to 2020, and Glenn fucking knows that.
Justifying that Trump could possibly rationally think the election was stolen in the immediate aftermath of the election doesn't do anything to justify the actions taken in service of propping up that falsehood, which are actions that all of the previous people, Hillary, Kerry, and Gore, didn't do.
That bit at the end there, that's just pure distilled pathetic.
Bed has actually looked into these cases and prepared, whereas Alex has just skimmed memes and yells a lot, so he's in a much better position to discuss the details, which is threatening to Alex.
He has no idea which cases Bed is talking about, because to him, they're all one big ball of an attack on Trump.
He knows nothing, so when Bed tries to explain to him this in very simple terms, Alex has to deflect by throwing out something about Biden and inflation.
He's just a child.
Like, this is how kids argue.
And to be fair, he's crushing it in kids' rules arguing.
That's why he said he was dominating earlier, because he thinks these deflections are working.
They're not, but it honestly doesn't matter.
Anyone watching this has their mind made up, so Alex is playing to him.
his audience.
They'll hear him desperately try to avoid talking about details about the cases that Trump has lost by bringing up Biden and inflation and think it's a savage dunk.
In many ways, I think that clip truly encapsulates the futility of interacting with Alex and having debates like this to begin with.
You know, you just got, like...
Real information.
Alex saying that none of these cases were heard.
Explaining that only two of them were thrown out simply because of the procedural stuff.
And Alex just saying, I believe in Biden and inflation.
It's admirable on some level that Ben is trying to explain to Alex that only two of Trump's legal cases were rejected on standing alone, and the rest were due to lack of merit.
Alex always says that none of Trump's cases were even heard at all, and all thrown out on standing, so it's valuable to push back on that, but you can see here what that...
Does.
No good.
Do you think anyone watching this that previously was inclined to agree with Alex heard that explanation and thought, huh, maybe Alex isn't right about those cases.
I think it's unlikely.
That was a fun yelling match that broke out, though.
It seems like they turned down Destiny's mic, which makes sense.
This is taking place at Alex's studio, presumably with his crew, and Zero Hedge is paying for it, so he's got a bit of home court advantage.
The question that you asked Ian is, is this a coup?
If you look at how other coups are perpetrated, and I think a lot of this is that if you're an American and you have this very soft history, you don't know what a coup is, you think that what CNN tells you a coup is a coup, usually the way coups work.
Is the leader of the country, whoever is in charge of the military, orders the military to seize control of the levers of power.
Trump was the commander-in-chief on January 6th.
The military was duty-bound to obey his orders.
They had a right to disobey if they were illegal, but...
If this were a coup, why didn't Trump order the military to seize control of power and turn over the election process to him?
Why didn't he order the armed factions that formed the law enforcement part of the military and the executive branch that serve under his command to do that as well?
That's what happened to the coup.
That didn't happen here because Trump wasn't trying to perpetrate a coup.
So that whole thing, the entire setup that Glenn used to invalidate the idea that this was an attempted coup was shattered in an instant by a Krasenstein.
Oh, he tried to get the DOD to seize voting machines.
Just a dipshit stepping on a rake.
As for why Trump didn't tell the military to take over with him on the 6th, it's probably because he was a coward and he realized he'd probably be killed.
Or maybe he thought that the violence that he refused to repeated requests to call for an end to would be enough to push for the administrative coup.
of actual military takeover stuff wasn't necessary.
Maybe because Trump was sequestered in a safe room and the people around him wouldn't have let that fly.
I mean, who knows?
There's plenty of reasons that aren't because it wasn't a coup.
But here, you can tell that Alex has essentially given up on engaging with anything anyone says.
When Ben has a quick answer to Glenn's dumb question, Alex slides right in to interrupt and deflect with nonsense about Biden taking Trump off the ballot.
He's a total idiot, but there is a strategic idiocy in where and how he's interrupting and deflecting.
I wanted to be known that every single time you try to talk about any of the stuff related to Trump, it's so many Democrat names that comes out of people's mouths.
I don't know why people can't just engage on the facts of what happened on and in the events leading up to...
It's unprecedented that a president of the United States would do everything within his power to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the next president.
So just to clarify the timeline, because Alex is 100% wrong, here are the basic beats.
People broke through the police barricades at around 1 p.m.
Trump finished his speech at the Ellipse at 1.10 p.m. and wanted to go to the Capitol, where people were already fighting with the police, but his security didn't allow it.
At 1.19, Trump arrived back to the White House.
Trump stayed in a private room in the White House from 1.25 to 4 p.m. watching Fox News.
Right around 2 p.m., rioters began entering the Capitol.
It's probably around this time that Harrison Smith is on air, on Infowars, celebrating the fall of the Capitol, announcing the Patriots had taken it back.
By two, people like Pat Sipel...
Polony have tried to get Trump to intervene to stop what was happening, but Mark Meadows said that Trump didn't want to.
At 2.24, Trump tweets, quote, Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution.
At the time, he was fully aware that his supporters had stormed the Capitol.
He was egging them on.
Even Marjorie Taylor Greene contacts Mark Meadows to tell him to get Trump to, quote, calm people, which maybe is part of why Trump ends up tweeting, quote, please support our Capitol police and law enforcement.
There were so many weapons, like tasers, brass knuckles, batons, and blades that were confiscated.
Alex doesn't want to have to recognize this, because his version of the story is it was just a peaceful bunch of nice people walking on a sightseeing tour through the Capitol.
You notice the misdirect Alex does with Destiny here, too.
Destiny is pointing out that Alex is citing a fake story about a woman being beaten to death, but because Alex knows that Destiny is correct and he's lying about this story, Alex pretends what Destiny is saying is that Ashley Babbitt wasn't shot.
Instead of dealing with how he's been called out for an indefensible lie, he's trying to project an indefensible lie.
position onto Destiny, which he didn't say.
For some context, this is about a deceptively edited video that was pushed in right-wing media that claimed to show police beating Roseanne Boylant, who tragically died that day.
She's the person who Glenn Greenwald earlier referred to as the person who died of an amphetamine overdose.
This disrespectful-ass fake video was used by shitheads like Alex until it was roundly debunked, but by this point, Alex is counting on people not remembering that it was an edited video.
Unfortunately, Destiny knows, so to get himself out of that jam, Alex is forced to pretend Destiny said something entirely different than he did.
It's really hard to imagine someone paying attention and not seeing through Alex's really the infantile rhetorical tricks.
Yeah.
unidentified
I get Alex is pretending that he won this exchange, but Boylan and Ashley Babbitt were the only two women who died that day, so he's just wrong.
As he was saying, telling people to go into the Capitol, as he was saying, he wants to drag Nancy Pelosi out of the Capitol and hopes her head hits every stair on the way.
The only answer is a mute button, and Alex is coked out, so we'll just steal the mic next to him and yell so loud that it's picked up on your mic, too.
That's such a terrible thing for Alex to do, because I do think there's such a...
There's a good response to that, which is just like, man, if the country gets overthrown by, like, a hundred people with knives and shit, that is on us.
I think Alex very understandably underestimated him, but it's kind of irrelevant, since Alex can clearly just easily yell over him, and Bed is too polite to really get into the dirt, like Destiny might.
If anything, the thing that's making this less interesting to me is how no points are ever really explored because Alex can't stay on topic, and you have a fucking Dig Dong Beatty in here.
Alex is a coked-out child, so even when someone touches on a decent point worth getting into, he'll remember that Trump isn't on the Colorado ballot and decide...
If you look at how coups are carried out in other countries, you could make a much better case that the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 was an insurrectionary movement.
And the reason it matters, Destiny, is because if you're going to make arguments, there has to be an important test, which is do you apply the same principles you're claiming to profess and believe in to cases where it undermines your partisan allegiance and your ideology, not only where it helps it.
That's one of the key tasks for determining the authenticity of your argument.
And so if you don't think the 2020 protest movement was an insurrectionary movement against the United States government, there's no way to claim what January 6th was, especially since Trump could have done so much more to cause a coup that he did not do because that wasn't his aim ever.
If you want to talk about applying the same standard, would you have been okay in the year 2000 if Gore refused to certify the vote because he didn't like what was happening in Florida?
Because if you really believe that an election is stolen, if the Democrats claim they did, then it is kind of odd to say, we're just going to concede that and allow George Bush to march into power, even though we believe that he actually stole the election.
That is kind of an odd way to go down with your destiny.
To me, because it seems like this is the type of shit that invalidates the entirety of the point of any of these, is that idea of when I am put to the question, I am afraid of my own answer.
This is the legal process of the congressional and judicial process.
That was not a legal process.
If he had ordered the military or some other FBI or any of those agencies, the CIA, to go and use violence on domestic soil in order to ignore those court rulings the way people do when they're trying to implement coups, you would have a good argument.
He didn't do any of that.
He invoked all of his legal rights in the judiciary and in the Congress.
He lost, and he walked out of the White House on January 20th.
He did not have to be dragged out.
He wasn't arrested by the military, which is what happens in coups.
So much of this is because you only started paying attention to politics in 2016.
You only live in the United States.
You have no idea about history or anything that happens in other countries.
You're trying to use Hawaii as an example for something that was comparable, where both slates of electors were actually duly elected by the people there in the 60s.
Hawaii and South Carolina, these other historical examples that people go to for multiple slates of electors are not at all comparable.
Both of these things happened prior to 2016.
There are no examples in U.S. history, or if you want to give me one since you know so much history.
Give it to me.
Is there any other examples in US history where the president is telling the vice president to unilaterally not certify the vote?
And just to be clear, when Destiny is saying that Glenn brought up Hawaii, his response is that he never said that.
I think there's a misunderstanding here because Glenn did bring up 1960 earlier as an example of a time when people claimed elections were stolen because of the situation with the electors in Hawaii.
This was meant as a deflection to pretend that everything that Trump did was super cool and not a problem at all.
He didn't necessarily bring that up as an example of something that's comparable to what Trump did, but Glenn Greenwald clearly thinks that Destiny is saying that he brought up Hawaii as an example of a coup.
They're talking past each other, but overall, Glenn is wrong and a condescending dipshit.
He said that if you disagree with him, it's just because you live in the United States and you only learned about politics in 2016.
He can take that shit somewhere else.
I don't even particularly care about Destiny or the Krasensteins.
You have to be a real dick to act like that.
Also, Glenn's definition requires a large carve-out for bloodless coups that have happened throughout world history.
I will tell you, of all the coups that ever could have been, that ever could have possibly been, when...
A famed novelist, Yukio Mishma, attempted to overthrow Japan by breaking into the Prime Minister's office with his friends who he trained into samurai and chopped his head off publicly.
Didn't work out, but he really could have done it!
And then instead of doing that, he had his own head chopped off by committing seppuku, and his buddy, who was going to chop his head off, took him three tries.
I just don't understand all of the insanely arbitrary caps that we're trying to create to try to say that it wasn't a coup.
Well, there was violence, but there wasn't enough.
There was a subversion of the democratic process, but it didn't end up working.
Like, if the plan would have gone as Donald Trump wanted it to have gone, which is Vice President Pence unilaterally tossing out the Electoral College vote, and if Donald Trump would have retained power past when he was supposed to lose it...
Glenn, what would you call it if the president was able to entrench his power by asking his vice president to throw out the vote unilaterally, which is what he was trying to do?
If that had happened, my guess is it would have ended up in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court would have made the decision about whether Mike Pence exercised his proper authority as vice president.
And then Donald Trump, if he had run out of options, would have left the White House on January 20th without any need for military force or police force, exactly how he did.
And I would have called that the exhaustion of all of the legal remedies available to the president in the event that he thinks that's not going to happen.
If both of you accept that then, then if the Supreme Court says that because of Amendment 14, Section 3, Trump can't be on the ballot, you would both accept that as well?
unidentified
I wouldn't, but I think that would be authoritative.
The reason why he didn't call them off is because Kim, Giuliani, and Eastman were making phone calls to other senators and congressmen asking them to decertify the electoral vote.
I'm saying that as the riot was raging on, and he was sitting there sipping his Diet Coke, if this really made him and his followers look bad, why didn't Donald Trump make a video immediately?
But there's one thing in that timeline that he's giving that we can't confirm at all, and that is a text that Alex got while he was at Trump's speech that said violence at the Capitol.
If they bring in, which they've done, 10 million illegal aliens the last three years, and then that gives them, with the congressional seats in the census, more Democrat seats in the Congress, is that not...
Honestly, in terms of history, we may have no idea how to answer that question at this point.
Pearl Harbor got us involved in World War II, so that's kind of hard to eclipse, but the rippling effects of Trump's actions after 2020 could end up resulting in a war.
If shit goes terribly bad in the 2024 election and there's an outbreak of insurgent violence and a fundamental destabilization of the world's main superpower, then I would say that it is comparable to Pearl Harbor.
As it stands now, J6 is...
It's undoubtedly a massive event in our history, but it's kind of impossible to compare it to historical events because we know what those things led to.
Alex's immigrant theory is based purely on racism.
In reality, in 2020, Pew Research analyzed what the effect of removing undocumented immigrants from the census would do to congressional seats, and it would result in a loss of a House seat in Texas, Florida, and California.
California would have a fair chance of that seat ending up being a Democratic one, but in Texas and Florida, the odds are that seat would be lost if undocumented immigrants weren't counted in the census would be a Republican one.
Doing what Alex wants would likely result in a net loss for his side.
Additionally, the states that would gain a seat if undocumented immigrants weren't counted would be Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio.
Ohio and Alabama have legislatures controlled by the GOP, so they'd likely redistrict GOP districts, but Minnesota is majority Democrat.
So what I'm saying is that if Alex got his way and undocumented immigrants didn't count, didn't count on the census, it would make no difference in the composition of the House.
Yeah, that Congress wasn't acting, that Mike Pence was supposed to be the guy to do it, but he hadn't heard good things about them, and they needed to go down to the Capitol building to protest.
If you think it's so bad that courts are kicking him off the ballot, what do you think about Trump doing the birtherism card for Obama for how many years?
Well, the answer, the real answer is it's hard to tell.
Personally, I don't like the way the 14th Amendment Section 3 is written.
I've got a lot of friends who will hate me for saying that.
And I think that the Supreme Court probably will rule against it.
Because the problem with the 14th Amendment is the self-executing part of it means basically anybody involved in that balloting process of putting him on the ballot could make that determination.
It'll have five million views, and it'll be you, and it'll be all the news articles where Milley says he'll resign if Trump's won National Guard, and then they did it again, and then General Flynn's brother...
It has to do with when Trump used the National Guard to clear protesters out of Lafayette Square and then did that photo op where he held a Bible upside down.
Milley was there and in his military uniform, and in hindsight, he realized that was a big mistake.
He wasn't mad at Trump for using the National Guard to clear the protesters.
It was that by his being there, he was closely associating the military with the whole thing.
He said at the time, quote, I should not have been there.
My presence in that moment, in that environment, created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics.
There's no evidence that he threatened to quit if Trump called in the National Guard for anything, nor that this would have been a factor in Trump's decisions around January 6th.
Sounds like bullshit that Alex is making, probably for fun storytelling.
The next claim that Alex makes is about Trump asking Mike Flynn's brother for 10,000 troops, which is actually less bad shit than it sounds.
At the time, Flynn's brother Charles was the deputy chief of staff for the Army, and though they initially denied it, the Army eventually did admit that Charles was on the call where the topic of deploying National Guard troops on January 6th happened.
This is not an instance of Trump asking for troops and not getting them.
The only reality you can find is that Mark Meadows told some people that Trump wanted some National Guard presence at the Capitol, but it was for the protection of his supporters.
That was what he was on.
There have been a few, maybe even a lot of people, who have talked about how decisions made not to station troops at the Capitol included considerations of the optics and how Trump's people had been pushing for martial law and how having military there could feed into perceptions of that.
But there wasn't any evidence that Trump requested troops and didn't get them, except coming from Trump.
Colonel Earl Matthews, the top attorney for the head of the D.C. National Guard, has claimed that Charles Flynn and Walter Piot were instrumental in not having troops deployed after a request had been made by Capitol Police.
Flynn was pushing for the use of National Guard to relieve D.C. police from non-law enforcement roles so those police could then go to the Capitol.
The bottom line here is there's a lot of people who have a lot of responsibility for the failures to plan and respond appropriately to January 6th, but Trump is probably number one on that list.
None of the stuff Alex is stammering his way through has any connection to reality, but probably does match up with some of the headlines from shithead blogs he skimmed, and now he's relying on people to make memes of to pretend everyone else is wrong.
If you're in an argument with somebody, and you're asked for a source, and the best thing you can come up with is, Twitter will figure it out for me tomorrow, you're not doing well.
Why is it, if the election was being stolen, why did every single person that Donald Trump trusted to investigate Come back and say there was no evidence of this.
I said everything that every single person that Donald Trump trusted to investigate, meaning the Vice President, the Department of Justice, the Cybersecurity Division of the Department of Homeland Security, all of his White House counsel.
So this is a fascinating clip because Destiny is entirely correct.
It even calls out the game that Alex is playing with farming TikTok clips, but there's a layer missing.
Alex is just doing the blowhard part and relying on other people to come up with justifications for the claims he's making.
Alex can't back any of this shit up, and he doesn't know any of these lawyers' names or any of this stuff.
His role is just to be an antagonist yelling a bunch of shit that somebody else can edit together with some B-roll of, like, Breitbart and Substack headlines.
And it doesn't really matter that Destiny's calling out the game.
The moderator has no interest in defending the dignity of this debate, and the strategy that Alex is using is going to be effective for his ultimate goal in doing this, which is to maximize the attention he accrues from it.
Engaging in this conversation sincerely and debating the points would work in direct opposition to what Alex's goal I find this fascinating, and it's really why I would have advised Destiny and even Bed to not accept this invitation.
No matter what you do, you're being used for attention farming.
You can tell yourself that you're there to reach out to the reachable elements in Alex's audience all you want, but that doesn't exist.
You're never going to convince someone who lives in non-reality to accept reality through rational argument, and you're never going to be allowed to have a rational argument when coked-out, drunk-ass Alex is in the room.
By accepting this invitation, all you've really achieved is that you get to be used as a prop so Alex and Zilk can pretend that they're not in a bubble, and you score a bigger victory by just not being involved.
Saying no is the right answer.
Also, it's fascinating how much of a stickler Alex is for accuracy and language all of a sudden.
God forbid he be held to that standard, or else you might end up doing a thousand episodes of a podcast about how full of shit he is.
Now, if that nine-year-old is actually a 50-year-old, very, very thick-necked, violent person, the impulse control deficiencies there are going to be, I don't want to be around it.
Do you think that Donald Trump asking Jeffrey Clark to go and threaten the DOJ that if they don't sign on to a false letter trying to bully states into claiming there was mass election fraud by claiming the DOJ had actually found someone they had it?
If Trump believed genuinely that the election was stolen, then all of those steps that he undertook to try and present to Congress the way to alleviate the stolen election, to have courts reverse the stolen election, to have Mike Pence exercise what he thought was his constitutional authority, might have been wrongful, but they weren't illegal, and they most definitely weren't a coup.
If he thought that the election was stolen, he was allowed to tell the DOJ that they needed to sign on to a false letter claiming they'd found election fraud.
So, Destiny's point here is really good because, in essence, that action that he's describing, telling the DOJ to sign off on this stuff, is not something that is defensible by your actual belief that there's election fraud.
You are asking them to commit fraud in service of pretending there was fraud.
The trucks, when they shut down the polling places and the trucks pulled in and they blocked the windows out and ran the same ballots over and over again.
I think what Biden did, I think what Biden did was, here's what Biden did for the shot, okay?
What happened was, Raffensperger and everybody in Georgia looked over all the tapes that you're claiming about, but the ballots being ran three times, not only was that information false, Trump was told that it was false, Trump knew that it was false, Trump repeated it over and over again, including in a call to Raffensperger, and finally Giuliani has come out saying that it was false, but it was his First Amendment right to lie about it, when Ruby Freeman took him to court for defamation, because he lied about it, something you clearly see on video evidence.