All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 30, 2021 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
44:34
Episode 9: January 6th (feat. Dr. Darren J. Beattie) – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The embattled Congressman Matt Gaetz.
Matt Gaetz was one of the very few members in the entire Congress who bothered to stand up against permanent Washington on behalf of his constituents.
Matt Gaetz right now, he's a problem in the Democratic Party.
And he can cause a lot of hiccups in passing the laws.
So we're going to keep running those stories to keep hurting him.
If you stand for the flag and kneel in prayer, if you want to build America up and not burn her to the ground, then welcome, my fellow patriots!
You are in the right place!
This is the movement for you!
You ever watch this guy on television?
It's like a machine.
Matt Gaetz.
I'm a canceled man in some corners of the internet.
Many days I'm a marked man in Congress, a wanted man by the deep state.
They aren't really coming for me.
They're coming for you.
I'm just in the way.
Thanks for joining this week.
Make sure to give us that five-star rating.
Leave us a review.
Let us know topics you'd be interested in for upcoming episodes today.
Whether it is the Wuhan virus starting at the Wuhan lab or the Russia hoax or even the topic of today's show, January 6th, there is a pattern that repeats itself.
And recognizing it will help you see the future.
First, I tell you something that sounds crazy.
Like our own government was illegally spying on the Trump campaign, or U.S. taxpayers were funding a Chinese bioweapon, or that our own government was involved in the attack on the Capitol.
Then, the mainstream media says, I'm nuts.
Gaslighting, even.
And then we roll up our sleeves and develop the evidence.
Talk to the experts.
Just like the Russia hoax.
Just like Wuhan.
Then some story in a mainstream outlet confirms the contours of what we were saying all along.
January 6th has been used by the most powerful forces in America to smear and target a political movement that threatens them.
Nancy Pelosi, the mainstream media, corporate America, and even the FBI are so worried about the power of America first, they are using January 6th to destroy and divide and extinguish us.
They may be more culpable than they originally let on.
They cancel us online.
They persecute us in the flesh.
You know, for most Americans, January 6, 2021 probably isn't one of the first hundred things you think about when you wake up in the morning.
But Pelosi set up a special committee to obsess about it.
So much for bringing people together.
That was just a talking point.
Regular folks all over this great country were concerned about jobs, public safety, health care, meeting the month's needs in the world of shutdown mania, schooling, mandates, freedom.
On all those issues, Democrats are failing spectacularly.
And they have unified control of the government.
According to recent data reported in the Washington Examiner, a majority now believe that Joe Biden It's kind of an idiot.
So January 6th is now the political cudgel in America, used by the powerful against the silent majority.
Bank of America, they'll turn over your financial records with no warrant, notice, or due process.
Nancy Pelosi might even demand the phone records of your duly elective representative in the Congress.
Start the fishing expedition and never end it.
The FBI might even show up at your home like they did to Paul and Marilyn Hooper.
Imagine waking up on a beautiful morning in Homer, Alaska.
The sound of your door is that of armed men kicking it in.
And what's the crime?
Well, the FBI is looking for Nancy Pelosi's laptop.
And your wife kind of looks like the woman that might have been in Nancy Pelosi's office.
No big deal, right?
We have rights.
I'm sure the FBI would be happy to show a warrant and clear things up.
Wrong.
At least not before they handcuff you, interrogate you, three hours, all while calling you a liar and asking who you're working with.
Yeah, chasing down boomers in Homer, Alaska, and accusing them of being part of a larger conspiracy to steal Nancy Pelosi's laptop tells you all you need to know about how wide this net is being cast.
You can read more about the horrors in Homer on Revolver News.
The FBI has been the enforcement wing of D.C.'s anti-Trump political forces for some time.
Even before Trump was elected, they had the Russia hoax brewing.
Now the Biden regime is using January 6th to label their political opponents domestic terrorists.
Let's see them ridiculously use this strong-arm tactic and these terrorism tools in their hunt in the United States.
The failed war on terror is now coming home, and it's turned inward.
The institutions that we were told would keep us safe if we would only give up a little freedom have now been weaponized against the American people.
We never imagined the Patriot Act being used to harass patriots.
The FBI has a history and a doctrine of deploying assets to infiltrate political movements that scare them.
When the FBI was right-wing under J. Edgar Hoover, they used their tools to infiltrate and surveil civil rights groups.
Because the growing popularity of people like Martin Luther King Jr. frightened them.
The politics at the FBI have obviously changed, and so have their targets.
In June, I pieced together explosive reporting from Revolver News and other information I had.
Today's guest, Tucker Carlson and I, were making the serious charge that federal law enforcement was involved on January 6th.
This is June 17th.
I laid out the argument on In Focus with Stephanie Hamill on One America News.
Here's what we know, Stephanie.
Groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters were infiltrated to some degree by the FBI. That doesn't necessarily mean badged agents were parts of those groups, but it does mean that people were providing information from those groups to the FBI. And if the very people who provided that information were accelerating the violence,
were riling people up who might have otherwise just shown up on the Capitol lawn to peacefully protest and have their voice heard, well then, I think the FBI is even more culpable In the violence and in the most troubling parts of 1-6.
That's why I've sent a letter to Director Wray seeking a full accounting of the FBI assets, the FBI operatives and even potentially the FBI agents that might have known what was going on and even might have participated in some of the worst elements of January 6th.
The FBI was participating in the insurrection.
That they now claim is an ongoing national security threat.
Maybe the FBI is the ongoing national security threat, actually.
When Revolver News put out this explosive reporting, the mainstream media went into full meltdown.
Fox's BS ringmaster, Tucker Carlson, this week, breathing air into this false flag conspiracy theory that originated from a right-wing website that has been flagged by social media for being BS. This is Alex Jones Infowars.
This is real tinfoil hat stuff.
And yet, Beattie and Revolver News were the sources cited last week by Tucker Carlson, the highest-rated primetime host on Fox News, when he decided to give Beattie a platform and amplify this bonkers conspiracy to millions of his Republican viewers.
What's his source?
A site run by this guy, Darren Beattie, former Trump speechwriter, left his post in 2018 after attending a conference with white nationalists.
But forget about what kind of dirtbag he's getting his information from.
No less than the New York Times has now confirmed the reporting of Revolver News.
That's right, the New York Times has fessed up to the most milquetoast version of the FBI's involvement that they could present.
But we're going to get the full story today from Dr. Darren Beattie from Revolver.
And this is not the end of the story.
Likely, it's not even the end of the beginning.
We have so much more here with Dr. Beattie.
Know this.
The reason you're learning about the FBI's involvement now is that the tapes are coming out.
The tapes, all 14,000 hours, those that we've been calling to release.
Now, they're coming out either through criminal process or through the conclusion of criminal process.
Even the FBI can't hide the truth forever.
And after the Russia hoax, we're getting better.
We're battle-hardened.
We know how to find the truth and expose it.
The FBI's involvement was first reported by today's guest, Dr. Darren Beatty, publisher of Revolver News.
Revolver News is a premier source for daily news analysis and hard-hitting investigative reporting.
Full disclosure, Dr. Beatty has previously served as a senior advisor to me, and I regularly seek out his perspective on a variety of issues to this day.
Joining us now, the publisher of Revolver News, Dr. Darren Beattie.
And as you heard, Darren, after Revolver News broke the story that the FBI had involvement in January 6th, you faced a lot of criticism from the mainstream media, including what we just heard from Chris Cuomo.
And now, no less than the New York Times is confirming The reporting of Revolver News.
How should people think about the way this story, before we get into the substance of it, just the way the story evolved.
You went and analyzed documents, legal pleadings, indictments.
You pieced that together with other open source information.
And you built this case when you broke it on Revolver News.
It really sent the mainstream media into a meltdown.
And now here we are.
How should we think about the ecosystem of a news cycle like this?
Well, actually, it's quite remarkable, and it really shows the power of proactive narrative formation.
And so before we talk about what happened in the mainstream media, I think it's worth saying what the landscape was like on the conservative media in terms of the narratives that we used to describe 1.6.
It was sort of scattered about.
Some people were saying, Oh, it was just people taking selfies.
It was harmless.
Some people were saying, oh, there were Antifa and left-wing people.
And you know what?
There's a lot of truth to the selfies narrative, and there's probably some truth to the Antifa narrative.
But it was sort of scattered, and we didn't really know how to think about it.
And what the Revolver News piece did was really refocus the conversation really on the one place that the regime does not want it focused on, and that is, wait a minute, we just had this Michigan kidnapping plot that everyone was talking about as an example of how evil these right-wing Trump supporters are and how they're so dangerous.
We just need to repurpose the entire national security apparatus to suppress them politically.
And how it turned out that at the time we reported it, we knew that five of the Michigan plotters were actually feds.
Now the number is 12. 12 out of the 26 plotters in the Michigan case turned out to be feds.
And for your listeners who may not be familiar with this case, in short, the Michigan kidnapping case is actually much more than this so-called plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan.
It also involved a so-called plot to storm the Michigan state capitol, a plot that involved one of the three main militia groups imputed to 1-6, and a plot that was infiltrated by the feds, as I mentioned,
12 out of the 26. And just as the cherry on top, the head of the Detroit FBI field office at the time who ran this infiltration operation was, after the arrest of these plotters, promoted by Christopher Wray to the DC field office to oversee aspects of the 1-6 investigation.
And so given that context and given the fact that, as we pointed out, looking at the charging documents of the people variously who were indicted in relation to 1-6 crimes and seeing there are a lot of names and people referred to Who pop up in these charging documents,
who by the description seem to have done just as much and in many cases more stuff than the people indicted, and who occupy more senior positions in these militia groups that the government claims to be interested in.
And so what's a possible explanation for this manifest selective prosecution?
Given the context of the Michigan case, one compelling explanation in at least some of these cases of selective prosecution is that these people are being protected as a result of a prior relationship with the feds.
And that's what started it all.
And that, as I mentioned, that's the one thing.
That's the soft spot.
It's the weak spot.
It's the vulnerable spot.
It's the one little narrative spot that they didn't want us to talk about, and that's why they freaked out.
So what you're saying, Darren, is that you believe there are senior people in some of these groups that have been bantied around as potential organizational nodes for January 6th, where the actual people, not in the rank and file, but in the leadership, were working with the federal government.
What's your best evidence that's the case?
Well, I'll be very happy to get to that.
I just want to preempt some of the actually extremely weak criticism.
So the media descended on this original piece, which was amplified by you and Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson.
And so, you know, that's great, you know, and I'm very grateful for you amplifying this story and it helped to really break the sound barrier.
But once that happened, the media, all the fact checkers in the media, they said, Hey, wait a minute.
I know you're eager to write your 10th piece about how we need to put on a fifth mask for COVID, but why don't we get the fact checkers here to address this revolver piece, and then you can finish the COVID piece later.
And they all said, okay.
So every journalist in the country, it seemed like, descended on this piece.
And given that level of resources, I would expect at least some kind of effective critique.
But the best thing that they can come up with Is they focused on this technical term, unindicted co-conspirators, and they said, well, technically, they're not unindicted co-conspirators, which actually turns out to be false.
There is use of this specific term, unindicted co-conspirator, in one of the charging documents.
But that's really beside the point.
The issue isn't whether they use the specific phrase, unindicted co-conspirators.
The issue at question Is whether any of the individuals referenced in the charging documents who are not prosecuted are being protected from prosecution or unindicted on the basis of a prior relationship with the feds.
That's what the issue is.
That's why they were so terrified of it.
And that's why they all descended on it.
Perhaps even more suspicious.
So that would suggest that your best evidence is their reference in charging documents in the absence of charges.
Am I reading that correctly?
Well, I mean, it's a case-by-case thing.
If they're referenced in the charging documents and they do things that they could be indicted by, by virtue of looking at other people who did the same thing or less who were indicted, there's an element of selective prosecution.
There are various explanations for selective prosecution, One of which is that the person is an undercover agent or an informant.
So it's a case by case.
We just laid out the general thesis in this first position saying, look, there's a whole bunch of people here.
A lot of them look like they did a lot more than the people were actually charged.
This is a case of selective prosecution.
Given the context of the Michigan case, it's very likely, or at least we should explore the possibility, that some of these people are being protected as a result of a prior relationship with the feds.
Then what we did is we said, okay, we did a deep dive on one particular person who I think is probably the best case for this, who happens to be the founder and the leader of the main boogeyman militia group That the media and the government has imputed to all of the scary insurrectionist type behavior on 1-6.
And that's person one in the charging documents is Stuart Rhodes.
And look, we can't say definitively one way or another what he is.
What we can say is, here's the head of the main militia group that's been imputed to the insurrection activities of 1-6.
He has not been charged Eight months later with anything when there's clearly indictable offenses.
And when I say there's clearly indictable offenses, is that my subjective view?
No.
That's actually the view of the government itself.
because the government, in charging one of his underlings, in arguments saying why his underling should not only be charged but should be denied bail, they use his statements and actions to constitute a conspiracy in which they say the guy that they use his statements and actions to constitute a conspiracy in which they say the So they're using the words and statements of the militia leader to charge the underling when the leader himself is not charged.
Well, Darren, if what you're suggesting is true, then the Oath Keepers, as an organization, is essentially a counterintelligence federal operation.
If the leader and founder of the organization is working with the federal government, And informing to the federal government, then is that organization a sincere organization built on whatever its founding documents are?
Or is it a setup to try to map out people who might have views that are uncomfortable to the ruling elite?
No, that's an interesting question.
And I can't say definitively one way or another.
My strong sense based on research into this is there are a lot of Sincere people who join the Oath Keepers who are just misguided and they don't understand.
Well, what if they're the target?
We know in the intelligence world a common feature is to go set up an organization not for the purpose of executing on that organization's stated goals, but as a way to recruit people and then map them.
Is the Oath Keepers a recruit and map?
It's a perfect thing if that were the case because the whole idea is Basically recruiting people with military and law enforcement experience who are essentially willing to break laws, in a sense.
The actual messaging, there's a lot of the messaging that makes sense, but that's kind of what could make it dangerous as a counterintelligence operation.
I think a lot of the people who join are sincere.
Our patriots are misguided.
But as for the founder and leader, I think there's a lot of questions And there's a lot of questions because the guy who was charged that I mentioned, who's being charged really on the basis of statements and actions by the founder and leader, this guy, first of all, he was reported in the media as being a leader of the Oath Keepers.
He's not.
He's a 65-year-old disabled guy who met the head of the Oath Keepers at the Stop the Steal rally just months before.
The FBI kicked down his door.
They pointed a gun at his wife.
He got the whole treatment.
All the electronic stuff seized.
You see the feds do that, where they take all the electronics, they kick down the door, they do the whole thing.
And yet, which is even more curious, because again, this head of the Oath Keepers who hasn't been indicted, he hasn't even been properly searched.
As far as we know, the full extent of what search he's had Was that the Feds took a single cell phone from him four months after January 6th.
That simply doesn't make sense to me if he were the target of a serious investigation.
In fact, he doesn't even need to be the target of an investigation for a search like that.
They just need to think, oh, maybe he has stuff on other people that they're investigating.
And they've searched people on that basis, too.
And so, again, I can't say definitively one way or another, but one possible explanation of this Is they don't want his full communications records because those might contain correspondence with an FBI handler And that's precisely the type of correspondence that blew open the Michigan case.
And it's the correspondence that has become the basis of this New York Times article about the Proud Boy informant texting with his handler.
And why is that coming out now, Darren?
You know, I mean, you have essentially reported this information, this tactic of infiltration that, frankly, the FBI and DOJ have used back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover.
But now using against right-wing groups instead of using against left-wing groups.
Sort of the target has changed, but the Mad Lib stayed the same.
I think that we need to catch the signal here, not the noise, in the New York Times reporting.
Help us read in between the lines.
This was obviously a leak from the government to the New York Times to take the air out of the balloon.
How should we think about that piece?
Right.
So that's great.
And a couple of things.
Revolver News just published a pretty detailed analysis of what's going in.
Of course, we want to take the victory lap and say, oh, we're vindicated by the times.
And it is a partial vindication.
But just a victory lap is a little bit boring.
We want to advance the conversation.
So a couple of things.
First, why is this coming out?
They're not doing this to vindicate Revolver news.
They're doing this because the truth is a lot worse and they're trying to get ahead of the narrative and massage the narrative because it's a damage control piece.
So that's why I have every expectation that we're going to learn about more and more and more informants.
Given the timing, why are we going to learn that?
Again, this gets back to why if someone's an informant, the feds aren't going to want to seize all of their electronics immediately.
And that's because there's a legal obligation on the part of prosecution to present any exculpatory evidence to defendants, which could include information about informants and communications by informants to their FBI handlers.
So I think that explains the timing of why the New York Times feels compelled.
Probably the feds told them, look, this is going to come out, get ahead of this for us, which they did.
But the mere acknowledgement of informants puts the regime and the regime media in a very difficult strategic dilemma, which I would like to explain.
So in that seminal Revolver News piece in which we broke up in the whole story, we actually began the piece with a clip of Amy Klobuchar making an inquiry to FBI Director Wray.
Now, she sort of asked the question about informants, but she formulates it in a very careful fashion.
She doesn't say, did you have informants?
She assumes that he didn't.
She assumes and said, Don't you just kick yourself for not having had informants, because if you had informants in place, you would have known what was going to take place, and of course you would have stopped it.
So don't you just kick yourself that you didn't have any informants and therefore no visibility in what was going to happen, and therefore it's an intelligence failure that explains why you're not able to stop this in advance.
And he basically gives a non-answer because she did him the courtesy of not posing the question directly.
Now, why did she do him that courtesy?
Why did she assume that there are no informants?
Well, the no informants thesis was very important to the official position that this was all the result of an intelligence failure.
Because if they had the intelligence and they did nothing, then the obvious question is, why did they let it happen on purpose?
But now that we know for a fact that there were multiple informants, and as I pointed out, they're likely to be even more revealed, this notion that they couldn't have known in advance of plotting and conspiracy and so forth is really, really difficult to sustain.
So in order to salvage this position that the feds didn't just sit back and let something happen for political purposes, they need a new narrative.
And this is a new narrative that they're advancing with They're proxies in the media.
And that narrative is, you know what, guys?
After all, there was actually no pre-planning on the part of these insurrectionists.
It was all a spontaneous thing.
It wasn't really a conspiracy.
They were just there and it got out of hand.
The reason they say that is that they could not be blamed for having foreknowledge and doing nothing if there was no foreplanning.
If the insurrectionists had no foreplanning, The feds could not have had foreknowledge, and therefore they're absolved of having foreknowledge and doing nothing.
The only problem with this is this really compromises another major pillar of the narrative that they're invested in.
If there is no foreplanning, there's no conspiracy.
And therefore, the entire conspiracy case against the Oath Keepers, which is the basis of this thing, goes out the window.
The entire case against the Proud Boys goes out the window.
The entire media narrative of of 1-6 as this pre-planned terrorist attack on the level of 9-11 goes out the window.
The entire January 6 thesis goes out the window because Benny Thompson, the chairman of that commission, advanced his own personal lawsuit, a theory of the case that stipulates that 1-6 was a result of pre-planned coordination between the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and members of Trump's inner circle.
So there's this really interesting situation where The Feds want to cover their asses, cover the downside by saying, wait a minute, now let's say there's no pre-planning, so we're not blamed for knowing in advance and doing nothing.
But they do that at the expense of the entire narrative that's been concocted to advance this kind of political war on Trump supporters as the new domestic terrorists.
So either way you go, one major pillar of the official 1-6 thesis goes out the window, And that, again, is leaving aside the big elephant in the room, is that it's probably a lot worse even than that they knew and didn't do anything.
It's probably that some of the key instigators who had constituted the conspiracy were themselves feds, much like in the case of Michigan.
So it's an interesting case, and I think this tension explains some of the mixed messaging you have in the media, because even though the media and the feds are on the same side, they kind of have different priorities in this case.
The feds want to cover their downside with this new position that there is no pre-planning, but the media wants to take off and continue running with this narrative to demonize Trump supporters.
So it's a very interesting situation.
It's a very dynamic situation.
I think it's only going to get worse for the regime, and we're not going to stop pushing.
So Darren, let me distill what you just said there.
The New York Times reporting really isn't intended to confirm your reporting.
It's intended to lance the boil and to try to reduce the Intense exposure and embarrassment for the FBI if in fact their assets were doing more than merely infiltrating these organizations, but if they were animating a higher acuity of criminal conduct.
And then similarly, you know, when they come out and say there's no organizing feature to this, there's no grand plan to storm the Capitol, well, they may be saying that because the grand plan was theirs.
And if it is true that the grand plan was theirs, it wouldn't even be the first time they had that plan because it was part of the Michigan endeavor that resulted in the very person who put together the Michigan operation finding a big job in D.C.
So is sort of, you know, infiltrate right wing group, animate criminal conduct, threaten some political figure or some political building.
Is that the new deep state Mad Lib and whether it's Michigan or Washington, D.C. or something else, we have found the operation and the greatest version.
vulnerability in this operation.
The biggest opportunity for us to find the truth is to really get a full accounting of all of the federal assets who had infiltrated and then tie those assets to higher acuity of criminal conduct.
I mean, is that the Darren Beattie roadmap for a Republican Congress once we get the gavels and have the power of oversight?
Yes, absolutely.
I mean, that is the iceberg that sinks the Titanic of That is the false narrative of January 6th.
And that's precisely why the media freaked out initially when our piece came out raising the general thesis.
Now, I should say that even more remarkable and suspicious than the media freakout over our first piece was the complete media silence over our follow-up piece, which focused on a specific individual.
That is the head of the Oath Keeper, Stuart Rhodes.
None of the fact checkers wanted to touch that piece.
They simply didn't want anyone to know about it.
To me, that's even more damning than the reaction to the initial piece.
Is this the first time Stuart Rhodes has sort of found himself in a circumstance where he's part of an organization or an entity that becomes subject to federal law enforcement interest and then he sort of disappears when the enforcement action arrives?
No, actually, that's another interesting aspect.
When you look into his biography and history, he's been involved in a lot of these things and been involved in Bundy Ranch and this or that.
And going back, you can find witnesses and people saying, look, there's this weird thing where he gets involved in these flashpoints and a lot of people around him get indicted and he manages to go free and move on to the next thing.
So, I mean, that alone doesn't prove anything, but it's an interesting additional point of context, you know, given what the evidence seemed to suggest in relation to 1-6.
Darren, I can't let you go without asking you a question about another hot issue in the news, Julian Assange.
There's a lot of analysis on Revolver News regarding the reporting we've seen, the CIA developing a series of severe options to invade the Ecuadorian embassy and take out Assange or kidnap him.
How should Americans think about the fact that our government was making these plans?
Well, I mean, I think it's part of the same conversation that we've been having before, and that is the problem of the national security state run amok.
And Julian Assange really represents the ultimate conclusion of where that can lead.
His great offense was he embarrassed the national security state profoundly.
And he did so from the left, which Affords him some degree of protection, but he embarrassed them so much and so severely that he has to be punished severely from the standpoint of the security state.
I think it's a shameful thing.
It's a human rights violation.
It's a demonstration of hypocrisy that severely compromises whatever kind of moral high ground we might pretend to have when engaging with other nations.
Perhaps even more important from our point of view, it demonstrates what's really the lesson from the 1-6 conversation that I think is particularly hard for people on the right.
I think the political psychology of people on the left is to be charitable.
They want to critique unjust institutions of power.
They want to challenge unjust institutions of power.
I happen to think Nine cases out of 10, or maybe 99 out of 100, they unwittingly or otherwise actually serve those powerful interests.
But they have to think of themselves as challenging, unjust, powerful institutions.
People on the right, on the other hand, tend to have a very different political psychology.
They want to think of themselves as venerating and defending just institutions of authority.
And so it's much easier to go from the political psychology of the left to a critique of the national security state.
On the right, it's a harder job.
And what I try to do with Revolver, I think, is what you do tremendously well as a representative and just as an observer and commenter on events and an active participant.
But it's harder on the right because The psychology is wanting to venerate just institutions.
But what do you do when these institutions are corrupt, including not only the national security state, but the DOD up to brass itself?
It's a much heavier lift.
It's a more difficult pill to swallow.
But unless we orient ourselves to this new reality and address it, we're not going to get anywhere.
Because the ultimate bottleneck to political effectiveness, I believe, is the national security state.
Unless we address the problem of the national security state, bring it under control, bring it to heel, politics in this country will be pretty much fake and performative.
As long as there's a national security state operating in the fashion it does now, politics will effectively be fake.
It'll be easy for, you know, grifters to raise money ginning up, you know, issues that get people emotionally and go nowhere.
But in terms of actually fundamentally altering the course of this country, it will not be possible.
Until we address the question of the national security state.
Well, and you're describing the status quo, because what I see is that far too many of my colleagues are merely the actors, and the scripts are written by others, the direction is provided by others.
And that's why Sacha Baron Cohen is able to get so many members of Congress, because frankly, we're used to somebody just handing you a script, pointing you at the camera.
Yeah, it is.
And I am proud that he didn't get me, that I at least had the wherewithal to get past Borat in whatever incarnation I found him in.
But I do think that we share the perspective that the greatest threat to our country right now is the inward turning of national security authorities against our people.
And that is precisely why these January 6th detainees are still behind bars.
They don't pose any ongoing threat to the ruling government of the United States of America.
But if we face that fact, then those authorities that they want to use against MAGA, against America First, against people on the populist right, well then those wouldn't be attainable, accessible to them.
And so that is the performance now.
My recommendation to folks is if you want to stay up on this, if you want the cutting edge news, go to Revolver and then you can see the future.
Because if you're not going to Revolver News every day, all you're seeing is the CNN-MSNBC meltdown of the Revolver reporting.
And then months later, you see the kind of sheepish confirmations from entities like the New York Times.
But if people just read Revolver in the first place, you will literally be able to see the future.
Darren, thank you for your analysis and your perspective.
I think you're right.
And the only hope, the only antidote to this is just a series of truth bombs.
And I'm glad you've got a platform where that can happen.
We hope this is a platform where it can happen as well.
And we hope we can chat again soon, my friend.
Absolutely.
Thank you so much.
And thanks for everything you do.
Last week, I gave you important information regarding the horrors and crimes that occur at foreign consulates operating within the United States.
I called on the Secretary of State to close the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles and to get answers from Israel's consulate in New York.
This man, Jake Novak, works at the New York Israeli consulate as the broadcast media relations director.
It's a big job to be the media relations director for Israel in New York.
He's not a low-level guy.
Novak implicated himself as some sort of player in a criminal extortion plot against me.
That criminal scheme has already resulted in one indictment.
The Israeli government has now responded to the news that one of their employees has been involved in something so terrible.
And they have confirmed a number of very revealing things.
Quote, The Consulate General of Israel in New York and the State of Israel are not involved in any way, directly or indirectly, in this issue.
The relevant employee is a staffer at the Israeli Consulate in New York and is not serving in any diplomatic capacity.
His correspondence mentioned in recent publications was not in any way, shape, or form a part of his role at the consulate.
There's a lot to unpack here.
First, Israel confirms the authenticity of the Novak messages regarding extortion.
That's very important.
If these were fake, Israel certainly would have included that fact in a statement like this.
Unlike things the media accuses me of, this extortion actually happened.
Second, Israel distances itself from Novak, clearly.
They know this is a rotten criminal enterprise and they clearly want nothing to do with it.
Good for Israel.
If this were a righteous, honest act, they'd probably say so, rather than focusing on downplaying their connection to Novak, who's, by the way, still their employee.
Finally, the government of Israel knows more about the origins of the lies about me than I do.
Think about that.
Based on this message, they have clearly discussed the matter with Novak.
They made him explain himself to them.
Now I want that explanation.
I want to know exactly what happened.
I've asked to meet with Israel's ambassador to the United States to discuss this directly.
He has not responded to my request.
This tweet statement is helpful, but it's not enough.
The one thing I won't be able to pursue anymore is Twitter engagement with the man involved in pricing a shakedown of my father, Jake Novak.
He has blocked all of my accounts and the accounts of my congressional staff, maybe because I've repeatedly exposed that he was doing exactly what it looks like he was doing, even according to the government of Israel's confirming statement.
Jake Novak recently tweeted, Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
The nerve.
I replied, can we believe everything you admitted via text to Scott Adams regarding the extortion plot against my family?
Awaiting response from Ambassador Erdan.
I don't know how to feel about being blocked by an employee of a foreign government after that person was lying about me to the brilliant Dilbert cartoonist.
It's a lot to get your head around.
Were my replies to Jake Novak trolling?
Okay, yes.
But it's hard to imagine Israel's New York consulate overly sensitive about the exercise of trolling when the tweet pinned to the top of their Twitter timeline is a call to troll Ben& Jerry's ice cream.
Quote, If social justice, diversity, peace, and tolerance are important to you, show your support for at BenJerryIsrael by tweeting at Ben& Jerry's and urging people over politics.
I'll reiterate, I'm a friend to Israel.
A far better friend than the Democrats who voted to defund the Iron Dome, for sure.
I even support their trolling of Ben and Jerry's ice cream.
People over politics, indeed.
I just want to know what Novak knows, and what the government of Israel knows after questioning him.
Who encouraged Jake Novak to push these lies about me?
I mean, one of them even says I'm involved in a murder conspiracy.
My pursuit of the truth will not relent.
People should know that about me.
Novak blocked me online, but will he also be able to block the FBI, the DOJ? Will he even have to?
According to the law, Jake Novak doesn't have diplomatic immunity, but he may have something more powerful.
Diplomatic influence.
How could the FBI not question someone with direct admitted knowledge of a crime?
Then there's the Jerusalem Post.
Running interference, it seems, for someone or something.
The Jerusalem Post falsely reports, quote, This is the correspondence that was the pricing of the extortion, checking in on the extortion exercise.
And I know it would be convenient for the consulate to distance themselves from Novak to say that he did all these things when he wasn't in their employ.
But that is verifiably false.
On March 16th, Novak tweeted his association with the embassy.
The messages occurred on March 27th.
In early March, Novak tweeted a story about the new hires in February and said that he was one of them.
Lastly, take a look at Jake Novak's LinkedIn profile.
If I'm correct, I see that he began working in the New York consulate for Israel February 2021. Be better, Jerusalem Post, and correct your false narrative-conforming reporting.
And until then, everyone can find the truth on Firebrand.
▲
Export Selection