Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 21, 2021 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz

28:41

Episode 12: The Weaponized DOJ (feat. Dr. Darren J. Beattie) – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

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.
	He can cause a lot of hiccups in passing the laws.
	So we're going to keep running the 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 cancelled 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.
	Death unaddressed, this defiance may encourage others to follow Mr. Bannon down the same path.
	He knows that there are consequences for outright defiance, and he's chosen the path toward criminal contempt by taking this position.
	Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee favorably report to the House the committee's report on a resolution.
	Recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol as amended.
	The question on the motion is favorably report to the House.
	Those in favor say aye.
	Aye.
	Those opposed, no.
	In opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
	The clerk will report the vote.
	Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are nine ayes, zero no's.
	The motion is agreed to.
	Welcome and in our conversation today, back on the program, the publisher of Revolver News, Professor Darren Beattie.
	Darren, we've got Merrick Garland later today coming before the House Judiciary Committee.
	And my expectation is that he already knows the news he wants to make.
	On the heels of action against Steve Bannon, on the heels of subpoenas to Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Kosh Patel, many others, preservation demands even involving members of Congress, Merit Garland, in a few hours, wants to make the news that he will use criminal process against those who defy the January 6th committee.
	Your reaction?
	Well, it's outrageous, and it's entirely in keeping with the scam that is the entire January 6 Commission.
	As readers of Revolver.News will know, we've been extremely critical of the Commission, but originally we liked the idea of the Commission.
	It's just that it could never have been implemented correctly.
	They're asking the wrong questions.
	They're not even asking the questions that the chairman of the Commission itself would seem to be interested in.
	Just one really interesting tidbit.
	The chairman of the commission, Benny Thompson, he in his personal capacity launched a lawsuit against Roger Stone, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Donald Trump.
	And in this lawsuit, he adduces his theory of the case.
	And in the theory of the case, these militia groups played a huge role, including the Oath Keepers.
	And he even addressed this lawsuit directly to the head of the Oath Keepers organization.
	Now in his capacity as the head of the January 6th Commission, He's interested in everything but these militia groups that he pretended to care about in the lawsuit.
	He's interested in grandstanding and going after Steve Bannon and really anyone else who was remotely connected with Donald Trump and his inner circle and so forth.
	So it's a big sham and that's a shame because they're really important questions that a legitimate commission should be asking and getting to the bottom of.
	It seems that this is coordinated from a Washington theater standpoint.
	They want to have action against Bannon.
	They want Merrick Garland saying he will use the Department of Justice to enforce the actions of the January 6th committee.
	But we know, Darren, that the real reason they need Garland in this act, in this play, is because the founders never vested in the United States Congress any real authority or any real power to enforce its subpoenas.
	It's very interesting in the balance of powers we have, if someone simply defies Congress, there is no inherent consequence to that.
	What does it tell you that at this stage of the game they are trying to supercharge the use of criminal process rather than the normal political tools that a congressional committee would use in the media or with the collection of documents and legislation?
	Well, it tells you that all the normal procedure is thrown right out the window.
	This is a power consolidation.
	It's been a power consolidation from the beginning.
	Theoretical consideration like, you know, separation of powers and so forth, founders intention.
	This is irrelevant from the point of view of the regime, the Biden regime.
	It's certainly irrelevant from the point of view of Garland, who has a long and storied history of covering up the crimes of the intelligence community.
	Now, you were often a critic of the Republican Congress in the majority, present company excluded, of course, because they would not use the tools even that the Congress had, for example, to issue subpoenas.
	I mean, a lot of people will reflect on the fact that when we had the House and the Senate and we could have blown up the Russia hoax before it took off and consumed our country for two years, we didn't issue a single subpoena.
	But now the Democrats, They're jumping right over kind of the normal outlay of foundation and the development of a factual case.
	They're going right to contempt before Congress and then criminal action from Garland.
	You know, what's interesting to me is that when Republicans actually last used these tools, it was against Lois Lerner when conservatives were being targeted at the IRS, and it was something like 300 days.
	That Republicans took to hold hearings, develop evidence.
	Here we're seeing this happen in a real snap.
	Does it tell us something about how Republicans fight versus how Democrats fight, that they're willing to actually do what we only talked about?
	Well, it certainly says something.
	And I think partially it says that when the Democrats are operating, they're swimming In the same direction as the larger current determined by the vast bureaucracies, the intelligence apparatus, the media, basically every major institution in the entire country.
	And therefore, it's not simply an issue of, oh, should we do this or not?
	The underlying conditions are just fundamentally different from the Democrat side.
	From the Republican side, this is not to excuse any inaction.
	I think that We need to be as aggressive and proactive as possible.
	And there are many occasions when I think subpoenas would have been appropriate.
	And I think simply drawing attention to issues can be better than nothing.
	And so I would say I'd have to give mixed reviews, to put it generously, to the broader kind of congressional I think they've kind of been lagging behind and really should have taken an aggressive approach in particular on the question of FBI involvement in 1-6 in order to reshape the
	narrative from the defensive to the offensive.
	Now, that is going to be a question area that I expect to be developed during Attorney General Garland's presence before the House Judiciary Committee.
	I get to ask some of those questions.
	Darren, obviously you don't.
	I've just stepped out of a strategy session with my colleagues.
	There are many who want to discuss FISA and the recent report showing just extensive abuses that continue to persist.
	Folks want to talk about the border.
	Folks want to talk about the use of the FBI. We're good to go.
	So, Darren Beattie, if you're sitting there on the dais, you've got five minutes, what's the first question you're asking Merrick Garland?
	First question I'm asking Merrick Garland is, how many informants do you have present or did you have present in the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the 3%ers in the 3-4 months leading up to 1-6?
	And if his answer is, well, you know, that is the subject of ongoing investigations, and we never talk about ongoing investigations, and we don't reveal FBI assets, what's the follow-up?
	The follow-up is the founder and head of the Oath Keepers, Stuart Rhodes, what do you know about him?
	What's in your file on him?
	Why has it taken Eight, nine months after the event and nobody's touched him versus others, the smaller fish that they've touched.
	How do you explain this seeming reverse RICO structure of the one six prosecution cases in which the little fish are indicted and in many cases wallow in prison, whereas many of the big fish and in some cases the biggest fish swim whereas many of the big fish and in some cases the biggest fish How do you explain this?
	Well, it is concerning that we haven't gotten responses from the attorney general regarding the conditions of those, I would say, you know, lower level criminal trespassers, federal property destructionists who normally would be released on some sort of, you know, bond or bail.
	but many of whom are now still facing some of the really the harshest tools that our government has.
	And I believe the reason those folks are facing those tools is because we have to maintain this construct that there is an ongoing threat.
	And I think that is a theme you'll also hear from the Attorney General, that the threat isn't over, that an insurrection may pop up in the Judiciary Committee just because Jim Jordan and I are in the same room with each other.
	It may occur like spontaneous combustion.
	Here's how I think it might be effective to get around the answers like, oh, well, Stuart Rhodes, I can't talk about a particular case, or that may inform on an ongoing investigation.
	Mr. Attorney General, can you assure the country that there were no FBI informants, assets, or agents that animated any violence on January 6th, that instigated in any way?
	And my suspicion is that will elicit the same response that I've been sort of giving you in our strategy session here.
	And if he's unable to give the country the assurance that our own government wasn't a part of animating that violence, that will be the news of the day.
	They want the news of the day to be that the Attorney General will go after the Steve Bannons of the world, but I think if he cannot deny the activity that really would be the most extreme activity, then I think that that would be really the news.
	Now, you think there's a reasonable basis to ask that question because of Stuart Rhodes, because there is leadership that has been able to escape.
	Not only Stuart Rhodes, I think there are many people And I think that's a good approach.
	I think the right approach is to basically anticipate the fact that he's not going to give a straightforward answer to anything.
	And so ask the question that really can generate that kind of attention and interest from the point of view of the public in this narrative that has become a national narrative, but still remains Underexplored.
	And something like saying, Mr. Attorney General, can you assure us that, maybe even ask him, can you assure us that none of the individuals named in the charging documents Are not prosecuted on the basis of a prior relationship with the federal government?
	Oh, that is a very, very precise question.
	That's a very precise question.
	And I think it's precise for a reason.
	It's very pointed.
	And that goes back to the Revolver News original thesis.
	Now, just another thing as we're kind of plotting the question to keep in mind is, well, I have zero doubt that the FBI is involved.
	And in fact, As you know, the New York Times came out and did a damage control piece acknowledging that one member of the Proud Boys who was in the Capitol was texting his FBI handler throughout the day.
	So we know for a fact that there's this, and in fact, I might even reference that in one of your questions, perhaps, just because we have confirmation now from the Times of some handler who was from the FBI. And I just wanted to add sort of an addendum that is somewhat technical, but it's important in how he might try to weasel his way out of questions.
	And that is this, is that I strongly suspect that the informants involved, especially in the militia groups, won't just be involved with the FBI. And in fact, there's more likely a relationship with various counterintelligence equities,
	including Army counterintelligence and the JTTF. And so I would hate to have them weasel out of the technicality and say, well, actually, I know three or four guys, but they're technically army counterintelligence.
	They're not FBI. It's not just the FBI who does things.
	And when it comes to militia groups, actually, it's more likely the army counterintelligence and JTTF. And they've been running infiltration operations into militia groups for a long, long time.
	And none other than Merrick Garland, as I alluded to earlier, has a storied history in this very theme.
	Certainly it will be interesting.
	Folks might be listening to this podcast as we're having the hearing, as a matter of fact, and can toggle back and forth.
	Now, Darren, Revolver News has covered The breaking events around Oleg Deripaska that occurred this week.
	Oleg Deripaska is, of course, a Russian oligarch.
	He is someone who the FBI under Robert Mueller had actually reached out to for collaboration in the past, but the FBI raiding his property this week.
	What do you think is really going on there with Oleg Deripaska and the FBI? You know, on that, I shouldn't pretend to have more insight and visibility than I do.
	I'm just as puzzled as most.
	I find your observations extremely interesting regarding the kind of parallelism and how they approached him and how they approached you.
	And you were a wiser.
	You're consistent in how you deal with Borat and how you deal with Mueller and so I give you credit for that but as to what's really going on I could I could only offer vague speculations, and I'd really defer to your insight on this.
	It's just really interesting, Darren, that the FBI goes to this guy seeking $25 million to free an American spy named Bob Levinson who's busted in Iran, and they pitch to Deripaska that his problems with the U.S. government will be resolved and that he'll be lauded as this great hero if he only pays this $25 million.
	So I guess to a Russian oligarch billionaire, that's not that much changed.
	So he forks over the cash, and then Mueller accuses him anyway in the Russia hoax for somehow being the handler of Donald Trump in this crazy fiction that Donald Trump is a Russian agent.
	Someone should have warned Oleg the fate that befalls anyone who...
	In good faith does business with the United States government.
	It is quite something.
	But then for it to be like a deep state mad lib, where then this sort of local con man fool pitches this notion, you know, to my family and to me that somehow I've got these problems and I've got to pay $25 million to free Bob Levinson.
	It's just really interesting that like these ops get repeated, right?
	The pattern recognition here is that Just like the Bob Levinson $25 million op is sort of repeated on Deripaska and then me, you see this sort of like infiltration of militia groups storming a capital like was kind of the original plan in Michigan.
	And then lo and behold, you're able to sort of catch some rubes in the whole scheme.
	I think that is the pattern recognition that we're seeing.
	No, that's an excellent insight.
	They're not especially ingenious when it comes to these things or creative.
	And the sad part is, in most cases, they don't really need to be.
	They can keep running the same dumb operations and usually they get what they want because they have entire control of the media and they have control of a lot of institutions.
	So usually they're able to get away with it.
	Luckily, with opposition voices rising in the media and so forth, people are kind of wising up to it.
	But the lack of creativity is actually something that I find especially astonishing.
	Yeah, like, do they teach this in the FBI Academy?
	$25 million Bob Levinson?
	Like, do they teach, you know, the storming the Capitol thing?
	Same operations.
	Well, speaking of dumb people getting their way, you've got a piece up on Revolver News that I'd encourage folks to check out regarding Tesla and litigation they've been in that has resulted in this sort of bizarre outcome, even with this company that we view as rejecting some of the woke-ism of the day.
	Walk folks through that piece you've got on Revolver.
	Right.
	Well, it's an interesting case.
	And I could go through the details, but I'll just focus on the general context of it and why it matters.
	So just very briefly, in fact, it wasn't even an employee of Tesla.
	It was a contractor.
	And a contractor for Tesla had some kind of racial complaint, discrimination complaint against other contractors.
	They said The other side said supposedly offensive things to them.
	It turns out that the offending parties weren't even white, which is an interesting detail to it.
	But long story short, the aggrieved party, in this case, the African American aggrieved party, it's a judgment of something like $130 million, some insane, some over $100 million, For suffering such terrible fate at his job that he had to endure impolite remarks,
	which, first of all, for perspective, that $130 million judgment is more than people have gotten in previous cases for just becoming completely paralyzed as a result of workplace injuries.
	This guy gets far more money than even quadriplegics have gotten in similar types of cases.
	But I think beyond the typical outrage of a case like this, which sort of combines out of control litigiousness with out of control wokeness and so forth, It really, I think, helps to refine our notion of what type of economy that we're in.
	Because there's this notion, I think, that a lot of conservatives sort of cling to almost as an opiate that, oh, you know, if you get woke, you go broke.
	And in a way, that makes sense.
	Because A lot of this woke stuff is so divorced from any ordinary common sense conception of reality that we think that you can't carry these fantasies on in the business world.
	You get crushed because the business world is hard and logical and there's A direct cause and effect relationship than anyone would think of.
	And if you prioritize wokeness over efficiency and competence, you'll produce inferior products and you'll get crushed by the competitor.
	Now, that all sounds very nice and it would make sense in an Econ 101 theoretical course, but I think what this shows, and really anyone paying attention to the economy over the past Say, decade, maybe even more, is that this isn't really how the economy operates.
	And the Tesla case in particular shows how deeply embedded civil rights law is into the economy, such that if you are a major corporation operating at the highest level, your downside risk from some kind of, you know, Racial agreement case is existential.
	And the Revolver.News article goes through cases of major mergers that got held up because of seemingly trivial racial offenses and so forth.
	And so I think this really underscores that we need to understand that wokeness is not just some hysteria that's sort of attached on to an otherwise coherent and functioning economy.
	The tentacles of wokeness are integrated into the very foundation of the economy at this point through the vehicle of law, through the vehicle of NGOs and And the media and other institutions such that it's actually the reverse.
	Unless you go woke, you cannot operate at the highest level of the American economy, similar to in China, if you're Jack Ma and you're a great businessman, but you offend the CCP, you get crushed.
	It's similar here.
	If you want to operate at the highest level in business or anything else, you have to bend the knee to what amounts to really the official ideology of the American regime, which is wokeness.
	You know, and we've got a great episode, Welcome to the Woketopia, that really breaks down some of the goals and objectives of this movement.
	And the conclusion is we have to take it seriously.
	You know, the left wants us to believe that America is systemically racist.
	But unfortunately, this piece that you have on this one particular litigation event shows how systemically woke the country is from the judicial system to the economy, to even the way that we resolve What might otherwise be pretty pedestrian disputes.
	And if I could add something that I think is just so bizarre but fascinating that we uncovered and we excerpt it in this Tesla piece at Revolver.News, but it's really from a previous piece.
	And you mentioned systemic racism.
	And of course, in the ordinary context, this is completely ridiculous.
	The statistics and facts simply don't bear out the sort of A progressive understanding of what systemic racism is.
	However, in a very literal sense, there is a systemic racism.
	And this is another element of how wokeness and sort of the diversity agenda is deeply integrated into the nature of the economy.
	And that is that there's so many perks to being a minority in terms of getting business loans, in terms of getting All sorts of other deals.
	And people ask, well, why don't people just go, you know, become trans minority and just identify as a minority in order to get these perks?
	Well, actually, you can't do that.
	There's an official board that is authorized to certify whether someone is actually a minority or not.
	And there are different groups.
	And some of those groups are entitled to the perks within the economy and some of them aren't.
	And I just found this incredibly interesting and bizarre and really kind of conflictual with any understanding of how the economy works.
	But there's actually an official board The woke board.
	Maybe that's what awaits some of us after the United States Congress.
	He is the publisher of Revolver News, Dr. Darren Beattie.
	Thanks for being with us on Firebrand.
	Look forward to chatting with you soon again, my friend.
	Thank you so much.
	January 6th was not a good day.
	But to my knowledge, there's been no charge of insurrection or terrorism.
	Largely, the charges that have been levied against those who were involved in breaking the law Result in property damage charges.
	And it's my expectation that if there are folks who broke the law, they should be treated no better or no worse than anyone else who breaks these particular laws.
	But all of this is ridiculous.
	Mr. Chairman, the American people are in trouble.
	I was recently in Qatar on a bipartisan delegation led by Mr. Issa and we learned directly that thousands upon thousands of Afghans were let into our country With principally no vetting, no screening.
	The general we met with at the base in Doha said that refugees were merely handed a blank sheet of paper and whatever they wrote on it was deemed their paper passport.
	And people are concerned about that.
	On our border, we functionally have a turnstile.
	I never believed that President Biden could be worse than President Obama on the border, but we've gone from the Obama days of catch and release to the Biden days of import and release, where people are being really beckoned across the border as a consequence of our policies and then shuttled around the country.
	And our supply chain issues have come to the forefront of the minds of so many of Americans.
	I mean, supply chain used to be something people learned about in economics class.
	And now, the supply chain issues are resulting in inadequate access to things that people need.
	And we see the Washington Post tell Americans to just lower their expectations regarding the American economy.
	I was recently at the Port of Long Beach.
	I saw Just, you know, cargo ship after cargo ship.
	You could about walk from the port of Long Beach to the Channel Islands in California without ever having your feet touch the water on cargo ships that cannot come into port because of a total failure of the U.S. economy.
	Our country has been humiliated abroad in Afghanistan, where reliance on this strategy of an Afghan government being left to facilitate American departure and withdrawal turned out to be a total fiction.
	And yet here we are, reviewing Steve Bannon's podcast.
	You know, the average American, when they wake up, I don't think one of the first hundred things they think about is Steve Bannon's podcast, the things he said before or after January 6th.
	I think that is a uniquely Washington obsession.
	And it wouldn't be so damaging to our country If it wasn't absorbing the capacity of the Congress to meet the actual challenges that the American people are facing.
	Do you really think that your constituents are out there hoping that you guys are here sharing your hot takes on Steve Bannon's podcast rather than dealing with the inflation that is crushing them, the border crisis that is concerning them, the problems we have abroad?

▲