July 21, 2022 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
48:13
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Thank you. | |
| 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 for the Democratic Party. | |
| He could cause a lot of hiccups in passing the laws. | |
| So we're going to keep running those stories to get hurt again. | |
| 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. | |
| We are live broadcasting from Capitol Hill, our office here in the Longworth building. | |
| And we've got the great Darren Beattie, publisher of Revolver News, with us to break down the news of the day and really the news of this evening and going into next week as well. | |
| We've got the fake handcuffs on AOC today. | |
| Appending to a very real arrest that several Democrats sort of walked themselves into on purpose over at the Supreme Court. | |
| And Joe Biden apparently does not have cancer but does have COVID. So we hope for his speedy recovery from those things and anything else that may ail him. | |
| Tonight, the January 6th committee is meeting. | |
| And in a lot of ways, we learn as much from what the January 6th committee doesn't show you as we learn from the things that they do show you. | |
| So joining me now is Dr. Darren Beattie. | |
| And Dr. Beattie, what do you expect from the January 6th committee tonight? | |
| Well, frankly, I don't know. | |
| What I don't expect is anything that actually provides insight into what actually happened on January 6th. | |
| The ostensible reported topic of the hearing tonight is going to be the, I think it's the period from when Trump gives his speech to sort of the follow-up message that he did later in Later in the afternoon on January 6th. | |
| So I imagine it will focus on some kind of half-hearted attempt, as they've been doing, to link Trump to this so-called insurrection, to say, oh, he didn't call it off strenuously enough, and just more of the same, basically, of what we've seen. | |
| And I don't know if we're going to be treated to another Ridiculous spectacle along the lines of this Hutchinson woman or the weird Halloween costume tier like militia men that they paraded in the last hearing. | |
| So we'll just have to wait and see. | |
| But I expect more of the same and that means just more ridiculousness and more nothing treatment of the things that actually matter. | |
| So this is supposed to be the big finale, the big crescendo, the big moment. | |
| And you have to wonder, are they going to do the cliffhanger thing like they do at the end of the other performances? | |
| And what a lot of the American people don't realize is that there are... | |
| Thousands of hours of depositions. | |
| There are so many records. | |
| And if we had real Republicans on the committee, my guess is a lot of that testimony, a lot of those records, would in a lot of ways exonerate the president, his advisors, the people who wanted to show up on January 6th and make an argument. | |
| So, you know, we met with Vice President Pence December 21st over at the White House, and as you might imagine, in those late weeks in December, there was some confusion in the Congress about how the procedure would go on January 6th. | |
| Would it be, you know, a unicameral gathering with the Senate the entire time? | |
| Would there be breakouts during those breakouts? | |
| Would it be House debate, then Senate debate? | |
| Would the debate occur simultaneously? | |
| Would there then be a rejoining back to a unicameral vote of some kind? | |
| And who would preside in such a unicameral environment? | |
| So we went over to the White House to really understand kind of the flow of the day, as expected on January 6th from the vice president's perspective. | |
| And the vice president said, and I remember his exact words, he said, we need to have the debate. | |
| I think where there was agreement among members of Congress, President Trump, Vice President Pence, is that we had legitimate election integrity grievances that we wanted to air. | |
| We wanted to use January 6th as a mechanism to drive better improvements to the elections process going forward, perhaps even inspire better bills at the state level on ballot custody, on mail-in voting, on signature verification. | |
| I mean, that was the flavor of the arguments we were constructing. | |
| And we left on December 21st in the White House fully expecting that that was what the vice president was going to do because he told us that was what he was going to do. | |
| We were going to have the debate. | |
| We were going to have a vote. | |
| And then very likely Joe Biden was going to be president of the United States, barring some vast departure of the voting bloc the Democrats have been able to rely on. | |
| And that has been now greatly tortured. | |
| And I haven't gotten my letter from the January 6th committee. | |
| I would probably be pretty anxious to go in in front of the cameras and in front of the whole country and lay out the truth of what happened and what we were preparing to do. | |
| But you see, they don't want that. | |
| They don't want people, you know, actually in front of the American people. | |
| They want to do this Adam Schiff scenario where they tuck you in the bunker in the basement, they video you for eight hours, and then they slice and dice out the testimony. | |
| Now, that brings us really, I think, to Ray Epps. | |
| You have called Ray Epps the smoking gun of the Fed'surrection, and we've talked a lot about his movements, his Almost paramilitary organization of other people that day. | |
| His presence in critical moments at critical points. | |
| And then we get this New York Times piece. | |
| A Trump backer's downfall is the target of a January 6th conspiracy theory. | |
| And the mainstream media has been highly critical of the documented video evidenced reporting at revolver.news that is still up, that I still encourage everyone to check out. | |
| And, you know, Dr. Beattie, what struck me about the New York Times piece is they never ask Ray Epps the operative question. | |
| Was he ever working for or in concert with anyone that was directed by the federal government? | |
| Why do you think they didn't ask him that question? | |
| That's a great question. | |
| But before I get to this, I just want to make a couple points about the committee and its structure generally. | |
| I mean, really, it's set up, as I said in another context, to call it a kangaroo court is... | |
| Misplaced because we haven't picked a sufficiently embarrassing animal to do justice to what this is. | |
| I mean, it's a double whammy from the standpoint of these witnesses, because first of all, they're not going to pick anyone to come up and testify that there's any kind of possibility that they would deviate from the predetermined narrative. | |
| Secondly, even the people like Hutchinson and others that they bring on who are totally in line with the Benny Thompson, Adam Schiff narrative, they're not even allowing any opportunity for cross-examination. | |
| It's really set up from the beginning to be this fake thing and couldn't be further from A vehicle or an institution that's genuinely set up to get to the bottom of what happened. | |
| Before we get to Epps, I want to drill down on this because there have been a lot of people critical of Kevin McCarthy for pulling all of the remaining Republicans off the committee when Jim Jordan and Jim Banks were not allowed to serve on the committee. | |
| And I know hindsight is 20-20. | |
| And I would love to see my colleague Kelly Armstrong, who's a very capable criminal defense lawyer before coming to Congress, I would love to see him there answering questions, but I have not joined the chorus of criticism of McCarthy on this point because were we really going to sit there and allow Nancy Pelosi to have veto over our members? | |
| Were we really going to get Just, I mean, you know, I don't know. | |
| I don't even know the right word for it. | |
| We're really going to get defrocked in such a way that, like, Republicans could be on there, but only the, like, low-energy Nancy Pelosi Republicans that were pre-approved. | |
| I mean, as we look back at that decision, I almost think McCarthy made the right decision, even though there are definitely times now when I wish we had Kelly Armstrong there answering questions. | |
| Oh, absolutely. | |
| I mean, I think we could get in the weeds on that question, but I think more importantly is that Any body that purports to conduct an actual disinterested, objective dive into finding out what January 6th was all about, for Nancy Pelosi to have Such oversight over any committee automatically dooms it from the start. | |
| And however we got to the position where we are now, it's just important to point out and emphasize that although it bears the trappings of some kind of legal proceeding, and there are a lot of, I think, incredibly improper ways in which the committee sort of is... | |
| Operating in concert with the Department of Justice in a manner that's actually deeply subversive to democratic processes, that this is far from anything resembling a legitimate investigation. | |
| Part of the reason for that is that they're not only cherry-picking their witnesses but even their cherry-picked witnesses have total safe harbor to say whatever they want without any potential of criticism. | |
| The ridiculous Hutchinson testimony could not have happened if Yeah, let me start with my cross-examine of Cassidy Hutchinson. | |
| Cassidy Hutchinson, who, full disclosure, was my friend. | |
| I worked closely with Cassidy Hutchinson. | |
| I would have likely asked, well, GCAS, after January 20th, when Joe Biden was the president, you were on your way to Palm Beach, eager and excited and devoted to Donald Trump and his post-presidency. | |
| You were on your way down there. | |
| You were wanting to work for him. | |
| How do you square? | |
| That professional path with this strained horror you felt on January 6th. | |
| I probably would have asked her about the records and emails where she was requesting support from President Trump, his network, his donors, his legal assets, so that she would not be mistreated by a committee that she herself deemed BS. So I worry with Cassidy Hutchinson that it's more about Vindictiveness and vengeance than it is about a sincerely held belief that developed on January 6th. | |
| Oh, that's a great question. | |
| Look, it's not just about Hutchinson. | |
| It's really about the committee because my understanding is I'm not positive positive, but I'm about 95% sure that among those deposed by the committee were the two individuals who had been able to speak directly on the scenario that Hutchinson described In her testimony, | |
| namely one of the Angle, I think his name is, so the security official and another White House security official whose name I've forgotten. | |
| But I believe both of those people were deposed by the committee. | |
| So why have Hutchinson come on and tell this You know, fabulous tale secondhand and giving it that she learned secondhand and now the audience, the American public, is getting thirdhand. | |
| If they've already deposed the people who are allegedly like direct witnesses to this, why don't they put them on the witness stand or at the very least released The transcript of their interviews to the public to cross-reference to what Hutchinson's testimony is. | |
| So it's ridiculous. | |
| And of course, if there were cross-examination, people could ask that directly. | |
| So again, it's worse than a kangaroo court, but I think There's so much to be said for that, but maybe it's best to shift to Epps right now because we could talk about what a joke the committee is for hours. | |
| There's a report coming out that you've written the foreword to, the January 6th report. | |
| Is there going to be Epps analysis in this document? | |
| Give me the genesis here. | |
| There's going to be Epps analysis and much more. | |
| I encourage the audience, if you like Revolver is reporting on January 6th. | |
| If you like the information and analysis that I give on January 6th, this is a very special opportunity because this report is going to be a public document. | |
| The New Yorker, I believe, is releasing its version. | |
| Skyhorse, which has published a lot of great stuff, including Robert Kennedy's amazing book on Fauci, Is publishing a version of it and they have me doing the introduction much to the chagrin and even scandal of a lot of the left-wing press because it's a subsidiary, Simon& Schuster. | |
| So they say, how could Simon& Schuster support this conspiracy theorist and whatnot? | |
| Well, forget about the accusations. | |
| Read it for yourself. | |
| Order it and show Simon& Schuster that there is actually support for someone who dares to present the other side of the story in a reasoned and factual and highly analytical manner. | |
| And so you go to Amazon, Right now you can pre-order it. | |
| And yes, absolutely, there will be a lot of material on Epps. | |
| There will be material on this really bizarre pipe bomb situation. | |
| We haven't heard the half of all the weird stuff going on with the pipe bomb situation and much more. | |
| But these are all the questions that the January 6th committee Fails to explore because they're so obsessively focused with this ridiculous narrative on Trump because the idea isn't really to prevent another January 6th, it's to prevent another Trump presidency. | |
| That's the point of it. | |
| It's not to prevent another January 6th. | |
| It's to prevent another Trump presidency. | |
| Well, and Trumpism, right? | |
| And really, the whole MAGA movement is now what's being impeached, right? | |
| When Donald Trump was elected president, they had to delegitimize that election. | |
| They had to start with the Russia hoax. | |
| That fizzles. | |
| Mueller flops. | |
| Then they need the Ukraine thing. | |
| And it's the same tactics. | |
| And it's the same smear. | |
| But now, instead of being localized over Trump, they're going after I really want to get to Epps. | |
| Just two quick final points, though, on the committee itself and how it's structured. | |
| Conflicts of interest abound. | |
| Benny Thompson, who is the chair of this committee, many people don't know this, but I think it's worth pointing out that in his personal capacity, he actually sued Trump. | |
| Very shortly after January 6th, in his personal capacity, he sued Trump And the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys and I think Rudy Giuliani. | |
| And in this personal lawsuit, Benny Thompson adduced this theory whereby Trump was colluding with these militia groups to overturn the election. | |
| Now, leaving aside the fact that that theory is ridiculous, how can any committee that purports to be remotely objective put as the chair of the committee someone who's already adduced A comprehensive and elaborate theory of the case beforehand in a capacity of a personal lawsuit. | |
| And by the way, we've done a piece on this, but the personal lawsuit traces back very, very suspicious connections to our old friend Norm Eisen, who is one of the key sort of lawfare operatives against Trump and has been running impeachment scams against Trump since day one, when like Before Trump even got into office, they were preparing this ridiculous emoluments clause thing. | |
| And just another point about Benny Thompson is he happens to be the chair of the Homeland Security Committee. | |
| And it's basically the Department of Homeland Security that's tasked with implementing this domestic war on terror. | |
| The Homeland Security Department was set up in the aftermath of 9-11 to go after Islamic terrorism, basically, or radical Islamic terrorism. | |
| Now, with the pretext of January 6th and the false narrative behind it, the DHS specifically is at the forefront of this reconfiguration of the national security state against the American people. | |
| And Benny Thompson is the DHS's stooge in Congress. | |
| And so I think those are just two very important There are conflicts of interest that sort of compound upon the already kind of ridiculous way in which the committee is structured that should drive home to any thinking individual just what a sham this operation really is. | |
| Insurrectionist Benny Thompson is one of my favorite episodes that we've made on the podcast. | |
| I encourage folks to check it out. | |
| Benny Thompson was more than just a little sympathetic to black nationalists who moved to his tiny little community in Mississippi in order to set up a black ethnostate. | |
| So that's not conjecture. | |
| That's not a conspiracy theory. | |
| There are Records and documents that certainly bear that out. | |
| But we have to get to Ray Epps. | |
| He was also sympathetic to voter fraud, the whole conspiracy that George Bush stole the election in 2000. Yes, they've been on all sides of the election-denying insurrections. | |
| So, the hidden agenda behind the New York Times Desperate Puff piece on Ray Epps. | |
| Why did we get this New York Times piece on Epps now, and what does it mean to you? | |
| This piece is... | |
| Such an embarrassment. | |
| Even the New York Times, I'm surprised that just as an editorial matter, they're not a little bit more protective of their reputation as an ostensibly legitimate paper of record. | |
| Just let this sink in. | |
| The one person caught on camera Repeatedly urging people to go into the Capitol as early as January 5th is the one January 6th riot participant about whom the New York Times will write an ultra-sympathetic puff piece. | |
| If you read this piece, it's almost designed like these sympathy pieces for families after some kind of natural disaster, who have their home and everything ruined, and they go to the ruined neighborhood without all of the houses blown down, and they do a sympathy sort of personal profile piece. | |
| That's almost the kind of piece that the New York Times decided to do about Ray Epps, which is weird enough. | |
| But what's a scandal are the key questions that get to the core of the whole matter of January 6th that the piece fails to explore. | |
| You think you're a New York Times journalist. | |
| You have access to this individual who, whatever you think about him and whatever you think about January 6th, this individual is, in Ray Epps' own words, at the center of it. | |
| He's at the center of the controversy regarding what January 6th actually was. | |
| And so you have access to this guy for a whole day. | |
| And instead of writing a piece that includes, hey, Rayap, so are you going to give a blanket denial of any involvement with The federal government with any involvement with sort of a cutout organization or intermediary. | |
| No, there's no blanket denial in the entire piece. | |
| All there is is Epps reiterating a highly legalistic denial that he presented to the January 6th committee through his lawyer, who just happens to be a decade veteran of the Phoenix FBI field office, saying that Ray Epps was never It's such a specific denial, it's damn near an admission. | |
| It's so specific. | |
| And the specificity pertains to law enforcement. | |
| Now, That leaves open so many scandalous possibilities. | |
| Oh, national security, task forces, intelligence. | |
| Exactly. | |
| Department of Homeland Security, Joint Terrorism Task Force, military intelligence, cutouts and intermediaries thereof. | |
| And so to be so specific in repeatedly emphasizing law enforcement and denial is, at best, a half-denial. | |
| And the piece doesn't push for a full denial, which is incredible. | |
| Well, that's on purpose. | |
| I've got to get to this text message you referenced. | |
| And again, you've got to read the exclusive piece, Revolver.News, the hidden agenda behind the New York Times Puff piece on Ray Epps. | |
| And what's amazing is that when there's actual sourcing, when there are actual records and there are actual videos, in the Revolver pieces, you actually get to see the videos. | |
| You can judge with your own eyes. | |
| But here, there's apparently a text message that Ray Epps sends to his nephew who After the riot occurred, where he talks about how he helped orchestrate the movements of people leaving President Trump's speech at the Ellipse. | |
| Now, you know by the time President Trump was done at the Ellipse, Ray Epps wasn't even at the Ellipse. | |
| He was already... | |
| Encouraging people to breach closer to the Capitol where fencing was taken down. | |
| And again, you've got to go back and see the full Ray Epps library on Revolver to get caught up. | |
| But why do you think the New York Times didn't just publish the text message that they paraphrase? | |
| It's such a good question. | |
| And by the way, I think the relevance of the text message is this is part of a host of information that's going to further complicate the official narrative. | |
| And this New York Times piece, the only sensible explanation for it is that this is the This is a damage control push in anticipation of more damning information pertaining to EPS because EPS is the smoking gun of the Fed's direction. | |
| They would otherwise have no interest in reintroducing this individual's name to the public at all. | |
| The only reason that would make sense is if it's getting even worse. | |
| And there are two other really key questions that are astonishingly not explored in this New York Times piece. | |
| The other one is it calls him a Trump supporter. | |
| It says he went to DC to defend Trump. | |
| And in fact, it further elaborates that he just went to DC at a last minute trip with his son in order to hear Trump's speech on election fraud. | |
| The piece doesn't say that Ray Epps actually never ended up going to Trump's speech. | |
| So this alleged Trump supporter who traveled all the way to go to the speech, instead he goes all the way from Arizona to DC, does not go to the speech, and instead He fixates on this bizarre mission to get everyone to go into the Capitol to, in his own words, according to the text message, to orchestrate the movements of the people to the Capitol on the day of. | |
| And then he happens to be conveniently positioned right at the peace monument, which is the site of that initial and decisive breach, right before the Proud Boys even arrived there. | |
| And according to the official narrative, it's the Proud Boys that kicked everything off. | |
| So not only does he travel all that way and just not go to the speech, He happens to be positioned at the right place at the right time to kick off that initial breach of the Capitol. | |
| And the New York Times piece, the Times reporter, I'm sure knows that he didn't go to the speech or he should know that he didn't go to the speech. | |
| And instead of pointing out that he didn't go, there's nothing about it and no explanation as to why in Ray Epps' account, He went there to go to the speech and he ended up not going and instead focused on this maniacal mission to get everyone to go into the Capitol. | |
| So that's another one. | |
| And then the final and most obvious but most important question that the New York Times piece fails to explore, fails to devote a single sentence to it, is, Ray Epps, where did you get the idea to get everyone to go into the Capitol? | |
| Because you know what? | |
| On January 5th, you were the only person saying it. | |
| And in fact, the idea was so outrageous, so outlandish, so out of place, that the immediate reaction of the crowd around him was to call him a fed. | |
| And yet, notwithstanding this sub-zero buying temperature of the crowd around him, he's undeterred And he continues to call people to go into the Capitol. | |
| And just as an amazing side detail, both of those real iconic times where he's telling people, go into the Capitol, into the Capitol, he prefaces this command by saying, I probably shouldn't say this because I'll get arrested. | |
| I'm probably going to go to jail for this, but... | |
| So he's acknowledging that he's... | |
| You know, engaging in illegal activity or at least encouraging others to engage in illegal activity. | |
| And I suppose it would be one thing if it were just some random drunk guy with a ridiculous idea and that's the last we heard of it on January 5th. | |
| But he follows up with this and he's everywhere January 6th. | |
| orchestrating people's movement to the Capitol. | |
| He's pre-positioned at the initial breach point before the Proud Boys even get there, and he whispers into a guy's ear two seconds before that guy becomes one of the first people to break down the bike rack barricades on the west side of the Capitol. | |
| Well astonishingly they don't even ask him what his goals are. | |
| I mean you would think the New York Times would start by saying, gosh there's all this video of you moving people in position for a breach, you encouraging people the night before. | |
| What were you hoping to accomplish by getting people into the Capitol? | |
| The question not even asked. | |
| And what I think people have to realize is that the New York Times is the comms department for the deep state. | |
| The New York Times and the Deep State are linked. | |
| They perform different functions under the same banner. | |
| And, you know, you have a revolving door of individuals and information kind of swirling around with the Department of Justice, with the FBI, with a lot of these entities, and the New York Times. | |
| And so, of course, it's the New York Times that's going to do this. | |
| But I've got to ask you, Dr. Beattie, we've gone over the New York Times interaction with Epps and the deficiencies there, but now let's talk about the committee. | |
| Because Adam Kinzinger came out and tweeted with great bravado that the committee had spoken to Epps and that he'd given his sworn testimony and that that would be released. | |
| Of all the junior staffers lurking around the White House that we've heard from and that we may hear from tonight, kind of interesting that we haven't had one single clip from Ray Epps. | |
| Not one release of his testimony. | |
| Why do you think that is? | |
| That's a great question. | |
| And really, like, provides some compelling context within which to digest all of this is that Ray Epps, whose behavior on January 5th and 6th was so egregious that he was one of the first 20 people put on the FBI's most wanted list for January 6th. | |
| And in fact, I failed to mention this, the New York Times' own video documentary on January 6th, ominously titled Day of Rage, features Epps multiple times and narratively depicts him as one features Epps multiple times and narratively depicts him as one of the handful of rioters who plan to storm the Capitol in advance. | |
| The New York Times' own video documentary on it, his behavior was so egregious that he was cherry-picked to emphasize what a day of rage, an ominous day this was. | |
| And now he goes from all of that to being unarrested, unindicted, the only January 6th participant that Adam Kinzinger will defend, and the only January 6th participant about whom the New York Times will write a puff piece. | |
| Pretty remarkable. | |
| I don't think we're going to hear a word from him. | |
| I think they never released the transcript. | |
| They might. | |
| I hope they do. | |
| They should. | |
| They promised they would. | |
| But it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. | |
| I don't think we're going to see any clips of Ray Epps on tonight, the grand conclusion, the grand finale. | |
| And I think that their way of dealing with those unanswered questions was to have The mouthpiece of the deep state, the comms department of the deep state, the New York Times, put this piece out. | |
| But folks can always get the truth at revolver.news. | |
| And really, I think the best thing people can do if they want both sides, if you don't want to be programmed, if you don't want to be manipulated by this illegitimate, partisan, unconstitutional, rigged process, the January 6th report forward by Dr. Darren J. Beattie Go get it, read it, be fully informed, and help us get the truth out. | |
| One entity that doesn't always help us get the truth out, Dr. Beattie, is the CIA. And I wanted to move to another piece that you've aggregated onto Revolver.News, the original reporting from Newsmax. | |
| And the piece really cites the director of the CIA, William Burns, talking about the fact that Vladimir Putin is, quote, too healthy. | |
| Dr. B, why is the head of our CIA commenting on the health of the Russian president? | |
| I mean, especially, you got Biden falsely claiming he has cancer, then truthfully claiming he has COVID. Don't we have kind of enough issues with the health of our own president to be talking about Russia's president like this? | |
| Right. | |
| I can say one thing. | |
| We can rest assured that no major intelligence official of any adversary country will ever say that Joe Biden is too healthy. | |
| And if they do, we have a big problem because he's one hair's width away from complete brain death, it seems. | |
| But yeah, it's a weird and ominous kind of thing, especially coming from An intelligence official like that. | |
| It's unclear exactly how to read it, but there is something a bit Bolton-esque, shall we say, about such a pronouncement. | |
| And of course, they Our intelligence officials are obsessed with Russia. | |
| But are these guys going to sleepwalk us into a nuclear war with stupid comments like this? | |
| And by the way, I'm surprised. | |
| I would not have been surprised if this had come from a fool like Bolton, who's been wrong about just about everything. | |
| But Burns actually has prior rhetoric that seemed considerably more reasonable. | |
| I mean, William Burns... | |
| Our head of the CIA warned against NATO expansion into Ukraine, said that it would be provocative. | |
| And so if NATO expansion is provocative, saying the guy is too healthy seems to be certainly provocative. | |
| And we all know that the intelligence community utilizes code Through the media at times to communicate with assets. | |
| It's not always hand-to-hand. | |
| It's not always a WhatsApp, peer-to-peer, digital thing. | |
| Sometimes there is code that is communicated with coded language. | |
| And I mean, to talk about the guy being too healthy, you have to wonder whether or not that means something else. | |
| And I don't know if it does or if it doesn't, but like Burns was the guy saying NATO expansion was crazy. | |
| So does it surprise you to hear it come directly from him? | |
| Not necessarily. | |
| And again, I think it could mean anything. | |
| And if we were to really analyze it properly, I'd want to actually hear exactly what he said and get the exact context of how he said it. | |
| But I don't think that any CIA official is really immune to this kind of It's dangerous rhetoric when it comes to Russia. | |
| But it makes me believe it might be a code or it might be an op because it divorces from what we've heard from Burns previously. | |
| So when you see someone wildly switch, it almost... | |
| It has a certain operational feel to it. | |
| Dr. Beattie, I was among 18 Republicans who voted against the United States House of Representatives, lecturing to other NATO countries that they need to accept Finland and Sweden. | |
| I felt like it's probably good to end one war before we start the next one. | |
| And if there's any opportunity for us to wind down this carnage in Ukraine and to save people from being needlessly slaughtered, we should probably do that before engaging in other provocative NATO expansion. | |
| And yet only 17 of my colleagues join me on that. | |
| How do you think history will view this like era of reckless, provocative NATO expansion? | |
| Well, I think it's deeply damaging, not only to global stability in that region, but it's damaging to America's position in the world because it doesn't reflect a proper prioritization of our geopolitical interests. | |
| And I think as a matter of domestic politics, what it does is to underscore that, unfortunately, despite all of the Gains that we've gotten from the Trump phenomenon. | |
| We're better off than we were under Bush. | |
| But still, even the Republican Party is largely under sway of the national security state. | |
| And that's a very difficult teat to completely wean ourselves from because so much of the sort of mythology of American conservatism is winning the Cold War with the national security state. | |
| And so to fully update to the reality that the national security state is not only antithetical to America's long-term interests, but is directly hostile to... | |
| Conservatives in the United States, there's still a lot more lifting to do. | |
| And I think we're seeing, unfortunately, part of that legacy, but also we're seeing the more sort of Crude effects of just how the national security state can wield its influence through all kinds of other direct mechanisms, through its money, through its institutional influence, and so forth. | |
| Well, I think the American people get it. | |
| I mean, one comment, Puzzle Rock on Rumble. | |
| Matt, do Republicans have any idea how furious people are that they allowed the BS fake insurrection lie to go unanswered? | |
| And I think that a lot of voters feel this way. | |
| And as we go into a midterm election, you have to ask yourself, what is the covenant that Republicans offer? | |
| What is the value proposition to someone to vote for us in the midterm? | |
| And I think it has to be vindicating people's liberty and telling people the truth, the truth about January 6th, the truth about the 2020 election, the truth about the coronavirus and its origins, and the truth about the vaccine and why it was forced on so many people with these These just overbearing tools of the government. | |
| And too often, I think the Republicans don't learn that lesson, but the American people do. | |
| That's an excellent point. | |
| Just a quick response to that is, absolutely, look, there's as ridiculous as the whole, you know, January 6th issue seems. | |
| The stakes are very high and are no laughing matter at all. | |
| This is going to be the dominant narrative that the regime uses to fully facilitate the reconfiguration of the national security state against us, to weaponize the national security powers of the United States against us. | |
| There's so much at stake here. | |
| And given how much is at stake, it's really scandalous not only how few Republicans are even drawing attention to it. | |
| So I have to always commend You're one of the handful of stalwarts of firebrands, really, who's brave enough and discerning enough and intelligent enough to understand what the stakes are and why it's important and to draw attention to this issue. | |
| But beyond the handful Of brave congressmen such as yourself, wouldn't it be worth at least a couple million dollars to the Republicans to blow this narrative up completely? | |
| Why isn't the GOP dedicating money to try to identify, for instance, the scaffold commander? | |
| You talked about him in a press conference. | |
| I think you're the only one who's really talked about him. | |
| You and Marjorie Taylor Greene. | |
| But this guy, we're talking about Epps. | |
| Scaffold Commander is at least as damning as Epps. | |
| Maybe even more so because he hasn't even been identified. | |
| He was never even put on the list. | |
| And so why isn't the GOP dedicating 2 million, 3 million, 5 million, which is the grand scheme of their budgets that they routinely waste on dumb stuff. | |
| Nothing. | |
| Why aren't they dedicating at least a few million dollars to definitively identifying this guy and potentially exploding the whole narrative right in Liz Cheney's face, right in Kinscher's face, right in Benny Thompson's face? | |
| The priorities here, they're not playing to win because if they were... | |
| No, they're playing to win by default, Darren. | |
| That's the issue. | |
| Right now, Republicans in Congress have an optimism that we are going to win not based on any covenant and promise and commitment to our voters, but because the other side has gone so crazy and has made people so uncomfortable and has made our country dirtier and poorer and less ambitious as a national prospect. | |
| And so that worries me. | |
| My grave concern is not that we're going to lose the midterms, We're going to win them not understanding why and potentially just winning them by default. | |
| And who even wants to do that? | |
| It's like winning a baseball game by forfeit. | |
| And really, the Democrats are kind of forfeiting a lot of this ground to us, but that doesn't absolve us of our obligations to get to the truth and to actually deliver wins for our people. | |
| And that, I think, has to become a greater kind of organizing principle of the Republican conference going forward. | |
| And based on what We're certainly seeing from the comments on this episode, people want these answers. | |
| People are eager for them. | |
| And I know one place they can always get them, revolver.news. | |
| The scaffold commander you just mentioned, folks have got to go watch these videos that you've put on your site. | |
| I mean, just think about this context. | |
| The guy who is at the top of scaffolding, With a bullhorn directing people into the Capitol and just yelling at them to charge on has faced no consequence. | |
| But Peter Navarro has been in leg shackles and John Eastman got patted down and his phone taken away. | |
| So a trade advisor and a lawyer have faced extreme criminal process, and the guy at the top of a scaffold yelling people into the Capitol, absolutely nothing. | |
| That is not a result of incompetence. | |
| That is by design. | |
| Because what you see from the January 6th committee from the New York Times is a cover-up. | |
| They're always accusing us of the stuff that they're doing. | |
| In the Russia hoax, they accused Trump of being a Russian asset. | |
| Well, it was actually Hillary. | |
| Colluding with the Russians and spreading the Russians' lies. | |
| And now on January 6th, they say, oh, the Republicans are trying to disrupt our politics and threaten our democracy. | |
| What threatens our democracy is a national security state that has turned against a movement of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. | |
| You've got to get the January 6th report forward by Dr. Beattie. | |
| It's available on Amazon. | |
| It is the only way You are going to be fully apprised of both sides of this, fully educated, fully knowledgeable. | |
| Dr. B, how can folks continue to follow your work on social media, and what platforms have you not been banned from? | |
| Well, as always, the go-to is revolver.news. | |
| If anyone listening to this hasn't seen our response piece to the New York Times-Ray Epps janitorial mop-up attempt, Go to revolver.news. | |
| It's right at the top. | |
| Share it. | |
| And it has that video which really speaks for itself when it comes to Ray Epps. | |
| The New York Times piece says it was selectively edited. | |
| Are you kidding me? | |
| Maybe the Times should present the full video and see if that helps their case or hurts their case. | |
| So all the video is on the revolver.news piece. | |
| It's right up top. | |
| It's white hot. | |
| Other than that, I'm on Twitter, at Darren J. Beattie. | |
| And as you mentioned, I encourage everyone to go to Amazon, find the copy of the January 6th committee report with introduction by me, not the New Yorker version, which is just going to repeat Benny Thompson's cliff notes. | |
| Go and get the Skyhorse version and And get a copy for your friends, too, because I think every American deserves to know the truth about January 6th. | |
| Undeniably. | |
| Well, thanks for joining us, Dr. Beattie. | |
| Thank you for your investigative reporting. | |
| Everyone, make sure you're subscribed with your notifications turned on. | |
| Leave us a comment. | |
| Give us that five-star review on Apple iTunes especially. | |
| Let's roll the credits. |
Export Selection