All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2023 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
31:06
Episode 116 LIVE: The Truth Is Out There – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
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 applause.
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?
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.
Well, here we are, John.
We now know that Judge Noriega is not going to accept the plea agreement.
And as we were talking about just a moment ago, it's got to do.
Judge Noriega does not believe that she has questions over the constitutionality of that diversion clause.
Of the immunity that Hunter Biden would receive in this deal to not prosecute on the gun charge.
She is not okay with that.
So the headline here is she has not accepted the plea deal.
That would likely indicate we could be headed for a trial.
Alright, we are live.
Welcome back to Firebrand, broadcasting out of Room 2021 of the Rayburn House Office Building here in the Capitol Complex in Washington, D.C. And all the news is about the blown-up plea deal with Hunter Biden.
This is a very rare thing.
Usually when you have the government and the defense in agreement as to the scope of punishment, A court is very reluctant to engage in second-guessing that and undoing it.
Not something you see in the courthouse every day.
Usually it's only when the terms are egregious or when the scope is not properly defined or there's some confusion about the scope.
That appears to be what happens here.
Hunter Biden, of the view that this was the great inoculation, That pleading guilty to these small, insignificant tax charges would then be the antidote to future allegations that he was acting as a foreign agent,
taking bribe money, money laundering, and We're good to go.
It brought me back to the statement of Hunter Biden's lawyer at the time of the initial agreement that we all criticized.
And it says in part, this reported in Politico, Hunter believes it's important to take responsibility for these mistakes he made during a period of turmoil and addiction in his life.
Take responsibility.
Hunter thought that was important.
Part of Hunter making his way back to the state dinner circuit and the elite scene in Washington D.C. and the influence peddling operation Is this degree of accepting responsibility, right?
He was heralded by the president, the Biden family, others in the administration for taking responsibility.
Now you have the not guilty plea because he wasn't going to be able to use these inoculating charges as defense to the really bad stuff and I think one of the reasons why that became so important to Hunter Biden is because we've got Devin Archer coming in to give testimony in a transcribed interview Monday, July 31st.
Now, Devin Archer has delayed that testimony three times.
He's told others that he had Joe Biden on the phone when these deals were going down.
And you can tell how concerned the Bidens are about the Devin Archer testimony.
Based on this desire to really have a robust view of scope of the Hunter deal now.
And then you saw Corrine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, totally change the answer yesterday and say, oh, well, this is a circumstance where we've always said that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were never in business together.
See, Joe Biden originally, of course, told us all that it was something very different, that he never discussed his son's overseas business dealings.
You know why Joe Biden said that?
Because he knew how dirty they were.
He knew that any proximity to that was not going to be ultimately defensible.
And now we're on the case, and that's exactly what you see happening in courtrooms and also the White House press briefing room.
There was another press briefing today that took an odd and unfortunate turn.
Senator McConnell was at the microphone, as he typically is, and seized up a bit.
If you're watching on one of our viewing platforms, you can see Senator McConnell gets a look on his face that is not one that he's Appears to be just pensive about the next matter.
Here you see Senator Barrasso going very kindly, taking him by the arm, seeing to his well-being.
But you can see right there Senator McConnell does not have his color.
He does not look well.
And that is not...
Something that we certainly want to see linger for the leader.
We hope that he is healthy and that he's able to have a swift recovery.
But definitely big news.
Always shakes Capitol Hill when you see somebody that wields that much power in this town have a moment of personal fragility.
And we all have to take account of our health.
And we certainly hope that Leader McConnell is restored to full and better health.
I want to go to our next big matter to discuss, and that is this hearing that we had in the House Judiciary Committee today with Mayorkas.
Now, you know that that's going to get spicy.
We're deeply concerned about the over 100,000 Americans who've been poisoned due to fentanyl.
But I'm not just worried about the criminals, okay?
So a lot of times when my colleagues ask questions of these victims, Cabinet-level officials.
It's just about the crimes and the criminals.
But I worry about immigration even for the non-criminals, even people who don't come here to commit crimes.
I don't know that you could just let an unlimited amount of those people in at the border without a process, without some understanding of who is coming here, what they will be doing.
And so I asked about the Mayorkas Doctrine.
Take a listen.
Two million encounters and releases under your watch.
So not including the Title 42 expulsions, not including violent criminals.
Of those two million plus that you've encountered and released, how many have you told to go home?
Congressman, individuals who are released are placed in immigration enforcement proceedings under the law where they can make their claim for relief.
If their claim for relief is is not satisfied.
They are subject to removal from the United States.
Right.
Subject to removal sounds very different than actually removed.
So, I'm not interested in the process.
I'm not interested in what people are subject to.
Two million people encountered and released.
Not the expulsions under titer 402, not the criminals.
How many of those people have you deported?
So, Congressman, a few points.
Number one...
Just how many of the people?
I just want to know how many.
Just a number.
Congressman, we are dealing With a completely broken immigration system.
I get it.
No, no, no, Mr. Secretary, I'm not going to let you burn my five minutes.
Do you know the answer?
Do you know the number of people out of that two million that you've removed that aren't criminals?
I do know that we have removed more aggravated felons.
Right, I'm not asking about them.
I've caveated that away.
Because here's what I'm sort of getting and what your non-responsiveness is demonstrating.
The Mayorkas doctrine is this.
If you show up at the border and get released into the country, if you don't commit a specific aggravated felony, which, by the way, doesn't include a lot of assault and battery, doesn't include a lot of bad domestic violence, but if you're not one of the people who commit those crimes, you get to stay forever.
Is that a fair characterization of your doctrine?
No, that is false.
Then tell me how many you're sending home.
No, that is false.
Okay, but you don't know the number of how many you've sent home.
Here's another number.
1.2 million people today have been through your entire process, right?
They've been through what you call a removal proceeding is just an amnesty dance.
Because after the 1.2 million people get an order from the judge saying that they don't have a basis to be here, you still don't remove them.
What's your plan to remove those people?
Congressman, that is false.
Okay, how many of them then?
Just give me the number.
Congressman, in this country, In this country, there are between 11 and 12 million...
Right, but I'm asking about a subset that you won't send home.
And the reason you're smirking about it, and the reason you won't answer my question, is because everybody gets the joke.
And the sad thing is, it's not just us here, it's the cartels who get the joke too.
And so now, what you've done to execute this Mayorkas doctrine, where so long as you don't commit a crime, you get to stay here and burden our hospitals, burden our schools, burden our social services, burden our jails, You've sent the message to the cartels and then you've taken this app and you've digitized illegal immigration and you've scaled it to the moon.
Like this app that you've got everybody downloading is like the Disney fast pass into the country, never to be subject to actual removal, just removal proceedings as you call them.
That app doesn't do any search of their criminal history in their home country, does it?
Congressman, I disagree with everything you have said.
Well, I'm sure, but just to answer the question, does the app that you are out there promoting do any search of people's criminal history in their home country?
Congressman, Customs and Border Protection screens and vets individuals whom they encounter.
Your app, it either has the functionality to test their criminal history in their home country, or it doesn't.
By the way, if it did, you'd have already told me.
It doesn't.
And then the other epic failure of this that's empowered the cartels Is that in these processing centers you've set up in other countries to just wave them all in at a rapid pace, you've had to shut them down in Nuevo Laredo because the cartels were standing outside extorting people.
Isn't that right?
Congressman, that is false.
Oh, really?
So why did you shut down that facility in Nuevo Laredo?
Congressman, the point of safe, orderly, and lawful pathways It's to reduce the number of encounters at our southwest border.
But wait a second.
You've just shifted those encounters.
Because right now, for the first time in modern history, more people are showing up at the ports of entry than running through some bush in Yuma, Arizona.
And the reason they're showing up at the ports of entry is because you've got the turnstile open, where so long as they've gone and downloaded this app, you just let them in.
I've got one final question for you, and it's an important one.
Is Mexico an ally in this fight against illegal immigration?
Yes, it is.
So, I mean, it's hilarious and somewhat troubling that you say that because, like, I'm looking at the El Chapo trial where President Nieto took a $100 million bribe from the Sinaloa cartel.
Do you think that the subsequent presidents following Nieto weren't offered a bribe by the cartel or didn't take the bribe?
Congressman, I disagree with everything you have said.
Right, but you can disagree all you want, but what you won't provide is any number.
And when you sit there and just kind of ostensibly disagree without any facts, it shows people what the real gig is.
The Mexican government is captive to the cartels.
They are doing the bidding of the cartels, and based on your response today, so are you.
We are back live.
Gotta give it to Mayorkas.
He is disciplined in his non-answers.
But you know that if they had been actually deporting people subject to removal, he'd know that number.
And the reason he doesn't know it is because it's not a priority.
And the reason that they don't have any sort of process to remove the non-criminals is because they want those people to stay.
And they don't care how they get here, and they don't care what the permission structure is.
So know that.
Know that the doctrine of the Biden-Mayorkas era Is if somebody shows up, they get into our country, they get released, and if they don't commit a crime, they never have to leave.
That is why it is so important to have physical barriers at our border.
We will stay on this, and I'm going to come back later in the program to give you an update on a specific lie in all of that that Mayorkas told That is just so blatant, it bears rubbing his nose in it a little bit.
That'll be later.
But first, I've got to get to the hearing that we had on Capitol Hill today, the most serious review of testimony and evidence regarding these unidentified aerial phenomenon, UAPs, UFOs.
I had an opportunity to question witnesses who were test pilots, who were involved in the review of national security information in this space.
I was a guest of the House Oversight Committee.
Let's go ahead and play that clip.
Several months ago my office received a protected disclosure from Eglin Air Force Base indicating that there was a UAP incident that required my attention.
I sought a briefing regarding that episode and brought with me Congressman Burchett and Congresswoman Luna We asked to see any of the evidence that had been taken by flight crew in this endeavor and to observe any radar signature as well as to meet with the flight crew.
We were not afforded access to all of the flight crew.
And initially, we were not afforded access to images and to radar.
Thereafter, we had a bit of a discussion about how authorities flow in the United States of America, and we did see the image.
And we did meet with one member of the flight crew who took the image.
The image was of something that I am not able to attach to any human capability, either from the United States or from any of our adversaries.
And I'm somewhat informed on the matter, having served on the Armed Services Committee for seven years, having served on the committee that oversees DARPA and advanced technologies for several years.
When we spoke with the flight crew, and when he showed us the photo that he'd taken, I asked why the video wasn't engaged, why we didn't have a FLIR system that worked.
Here's what he said.
They were out on a test mission that day over the Gulf of Mexico, and when you're on a test mission, you're supposed to have clear airspace.
Not supposed to be anything that shows up.
And they saw a sequence of four craft in a clear diamond formation for which there is A radar sequence that I and I alone have observed in the United States Congress.
One of the pilots goes to check out that diamond formation and sees a large floating, what I can only describe as an orb, again, like I said, not of any human capability that I'm aware of.
And when he approached, he said that his radar went down, he said that his FLIR system malfunctioned, and that he had to manually take this image from one of the lenses, and it was not automated in collection, as you would typically see in a test mission.
So I guess I'll start with Commander Fravor.
How should we think about the fact that this craft that was approached by our pilot had the capability of disarming a number of the sensor and collection systems on that craft?
Well, I think this goes to that national security side, and you can go back through history of things showing up at certain areas and disabling our capabilities, which is disheartening.
And for us, I mean, like I said, it completely disabled the radar on the aircraft when it tried to do it, and the only way we could see it is passively, which is how he got that image.
So I think that's a concern on what are these doing, not only how do they operate, but their capabilities inside to do things like this.
And how should we think about four craft moving in a very clear formation, equidistant from one another, in a diamond?
In all of the phenomenon, perhaps, Mr. Grave, that you've analyzed, have we ever seen multiple craft in a single formation?
I have one particular case and that was during the gimbal incident.
The recording on the AT FLIR system shows a single object that rotates.
You hear the pilots refer to a fleet of objects that is not visible on the FLIR system and that was something that I witnessed during the debrief as part of the radar data on the situational awareness page.
I would like to add, however, Congressman, there's a small bit of anger, I would say.
I would feel that those pilots are still facing that difficulty in reporting this topic and they don't have the tools to be able to mitigate this issue.
It just goes to show how serious this is and why this is such an important issue for our pilots and for our nation.
It was stated explicitly to me by these test pilots that if you have a U of AP experience the best thing you can do for your career is forget it and not tell anyone because any type of reporting either above the surface or below the surface Does have a perceived consequence to these people, and that is a culture we must change if we want to get to the truth.
Mr. Chairman, I would observe that perhaps as we move forward from this hearing, there are some obvious next steps.
Every person watching this knows that we need to meet with Mr. Grush in a secure compartmentalized facility so that we can get Folsom answers that do not put him in jeopardy and that give us the information we need.
Second, I would suggest that the radar images that were collected of this formation of craft out of Eglin Air Force Base and specifically the actual image taken by the actual flight crew that we can actually validate be provided to the committee, subpoenaed if necessary, So that we're able to track how to get this type of reporting and analysis done in a more fulsome way.
That would be my recommendation, humbly, as a guest here of the Fine Oversight Committee.
I yield back.
We are back live now.
Those witnesses came forward at great risk to themselves.
They talked about some of the retaliation that they have experienced and the challenges that others experience as they bring forward their experiences with UAP's Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee, who we've had on the program to discuss these issues, asked questions about that particular subject area.
Take a listen.
Have you faced any retaliation or Any of your testimony or anything along these lines?
Yeah, I have to be careful what I say in detail because there is an open whistleblower reprisal investigation on my behalf, and I don't want to compromise that investigation by providing anything that may help provide somebody information.
But it was very brutal and very unfortunate, some of the tactics they used to hurt me both professionally and personally, to be quite frank.
That's very unfortunate.
As they say, when you're over the target, that's when they do the most firing at you.
Do you have any personal knowledge of people who have been harmed or injured in efforts to cover up or conceal these extraterrestrial technology?
Yes.
Personally.
Have anyone been murdered that you know of or have heard of, I guess?
I have to be careful asking that question.
I directed people with that knowledge to the appropriate authorities.
Maybe if we could...
Get in a confidential area, a SCIF, we could talk about that, but unfortunately, we were denied access to the SCIF, and that's very unfortunate in this scenario.
That was Congressman Tim Burchett questioning Mr. Grush, who actually worked in the national security apparatus as a senior official where a lot of the information from these UAPs was filtering up to him.
So he was the guy seeing a lot of this stuff in his role.
With the national security apparatus, now testifying before Congress, bringing information forward, hopefully on a rolling basis, so that we can continue to analyze the risk that UAPs pose.
One feature of that risk is the extent to which you find any biological remains.
And there were questions from South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace about remains.
Were they found?
Were they human?
Take a listen.
If you believe we have crashed craft, stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?
As I've stated publicly already in my News Nation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah.
Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics?
Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program.
And was this documentary evidence, this video, photos, eyewitness?
Like, how would that be determined?
The specific documentation I would have to talk to you in a skiff about.
Kudos to Congresswoman Mace.
That certainly was an earth-shattering admission to get from the witness that our government has access to non-human biologics discovered as part of the review of these crafts.
Now again, this is the statement of a witness, a witness who was in a high position, who would have seen a lot of the information filtered, but now delving into the specific special access programs and other We're going to need to do that work, certainly as a consequence of that admission.
There was another line of questioning that showed how bipartisan this hearing was.
Congressman Jared Moskowitz of the state of Florida had questions about the recovery of craft specifically.
Take a listen.
Gentlemen, let's talk about the laws of physics for a second.
Mr. Graves and Commander Favor, I heard you talk about speed.
When those objects broke the sound barrier, did they make a sonic boom?
I was in a jet.
You can't hear anything.
It's kind of loud in there.
Yeah, you're not able to actually personally tell within the vehicle.
I will say the objects that we were seeing, they were spherical, and they were observed up the Mach 2, which is a very non-aerodynamic shape.
What about G-forces?
Let's talk about G-forces of those vehicles.
Could a human survive those G-forces with known technology today?
No.
No, not for the acceleration rates that we observed.
Okay.
What about what they look like?
How close did you get?
Did you see a seam or a rivet or a section?
And what I mean is, obviously, the jets you're flying have all those things.
Did these objects have those?
I didn't have the detail to be able to tell that.
So we got within a half mile of the Tic Tac, which people say that's pretty far, but in airplanes that's actually relatively close.
No, it was perfectly white, smooth, no windows, although when we did take the original FLIR video that is out there, when you put it on a big screen, it actually had two little objects that came out of the bottom of it.
But other than that, no windows, no seams, no nothing.
We are back live.
This effort is bipartisan.
We are going to be thorough, and there is a lot more coming on the UAP phenomenon and what the Congress can do to get the truth before the American people.
I'm glad it was bipartisan.
I'm particularly proud of Congressman Tim Burchett for raising the issue.
And if you watched the episode we had with Congressman Burchett on Firebrand, you got a pre-briefing on these issues that were addressed.
I said we would get back to one of these lies from Mayorkas.
And it just irks me when these witnesses say things that are verifiably untrue.
So we're going to end this.
We're going to close the show with it.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Make sure you're subscribed and enjoy this specific lie contradicted Alejandro Mayorkas.
And then the other epic failure of this that's empowered the cartels is that in these processing centers you've set up in other countries to just wave them all in at a rapid pace, you've had to shut them down in Nuevo Laredo because the cartels were standing outside extorting people.
Isn't that right?
Congressman, that is false.
Asylum seekers crossing from a dangerous Mexican border city say corrupt officials are extorting them for money.
Now the U.S. has stopped taking asylum appointments at the port of entry in Laredo, Texas.
Customs and Border Protection is citing a security situation for the change at Laredo, without going into further detail.
But it comes as some migrants waiting in Mexico are claiming that Mexican authorities are forcing them to pay bribes.
In order to keep their CBP appointments.
From Reuters, U.S. suspends asylum appointments in Texas border city after extortion reports.
From U.S. News& World Report, U.S. halts online asylum appointments at Texas crossing after extortion warnings.
And the Associated Press, U.S. halts appointments using migrant phone app at Texas border crossing seems to be in direct contradiction to the secretary's testimony as he can have his consent to enter it.
I got one final question for you, and it's an important one.
Is Mexico an ally in this fight against illegal immigration?
▲
Export Selection