Owen Shroyer and guests Ivan Raiklin (with attorney Lexis Anderson) dissect Anthony Fauci’s Capitol hearing, where Raiklin claims Fauci was "marauding" before testifying while alleging a 350-name "deep state target list." Shroyer’s Supreme Court denial—rejecting his First Amendment argument—sets a precedent for weaponizing unrelated speech in prosecutions. Callers debate Harris’s citizenship, vaccine deaths (23M+), and evolution as "Satanic," while Shroyer defends neutrality amid conspiracy theories. Anderson warns of systemic corruption, linking it to Trump’s trials, but hopes for Supreme Court intervention. The episode underscores legal battles over speech, mandates, and perceived government overreach, framing them as existential threats to free expression and personal autonomy. [Automatically generated summary]
But bottom line, it's Charles Downs, who's actually reporting for Laurel Loomer, was on the outside of the Rayburn building.
And he basically, as soon as Fauci gets out of the SUV, he hits him up with a barrage of questions.
And as soon as he enters the Rayburn building, I immediately pick up up from there as he walks through the hallway for the entire length of the hallway.
And then he takes a right before going into the, guess what?
The Democrat staff offices.
And then once he sits down, I actually, I need to do a compilation where he exits from the Democrat side, walks down the steps into his particular, the witness seat.
And in that period of time, I got to maraud him a little bit as well before he sits down to testify.
And then as soon as the gavel ends the hearing, that's when we're allowed to speak.
So I'll provide that to you tomorrow so you can air it if you want to air it on tomorrow's show.
If you want me back on, I'll be back on.
If not, that's fine.
You know, either way, however you want to do it.
Because I'm here to support InfoWars.
I'm here to support you because you guys have been, I mean, out of the entire media landscape, I wouldn't even call it the new media massive reach landscape, which you're a part of, probably one of the top three, if not higher than that.
I want to support you guys because you've been pushing for the First Amendment.
And so whatever you guys need, just give me a call, give me a text, whatever.
Well, I'll definitely get you on the InfoWars War Room tomorrow and we can air that full video because I think it's really important for people to understand and execute their rights.
Now, of course, this is why I'm being politically persecuted.
And you're smart to probably follow the rules better than I did.
But there are ways to do what you did legally and lawfully and avoid the DC corrupted Capitol police that's probably still run by Nancy Pelosi.
We got to give the guy, the gentleman that was sitting to your left, however, everybody's wondering who that is.
Yeah, so for the trolls out there thinking that, oh, Marjorie Taylor Greene invited me in and a J6 terrorist, they call us, right?
Anyway, these scumbags are just using those names to come after us because I'm probably the leading figure in the country, if not the world, that is exposing that non-stop.
I'm not going to give up, exposing the Nancy Pelosi Fed surrection parliamentary coup.
And then it was subsequently covered up by Mike Pence's beloved Liz Cheney and Nancy Pelosi's beloved Benny Thompson's January 6th Fed Surrection Cover-Up Committee.
And so I'm going to keep calling it what it is.
And it seems like Barry Lautermilk, the chairman of the committee that has oversight over the subcommittee that has oversight over the Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board, are inching their way towards what I've already basically proven to the entire world through my investigative work.
Probably it's been at least a year at this point, you know, obviously leveraging a lot of other independent investigative journalists that are out there, whether it's Stop Hate, whether it's Tommy Tatum's work on Roseanne Boylan's investigation, and Laura Logan's been doing the yeoman's work.
So in the collective, I've been monitoring everybody and also working my entire source network because you got to remember, I've been in the system for 25 years.
I may know a person or two to be able to confirm and verify certain pieces of information that really no one else potentially in the entire like the media ecosystem can because I've been in the system for a quarter of a century.
And then by pursuing different leads, whether it's communicating with the former chief of capital police, Tarek Johnson whistleblower, or folks that I may or may not know in different organizations, whether it be the DOD, DHS, and DOJ, formerly, currently.
And so that gives me the perspective and understanding.
That's why they continue to censor me, because after 20 investigations and after attempting to entrap me three times, they realize that really they don't have a mechanism to stop me because it would be such a stretch to come after me through an investigative kind of criminalization or an entrapment because I've already repelled it.
At this point, they can really only physically or digitally censor me.
But because we have a house, remember, most of my marauding, especially at a more kind of like on the line effort, is in the U.S. House of Representatives because we have a First Amendment-friendly House of Representatives, more or less, than when we did when they went after you.
Now, you know, and I'm also factoring the political dynamics because at the end of the day, a lot of the individuals that can stop me from doing what I want to do have a range of discretionary authority.
When you understand the range of discretion that they have, couple that with the political leanings, dynamics, and relationships and loyalties of the individuals with the discretionary authority, you will see me flexing based on my understanding of the political ecosystem and climate.
So again, in the House, I have a little bit more flexibility on how I maraud.
In the Senate, it is a much more conservative, reserved marauding due to the nature that the Senate is controlled by Chuck Schumer and Chuck Schumer's sergeant at arms is Karen Gibson.
For example, when Mark Zuckerberg suckerbuck was testifying before the Senate a few months ago, I was still in my wheelchair because I just recently broke my leg and I was up there in my wheelchair and I saw Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, Karen Gibson.
She looked at me, winked, smiled.
I looked at her, winked, smiled.
You know, I know, you know, I, you know, me type of kind of my legs broken.
So, like, obviously, they're not going to really be able to do much to me, especially.
I mean, come on, the optics of them coming after me in a wheelchair where, like, let's be honest, with that broken leg, I physically do not offer any physical threat to anybody.
And it would only take literally one pinch of the leg at that point to render me useless and ineffective.
The dynamics are different now, but nonetheless, you also have to incorporate those political dynamics.
Because at the end of the day, the Capitol Police Board and the Capitol Police do their law enforcement actions based on the political leanings of the bicameral leadership of the House and the Senate.
You got to know those details.
Most people don't.
And that's why you still have J6 defendants that are looking and their attorneys and Trump's legal team that are still thinking that that Jack Smith show trial is a legitimate thing and they're trying to litigate it in court as opposed to going back to the original jurisdiction that criminalized him in that, well, alleged crime.
And that was Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer directing the Capitol Police Board, people that they control, which is the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms, consisting of the two-thirds of the Capitol Police Board vote to then direct their very beloved and hand-picked U.S. Capitol Police chief,
Thomas Manger, to then work with the January 6th cover-up committee, particularly the staff director known as David Buckley, one of the 51 that spies who lied, saying that the Biden laptop had all the earmarks of a Russian info op.
So he was also handpicked to continue not only the cover-up of the Fed surrection coup on January 6th, but also to perpetuate the fact and protect any disclosure of those 51 spies who stole the 2020 election on behalf of the Biden Criminal Syndicate.
So all these different nuances players and like I got the insider baseball game down to a level that 400, I would say over 400 members of the house do not even know those details of how the U.S. Capitol Police Board operates.
There's maybe five, six people that really know how it works.
And that would be Pelosi, McCarthy.
Well, he's gone now.
Pelosi.
What's his name?
Mike Johnson, and then previous speakers of the House, and as well as former chairs of the House Admin Committee, and then the Subcommittee on Oversight for House Avenue, because they're the ones responsible for that oversight.
So maybe five people.
And they really, the only one that I've focused my efforts on exposing and working this problem with is the actual chair of the committee or the subcommittee that can actually get the truth out.
And that's why if you've been following my work, the way we can get to the truth on January 6th and finally start to reverse all these things is to get somehow the political courage to Mike Johnson working with Barry Lautermock to then demand the full release of all internal deliberative documents of the Capitol Police Board,
the general counsel of the Capitol Police, the staff director of that January 6th cover-up committee, which was involved in all the destruction of evidence, right, that they didn't want exposed, all that in the collective.
If they can showcase that and publicize it, just like they did the CCTV footage over the last several weeks, then we can finally get the entire country to agree with what I've already exposed, which is the Fed surrection coup and where the FB lie, which Clay Higgins uncovered, was subordinate to the U.S. Capitol Police on that day because they were in the U.S. Capitol Police's extended jurisdiction zone.
So the op was done by the Capitol Police.
Anyway, I digress, but that's to fully answer your question on, am I deliberate in every sound and move that I make in the Capitol?
Well, I'm sure that they have at least one picture of you up in a locker room somewhere because when I, I guess it was the second time that I dealt with Capitol Police.
And this was before I even had a court date or anything, before I had any record, they told me before I walked in that day, and I have eyewitnesses that'll attest to this.
They told me, they said, they kind of look, I'm walking into the Capitol through that first line of security, and they're like kind of looking at each other like, oh, crap, like, oh, my gosh, like, what are we supposed to do?
And I can tell something's up.
And I'm like, oh, it's, you know, what's going on, guys?
And they're like, Owen Schroer?
I'm like, yeah.
Like, we're supposed to arrest you.
Like, you can't go in here.
We're supposed to arrest you.
And I'm not as well read on the manual as you, but I knew that there was nothing they could do to stop me from going in.
And maybe your attorney also didn't kind of look at this.
Title II of the U.S. Code, Chapter 29, it creates the U.S. Capitol Police organizationally and then grants the authority, mission, roles, and responsibilities full stop.
When you understand the legal framework under which they operate and that they're subordinate to an entity known as the Capitol Police Board, the Capitol Police Board reports the speaker and the Senate Majority Leader.
And then particularly two sections, 1967 and 1979, if you want to bring those up, study those.
It's really only a couple sentences or for your study, kind of as it applies to your situation, section 1967 and section 1979.
67 goes into the jurisdiction where they have law enforcement jurisdiction and it goes extends up to the U.N., what is it, the Union Station up to the north, down to the Nationals Stadium to the south, a few blocks into the National Mall to the west, and then beyond the U.S. Supreme Court on the other side.
So for anyone that committed an alleged transgression within the primary extended jurisdiction zone that is concurrent with Metropolitan Police Department, and there was a fencing, for example, on January 6th, and people entered it and breached that zone and did it knowingly.
Because again, most people did not know that they entered a restricted zone because there were no signs up.
But anyway, that is the extended jurisdiction zone.
Section 1967.
And 1979 is the section that says that there's a body of different individuals.
I'm not going to details now.
I've done so many podcasts on this that lays out who decides on if they're going to release any security footage of the U.S. Capitol Police.
Meaning, if the Capitol Police only wants to include the CCTV footage and sworn testimony of U.S. Capitol Police officers that they decide they want to include in the criminalization of JSIC's defendant, that's what they include and send it over to the DOJ.
So they only sent incriminating inculpatory and then beyond that false testimony over to the DOJ.
Even if the DOJ was 100% blind to justice, as we call it, and were even if they were on our side, right?
They did not have the evidence to not convict a J6 defendant because all that evidence was already manipulated by the one that has the control and ownership of the evidence to then criminalize folks for the Title 40 charges, which apply to the U.S. Capitol Police.
The Speaker of the House has full discretionary authority to make your life miserable, meaning they can, at a whim, have the Capitol Police assigned to the House.
The member of the house, Nancy Pelosi, her sergeant-at-arms at the time on the house side was a guy by the name of Paul Irving.
Paul Irving was the sergeant-at-arms for Paul Ryan and John Maynard before that.
Meaning, Paul Ryan has dirt, or excuse me, Paul Irving has dirt on all three of those speakers of the house, which is probably why he's still untouched, untouchable, and nicely retired down in Tampa, Florida.
Meaning, he is the guy that's going to be able to spill the beans on the entire January 6th Fed surrection op because he was the one that agreed with Nancy Pelosi that due to optics, they're not going to defend the Capitol.
And again, you and your new friend there were just absolutely glorious.
To have to have each one of you on each side of Fauci's shoulders.
I mean, it can't even be scripted.
It's better than any movie.
Okay, but I want to get your take on the whole thing because I'm watching the whole thing.
And, you know, I don't have any faith that anything is going to happen to Fauci, but I think that there are two things that we can take out of the hearing today that are positive.
One, and you were in there, so you might not have seen this.
Millions of people were watching that hearing live.
I believe that's a positive because people are actually taking interest in their government now and they're taking interest.
Well, I'll say this: aside from the gentle whispering that Charles Downs did on his way in, aside from my whispering through the entire hallway, and then when he came down to testify, literally just before he sat down to start the hearing, aside from that, during the entire hearing, you could hear people in the crowd saying, after every statement that he made, liar.
Just one word, liar.
Every sentence.
I don't know if you could hear it.
You probably couldn't hear on the microphone, but I could hear that.
And the times where you see me just kind of practically giggling, I'm like, man, this guy is not going to stop.
unidentified
He says, liar after every word that Fauci is saying.
Yeah, because I don't think the chair, because at the end of the day, it really requires the chair to make the determination on removing someone.
The Capitol Police are there to control, you know, the physical decorum and make sure that everything is, no, no one's going to get hurt physically.
But in terms of the audible level, if it gets too high, that's really the call of the, as far as I've seen, the chairman of the subcommittee or the committee.
He didn't really hear it until there was one lady in the back that just stood up and said, I can't remember what she said, but it was attacking Anthony Fauci as she walked out.
So she walks out.
And then another individual, they're just during the entire hearing, there was either some chatter.
It was obviously a very anti-Fauci crowd.
Not only did I walk in with, there was about 10 of us, let's just say, that were with me.
Not specifically with me, but that were aligned with me that I could see in that crowd that was in that second row.
Yeah, so there were kind of three categories of people in that room.
Obviously, the first row consisted of his lackey staffers and security detail.
That's given.
That's what's in the first row.
In the second row, you started to see, obviously, folks like myself, the January 6th political persecuted individuals or their family members were represented.
But then you also had this RFK Jr. crowd that was there.
It was a couple, at least a couple folks that were in there that do video work for RFK, they told me, in line.
So they're aligned on this particular issue, obviously.
And then the lady that you saw with the rest Fauci, she's part of that, the RFK support crowd because I've seen her at the coronavirus, the select committee on the coronavirus pandemic, which is this subcommittee, on a regular basis.
So she's a regular, she said, you know, I'm a flaming radical leftist, but on this issue, totally in line that this is complete government corruption.
Okay, so it was a famous movie probably 10 years or so ago, real popular when it came out.
Might have even won some awards.
He's taking his Superman suit off now.
He's showing the Superman.
So this whole movie is about, this whole movie is about the AIDS epidemic in the 90s and how if you were an AIDS patient, you could not get the right medicine to make you better.
Right when the, you know, the Fed surrection was going to, right before it was going to kick off.
Well, the guy, the congressmember that gave him that coin was Brad Wenstrup, who is the chair of this subcommittee, which begs the question, how close are they?
And is he there basically handpicked in order to slow roll and protect Mike Pence's role on the White House coronavirus task force?
Because you got to remember, Fauci's boss was Mike Pence on the White House coronavirus task force.
Well, in President Trump's defense, and I get it, he has some responsibility for this particular aspect.
But in his defense, in addition to number one, you have Mike Pence that has essentially been the guy on behalf of the Uniparty to undermine President Trump at every step of the way.
In addition to that, during the pandemic, the CC, I call it the CCP-19 Fauci-funded lab incident response team known as the White House Coronavirus Task Force, led by Pence.
The shadow governor for that was Jared Kushner.
So when you read Mikey Pence's book and when he talks about Jared Kushner, they're literally like drooling all over each other.
My assessment is that you had in tandem a Jared Kushner and a Mike Pence working with Fraudchi and Debbie Burks to provide the information to President Trump that they wanted him to have, even though his gut feelings initially were accurate.
And you had like Zev, Zelenko, and other folks that were providing him information.
Meanwhile, remember, before the whole, the clot shot were issued, how did President Trump respond to the virus?
He got some monoclonal antibodies, some curcetin, vitamin C, vitamin D mix, basically the Zolenko protocol.
And then he was out before people were like, oh, he's supposed to be in the hospital for three days.
At that point in time, he had to because he only secured a third of the Republican vote.
And so the Republican establishment in the form of Ryan's previous Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the head of the RGA, Mike Pence, basically probably confronted him and said, hey, the only chance that you're going to get our support from the RNC is for you to pick our beloved vice president, Mike Pence.
The other thing is that the reason why they had to keep out Mike, General Flynn, is because, well, guess what?
General Flynn knows where the bodies are buried.
And you're telling me that, I don't know if you know this, Owen.
Mike Pence's chief of staff in 2017 for the first part of the Trump presidency was a guy by the name of Josh Pitcock who was married, who is married to Catherine Seaman.
And she was the head Russia analyst for Pete's truck.
Sounds hyperbolic, but it's so when you talked about nothing's going to happen, you were kind of leading in that direction, but at the same time, you kind of backed up and said, Well, the public's waking up.
This is where we're at.
From my perspective, is we have to get the American jury pool to be clamoring and salivating for a case to be brought before them so that they're ready for a conviction.
He's just waiting to pull the trigger on it until this hearing.
So I'm guessing that Schellenberger and Taibbi, I'm guessing that their next dump is going to be the Fauci files.
Everything related in more detail and specificity to good old Frauchi.
And if should that take place, I mean, think about it.
All the communications that can be extrapolated from those that worked for Fauci at NAIID NIH, as they communicated with the national, with the White House team that then communicated with the censorship industrial complex crew at the FBI between headquarters FBI, then the San Francisco field office that coordinated with Twitter 1.0, right?
All the big tech to basically censor, specifically as it applies to, oh, it's safe and effective.
Oh, right.
You can't say anything negative.
You can't say negative about the injections and you can't say anything positive about the therapeutics.
When that is exposed in the form of direct messages, slack internal communications, emails between Twitter employees and with specific individuals, say Fauci, especially when they query Fauci or something similar to that.
That's when the public is going to see the dump.
And that's when you're going to see, I would say, I don't know, Attorney General Ken Paxton, Attorney General Chris Kobach in Kansas, Attorney General down in Louisiana, name the Ruby Red state attorney general that will then be in a position to exactly do what Elon Musk's pronouns are.
I don't know if you want to put me in touch with that little birdie, but I tend to leave these things up to God and his timing more than anything.
But, you know, if we want to push the gas on that, if we want to push the gas on that, you know, I wasn't about to get into, I wasn't about to get into that.
People are asking, look, the InfoWars website is down, folks.
I don't know.
I don't know what's going on with that.
The fact that band out video is still up tells me it might just be an InfoWars DDoS attack, but I really don't know.
I would say Infowars will be on air at least for another two weeks.
But after that, I don't know.
All bets are off.
I would say we have till June 14th at least.
All right.
Ivan, so final question for you.
I got to get my attorney on next.
I don't know if you saw the Supreme Court rejected my case today.
So I'm going to be talking to my attorney about that next.
I don't think anything happens to Fauci from here.
Do you?
I mean, I just feel like he's going to get away with everything.
What do you think?
Do you think Marjorie Taylor Greene cleared the field enough for other Republicans to kind of take it a couple more yards forward and maybe even subpoena him for records, bank account?
They're really only four members in Congress that are actually trying to get to the truth because they've shown it, right?
On the Senate side, we have Rand Paul and Ron Johnson.
On the House side, we only have Marjorie and Thomas Massey on this particular subject.
That's it.
So we need another 216.
I don't see it happening unless there is an external, massive force that forces them to at least slow roll towards the direction of accountability.
And that overwhelming external force is exactly what I just said: the Fauci files or the mother of all Twitter files, which literally connects the entire scheme that I've been talking about, especially on this two-month tour with General Flynn.
If you want to know more details, watch the movie FlynnMovie.com so you can see that the very first person that the deep state went after was General Flynn so that he wouldn't expose their illegal spying operation.
And then since then, every single thing they've done is an exclatory cover-up after cover-up to include the Fauci-funded Wuhan Institute of Virology lab incident so that 39 states within America could run their elections how Fauci wanted according to his guidance with Mike Pence and thus not according to the election laws of those states to then be able to steal the 2020 election.
That's what basically happened.
You want details, start with the Flynn movie, and then you want way more details.
Watch the General Flynn was framed evidence wall discussions that I've had for two months.
Yeah, I mean, obviously, this is a huge disappointment.
Not a huge surprise, unfortunately.
You know, the Supreme Court doesn't take a very small percentage of cases that come its way.
But what's disappointing is they didn't recognize the significance of this one and the precedent that it's going to set going forward.
And yeah, I mean, I was really hopeful that we would get to argue this in front of the Supreme Court.
One thing I want to clear up, because you talked about this earlier today on your show, and there's been some media swirling around about this, is kind of what we were asking the Supreme Court to do, because it was very simple and very important.
And it's going to have a huge cascade effect going forward.
As you and I both know, they've perfected the weaponization of the justice system against their political dissidents.
And the impact this is going to have can be significant.
And so, you know, I've seen articles going around about how we're trying to overturn the conviction.
No, that's not what we were asking the Supreme Court to review.
We weren't asking them to, you know, obviously you can't take back the time served in prison.
We weren't asking them to reverse your plea.
What we were asking them to review was the use of your speech, especially speech that was completely unrelated to the charge that you pled guilty to as justification for your incarceration.
And as we have talked about on your show before, the government, when they had first requested your four months of prison time, had pretty much just the entire sentencing memorandum was just quotes, your speech, not even from that day, but from months prior to January 6th and then up to, I think it was like 10 months after January 6th.
And all they did was bring up your speech and the things you said about the 2020 election as justification for why you should go to prison.
And the other part too was that you weren't remorseful, that you hadn't changed your mind about your opinions about the 2020 election, the fact that it was stolen, because you didn't backtrack on that.
You know, they figured, oh, you weren't remorseful.
And so he also has to go to prison for that.
And so what we were asking the Supreme Court to review and determine and hold is that you can't use somebody's legal and lawful free speech as a justification for going to prison, particularly in the context when you're dealing with speech that has absolutely nothing to do to the underlying charge that you pled guilty to.
And also in the context of the fact that you were a journalist who was there covering a political event that day, you take all of that into consideration.
And what they did was completely unconstitutional and a violation of your First Amendment.
So that was what we were honing in on.
And so, you know, it's a real shame that they didn't take up this case.
It would have been really great to argue, argue our position there.
And, you know, I do want to say like the Supreme Court, they didn't ever issue any sort in our is that they review.
I can't do what their justification was or whether some justice is in favor of hearing it.
You're not going to be able to do it to proceed to oral argument.
Well, so I was saying how we're not, you know, I can't tell you exactly.
The Supreme Court didn't issue any sort of justification or ruling or decision on the merits of your case.
They just declined to hear it.
So you need four justices in order to move forward to a more intense briefing, more intense oral argument.
We didn't get that far.
They just denied for review.
So I can't tell you, you know, what their justification for that was or whether there were some justices who did want to hear the case ultimately, but they didn't make it that far.
The Supreme Court can issue some sort of justification if they deny it, but typically that's in the sense of, you know, we're declining to review for X, Y, and Z reason, but we're interested and we'll take it up if the issue doesn't get resolved elsewhere.
They did this.
It is actually a similar case dealing with sentencing using acquitted conduct as a sentencing enhancement.
And the Supreme Court had said last year, you know, we're not going to rule on this now, but we're confident that the sentencing commission is going to address this.
And if they don't, we'll intercede.
So that's the context when they would issue some sort of decision.
And I mean, at this point, I mean, we haven't even, both of us have been working all day.
This is our first time actually talking other than getting this set up.
So we don't need to talk about potential legal strategy.
But my guess is: I mean, the only potential we would have moving forward, the top, the top that comes to my mind is if something else comes out about January 6th, how it was a Fed surrection and they have the evidence or, you know, people were set up, whatever, maybe then going back.
I mean, it's a real shame that the highest court in our land, when you have someone who was attacked and imprisoned for their speech, whose First Amendment was completely violated and denied any sort of recourse.
And so this is actually another important issue that we raised in the brief.
It wasn't really the primary one that sort of launched this First Amendment crusade to get to the Supreme Court.
But what's key here is the appeals court even refused to hear the case.
Now, you had filed a petition for an appeal to the appeals court.
They just dismissed it, saying, nope, you'd waived your right to appeal when you entered your plea agreement.
Now, this is key, and this is actually ties to something that you've been talking about a lot since your incarceration.
When you sign that plea agreement, there is a waiver of appeal, which on its face makes a little bit of sense, right?
You know, this is a kind of a contract, an agreement you enter into.
You're not going to try to reneg or backtrack and say, well, I withdraw that plea.
But the question comes into play is what happens when they violate your First Amendment rights after you enter that contract?
Because when you entered your plea agreement, you had no idea what they were going.
Well, you were under the impression they weren't going to seek any jail time at all, but you had no idea what sort of justification they were going to give you in their sentencing argument.
You had no idea that they were going to involve criminalization of your speech.
Had they kept it to the events of January 6th and your underlying charge, I imagine you wouldn't have wanted to go through the hassle of getting trying to get this far.
But they did.
And so you had no way to predict that.
And so the question that we also raised is: well, if they violate your First Amendment, is that waiver even applicable?
And we said no.
We said no, you should not be able to waive your First Amendment rights when the government comes along and violates them after the fact.
So that's something that the Supreme Court also declined to hear.
And I can't surmise as to why the Supreme Court ultimately denied it, but I'm sure the fact that the appeals court just waived it over and did absolutely nothing did play a role.
Well, and so people have a better understanding of the purpose here, too.
It's making sure that legal, lawful speech that has nothing to do with the charge cannot be used for increased sentencing.
And when you look at the transcript from my sentencing hearing, you will realize that the only argument the government really had was that I spoke.
And it wasn't just speech having to do with January 6th.
When you read the actual documents, the actual government documents in my case, you see that most of the speech doesn't even have anything to do with January 6th.
Kind of the analogy I've been making here, it's like if I get pulled over for speeding and okay, whatever, I get the ticket.
Let's say I end up in a courtroom and I'm trying to get the ticket dropped or whatever.
And then the police officer is over there and the police officer is like, Well, he was going 100 miles per hour.
And then he shows, let's say he shows a Twitter post, an ex post, Facebook post, whatever.
And he says, Well, here he is 10 minutes before I pulled him over saying, I'm going to drive as fast as I can.
I don't care about the speed limit.
This was 10 minutes before I pulled him over doing 100 miles per hour.
Well, you would say, okay, that speech applies to the charge.
And so maybe you can weigh that in a final decision.
But if you took some other post that said, oh, look, here he is talking about how much he loves guns.
Here he is talking about how he wants to vote for Trump.
So see, this is why we have to hit him with this speeding ticket.
You'd say, well, wait a second, what does that have to do with the speeding ticket?
It has nothing to do with it.
So when they're taking clips from my show that have nothing to do with January 6th, nothing to do with the election, and then using that to increase my sentencing, that's the danger here.
It's basically saying that you can take any speech that somebody has made that might be viewed as unfavorable, maybe even sordid to an extent, and then you can use that in a sentencing hearing to try to increase the sentencing.
Because the underlying charge you pled guilty to, truthfully, had nothing even to do with January 6th as a political event or the events of the election.
It was, you know, analogous to just a misdemeanor trespass charge, which, you know, honestly, had you had you taken it to trial, and I understand why you wouldn't want to in DC, maybe you wouldn't have been found guilty of.
You know, you didn't get a chance to litigate any of that.
But certainly that the narrative or the things that you talked about in your criticisms of the federal government six months later on your show had nothing to do with the events of January 6th and had nothing to do with the underlying charge you pled guilty to.
They went way beyond the scope.
And, you know, this is something, the relevant conduct that, like, like you were talking about, there certainly are circumstances where a judge can consider speech as it pertains to a crime when it comes to sentencing, but not this broad scope.
Not speech that they find unfavorable or that goes against the narrative or that they just use the fear of the insurrection of January 6th to try to incarcerate you.
And you and I both know they had other agendas for going after you in the first place.
This is why you were involved, had the DPA agreement to begin with.
You were being politically persecuted all along.
So that was ultimately their goal.
The problem is, as you and InfoWars have found out, this is going to happen to a bunch of other people.
And so anyone that they can get on any sort of crime, they're going to now try to do a deep dive.
They can pull in their speech.
They could talk about the things that they said before or after.
They could use their speech to paint them in a negative light.
I mean, even in a civil context, I do a lot of vaccine mandate employment cases.
They still try to bring it all of people's social media, everything they said about the vaccine or anything political to try to paint them as a conspiracy theorist and say, well, hey, it's, you know, they don't have a religious objection to the vaccine.
As if the fact that you object to aborted fetal cells being used or the production of a medication, you can't have that along with serious health concerns and safety concerns with the vaccine.
But to do it in a criminal context where you have jail time and someone's life on the line, that's completely insane.
And it was so blatant.
And then the truth of the matter is, it does not matter.
This is what we tried to argue.
It doesn't matter how long the sentence was.
It doesn't matter if it was within the sentencing guidelines.
It doesn't matter if it was a short or long period of time.
The fact is they can't use your legal and lawful protected speech that had nothing to do with the underlying charge as justification for incarceration.
You know, I will say, like watching, watching, I was watching the hearings today and seeing the public finally get out there in the public with people we've known for three years.
I mean, I studied science in school.
I'm definitely not a scientist by trade, but I was writing, you know, basically scientific dissertations in our complaints back in 2021, just trying to show the court, look, this is, this is founded.
Like, we, we know these things were true.
We know that they didn't need a vaccine mandate in the employment context.
The fact that it's finally out there and in the open, and, you know, maybe I'll get a little less hate from certain judges going forward.
But we are trying to gain some traction.
The big hurdle is that they are trying to put people's religious beliefs on trial.
And we found evidence that there is even discrimination specifically towards Christians and not other religious faiths when it comes to the granting of religious exemptions in the employment context.
So there definitely is a lot of underlying an attack on religious freedom in these cases as well.
And what the employers are trying to do is launch this Spanish Inquisition for every single employee and trying to say, well, your beliefs weren't sincere.
You know, you didn't really believe that.
And that's the biggest hurdle we're running into now.
We've gotten some good new decisions out of the appellate level because these are being challenged all over the place.
So we're still fighting.
We're still filing new lawsuits all the time.
So we are gaining some traction, I think.
But the public perception, the public knowledge, the fact that these things are getting out there is incredibly helpful.
Well, and this is precedent setting too, beyond just the COVID-19 vaccine.
It's to say that you have the religious freedom or the medical freedom to reject a, even if whether it's experimental or a known effective treatment, you should still have the right to reject it if you so desire.
So it's really a, I think you got another precedent setting case in your docket here as well.
It wasn't something that I followed down to the letter.
I was watching commentary on it a lot last week, but watching especially the jury instructions and how the judge handled this at the end, I mean, he practically ordered them to come back with a conviction.
And that sort of misconduct is absolutely insane.
I unfortunately, I did see who's on the lineup for the appeals court.
That's really sad because I unfortunately agree with you that he might not have luck there, I hope, at the Supreme Court level.
I mean, especially with how well known this case is, I think they'll be paying especial attention to this one.
But I don't know.
This whole thing is crazy.
I think what people are seeing now is, because I wasn't surprised.
I don't know if you were, I wasn't as surprised that it came back with a conviction.
I was surprised that I was really disappointed.
I think I'd gotten my hopes up that I think was it one juror who had gotten his news from Truth Social that like polled the jurors.
I was like, maybe that one juror will hold out.
Let's go, juror number two.
And, you know, and he didn't.
But I wasn't surprised ultimately.
But I think people are seeing it now.
Look at what's happened with InfoWars.
Look what happened with you.
You know, I think I've said to you once in the context of a different case, though, that in order to win, you have to really know what kind of game you're playing.
And I think people are finally waking up to that.
It's a sad state of affairs in the justice system or injustice system.
I work in it every single day.
It's really, it's really sad.
It's really disheartening to be like, okay, I'm working in a very corrupt arena and they're not going to play by the rules and it's not going to be fair.
They might just throw out the rules.
But if you know that, you could navigate it a little bit better.
I hope Trump's attorneys can navigate a little bit better going forward.
I still have hope.
I think people can surprise you.
I think they were so blatant with his conviction and the issues on appeal might just be so cut and dry that they don't have a choice but to do something about it.
Well, if you happen to get an audience with Ken Paxton, can you please inform him that Kamala Harris is a Jamaican citizen at birth and not a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States?
I know she was born in California, but that doesn't matter.
Jamaica has control over her allegiance under their Constitution.
I'm just saying, if you want to unravel the Biden administration rapidly and go to the Supreme Court with something important, having a Jamaican as our vice president, potentially our next president, is something we should head off before it happens.
So just give Ken a heads up that nobody seems to know about Jamaican constitutional law, that when it comes to who gets to be a citizen in like Switzerland or Jamaica, if you have Jamaican blood or Swiss blood, you don't get to be an American citizen even if you're born here.
Okay, because the 14th Amendment doesn't attach because they claim you as their citizen at birth, even though you weren't born in their country.
So you don't get to be a citizen here if some other country has jurisdiction over your allegiance.
Well, they might come to this realization that she's not an American citizen, just like I'm saying.
If they really want to get rid of her, they might use this very technique against her and finally say, you know what?
Your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is novel and incorrect.
And we're going to enforce the old understanding of the 14th Amendment that if you don't have complete political control over allegiance, then you don't get to be a citizen here.
And that essentially, as long as somebody else claims you, there's no reason for you to need to be a citizen here just because you're born here.
So anyway, I've beaten a dead horse or a dead camel or whatever you want to call it, but she's a camel toe.
I just wanted to send out my prayers and thoughts and everything.
You know, and I mean, I'm not really a super emotional guy, but y'all have me damn near in tears there on Saturday night.
That was a really touching episode and everything like that.
And I've just got my gut instinct that this is not going to be the end.
You guys made it over the first hurdle today.
And I feel like coming up in two weeks, you guys are going to make it over the next hurdle.
And you guys are just going to keep fighting just like how, you know, any good soldiers just are out there fighting.
But I just wanted to let you know, Owen, that it doesn't matter if you're at InfoWars or wherever you're at.
I'm always going to be here supporting you.
And just wanted to give a quick story.
I'm out on vacation here in Las Vegas, and I spent about an hour talking to a guy today, just random guy.
I was wearing my InfoWars golf shirt that was kind of a hidden gem from a few years ago with the IW logo on it.
And he noticed it.
And me and him, you know, spent about an hour talking.
And he said, you guys got a lot of support out here, too.
So, I mean, we're all out here, you know, supporting you.
And I just wanted to tell you, you know, how much you mean to me and how much I enjoy your shows and just how much of a part of my everyday life that you guys are.
I've been a long time mostly listener because, like yourself, you're a talk radio junkie, so am I. And I've been listening to the InfoWars network since approximately 2003 and have listened through all the ups and downs and everything.
And what I'm about to say, you don't even have to comment on.
You probably shouldn't.
But I've been listening to you, particularly since you came back from being released from your time in jail.
And I'm watching you between the lines.
And my opinion is that even though AJ never asked for the network necessarily to be taken down, he's resigned to the fact that it needs to go.
And he's unloading the weight.
And unfortunately, it's going to affect a lot of you.
I've been listening to him long enough to read him between the lines.
I won't get too personal, but there are things that I know about him just after listening since 2003.
You really get to know somebody.
You know when they're full of shit and you know when they're not.
And I think that unfortunately you guys have gotten, you've been caught in the wake of this.
And I think what you're doing now, what you're doing right now, this moment, being on this platform, doing what you're doing is smart.
It's a good tactic because I think that unfortunately you guys are going to suffer more.
And I think that the takedown is accepted by AJ.
And it's just, it's an unfortunate thing because I think you guys put a lot of blood and sweat into the operation and into what you do.
I think that you've brought a lot, I mean, to InfoWars, but you're a very gifted broadcaster.
And there are a few out there that really are.
I think you and John B. Wells just have a very natural, a natural gift of Gab.
And I think it's because of something that you love the radio.
You love the microphone.
You love conversing with people.
And I just wanted to tell you that I know you're probably under an NDA.
I know there's things that you probably will never be able to say, but there are some of us that are hardcore fans through thick and thin.
And even with AJ, through thick and thin, I personally will call him on his bullshit inside my thought bubble.
And then there's times when I'm cheering him.
And I loved you guys pre-2015 before you became the Trump Network, essentially, because it was so much more open-minded.
And I would just say to you this: that pre-2015 InfoWars that was so open-minded, brought in a wide swath of audience.
I would advise you to chase the spirit of that and not attach yourself to one paradigm or one entity.
And that is what grew InfoWars because it was, yes, not just AJ, but it was, you know, that you could have a David Icon one day and the next day a Greg Palace.
And you had a left-right coalition and just this whole vibe.
It was really cool.
So, anyways, I've said enough, but I'm glad I got to say hi to you, bud.
You know, I've been offered book deals about writing about InfoWars.
And I mean, I do have an NDA, but it's irrelevant.
It doesn't matter.
I could say whatever I wanted.
The truth is, the truth is, I'm loyal to Alex.
I'm loyal to InfoWars.
I'm loyal to the audience.
I'm loyal to the crew.
And it's not my story to tell.
It's not my company.
It's not my legacy.
I mean, that's it.
It's just not my story.
It's not my legacy.
So I'm going to fulfill my duties until I don't have any duties anymore.
And I'll just leave it at that.
And maybe someday I'll get into some of the behind the scenes stuff.
And, you know, maybe someday I can talk about it more or write a book about it.
The way I look at it right now is it's just, it's not my legacy.
It's not my story.
It's not my legacy.
It's Alex's to conclude however he wants to conclude it.
I'm honored that I got to serve a role in the legend of InfoWars.
I'll never forget it.
I'll never regret it.
But as I see it right now, I'm still just, you know, an infantryman, a front man, whatever in the Infowar.
And, you know, Alex is going to tell the story.
Alex is going to decide what the legacy is, not me.
Having said that, you know, there's a part of me that looks forward to getting to build my own legacy and getting to tell my own story.
But I've always left all this stuff up to God and put it on God's timing.
So that's where I'm at.
Now, let me respond to the Trump thing.
Because you have a fair point.
I think that the whole left-right paradigm that Infowars, you put a time mark of it of 2015, that Infowars kind of used to break through and bring people from both sides of the aisle.
Something happened in 2016.
And if you supported Trump, the left isn't interested in you anymore.
And now that's starting to change a little bit.
And some people are leaving the left and leaving the Democrat Party and they're losing their Trump derangement syndrome or they're realizing it's a Trump derangement syndrome.
But that wasn't really some sort of a conscious decision.
It was like people on the left would no longer talk to you if you supported Trump.
It's like this full-blown commitment to you can't do anything that's a left-right paradigm or it's like the Jesse Ventura Democrats and Republic bloods or rebloodikins.
And so I look at Trump as being outside of the establishment, but it's like because he runs as a Republican, certain people will just never touch him.
Certain people in the anti-establishment, certain people on the left.
Now, I could sit here and look, I don't want to be known as some Trump guy.
I don't lick boots to go to Mar-a-Lago.
I don't make donations and beg people to get invitations or get access to Trump.
Quite frankly, probably at a detrimental level, I'm like so against being a part of anything that's big and mainstream like that.
I just want to do my own thing.
Like probably to a detrimental level.
I mean, I turn down a lot of things that people would think I'm crazy for turning down because I just want to do my own thing.
Now, I have no problem talking about how I support Trump, and I'm definitely going to vote for Trump again, and I have no problem presenting the case why I think Trump is the best option.
But when it comes to what I do on my show, I hope that it can be viewed as neutral.
Sure, everybody's got some bias, and I don't hide my political opinions.
But all I really do when I'm on air, specifically on my three to six show at Infowars or wherever it ends up being, I just call it as it is.
I just do play-by-play, day-to-day commentary of American politics and whatever else it stems into, culture, entertainment, everything else.
So I just call it like it is.
Now, if I wanted to be as big as possible right now, if I wanted to be as big as possible and get the most followers and make the most money and do everything else, then I would be full on board with Trump.
My whole personality, my whole presentation, everything I do would be Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.
And there's plenty of people like that.
And there's plenty of people that have made a lot of money and developed a huge following off of that and are more popular than they could ever be and get the invites to the Trump events and get to shake the hands and everything else.
I'm just not into that.
I will never be into that.
Like I said, even at a, to a detrimental level, probably I'm not into that.
So, I mean, I could sit here and become another Trump guy.
All the support I've given to Trump has been organic from my heart as a real political phenomenon.
But believe me, I could go full on for Trump and make a bunch more money and be a lot more popular and have a larger following.
I'm just, I want to do my own thing.
I want to be my own person.
I want to blaze my own path.
And if supporting Trump and sometimes supporting him, sometimes calling him out, whatever, that's just part of the process.
So I just felt like responding to that from Jeremy because he brings up fair points.
I just wanted to bring light to something that you mentioned very briefly a few times this week.
You were talking about, you know, how evolution, you know, being taught is really causing a lot of issues.
Wormhole Of Hatred00:03:45
unidentified
And I wanted to expand on that because you don't understand how correct you are.
You know, they indoctrinate children with this stuff.
And that's how we lose our connection with God and how we go down this wormhole of Satanism and how half the population, you know, accepts it blatantly.
And, you know, there's a lot of good pastors out there that have been exposing this, and it's something that's extremely important.
And, you know, that's how you can get, like Hitler said, how you can get some a race to think that they're better than another race.
You know, if they believe in evolution, then who's the most who's evolution, whose evolution is the greatest?
And then you start thinking about other races and everything like that.
And it gets you down this wormhole of hatred.
So it's really work of Satan.
And I'm really glad to hear that you spoke about that this week.
Well, and imagine whether it's a political thing, an identity thing, a race thing, a culture thing.
If you have a true inherent belief system that you're inherently better than somebody else, then you're going to think you have the right to govern over them.
And so that's a very dangerous mindset.
And America defeated that mindset when it came to royalty.
unidentified
Exactly.
And that's how they brainwash people into thinking abortion is okay.
And, you know, they say that the baby is just a bunch of cells.
It's a fish.
It's not even human yet.
And, you know, that's what people really think.
And they don't think that they're doing murder.
And it's really sad.
And, you know, there's so much evidence that shows that the Earth, you know, is not how the science explains it.
But there's no possible way for a Big Bang.
You know, microevolution, macroevolution, chemical evolution, all those.
So everything is completely been debunked.
All the pre-humanoid Nathanothals have been debunked, every single one.
You know, if you look at KBF Tufts, there's a lot of examples of just things that don't fit in science.
And, you know, rather than go against their religion of evolution, they just, you know, will say, oh, this is, there must have been aliens or something that might have happened at this point.
They literally, if there was a live dinosaur today, they would say, wow, this one made it 75 million years and it didn't die.
Like they would never reject their own religion.
They don't understand that time is their religion and it's destroying the whole world.
So anyway, I was watching guys Saturday night, you know, you and Harrison and Alex, and I had an idea.
If you're ever in that position again, you need to get three shot glasses and three bottles of Brain Force Ultra and two shots and, you know, go out big, have the heads explode.
And I debate, I debate Q guys on this all the time.
And look, I have no problem with people that believe in Q. That's fine.
I hope you're right.
I hope I'm wrong and Q is not a psyop or fake.
So I hope you're right and I'm wrong if you're a Q person.
But I debate Q guys with this all the time.
I know people that are big Q guys, they believe in it all.
They send me the stuff all the time.
But it's just what I've gone through is real.
What InfoWars has gone through is real.
And so to me, this is real stuff.
Like people aren't playing games.
They're not setting things up.
There's no white knights out there.
There's no secret plans out there.
It's just, it's all real.
I mean, I think Trump is really going through this and they really want to throw him in jail or whatever.
So that's kind of my thing with the Q people or believing it's all a setup is there's kind of a bit of a I don't know if denial of reality is the right word.
It's just it's different when you've been through it and you know how real it actually is.
So again, I know it's real because I've gone through it.
So I think Trump is really going through it.
I don't think it's a setup.
I don't think it's some deeper, darker plan.
But hey, I hope the Q people are right.
I hope I'm wrong and Q is real and we're all going to be saved and everything is great.
And, you know, my other big beef with that theory too is think about if Trump gets in and is really the good guy and they have to let all of this stuff happen, you know, to have the great awakening or whatever.
Well, okay.
Millions dead from the vaccine, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians dead.
It'll probably be 100,000 dead in the Israel-Palestine conflict when it's all said and done.
So, I mean, you're talking about hundreds of thousands and millions of people dying over this thing.
You know, as I as I sit here and think about all the things that we've been going through for the last two decades, there's one thing I regret to see, and it's good patriots that never pass on their DNA, never have children.
They're fighting the hell out of life, and they, you know, something happens.
And, you know, I went to school with Pat Tillman, and he's a big example of this.
And as complicated as it is, we need to continue to think about how can we strengthen our future?
How can we raise a generation of individuals that sees this as wrong, the things we're going through, that has a backbone to stand up and fight?
And I got to say, Owen, you're one of those guys.
We need you to get some little ones out there and help change the world.
Folks are calling in saying, Oh, I can't get through it.
Folks, I have one line.
I have one line.
So basically, there's the person on the air and then there's the hold.
So if there's somebody on air and then somebody holding, that's why you're getting the message that you can't get through.
There is no call screener here.
You get answered.
Your call is right on air.
So for the people complaining in the Rumble rants, I don't screen calls.
I literally answer and you're right on air.
So when you get that message, I'm not ignoring you.
It's that somebody's on the air and somebody's on hold.
So you get the message that it's unavailable or whatever.
So when you hear somebody call and hang up, that means usually there's an opening.
So that's where it's at.
But here's the thing: I like the people that come into the chat, the people that hang out in the chat and act like they try to call in and they can't get in.
I will not pick up a phone call until I see your number.
So you're not calling in.
You're lying.
So I can sit here and I can look at the calls coming in, and your number never shows up.
So either pick up the phone and start dialing, or you're a fraud.
So I'm just curious how you could support Trump for president and knowing that he's part of the deep state.
You know, I don't know if you've known or how much research you've done, but he actually purchased his first casino, his hotel, from the CIA, Mary Carter Penn Company.
Well, I mean, my hope is that, well, you know, the thing is, I'm hoping that these people, these influencers, people like yourself, you know, actually tell the people the truth, what the people need to hear.
I would be happy to be a martyr, you know, but am I going to do it?
You can't be one person to do this.
You know what I mean?
And it doesn't even have to be violent like that.
I personally think if we were to round up probably at least 2,000 people minimum, go to each member of Congress, you know, their house, and tell them, serve them their pink slips.
Tell them they're no longer needed.
That's less than 1.1 million people.
It's all handled on the local level.
So you go within your own state, your own city, your own districts, and you handle it there instead of trying to meet at one central location like BC.