March 12, 2023 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
48:58
SUNDAY SPECIAL: JANUARY 6TH RETROSPECTIVE WITH DARREN BEATTIE
On this week’s Sunday Special edition of Human Events Daily Jack Posobiec is joined by Darren Beattie of Revolver News in a can’t miss conversation about January 6th. If you want the truth then you have to listen to this dialogue, whether it’s about Ray Epps or Brian Sicknick, Poso and Beattie cut through all the lies! On the heals of the massive video release of footage, Jack dissects one of the most controversial days in American history on this Sunday’s episode of Human Events Daily!Here’s...
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard to this edition of Human Events Sunday Special.
January 6th has been in the news because there's new footage finally, at long last, released to us.
We are going to go through all of that, and who better to bring on than Mr. Darren Beattie himself.
But first, I want to go back and remind everybody, with the media, with the establishment, Or as Darren would say, the globalist American empire told us about January 6th all along.
I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the post.
So daily brief, it is completely free.
It'll be one email that's sent to you every day.
You can stop the endless scrolling, trying to find out what's going on in your world.
We will have this delivered directly to you totally for free.
Go to humanevents.com slash post.
So sign up today.
It's called the Pozo Daily Brief.
Read what I read for show prep.
You will not regret it.
HumanEvents.com slash Pozo.
Totally free.
the Pozo Daily Brief.
At this hour, our democracy is under unprecedented assault.
Unlike anything we've seen in modern times.
An assault on the Citadel of Liberty.
The Capitol itself.
An assault on the people's representatives.
And the Capitol Hill police sworn to protect them.
And the public servants who work at the heart of our Republic.
An assault on the rule of law like few times we've ever seen it.
An assault on the most sacred of American undertakings.
The doing of the people's business.
Let me be very clear.
The scenes of chaos at the Capitol do not reflect a true America.
Do not represent who we are.
What we're seeing are a small number of extremists dedicated to lawlessness.
This is not dissent.
It's disorder.
It's chaos.
It borders on sedition.
So I hide behind my door.
Like this.
Like, I'm here, and the bathroom door starts going like this.
Like, the bathroom door's behind me.
Or rather, in front of me.
And I'm like this, and the door hinges right here.
And I just hear, where is she?
Where is she?
And, um, this was the moment where I thought everything was...
Here's where things stand.
That Trump mob that attacked the citadel of our democracy, our capital, they're being rounded up and charged.
It's happening.
We're learning more about who they are.
They're not getting a pass, at least not yet.
As for who started it, Feds say they're looking into Trump himself.
Now as a matter of fact, this is obvious.
Trump whipped up these special people that he loves.
With lie after lie.
The January 6th insurrection shook our republic to the core.
For many in the Congress and across our country, the physical, psychological and emotional scars are still raw.
Yet from the unspeakable horror sprang extraordinary heroism.
Law enforcement heroes confronted the insurrectionists to protect the Capitol, the Congress and our Constitution.
They militarized our Capitol.
They occupied Washington DC.
Not like the Occupy Wall Street movement.
No, no, no.
Occupied with military force.
I remember I was there.
I couldn't park my car at work when I was working for another network at the time.
I had to show ID to get through a military checkpoint just to go to work every day.
This lasted for months.
When Joe Biden was inaugurated, there was a crowd of no one.
There were no cheering fans.
There was no audience.
Remember, we used to have all those arguments and debates, and Sean Spicer used to get into it.
What was Trump's inauguration size?
What was Obama's inauguration size?
Well, you know what?
It's a lot better than Joe Biden's.
Joe Biden's didn't exist.
And all of this was done to usher in a regime.
Well, someone who's done more work on that than I think anybody, and more work specifically on January 6th, now joins us, the editor of Revolver News, Darren Beaty.
Darren, thank you so much for joining us.
Great to be with you, Jack.
Now, let me ask you, what is your take on, and I'll say this, I'll put it this way, the footage that we've seen thus far from Tucker Carlson, and how does it relate to the yeoman's work that you have done at Revolver?
Well, I think Tucker was the perfect choice to be the custodian of this footage, at least for now, and I hope eventually it's made Public and generally available.
But I think Tucker's done a great job in covering comprehensively the January 6 lie and and choosing his footage examples to cover every dimension, sub dimension of that lie.
So on Monday night, he showed footage reinforcing our understanding that this wasn't, generally speaking, a violent mob.
Overwhelmingly, most people who even went into the Capitol were respectful, obedient, even in many cases, reverential.
They were simply in awe of the Capitol.
They found it interesting.
They took pictures.
They left.
And that was the end of it.
There were a handful of people vandalizing and Tucker called them out, as I have.
But the overwhelming weight of the story is that most people, even inside the Capitol, We're just moseying about taking pictures, not being destructive.
So that was one element of it.
The second element of it was he had footage of now deceased Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.
The reason that this is important is it draws attention to the initial, maybe the original sin of the Fed's erection, the prelude to the larger lie of the Fed's erection.
And that was The circumstances surrounding this officer's death.
And people may not remember it now, but the very first piece that Revolver.News ever did on January 6th wasn't about Ray Epps, wasn't about Pipe Bomb, wasn't about any of those things.
It was about the death of Officer Sicknick.
The title of the piece was deliberately provocative.
MAGA Blood Libel.
And indeed, that's what it was.
Because the whole narrative, everyone, Every corridor in the regime media, you heard the refrain, it was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher.
The frothing, rabid MAGA mob bludgeoned and murdered this Capitol Police officer.
Now, Revolver News did very extensive reporting on this saying, look, There's no way he was bludgeoned to death.
That's simply false.
And it's a lie.
And it's knowing, you know, it's a deliberate lie on the part of the regime media.
So finally, they switch the story.
They say, okay, maybe he wasn't bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher, like we've been telling you from every media mouthpiece ad infinitum for the past month or so.
He actually died as a result of bear spray.
Some MAGA people sprayed him with bear spray and he died as a result of that.
Well, Revolver News jumped on that, specifically a New York Times story that provided all these images suggesting he was sprayed by these particular people.
Well, we did a very detailed comparative image analysis and concluded that he wasn't even sprayed by the people that attacked him.
If I remember correctly, you actually, if I remember correctly, you actually did a spectral analysis of the images themselves to find where, I remember this because I was, I said, of course, Darren is going to go to this level because that's what we need is you did a spectral analysis of the images themselves to determine the direction of the spray, uh, as, as relates to where the, the specific position of Sick Nick and where he was standing was essentially
Perpendicular, so aside from the direction that the spray was directed, thereby in saying that he could not have been hit by it.
Exactly.
And if you'll permit a brief detour, this is, this is interesting on a number, this is interesting on a number of levels.
So there were two people that basically bore the brunt of the false media narrative because narrative was, oh, he died as a result of bear spray.
Who did the bear spray?
Well, the guys out of West Virginia, right?
Exactly.
Tanios and Cater.
Hey, these guys like a short order cook.
Yeah, they're, you know, they're, you know, hapless individuals.
They weren't up to any kind of mastermind issue.
But one really interesting thing here is that as part of the charges, and they were hit with very serious charges, I think, with a maximum prison sentence of like 50 years, something like that.
And Ken, they couldn't said they didn't charge with attempted murder, which was interesting, but the charge level is very high.
They're facing 50 years.
And as part of the alleged conspiracy, the government said, look, they had an exchange in which one of the individuals asked the other, is it time for the bear spray?
Can I get the bear spray?
And then the other individual said, no, no, not yet.
Simply the word yet was interpreted as meaning, oh, there was a plan to do something bad with the bear spray in the future.
And this constituted a conspiracy and they were hit with very serious conspiracy charges.
Now, fast forward, I'm going somewhere with this, and that is an under-reported and under-appreciated exchange between Ray Epps and another individual known to researchers as Maroon Proud Boy.
This is right by that initial breach site, just moments before the breach.
This is all on tape.
You can go to revolver.news, the Meet Ray Epps Part 2 series, and watch this.
Fascinating exchange.
Maroon Proud Boy, who ended up going in the Capitol and being one of the very, you know, aggressive vandals, by the way.
He's a very interesting and suspicious character in his own right.
But this Maroon Proud Boy had bear spray in his hands.
Of all things, bear spray.
And Ray Epps tells him, when we go in, leave this here.
When we go in, leave this here, we don't want to get shot.
So by the very same theory of conspiracy by which the government charged Tanios and Cater with very serious charges, long-term prison sentences, they could have easily by that standard charged Epps for saying, when we go in, leave this here, especially because the guy who was talking to ended up going in.
And yet, nothing.
And amazingly, it came out in the January 6th committee transcript of their interrogation of Epps, which was a total farce and disgrace, principally because Adam Kinzinger appointed himself as Ray Epps' lead counsel, effectively.
He was defending him more aggressively and creatively than Epps' own lawyer, who happened, incidentally, to be a nine-year veteran The Phoenix FBI field office.
But amazingly, someone else, there are other committee members who are unnamed in this exchange, who seem to be extremely puzzled by the whole Epps situation.
They're obedient enough dogs that they understand, okay, we understand we're supposed to be pro Epps, but this is weird.
And in fact, one of them even brought up that specific video that I mentioned of Epps saying, when we go in, because Epps told them, He told the committee, originally I thought it would be legal to go into the Capitol.
What?
Mr. Epps, you were saying, I'm probably going to get arrested for this.
I'm probably going to go to jail for this.
Oh, that's just, that was just a poor choice of words.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That was just a poor choice of words.
But when we got to the bike racks on the West side of the Capitol, I abandoned all notion of going in or having anyone else go in.
Well, the video, That I just mentioned that verbal exchange completely contradicts that.
And amazingly, someone from the committee actually brought it up and Epps was saying, Oh, yeah, that was I don't know about that.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
I've said in other contexts, it's like, Ray Epps is the shaggy Of January 6th, because it's like, it wasn't me.
Oh, they caught you on camera here.
It wasn't me.
Oh, they caught you by the bike rack.
It wasn't me.
They, they caught you at the end of the BLM on you.
It wasn't me.
I'm going to ask my producers to do a, uh, we're going to have to do the auto tune of you with.
Yeah, no, it's like, it's perfect.
Like that's, that's the level of chutzpah and just like detachment.
Caught you on Freedom Plaza.
In this, in this exchange.
Um, but yes, uh, This is, uh, you know, and by the way, this, this goes to Tucker because Tucker caught him on the stairs.
We caught you on the stairs.
This was, he had said that he had testified under oath, which, which is yet another lie.
And you can argue it was the biggest lie, but it's, it's the fact that he's never actually told the truth.
Right.
So he, he testifies, which, You'd imagine that his lawyer would have at least asked to see the tapes at some point or just going through because this was outdoors.
It wasn't even indoors, but you can see that at the point that he testified that he had already left, he was still climbing the stairs to the Capitol.
Absolutely.
So many lies.
So where am I getting backtracked to the, to Tucker's segment on Monday, he touches every single important dimension.
One dimension, they were mostly, you know, just kind of, hanging out.
They weren't destructive.
Even the people in the Capitol, they were just taking pictures.
So he covered that with the footage.
He covered the Brian Sitnik thing, which I think a lot of people must have forgotten about this, but this was the original sin, the original big lie, the original blood lie of the Christian hopes.
And thirdly, he covered the kind of most explosive and provocative dimension of it for which Revolver News is reporting is best known, and that is the Fed element by exposing Ray Epps in yet another provable and that is the Fed element by exposing Ray Epps in yet another provable lie that he gave to the committee, and the committee
Just further reinforcing our understanding that Ray Epps enjoys an absolutely insane degree of protection on the government from the self-appointed J6 witch hunters To a degree that simply defies any innocent explanation.
It's very clear.
Ray Epps is the smoking gun of the Fed's erection.
And Tucker's segment confirms that if we, if there was any remaining doubt.
Darren, why was this blood libel?
Brian Sicknick.
And by the way, you're exactly right that I can go to just about anybody out on the street here in DC.
You could probably go into any major city and say, Hey, what happened on January 6th?
They said, oh, they, they killed a bunch of cops.
They would say Trump supporters killed a bunch of cops, right?
They attacked the Capitol, killed a bunch of cops.
And, and it's just not true.
And it's never been true, but why, why did it need to be true?
Why was this pushed so hard from the highest levels?
Why has it always been stated?
Why was it that the April 2nd, we already know the reason, but you know, the April 2nd actual murder of a Capitol police officer named Billy Evans.
Just a few, just three months after January 6th.
And it's never even spoken of when he was killed by a Nation of Islam member who drove his car into the Capitol.
This is after the military and the National Guard had left and the barricades had come down.
Nobody talks about Billy Evans, the only Capitol police officer murdered on the job in 20 years.
Why was the Brian Sicknick story so important for the regime, Darren?
One word.
Deadly.
The death of Brian Sicknick and the false narrative behind it is what enabled the press to put deadly insurrection on all of their headlines and therefore reinforce what they wanted out of this lie to begin with, to frame all Trump supporters as potential terrorists, as domestic terrorists.
You need a death.
You need a body.
And, you know, for obvious reasons, they weren't going to go with Ashley Babbitt's body here.
Because that's, you know, that's what really makes it deadly, but that doesn't really fit their narrative.
So they needed some pretext to call it deadly.
And the death of Brian Sicknick, saying, oh, they bludgeoned him to death.
They bear sprayed him.
He died from that.
That enabled them to say the dead, the murderous mob, the deadly insurrection.
You know, it reminds me, it reminds me a little bit of something that happened in a place called Ukraine in 2014.
And the Maidan protest, which then became the Maidan massacre, the deadly Maidan massacre, which is of course, if you listen to any corporate media, which was conducted by the president of Ukraine himself, he ordered his, uh, his secret police to open fire on the crowd.
He was behind the deadly Maidan massacre and that was used to throw him out of office.
But Darren, That was a color revolution.
We'd never see anything like that here in the United States within our own shores, would we?
Right.
Well, that's a that's a very interesting point, especially because one of the principal U.S.
figures associated with that, with Maidan, is none other than Victoria Nuland, who is presently a very senior official in Biden's State Department and who is basically named in the Controversial and unsubstantiated, but potentially at least partially true, account given by Seymour Hersh of the US plan to destroy Nord Stream.
She's been in this game for a long time, and she's one of the principal players now in foreign policy, shaping our disastrous involvement and escalation and prolongation of this conflict in Ukraine.
Way back in the Obama administration, you know, even back before that, she was one of these principal architects of the color revolution.
She was there in Ukraine, you know, ginning up these, these protests.
And, you know, it's funny that this comes up because, you know, before January 6, Revolver News is probably best known for, we did a pretty impactful series covering the color revolution And the principal thesis there was not just that the method, the color revolution methodologies that we would typically deploy in, you know, Eastern Europe and not just Eastern Europe.
You see it a lot of places these days, but they're principally associated with Eastern Europe.
For instance, the orange revolution is basically where the whole idea of the color revolution comes from.
But that we were, that U.S.
officials in particular, a specific sub-faction of the national security state, this Atlantis' faction, was deploying the same methodology domestically in order to cripple Trump in the lead up to the presidential election.
And that wasn't just the same methodology, it was the same people And that was the principal thesis of the color revolution theory series that revolver.news did.
And we covered people like George Kent, who was a major figure who's associated with Trump's impeachment.
He was also a senior State Department official who is a color revolution architect.
The most famous one that we drew attention to is this individual called Norm Eisen.
Who literally wrote a book called The Playbook, which is like an instruction manual for how to conduct color revolutions.
And you could see him following each prescription to the T, not only in his role in foreign affairs context, but principally in a domestic context in order to go after Trump.
He is the most decorated legal hatchet man against Trump, a lawfare architect.
against Trump.
And it turns out his fingerprints, incidentally, are all over January 6.
We did a big piece on that, that the January 6 impeachment traces all the way back to lawfare efforts that Norm Eisen was doing with his lawfare companion, Joseph Sellers.
The two collaborated very early on.
You'll remember they were trying to get Trump for violations of the Emoluments Clause.
This goes back very early, and that collaborative effort also germinated what emerged into Bennie Thompson's lawsuit against Trump for January 6, in which he laid out the same theory of the case, that Trump was responsible for criminal incitement and so forth.
Why somebody who had a personal lawsuit like that, with a theory of the case already laid out, would be appointed to head an ostensibly neutral fact-finding body for January 6th?
Well, if we weren't, you know, a banana republic at this point, that would have been called a conflict of interest.
But that was really Benny Thompson's selling point, I think, from the standpoint of the regime.
But this goes back a long way.
I would also Oh, just, no, just to add to your incredible reporting, because you're, I think you're the person, person that made Norm Eisen famous, but folks remember that Time Magazine article.
I pulled it up here.
The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved 2020 by Molly Ball, February 4th, 2021, because you know, the, the killer always comes back to the scene of the crime.
The killer always has to make sure.
That, you know, writes the letter to the police to say, I just want to let you know that you couldn't get me.
Well, Darren, who's one of the very first people mentioned in that article, the secret history of the shadow campaign to fortify the election of 2020 is Norm Eisen himself, a prominent, this is how they, how they describe him, a prominent lawyer and former Obama official who recruited both Republicans and Democrats To the board of what he called the Voter Protection Program.
Right.
Voter Protection Program.
So intimately involved with the details of what we saw here in 2020.
Remember this was the same article that stated that they weren't sure if they needed riots and mobs and attacks and violence in the wake of the 2020 election.
But if so needed, they could be called upon that literally stated right there in time magazine saying basically, and I'm just going to cut to the chase that this is a color revolution.
We are the architects of it.
We have created it.
Norm Eisen is taking credit for it.
He obviously wants credit for it.
Right.
Uh, which is, is a very human, uh, a human endeavor to want credit.
You need one, you know, one recognition for what you've done.
And they're basically saying that this is why all of these things happens because it was happened.
It happened at our design.
We saw it all within a 12 month span, uh, George Floyd, Wuhan, the CCP, the Hunter Biden laptop, and the squelching of that.
Um, and then it of course culminates in January six and then one month after January six.
This article comes out in Time Magazine.
And, and Darren, my argument, and I made this earlier in the week, is that the reason that January 6 as the culmination of everything that happened in 2020 must stand up and why this narrative must be protected.
And you notice, by the way, it's protected by people on both sides of the aisle.
The uniparties absolutely circled the wagons on this thing, right?
Because it is the justification.
Right, so it creates the mental and emotional resonance for a justification for all the insanity of 2020, why all the norms, the rules for elections, why you had to stay in your home, but these people could go out and riot, why militants could take over a 12 square block radius of downtown Seattle, why the Portland Federal Building could be attacked for 59 nights straight and not a single person arrested or anything meaningful done.
Why was all this done?
Because of January.
six.
And even though we know that chronologically it makes no sense, but they say we were trying to protect you from something like this happening.
And now that it has happened, this to your point, a deadly insurrection was what we were trying to protect you from all along.
Yes.
I think there could absolutely be an element like that of retro, of retrofitting.
And yes, there's...
The response to January 6th has certainly been far more profound than whatever trivial response there was to, you know, the Antifa, the BLM and so forth.
And, you know, as we've learned now, we were critical at the time, but now it's basically public record that, you know, Barr didn't want to do anything about any of that, which is kind of a sad state of affairs.
You know, this was all going on, you know, Under Trump's presidency and his own attorney general refused to do anything about it when people were burning down streets, rioting and so forth.
And, you know, there was even an attack on the White House that, you know, people don't really talk about anymore.
There was even an attack on the White House and really no... Well, no, no, no, Darren.
No, no, no.
Because General Milley did talk about it because he apologized for appearing in a In a, a walking line with the president, uh, after they cleared out the rioters who were setting fire to secret service encampments, the secret service facilities that extend beyond the grounds of directly the white house.
That's there's Lafayette square, Lafayette park square.
That's right there.
There's St.
John's historic church, which was also set on fire.
So yes, it was cleared out.
General Milley and president Trump walk out in this very famous moment.
He holds the Bible up in front of St.
John's basically to say, You know, we are going, we are not going to allow this to happen.
Keep in mind, I mean, we are told that, that that wasn't a big deal and it was just a protest.
And even though the secret service did, by the way, rush the president into the bunker because they weren't sure what was going to go on.
They weren't sure if people were going to get inside.
So they decided to take precaution.
Now compare that to the reaction of January 6th, whereas we've now seen the videos of people simply
Stumbling around in some cases shuffling about in Statuary Hall and other areas as as Norm Macdonald famously tweeted at the time That they were staying within the velvet ropes these violent terrorists the great Norm Macdonald late great Norm Macdonald that We were told that everybody was about to be killed and by the way that that is what justifies the murder of Ashley Babbitt because
These heinous individuals were about to go in and murder everyone in the Capitol, and it simply wasn't true.
Right, no, that's a great point about Ashley Babbitt.
Because, again, they wanted to use the term deadly, but it's kind of hard to do that if, you know, the most conspicuous death is the death of Ashley Babbitt, who was unarmed and pretty much shot in cold blood, you could say.
They needed something like the death of Sicknick to not just balance that out, but to totally obscure it.
And so, yes, this was absolutely, as I say, it was the original sin, the original big lie of January 6th.
It was the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Brian Sicknick, but the death, which has now been revealed to be caused by natural
Well, Darren, so let me ask you this question, because it feels like the history books are already kind of moving on from this.
And I had Heather McDonald on here a couple of weeks ago on a Sunday special, and I talked about the fact that I remember not learning about the L.A.
riots or learning anything meaningful about the L.A.
riots until I was almost an adult, even though I was a kid when they happened, that these things, and you could certainly put Waco, Ruby Ridge, other events that happened throughout the 1990s in the same bucket, that there is a very strong mainstream narrative on all of these events that will stand and that will sort of become the official version of history, and that If that is not challenged in the moment, then that becomes official history.
Nancy Pelosi at one point was talking about putting monuments at the United States Capitol to Brian Sicknick and others for standing up and defending the Capitol, losing their life to do so, even though, as you've discussed here, it's simply not an accurate depiction of what happened, right?
What do we do as a movement to prevent these things from happening?
That's such an important point.
Because what the regime counts on is for these things to the false narratives to crystallize to the point that they become sacred before they can be challenged.
And that's why it's so critical to challenge these things before the crystal, the full crystallization takes place.
And I think that was, you know, the Cygnic narrative was successfully challenged before it became Too sacred to be challenged.
And that really opened the door to subsequent challenges, including the big feds erection challenge to the official narrative.
So I think one important take home point to this is just how critical it is to get in these things, to challenge these narratives before they coalesce, before they become too sacred, because then it becomes very difficult.
You might have to wait a long time before you can even revisit it.
And, you know, it's interesting in that context, you know, CNN, of all places, ran this extensive, and I have to say, excellent, high-quality investigative, long-form investigative piece on the death of Terence Yeekey, associated with the Oklahoma City bombing.
Who was Terence Yeekey, Darren?
He was a police officer in In Oklahoma City, who died under very mysterious circumstances.
Um, before, you know, I started talking about him on, on Twitter, like a couple of years ago, and Wikipedia revised their whole description of him, but people can go and find, you know, read the CNN report, um, listen to, go to YouTube, and there's a, something called Requiem for the Suicided, and you can watch the, the episode on Terrence Heakey, but, It looks like he was murdered.
It looks like he was murdered and it was covered up as a suicide.
That's what it's, that's what it looks like.
And not just murdered, but I mean, brutalized, tortured.
Yeah.
To the point where it seemed like people were trying to get information out of him before he was killed.
Yes.
And, and there's, there's other mysterious deaths.
There's the death of Kenneth Trenadue.
That's another thing.
He was definitely tortured in a jail cell.
And then, you know, the biggest researcher on Oklahoma City was his brother, who is a real hero and pioneer in uncovering the truth about Oklahoma City.
But the point is, when Oklahoma City happened, it was a shocking event.
And it's, you know, it's a deeply tragic event.
You know, there were some, you know, it's tragedy what happened to Ashley Babbitt, Oklahoma City was on a different level.
Children died.
It was the most significant domestic terror attack in America's history when it happened.
And there were some challenges in the beginning, but it was all on a local level.
I would compare it to maybe like the Las Vegas massacre, where you had some local people asking some questions for a while, and that was quickly overwhelmed by federal officials.
And then you don't really hear anything more from it.
It was more of that situation in Oklahoma City.
Merrick Garland, of all people, was the big cover-up guy for Oklahoma City.
I was just going to ask you that.
Who was the principal associate attorney general that was sent by Janet Reno in 1995 down to Oklahoma City?
Which, by the way, in the X-Files movie, it actually opens as if Scully and Mulder are working on, the first movie, are working on the Oklahoma City bombing.
But the person who was the Principal Associate Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, that was sent by Janet Reno to Oklahoma City to run the entire investigation was none other than Merrick Garland.
No, it really is amazing.
Current Attorney General Merrick Garland and another key figure in this, what looks to be a cover-up, Eric Holder.
You know, these people, it's not their first rodeo, there's a reason that people are chosen to become Attorney General and it would, in this context, it would be interesting to revisit the case of Bill Barr.
Why was he allowed to be Attorney General?
Not saying he was associated with Oklahoma City, but maybe some other things.
It's clearly the kind of position where you have to put in your work, you have to have been vetted thoroughly by- Wait, wait, you know his connection though, right?
For Bill Barr, right?
What's that?
You know about Bill Barr's connection to the past, right?
Sure.
Well, I mean, there's the Epstein stuff and a bunch of other stuff, but I don't... Bill Barr defended the FBI snipers at Ruby Ridge.
Interesting.
That I didn't know.
Bill Barr defended them.
I'd have to look up.
I can pull something here.
He organized former attorneys general and others to, quote, support an FBI sniper in defending against criminal charges It is back in the 1990s.
Of course, the killing of Randy Weaver's wife and her baby in 1992.
Bill Barr assisted in framing legal arguments and advanced in the district court and subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court.
A quote, charitable work, charitable work that was done by Bill Barr out of the goodness of his heart for the sniper that took out Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge.
It's remarkable, but not surprising.
This is the kind of thing you need on your resume to become Attorney General.
You need to put in this work, you need to demonstrate fealty to the regime.
In the case of Garland and Holder, that has to do with their conduct with respect to Oklahoma City.
But this gets to the point about sacred before challenge.
Before, I think now the circumstances are actually More open than ever to actually revisit the Oklahoma City case with respect to what really happened.
It's a very dark thing.
It's still, I think, very uncomfortable for a lot of Americans to digest and very controversial for that reason.
But I think there's more receptivity to truth on that now than there would have been before the January 6 issue.
I think the coverage on January 6 that we've done at Revolver and you've And that you've done and no Tucker and a handful of others who have really been stalwarts on January 6 has not only done the service of presenting the truth about January 6, but I think it's presented a broader opportunity that otherwise would not exist for the American people to revisit some other events.
With the current understanding of what the government is actually capable of.
And you're seeing this, by the way, you're seeing a reinvigoration of people going back and questioning the official narrative on many of the great American scandals of the modern era, the past decade.
Not only Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, Waco, but even prior events like Watergate with Richard Nixon, like the assassination of JFK, though admittedly the assassination of JFK has always been questioned by the American people.
Right.
That so many of because it was so egregious that so many of these other events, though, were the the narrative has solidified.
But it's also interesting because in in each of those events, Waco, Ruby Ridge and now Oklahoma City, you notice that it the narrative solidified if you were around in the 90s.
But for the new generation that wasn't wasn't around, that wasn't or folks like that are my generation, our generation, weren't necessarily paying attention to the news back then.
We don't quite have the conditioning on this that used to exist in an era where there were only three media networks, there were two national papers, and then one paper of record for every major city.
And that's the way the media worked.
And if you controlled that, if you worked with those people, then you would be able to set the mono narrative, as the Obama administration used to call it, the mono narrative.
Well, the mono narrative doesn't exist anymore because individual media, independent media like this operates revolver news post millennial, human events.com, et cetera, et cetera.
We have so many more outlets now that we have a democratization.
This is why Twitter and Elon Musk are so important.
And Elon Musk to his credit has again, going back to what you wrote in a revolver about this, he has taken Twitter and said, I want Twitter to be the source of truth, the greatest source of truth.
He didn't say that I want it to be the most profitable.
I'm sure he does.
Uh, he didn't say that I want Twitter to be, Well, I mean, it's it's important because of how powerful the Twitter platform is, how the network affects on Twitter.
There's so many people.
No, he said, I want it to be the source of truth.
Why is that so important, Darren?
Well, I mean, it's important because of how powerful the Twitter platform is, how the network affects on Twitter.
There's so many people.
And, you know, it's a it's a noble and worthy goal to say, OK, I want it to be the source of truth.
Who's gonna be the arbiter of that?
I hope that that doesn't reflect any tendencies towards sort of making editorial decisions on.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I, I think, let me make sure I'm not misquoting him because he was saying it in the context of, I want Twitter to be a free place where people can debate these things and that official narratives can be challenged.
Right.
And I think on that score, that's a very noble goal.
And from a personal perspective, it does seem that Elon Musk has more than entertained serious challenges to official narratives on a wide range of things.
Just the other day, he was retweeting, you know, January 6 material.
And January 6 material, from our perspective, in light of Tucker's segment, Um, he's been, um, perhaps unexpectedly, uh, courageous and based in his defense of, uh, Dilbert and, and Scott Adams.
He's, he's been unexpectedly courageous on the COVID question and on a wide range of questions.
Of course, the simple act of, you know, this hostile takeover of Twitter is a monumental event and he deserves tremendous credit for it.
So one thing that I've actually been been testing is the use, and I'm sure you've seen them on that.
We've been on the program here creating deep fakes of of elected officials, one of which the first one that just went completely viral.
Millions of views was of President Biden announcing a national draft, the invocation of the Selective Service Act to deal with military shortfalls.
And of course, the deteriorating conditions in the Ukraine war.
So what we're doing is we're not making them outlandish and playing a video game.
We're going in and saying, what would happen six months from now?
What would happen eight months from now?
And then, of course, we also made one of AOC attacking Jack Posobiec for creating a deep fake of President Biden and then also attacking Elon Musk for refusing to delete it from the platform.
That's hilarious and very interesting.
I saw that the Joe Biden one on the draft and, um, no, it's, it was.
He allowed it to fly.
He allowed it to fly.
There was a, there was a community note tag, but whatever.
Right.
But the script was actually very good.
The script was realistic.
It read like what he might actually say in that context.
Um.
Thank you.
It was, it was a, uh, it was a fascinating exercise for sure.
And I think that the test on our side was, okay, you know, is Elon Musk going to take us down?
Is he going to allow this to fly?
Now, of course we didn't make one of Elon, but the question is, and what was interesting to us as well is that we actually had, and of course all the hit pieces and fact checks that were written up only served to further the video more.
Um, but, One deepfake expert actually came out and said, look, I think this is a legitimate use of this technology.
What you're doing is political commentary, social commentary.
We're talking about a potential World War Three situation.
So sure, why wouldn't we use the same technology?
By the way, it certainly falls under the legal auspices of parody or satire the same way that when SNL gets a president, gets an actor who looks like the president and puts him on stage and has him act and sound like the president, right?
Nobody takes that down from social media.
The problem is, is now it's our side doing it.
Right.
I mean, everybody, the thing is, is people talk about the deepfake technology, but the regime has had this technology for a long time and they have much more sophisticated versions.
So the real concern is that now, now other people get to use it and can use it in contexts that are not necessarily approved by the regime.
So, I think it's a fascinating frontier.
My favorite response, by the way, you'll like this, is of course, a lot of conservatives were even saying to me, this is so inappropriate.
How can you do this?
This is terrible.
You shouldn't use this technology this way.
And then they said, what do you think, how would you like it if the media started doing this to you guys?
Oh, really?
How would I like it if the media started lying about me and my friends and Donald Trump?
It's just ridiculous.
Right.
Right.
No, I think that's that's fascinating.
You should do you should do more.
Oh, we're going to do more.
And I'll do one of you next, probably.
We've got your audio here from the praising praising the FBI and CIA.
I was wrong.
I was wrong about Ray Epps.
And he's he and I actually went out for drinks last night.
And it turns out he's a good guy.
And we slept on some my pillows, not together, separate rooms.
But We had a great, it took me, took me to a cabin up in the woods and now I've seen the light.
Right.
But that's, I think that's what they'd rather do to, to all of us now.
Um, the Nina Yankovich is the world talking about suing us.
Uh, everyone out there essentially saying, how can we shut these people down?
Because all we're doing, all we're, we're, we're looking at the same set of facts.
We're looking at it as everybody else.
And I've seen you at revolver do this as well.
All you're doing is you're adding one little piece of critical thinking To the same videos and images that everyone else sees.
Right.
Right.
No, it's all about the context.
And that's that's why the media creates reality for better or worse, because they provide the context and the framework in which and through which to perceive reality.
And that's I should say, as as we wind down, congratulations to you, because I saw a Rasmussen poll last week and I mentioned this on on stage.
And I gave you credit as well there at CPAC, 61% now, 61% of American voters now believe that January 6th likely had federal involvement.
61%.
Now that's, oh, that's got to include Democrats as well.
And it was, it was over 50% of Democrats.
That's remarkable.
Yeah.
I saw, uh, Thomas Massey mentioned this.
I was wondering where did that come from?
But now I'm glad to know there's a whole poll on it.
I'll make sure to send it to you.
Darren, we're just about out of time.
I want to say thank you again for joining us on the Sunday special.
Where can people go to follow you?
Are you able to give us any insights into what you're up to next?
Revolver.news.
We have some important pieces coming up on On El Salvador and on a very significant First Amendment case that I think we've talked about.
Biden's Justice Department trying to put a guy in jail for for memes, put him in jail for 10 years.
And what this means is the Biden regime is yet trying to codify the disinformation scam into the criminal code.
So it's a very dangerous trend.
We have a follow up on that coming soon and maybe a little January 6th stuff as well.
So people should stay tuned.
Go to Revolver.News, I'm at Twitter, at Darren J. Beatty, and we're at Getter, at Revolver News.
Alright, support Revolver.News, support Darren Beatty.
