July 13, 2023 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
48:57
EPISODE 516: THE RECEIPTS - RAY EPPS LAWSUIT, CRIMINAL CHARGES AND CHRIS WRAY
On today’s edition of Human Events, Jack Posobiec breaks down the latest new surrounding Ray Epps. From the Fox lawsuit to the criminal charges against him, Poso brings the cold hard facts and all the receipts on one of the most controversial figures in culture today. Joined by none other than Darren Beattie, the duo dive deep into the suspicious timing of the charges against Epps and how the media is seemingly changing the entire narrative surrounding January 6th in order to defend Epps. Pos...
We are in the fight for America's future and we are assembling a team to fight back.
Turning point action this July 15th and 16th is where the assemblage will take place.
Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino, Steve Bannon, myself, Charlie Kirk, Senator Hawley, Senator Vance, Matt Gaetz, Benny Johnson, Vivek Ramaswamy, Scott Pressler, Mike Lindell, Harmeet Dhillon, You need to be there.
Go and sign up immediately.
TPaction.com is the site.
TPaction.com.
Use promo code POSO and you will get a discount.
Secure your tickets immediately.
Don't be coming to me saying, can you get me in after this thing sells out because it will sell out fast.
And I will see you down in Florida this July 15th and 16th for the greatest assemblage of patriots this country has seen since Valley Forge.
We are in a fifth generational conflict.
We are in a fifth season.
For every lie they tell, we're gonna get in their face and yell two truths.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
Christ is King!
Here's what the American people know and believe about the FBI today, sir.
If you are a Trump, you'll be prosecuted.
If you are a Biden, you'll be protected.
And he said, are you purchasing data from Americans through a broker?
Private information?
Is the FBI buying that?
And Director Wray said, I'll have to get back with you and give you an answer.
I need to give you a briefing on how that works.
America can lead the world in diversity.
But you know what?
No war has been won by diversity.
Chinese state-linked hackers breached the email accounts of U.S.
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and senior State Department officials in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information.
I don't think Chris Wray is a leftist.
He's not a Democrat.
Chris is a company man.
Are you protecting the Bidens?
Absolutely not.
The FBI does not and has no interest in protecting anyone politically.
To tackle a climate crisis?
It's the only existential threat humanity faces.
And we don't have a lot of time.
They're never going to abandon him.
The people who voted for Trump are never going to abandon him.
I don't care what Mueller does.
I don't care what the media does.
I don't care what anybody does.
They're never going to abandon him.
You know why?
They elected him knowing who he is.
And in many cases, they admire who he is.
But none of that matters.
He is the one person standing in the way of them losing their country.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
Today is July 13th, 2023.
Anno Domini.
We're now coming to you live from the palatial West Palm Beach studios of Real America's Voice.
As far as I know, this is the first show that's being done from this new studio.
So thanks to Rob and Parker and all the guys who are here with us.
And I really wanted to appreciate it, but we must respond To the insanity coming out of Chris Wray, these hearings that have been held, the NATO summit where F-16s are now being promised to Ukraine, Lavrov responding for the Russians, no choice but to treat the F-16s in Ukraine as a nuclear threat, and of course, Ray Epps suing the New York Times.
We've got to bring on the man.
We've got two minutes left in this segment, but we're going to keep him on.
Darren Beattie.
Darren, You know, we're seeing, and I've got to also ask you, by the way, and not only all this news about Wray and Ed and everything, but isn't it amazing that, I posted this thing on Twitter last night, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Bloomberg are now referring to January 6th as just rallies, demonstrations, and protests because they are on the side of defending Wray Epps.
It's truly amazing, isn't it?
It really is, and that was an excellent observation.
We're actually doing a little blog write-up on that.
The observation was so good, and, you know, it's absolutely right.
And you see it in a variety of contexts.
You notice these little subtle things.
For instance, the favorable reporting on Ray Epps, which comes from, of all places, like New York Times and other legacy media outlets that haven't had a single nice or sympathetic thing to say about any other January 6th participant, they call they call Ray Epps a Trump supporter.
Oh, he's just a Trump supporter.
Yeah, well, he's wearing a Trump hat.
You know, think about it.
Any other case, a guy like this wearing a Trump hat in subsequent footage, wearing military camo, who is the former head of the Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers, the most heavily prosecuted and demonized militia group associated with January 6th.
And they're calling him a Trump supporter, even though he flew all the way to D.C., from Arizona, ostensibly to see Trump's speech, which he didn't even go to.
Instead, he thought it was a higher priority to direct people to the Capitol and just magically The preposition right there at the initial site where the west perimeter of the Capitol was breached.
It's absolutely incredible to see how the legacy media, New York Times, 60 Minutes, Adam Kinzinger, the DOJ itself will bend over backwards to do the most remarkable gymnastic contortions imaginable To defend this one specific individual, who also happens to be the only guy caught on camera as early as January 5th... Darren, hold it right there.
We've got a quick break.
Quick break, and then we're coming back with the long segment, and it's all yours, because you... I can't wait to hear the response.
Stay tuned, folks.
Human Events will be right back.
I'm always listening to Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
Alright, we're back here at Human Events.
I have to tell you folks, every single day the parallel economy is growing bigger and bigger.
It's powered by everyday Americans who are sick and tired of all the woke propaganda being jammed into every product they consume.
Big mobile companies, they're no different.
And for years they've been dumping millions into leftist causes, and we've had to take it because you need a cell phone.
And probably you thought there was no alternative, but now there is.
Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
It offers dependable nationwide coverage on all three major networks, so you get the best possible service in your area without the woke politics.
When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending a message that you support free speech Religious freedom, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, and our military veterans and first responder heroes.
Their 100% U.S.-based customer service team makes switching easy.
Keep your phone, keep your number two, just go to patriotmobile.com slash poso.
You'll get free activation today with promo code poso.
Ask about their guaranteed coverage while you're there.
Get the same dependable service and take a stand for your values.
Make the switch today, patriotmobile.com slash poso.
When we left, Darren, you were telling us, and I think you were being, you know, a little bit nice.
I mean, just give it to me, man.
What do you really feel about how the media has protected Ray Epps?
Don't hold back.
Right.
Well, you know, it kind of speaks for itself.
It's very strange.
At one point, Ray Epps, whose behavior was considered so egregious that he was one of the first 20 people Put on the FBI's most wanted list for January 6th.
He was prominently featured in New York Times' own ominously titled Day of Rage documentary series on January 6th.
And yet something weird happened.
Shortly after Revolver News created a national discussion about the possibility of federal involvement in January 6th, Epps's name was quietly taken off the most wanted list.
And the New York Times, which had previously used Epps to reinforce its ridiculous notion that January 6th was this pre-planned insurrection, has turned to writing fully dedicated puff pieces about Epps that don't ask any of the obvious common sense questions that would
Strike a normal person when looking at the footage of Epps's behavior and considering the context of the fact that he hasn't been charged with anything.
And so and then the full range of the media came to his defense.
And of course, as I mentioned, Adam Kinzinger, a man who spends a lot of time on all fours, who has never met a January 6th participant that he didn't want to see rotting in prison for less than 50 years.
Adam Kinzinger, it comes out in the J6 committee's interrogation of Epps, he more aggressively defends Epps than Epps' own lawyer.
So there's something very weird going on about it, not to mention just the cherry on top of all the unusual bedfellows that Epps now enjoys is his own legal representation.
Epps is being represented by a man called Michael Tater.
Who comes from deep within the bowels of the Democrat national security nexus machine.
He's an employee of the discredited and thoroughly disgraced Democrat hatchet man, David Brock.
He's also a former employee of Perkins Coy, again, a disgraced law firm, which could, I think, accurately be described as one of the laboratories out of which the hoax steel dossier was concocted.
These are the people Coming to EPS's aid.
EPS, the former Oath Keeper, the head of the Arizona Oath Keeper militia group.
The guy in camo and a Trump hat, telling people to go into the Capitol.
This is the only person they're defending.
And so I'd love to get into some of the details of the defamation lawsuit that EPS's people are slapping Fox with.
And to share some of my initial analysis on this pretty remarkable development in the Ray Epps saga.
Well, let me jump to a direct question that, and I'll credit where it's due, Julie Kelly actually pulled this out first, that there's a line deep within this defamation suit against Fox News where it says, Fox did not claim that Epps was an informant for a federal agency.
They claimed or implied that he was a federal agent.
Why are they using that very careful language and couching their statements in how they acclaim that Fox referred to Epps?
And just for the record, as a guy who used to work in that Well, yes, there are a lot of nuances there.
where an agent tasks someone to become an informant or a source or an unwitting subsource.
There's all sorts of levels of this.
Yet it seems that for Fox News, or I should say this lawsuit against Fox News, they're being very careful as to what the specific claim is.
Well, yes, there are a lot of nuances there.
And Fed is kind of a colloquial term that, you know, is not incredibly precise.
As for my own position that I've articulated, Yes.
Numerous times I'm talking about abscess.
Now, I've always maintained I don't think he is a federal agent in the sense of being a regular employee.
I think it's very possible that he doesn't even work directly for the federal government in any sense, although he was leaning very heavily on this concept of law enforcement, denying being involved in law enforcement with leaves open a lot of possibilities military intelligence, DHS, a lot of other things.
It could be a private cutout that's acting in some capacity at the direction of a federal organization, or it could simply be a third party group.
The only thing that I've maintained is overwhelmingly likely given the pattern of facts is that Ray Epps is being protected, and that I think it's overwhelmingly likely given
His behavior and the inconsistencies in his statements that he's not acting or that in opinion he was acting in concert with some third party and that he is being protected and defended by unusual bedfellows because he was acting on behalf of some third party that could be connected with the federal government.
That's my opinion and I think that's the most logical explanation of the fact pattern we see.
As to the question of whether he's a federal agent, informant, and so forth, this is an interesting thing to consider in light of defamation law as such.
Remember, this is a defamation claim, and we have a very, very important piece up right now at revolver.news, which is our sort of first definitive pass on what's going on here with the Fox suit.
Remember, this is a suit technically right now, Just against Fox.
Even though I am named prominently as the chief originator of the EPS reporting, which I am and proudly so, and Tucker is of course thoroughly mentioned, neither Tucker nor myself nor Revolver News are defendants in this claim.
It's just Fox.
I should ask, do you expect to be?
Have you received any notification?
Anything like that?
Well, I know that in an initial volley, so to speak, from EPSA's counsel, that he demanded that Tucker Carlson preserve his communications, assuming there are any communications with me regarding this matter.
I've been prominently mentioned in all of these kind of legal proceedings.
So I think it's overwhelmingly likely that at some point they would go after me.
But the strategic question here is interesting because Fox News, as we know from the Dominion settlement, is a soft target.
And Fox News, I think, will likely settle this case.
Not only because they're a soft target, but because in settling this case, they are kind of indirectly reinforcing their own narrative that Tucker was a liability and therefore they were justified in firing him.
So it serves their interest in multiple ways.
And such a settlement would also allow regime journalists to incorrectly portray this issue as a settled legal matter, to say that, oh, this has been discredited in court, which it hasn't.
And of course, if Fox is willing to settle, which I think they will be, Fox won't play hardball and demand discovery on the side of EPS, which could be a concern.
So there is a certain
Case to be made that they just want Fox and not go after Tucker and me But given the political hatchet men involved given that his legal representation comes from David Brock It's not just about money probably for EPS It's about money, but for the people who are representing and helping him in this fashion It's about politically kneecapping Tucker Carlson and myself so I think it's quite likely that after they get a settlement from Fox that
Um, they will come after Revolver News and Tucker Carlson.
Well, this is, and, and, and since, uh, you know, the Alex Jones settlement, or I should say the Alex Jones case, this has clearly been the favorite tactic.
Uh, we've only got about a minute left.
I understand you have a hard out, but I want to ask, uh, just briefly, what is your, what is your reaction to this revelation deep buried deep within this, that apparently EPS is now facing charges.
Well, I don't know if that's accurate.
First of all, I find it remarkable, if it is true, that the DOJ did Ray Epps the courtesy of notifying him in advance of a potential indictment.
I don't think that's a very typical procedure for January 6th defendants, certainly not ones that meet the egregious standards that Ray Epps has.
To my knowledge, he hasn't yet been charged, so we'll have to see how that plays out.
If he is charged, I would say it's very suspicious timing.
Why wait two and a half years?
There's certainly an element of doing this in order to undermine the claims of Revolver and others that there might be something else going on.
I think it would just make it look more suspicious.
And it could be, if rumors are true, and I think there's some credibility to it, that there's a forthcoming indictment of Trump for January 6th things.
They might be self-aware enough to know that it would look really ridiculous to bend over backwards for a sham indictment of Trump when someone like Ray Epps, Absolutely.
Well, Darren, I know you've got to run.
Everyone go follow Darren Beattie.
His reporting brought us to where we are today.
Revolver.News.
Make sure you're following Darren Beattie.
Stay tuned.
We're going to go through all of this.
I encourage people to, if you're interested in foreign policy, you've got to follow Jack Masovic.
All right, folks, Jack Posobiec live here, Human Events, West Palm Beach.
We're down here, by the way, for Turning Point Action kicks off this weekend.
But I want to remind you that even when we're on travel, and when you travel like I do, when you travel like Poso, you got to be energized like Poso.
And how is Poso energized?
How is Human Events powered?
It's through our friends at Blackout Coffee, all with the power of Blackout Coffee.
BlackoutCoffee.com promo code POSO20 is how you can get 20% off of your first order.
Now, if you want to go ahead and get the subscription, so that's three bags of coffee per month that comes in.
Honestly, some people, three bags of coffee might not be enough per month.
I don't know, for me, I might need four bags in a month.
Just saying, just saying, and that's only one cup a day.
All right, that's one cup.
I don't do two, I don't do three, I don't do more than that.
I do one cup a day, but I'm just saying.
Sometimes, you know, I pack a fat load, you know, pack a fat load.
There's not, that's not, we're not talking about fat packing, other types of fat packing, no, no, no, no, no.
This is just about blackout coffee.
So when you want to pack out your fat load of blackout coffee, go to blackoutcoffee.com and use promo code POSO20 for 20% off your first order.
All right, so we've got up this case, this new lawsuit, Ray Epps, but there's more than just that because this is going on also at the FBI.
The FBI and Chris Ray, they're up there at this hearing, and I gotta say, I appreciate the enthusiasm of the committee to want to go after Chris Wray, to want to hold him accountable, and to want to go after the FBI.
But having the man simply sit there and answer questions isn't enough.
You must take deliberate action.
You must talk about cutting the FBI's budget or demanding radical changes within the FBI before you will sign off on budget appropriations, before you go in for budget increases, salary increases, promotions, etc.
Look what Tuberville, look what Senator Tuberville is doing over there holding up flag officer ranks.
For the U.S.
military.
By himself, he has been able to show how one man can have that much of an effect.
And if I could say anything to the House GOP, I'd say, go and look at Tommy Tuberville energy right there.
He might also be powered by blackout coffee, now that I think about it.
When I see how much energy he has, I'm thinking, that might be some blackout coffee energy that Tommy Tuberville has.
But, This is how you have to use command by negation.
You have to go to the FBI and say, look, we know we can't change your internal policies, but we do control the purse strings.
And if you want to continue being funded, then you are going to make these specific changes.
You're also going to allow congressional investigators to get up in your grill.
I want congressional investigators to go in Go hire Kash Patel.
Go have him come in.
Devin Nunez, Derek Harvey, all these guys.
Get the entire squad back.
Get the entire squad back.
And send them in there and have them actually crack open.
Give them the clearances, whatever they need.
Have them go in there and have them just start pulling files.
Just start straight pulling files.
And you say, oh, you don't like it?
Oh, you don't like it?
Well, then guess what?
No money.
No money.
How about that?
You have to play hardball with these people.
And simply letting him up there to answer questions and then let him off the hook is not good enough.
It's not enough.
It's good.
All right.
I'm not saying it's bad.
It is good.
But I'm saying I want to see more.
Now back to the question of Ray Epps.
They did actually ask him at one point about Ray Epps yesterday.
We've got the clip for you.
Let's play it.
Now look into the camera, sir, when you answer my next question.
Are you going to arrest Mr. Epps, yes or no?
I'm not going to engage here in a discussion about individual people who are or are not going to be prosecuted.
Okay, here we go.
Can I get a commitment?
You just watched the video.
I'm an old law dog.
I understand a little bit about probable cause.
He did very little, there was very little difference what he did and Mr. Strecker, you can see him.
He's encouraging, I almost think he's inciting a riot.
Chris Ray's packing fat loads, too.
I think Chris Ray probably packed a couple of fat loads before he went up on air.
Hey, hey, it's legal in DC, right?
I think, I actually don't know about that.
Chris, just remember, when the bag of cocaine is there, you're not supposed to huff the entire thing at once.
Just FYI.
Probably ask some of your other agents.
They'll know about that.
Listen to this, though.
From the lawsuit.
Okay, so here's that's what Chris Ray said about Ray Epps up there.
Are you going to arrest me?
I'm not going to get engaged in that.
Okay, from the lawsuit.
In May 2023, the Department of Justice notified Epps that it would seek to charge him criminally for events on January 6 2021, two and a half years later, the relentless attacks by Fox and Mr. Carlson, the resulting political pressure likely resulted in the criminal charges.
Although it is difficult to believe the Department of Justice would have pursued this matter, if Fox had not focused on its lies on Epps, again, reading from the lawsuit, ultimately, the criminal charges conclusively demonstrated the falsehood of the story that Mr. Carlson and Fox told about Epps.
So it's it's interesting to me that the The DOJ is using the criminal charges on Epps to give their lawyers an out to say, well, he couldn't possibly have been a Fed.
Why?
Look, we are charging him.
So if we're charging him, he couldn't possibly be a Fed.
Look, Do you know what happens, and I'm not going to say this about RayApps directly, but do you know what happens anytime you want to insert a confidential informant into an organization?
What's the very first thing you do?
The very first thing you do when you're inserting a confidential informant into an organization is you arrest them.
Of course you arrest them.
You arrest them, you make sure that everybody around sees it, and then you bring them in Then you talk to him for a while, you ask him how he's doing, you ask him if he's got any information for you, you ask him what's going on, and then you send him back out.
So that's the very first thing you do.
Why?
To establish credibility.
You want to establish the credibility.
Now, obviously, that isn't the case.
But look, I've said this every time that I watch that footage, you know, and I bring it up and down again when I talk about Ray Epps, and I'll just say it again.
I was there January 5th.
2020 in Freedom Square the night before this is the night when he was telling people going around Freedom Square telling people actually spoke right so I'm you can see me on stage speaking at the event I spoke predominantly about the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping did my you know speaking in Mandarin gimmick and then
I saw people on top of the, you know, on top of the wall standing there at the barrister looking down banister and then I remember seeing these people with megaphones and people with ponchos and green ponchos yelling to the crowd.
They weren't going in, they were talking to the crowd.
They were specifically there working in concert, an organized group of people.
To urge people to go into the Capitol.
They were saying, you got to go in your enemies in there, not out here.
You got to go in.
You made it this far.
Don't stop here.
Don't go.
And, and 99.9% of the crowd.
And I remember seeing this middle-aged couple with, they're wearing MAGA hats.
They're carrying little American flags, waving it around.
And this guy's screaming in their face to go in, go in.
And they had no intention to go in.
They were so confused.
They were saying, and you could see it on their faces, this idea that they had come to protest the government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment right, by the way.
First Amendment right.
They were there to participate in the rally that President Trump had held at the Ellipse.
Okay, so this is after the Ellipse.
And there was another rally that was going to take place on the other side of the Capitol directly outside the Supreme Court, which was permitted that day.
By the way, permitted on the back of the Capitol building.
And I'll never forget what I saw that day.
And I went on War Room the next day, or maybe even been that afternoon, and I said, look, I saw agitators.
And I remember in those first 24 hours, people kept saying, Jack, was it Antifa?
Pozo, was it Antifa?
We know it was Antifa.
It must have been Antifa.
And I said, look, I don't have any evidence that it was Antifa.
They certainly weren't dressed like Antifa, but they were agitators of a certain sort.
And then we find out later on, and this has come out publicly, that we know there have been multiple federal informants that were in the crowd.
So as to the very fine question, and the very specific question, was Ray Epps a Fed?
As Darren Beattie told you, that doesn't necessarily mean he was on the payroll of the federal government and working as an 1811 special agent.
1811, that's Secret Service, NCIS, FBI.
That doesn't entirely mean that.
But was he being run by a federal agency of some sort?
And when I say run, I mean handled.
Was he being handled?
Was somebody whispering into him?
Go read the text messages from the Michigan militia plot that were leaked from their FBI handler.
Who was telling them get as many people into the van as you can have as many people show up for the van ride.
You got to get him in the van ride.
And then what did they do?
They went to DOJ and they said that the van ride was an action taken to do perform surveillance of Governor Whitner's summer home this cabin.
And everyone who was in the van.
Was in charge of the crime.
So the question is, what if that person then went and talked to somebody else and said, Oh, here's what we have to do.
Well, is he saying that, or is he saying that because he wants to get someone set up for a federal prosecution?
This is known by the way, in, uh, online as fed posting, no fed posting around here, folks, no fed posting, but It's very interesting to me that Ray Epps stated in this lawsuit, or his lawyer stated on his behalf, that he wasn't a federal agent, but they said it doesn't matter if he was an informant.
They specifically walk away and try to defuse the claim, preemptively defuse the claim about being an informant.
Something smells rotten here, folks.
Absolutely rotten.
Okay, look, so over the break, I'm getting the producers, they're blowing me up, they're saying, Jack, you can't say packing fat loads.
You can't say that.
You can't talk about that on air.
You can't bring that up.
I said, why not?
I said, I was packing fat loads.
No, no, no, none of that stuff.
Not like Hunter Biden.
I'm talking about coffee.
I'm packing fat loads of coffee.
I'm saying when I go to my coffee machine, I reach for my blackout coffee, whether it's the extreme, brutal awakening, whichever one it is, then I go in, I load it up.
I'm like six scoops, right?
You know, like tablespoons, right?
So six spoons.
And it's, you know, sometimes, sometimes if I'm feeling like a little, you know, I was feeling like a little bit like, ah, I had to wake up early, got a flight or something, I might pack a fat load.
Talking about I'm packing fat loads.
You say, you can't say that on TV.
I've said it.
What are you going to do about it?
I said it.
What are you going to do about it?
But folks, when it comes to this idea of Ray Epps, I think people have potentially, and Tucker, to my knowledge, has not yet responded to this.
He'll be appearing tomorrow at the Iowa Freedom Leader Presidential Forum, and we know he'll be the moderator of that.
And it would be very interesting to me to see, will Tucker ask questions of January 6th to the presidential candidates that are going to be up on that stage?
So we know Governor DeSantis will be there, I believe Tim Scott will be there, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, basically all the main candidates other than the actual frontrunner, President Trump himself.
Also, I announced on Twitter this morning, I'll say it for you guys here, that I will also be appearing At the Iowa Family Leader Presidential Forum.
I'm going to be doing some commentary, some analysis live on the stream with The Blaze.
So I'll be there and rip rare and some flying here from Palm Beach to do that.
Then I'm going to fly back for the remainder of America.
Excuse me, not America Fest.
America Fest is later in the year.
I'm so excited for America Fest.
I keep talking about it, but that'll be Coming up in December.
No, this is Turning Point at Con, and so we're down here at the Convention Center.
We have the Thought Crime Show that's later tonight, so I'll be on main stage for that with, and I think, I don't know, this has been announced yet.
I didn't actually see if Charlie said it publicly, so I'm gonna just, I'm gonna just say it.
I'm gonna just say it.
Tonight we have a special guest on ThoughtCrime, Mr. James Lindsay.
Dr. James Lindsay will be joining us for ThoughtCrime.
So, boom!
Rocking that out.
Folks, let me get back to the issue with Ray Epps.
And here's what I think that Darren Beatty said earlier that's going to happen.
You have to understand that President Trump is being faced with 45 potential counts in the January 6th grand jury.
Jack Smith The special prosecutor has a grand jury that is currently meeting separate from the one down the street from me here in Miami.
Separate from that one, there's going to be another, right?
There's going to be another grand jury in Washington, D.C.
Now, down here in Southern Florida, you can pull a jury together and if you get those 12 members of the jury, There's a very good chance that you'll get a Trump supporter there.
Trump is blowing it out in Miami-Dade.
Trump has those base Cubans.
Remember?
Cubanos pasados.
If you get them on the jury, at least one, one or two, you're solid.
But in Washington, D.C., Jack Smith knows that's not the case.
Because look, I've sat in trial after trial in D.C., whether it's Paul Manafort, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, General Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
They want, by the way, Julian Assange to be there.
You know that that jury is going to be a bunch of libs.
It's going to be hardline, politicized, liberal, left-wingers, people who watch CNN, MSNBC, that read the New York Times, that read CNN.
That is it.
That's the only place, or read Washington Post, that's the only place they get their news.
That's their entire worldview.
They do not step out of it.
Why is Smith doing this?
So here's the trick.
The trick is, If they can put charges on Epps, what they'll do is they'll say that Epps and the Proud Boys and Stuart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers and all of these various entities on January 6th Committed actions that constitute an insurrection.
And the reason they'll call it an insurrection is very simple.
Because they want to charge President Trump with seditious conspiracy.
And by charging him with seditious conspiracy, if they can get this conviction, which this is why I walked you through the jury pool, it's so important to understand the jury pool, because the jury pool is what determines the outcome, ultimately, not the judge.
Okay, it's called voir dire, etc.
But if it's all liberals, then voir dire doesn't really matter.
So voir dire matters a lot in the Miami case, but in DC, honestly, I'm just gonna say it, it doesn't matter as much.
The jury selection process, voir dire.
So what do you do?
Well, if you're Jack Smith, and you're the Democrats, and you're the Biden administration, the Biden DOJ, what do you do?
You've got to charge a bunch of low-level people, and then work your way up to the mastermind.
Work your way up to the top.
Work your way up to Tony Soprano himself, right?
Remember, it's their worldview.
This is the New York Times worldview.
And they want to charge Trump with seditious conspiracy, which as we've laid out on the program, I think I'm the only person on the right who's actually said this.
The reason they want to charge him with seditious conspiracy is so that it will trigger the disqualification clause of the 14th amendment and disqualify him for holding future federal office.
Now, more people have been talking about this, and I appreciate that.
But that's going to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court better rule properly on this.
And so what they're attempting to do is push all this forward before the election.
Now, if you go down and look at what President Trump's lawyers have done with the Eileen Cannon case, that's the one that's down, the classified documents case down at Mar-a-Lago, which honestly should actually be called the Mar-a-Lago case, because remember, We don't know if these were classified documents.
His defense all along has been that they were declassified and his actions under the Presidential Records Act of taking those documents, signing off on them to be sent to Mar-a-Lago was a de facto act of declassification and a de facto recognition of those documents and items and mementos and whatever else he took when he packed up the Oval Office.
That were then sent down to Mar-a-Lago was completely legal because he owns those documents.
He possesses them under the Presidential Records Act.
So what they're trying to do now, the lawyers, and I think they should do this, and I think it's right, they've now positioned and petitioned the judge to push back that trial to 2025.
They need to push that trial until after the election.
Why?
Because these charges never should have been brought in the middle of an election.
Just think of the logistics.
He's going to be running for office The Iowa caucuses will be going on while he's on trial?
And Maggie Haberman's up there, when they put her on CNN, saying, oh, well, yeah, think of it, the Iowa caucus voters will be arriving and the caucus goers will be there at the same time.
Trump won't be in Iowa.
He'll be down in Miami.
He'll be facing lawyers.
He'll be facing witnesses.
He'll be facing testimony.
She's given away the secrets.
She's given away the entire playbook.
She said, Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Mags.
You say on the quiet part out loud, you're trying to rig the election, or at least they're trying to rig the election.
I'm not saying Maggie is, but they're trying to rig the election by holding the trial concurrently with the primaries.
Because they've seen the polls, we've all seen the polls.
Not only is Trump demolishing every single other Republican challenger, but go look at the swing state polls that are dropping today.
He's up in swing state after swing state after swing state across the country.
Tied in Michigan.
And so they know the only thing they have left is their ability to use the courts.
They're going straight to the legal process.
They're going straight to the courts.
This is how they're trying to stop the resurgence and the return of Donald Trump and the populist nationalist MAGA movement into the power halls of Washington D.C.
They know that if they can just get enough people to push harder on this, enough people to flip, then they can win.
Stay tuned, we'll go through this more.
"Human Events" continues. - When I grew up in the hood, I rolled with bloods, and them boys had a saying.
You can't be listening to all that slappy whack, trim out his outlet to bam ship, nippy bam bam, like "Human Events" with Jack Posobiec.
Okay, we're back.
We're very excited to have joining us here for the final segment of Human Events.
We've got Will Scharf.
He's a candidate for Missouri Attorney General.
Just came off of a huge event up there in Missouri with Senator Josh Hawley and others who were there.
Will, I've got to get your thoughts on this, by the way, this idea.
And I know you've been outspoken on it as well.
The timing of this trial.
Do you agree with my thesis?
Does it seem like they actually want this trial to be running As the votes are being cast?
Yeah, I mean, that's exactly what Jack Smith, the special counsel's plan clearly was all along, that they wanted this trial to kick off in December, which just thinking about the timeline would probably make that trial run into January as voters are literally going to the polls in Iowa and elsewhere.
At the end of the day, this is a complicated case.
It's a complicated case legally, as you were saying before the break, in terms of the intersection of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act.
It's also a complicated case factually.
Discovery in this case, the unclassified portions of discovery that have already been turned over, amount to over 800,000 pages of documents, terabytes and terabytes of video recordings and other data.
The idea that any defendant, much less a guy like Trump who's out campaigning to be president, could be prepared for trial in just a couple months, it's insane.
I think Jack Smith is gaslighting the court.
and gaslighting really the United States of America with the way that he's behaved and the filings that his team has already made in this case.
And I think President Trump's move to get this pushed until after the election makes sense legally, makes sense factually.
It was the right move for his legal team.
And my guess is they'll be successful with it.
So this idea then that that that, you know, she will be able to the judge there.
I think Cannon will be able to push that off.
It just take the politics out of it for a second.
Right.
And I think And I think most people, even moderates, hopefully, would be able to agree that this Isn't the sort of thing that we usually do during a presidential election.
But just in a normal case, when you let's say that this was this wasn't President Trump, that it was somebody else.
When you have this much volume of data, this many terabytes of video, is this normal, this timeline that they're setting out right now?
Or is this aggressive?
No, there's nothing normal about it.
I mean, when Jack Smith announced charges in this case, he tried to push to have a trial even earlier than this.
There's just no physical way for Trump's defense team to review the discovery materials that have been turned over to them in the time that Smith and his team have have pushed the court.
It's crazy.
I mean, you know, I was a prosecutor.
I did violent crime work here in St. Louis.
I had pretty simple carjackings and bank robberies take way more time to get to trial than this case without any of the stakes, without any of the public issues, without any of the real legal arguments that are going to have to play out, both at the trial court stage and probably on appeal as well.
So, So again, I think this is Jack Smith being really disingenuous with the way he's handling this case both in terms of scheduling and also just in terms of his team's public statements about the nature and complexity of the case.
Well, and when I look at some of this, too, and keep in mind, this is something that, publicly, we have not been able to see any of these videos.
We haven't had time to look at this.
We were talking about, you know, January 6th earlier in the program.
And that's a case where we've seen some of the closed circuit videos.
But even that has been almost like pulling teeth from Congress.
When it comes to this one, we've not seen any of these videos.
And yet they're charging Will Nauta and some of these staffers.
Oh, he moved the box from this building to this building.
But they don't.
And then they had redacted in the affidavit that when he was moving the boxes around, he was being escorted by the Secret Service as they were executing the subpoena that had been handed down.
I mean, it speaks to what you say about this gaslighting, because when they finally get the redactions out, you see, well, suddenly it's like, oh, they weren't complying.
Actually, they were complying, and the Secret Service was helping them comply.
So when you talk about this gaslighting from a prosecutorial standpoint, is that something that we're not used to seeing, or is this the same type of tactic that you would consider Jack Smith to use on other cases?
Well, look, it goes beyond even what you're saying, Jack, that when you look at what Jack Smith's team has been doing, We've seen a steady stream of leaks that I would assume come from people on his team about you know these recordings of Trump talking about documents and Other aspects of the case.
And when you dig down, they're trying to establish a public narrative.
They're trying to shape their jury pool in a way that's totally antithetical to the way that prosecutors are trained to bring cases.
They're playing to the public.
They're playing to the mainstream media peanut gallery instead of letting their legal arguments just carry their own weight in court.
And I think the reason for that is that they know that there are serious legal deficiencies as well as factual deficiencies.
Will, I know you've got to run.
We've only got about a minute left here.
Incredible legal analysis.
Missouri, obviously, if you're successful, I think would be well-served to have you as the Attorney General.
seen from Jack Smith and his team. - Will, I know you got to run.
We've only got a bit of a minute left here.
Incredible legal analysis, Missouri, obviously, if you're successful, I think would be well served to have you as the attorney general.
Where can people go to follow you and get more information about the campaign? - Sure, you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Truth Social, just @WillSharff.
And our website is www.votesharff.com.
Really appreciate you having me on, Jack.
Thank you, Will.
No, I appreciate that.
Folks, that is the legal analysis that you need.
And look, let me bring this back around.
We played a clip of Rush Limbaugh at the top of the show today saying that I, now he's talking about Mueller and he said, I don't care what Mueller does to Trump.
The people that voted for him are not going to leave him.
And why?
And Rush explained it.
In the way that only Rush can.
Because Rush understood the people.
That's what made Rush tick.
For as much as Rush talked, right?
You know, he talked for three hours a day, five days a week.
He listened.
He listened to the people and he said, they view Donald Trump as their man fighting back against the crooked establishment for them.
And they are never going to leave him.
No matter what Mueller does.
I think that's the same thing you're seeing here.
With each act of transparent aggression, Trump's base only becomes more committed.
This is why, and you see all the headlines out there, donors sour on DeSantis, DeSantis needs a reset, DeSantis going out to the Hamptons to huddle with donors, etc, etc.
That's part of it, but you're also missing the bigger picture.
