All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2024 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
48:24
EPISODE 713: BIDEN SENDS MERRICK GARLAND TO WARN CONGRESSMEN - BLOCK FISA AMENDMENT

Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiecSave up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSOGo to https://www.patriotmobile.com/poso/ or call 878-PATRIOT to get free activation with offer code POSODetox from your phone today with SLNT. Go to https://SLNT.COM/POSO. Use promocode POSO to save 15% plus free shipping on qualifying orders.Support the Show.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the Pozo 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 Pozo.
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.
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran, This is Human Events with your host Jack Posobiec.
Deliver us from evil!
By freeing millions of Americans from this crushing debt of student debt it means they can finally get on with their lives instead of their lives being put on hold.
Today I'm proud to announce five major actions to continue to relieve student debt for more than 30 million Americans.
Israel reportedly bracing for an attack by Iran in the next 48 hours.
The Wall Street Journal citing a source who says a direct attack on Israel could be launched today or tomorrow.
While plans for an attack are still under discussion, no final decision has been made yet by Iran.
The U.S.
Embassy in Jerusalem has restricted travel for staff members and their families.
Iran has publicly threatened to retaliate against Israel for that airstrike last week on a diplomatic building in Syria.
O.J.
Simpson, the former football star who was accused of killing his ex-wife and her boyfriend, has died.
The House is expected to vote today on a bill that would extend U.S.
authority to spy on foreigners who are located abroad without a search warrant.
A national security official says the program is essential for gathering intelligence and fighting terrorism.
The House will also vote on an amendment that would require a warrant if the government wants to review information on U.S.
citizens gathered during foreign investigations.
We've seen a rogue's gallery of foreign terrorist organizations calling for attacks on us.
Now is not the time to take away tools that we need to punch back.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board created by the 9-11 Commission Act of 2007 says that our amendment is consistent with what should happen.
Our amendment is consistent with the majority recommendation of that board.
This was a board specifically created to protect Americans' liberties, looking at how the intelligence community operates, and by the 9-11 Commission Act of 2007, and they say this amendment, the majority of that board said this amendment is what needs to happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily, live from Washington, D.C.
Today is April 12, 2024.
Anno Domini.
The FISA bill is going through, folks.
It's going through.
The reauthorization is happening.
But here's what's interesting.
Here is what's interesting.
212 to 212, the Biggs Amendment has failed.
What was the Biggs Amendment?
Well, I'm in a unique position to talk about this because as a prior Navy intelligence officer, someone who had FISA access, someone who understood very clearly how these programs work, not just the abuses that we saw from President Trump, it's very simple.
In FISA collection, if you're read into FISA, you've got access to communications from U.S.
persons.
There is no check on it whatsoever, which means that if that's collected, boom, you've got a copy of it sitting right there anytime you want to make a query.
Then this amendment came up for people to say, particularly the Freedom Caucus, but also Jayapal and others came in for it, and they said, look, If we are going to put forward this amendment, we want FISA.
We want the ability, and when they say that, they mean they want the ability for the government, for the feds, to go after bad guys, okay?
What 702 allows is for the queries of that database for U.S.
persons that are collected through what's called the two-hop maneuver and also incidental collection.
That means, most famously, and we talked about the other day with Senator Johnson, General Flynn, when he was on the phone with the Russian ambassador.
Here's what's even bigger than that.
This thing failed 2-12 to 2-12, and in a tie, it's done.
It means it doesn't pass.
Who did the White House send out in order to make sure that this thing failed?
Merrick Garland.
In fact, Merrick Garland was making phone calls to members of the House, and we don't have the full list yet, and we're gonna get it.
Oh, I believe you.
We're gonna get it.
He was making phone calls to the House from the head of the Biden DOJ.
The head of the regime DOJ was making phone calls, and people know when you get a phone call like that.
When Merrick Garland calls and says, we're going to make you an offer.
The same Merrick Garland that's sending patriots to the gulags of DC.
He says, excuse me, Congressman, the call's for you.
We know exactly what that is.
That's intimidation.
That's a warning.
That is a threat.
Vote this way on 702.
Vote this way on the Biggs Amendment.
Or else.
Remember those pictures from a couple of years back?
Remember that party you were at a couple years ago?
Be a real shame if those photos got leaked to your wife's divorce lawyer, or I don't know, maybe the pages of the Washington Post.
Or you simply say, look, you saw what happened to General Flynn.
You wouldn't want to be the next one now, would you?
And then boom!
Right like that.
The government, right in front of our eyes, will continue to be able to listen to Americans conversations without even a warning.
That's your country right now, folks.
And they get mad at me for calling them on humans.
Stay tuned, we'll be right back.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of the best ways that you can support us here at Human Events and the work that we do is subscribing to us on our Rumble channel.
Make sure you're subscribed, you hit the notifications, so you'll never miss a clip, you'll never miss a new live episode, and we're putting them out every single day of the week.
But I got a hankering, yearning deep inside.
For this book called Unhumans, I just can't hide.
Jack Persovic back live here, Human Events Daily, Washington, D.C., Folks, for 10 years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
When I say only, trust me, they're the only one.
Glenn and the team have been great supporters of human events.
That's why I'm proud to partner with them.
Patriot Mobile offers dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all three major networks, which means you get the same coverage you've been accustomed to without funding the left.
When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending the message that you support free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life, Second Amendment, and our military veteran and first responder heroes.
Their 100% U.S.-based customer service team makes switching easy.
So keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade.
Their team will help you find the best plan for your needs.
Just go to www.patriotmobile.com slash poso get free activation when you use promo code poso join me make the switch today www.patriotmobile.com slash poso that is www.patriotmobile.com slash poso I want to play a clip now from Tom Klingenstein chairman of the Claremont Institute talking about the current situation that we find ourselves in and as you listen to this I want you to think about the fact two things two things right now
Number one, the government is going to get reauthorization of FISA 702, which means warrantless wiretapping will continue.
Number two, on Monday morning, barring anything crazy that happens over the weekend, Donald Trump is going to be going to trial on Monday morning in New York City.
Take a listen.
It's time for Republicans, including those who doubt him or even can't stand him, to get behind him.
The times demand it.
We are in a war fighting an enemy of revolutionaries that kick and spit on America.
I call our enemy the woke regime or the group quota regime.
This war is a contest between those who love America and those who hate it.
But we do not have a commander-in-chief.
You can't win a war without one.
We shouldn't much care whether our commander-in-chief is a real conservative.
Whether he is a role model for children, or whether he is modest or dignified, what we should care about is whether he knows we are in a war, knows who the enemy is, and knows how to win.
Trump does.
We need to know how to defeat the enemy.
Defeat the unhumans.
Defeat the people that are doing this and pushing this.
We've got Merrick Garland.
Think about that.
What happens?
What happens when you get that phone call?
What would you do?
If you're some congressman, this is how these operations work by the way, if you're some congressman If you're, uh, you know, some individual who's been up on Capitol Hill for a long time.
It's not just congressmen, too, by the way.
Oh, they got senators.
They got all of it.
Staffers, lobbyists.
And then the phone call comes in.
Sir, it's for you.
Yeah.
And then you hear the voice on the other end.
Merrick Garland.
And he informs you how you're going to be voting.
Now, I'm not saying that that's what happens in all of these cases.
In many of these cases, look, I've been back behind.
Again, I've been on the other side of the table of this stuff.
That you know for some of these congressmen particularly the ones who are shall we say less sophisticated uh world travelers that they get mystified they get caught up in the mystique of signals collection they get caught up wow you can really do that wow you can you can use satellites and you can do this you can track someone's cell phone oh my goodness gracious wow And they think that, you know, if you don't have any of these protections, that there's going to be no way to stop bad guys.
There's going to be no way to do this whatsoever.
Well, fortunately, you know, it's not the sophistication that's the issue.
We actually have incredible technology.
We have incredible signal collection.
The issue is we don't have any controls on it.
We don't have any controls whatsoever.
This is what we learned through all of Russiagate.
This is what Amanda Milius and Lee Smith and Devin Nunes and Kash Patel and everyone put together with the plot against the president.
Remember, It was the warrantless wiretapping of General Flynn that started all this.
Why did they go after Flynn first, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency?
Because Flynn was one of them.
Flynn knew where the bodies were buried.
Flynn, and I'll never forget that picture of Flynn right there at the table with Comey Clapper, you remember this one?
And they're all sitting there talking about Brennan.
They're all sitting there about to testify.
And it was the other three, turn on this one, Chuck Schumer.
Chuck Schumer said this publicly.
He said Donald Trump all the way back in 2017, Donald Trump shouldn't criticize the intel agencies because they've got six waves from Sunday to get back at you.
It's the only time that Chuck Schumer has ever told the truth.
And I can tell.
Maybe there's some others.
I don't know.
Understand folks, this is the current situation that we are in.
If you want to get out of this situation, if you want to take your country back, if you want to have actual freedom and actual liberties, well it turns out That you can't have them when there is a junta in Washington D.C., when you have people like Merrick Garland who have made it their just personal vendetta, personal jihad against Republicans to go after them.
What have we seen?
What have we seen the Department of Justice doing from time and time again?
And these are the guys that we're supposed to trust.
These are the guys who have the keys to these tools.
These are the guys we're handing the weapons to.
That's what I'd go to any of the Republicans, not just Speaker Johnson, but every single one of them who voted against the Biggs Amendment and said, how can you say that you are critical of Merrick Garland?
How can you say that you're critical of the conduct of this Department of Justice and this FBI?
You have the ability.
Congress has the ability.
So here's what happens though.
Keep giving them the keys to these weapons.
Keep giving them the launch codes.
Keep putting them in power.
You have the ability.
Congress has the ability.
So here's what happens, though.
Because what happens if the national security agencies get leverage over Congress?
All right.
And this is something that happened in our system a long, long time ago.
It started slowly in the 1950s and it grew up in the 1960s.
And then we all know 1963 and others, it completely overtook Washington, D.C.
This is the blob that Mike Benz tells us about.
This is the power structure of D.C.
that people go to D.C.
when they first get elected.
I've seen it so many times.
You'll get these people say, I'm not going to be one of them.
I'm not going to be turned.
And then they get the call.
And then they get that call when they're in a position of power, and that call is, here's how you're going to vote.
And if you don't vote this way, here's what's going to happen.
And then all of a sudden, That same person, who maybe for years had had one position, steps up to those microphones in the house rotunda and says, you know, that program is actually a lot more important than I realized.
And now that I've got access to more intelligence, I've decided that this is what we've got to go.
And by the way, I'd love, I would absolutely love to hear anybody question me when it comes to this.
I said, guys, you know, you congressmen, I was one of the guys that worked at the agencies that was putting together the briefings that you guys even read, okay?
I, I saw this way upstream of whatever you guys get read out.
Congressmen aren't getting raw intelligence.
Extremely rare.
So don't even try me on this one.
Look.
It's very simple.
And I'm just going to say this quite directly.
I didn't expect the Bigs Amendment to pass.
I didn't actually expect it to pass.
I didn't think that they had done the work on it.
I didn't think the leverage is in place.
And who's in power right now?
This is what the Republicans need to understand.
Who has actual power?
Who has leverage in our country?
It is not you.
It is not conservatives.
It is not people on the right side of the aisle.
It is the left.
The left is in control of the institutions.
The left is in control of so many houses of power.
And even if the right feels like they're getting some power, like they're getting some traction, you don't.
Okay?
You just don't.
Not in an official capacity.
That's why you turn around and you say, why is everything falling apart?
Why is everything going so crazy?
Because there's an agenda that is being worked out day-to-day, it's the same kind of playbook that's been used for 250 years.
250 years!
Over and over.
And they never stray from this playbook because it's the only one they have.
They infiltrate, they subvert, they get in power, and then they dismantle.
You're currently in the dismantling phase.
And as they dismantle, they prop up their own regime.
Do you understand?
This is why violent criminals will be let out on the street.
It's unhuman.
They are on humans.
This is the situation that we're in because this is what they do.
This is what they always do.
So we've got the book out on humans.
People can go check it out.
But I want to explain this very carefully.
When un-humans take power, this is what they do.
This is what they've always done.
And you don't even need to go back to the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the Spanish Civil War.
No.
Go look at East Germany.
Go look at the Chinese Communist Party right now.
RIGHT NOW!
What do you think they're doing with those phones over there?
And the same surveillance that used to be done with the guy who is your political commissar is now being done with the click of a button on those thousands and thousands of Chinese intelligence screens monitoring internally their own populace.
Guess what, folks?
That's you now.
You're with Chinese Sir.
Stay tuned.
We'll be right back.
back doing events daily.
I want to know the truth, what really went down.
So I'm jumping on my computer, going to pre-order town. - It's in a mystery.
The hidden tales of the communist history.
I wanna know the truth, what really went down.
So I'm jumping on my computer.
Going to pre-order town.
Pre-ordering live humans.
Can't wait to get my hands on that book.
Gonna die then.
Jack Posobiec back live, Human Events Daily.
Folks, I got a question for you.
You're in a conversation with someone, and the next thing you know, you're getting ads for products that match whatever it exactly was that you were just talking about.
Well, between the government, big tech, corporate America, and criminals, your privacy is compromised 24-7.
And that's on top of the side effects from radiation that cell phone corporations swear is safe, and the brain-numbing effects of social media detox from your phone today with silent.
Sonnet is a light and portable Faraday sleeve for your mobile phone to protect your privacy, security, and health.
Patented silent pocket Faraday technology blocks harmful radiation and all wireless signals, giving you the peace of mind that your personal data never ends up in the wrong hands.
So go silent today, slnt.com slash poso.
Use promo code poso and save 15% plus free shipping on qualifying orders.
Look, I'm in the spotlight.
I'm challenging the government, the Klaus Schwab's, the big corporate interests.
This is on top of the left.
I have to protect my privacy at all times.
And I'm so thankful that silent was created.
Go to slnt.com slash poso.
Again, that's slnt.com slash poso.
Use promo code poso and save 15% plus free shipping on qualifying orders.
Darren Beattie.
Revolver News joins us now.
And Darren, you know, for folks out there who are surprised that the Biggs Amendment to FISA went down today, even though it was a nail biter, a real nail biter right at the end there, 212 to 212, a horse's nose is all that ended 212 to 212, a horse's nose is all that ended it.
It's interesting to me because you and I have talked about the fact that we've been living through the era of regime politics and we've been speaking about this for years now.
And the fact that Merrick Garland was making personal phone calls to members of Congress, to me, it's really just the cherry on top.
I've got to get your reaction to this.
Well, it's not surprising.
And frankly, it shows how the whole thing works.
In a way, you have to commend Garland for his alacrity and enthusiasm, and he's been doing this job for a long time.
I've spoken about him quite frequently as one of the A-list janitors for the deep state.
He's the mop-up man.
He goes all the way back to the Clinton years when he held the domestic terror portfolio and helped to Massage the narrative, as it were, when it comes to Oklahoma City and a bunch of other things that served as the pretext to clamp down on the right then.
So he's been at this game for a very long time, and he's one of the trusted officials.
And so he has a lot at stake here.
So he would be the type to make calls to congressmen.
What the implicit threats or inducements might have been in those calls, we're only able to speculate on.
I think it's interesting how a number of people had a change of heart at the last minute, including the Speaker.
Precisely.
Speaker Johnson, back when he was in the Freedom Caucus, had actually voted for a very similar amendment to this.
He had also voted for some other controls on FISA back in 2018 when all of this with Carter Page.
Absolutely.
I guess, you know, if they were totally secure, they wouldn't need to bring in the big guns, but they got it in lockstep.
had to go all the way to the Merrick Garland level, actually having the AG making these phone calls.
Perhaps that might also show that they were just a little bit worried about what that vote count was going to be.
Absolutely.
I guess, you know, if they were totally secure, they wouldn't need to bring in the big guns, but they got it in lockstep.
And so again, this is just how the thing works.
The deep state, the national security state has its own plane of operation.
And you see, you see the major players come out of the woodwork in these, in these, you know, 11th hour maneuvers.
The conversions on the road to Damascus, as it were.
So over at Revolver, you guys have, switching gears a little bit, you guys have written this really big piece regarding universities.
And obviously the universities, particularly Ivy League and our lead institutions, have become at the forefront of the culture war.
Walk us through what this piece is and sort of an interesting side Absolutely.
Major new piece generated a lot of conversation already.
It's called Campus Clash.
Risky Republican gamble to silence pro-Palestine students will push America over the edge.
So what is it in a nutshell?
Everyone should go to revolver.news and read it.
But basically, there's been a major push against universities in the aftermath of October 7th, the tragic attack in Israel and the domestic response to it.
It's awakened a lot of people who are kind of slumbering in their delusions on the center left and a lot of kind of center left Jewish people like Ackman are kind of getting involved more in politics as it becomes clear just how rabid and destructive left-wing movements and left-wing activism can really be.
And make no mistake, I know there's interesting conversation online and such, but underneath it all, the energies associated with the Palestine movement And it could be objectively analyzed in a different way with more nuances, they like to say.
But the realities are the energies really draw on this pre-existing left-wing ideology and the mobilization efforts and tactics and behavior behind it.
And so you see a lot of the same kinds of obnoxious displays with these Palestine protests, as we saw with BLM and just about any other left-wing protest.
It's the same DNA.
And so that's what you see on campuses.
And this has led to, and in part, a very justified and welcome backlash against universities.
But there's an important caveat to this.
We want to be careful about this going too far.
And you see various spokespeople come out of the woodwork who, you know, never really cared about conservative or right-wing issues before.
People like Talia Khan, but there are others coming out.
And basically, This is a great opportunity not to push for more speech codes against people we don't like, but to make a critical distinction.
order to appease all of the various groups on the university.
And I think that's very dangerous and inadvisable.
This is a great opportunity not to push for more speech codes against people we don't like, but to make a critical distinction.
We want to maximally accommodate all speech that's peacefully performed.
And we want a zero tolerance clampdown policy on anything that is truly are they safe, threatening or disruptive?
This is a golden opportunity to act on that distinction because, frankly, we don't want, you know, the disruptive behavior isn't just from the pro-Palestine groups.
We've seen disruptions for people like Charles Murray, Charlie Kirk, anyone on the right who goes to university.
Um, faces these kinds of demonstrations, we can get very violent and just shut down conversation.
That's the kind of thing that we can clamp down 100%.
And that all of these people like Ackman, conservative influencers, to be using all of the leverage here to demand zero tolerance for actual disruptive and threatening behavior, rather than saying, oh, we think we should censor this speech because it's Palestine speech or whatever.
And simply end up reinforcing the legitimacy of these speech codes, which will be embraced, will be intensified, and will be used against what minimal amount of conservative speech exists on campus in this critical election year.
So, twofold, maximize peaceful speech, absolute zero tolerance policy for disruptive behavior.
If you see people trying to shut down a speech, If threatening speech and so forth, they should be expelled on the spot.
Well, and this is so obvious, because, look, how many times have we had to deal with this, even over at Turning Point?
Riley Gaines is the most recent one that comes to mind, where people were screaming for her to be killed.
People were screaming obscenities.
They essentially performed a false arrest and kidnapping of her at one point where they had locked her in this room and were not letting her out.
Campus authorities weren't going in.
You know, this wasn't, you know, say what people want about, about, I know there's been some questions about Ronald Reagan, but this guy had no tolerance when it came for campus agitation whatsoever at Berkeley back in the 1960s.
He would send, Governor Reagan is an interesting and missing.
He gave him the FAA treatment.
He gave him the union treatment.
Exactly.
He gave him those.
He gave him the treatment.
He gave him the, the, the Pinkerton treatment too.
It's go right in and start, you know, just start arresting people left and right.
Now, I don't care if you're a student of this university.
If you're breaking the law, you're going to be arrested.
And it's as simple as that.
And I remember there's a video of him.
Not even if you're breaking the law.
I would say there should be tremendous pressure because there's leverage now.
If people are disrupting a speech, that should be automatic expulsion.
No matter who's invited to speak, no matter how controversial, they should be allowed if they're just doing their own thing and acting peacefully in accordance with the First Amendment.
That's such a critical and, as you put it, simple distinction, but it's a distinction that seems to be lost because I'm seeing a lot of people like this con individual, but also a misguided proposal by Abbott in Texas, We don't need to slap on more speech codes to these universities on our institutions.
We need to use this opportunity and this leverage to demand maximal accommodation for First Amendment protected speech and maximum pressure, to borrow a phrase, against people who disrupt peaceful speech.
It's very simple and it's very easily implemented.
If we embrace this distinction and act accordingly.
And I think that's something where, of course, you know, it's look at these, you know, we look at our newfound friends coming to us from the sort of center left world.
And of course, their first response is, well, just ban it.
Just get rid of it.
Just ban this, ban that.
And without any, you know, without any sense to what could happen in between.
We're speaking with Darren Beatty, we're talking about these issues, freedom of speech on campus, and whether or not giving these powers to administrators, to the new leaders of these elite institutions, would then be used against us, the same way that FISA and everything else that Republicans are giving to the government is being used against us.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
All right, Jack was up back live wanted to bring up and kind of switch topics here a little bit with Darren Beatty of revolver news because this news about the OJC.
Simpson, the O.J.
Simpson passing away has sort of reignited a lot of the social debate regarding the O.J.
trial.
And in fact, I believe we have a clip from CNN in terms of their reporting on it.
We've got to hear this.
It's not like O.J.
Simpson was the leader of the Civil Rights Movement in his era, you know?
He wasn't a social justice leader, but he represented something for the black community in that moment, in that trial, particularly because there were two white people who had been killed.
And the history around how black people have been persecuted during slavery, there were just so many layers.
And I guess I would just close with this, is that There was racial tension then, there is racial tension now.
It might not be the backdrop of the Trump campaign, but until this country is ready to actually have an honest conversation about the racial dynamics from our origin story till today, we will always have moments like O.J.
Simpson that manifest and our country will always be divided if we don't actually deal with the issue of race.
The issue of race as pertains to O.J.
Simpson and saying that the black community can relate to O.J.
Simpson because he killed two white people.
That's CNN.
Darren, what is she talking about?
You know, I always loved these things with Ashley Allison.
I'd never heard of her before, but you know, She's interchangeable with a whole industry of people just like this who are given the same talking points and spout the same platitudes.
And one of those platitudes is, oh, it's time that we need an honest conversation about race.
If we only had an honest conversation about race.
First of all, if our country was allowed to have an honest conversation about race, she wouldn't have a job, probably.
If we were allowed to have an honest conversation about race, the whole edifice of the post-World War II order in the United States would completely collapse.
So I just find it rich because it's one of these semi-frequent talking points of these people like this, the people who are only elevated to the prominent positions they're in because The United States is like the chief actuating goal of America in the past 50 years has been to prevent an ominous conversation about race and destroy anyone who attempts to begin one.
To say, oh, now we need an honest conversation about race.
So that was the first thing that struck me.
But the O.J.
thing really was an interesting inflection point in our culture.
I'm old enough.
I remember actually watching the trial live.
I was I was young, but I did watch it live.
I remember it as well.
Yeah, I lived at the time I lived in some pure Pacific island called Palau, but we did get live CNN.
Then that was the Ted Turner days.
And yeah, I was watching and everyone was watching it.
So it was All these kinds of interesting nostalgic elements of there being enough of a monoculture that it was really the thing that everyone was watching.
That was an interesting meta component to it.
But there was also a cultural component in the verdict.
You know, a lot of white people watching this who thought, okay, he's definitely guilty, he's definitely guilty, the justice system will deliver, was kind of a rude awakening insofar as these comfortable delusions and pretty lies that have sustained a lot of people to look and to hear that verdict and have those lies just smashed to the ground in such a dramatic way, was a kind of rude awakening that maybe lasted for
a day for people, and then they went back to their illusions.
But for those who were able to stick with the revelation there, it was really one of the initial throws of a transformation that has been in the works for a long time, and that's really kind of culminating right now, has reached a new point of intensity. and that's really kind of culminating right now, has reached And that is that the rule of law, as we understand it, the rule of law going back to its traditions in the common law.
Now, we did a major, really interesting piece at Revolver a while back about the jury system and what it means to have a jury of one's peers, which is actually, there's a whole fascinating history to that, going back to medieval times and Magna Carta and so forth.
But the long story short is the legal system as the founders envisaged it, As it is rooted in the common law history in England, is really incompatible with the racial spoils system and patronage dynamics that animate the kind of multicultural empire that we've...
And Darren, it's interesting you mention the jury system because we've actually pulled an interview with someone who was one of the jurors on the trial.
Let's play that clip, guys.
Do you think that they're members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?
Yes.
You do?
Yes.
How many of you think felt that way?
Oh, probably 90%.
90%?
Did you feel that way?
Yes.
That was payback?
Uh huh.
You think that's right?
Payback for Rodney King.
And so for for people who don't know the the history here of the 1990s, in Rodney King's, the Rodney King case was a case where this guy had been sort of the George Floyd of the 1990s in many ways.
And the police officer is officers who attacked Rodney King He was not killed.
He was he was beaten and there's a tape of it and And police officers were later acquitted, not to go down the rabbit hole of that entire case.
But the city of Los Angeles erupted in massive riots that led to extreme violence.
The actual U.S.
military was deployed to Los Angeles to quell the uprising.
That's how bad it got.
That's how bad the LA riots were 32 years ago.
And a couple of years later, there's this sort of other case that comes up with OJ Simpson.
And what OJ's lawyers successfully did was to make the case not about OJ and Nicole.
They made it about the black community and the LAPD.
And of course, for folks who know even a little bit more, is that the case was moved from Brentwood, an elite area, very wealthy area to the Simi Valley, where it would all but certainly guarantee either a majority or a completely where it would all but certainly guarantee either a majority or a The jury then only deliberated for four hours.
So Darren, when you talk about this idea of a multi-ethnic empire that's ruled by political correctness, how is it that that Well, we see the example here because then it becomes about race.
It becomes not what the actual outcome should be in terms of evaluating the evidence according to the standards of evidence.
And there are very clear standards of, you know, evidence, standards of evidence, standards of judgment.
Reasonable doubt.
All of these things are fairly clearly defined, but those become irrelevant because what matters is where the verdict fits within the larger racial dynamics of the country.
You see the same thing in the acquittal of O.J.
and the conviction, dare I say it, of Derek Chauvin.
Very similar kind of dynamics, sort of mirror images of one another that both in both cases the racial dynamics supersede any kind of independent judgment according to the standards that would be given to jurors to evaluate the case properly.
One thing that we saw yesterday as well is that Mark Lamont Hill, who actually was a professor when I went to Temple University 20 years ago and is now at the City University of New York, came out and kind of said the quiet part out loud on this one and basically tweeted yesterday, well, I came out and kind of said the quiet part out loud on this one and basically tweeted yesterday, well, I agree that OJ murdered those people in cold blood, but we need a racial reckoning in this
So basically just telling us Directly, that social justice is meant to supersede legal justice.
And for folks out there, we got a quick break coming up, who don't understand the direct line that you can draw from that day in 1995 all the way to the situation we find ourselves in now, then you have not been paying attention yet.
Jack Posobaker here with Aaron Beatty.
We're in love, humans.
Can't wait to get my hands on that.
We're gonna dive into it.
But I got a hankering yearning deep inside for this book called on humans.
I just can't Jack so back lab Washington DC Darren Beatty.
We're talking about how the OJ Simpson trial was essentially inflection point and inflection point for our country going back to 1995 and Darren in our last segment short segment here.
I think that's what I want to ask about was was was that case the inflection point where America kind of said you know what.
Let's not care about all these laws anymore.
If there's something that's politically correct, let's choose that thing.
Let's choose that option over whatever the real, you know, legal matter is.
Because of course, then you have just a couple years later, Bill Clinton committing obvious perjury in a legal setting and getting off scot-free from it.
And then we sort of have this slide of American culture from then to now where we basically say, and this finds its way, you know, you were talking about the universities earlier, this idea that standards don't really matter anymore because there could be extenuating circumstances this idea that standards don't really matter anymore because there could be extenuating circumstances to the point where even, you know, OJ Simpson somehow is a victim of society where, like, I'm sorry, did poverty cause OJ Simpson
His wife's head off?
Did, was it, was it socioeconomic factors that caused OJ Simpson to do that?
I mean, this guy was unbelievably wealthy.
He was a massive celebrity.
He was on TV.
It was like Hollywood movies.
He was on TV all the time.
I mean, you could not be a bigger celebrity than OJ Simpson at the time of this.
Fabulously wealthy, married to a supermodel, and then still goes and does it anyway.
Really kind of flies in the face of a lot of liberal shibboleths.
But at the same time, it's something where we as a country, in a very big way, sort of decided that, you know, we're just going to look the other way.
Absolutely.
I mean, they got away with it.
But it was the patronage dynamics that really governed that.
And it was an inflection point, because it was the first time that it really became clear that this racial patronage ideology that had been in development for a while, but kind of intensified in the 90s, was incompatible with The legal system and the rule of law as, you know, traditionally understood.
So it's it's a very interesting case from that perspective.
And, you know, people want to say, oh, well, it's because he's a celebrity.
That's why.
Well, we heard it from the juror's mouth directly.
It wasn't about his celebrity.
It was about race.
It was about the racial patronage dynamic and, you know, tit for tat because of the Rodney King thing.
It's basically about race, about the patronage network.
It wasn't about class.
I know there are a lot of people who would like to look at this and say, it's not about race, it's about class.
Well, no.
It's about race, and it's very clear.
However comfortable, uncomfortable that might be, that's the case.
And you know, that was kind of, in a way, a legal innovation of Johnny Cochran, who is a kind of fascinating figure.
There are so many fascinating figures that emerge in the context of this bias.
The Judge Ito.
Judge Ito, yeah.
Ito Kaelin.
Mark Furman.
We were just talking about it.
It really was a made for Marsha Clark.
Alan Dershowitz.
Yeah, Alan Dershowitz.
The Kardashians.
And then the Kardashians.
And this is... It's sort of the...
I said on Twitter yesterday that this was this the OJ case is kind of the womb of new America, because we get what do we get out of it?
We get we get the Jenners, Caitlyn Jenner.
We get the Kardashians, all of the Kardashians.
The Kardashian father had been a one of OJ's lawyers.
You get Alan Dershowitz.
You get so many of these figures that have just become mainstays in American culture ever since and a massive influence on American culture, Plus, and producer Foss was talking about this, it also entirely changed the way that Americans interact with daytime media, particularly with women in daytime media, so many, which of course affects voting patterns.
So many of these things all go back to that.
And not just the case, but even the white bronco chase and all of these things.
I mean, think about it, these breaking news, there's a developing situation.
It's every single day the media goes to that whenever there's anything like this going on.
And you don't need a celebrity because you're pushing that that hypothalamus button on the viewers at home.
And there you go.
It just becomes your daily dopamine drip.
And we never sit back and ask how it actually affects the country and the governance of said country.
Indeed, yes.
Very, very interesting case.
Very interesting time.
Um, and it was, I mean, obviously, it was impossible to understand the significance of it at the time, but it really was an inflection point in the culture and in the law in terms of how our legal system functions.
And we see, you know, we see the echoes of that now in 2024 with Interesting enough, you know, because people don't like to think it's about race, but look at the Chauvin case as opposed to the Rittenhouse case.
I'm convinced.
The only reason Rittenhouse is free today is, you know, thank God the people that he shot were white.
I mean, they were Antifa scum.
He shot them and they're white.
If the racial dynamics had been in there, the outcome could have been very different.
It would be a very different dynamic at play.
The same dynamic that you saw with Chauvin.
So, and, and speaking of which, here we go, just about a minute left.
And as you say, juries, trials, dynamics, Alvin Bragg takes Donald Trump to trial on Monday morning here today, which is just, I mean, everyone needs to go and pull out Tom Wolf and bonfire the vanities and page through that because just called every single second of what we're living through right now.
Last word, Darren Beatty.
I totally agree with that.
I encourage everyone to go to revolver.news, check out this campus piece, read it and share it.
There's a great opportunity to exert pressure, but it needs to be the right kind of pressure.
We don't want to introduce more speech codes.
That's just going to work against us.
Zero tolerance policy for disruption of any kind.
So revolver.news, check that out.
Folks, understand, there is a direct line through the situation we are living now to the OJ trial and then back to many things that happened in the 1960s when the libs say the 1960s were a new founding of America.
They're actually right about that.
Ladies and gentlemen, as always, you have my permission to lay ashore.
▲
Export Selection