The Unconstitutional Imprisonment of Americans Guest Attorney Joe McBride | July 27 22 | Ep 257
|
Time
Text
Welcome to another episode of Rudy Giuliani's Common Sense.
Today's episode is going to show you some of the critical people that were left out of the J6 committee, which was probably, without any question, the most one-sided, the most unfair, the most unconstitutional proceeding ever held by a United States government body, particularly the United States Congress.
It is made up of not just only partisan Democrats and two non-authorized Republicans.
It's made up of people who share certain things in common.
A deep, deep abiding hatred of Donald Trump to the point of obsession.
A long history of lying about him that has been proven.
Some of them on three occasions.
And yet, with all that, they were allowed to present on national television a show, not a hearing.
A hearing implies questions, questions by the other side.
If there's an issue, for example, if someone says, I was told, like that woman did about me, I was told that Mr. Giuliani asked for a pardon.
The person is generally asked, who told you?
So you can go find out if it's true or not.
Well, she was never asked that.
There's a good reason for it because it's totally untrue.
Now, that's one example that I can give you from my own knowledge.
This happened thousands and thousands of times.
It's inherent in having a committee made up of people who have already announced over and over and over again that the person is guilty.
And are now trying to, in the best way possible, justify their conclusion, not question whether it might be wrong.
So, we've talked about this at length and we've done podcasts on it, but I thought it would be very useful if we talked to two people who are directly involved in different ways.
Joe McBride is the lawyer for some of the main defendants, the people who were arrested and has a very very good overview of what is going on in a situation in which I am often asked how can these people be held for a year and a half and not brought to trial and then how is it that when they get resolved although every once in a while there might be a serious sentence most people have gotten either no sentence or 40 days in jail or 30 days in jail
So people wonder, how can that happen in America?
And why aren't these people just let out of jail by a judge?
It seems to be violating, beyond violating constitutional rights, violating basic human rights.
This doesn't happen in a dictatorship.
The second question we're often asked is about Ashley Babbitt and how is it that this committee can pretend to have a hearing about January 6th and the name Ashley Babbitt never comes up, the one act of real violence.
The one act in which a life was taken where questions scream out at you.
How did she get in?
Did she come in illegally?
What did she do that merited being shot in cold blood?
Was she armed?
Why was she shot and only the gun was photographed and not the shooter?
Why did it take so long to identify the shooter?
Why was he hidden for so long?
Why has there never been a public report?
And ultimately, where's the defense of the shooter being in fear for his life?
When she didn't have a weapon, she was surrounded by the police.
She was lifted up in the air.
At most, she could have been thrown over, which would have put her on the ground.
So we're going to talk to Ashley's mom, Mickey, uh, uh, Whitoff, but Mickey, uh, wants to focus and you can understand why we'll speak somewhat about Ashley, but she wants to focus on, um, the plight of the January six, uh, defendants, many of them, why they've been so unconstitutionally and inhumanely and indecently treated.
And also on the, uh, complete, um, un-American Activities Committee.
The J6 Committee.
You know, with all this going on, I thought at the very beginning it might be worth discussing this because it's so important that you get involved this way and it's so important that you support this.
There's a way to do that, you know.
The recent Supreme Court rulings from the Supreme Court have kind of changed things dramatically in terms of rights and protection of life.
But it took support of companies like Patriot Mobile, who passionately fought for our way of life and our constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of the unborn.
Patriot Mobile is America's only, only Christian conservative mobile phone provider.
And they've been on the front lines of the fight for our values.
And boy, is it a fight.
This is why Patriot Mobile is different from the other providers out there.
Inflation has made it very difficult for Americans to get by at all, but Patriot Mobile is sensitive to the people.
It has come up with plans to fit almost any budget.
Because this service is so vital to you.
And you'll get the same great service from Patriot Mobile as you do from the so-called Big Shots.
Go to www.PatriotMobile.com slash Rudy.
Or call 972-PATRIOT.
Use the offer code Rudy.
R-U-D-Y.
Rudy.
You get free activation.
Pretty good, right?
I get you free activation.
Hmm.
I feel pretty good about that.
But you use that offer code Rudy for free activation.
You go to patriotmobile.com slash Rudy 972 Patriot.
Come join our movement.
If you're a veteran or first responder, let them know that right away because you're going to get special discounts.
You say Rudy, free activation. If you're a veteran, special discounts. PatriotMobile.com
slash Rudy. PatriotMobile.com slash Rudy. Say it one more time. PatriotMobile.com slash Rudy or
972-PATRIOT. Well, I cannot tell you how much respect I have for the following guest,
because as a lawyer, there's much, particularly over the last year, year and a half, two years,
three years, since the time I began representing Donald Trump, that I probably understand
firsthand of what he's going through. And And there are many good men and good lawyers and good people who would not have the courage to do this.
And they're good people.
Not everybody's a hero.
Takes a lot.
And you pay a price for it.
You're going to be listening to one now.
His name is Joe McBride.
Let's get to it.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
It is good to be here.
So maybe you can take us to the beginning.
A lawyer like you was a very active and very big practice, distinguished lawyer, very busy.
I can see on your face you're someone who enjoys practicing law.
You must have been really enjoying yourself.
How did you get involved in this?
How did you get involved in this?
So I was, Richard Barnett is my first client.
He was in a cell next to another January 6th by the name of Edward Jacob Lang, where he
goes by Jake Lang.
At some point, Richard had expressed to Jake that he wanted to move on in a new direction with new counsel.
Jake was being represented by a colleague of mine named Stephen Meckath, another New York attorney of mine who I work with closely, and we share offices next to each other on the same floor at 99 Park Avenue.
Steve approached me about representing Richard.
I obviously had to think about it and pray about it and count the cost.
I knew that Richard Barnett was the guy who had his feet up on Speaker Pelosi's desk and that it was going to be a big deal.
So I counted the cost.
I thought about what was at stake, the personal cost, the cost of my country, what that would look like for my career, both the positives and the negatives.
And I prayed about it.
I said, listen, you know, this is an all or nothing endeavor.
That is very much my personality, all or nothing anyway.
It's how I practice law and live life, for better or worse.
And on Ash Wednesday of 2021, I decided to take the case after I left Mass.
And that was my first case, and I'm picking up several more cases from there.
Several more means, roughly.
I know you told me five actual criminal cases where criminal charges have been filed and several civil cases where you're engaged as the attorney of record.
But then in one way or another, you've been involved in well over a dozen cases, I would say, right?
Yes, that is correct, Mr. Mayor.
And probably in the nature of what you're involved in now, is this almost your full-time endeavor?
Yes, this is my full-time endeavor.
My team, I actually built together a special team of attorneys and investigators and paralegals that are devoted strictly to the January 6th body of litigation.
Can you give us an idea of how much they handle?
So I am the, I am directly in all the cases that my name is signed on.
So I'm either in a supervisory capacity or intimately involved.
And all of it.
I have three attorneys working as associates on various cases.
Each one of them right now is assigned about three cases.
So we go over those cases daily or semi-weekly to see where we're at regarding motion practice, discovery, so on and so forth.
And we're doing our best to stay ahead of this massive body of discovery that they are unfairly using against us and dumping on us.
So as to prejudice the defendants and delay the trials and so on and so forth.
You know the game.
Sure do.
I imagine you're located in New York as a New York attorney, but you also spend a lot of time in District of Columbia.
I'm very familiar with that.
And your group of attorneys are in the District of Columbia with you?
So we are spread out at different points in the country.
I have one guy who's in DC, I have somebody else who's in Florida, and I have somebody else who's local to me here in New York.
I see.
Yeah, I have sort of January 6 clients from all over the country, so it makes sense.
And trying to find devoted attorneys who were willing and who had the heart and the mind and the right mindset to take these cases out of New York City, Hasn't been an easy thing, so I looked across the country to find the best people possible because I didn't want to settle for anyone less than the best on my team.
I think we could share a lot of similar experiences about that, unfortunately.
And then I assume you have some assistants or paralegals that help them?
Yes, of course.
All right.
So could you give us, for the listener that doesn't know much about this other than This terrible thing happened on January 6th.
How many are still in prison?
How many have been charged?
Roughly.
I know it's about 800 plus that have been arrested.
Right.
Somewhere between 850 and 900 at this point.
They're still making sweeps as we speak.
I get new calls every day for people who are getting arrested.
My take on the situation is pretty simple.
The events that took place at the Capitol on January 6th of 2021 did not happen in a vacuum.
For the previous two years leading up until January 6th of 21, we saw all types of protests spread out all across this country.
No matter where you are in the political aisle, objectively, we can agree that people came out into the streets on behalf of George Floyd and other police brutality-based incidents to protest.
And some of those protests turned really violent.
You had good actors and you had bad actors, but those people, by and large, got a pass For their violent acts, for their burning of buildings, their slapping and pushing and hitting of police officers because their actions and their original motivations for going out into the public square were grounded in the First Amendment.
So when you view that in light of what took place at the Capitol on January 6th, there was a reasonable interpretation by people who went there that day that certain acts with regard to political protest are permissible in this day and age.
When you consider the fact that 50 previous Stop the Steal protests took place in 2020, and all of them were peaceful, excepting the times where members of Antifa showed up and attacked Trump supporters.
So when you consider that, you have to say, well, how did this 51st Stop the Steal protest all of a sudden break out into a riot?
Well, there are a lot of various explanations.
members of Antifa without a doubt infiltrated the crowd.
They were paid agitators from all over the country there.
Police did not follow protocol.
The Capitol building itself and the Capitol complex was not properly guarded.
They had intelligence from President Trump a month in advance saying, hey, this is going
to be a serious day there.
You should fortify the facility and the grounds with the Capitol police.
They denied him, uh, they denied that, that ability for that to happen.
And what we have is a massive failure in policing and protocol that took place.
And as a result, a riot broke out.
And unfortunately, many people are being arrested and charged as domestic terrorists, terrorists
for something that was completely foreseeable and should have never happened.
The buck stops with the Capitol police that day and they are putting the blame on everyone
else.
It is atrocious.
So they're.
From what you have seen, there's no evidence of prior planning to do violence inside the Capitol?
So, from what I've seen, I can explain it broadly.
Sure.
That's the best way to do it.
Yes, indeed.
So, there are three groups of people who went to the Capitol that day.
Group one are the people who went out to protest the election results.
They said, hey, listen, this election stinks to high heaven.
I'm going to go out there.
And have my voice heard and maybe if I hear my voice, if Congress hears my voice, they'll change their mind.
Group two is a smaller group of nefarious actors that went to the Capitol to cause mayhem and to cause problems.
Group three is the group of people who went out with pure intentions, but got swept up in the greater events of that day.
So that group three comprises the vast majority of the people who I represent.
They went there.
They did not plan on anything happening, but they saw police officers macing and beating women and older men, and they got involved, they defended people, they defended themselves.
That does not equivocate to an insurrection.
What that is, is the point of intersection between civil disobedience and criminal law.
You have people there who are protesting, they're there for the right reasons, for politically protected First Amendment reasons, and then they're attacked by the police, or they're attacked by Antifa.
They have a right to defend themselves, and it is improper to co-mingle or to conflate their reasons for going out with the violence that took place that day, because the two things are entirely unrelated.
And with regard to a grander scheme or a grander plan, look, the idea that President Donald J. Trump, the one president in the last 50 years that did not send America to war, is somehow responsible for an attack on his own capital is absolute lunacy.
Yeah, I mean it you know you and I certainly agree that this is this is maybe crazier than Russian collusion or the phony improper conversation with the with the with the Ukraine president or saying at the hard drive with Russian I mean, the part of this that really, really worries me is that these people who are perpetrating this are two- and three-time losers, meaning they have done this before.
They've stood up there, lied completely, and a lot of the American people bought it, even got Pulitzer Prizes for it, and it turns out that they were lying.
Russian collusion.
They're lying.
Donald Trump said, no Russian collusion.
He's telling the truth.
Improper conversation with President of Ukraine.
Lying.
Truth, you look at the hard drive, perfect justification for it.
Hard drive is Russian collusion.
Trump, hard drive is real.
They are lying.
He's telling the truth.
Now we have, he was trying to overthrow his own government.
He's saying, you're out of your mind.
I wasn't trying to, I was trying, I truly believed That there was election fraud, deep, a lot of it, and I was defending not just myself but the country against what I believed, in good faith, to be a stolen election.
Absolutely.
So, what is involved then in representing these people?
They're charged with all different things, from simple trespass to, what's the worst charge?
Hitting a police officer or throwing something at a police officer?
Right now I'd say globally the worst charge is the USC 1815 12.
It's the disrupting the governmental proceeding.
This is a charge that had to do with Enron-based litigation, stealing papers and documents so as to thwart an investigation and or a proceeding.
They've used it and they've expanded the scope in many ways analogous to the way the federal government has expanded the The scope of RICO from looking at crime families to looking at private citizens or corporations, so on and so forth.
So they've improperly and grossly expanded the scope of this law so as to sweep everybody up in this big dragnet.
And what they are doing in court, I have watched several cases, they attach an aiding and abetting charge and they're saying if you were in the basement of the Capitol and some guy was on the roof of the Capitol, And another person was in the Senate chamber of the Capitol.
You're responsible for aiding and abetting all the members of the mob.
And it's working in court.
And I can't understand it for the life of me, because there's no nexus between these people.
There's no communication.
There's no intelligence.
These people are completely severed and separate from each other.
The only reason that they happened to be there is because they share political objections to the election.
And to say that person A and person Z are responsible for each other's actions is absolute,
it's absolutely crazy, but it's happening in courts.
The judges are letting it happen.
It is extremely unfortunate.
In our case, when we go to trial in our cases, it's going to be much more combative than
it's been in some of these other cases because objections need to be made, fights need to
happen in court.
I'm of the opinion they're not happening the right way or vociferously enough, but we're
going to make sure that we at the very least preserve the record for appeal in our cases
because a lot of this is very wrong.
So the ones that have been tried so far, what's the worst of that?
As far as, you know, the damage that actually took place?
So, I mean, you have like the Guy Raffert case.
Guy Raffert didn't even go into the Capitol.
He was outside.
And he said some pretty objectively stupid things, but those things could be considered political speech.
And when you look at what Guy Refferts said about people being here, he made some off-the-cuff remarks.
And then if you look at what Ray Epps did, which is a guy on the 5th and on the 6th and wearing militarized gear, directing people, this is the way of the Capitol, this is how you go in.
He's commanding a line of people to take down the first barriers.
He doesn't even get pinched.
He doesn't even get picked up.
So he gets a pass and he's widely considered to be working for the federal government in some capacity, while Guy Reffet says something that's far less egregious.
And now I think he just got 15 years.
Tell us what Reffet is alleged to have said.
Reffet is, to summarize, he said something to the fact of Somebody asked him, well, what happens if we go in and they start shooting?
And he said, well, you shouldn't worry about that.
There are millions of us here and lots of us came in hot, meaning that lots of people had weapons on them or so on and so forth.
I happen to think he was just talking out of, you know, not out of his mouth, out of the end of his butt over there.
And he was just, he was just, you know, just cowboying up, just, just, just spouting off at the mouth because it felt good to be out there.
And he felt like a tough guy.
Did he throw anything at anybody?
That's my knowledge.
That's my knowledge.
So basically it's, he incited riot I guess, that would be the general, they'd make that into he incited riot.
On a normal day, yes sir.
But he didn't participate in the riot itself.
No, he was there, he was there as a protester and he said some stupid things, but no, he didn't go in.
He didn't do anything that would warrant a 15 year sentence, it's absolutely insane.
And did he plead guilty?
He blew trial.
He blew trial.
He went to trial and he lost.
He put that defense to a jury and they found him guilty in the District of Columbia.
Yes, well, yes.
They found him guilty in the District of Columbia.
He was, and this, you know, I mean, this harkens back to Soviet era politics and even the Nazis.
He was turned in by his own son.
The FBI approached his son when the son, I think he was one week past being 18.
They might have even been talking to him when he was 17 outside the presence of counsel or a parent.
And they got his son to turn on him and his son testified against him and they won.
It was a wrap.
It was terrible.
Now, Ray Epps, give us the best of Ray Epps.
We've played clips of his, but in comparison, what did Ray Epps say outside the Capitol?
So, Ray Epps, on January 5th, is seen saying, tomorrow, we don't need to just go to the Capitol, we need to go inside of the Capitol.
And when he says this, people start chanting, Fed, Fed.
The next day, he's at the Ellipse.
And when he's at the Ellipse, he's saying, after the speech is over, you need to walk down to the Capitol.
He, along with many other agitators, funneled people down to the Capitol building.
to specific areas and once they got to the specific areas, you can see him on, at certain
points he's speaking with the uniformed personnel, they're not macing him, they're not hitting
him.
At other points, he's seen speaking to protesters who then, after he whispers in their ear,
they attack and sort of cross the line of scrimmage and people start to go in through
one of the police barricades.
If Ray Epps were an actual Trump-supporting Republican, he'd be in jail, he'd be locked
up for leading this, and he'd be indicted in one of the biggest, one of the bigger conspiracy
cases.
But he's not.
He's gotten it passed.
There are over a hundred other suspicious actors that have been identified since February, or even January of 2021.
We're gonna play and then take a short break.
We're gonna play some of the excerpts of Ray Epps.
My listeners have seen it before, but they may get Ray Epps, to some extent, even though they're different races, they may get Ray Epps and John Sullivan confused.
Okay.
We'll take a short break and we'll be right back.
So we want to go to another story that's been brewing tonight.
So for weeks, as you know, the January 6th committee has been holding hearings.
They've been widely covered on the other channels.
We haven't seen the news value in them.
But there is a bit of news to emerge from that story, and we want to get to it now.
So the New York Times has written hundreds and hundreds of articles about January 6th since it happened, describing it as a riot, an insurrection.
As part of its coverage, last summer, the Times published a video documentary in which the Times reported that one man was actually caught on camera planning an insurrection, encouraging a breach of the Capitol complex.
That man's name is Ray Epps.
Now, the New York Times noted that Epps was videotaped on both January 5th and January 6th, urging protesters to storm the Capitol.
Here it is.
We need to go into the Capitol.
Let's go!
I'm going to put it out there.
I'm probably going to go to jail.
Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol!
Into the Capitol!
As soon as the President is done speaking, we go to the Capitol.
The Capitol is this direction.
Now, in a lot of ways, that's the strangest video to emerge from January 6th.
We've played it several times in this show.
He says it repeatedly.
He's so emphatic about it, encouraging other people to commit a crime, that the crowd around him decides he must be a federal agent.
They began chanting, as you just heard, FED!
FED!
So shortly after that video surfaced, the FBI placed Ray Epps on a list of people wanted for questioning, and they released it to the public.
And you can understand why they did that.
According to the Justice Department, what Ray Epps did on that video is a federal crime.
In fact, the Biden administration has charged several people with seditious conspiracy for doing precisely what you just saw Ray Epps do, urging others to enter the Capitol complex on January 6th.
Here, for example, is a quote from a DOJ press release.
It describes the federal case against five members of the so-called Proud Boys, a group you're supposed to be terrified of.
of quote on January 6 2021. The defendants directed, mobilized and led members of the
crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol end quote. Again, that's what you
just saw. Ray Epps tried to do.
But here's the difference.
Others who have done that are in prison or facing long terms in prison.
But no charges have ever been filed against Ray Epps, despite the fact there's no question he did it because, once more, it's on tape.
That's very strange.
It just is.
And we don't care how many people call us names for pointing that out.
It is strange.
And we'd like an answer to what the heck is going on.
Now we've asked Ray Epps on this show repeatedly to explain why he thinks he has escaped prosecution.
And we'll ask him once again tonight.
And we will keep asking.
Because we think it is a very obvious and important question that gets to the heart of what is this exactly.
But it's amazing how little Democrats want to hear about this.
Again, Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney have spent the last year staging an investigation at great expense, and then a series of public show trials, arresting people in their homes, supposedly designed to discover how and why January 6th happened.
But they remain curiously uninterested in the Epps case.
We've got what seems like an actual insurrectionist on tape, but they don't want to talk about it.
And they definitely don't want you to talk about it or ask any questions.
As if to prove that point, the New York Times just ran a piece explaining that when you ask questions about Ray Epps, you are committing a moral crime, maybe even helping Putin.
The piece was entitled, It's Just Been Hell, Life as the Victim of a January 6th Conspiracy Theory.
Oh, so Ray Epps, the guy telling people to breach the Capitol, is now, in the words of the New York Times, a victim.
A victim of your unrestrained curiosity.
Now, this piece was written by a reporter who has spent years shilling openly for the intelligence agency.
It may give you some sense of where this storyline comes from.
Like the agencies themselves, the New York Times piece was highly deceptive.
For example, the New York Times says that Epps was, quote, taped urging people to go to the Capitol.
Oh, but that's not what the tape shows.
Ray Epps was doing something very different.
Ray Epps was urging people to go into the Capitol, not to the Capitol.
And there's a big difference legally.
One is a crime, according to the DOJ, and the other is not a crime.
And that's not all Ray Epps did.
Epps also told people what they should do once they got inside the Capitol, and that's on video too.
This is just minutes before the first breach of the building that day.
Watch.
When do we go in and leave this here?
What does that mean?
Well, for some reason, the New York Times reporter didn't ask Ray Epps what he meant by that.
Now, the reporter spent a day talking to Epps.
It was a day-long conversation, according to the story.
But that question never came up.
No meaningful question came up.
It's all very strange.
The New York Times is mounting a propaganda campaign on behalf of a self-described Trump voter insurrectionist.
Now, this is the same paper that cheered Ashley Babbitt's death.
But this same paper is weeping for Ray Epps because people have been mean to him online?
Hmm.
It's almost like they're trying to cover something up.
Now, buried near the end of the New York Times piece, there's a hint.
We find this line, quote, Really?
Mr. Epps also said he regretted sending a text to his nephew well after the violence
had erupted, in which he discussed how he helped orchestrate the movements of people
who were leaving Mr. Trump's speech near the White House by pointing them in the direction
of the Capitol.
Really?
What was in that text?
We'd never heard of that before, and it kind of makes you think the entire New York Times
piece was written to drop that little bomblet at the end in the least damaging way.
We'd never seen that text message before.
What exactly did Ray Epps say to his nephew?
Have prosecutors reviewed that text?
The New York Times doesn't tell us.
Nor does the New York Times tell us whether Ray Epps has had any contact with any federal agencies in the period before January 6th.
That's the core question.
But they didn't ask it.
Why is that?
Seems like a major omission.
But don't ask more questions, commends the New York Times.
Otherwise, Ray Epps may be killed by Mexican drug cartels.
Mexican drug cartels?
What do they have to do with this?
We're not sure.
But according to the paper, there are people who have heard, quote, some cartel members talking about killing Mr. Epps.
Right.
Because the drug cartels are committed Trump voters, and they feel betrayed by Ray Epps?
Maybe they're QAnon people, too?
This is highly strange.
And if you're going to spend more than a year looking into January 6th and you ignore this, then it's more than strange.
It's an indictment of your motives.
Think your homeowner's insurance covers home title fraud?
Think again.
And neither does your common identity theft program.
The FBI calls home title fraud one of the fastest growing crimes Which is why you need to go to HomeTitleLock.com, America's leader in home title protection.
Here's the problem.
The deed to your home is the only document that proves you own it.
And the deeds to all of our homes now are online.
In minutes, a criminal can find and forge your name off the deed to your home and refile as the new owner.
Like Jeff, who spent a fortune in legal fees after a thief forged himself onto the deed to Jeff's home and took out loans.
Jeff didn't have Home Title Lock then.
He does now.
Or Deborah, who thought her common identity theft service would protect her.
Then a criminal got onto the deed to a home and had her evicted.
Deborah has Home Title Lock now.
HomeTitleLock.com is your peace of mind.
and the deed to your home is protected, visit hometitlelock.com.
Hometitlelock.com.
Welcome back to our very, very illuminating interview about January 6th. This is,
this interview is taking place now almost a year and a half after the incident with Joe McBride's
So we're going back on an incident that took place some time ago and an incident that you would think would have been fully investigated and understood by now.
And it probably is the most misunderstood incident in the history of America.
Probably the most propagandized.
And Joe is helping us a lot take apart this situation.
And I really want to thank him for giving us his time.
He's extraordinarily busy representing these people.
And I may add, in the best tradition of American warriors, like John Adams.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Let's get back to what happened that day and what these people are charged with that you're going to be representing.
The basic defense, without giving it away, and then I want you to go into the whole incident, is that they were involved in peaceful protest and never knowingly went beyond that line, at least as they understood it.
Yes, that is correct for some people.
Like, for instance, in the case of Richard Barnett, he was on the east side of the Capitol where the Columbus doors are.
Those are 20,000-pound magnetically sealed doors.
Those doors mysteriously opened up when somebody on the inside looked up at the camera and said, hey, open this up, plainclothes person.
The doors open up.
Richard's on video saying, oh my God, they're pushing, they're pushing, we're going in, there's no turning back.
He falls, tries to turn back, gets pushed into the door, and he's in the Capitol.
He can't go back.
That's not voluntary entry.
That's involuntary entry, which is an absolute defense to trespass.
He's not even told to leave until 40 minutes later.
He commits no acts of violence.
So there's a part of his defense.
Let's go back to the Columbus door for a minute.
The Columbus door is, as I know it, impossible to open.
Except if you have... Is it a code or a key?
That is a good question, and that is a question we would like to know.
We have asked Is there a code?
Is there a key?
Is there a control room that somebody hit a button?
Is there a video of the control room?
Is there a logbook?
Who logged in?
Who logged out?
We'd like to know who signed in that day.
Who was on duty?
Who called in sick?
Can it be accessed remotely?
They're not turning that stuff over.
That's Brady evidence.
And without that evidence, how can we go to trial?
And they're pushing us to trial nonetheless.
It's insanity.
And we are doing our very best under unfair circumstances to obtain that information.
Barnett begins by being outside the Columbus door, protesting what he believed to be an illegal election.
Absolutely.
And the door is closed when he gets there.
And then the door opens.
Indeed.
He didn't open it.
Nor would it have been possible for civilians to open it.
It's how many pounds?
I've forgotten how many pounds.
20,000 pounds.
And it's open by, presumably, there are certain, I know there are certain people, I just can't remember, who are designated with the responsibility and they are the only ones who can open that door.
That is correct, and on the Discovery videos, on the CCTV footage, you see two gentlemen walk in.
They're in plainclothes.
They're not officers.
They move these benches.
The officers vacate the door.
The plainclothes guys look up.
They try to pull open the door.
They look up, and they say, hey, we need the door open, and pop!
The door opens up.
They open it, and everybody comes in.
So, that door is opened.
He goes in, not necessarily wanting to.
He tries to come out, gets pushed along, and he's in there for how long before something happens?
So, after he gets pushed and he falls down, he stands up, and believe it or not, him, I've interviewed so many people.
Mayor Muriel Bowser took the porta-potties off the streets.
So when people went in, the first thing they actually did was look for the bathroom.
Nobody was looking for Mike Pence.
Nobody was looking for Nancy Pelosi.
They were looking for the men's room.
And in a search for the men's room, he winds up in the Speaker's area.
She has her own wing.
And in that wing, there's a suite of offices.
And he's in one of the offices.
And there are people in the office, including two members of the Friends Associated Press,
who they have a conversation and tell, do you know where you're at?
I don't know where I am.
And he finds out he's in Speaker Pelosi's office.
And they say, do you want to take a picture?
He says, sure, why not?
So he sits down in the desk and they tell him, hey, act natural, act natural.
OK, I'll do what I do at home.
I'll put my feet up on the desk.
He's got a cell phone in his hand.
So it's not a selfie.
And the rest is history.
He becomes one of the faces of the insurrection within hours.
Picture, everyone, of course, we'll put that up.
That picture is public.
The picture of him sitting there with his foot up on Nancy Pelosi's desk.
And two men, someone took that picture for him?
Two members of the French Associated Press, Saul Loeb and Jim Loscalzo.
They are willing to testify?
No, it doesn't appear not yet, but we're going to be working on that very soon.
And they are refusing?
No, I don't want to say that they're refusing, but it's a delicate matter.
They're journalists, so on and so forth.
So our approach has to be the right way in order to make it happen in a way that would advance justice and not the liberal world's orders agenda.
Yep.
Yep.
So he takes that picture and how long does, and this is the main crime that he committed, right?
I mean, this is the, isn't this the reason for the great anger at him that he was in Pelosi's office and he desecrated her desk?
The idea that a middle, a 60 year old man from Arkansas without a college education who loves Donald Trump is an abomination to them.
It is the equivalent of, Running into a Catholic church and desecrating the altar to them.
They were beside themselves about it because he had made it into their sacred space and because, you know, despite the fact that it is very much the people's house, somebody like him could never possibly be worthy of entry.
What did he damage when he was there?
He didn't damage anything.
What he did do was he... I think I remember this.
He bled on the envelope, and I'll just say he left a love note.
But other than that, it was all in protest.
So he was told to... What did he do with the envelope?
He bled on it.
So when he fell, he was cut.
He cut his finger.
So when he put his hand down on the desk, he realized that there was blood on the envelope.
So he took the envelope with him, Because it was empty.
There was nothing in it.
It was an empty envelope because it had blood.
He didn't want to leave blood in the office.
And in exchange for the envelope, he left a recorder on the desk.
So then no one could say he stole it.
Of course.
I do remember this.
Yeah.
This is quite a, he left a quarter on the desk.
Yes.
Yes, sir.
And then he left.
Was he, was he thrown out?
So, um, At some point, the Capitol Police came in and said, you can't be in here.
Get the hell out.
He goes, OK.
And he leaves.
So him and everybody else leave.
And then they go into an area of the rotunda.
And then the Capitol Police pull everybody into this area of the rotunda.
And they keep them there for probably somewhere between 30 and 40 minutes.
People are getting agitated.
They're standing there.
Some older people need to sit down.
They're not permitted to leave.
They're herded in like sheep.
And then at some point, some conflicts happen, some words are exchanged, and then at some point, they're let out.
But that 40-minute span where he was in there, he was trying to leave, and then they held him in a pen, them and so many other people.
And what they're doing is they're using that time to say, oh yeah, some people didn't enter, you know, you may have entered involuntarily, but then you remained.
But a good lawyer will say, hey, they remained not of their own volition.
The cops kept them there.
You can't possibly hold that time against them.
And was he, did he cause trouble in there?
Did he hit anybody?
Beat up anybody?
Oh, absolutely not.
Was there any fights?
Uh, not, not with him.
Uh, and, and most of the people who were in the Capitol inside the Capitol were orderly.
They're taking pictures.
They are, uh, you know, a statuary hall is beautiful.
They're looking at the statues that go there.
They're going, wow.
And they're walking in between the lines and the ropes.
Yeah, there are some people who run here and there, and not everybody's perfect, but the vast majority of people were well behaved.
So he's in that herd for 40 minutes, behind that barricade or herd.
How does it end?
Well, it ends with him being told to leave.
And at some point when they open up the doors and they let people leave, he leaves.
And he goes outside and Again, there's no bathroom.
So there's about a hundred men.
You see them in the bushes.
They're relieving themselves because they were dying.
And then, you know, he gave a little speech on camera and he went home.
And by the time he had arrived home, he had understood that he was international news.
And he surrendered himself to the FBI on the 8th of January.
And the first thing he did was walk in.
And give them the envelope and say, hey, I never intended to keep this.
I just didn't want to leave blood in their office.
He handed it over to the FBI, told his very honest story outside of the presence of counsel.
And then they locked him up and they held him in the gulag for four months.
They beat him.
They kept him in solitary confinement.
They were very, very, they treated him egregiously, him and some other people.
And then I was able to get him out on April 27th of 2021.
How'd you get him out?
Well, we researched the law.
We made good arguments, and our argument in sum and substance was Richard was not violent.
Richard was not a leader.
He didn't participate in any nefarious act.
His actions were grounded in protest, and he's not a flight risk.
He's not a danger to the community.
He's a 60-year-old man at the time with no previous history or criminal record, and Judge Cooper, While the judge did not agree on some of the things that I said, especially about, you know, protected speech and, you know, all that, he did acknowledge that we were right on the law with regard to the Bail Reform Act.
And he let Richard out because it was the right thing to do because the law supported the conclusion that he should be released.
Now, he will go to trial?
December 12th.
December 12th.
Jury trial?
Yes.
Okay.
That's a challenge in the district.
And how many others are about, well, you have four others that are going to go to trial.
Yes.
So far, so far.
Yes.
And then how many overall are slated for trial?
At this point, there are hundreds of cases that are slated for trial.
You know, people, a lot of people are going to fight this.
I know at least 25 or 30 cases that are that are slated for trial.
It's a bit unfair because the government held on to discovery for a very long time, complaining that this was the biggest investigation in the history of the Department of Justice.
And then they began to disperse the discovery to us in a way that was advantageous to them and disadvantageous to us.
And they then All of a sudden they started just dumping terabytes and terabytes of discovery on us and then saying, hey, we're ready for trial next week.
And that's just not fair.
We need time to go through it.
They've had over a year to monopolize the information.
We need that time.
The court hasn't been sympathetic.
I feel that that's a problem.
We're also filing change of venue motions in these cases for obvious reasons.
Oh, yes, of course.
You know, the January 6th committee, what they're doing, they're poisoning the jury pool.
You can't have it.
And so we'll see what happens.
Now, what is the first case of this group that will go to trial?
The first case, so right now I have Ryan Nichols' case is scheduled to go on the 1st of November.
I am trying to get that case adjourned for multiple different reasons.
If I can't get it adjourned, then Richard Barnett's case will be my first case.
Now, there are other cases that have already been tried.
A few of the big cases, the Oath Keepers case, I think is slated for September or October now.
That's the one that contains the insurrection charge.
That's the one that contains the seditious conspiracy charge.
Right, right.
They have not charged insurrection.
I should be corrected on that.
They were being criticized for not charging insurrection for a year, and bitterly criticized, and then they came up with this multi-defendant, is it sedition that they're charged with?
It's a seditious conspiracy charge.
A seditious conspiracy.
And they wanted to overthrow the government, theoretically?
Uh, yes.
Well, that's what they're being charged with.
It's ridiculous.
None of these men should be charged with that.
But that's the idea.
And they're going to trial when?
Uh, I'm not sure.
It's sometime in the fall.
Would it be before your December case?
Or January?
January case, yeah.
But I know that they're trying to adjourn the case as well.
Right now, everybody's trying to adjourn their cases.
It doesn't matter if your client's incarcerated or outside.
Everybody is of the understanding that we need to make our way through the discovery in a meaningful way.
The government is saying, look, there's 14,000 hours of video, all of it's not relevant to your clients.
And we are saying we need to comb through all the video to make a determination as to relevancy.
You can't possibly make that determination for us.
So the idea that we should go to trial without having combed through and made sense and processing all of that evidence is ridiculous, but they don't care.
So, how many, so give us now as we conclude, and we're coming back to you a lot if you don't mind, because you have, not only do you have a good overview of this, for a lawyer you have a very layman-friendly way of describing it.
So my audience appreciates that.
There are 800 to 900 cases so far.
They threaten to bring more, and they've got people out all over the country.
Every once in a while, I'll hear from a person that was called up and asked, were you there that day?
And it turns out, luckily they weren't, or they were in some far reaches of the Capitol.
So they're going to add some more.
Of that group, how many are still sitting in prison?
The number is growing.
I want to say somewhere between 85 and 100 are still sitting in prison.
The conditions under which these men have been sitting in prison are objectively egregious and torturous.
The Eighth Amendment, as you know, of the United States Constitution gives a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment for convicted persons.
That means these people have had their day in court and they have either been convicted by a jury of their peers or pled guilty.
Can cruel and unusual punishment is the standard for convicted persons.
Now, for people who have been merely accused of a crime, those who are still innocent until proven guilty and they're merely being held pending trial, the standard is no punishment of any kind is acceptable.
Therefore, when you consider the fact that many of these men have been held in solitary confinement for over a year or in and out of solitary confinement for almost two years, some of them have been beaten, they've been starved, They've been denied medical care.
They've been psychologically abused.
They've been denied the right to shower.
They've been denied the right to cut their hair for a year.
At one point, one of my clients, Ryan Nichols, could not cut his fingernails, so almost four months.
He showed up to my December 20th, 2020 bail hearing, having not showered in five days.
I, of course, made a record of that in court.
Christopher Quaglin, I have filed a habeas petition for his release, and I'm going to submit my final response this week.
He is in Northern Neck Regional Jail in Warsaw, Virginia.
That's a satellite of the DC Gulag system.
It is a disgusting and despicable place, and in that place, it's the sixth place he's been to.
Why has he been transferred six different times?
Well, I'll tell you.
He has celiac disease, and I made a record In August of 21, when I took his case, that because he has celiac disease, he needs to have celiac safe food, which is no gluten and no wheat.
I marked him for medical attention.
I asked the judge not to move him because the current jail that he was at was just getting it right.
With each jail that he's moved to, the conditions and the food has gotten worse and worse.
He's lost over 40 pounds on two separate occasions.
30 pounds on two more separate occasions, the weight going up and down, broken out with lesions on his back, needed to be hospitalized, denied hospitalization.
And when we spoke up against it with regard to Northern Neck Regional Jail, while he was down 40 pounds, they put him in a COVID positive pod full of people, purposely gave him COVID.
And then after I filed the habeas motion, or after I threatened the habeas motion in his case, they took him and put him in a notoriously violent section of that jail, where he was beaten by members of an international street gang, and he received eight stitches in the side of his face, requiring hospitalization, simply because we spoke out and we said, this is America, this is not North Korea or China.
We do not torture pretrial detainees for political dissidence.
What you're doing is illegal and it is wrong.
And we are going to sue you into the Stone Age if you don't stop.
Basically, their position is, well, then sue us because we're not worried about you.
And if we got to let him go, we'll let him go.
But we're going to torture him and others like him up until the last possible moment.
Now, how well documented is that?
Oh, it's documented.
It's documented.
I will send you my... Can you send me some of what can be shown of that?
That's public.
I will send it to you.
And I will mention two things.
I have hundreds of grievances that he has filed, and I attach some of the ones that are relevant, including him saying there's rats and roaches in my food, I haven't eaten in a week, I'm down 40 pounds, I need medical attention, but when you look at the conversations that I pasted into the body of Of the writings.
I didn't want to make it a footnote between myself and Ted Hull, who's the warden or the superintendent of that jail.
You're going to see this man say, I straight up don't care about your client.
I'm going to treat him as an inmate, even though he's a pretrial detainee and we will punish him accordingly.
When you see the conversations that go back and forth between myself and Mr. Hull over a few months, you're going to be furious.
I promise you.
When you have me back on the show next time or when we speak offline, you're going to be beside yourself.
We're going to take a good, we're going to take a good look.
Tell me his name again.
Christopher Quaglin.
Yes.
Q-U-A-G-L-I-N.
And what's he charged with?
He's charged with assault.
He's charged with the, uh, the 1512 charge, uh, uh, entering and remaining the grounds, even though he never went into the Capitol itself.
He was on the grounds.
He, you know, There was no signage up, do not enter here, there are people all over the place, civil disobedience.
What was the nature of the alleged assault?
So, there was, while he was there, in the crowd, the Capitol Police, it's on video, start throwing grenades that disperse all different types of grenades, wax, hot wax, they're rubber pelleting people, One guy caught on fire, people were passing out.
I've seen that footage, yeah.
Right, so arguments.
People are saying, hey, to the police officers, what the hell are you doing?
The police are saying, shut up.
The police mace, and they mace people, and altercations ensue.
You know, when you're there, you don't have to sit there and take a beating from anyone, police included, if you're not doing anything wrong.
You have a right to defend yourself, and you have a right to defend others.
And that's why the government is moving, in these cases, in their pre-trial motions in Lemonade, to preclude the defense of others and defense of self as a defense.
They're moving to preclude affirmative defenses, which, in my view, is just ridiculous.
So he defended himself?
He defended himself and others, sure.
Look, he was less than perfect.
I'm not going to lie, I'm not going to say that he was a Boy Scout.
But when you compare his actions to the actions of other protesters And protesters that have taken place throughout this country over the past few years, I mean, it's nothing.
He should have been given some misdemeanors and told to go home and don't come back to the Capitol for 10 years.
That should have been the end of it.
But they want like 15 years from him.
It's ridiculous.
Or more.
And why won't they let him out of jail?
They won't let him out of jail because despite the fact that he has no previous criminal history of any kind, Uh, and that he has an infant.
Well, not an infant anymore.
He had a two month year old son at the time.
He's now a month and a year and change and a wife and a business.
Um, they deemed him to be dangerous to society.
There is no reasonable reading under the bail reform act under which I would ever agree with that assessment.
But because this is January six related cases, and these men are being deemed insurrectionist and terrorists, and they're saying that January six is a novel day, unlike any other day on the calendar, they're developing law as they go.
And the law blatantly violates the U.S.
Constitution.
Okay.
And there are a number of rulings, not just with your client, but other clients like this, about people that have moved to have no bail set or to be let out on their own recognizance, and they've been declined.
Oh yeah, hundreds of them.
The majority of them.
So what's going on?
Bigger picture, what's going on?
Mr. Mayor, this is the first time in the history of our Republic That the party in power is hunting down and jailing membersitions of the opposition party for political dissidents.
If you are a member of the left, you can try to stab a congressperson on TV and get let out the next day.
You can firebomb police stations.
You can firebomb NYPD cruisers.
Two lawyers did that for God's sakes, and they didn't even get disciplined.
But if you are a member of the right and you say, hey, I object to the election.
I'm being suspended.
Oh, I forget.
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
So, you know, it's a two it's a two tiered system.
And if you're a Democrat, you can do what you want.
If you're to the right or center of right or far right, you're up the creek.
I was a law clerk to a federal judge.
He was finally the chief judge in the Southern District.
He's a great judge and a hero of mine.
If he heard a case like this, the FBI or whoever, they'd be in jail.
If half of this is true, the guy would be out and they'd be in jail.
The guy has celiac disease and they're keeping him in jail, and he's got children, a business, no priors, and he committed a crime of, what would you say, alleged some violence.
Alleged assault against an officer and stepping on Capitol ground.
Nobody died.
No victim.
Nobody seriously injured?
That's right.
Brassident political protest.
This is a brag, no-brainer, right?
I mean, Bragg gives you a medal for this.
That's right.
I mean, Ryan Nichols too.
Look, war veteran.
He's a U.S.
Marine Corps veteran.
No.
Oh yeah, he's a veteran.
No history of violence.
Spends 85 days a year in search and rescue missions across the United States of America.
Became internationally famous when he made Ellen DeGeneres for rescuing puppies and people during Hurricane Harvey.
He's the best of what America has to offer.
He saw somebody getting hurt that day.
He came to her aid and the aid of others.
Yeah, he said some things that were, you know, that weren't the best, but they were grounded in political speech.
He's never had any context with the criminal justice system in his life.
He has two young sons at home in Longview, Texas, a beautiful wife, Bonnie, a successful business.
No prior contacts with the criminal justice system, an honorable discharge, no write-ups why he's been inside, and he's been locked up since January 18th of 2021 because of his political beliefs.
Well, thank you very, very much, Joe.
This has been very interesting.
I know we could go on for a long, long time.
I thought it'd be better if we focused on one or two in a little depth.
So that people got more than general statements.
Because the things we get from them are general statements.
We never get facts.
We just get, oh, it's been debunked, it's been disproven, it's been shown.
You've done a very good job of pointing out the evidence, and I'm really anxious to look at the rest of what you have and see if we can educate the public even more.
May I ask, how is all of this funded?
This is a very, very expensive endeavor.
That's a great question, Mr. Mayor.
Most of these cases, all these cases, quite frankly, are underfunded.
We tried to raise money on GiveSendGo and they shut us, I mean on GoFundMe, they shut us down.
So each one of my clients have a GiveSendGo.
You can find their GiveSendGo at my law firm's webpage.
You go to McBrideLawNYC.com.
You look for the J6 tab and you'll see my clients listed.
You can donate to anyone.
Of those legal funds there.
We have been it's moms and pops $50 here $20 here every once in a while.
We get a we get a nice nice donation, but it's moms and pops.
It's people who say look, I'm retired.
I love my country.
I can only donate $25.
But here you go.
I'm on a fixed income.
These are the people that are propping up these clients.
Not one person from the right has stepped up has stepped up and said hey, Here is the money necessary, needed to fund your cases.
If I had the money necessary to fund these cases, to truly bring on board the people that I needed, I would eviscerate the other side.
But because we are fighting with the bare minimum here, oh look, we still have great chances of winning, but we are not where we need to be or where we could be should somebody from the other side step up and say, hey, I'm going to give you guys what you need because I love this country and I believe in what you're doing and I want to see you win.
And by the way, If all these people go to jail and if they bat a thousand here on these political persecutions, the way that we know life in this country is over.
So, you know, it's part donating to us, it's part for the clients, and it's also for the country and for the inheritance of our children who are going to grow up in an America that's vastly different than the one that you and I knew if people don't step up and help us out.
And Joe, you're talking about a group of Defendants in an empire of 800 or so defendants, maybe not all of them having to go to trial, but at least hundreds having the same problem.
That is correct.
Some people are situated differently.
I have done my best to globally advocate for everybody in these cases.
You know, everybody does need help, but we're at the point in time now where, with regard to my clients, we are...
Fighting our rear ends off to make sure that, you know, we save our republic, but at the same time we save these men's lives, their families.
We bring these fathers home.
These are not criminals.
These are military veterans, ex-police officers and firemen and patriots who love this country deeply, and it's wrong what's happening to them.
Well, you know, if it were usual America, The America I grew up in, the America you grew up in, the one I was educated to be a lawyer in, and the one in which I served for about 30 years of my life.
I would have very strong feelings you're going to win this case because whenever the government overcharges And when I was a U.S.
attorney, it's what I tried to avoid with my assistants all the time, particularly the younger and more zealous ones.
And when you look at some of the famous losses in federal criminal history, they're overcharging.
I just have to just be honest about the District of Columbia.
It cannot be viewed as a normal federal court.
Let's put it that way.
It's the swap.
You're fighting from behind, but you've got a heck of a cause, and God bless you for doing it.
And we'll be there as much as we can to help you.
I definitely understand everything you're saying, probably more than most, because I see this as act three in a drama to destroy Donald Trump.
And they're paying the price of these people who are proven liars, once again, pulling off an unconstitutional, something you would only see in a fascist state.
But thank you for fighting it.
We're going to stay on top of this case, you know that.
We're not going away.
We're going to run this investigation down the way it should be.
Ashley, for sure, now the scope just got bigger, hasn't it?
So you stay with us.
Help us, help us win back our people who've been brainwashed.
Help us win back our people who've been, in essence, in many ways, intellectually terrorized by the Biden state media.
We've got our chances.
These are our chances.
RudyCS.com.
Podcasts like mine.
Shows like mine.
WABCRadio.com.
This is where you've got to come for the truth.
And we'll be here for you.
We need you to be there for us, particularly November 2022 and 2024.
God bless you.
God bless.
Joe, an American hero.
Mickey, another American hero.
To me, she's like a gold star mother.
God bless them both.
Wish them well in their endeavors to bring America back to what it used to be.