All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2025 - Rudy Giuliani
01:15:10
America's Mayor Live (808): Two National Guard Soldiers Shot Near White House, Suspect in Custody
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Juliani, and many more of you can now watch me.
I'm only accused now in one felony case.
I have been for a number of years been accused in two.
The delays in the cases are about as egregious and malicious as the prosecutions themselves.
But the Georgia case was dismissed today by a Georgia judge.
It should have been never been brought, and it should have been dismissed a couple of years ago.
But they accomplished what they wanted.
They never convicted us of a damn thing, any of us.
I don't even know how many of us were in that case in Georgia, 17, 18.
Some of these people I didn't even know.
Some of them are famous, of course, like the President of the United States and his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, myself, John Eastman, several other people who you would know.
Many of them you don't know.
They're just decent people who a whole group of them stood as alternate delegates and have been prosecuted all over the country.
So far, no one's been convicted, and the cases have been thrown out by numerous judges.
You know why?
Because there was nothing at all illegal about it.
It was perfectly legal.
It followed chapter and verse, what had been done three times in the past, most recently in 1960, when there was a dispute in the Hawaii election.
On election night and thereafter, the votes that were counted were counted for Nixon.
And when they went to the Electoral College, the Nixon delegates were recognized by the Electoral College.
But Kennedy, in order to preserve those votes, if there were a change after the Electoral College based on a court or legislative decision, he would not have any electors to substitute.
And yes, Nixon would be deprived of the votes, but Kennedy would never get the votes, which is like only getting half the benefit in a very, very close election where the majority is at stake.
So I don't know if George Eastman recognized this himself or someone alerted him to it, but George Eastman had written a constitutional law analysis on this years before.
And both he and the other gentleman whose name I forget were experts on it.
We went over it, went over it with the president, went over all of his lawyers went over it.
And those of us who were involved in it too much all got indicted, both in Arizona and in Georgia.
And also the Rafsenberger conversation, which was a perfectly lawful conversation, as has now been proven 100 times over.
There were numerous questionable votes in Georgia.
You don't know this because no one tells you this.
And I was fired for bringing this out from ABC.
There were 300,000 plus missing votes discovered in Georgia two and a half years after the election.
All of those improprieties were known to Rafsenberger seven days after the election in a report that he kept in his drawer and never told anyone about.
Raphsenberger is also one of two possible people who doctored the videos in the state farm arena that were presented to New York State.
It was either Raphsonberger or the New York State prosecutor.
And there is how many minutes missing, Ted?
Ted has gone over this.
He's not here.
Dozens of minutes of tape missing, all of it the most incriminating period of time, which the New York prosecutor blames on Raphsonberger.
And Raphsonberger doesn't answer.
He is the one who announced it was, you know, the election was fine, but he had a report that was given to him seven days after by an independent group that he had hired with 49 major irregularities, one of the most important ones being that for hundreds of thousands of votes, there was no chain of custody, which makes the votes invalid.
Also, the votes that were counted in that arena were counted when the public wasn't present.
So even if they were counted accurately, they were not votes that should have been allowed to be included in the election.
And that's why the people were thrown out.
And that becomes very difficult to prove because a lot of the tape is sliced up.
And I was never allowed to use that effectively, either in the trial, in the make-believe court in District of Columbia.
That's a make-believe American court.
It would fit very, very well in a fascist situation.
And it's a court that rules only one way all the time and comes up with irrational, insane, and horribly unfair judgments.
Someone should be investigating that court if we want to have justice back in the United States.
The court gives a horrible order to the entire federal justice system, from the chief judges who were among the worst, to judges who were intimidated.
One judge, it's reported, was intimidated to act the way he was acting.
What they did to the January 6th people is terrible.
Well, one felony is gone.
The president now has no felony indictments against him.
He does have a felony conviction from New York, which they're also for a year and a half.
That thing is laying around there.
The delay in deciding this case should mean a lot of money for all of the people who were maliciously prosecuted.
And that's all of the people in the indictment.
You should know because I tweeted this out or X'd it out or whatever you want to call it today.
So all of my co-defendants can have the benefit of it.
And their lawyers, they all work very, very well together.
But it would seem to me that we all have a really great case based on chapter seven of the laws of Georgia, which relates to false arrests, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abusive litigation.
Malicious prosecution has a section called 51747, which has the measure of damages.
The measure of damages is all that it costs you to defend yourself, plus whatever else the jury feels is necessary to compensate you for the injustices that were done to you.
And the case, by the way, can be brought in federal court under the diversity jurisdiction statute.
So I would say Georgia, the state and Fulton County are in for a very big lawsuit.
And I imagine the president will join in that.
He certainly has made the point that this has to be done in order to deter people from doing this in the future.
And in the case of these defendants, it has to be done to make them whole.
These people were ruined.
Personally, I lost my law practice.
I lost my security business.
And then the delay in the delay in coming to the conclusion that there was no case of two and a half years, all of that delay resulted in tremendous loss of income.
Not just for me, but for all the people involved in it.
The state of Georgia owes us that money, plus the damages for the horrible violation of our civil rights.
Probably, you look at all of these cases, and I'm including now the January 6th cases.
This was probably the worst, the blackest period of time for the American justice system ever.
And there are any number of reasons why it cannot be just, oh, let's just forget it.
Most important is it'll happen again.
The second is that there were people that were definite, horrible victims of this, who should be made whole, which is what the tort system in America does.
It makes you whole for unjust injuries.
And if there ever was an unjust injury, these were unjust injuries.
I mean, the politicians in Georgia, not every one of them, but a whole bunch of them steal like crazy.
I mean, therefore, decent people who are victimized should be paid.
Thanksgiving in 1621 was a celebration between the Wampanoag Native Americans.
I feel funny because for centuries they were the Wampanoag Indians, right?
But now they're the Wampanoag, the Wampanoag, which should we call them the Wampanoag Guardians?
The Guardians or the Commanders?
Well, the Commanders are for Redskins, right?
Yeah.
Oh, literally Indian, yeah.
Yeah, because the new word, the new 1984 word for Indian is guardian, right?
Right.
Like the like the company that is used for prophylactics.
So I wonder if they're someday going to have like prophylactics on their uniform.
They used to have an Indian, right?
The Indians had a great, you know, the Indian for the Redskins was an actual person, a very famous person, whose family is suing for their having taken it down.
They made some agreement with him that they would keep it.
And you know, well over a majority of the Native Americans are not supportive of these changes because they think it is wiping out Native American history, which by the way, very, very astute of them because that's exactly what it's doing and exactly what it's intended to do because that's what Karl Marx told them to do.
And so this is like what they did.
This is like what the Democrats have done to a lot of Black people who should read Malcolm X, not for all the things that Malcolm X said, but for the following.
The people who did the most damage to Black people are the white liberal, the white liberals.
That's a big explanation.
So the pilgrims had a three-day harvest in 1621.
That was a year plus after they arrived from England, much reduced in terms of life.
A lot of the loss of life on the ship, helped greatly by the Wampanoag and other Indian tribes that were in the vicinity.
There were a couple of disputes over the history of their relationship, which was spanned about three, four generations.
However, this was basically a harmonious, good relationship.
In fact, the chief of the Wampanoag Indians died among the pilgrims, living among the pilgrims.
Did you know that?
It was like it was a nursing home.
Oh, God.
No, not oh, God.
It was wonderful.
I mean, they became very good.
He did that because they became very good friends.
And it was a pretty much a value-added situation on both sides.
The Pilgrims taught them a lot, but they taught the Pilgrims a lot that kept them alive, like how to take advantage of the fields.
They were farmers, but the farming was very, very different in the soil of Massachusetts, which is rocky and but then has certain advantages that the soil back in England.
And I think they were, weren't they in the Netherlands for a while?
Had, and they were farming incorrectly.
And this is before they had their little feast in the year and a half before.
And the Indians would come and show them how to farm.
Say, well, you don't do it that way.
You do it this way.
How they got over the language barrier, I do not know, but these were very resourceful people on both sides.
And although, you know, Massachusetts is not known for the Indian wars out west, there was a significant amount of difficulty and trouble between the Indian tribes when the Puritans came in, because the Puritans were much, they were all very much affected by Cromwell, who, you know, killed the King of England.
They were much more aggressive.
They really were, their religion was a very, very harsh religion, whereas the religion of the Pilgrims, the Protestant religion, was a much softer, more beautiful, very simple dedication to the Bible.
But the Puritans wanted to fix everything and they, you know, they went too far.
They got rid of Christmas.
They got rid of Christmas because it was too, it was too, it wasn't too commercial then.
It was just too jolly.
They got rid of music.
What about all Martin Luther's hymns?
Not just the beautiful music of the Roman Catholic Church, which invented opera.
I mean, no Mozart's requiem, no box of B minor Mass, no box of St. Matthew's Passion, no early Italian German church music.
And of course, none of the great Luther hymns.
Out, No organ.
No Christmas, no parties.
You can't dance.
No wonder they were fighting and killing Indians.
They were so frustrated they had to do something, I guess.
Not true of the pilgrims, though.
That's the point that I'm making.
So all through all, starting in about 1660, the colonies would almost regularly have days of Thanksgiving that had to do usually with the crops coming in, you know, the harvest, and the bountifulness of the harvest.
And they would thank God for it.
And they would thank God for being here in a lot more freedom than they had from whence they came, which went on from the very beginning as a theme.
Then finally, in 1789, George Washington, as the first president, inaugurated in New York, decided to have a national day of Thanksgiving.
And in the 1800s, Walter Sarah Joseph Hale pushed very hard to make it a national holiday, not just a day.
And Abraham Lincoln, in 1863, the same year he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, made it a yearly national holiday on the last Thursday in November, like tomorrow is.
In 39, because please realize that Roosevelt did not solve the Depression.
Roosevelt became president in 32, took office in 33, put in many, many of the socialist communist remedies to deal with the horrors of the Depression, none of which had any effect other than to make the Depression worse.
By 1938 and 39, the Depression was worse.
In order to help the economy during the Depression, in 1939, he moved it one week earlier.
So it would have been the second to last Thursday in November.
So there'd be more shopping.
There'd be a longer Christmas season.
He didn't realize what would happen with the greedy, avaracious Americans of the 21st century, where they'd move Christmas back to June or whatever.
The Hallmark Christmas movies are on all year now.
But they begin selling in about September.
So he wanted to move back just a week.
Americans didn't like that.
They only stood it for, they called it Franksgiving.
And in 1941, they had to put it back to the fourth Thursday of November, where it's remained since then.
So you enjoy it.
We have a lot of problems.
We've never not.
We got a little less, we had a lot less problems than those original pilgrims and Native Americans had back in 1621, right?
They had lost about half their people, and who knows how many the Indians had lost.
They knew each other for a year and a half.
They helped each other on a human level and they celebrated their mutual harvest together for three days, whether they had turkey or any other, who knows.
But the traditions are the traditions, and it's a beautiful thing to have traditions.
Only communists, atheists, and a lot of the left-wing pigs don't want to have traditions because they want the state to rule and tell you what you should think and how you should think it.
So 81 million travelers this weekend, Ted.
So do we count?
Are we a part of that number?
Yeah, we count maybe.
We count.
I think we're going to count.
Well, I don't know if we count.
We traveled on Sunday.
We left early.
I don't know if Sunday is, say, start with Sunday.
We did travel specifically for Thanksgiving, however, I mean, for Thanksgiving, and also so we could do our shows here where we like to do our shows and mix it up, right?
And we're going back.
I think, you know, what really makes us count?
We're going back during the Thanksgiving weekend.
So that makes that counts.
Makes us, and I don't know if they count the travelers twice, I think only once to to and fro.
Well, I mean, most people are going to do a round trip right, they're going to go see grandma and come back.
I think you count us twice.
I don't think so, depending on the purpose of the stay right, it is hard to know how.
How do you count it?
Anyway, it depends on what.
What is it for right, if you're, if you're measuring it for the airport itself, you're going to count it twice, because that same body, it might be the same person.
When I lived in, when I lived in uh Manhattan right right, and my parents lived and my wife's parents lived on in Assaur and Suffocate County right right, and I drove there on thanksgiving to one of their two houses, for thanksgiving sure, was I a traveler or not?
From where to where?
From New York yeah, to approximate, like where Joe The Box is yes, so my dad always said, you're officially uh, what's the word?
Not not a tourist, but you officially are out of town when you're in the next county.
He, he always used the over you're out of town.
But if I stayed in Manhattan yeah, if you're in Man and visited a relative or friend for Thanksgiving dinner, then I would not be.
No, same day doesn't count.
And if you're driving same day yeah, I drive in the morning, what's uh?
Usually we would stay over, particularly if we went to her, her parents house, because it was far out.
But to my parents house we usually came back because it was a 45 minute drive, two hours or under, doesn't?
You don't count in the um.
You're not traveling for thanks, but they do.
They do count.
Uh, 31 million in the air, that was us 32.5 million by car.
We we've.
We have some driving to do then to get to the 81 million you put in uh the people by bus, a lot of bus between you know, New York and Dc.
I bet there's a lot of bicycle, balloon and walking.
Biking doesn't count.
Motorcycle, if it has an engine, that counts.
But if you get a motorcycle from here to Florida, that would count.
People do that, people do do that and that definitely would count.
And if you're doing that up here in uh november you got a pair.
You know what?
Yeah, down in Florida, that's, that's year-round biking.
Big storms, ted uh storms now in uh out in Seattle they're gonna come to the Midwest for thanksgiving day gonna be uh, five to eight inches of snow in Chicago, and then they're gonna come further over and the worst of it's gonna be the day after thanksgiving.
Uh, on what is called black friday.
Black friday, does it's not as big of a deal now with uh, the internet and people shopping.
It's also.
It's also like christmas.
The black friday started two weeks ago.
Yeah, that's right.
It's not even black friday week, it's now black friday season.
That's right.
That's a good point.
But and I I have to say I I have, for the first time ever, been taking advantage of the black friday discounts to get my christmas presents.
Oh, this isn't the first time you've done that.
No no, I would never.
I would always get my christmas present near the end, but after that's me yes yes, i'm.
I never, I never thought, I never thought of, oh, isn't it better to get them down?
I mean so if I?
So here here's my, my uh rule if it's a 10, 20 or 30 Discount.
I'll just think about it, you know.
But it's like 50%.
They gotcha.
Then why not, right?
They gotcha.
All sorts of strategies that these stores employ, right?
They tell you it's 50% off, but that illegal price is a lot of fun.
These are products I know.
These are products I know.
Gotcha.
These are products I know.
Well, these are products I've bought at other times at the price, at the price that pretty much they're at.
And it really is a 50% decline.
Well, speaking of Christmas gifts, I can't think of many better products than a new book from our good friend, Christina Bob, who joins the show.
Yeah, but she's still, she's still, like me, an indicted felon.
Allegedly, allegedly.
Presumed innocent.
Yes, of course, of course.
You and I are presumed innocent.
I couldn't, I don't think I know a nicer alleged felon than you.
Oh, well, thank you.
I'm in good company.
I've got a great group of co-defendants, yourself included.
The book is doing well, huh?
Yeah, it's doing very well.
Pre-sales were great.
It's out now forward by President Trump.
Please check it out.
I give you all the receipts, all the emails, all the text messages, all the discussions that happen behind the scenes about Mar-a-Lago and our ongoing criminal case and the ongoing criminal cases.
One less today, thankfully.
But yeah, it's got all the receipts in it.
So check it out.
Yeah.
You know, I think I put in my tweet, or I get, I don't know what you call it now.
My ex, my post.
Yep.
I put in my post a citation to the statute you can sue the malicious prosecution statute of the state of Georgia.
It has an interesting thing about damages, Christina.
It says you get compensated for your out-of-pocket expenses with your lawyer, plus whatever is considered proper to make up for the damage to your reputation, emotional distress.
So, I mean, people should get compensated pretty heavily here.
I've forgotten exactly how many.
It's pretty much like Arizona, about 15, 16, 18 people.
And a lot of people you and I never heard of.
Yeah, no, I know.
And a lot of people's lives were really upended and significantly damaged.
I mean, of course, you know, you and President Trump and Mark Meadows, you know, the people that everyone is aware of, you were horribly damaged and defamed and unfairly targeted in the media and all that.
But there's a whole other group of people that were targeted by this that most Americans have never heard of.
And they lost their homes, they lost their businesses, they lost families.
I mean, the damages done to everyday Americans is very, very significant.
And I really hope that there can be some level of compensation for it.
Because as you know, as a prosecutor, and I discuss this in the book as well, but as a prosecutor, in order to be taken seriously, you should have at least a 90% conviction rate, at least, because as the prosecutor, you're the one bringing the case.
You're the one deciding whether it's valid.
And they have indicted about 80 of us, close to 80 of us, whether it's Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, on largely the same set of facts.
And they have a 0% conviction rate.
Yes, they had a couple people plead guilty to unrelated misdemeanors where some of them got unsupervised probation and they're already done with their unsupervised probation.
It's really unfortunate those people were intimidated.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, because they were worried about all the legal fees and everything that you and I have been going through for the last several years now.
So they pled guilty to an unrelated offense.
But as far as this whole alternate electors scheme and the fake electors cases, as the liberal media likes to call it, there have been zero convictions.
And so if you want to lambast these people as criminals or a threat to democracy or all the terrible things that the media has been saying about you and me and our co-defendants, prove it.
Prove your case.
And not one of them can do it.
So yeah, this is a well-deserved win today.
Congratulations to those of you in Georgia.
And I hope Arizona and Wisconsin and Nevada are shortly behind.
You know, I'm not included in Wisconsin and Nevada, so I don't think of it as much.
But it really, when you laid that out, I started to realize the scope of this.
This case I knew about the best because I had to try to get lawyers for a lot of people.
And there's another thing that's a whole part of our history that I never thought would happen.
Maria and I were on the phone constantly trying to get begging people to be lawyers.
Do you know in my last case, when they were going to try to take all my property from me, I called four lawyers in the District of Columbia to represent me, four that I know well.
They are on our side politically.
They're enormously honorable people.
And they said they were afraid because the judge loves to put people in jail.
It was a former chief judge who she loves to put people in jail and they would not appear before.
A young man volunteered to do it because he had handled about four January six cases and she just was on the verge of putting him in jail every single case.
He said he could see in her eyes her desire to want to put him in jail because she was defending them.
And he defended me and the case was dismissed.
But it was terrible.
People don't believe it when you tell them because it must be exact.
And I'm not even sure if I didn't go through it.
I wouldn't believe it.
Yeah, no, I'm sure people think that the way I recount the story and the facts of it are fake or exaggerated.
And they're really not.
I've actually, most of the time when I laid out, I laid out pretty conservatively.
But the amount of civil rights violations that have happened to the 80, and we're just talking about those of us that are involved in the alternate electors and really the Arctic Frost.
This all stems from Arctic Frost, from that whole investigation.
We haven't even touched on the civil rights violations of the January 6thers and the Brady evidence that was withheld and the lying under oath, lying to the grant, or not the grand jury, lying to the actual jury in several of these cases and the show trials that were performed on the January 6th cases.
It's quite scary what the left has done to our criminal justice system.
And I'm curious your thoughts on this there because I look at what's happening with the Department of Justice now.
And they're trying to, it almost looks like they're trying to copy the Democrats playbook, but they're not like what I would like to see the Department of Justice do in the next three years is to gut itself.
Make sure that it can never happen again.
Make sure that they cannot come after anybody the way that they did.
Obviously, I want to see people held accountable.
And certainly even more so than that, I want to see the people who have been damaged restored.
To me, that's more important than throwing other people in prison.
But we're not seeing, well, we're not seeing that.
And we're not seeing the people who actually targeted us be held accountable, at least not yet.
I'm curious your thoughts on that.
I'm very concerned about it.
I don't know the final answer.
I have somewhere an optimistic hope that it's all going to happen and that they're preparing it and they're getting it done.
Like you, I have a lot of people telling me it's not happening and that there's a fear.
There's a fear of doing it.
They don't want to get their hands dirty.
They don't want to resurrect it.
They don't want to.
Well, it's 2020 all over again.
It's the same thing people were telling you.
Lie.
I mean, the reality is if the Democrats get in power in two or three years, they're going to try to put us all in jail again.
They're probably worse now than they were before.
I mean, they just get worse.
I think they are.
And going after these Letitia James cases and, you know, now Eric Swalwell and John Bolton, I think it's ticking the hornet's nest because it doesn't actually do anything to protect those of those of us that have been targeted, but those people that could be targeted in the future.
And all it does is, I think, make them angry.
I think it looks like Republicans are trying to play the game that Democrats play and they just don't play it as well as Democrats do.
And we don't also have the corrupt judges that they have.
Right, right.
I mean, first of all, they have a lot of judges, so the cases will get before their judges.
I really believe they manipulate the judge selection system internally.
Like in New York City, in New York City, that's just not in the federal court, but in the state court.
The state court in New York City might as well be in Mexico.
Yeah.
Well, we're on our, just in our case in Arizona, we're on our technically our fourth judge, substantively our second judge.
But there, you know, I filed a motion to disqualify Chris Mays back on June 4th.
We're going on six months that the court is just refusing to hear my motion.
He's not denying my motion.
He's not saying, you know, I didn't meet my burden.
He's just refusing to consider my motion to disqualify her.
It's very damaging.
Right.
And it's like, what do I have to do to be heard?
Here's a case that has no substance, never should have been brought.
And then instead of dealing with it quickly, he keeps stretching out the damage.
Yeah.
Well, we won the first half of the anti-slap motion that we filed back in June of 2024.
So that's the year and a half ago that we filed our anti-slap.
And as you know, and as a lot of the viewers know, the anti-slap motion has two parts.
In the first part, the defendants have us.
We had to prove that it was more likely than not that the case was brought in violation of our constitutional rights, meaning it was infringing on our political process.
And the judge ruled in our favor.
He said, yes, it appears I'm making a prima facie finding that this case was brought in violation of your constitutional rights.
And then the second half, he's supposed to toss it over to the state to prove that it was not.
And he just never held that half of the hearing for a year and a half.
He's just letting it go on without holding the second half of this anti-slap motion that we have won.
And so it's like, okay, so you're basically saying, yes, this was brought in a violation of your constitutional rights.
Carry on, you know, continue, keep going.
It's like, what do we have to do to have this case thrown out when we're winning all of these motions and the courts just refusing to dismiss it?
But you're before a Democrat judge.
Yeah.
I don't understand.
They have no conscience.
Not only, oh, okay.
So we're before a Democrat judge.
And I go through this in my book as well.
Our judge was appointed by Janet Napolitano, the former Arizona Democrat governor of Arizona.
Janet Napolitano is on the advisory board of States United Democracy Center, which is the group that Chris Mays brought in to help prosecute us.
So they have, they're claiming attorney client privilege with them.
So basically, the prosecutor and the judge, the judge was appointed by part of the prosecution team.
I'm sorry.
How Teller.
And oh, by the way, Chris Mays got $200,000 from the Democratic Attorney General's Association, who originated States United Democracy Center.
I mean, this is my motion.
This is my motion to disqualify that the report has refused to hear.
You know, and this is very similar to many of the cases that were brought.
They were brought by groups of Democrats who put the money into it.
In the Georgia case, civil case that was brought against me, it was brought by the chief, a lawyer who worked for nothing, belonged to a very big Wall Street law firm.
Probably there were millions of dollars in legal fees.
He was Hunter Biden's partner.
Not only that, he represented Burisma, the crooked, the crooked Ukrainian company.
Yes, that you were outing, that you were in the process of exposing.
And then they go and figure out how to prosecute you.
So what is it going to take to get this Department of Justice to actually open on the civil side?
Forget about the criminal side.
If they want to do criminal prosecutions, fine, go for it.
But just on the civil side for civil enforcement of violations of our civil rights, that you have all of these groups that are connected with the Democrat donors that are being invited into the prosecution team to target us and to prosecute their political opponents.
I mean, if this is allowed to continue, what's the difference between a company who is trying to run a competitor out of business from just paying off the campaign or paying off the personal legal fund of an attorney general to file criminal charges against a business competitor?
And then that business is suddenly, you know, run out of business.
I mean, that's the same thing we're talking about.
So what, how do, how, and I have filed this whistleblower complaint.
My whistleblower complaints out there.
I've sent this to the Department of Justice back in June.
What do we need to do to get them to actually look at this and go, you know what, these actually are civil rights violations and we need to ensure that it doesn't continue in the United States?
How do we get them to do anything about it?
We have to just advocate for it.
Look, I've been trying to get my affidavits for three years.
Yeah, a long time.
And now we have Pam Bondi and what's his name, the deputy?
Todd Blanche.
What's his name?
Yeah, I know.
So why wouldn't they just give us the affidavits?
Why wouldn't they give us the affidavits?
Why aren't they exposing what happened in 2020?
They have the information.
I mean, the FBI was part of it.
Why aren't they putting more out about what happened on January 6th?
Why aren't they putting out the fact that the, oh, they issued a reward.
They said, oh, there's a $500,000 reward for anybody who's got information on the pipe bomber.
And then Tulsi Gabbert team was like, ah, the pipe bomber works for the CIA.
I mean, what are they doing?
And why do they keep information back?
They titillated us with that whole bombing thing with the pictures.
It suggests that the Capitol Police were involved.
They apparently have the answer and they don't put it out.
Well, it's out now.
I mean, Steve Baker put it out from Blaze Media.
Is it real?
You know, it should be put out by the government.
Well, that's true.
Yeah, you're right.
It should be put out by the government.
They haven't denied it.
To my knowledge, they haven't denied it.
They haven't denied it.
Steve Baker is such a good reporter that, like me, I was a reporter on January 6th at the Capitol.
I was there.
So was Baker.
And he was such a good reporter about getting to the bottom of what was actually happening on January 6th that three years later, they finally indicted him just to get him to shut up on his reporting because they had left him alone for three years.
And then when the CCTV footage was released and he was painstakingly going through the footage, comparing it to the testimony of the Capitol police and the FBI agents that were testifying, and he was pointing out their testimonies aren't accurate, whether you want to believe they lied or they misremembered, whatever it was, the testimonies that these federal officers gave to the juries in order to convict these people, it wasn't true.
It's just not true.
And the CCTV footage shows it.
So you would like to think that the FBI would see that and go, oh, we need to correct justice because there was clearly false evidence, falsified evidence admitted in these trials, particularly with the oath keepers.
Is that what they did?
No, they arrested Steve Baker and tried to prevent him from reporting.
I mean, do you know or can we find out if they ever tried to identify Antifa people inside the Capitol through face recognition?
There's a couple that I'm really interested in.
Like the two people that were knocking down the door of Pelosi's chambers.
And then first there are two big police officers standing there blocking the entrance.
They go, these two guys, one of them, one of the two, go up to the police office, have a conversation.
You can't tell what they're talking about.
And these very big police, I emphasize these were big police officers because the crowd wasn't that great.
It wasn't that great a crowd, had no weapons.
And it wasn't violent.
It was noisy, but not violent.
Yeah.
So when I first saw it, which was the night of January 6th, the video, my first impression was they stupidly gave up the doors and they were afraid.
Then the two guys start knocking the doors down.
All of a sudden, within seconds, you see a gun appear and Ashley Babbitt gets shot.
She's not knocking the door down.
She's going to come over the transom, which means she's going to land on our head or her backside.
And the guy could have handcuffed her in a minute.
And if he had panicked, the people he would have shot had been those two people because they had like a weapon.
Yeah.
Now, those people, I don't think, have ever been identified or questioned.
And I am told at the time, the people who gave me this video identified one of them as a member of Antifa and wasn't sure of the other.
I don't know.
I mean, I'm sure the FBI knows, right?
And then I have a text three or four days later from Sullivan's brother, who was in the military and very opposed to what Sullivan was doing, who's the guy who did the tape, saying that he thinks his brother was able to get about 250 Antifa people in.
And there's a string of emails before January 6th with Sullivan inviting the Antifa people to come in.
There's an email that says that they should come to Washington on January on January 5th.
And we have to take Trump out.
Yes, they were.
And that's very clear that they were anti-Trump.
Yeah.
And then when they get there, he gives a speech in which he talks about going into the Capitol and also says, and we got to take Trump out.
Now, when I was a U.S. attorney, we arrested everyone who threatened the president.
And any interpretation that yielded a threat was, in other words, the ambiguity was resolved in favor of threat, at least for the purpose of a visit and making a record of it.
So this guy has got these texts going around.
We're going to take Trump out.
Now, that could easily be interpreted on January 6th as we're going to kill him.
Yeah.
By the way, he was under indictment for being involved in a killing in Utah.
The guy who did this.
Never interviews him.
Secret Service never talks to him.
Well, are we sure?
Or are we sure the FBI or Secret Service didn't?
Because I suspect, I don't know, but I suspect that the FBI has all of this information.
They know exactly who did what and where, you know, where everybody was.
I don't think they were stupid about it.
I think they knew exactly what was happening, but because they were part of orchestrating it, they chose to withhold information.
And so I suspect the FBI knows all of this.
They're already aware of what's going on.
I think they're focusing on the wrong targets when they focus on how many FBI agents were in there.
I think there were more than they say.
But I think the number keeps getting bigger, right?
The first is like, oh, we had a couple, and then we had, you know, 25, and now there's 275.
And it's like, oh, lo and behold, the entire crowd was federal agents.
I have a number, 240-something Antifa people.
That's a lot of Antifa people.
That's a lot of Antifa people.
How many of those people can be?
We have terrific face recognition.
How many of those people can be?
I mean, look at the, they were able to find with the Trump hat.
Of course.
I mean, they were able to find the plumbers from Kenosha, Wisconsin, who came into DC and then went back.
You know, they were able to find kind of random people from all over the country and connect them together in a matter of weeks, whether it was through geofencing, you know, geolocation, use of cell phone data, social media posts, whatever it is.
So you can find all of these pro-Trumpers, but you can't find Antifa and you can't find anybody who opposed Donald Trump.
You can only find Trump supporters who happen to be in the crowd, whether they actually participated and did anything illegal.
We have no information.
You and I have to do a podcast on this that we give out to people.
We at least make a record of all this.
But, you know, this is no different than what they did just recently with Epstein and the email that they put out in which they covered over victim.
Oh, right.
Yes, because it's misleading.
Create the impression that Trump had some kind of inappropriate relationship with Virginia Jaffrey.
She has already testified that he did nothing improper.
Yes.
Not only that, there's one they don't pay attention to.
In the deposition, she's asked the following question.
When was it that Donald Trump forwarded with you?
As if it's as if it's a fact.
And she very honestly said, he never did.
He was always very, he was always very gentlemanly with me.
I have no complaints about Donald Trump.
And in fact, she praises him for helping get out of that situation.
They don't even tell you that.
Now, I collected all of this information way back when I was representing him because I was afraid they're going to use this against him.
And there's also a reporter who tracked this story down way back when they were originally going to try to use it against him before he was president, didn't like Trump and came away with all these interviews with people that said that he was very, very protective of his staff.
And he threw the guy out because he was not only was he poaching people, he was sexually abusing them.
But these weren't children.
These were like regular employees, like adult employees.
Masuses, masuses.
Yeah.
One in particular that came and complained to him.
And she, the, the person who was in charge, she went to the person who was in charge and she said that Epstein has really been driving me nuts.
She said, well, this is not the first thing we've had trouble with him.
She said, I don't want to tell Mr. Trump.
I mean, he's an important guy, Epstein.
She said, wait, come on with me.
I'm going to show you something.
They go upstairs.
They tell Trump.
Trump says, stay there.
And he calls him up on, he calls the security guy.
He says, get his stuff in the locker, give it to security, put a note on it, never come back.
I don't want, you never can cross this property any longer.
And as far as getting his money back, we'll see, let him sue us, screw him.
Something like that.
And I don't know if.
And he never let him back in Mar-a-Lago or in the golf course.
And this was before anything hit the fan, before any of this stuff hit the fan.
And he probably took the most decisive action against him.
And they're trying their worst way.
And then to cover her up, it's like a small version of the steel dossier.
Right.
It is completely false.
Yeah.
I do think, you know, the rollout could have been better.
I have no idea why.
It's like so.
Yeah, that hurt.
But that my, the only reason I bring that up, not be, you know, I don't think there's anything there on Donald Trump.
I can tell you, I've seen it.
The whole thing.
Yeah.
There's nothing there.
It drives me nuts.
I say to myself, why do you want to create the impression that you worry?
That's the problem.
Because you got nothing to worry about.
You are actually, we can actually prove the negative here.
I do think the Justice Department did get all involved in the innocent names and the not innocent names.
Well, that can be, that can be handled.
Yes, it's a messy job and it will take time, but you can do it.
You can redact names.
You can have things sealed by the court or whatever.
But there is a way to release the information that the public wants and protect the innocent.
And it doesn't appear that they have tried that, although they are releasing stuff now.
But now it's almost kind of like too little, too late.
So, I mean, it still needs to come out.
But yeah, I just think the rollout could have been a little bit better on that.
Yeah.
Or the explanation of the difficulty with it should have.
First, the impression was given that it's going to, everything's going to be given out very easily and very fast.
Yeah.
And then they held it back.
If in fact there is a tremendous problem putting those names out because the name is there and it doesn't indicate how often the person was with him or the guy and his client for financial, he did have two at least two lives.
He had a completely innocent life where the people who dealt with him were perfectly innocent people.
And then he had this perverted life where, and I am sure.
Blackmailing people.
Yeah, and I'm sure he had film on all of them.
Oh, for sure, for sure.
Well, it's been great to talk to you.
Let's show him the book again, huh?
Come on.
She's just as good a writer as she is a talker.
Well, thank you so much for having me.
She makes it compelling.
She makes it compelling.
And I tell you, you're one exceptional, exceptional person.
Well, you are as well.
And congratulations on the Georgia victory today.
That's a huge.
We're going to make a list because Trump loves to do this.
I'm right.
I'm right.
Now, when he sees me, he says, no, this guy's been right about, he's right about everything.
And you have.
And you've been right now 22 times, 23 times.
About all of it.
You're right about all of it.
So, and I'm so proud to know you and have worked with you.
You are a warrior.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for having me.
Thanks, Ted.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Yeah, we want to see you very soon.
Yes, absolutely.
All right, have a great day.
Well, wasn't that interesting?
I mean, there, that woman was a United States Marine.
You would never know it, right?
She was a United States Marine, a lawyer, a television anchor.
What else?
A government employee.
Oh, she's done it all.
And a tremendous fighter for freedom and justice.
And it's all for real.
It's all absolutely 100% for real.
And the only thing I say about the Democrats, the only thing that saves them, none of it's for real.
They're complete, absolute phonies.
So let me see if I can go through a whole bunch of things before we get to the end of our football coach.
How's the football coach doing?
They still haven't found him, right?
They're still looking.
But the evidence of child pornography is growing and growing and growing, except the wife denies it completely.
Well, I'm just saying, I want to just lay out the fact that the wife denies it completely.
That also want to encourage all my co-defendants to look at my tweet so that they get ready to bring the lawsuit against Georgia.
Maybe we bring it personally against a few of the people too.
It seems like you have a case.
I mean, the level of misconduct.
We have a very good case.
Both personally and professionally.
And then extending it, extending it, extending it.
So there's a dispute about who called first, Xi Jin Ming or Donald Trump.
Really?
The other day they had a phone call.
Now, the purpose of Zijin Ming calling was to try to turn Trump against Japan and the new prime minister, who he announced, the president did when he was there, that Prime Minister Takeahichi, that she was going to be his best friend.
President Trump said that I am a very close friend of his and that I should feel free to call him any time.
President Takahichi several weeks ago said that if China were to make a move on Taiwan, it would become a very, very major national security threat to Japan, which they would probably have to respond to militarily.
Now, this drove China crazy.
because they say that Taiwan is part of China, that we, United States, have agreed to the one China policy.
But this is the strangest thing in the world.
We've also made it clear that we would oppose any forcible taking of Taiwan.
We have also guaranteed that.
So all Japan is doing is saying that we would have to act if there was a forcible taking of Taiwan.
Now, in the case of Japan, it's part of their archipelago.
I mean, you just lead up a couple of islands right into Japan.
Japan has a much better geographical claim to Taiwan than China does.
And the people of Taiwan, the original people of Taiwan, steadfastly maintain that they're not Chinese.
The only Chinese there are the Chinese that oppose the communists and are isolated there.
Now, there were so many of them, they took over.
And it's almost like indigenous people and the Chinese.
So their right to the island is at most very, very suspect.
And given how it's developed into its own independent democratic government, having begun as a bit of a dictatorship, whatever the disputes of the past are, they just can't go in and take this independent government the way Russia is trying to do with Ukraine.
Also, what the Philippines in particular and Japan openly believe this is just part of China's attempt to take everything in Asia.
And secretly, so does Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Malaysia, except they're afraid to say it because they're communist countries.
But why the hell do you think they gave Trump all of the rare earth and minerals that he wants so that he can be free of China?
Why do you think they did that?
Right before he met with Xi Jinming, because they hate China.
It's one of the things that is so terrible about our ignorance of history.
We went to war in Vietnam with a country that could have been an ally because we never bothered to look at the and we're finally, finally getting Japan to militarize.
We could have settled over China 20 years ago by doing that.
If we understood the history between China and Japan and the both superiority of the Japanese in warfare over them and psychologically the fear that the Koreans and the Chinese have of the Japanese.
And the Korean-Japanese fear, we have to fix because really our solid allies there in order of strength in terms of money and armies are Japan, South Korea, maybe South Korea, Japan.
I'm not sure.
And then, of course, Philippines, smaller, but still a very, very solid group of fighters.
You put the three of them together with Taiwan, which is just putting another $50 billion in defense spending, buying it from where?
Who are they trying to keep happy?
Where are they going to buy all this new equipment?
Yeah.
USA.
Nice.
Korea has just done a big, big $50 billion increase in their defenses where they devote probably about half that.
I mean, we're talking about 5%.
They probably devote about 35% of their GDP to defense.
I mean, even more than the Ukrainians, who did a hell of a job on the Russians, they're ready.
China is going to have to lose a lot of people, and they may not succeed.
What was interesting, what Gordon Chang told us yesterday.
Well, he doesn't think they're going to do it under Trump.
Right.
He thinks that they're.
And he also mentioned how the Communist Party at the top has become even more closed off.
And what that kind of signals, that there may be some internal strife.
So what I did was, Ted, I went and got one of the communist newspapers that published in English in Hong Kong.
And they have an article here.
What did they say?
And you can put the article even against the Wall Street Journal article.
And basically, it spun this way.
That Xi Jinming, the president said that Xi Jinming called him.
This article says that the president, because he was very upset about Japan, upset at Japan, called Xi Jinming.
Wow.
And Xi Jinming, but then it's a little contradictory.
Xi Jinming lectured the president on Taiwan.
Now, that makes more sense that if somebody was going to lecture him on Taiwan, they would call him.
And all of a sudden, he's calling the guy about Japan, and the guy lectures him on Taiwan when they avoided Taiwan when they met together.
And according to the Chinese readout, inconsistent with the American readout, and now you got to read the Chinese newspapers to get this.
Taiwan was one of the major talking points, according to the readout released by Xinhua.
Xinhua is the pravda of the Chinese communist government.
They come right out of 1984.
And like our legacy media, they just make everything up.
According to Xinhua, Zi clarified Beijing's position on Taiwan.
And Trump, they have quoted as saying, the United States understands how important the Taiwan question is to China.
And he said nothing else.
Basically suggesting that, and they basically suggest he's not going to stick with China.
And then Trump went ahead and called Takahachi.
And basically, what he did is publicly come out in favor of Red China.
And this is the way they write these things.
Now, according to Takahichi, their readout, during the conversation, President Trump explained the current state of U.S.-Chinese relations.
including the U.S.-China leaders' phone call held last night.
I believe we were able to confirm the close cooperation between Japan and the U.S. following President Trump's recent visit to Japan under the current international circumstances.
President Trump said that I am a very close friend of his and that I should feel free to call him anytime.
According to the Chinese interpretation of their readout, which their captured news agency concluded, all of this, these high-level communications, showed that Taiwan was not a top priority for Donald Trump.
So they're basically creating the impression that Trump will sell out Taiwan.
That's the interpretation of the Chinese newspapers.
And this is probably the mildest of the Chinese newspapers I was able to get my hands on.
So you've got to realize that the Chinese are given a whole other version of what is going on that bears no relationship to the truth.
So it's really fascinating.
We're kind of like them.
We get a whole version that's not anywhere like the truth from our New York Times, like the China Daily and their communist newspapers.
And this is the South China Morning Post, one of the main papers in China.
And it would not be considered one that is directly an organ of the government, but everything in China is an organ of the government.
And what you can assume when you read this is the opposite, the opposite is the truth.
So they are investigating, they are investigating the seditious six.
And it looks like Mark Kelly is in the most trouble because he was still in the military.
And they are saying that they just repeated the code of military justice, that you should not follow illegal orders.
But what they are doing is deliberately creating an ambiguous situation because they don't help define what is and is not an illegal order.
What one man's illegal order is, is another man's absolutely legal and necessary order to protect life.
And it is clear that what they're saying, because they're saying it not just in some abstract context, they're telling them not to follow the orders of Donald Trump.
So they are undermining the commander-in-chief.
And it's particularly about the National Guard.
There's nothing illegal about the president's use of the National Guard.
And they expect these young men and women to resolve these things on the spot in the middle of a battle.
Not only will they hurt the United States in terms of its defense, they get these people killed.
So as I said, Taiwan has put $40 billion additional into their budget.
President Lai Chingtai said in a Washington Post op-ed, new arms acquisitions from the United States.
And this is the reason for it.
In doing so, we aim to bolster deterrence by inserting greater costs and uncertainties into Beijing's decision-making on the use of force.
Now, remember, this new administration in South Korea, after the ruling party's prime minister ended up declaring martial law, this was supposed to be very, very pro-Chinese.
This doesn't sound very pro-Chinese to me.
Sounds like Trump won him over.
Just like he was very successful in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia and Malaysia.
South Korea was beginning to slip.
No slippage here.
This is $40 billion worth of no slippage.
So I want to tell you over this weekend, when you have some time, tomorrow, of course, we'll talk some more about it.
But over this weekend, which really starts like tomorrow in many, many ways, over this weekend is a good time to watch the podcast.
And I really would like to set up a way that we can discuss it, Ted.
Maybe we'll try.
Maybe we'll try on our subscription channel to set up some kind of call-in.
Yeah, go back to call.
We can.
You know, some kind of like a town hall meeting.
I like it.
And you can question me, particularly after we put the second edition out of the analysis of Nick Fuente's hatred of the Jewish people, hatred of the state of Israel, his desire to create a white male America.
These are all his words, not mine.
And therefore, our desire to make sure that we're separated from him.
That isn't canceling him.
He can go wherever the hell he wants, except he can't be part of the same organization I'm part of, or I won't be part of it.
I would never be part of an organization with someone who says that Hitler was a good guy, that England and France started the war, that Churchill was really the bad guy.
I mean, not only is it hateful and awful, it displays an unbelievably ignorant view of history.
So some of the quick things that we should just bring up to date on.
Pope Leo XIV is kicking off his first big trip by going to Turkey and Lebanon.
Yeah, right.
Go to Turkey, put Erdogan.
That's great.
Lebanon, I don't have any Christians left there.
They kill so many of them, right?
and erdogan has no use for christians either uh in georgia uh the state that just dismissed the phony malicious prosecution of me the president and so many others they
The election board, which no longer has Rafsenberg on it, that scoundrel, they are pushing to get rid of no excuse absentee voting.
That would help a lot with reducing voter fraud because almost every study that's ever been done of voting says that that's one of the major ways to defraud.
Italy has just passed a femicide specific crime with a life sentence and a very big step on gender violence.
I like that because of all of the domestic violence that goes on.
So we're going to have to see what happens in Russia.
I don't know if we're calling things off for the Thanksgiving holiday or not.
doubt it right um and we'll see what happens with the travel and we'll keep you up to date with it The football coach who's gone missing and all these terrible things have come out and how the 81 million travelers, how they travel, doesn't work.
And remember, take a look at the podcast.
I'm really interested in your views on it because we're going to be doing that permanently.
And this is, I call this our trip to New Haven.
This is where they used to bring plays before they, you know, went on Broadway.
Oh, really?
So that we'll get, we'll have it just right.
So any views that you have on it, we would love to hear.
Is it too long?
Is it too short?
Are there too many references to citations and support?
Is there too little?
Okay.
I try very, very hard to prove with at least one document or video the point that we're making.
You know, for example, with him, we have the interview when he says that Hitler is a good guy.
We also have the interview in which he says England and France started the Second World War, not Germany.
And that the Holocaust is way exaggerated and that most of the people died of starvation and other things.
And the technological part of it is all made up.
But instead of my just saying it, we put the videos there so you can see him saying it.
And then the second part will take up an analysis of his interview by Tucker Carlson.
The real question being not whether Tucker Carlson should have interviewed him.
You have a right to do that.
But was Tucker Carlson a lapdog for the spreading of vicious, horrible, hateful ideas?
Did he challenge him sufficiently?
And we'll put that out next week.
Well, thank you very, very much.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
We'll be with you tomorrow evening on Thanksgiving night.
And we'll see what happens during Thanksgiving Day.
Unfortunately, all the horrible things in the world don't stop for Thanksgiving.
Not all of the most beautiful things in the world.
And we'll cover the ones that we think you're not going to hear about or the ones that aren't going to be covered sufficiently in a fair way.
That's our mission.
So pray for Ukraine, pray for Israel, pray for Iran.
And this is a day, of course, in which we make our special prayer of Thanksgiving, which we should do every day, but particularly tomorrow, our special prayer of Thanksgiving for what God has given us here in the United States of America and pray for his intervention for having kept alive President Trump, because if he hadn't, we'd be nowhere now.
So let's say, thank you, God, for America.
God bless America.
It's our purpose to bring to bear the principle of common sense and rational discussion to the issues of our day.
America was created at a time of great turmoil, tremendous disagreements, anger, hatred.
It was a book written in 1776 that guided much of the discipline of thinking that brought to us the discovery of our freedoms, of our God-given freedoms.
It was Thomas Paine's Common Sense, written in 1776, one of the first American bestsellers, in which Thomas Paine explained, by rational principles, the reason why these small colonies felt the necessity to separate from the Kingdom of Great Britain and the King of England.
He explained their inherent desire for liberty, for freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the ability to select the people who govern them.
And he explained it in ways that were understandable to all the people, not just the elite.
Because the desire for freedom is universal.
The desire for freedom adheres in the human mind and it is part of the human soul.
This is exactly the time we should consult our history.
Look at what we've done in the past and see if we can't use it to help us now.
We understand that our founders created the greatest country in the history of the world.
The greatest democracy, the freest country, a country that has taken more people out of poverty than any country ever.
All of us are so fortunate to be Americans.
But a great deal of the reason for America's constant ability to self-improve is because we're able to reason.
We're able to talk.
We're able to analyze.
▲
Export Selection