Ed Martin, former U.S. Attorney, reveals how Chuck Schumer orchestrated smear campaigns against him—including a Washington Post front-page tip line—after he aggressively prosecuted January 6 cases and exposed DOJ weaponization, like the invalidated 1512 obstruction charge. He accuses Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord of deep-state legal warfare, ties Georgetown’s Transition Integrity Project to "color revolution" planning, and details a 25% drop in D.C. gun arrests by prioritizing federal cases. Republicans like Tom Tillis blocked his confirmation, he says, fearing his uncompromising stance on justice reform. The episode exposes systemic corruption—from the unsolved 2016 DNC employee murder to Wikipedia’s alleged anti-Semitic bias shielded by tax-exempt status—and warns of weaponized legal systems targeting whistleblowers, school board parents, and even Epstein’s unexplained death in federal custody. Martin frames January 6 as a distraction from broader election irregularities and government opacity, while Tucker Carlson highlights censorship, like YouTube suppressing their show, as part of the crackdown on dissent. The battle, they conclude, isn’t just about Trump—it’s a fight for truth against entrenched corrupt interests across parties. [Automatically generated summary]
It's called democracy, and he actually put some, you know, he signed orders, he signed what he gave us the direction he wanted us to do, executive orders, said, stop the weaponization, go look at this, and then, by the way, Attorney General Bondi got in, she gave us an even more specific list, right?
So, but more importantly, Tucker, if it was...
A hundred years ago, maybe, you could just be genteel and prosecute the cases as they came along, right?
You could sit around and say sooner or later it'll all work out.
It's not a hundred years ago.
And the fight right now is a fight over everything from information to accountability to healing, right?
So that's the fight.
And U.S. Attorney is on the front lines in Washington, D.C. when they're going after Elon Musk.
Or Judge Boesberg.
They went after both.
And I gave both of them a letter that said, hey, I got your back.
If you even threaten these people in a way that goes over the line, we're going to indict you.
So you think the genesis of the opposition was your request to Chuck Schumer that he answer questions about encouraging violence against the Supreme Court justice?
Well, look, I think, you know, I've got to say, the Senate's got to process, respect the process, all that stuff, right?
So check the box.
I did that with you.
So I met with the guy for 90 minutes, you know, for...
By the way, for about a decade, I've done work when Phyllis Schlafly, the late Phyllis Schlafly from whom I worked, one of the things she cared a lot about was patents and protecting individual patent holders and inventors.
So for years, we've had patent events.
One of the participants in the patent events is Tom Tillis all the time because he's good on that issue and we would work with him.
So not a stranger in terms of policy stuff to me.
So when I met with him...
90 minutes, he railed on J6.
He said, how could you represent J6 people?
How stupid do people have to be to go into the Capitol and blah, blah, blah?
And I said, sir, you know, look, I've looked at this closely.
It feels like you're not quite paying attention to what happened, right?
And if you fall victim to the J6 hoax that it was an insurrection armed and this close to the end, then you might act like Tom Tillis.
And you might rant and rave and say things like that.
And that's what he did.
But I think if you're not under the spell of the hoax, you say, wait a second, lots of people were waived into the Capitol, and maybe you could charge them with trespass, but you can't throw them in jail for three years, three and a half years, right?
And then the Supreme Court, bipartisan Supreme Court, throws out the charge that was used.
It's called the 1512 charge.
When I got in my office as U.S. attorney, I said, first week, we're going to look at the 1512.
Who charged it?
And, of course, it was charged by Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco right across.
It wasn't the guy in my chair.
He was an empty suit there to just, you know, carry water as they went out.
He goes in and out of government, and he's basically at the center.
There's about six or seven of these people that are at the center of coordinating the weaponization of government against the people right now.
Every time you turn around, you know, I'll give it to you.
The guy that was the prosecutor in Kosovo before Jack Smith, you know, a special prosecutor, forget his name right now, he left so Jack Smith could come in.
So, when you watch Andrew Weissman's at Mueller, he says in Mueller, we need 1512.
We can charge Trump in the—watch this.
We can use 1512.
We're making it up, but we can get away with it if we build it out this way and just get everybody to go along.
He fails at that, Mueller.
You know, Barr says, and Jeff Jensen—no, Barr says, you can't do that, right?
You can't do—we're not going to do that.
Shuts it down.
And then along comes Andrew Weissman, Lisa Monaco, all these same people.
They say, charge the 1512.
Tucker, the 1512 charge, right?
Viewers may not track it well enough, but 1512 was an addition to the law about 20 years ago after Enron because Arthur Anderson, the accounting firm, was destroying documents.
Enron was the target of the investigation.
Arthur Anderson was destroying documents, wasn't the target.
And there was no law to say, if you knew there was an investigation, you shouldn't destroy documents.
So they passed this law.
Okay, 1512.
It said, if you know there's an official proceeding, you're not allowed to destroy documents.
I don't understand, and I want to be charitable to Tom Tillis, who is obviously very liberal, and there are things about him I don't like, but I want to be fair, but I don't understand how he couldn't know that.
I would say that, look, I worked for the Catholic Church, right?
I worked for the Catholic Church.
I'm pretty attuned to bureaucracies, right?
And I've seen the scope of them and see the institutional inertia, like the momentum that they get.
And I think my office was, my U.S. Attorney's office was about this big, Tucker, and it took me 120 days to get this much of my arms wrapped around this much because this is how big it was.
Cash's job is this big and DOJ's is this big and the presence is this big.
So, Mike, answer is the scope is bigger and it is, therefore, much, much worse than people think.
And I just think it's a – and by the way, one of the reasons I say information is so key, you can't – we can't win the Article 3 battle fast enough.
We can fight it and we can eventually win lots of them.
You can't win it fast enough to get the progress we need in terms of ours.
Yeah, the Article 3 means like the federal courts.
We're in federal courts.
The president says you can't let people come into the country and then the courts say nationwide injunction and, you know, you're not allowed to do that and you're constantly in court.
You know, the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. has all of the cases of when the government is sued, you know, the president sues.
They all come into our office on the seat.
And so you see all that stuff coming in.
You know, during the Biden administration, the conservatives were suing in Texas.
It was friendlier judges.
Now it's in D.C. So you're in the courts fighting to get the truth out, fighting to make these things, prosecutions and all.
But they take a longer time than just getting the word out, right?
Getting the information out.
I just, I feel like it's a different moment in history.
And that's how I was U.S. attorney.
That's why you saw, people saw so much outfacing action.
I wasn't just looking at courts.
I was looking at making an argument for the public so they could see the policies.
Because they don't have propaganda in their education, just the truth, facts, history, English, math.
If you think it sounds good, because it is good, think of this.
Hillsdale is offering over 40 free online courses you can enroll in today.
There's no catch at all.
You don't have to pay anything.
Not going to hit you up for anything.
It's free.
You can learn about the Constitution, the Bible, the basis of Western civilization, Rome's rise and fall, early Christian church, things that actually matter, not one dime.
Free.
They have a new class called Understanding Capitalism that teaches Americans basic economic ideas, describes our own system, a system that is falling apart.
A lot of people want you to hate.
But for 250 years has been the best and most productive in the world.
You'll understand the basis of our economy from founding till president.
Hillsdale, not afraid to preach the message our country has forgotten, which is freedom is good, Christianity is good, markets are good, and they make this country better by raising well-educated students.
We endorse this as a college hater.
I love Hillsdale.
Go to tuckerforhillsdale.com to sign up for Understanding Capitalism today.
And I'm sorry, I've gone far afield as usual with me.
So you're nominated by the president to be U.S. attorney in D.C. It has to go through the Senate.
You offend Chuck Schumer by asking inconvenient questions.
He sends out the word, destroy this man, that process begins and then In the end, it was Tom Tillis because the Republican, joking aside, party does control the Senate, supposedly, who killed it.
And so when she wrote A Choice Not an Echo in 1964 and all the way through her career and then the last 10 years of her life when I worked with her, you come to know about the party, right?
The Republican Party is probably more problematic in certain ways than the Democrat Party is obvious.
I agree with that.
So when Phyllis writes about 1964, what they did to, you know, Goldwater at that fight, or she writes in, she wrote about 1980 when they, you know, forced H.W. Bush on Reagan.
I mean, she wrote about, but she also wrote about, by the way, about the Bilderbergs.
She's the first one to use the word Bilderbergs, about the globalists when they were meeting.
But Phyllis would say, you know, and Todd, look, she backed Trump.
She backed Trump early.
And it basically...
Well, it caused a rift in her family.
One of her children was, a cruise person was against her.
It caused a rift in her organization.
And I remember asking her, I'm like, kind of seriously, is this worth it?
And she said, of course it's worth it.
She said, you know, this is, and so that was on our side.
That was on the sort of conservative side.
I'm not surprised by any of it.
I was on the RNC when they did the autopsy.
Remember?
You know, Romney loses and they spend $9 or $10 million and the same people got paid, go back and look, who got paid $9 million for the autopsy on the Republican Party and it said, speak in Spanish and don't talk about social issues and we're just going to win everything.
And they made the mistake.
They asked me.
That microphone in my first meeting of the RNC, what do you think of that?
One thing I think, as you've talked about before in lots of issues, President Trump represents a different view of...
America first is the way it's characterized, but this notion of believing in ourselves, our citizens, more than other things, including wars and globalists and all that.
I think that's a big pivot, and people feel that, as voters obviously did.
But he said there are going to be all kinds of machinations beforehand.
So, to your point, I don't know if Senator Tillis was taking one for the team, if he was killing me to help other people or what, but he was the obvious one that decided.
I mean, U.S. Attorney's Office, to be clear, it's the greatest prosecutor's office in the world, really.
It's got all of the city-level...
Crime.
It's like a DA.
It's a great DA office.
And then a huge U.S. Attorney's office with cases all over the world and all sorts of complicated, interesting stuff.
And a huge docket.
I can get to USAID.
All the USAID falls within us.
So when you see the fraud that's going on in Europe, and this is all stuff that the U.S. Attorney, and trust me, the U.S. Attorney's already looking at it.
And you can look at this stuff and say, because of the jurisdiction.
But it's a big office with a lot of bureaucracy.
And so basically, my new job is...
Focused on weaponization.
The docket is the whole world and the country to say, where have they done wrong?
And how do we go and get to the bottom of it?
And so, look, I'm the president.
It's a key moment.
It's a key moment.
The president trusts me to do this.
And Pam Bondi has been great about directing us on this.
You know this, but 720,000 people live in D.C. 650,000 live in poverty and a tough setup.
For sure.
Frankly, they've been getting stuck by both parties forever, right?
So you walk down the street in Anacostia, and you're like, I went to do an interview in Anacostia, and we pulled up, and there's an ambulance and all, and I said, what is that?
And I said, somebody was shot there, laying there.
And we went in to do the interview, and I was like, oh yeah, so he's not going to die, he's going to be fine.
So what we did was we turned all of our resources on that side to getting rid of the guys with guns, the bad guys with guns, and we dragged them to federal court.
Now that sounds like it's not that...
Revolutionary.
But you start to get, in March we got 18, and April 24, arrested with guns and off the streets.
For 700,000 people, what they mostly need to know is somebody's trying to help them make it better, right?
And trying to make life better.
And crime is down 25%, and the basics are going the right direction.
But no, that woman screeching at me and spitting on me, that's a fruit of the environment that says, make anyone who's doing something important into someone toxic, and we'll get people to be agitated.
I wrote Georgetown Law, and I said to the dean, We're not going to hire your people either for jobs or internships because you're doing DEI after the president said stop.
He wrote back and lectured me on Jesuit ideals and freedom.
Now, he went to Yale and Harvard.
I don't think those are religious, but I went to Holy Cross, slightly Jesuit the whole time, St. Louis U, Jesuit, on and on and on, and he lectured me.
But more importantly, you talk about weaponizing government.
You got this Rosa Brooks, Mary McCord.
These are the people coming out of Obamaland, and they're taking the Transition Integrity Project.
Remember this?
The Transition Integrity Project.
And they're saying...
How would we do an American color revolution, right?
How would we do that?
And they're laying it out.
Remember game planning?
They were doing this tabletop, and they're looking at, and participating are all kinds of Americans with security clearances and, you know, military background.
I know, using U.S. tax dollars and all these, you know.
Nice, sort of well-meaning Irish Catholic alums around the country who, like, don't agree with anything that Rosa Brooks says are sending them money and sending their kids there because the veneer, the skin suit still lives.
And again, if you think it's a debate, if it's a debating moment, then you're in one spot.
If you think it's a battle for the future of the country and the world, then you're in a different moment.
And that's how I look at what we're seeing going on, and that's why I think some people probably realized he knows how this goes a little more, and so they didn't want me in that spot.
I'll just say it one last time because I can't control myself that you were torpedoed by supposedly conservative Republicans.
I gave a speech on Tom Tillis' behalf when he ran for the first time for Senate and I sort of think that you're getting one thing but almost 100% of the time the person winds up to be John Cornyn or a super aggressive liberal posing as a conservative Republican.
So, but I don't know what gets the, well, I do know.
The system is so powerful and so alluring and seductive that after a while, you know, I think it's inevitable that even good people are tempted to a worldview that's not as good, even if they're not tempted to pure, straight-on corruption.
So, just quickly, I'm interested as a former resident, long-time resident, about the city of Washington, over which you would have had jurisdiction as a chief law enforcement officer, because it's not a state, but it's a federal zone, it's super complicated, set up in D.C. But what were you starting to do?
To make the city safer and more orderly, and what needs to be done?
When you live in D.C., most of my life, you're mad because it's so inefficient.
It's totally third world in the way it's run.
And then you finally realize, like, wait a second, if I just play along, grease a palm or two, all the right people, show respect, you know, Mr. and Mrs. Always.
unidentified
Stuff like that, like, life is easy in D.C. Yeah, well.
So, the violence is guns, and, you know, look, Cash has given us support to try to do some cold case stuff.
The FBI has the ability to do more DNA testing to try to get, you know, a lot of cold case stuff is DNA, and if you can go Go back and look at stuff, rapes especially, and you can do, so there's lots you can do.
So there was a DNC employee shot to death in 2016 in Washington, but not robbed, and we're not, like, allowed to talk about or even mention his name, so I won't mention his name, but people I know who worked at the DNC, one person at the time believed that it was a political killing, that he was murdered for political reasons.
But I think one of the things that that juvenile question is one that D.C. has to face.
Because it's really...
And the older kids, if they were girls, they'd be calling it...
Because the older boys are trafficking the younger boys because they know they won't get into trouble the same way because they're underage.
So that part of it is a disaster, and that falls right on the D.C. City Council and the mayor and the current administration there that hasn't taken it seriously because you just need to lock them up.
You need to get them out of D.C., put them in some place.
You could pay to put them in another reform school or whatever to get them out of town.
And Newt, for whatever you think of Newt Gingrich, when he took over in 94, he took over D.C. and made it a much better city and created this massive renaissance.
It is a company with one mission, improving your sleep.
And it's changing the way people do that, the way they get a good night's rest.
We just got word that their team is launching a new product.
It's called the Pod 5. It's an original and innovative mattress cover, plus a blanket that uses precision temperature control to regulate your body's sleep cycles and give you the perfect sleep, which really, really matters.
It can range all the way from 55 degrees to 110 degrees, meaning that you're covered no matter what.
It's like electric blanket to the next level, but also a cooling blanket.
So it makes you sleep better.
Temperature has a massive effect on the way you sleep.
By the way, it also detects snoring.
And then it adjusts your bed position to reduce or completely stop it.
So there are a lot of ladies in America who are going to be grateful for this product.
Everybody who works here will tell you, because they all use it, that there's no better way to be alert, productive, and happy than by sleeping well.
And 8sleep really does help.
Visit 8sleep.com slash Tucker.
Use the code Tucker to get $350 off your Pod 5 Ultra.
If you don't like it, you return it within a month.
That won't happen.
We think you'll love it.
But you can if you want.
8sleep.com slash Tucker.
Can I just press you a little bit on the question I asked before?
Because I think it's interesting.
People who are for gun control tell us that guns are dangerous and bad.
I disagree.
I think guns are a tool.
They can be misused.
Whatever.
Like a chainsaw or a steak knife.
But those exact same people don't seem as concerned when guns are used in crimes.
They're only concerned when guns are under your bed or in your gun safe.
They're concerned when law-abiding people have guns, not when criminals have guns.
When I get in this job, I look at it and say, poor people, mostly black and brown, are living through hell because of the policies that you have, which is to let bad guys go with guns.
D.C. is the only significant city that Republicans could really run through the Congress and through the U.S. Attorney's job.
So I feel like the only shot the city has at reform, and in the last 50 years since it's had its own rule, the only time it's gotten better is when Republicans take control.
And so I'd just like you to...
Fill out a little bit like what, now you're leaving, but what do you think should happen from the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C.?
Well, we started on guns, and then we're going to switch, we're going to switch, keeps moving towards other violent crime.
Now, the key pivot in this, again, it's down in the weeds a little bit, is to take these gun crimes and then down to rape and assault and go down even to property crimes, because you can't have CVS have everything behind lock and key, right?
But the two things that we're doing is dragging these cases to federal...
Because the local court is so bad.
The juries are bad.
The judges are bad.
The system is bad.
So you get them to federal court, you got a better chance to have real penalties and a bit more stability.
But the problem really is going to be whether you can have the will of the judges to hold these people to the laws, right, and to put them away.
But you move along that continuum every single day in terms of addressing crime.
The last thing I'd say is that a lot of talk about money.
You know, the mayor wants to build a stadium and all these things.
They need more cops.
And cops cost money.
But cops also require that you be on their side, right?
Remember when we were kids, being an FBI agent was a big deal.
And now, young people don't feel drawn to those jobs, right?
So, it is hard to get cops.
MPD is down probably, I think their ideal is 3,800 cops.
They're at about 3,300.
You can say you're going to get all these crimes, you still got to go get cops.
And you got to find a way to get people into the system that can be on the streets and doing it.
If you give me my wish list for DC to make it better in the next two or three years, it's...
Continue to actually take real crimes and put them in federal court and then bolster the number of cops.
And you can bolster the number of cops as a U.S. attorney just by having their back, right?
There's something called the Lewis List, which is what happens if you go to court and you're a cop and somebody claims you lied.
They can put you on what's called the Lewis List, which is a requirement that the prosecutors tell a defendant that this guy testifying has had a problem in the past of credibility, but it's abused by the judges and the public.
defenders to hurt the cops.
Well, I said, we're going to stick up for the cops and we're going to try to change that.
So you got to stick up for the cops in lots of concrete ways that make the system work.
You've mostly just got to get after the crime every, and systematically, not hard.
You know, Rudy and these famous prosecutors, they did one thing well.
They consistently prosecuted crime.
They didn't come up with social plans.
They didn't come just...
Get a crime, put him in jail.
Get a crime, put him in jail.
You know, Metro just changed their rules in the district.
The Metro, you know, both the buses and the Metro, the trains, that you can get banned from the trains.
Because once you get banned from the trains, or banned from Metro, I can then arrest you for a different charge.
It could be a felony for coming back in on a ban.
Before that, you could go every day.
You could do three misdemeanors a day.
You could expose yourself in the morning, jump a fair thing in the afternoon.
And, you know, whatever.
And so Metro got serious and they were changing the dynamic.
That's just plain getting the crimes down and focused on it.
Well, again, you know, Tucker, and look, I think President Trump is like this, how he approaches everything, and I mean, that's how I wanted to serve, and I do.
We did exactly what we were saying.
We said to everybody on the Hill, Come to a briefing on safety.
The question is whether it leads to policy, you know?
Again, my job as prosecutor in that office is to get after the crimes as I've got them, and if they're not going to adjust their policies, I can't worry about that on the day-to-day of getting after crime.
But I'll tell you what, when I go to Anacostia or I go to these neighborhoods, they care, and they know the U.S. attorney is paying attention to that, and that's probably more important than the folks up on the Hill.
Yeah, weaponization of the legal system, but really the weaponization of the law.
The use of the law to hide and operate.
So Wikipedia has this incredible, 501c3, right, gets a tax benefit from we the people.
It's a public benefit corporation.
You know, the 1950s, they looked at this closely because the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, had been using their foundations and abusing it.
And that's when the law first changed to have 501c3 become a tax code.
It was part of the shift, right?
So the Cox Report or the Reese Committee or whatever it was.
So we have this problem where Wikipedia has all this money that they use because they're a 501c3, a non-profit that's supposed to be for the public benefit.
I'm not sure if they pay zero, but they probably say they pay payroll and other things.
They have an answer to that, but they would be tax-exempt under the code.
But more importantly...
They're obviously biased.
They're obviously, and they're anti-Semitic is the big one, but they're obviously biased in all sorts of other ways.
In fact, as soon as I started taking them on, my Wikipedia page went even worse to hell, you know, in terms of people coming on and editing it, supposedly citizen editors.
So there's bias, again, information war, right?
There's bias here that is against we the people, in my opinion, but certainly it's bias that's hidden from us because they're hiding behind the law.
Is weaponized against certain groups and individuals.
And so that's what we basically said to Wikipedia is, hey, let's look closely at what you're doing and how it's operating and see who's benefiting or not benefiting and paying a price.
And by the way, as soon as this happens, they get panicked because they know.
We know.
There's another reason.
I wrote to a number of the medical journals and I said, you guys are all 501c3.
You get big benefits from tax-exempt status.
How are you balancing?
You know, the partisan nature of the work you're doing.
How are you abiding by the laws that say that you're not supposed to be picking sides or paid for by one donor or the other and that they lose their mind because no one's supposed to ask?
You know, you're not supposed to ask.
It's like USAID.
We weren't supposed to ask until this last six months, why are we spending $400 million in wherever, right?
Why is this?
You're not allowed to ask.
That's a part of this weaponization thing that I think is underrated.
That sort of opening salvo was about three weeks ago, so Judge Jeanine will have that one on her plate.
But, you know, where I'm going, the job I'm going to, I don't have to leave any of that stuff behind.
So I can tell you, I thought you were going to go a different direction, and I'll say, on the Weaponization Working Group, as it's described by Attorney General Bondi and the President's direction.
Intelligence community is one of the groups that was weaponized against the people, obviously.
It's obvious.
The question is...
How are we going to get to the bottom of it, right?
How are we going to get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government, intelligence community against the citizens?
Well, the point of getting into these positions as a prosecutor is I'm now getting the clearances to be able to get to the...
To the level where you can look at some...
I know that you still try not to tell you, but that's the point of this fight, is you cannot win the information battle based on what they let you see.
It's what you have to find, even in our government.
The 51 guys that signed the letter on the Hunter Biden laptop, you'd have to be a fool to think that's an isolated incident.
In other words, if they're willing to misuse and mischaracterize a letter based on their status and the advantage that they have as insiders, that's not the only time they did it.
Well, okay, but even just the Election Assistance Commission is the entity that certifies machines, okay?
It has no real teeth, but it controls who's certified or not, which means it controls who has the good housekeeping stamp of approval worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.
What are the chances?
That that has been done.
Everything else we've seen in government is broken, corrupt, messy, incompetent, or something, right?
What are the chances that's the one place where it's totally competent and totally without any flaws?
I'm just saying, let's go look, right?
And that's what we've got to do to get to the bottom of this.
And when history's written, you know, and I intend to write a whole bunch of it, Tucker, so when it's written, you know, you watch this, it accelerated under Obama, right?
It used to be politicized, I think, and now it's weaponized.
That's the pivot that went on, right?
It used to be politicized, somebody's advantage or not.
Bill Clinton, I think, maybe I'm being too generous, he was sort of politicizing things.
It got weaponized, where they're destroying people, putting people in jail, trying to kill them.
Obama joking about I'm good at killing people, right?
There was a sense of sort of real disrespect for humanity that kicked in.
So we're not positive that cryptocurrency is the future of finance, but we do know that what we have now is broken and dangerous.
Debt has never been higher in this country.
Many of our so-called leaders are getting rich, serving you.
It's a scam.
So where does it go?
Well, thankfully, there are options.
Donald Trump has said repeatedly he wants the United States to be the crypto capital of the world.
He's already created the Crypto Advisory Council and recently signed an executive order to establish a Bitcoin strategic reserve.
This could give normal people an alternative to the government's failing system and frankly to the U.S. dollar.
I'm not saying put all your money outside the U.S. dollar, but like, don't be crazy.
Don't be stupid here.
So the people at iTrust Capital can help you get in to this.
Complicated for people who aren't following it.
They make it easy.
They're based 100% in the United States of America.
We looked into this.
They service only American investors, and they operate the only platform that allows you to buy and sell crypto 24-7, both inside and outside of your tax-advantaged IRA.
And it all happens on one easy-to-use dashboard.
They also operate a closed-loop system, meaning that bad actors can't access your account and steal your money.
So if you're considering adding Bitcoin if you want to or some other cryptocurrency, I trust can be trusted and it's easy to understand.
Well, Attorney General Bondi, when we started the group, she was...
She gave us some real straight marching on.
Jack Smith, what he did, which is unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
Anyway, the Catholics that were targeted, remember the Richmond memo?
How did that happen?
J6 is another one.
One of her charges on the working group was whistleblowers.
The whistleblowers that were targeted.
You talk about weaponization, Tucker.
Remember the guy that's in jail up in, I think, West Virginia?
He's supposedly a lone ranger.
He stole all the tax returns and he leaked Trump's.
Remember?
He leaked Trump's, but nobody paid attention.
He also leaked...
Four or five or six hundred or maybe a little more of the wealthiest people in America, mostly conservatives.
It's funny how that happened.
And then a whole bunch of small businesses, mostly conservative.
And I got a briefing on that and I said, this guy acted alone.
He didn't tell anyone.
And they're like, oh yeah, he's like Snowden.
I'm like, are you joking?
Are you really telling me?
Somehow he's like the Snowden of IRS tax.
Because this was weaponized.
Remember it was ProPublica?
First he went to New York Times, then he went to ProPublica, which was going hammer and tongs one after another.
Again, weaponizing American law against citizens.
So that's a bit of a digression, but to say the whistleblowers in the IRS and other places that came forward have been targeted under the Biden administration.
So that's another thing that Bondi asked us to do.
School boards all across the country when they targeted school board parents, that's another focus for us to look at.
But we'll also be looking at, as I said, the intelligence community and broader, right?
The pipe bomb question is a really interesting one, and the only reason I think most of us know much about it is a guy called Darren Beattie, who now works at the State Department, thank God, but who reported on it extensively on Revolver News.
That was so baffling and remains baffling because those bombs, whether they're real or not, were outside the two-party headquarters on Capitol Hill, RNC and DNC.
So you'd think like politicians would really want to know why the conspicuous incuriosity about that.
I mean, before I was in office, I kept saying, how can this possibly be?
If you go to any other part of the world and you say, the two major political parties had bombs put by their front door, it'd be the story forever, right?
Sounds like, you know, just before World War II started, there were bombs placed somewhere, right?
I mean, in front of the parties.
So I never understood either.
And the bombs were, you know, they were sort of rudimentary, but they clearly were, somebody knew what they were doing for the look.
I mean, again, it's information.
It was an information.
Whatever it is, it became.
A piece of information or a play or information that we haven't gotten to the bottom of.
Everything about characteristics of all of the election.
And then...
There was the admissions that the election was fortified.
It was intentionally planned to do that in such a way to get results that looked off.
Now, does that mean they cheated?
We don't have that smoking gun, but we certainly have over and over and over again aspects of things that didn't look right, and we've never had the answers on it.
So, yes, we will get to the bottom of it again.
This is the point about information.
You cannot move ahead if you don't actually know what happened, and clearly...
Clearly, the mainstream media and the elites told us you have to shut up.
Getting people arrested faster and prosecuted faster.
You know, I wish it was fast.
We're 120 days in, 115 days in.
And where I sit, I can tell you, I was there pushing on key issues.
I'm in the middle of a bunch of them.
Judge Jeanine will keep them going.
It's harder than you think.
I think we have a set of people that are...
Hmm.
By the way, that did make them mad.
I will say this.
People ask me in all my interviews at the Senate, they said, are you for reparations?
I said, hey, that's a stupid term that was used about, but I am for when somebody gets wronged and destroyed by their government that they be taken care of, that they try to make them whole insofar as they can.
That's only fair.
By the way, that's not Strzok and Page getting a million-dollar payout, which is what they got.
By the way, that's another form of weaponization of government when you have...
Biden administration and Strzok and Page transferring wealth to each other based on an agreement.
So getting to the bottom of that kind of stuff, that kind of conduct is another part of this thing.
It almost feels like it can never end because it's so, you know, the weaponization against the citizens began a long time ago, but we really started to see it under Biden, and they accelerated the conduct.
As you can see it, you can see the memos, you know, Merrick Garland and all, target the Catholics, right, and go after the school boards, and Jack Smith.
Jack Smith took, he used a grand jury in D.C., which is...
Famously, you know, favorable to the Democrats to do almost all of his work.
And then he flew down to Florida and basically transferred it down there.
For lawyers, this is like...
Unheard of stuff.
And everybody goes, oh yeah, you know, Letitia James.
And the way the conduct happens, and people go, oh yeah, you know.
By the way, one thing too, Tucker, to preview.
The lawyers, the bar associations, and the targeting of lawyers is another way that they've weaponized government against people.
You know, you can say what you want about...
Rudy or something.
We've never had the system weaponized against lawyers for doing their jobs, right?
So, I mean, just on the basis of what you said over the last hour, I think you're going to be the target for, you know, a lot of efforts to destroy you.
I mean, look, Phyllis Schlafly, for whom I worked, there's this famous exchange where she's given a speech and she says, Clarence Thomas said to her...
How do you keep going, Phyllis?
She said, how do you keep going?
He said, and she said, there's a prayer, she says, and she would always say, from the malignant enemy, defend me.
It's one of the Catholic prayers.
Look, we're so blessed.
You know, you have the same attitude to be in this country, to have so many opportunities, and people deserve, our families deserve to have a future.
And so this is the fight that we're in.
And, you know, they've said terrible things for about a month.
My wife doesn't watch TV, which is great, doesn't read the papers, thank God.
My kids do a little bit now, and they're not quite as convinced that I'm as good a guy as I told them I was before.
I mean, if Obama weaponized the government against people who didn't vote for him and Joe Biden brought it to the next level and just threw hundreds in prison, what's the next Democratic administration going to look like?
And to me, that's the one thing you start to notice.
And so, yes, it could be really terrible on a Democrat administration.
Imagine, you know, what it's like for, you know, President Rahm Emanuel when he puts in, you know, Attorney General, I don't know, Adam Schiff and what the heck's that like.
It feels like we've gone to the bottom and maybe...
You know, finish a thought that I had earlier that I didn't get to finish, which is, it feels like a lot of people that were good people before, you know, 100 years ago, again, back to the 100 years ago, good people, just had good morals, cared about each other, fight, fight, fight, but be honorable on the same side.
That doesn't seem as common right now, right?
That there's some people that really are not good people that are just disagreeing.
They're really not good people.
And that's dangerous, right?
That feels, you can feel that sometimes.
And I think that's a worry.
But it's something that we have to live with and work through and pray about and try to build the community about to see.
So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show.
On one level, that's not surprising.
That's what they do.
But on another level, it's shocking.
With everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics, with the wars on the cusp of fighting right now, Google has decided you should have less information rather than more.
And that is totally wrong.
It's immoral.
What can you do about it?
Well, we could whine about it.
That's a waste of time.
We're not in charge of Google.
Or we could find a way around it, a way that you could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive.
The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel.
Subscribe.
Hit the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video.
That way you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information.