Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 13, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

03:11:24

Day 2 of the Jan. 6 Committee Sham-Wow of a Hearing - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	W5's actions here are clearly wrongful.
	Not only was the initial reporting at best negligent and blameworthy, but the failure to properly retract and correct the allegations compound the harm unduly suffered by our clients.
	Since your incorrect reporting, our client has been the subject of unfair attacks online, in particular as relates to an edit war on his Wikipedia description, fueled specifically by W5's inaccurate and misleading reporting, and his reputation has been affected.
	The fine folks at CTVW5 were put on notice to properly retract and correct what they had falsely And for a second, just for a brief moment, because although I sometimes think that I might be a little too black-pilled, for a second I thought they were actually going to do the right thing.
	I was eagerly awaiting the June 11 broadcast.
	I watched the June 11 broadcast, and my goodness, they are just incapable of doing the right thing.
	When our story first aired, we reported that YouTube had removed a post from David Freiheit, and Facebook had challenged some of his posts, while Rumble had done neither.
	Mr. Freiheit informed us that YouTube had reinstated his COVID post on appeal, and Facebook challenges are automatically generated for most COVID content.
	So we immediately clarified those references in online versions of the story and the one that you just watched.
	First of all, the video that YouTube removed from video temporarily only to reinstate and remonetize was not a COVID video.
	It was a breakdown of Alex Jones's deposition from 2018.
	I have uploaded over 2,700 videos on YouTube.
	Only one was removed from YouTube.
	Temporarily, and I don't even know why, but it was reinstated and remonetized, and it had nothing to do with COVID.
	It was from 2018, but CTVW5 and Kevin Newman, in a persisting effort to try to demonize Rumble, now are saying that the video that was removed was a COVID video, ostensibly for the purposes of demonizing Rumble, as though Rumble is the place for COVID misinformation, but it doesn't stop there.
	Mr. Freiheit informed you that Facebook challenges are automatically generated on most COVID posts.
	I never informed anyone of that, because it's not even something that...
	I know probably specifically because I have never had anything challenged on Facebook to begin with.
	Thank you.
	What?
	What in the heck?
	Remove?
	Oh yeah, I don't need these yet.
	Yeah, people.
	Bonafide, sincerely, genuinely late today.
	If everyone could, I haven't even tweeted out the link.
	I am so far behind this morning, I forgot to tweet out the link on both the Rumbles and the YouTubes.
	And we got five minutes left before day two.
	Ugh, I look tired today.
	Do I look tired?
	Before day two of this sham-wow, sham-oo of a hearing re-begins, re-commences.
	So while we sit here and bask in the warm, glowing, warming glow, Of the screen of the computer.
	Of these bulldog floodlights that I have in this basement.
	While we do that, let me stop screen share.
	Let me go to the YouTube link for this particular stream as we stream.
	If I can do it.
	Day 2, Jan 6, Sham.
	Oh, here we go.
	This is me.
	Let's go to Twitter.
	And let's do this.
	Live now.
	Day two of the ShamWow Jan 6 Committee hearings.
	That's one.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Tweet that.
	Then we'll go to the rumbles as we do this, and then I'm going to get into the standard disclaimers.
	Where is rumble?
	Here.
	Yep, good.
	We got Rumble.
	Do this.
	If anyone's in the locals community, if we can blast it around locals, that would be also good.
	I'll just say on Rumble.
	Then we're going to go find the link for today's hearing.
	Who is expecting what for today, by the way?
	Are we expecting bipartisan, transparency, hard-hitting questions as to why they were at half-staff?
	On what was anticipated to be a very serious day on the Capitol.
	Barnes and I talked about it last night.
	Judicial Watch recently filed a FOIA request and apparently obtained some documentation evidencing that the reason for which there was so little staff at the Capitol building was COVID-related.
	So, yeah, there's that.
	COVID-related, so they had their bike racks to prevent what was anticipated to be a rowdy crowd there to overthrow the government.
	Known to the intelligence, because the plans were actually approved and they had gotten the permits in advance.
	At half-staff.
	Not half-mast, half-staff.
	Okay, so we'll see what...
	I mean, we're going to suffer through this today.
	I, because of this, was able to weasel out of a parental obligation of taking a kid to the dentist.
	Although I think, I actually think I might actually rather go to the dentist than sit through this.
	But we're going to do it.
	And we're going to see what happens in real time.
	Because we have to.
	It's important.
	And I'm going to go to YouTube now and see where, who is live streaming.
	The day two.
	I think C-SPAN is going to have it.
	Jan 6, 2022.
	C-SPAN.
	Let's see if we can get it on.
	It will be on C-SPAN.
	Day one.
	Jan 6, public hearing.
	Let's just see.
	Jan 6, day two.
	Other than that, everyone else, how are you guys doing?
	It is today at 10 o 'clock.
	There's no question that it's today.
	January 6. Committee hearing live.
	Where is it?
	Here we go.
	So we can get Washington Compost.
	We can get WGN News.
	We can get USA Today.
	PBS NewsHour.
	Let's go with this one.
	Start delayed by committee.
	Stay tuned.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Here's what we're going to do.
	Just to share it so we all see it together.
	Saw a lot of barfy emojis.
	Okay, here we go, peeps.
	I'm going to put the headphones on so I can hear it.
	But go share the link around so that we can get eyeballs on this debacle.
	Okay, so everything's plugged in.
	We've got it.
	We'll remove it from the stream, and we'll come back to it soon.
	Okay, so which one do I watch on?
	We've got PBS, Washington Compost.
	We're going to watch it, and we're going to...
	Add some facts, add some clarification, add some information that might probably otherwise be missing from the bipartisan, totally transparent, totally searching for the truth and not trying to exploit this for political purposes, January 6th committee.
	Bipartisan.
	Nine committee members.
	Seven Democrats.
	Two Republicans, and I suspect they are Republicans in name only, hence RINOs, who had to have been appointed specifically by Nancy Pelosi.
	Speaker Pelosi, there's a concept called controlled opposition, which people oftentimes use improperly.
	They refer to anyone they disagree with as controlled opposition.
	The concept of controlled opposition...
	It's a specific concept.
	It's not people you disagree with, people who are acting on their own motivations, their own selfish motivations, their own bias.
	That's not what controlled opposition means.
	Controlled opposition means disguised opposition, which are actually funded, promoted, supported, or controlled by the majority party.
	So let's just go controlled opposition.
	Meaning.
	We won't get it from Wikipedia.
	Unrestrained, uncontrolled.
	That's antonyms, dude.
	That's not...
	What is controlled opposition?
	Let's not go to...
	You know what?
	Forget it.
	We're going to go to Wikipedia.
	They will get into the origins of controlled opposition.
	Did I spell it?
	Controlled opposition, urban dictionary.
	Well, let's just see urban dictionary.
	A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents.
	Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries.
	Notably, Vladimir Lenin, who said the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.
	That was the quote that I was looking for.
	Controlled opposition.
	If you want to look at Liz Cheney and the other guy there, I even forget what his name is.
	If you even look at them as opposition, this might be the closest to controlled opposition that you're actually going to get.
	Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, regardless of how you feel about any of this, is the political adversary, in theory, of the GOP.
	Speaker of the House, political adversary, is picking, literally picking and choosing, the opposition that is going to form this bipartisan committee.
	It's either not bipartisan, or it's controlled opposition, or it's just, you know, feigned opposition.
	Just go to YouTube for one second here.
	Okay, we are live.
	And let me see if we've been demonetized yet.
	No, we're still good.
	Okay, good.
	Oh, no, Barnes is not coming today.
	Barnes, we talked about this yesterday.
	Barnes, he's got thick skin and he's got a stomach of steel.
	He doesn't have the stomach for this.
	I'm sure he has more important things to do with his time than to sit through this committee hearing.
	He knows where it's at.
	He knows what the score is.
	Yesterday, we talked about the validity of this committee because there's an argument that it's not a valid committee to begin with because it hasn't met the requisite rules for representation.
	For composition, Barnes is of the opinion that there has not been anything analogous to the, call it, lack of legitimacy of this bipartisan committee.
	The argument was steelmanning it.
	Benghazi Commission, or the Benghazi Committee, the Katrina Committee, were similarly, not identically, but were similarly lacking representation from the other side, from the Democrats.
	The argument back then would be, Democrats are saying, Benghazi, Katrina, these are political witch hunts.
	All you're trying to do is find a political source of blame for these events.
	And as such, we're not participating in this political witch hunt.
	I have no doubt that's, in one variation or another, exactly what was said during the Benghazi Committee and during the Katrina Committee.
	And maybe there's some truth to it.
	Trying to find blame.
	For how those events occurred, and you know who they're going to blame.
	The truly amazing hypocrisy of politics is that back then, I'm sure the Democrats said, we're not participating in what we believe to be a political witch hunt.
	This committee is a sham.
	It's not bipartisan.
	It's invalid ab initio.
	From the get-go, it's invalid, and we're not going to partake in it because it's political.
	Political witch hunt garbage.
	Well, now the tides have turned and now it's the Democrats who are engaging in the same type of conduct.
	And it's the Republicans now who are saying, this is a political witch hunt.
	We're not going to participate in it.
	Apparently, the two appointees that the GOP wanted to have on the committee, Jim Jordan and someone else whose name I forget, were not authorized by Nancy Pelosi.
	There's a dog who's trying to get into the room.
	You can do it.
	Push it.
	Push it.
	Hotta, Joey.
	Come on.
	Come on, Winston.
	The door.
	He can push the door with...
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You got it.
	There you go.
	Come on.
	There we go.
	Fourth time's a try.
	First try.
	Yeah, apparently Nancy Pelosi did not approve of the two nominees that the GOP wanted to put on this committee.
	Oy.
	Oy.
	And so, therefore...
	Refusal to participate and...
	How you doing?
	Your breath smells.
	My breath does not smell.
	I am Winston.
	My breath smells beautiful.
	And Winston needs a bath.
	He gets under the chair and then gets this dark...
	I don't think it's ink.
	I don't know what it is, but he's filthy.
	He kind of smells like a wet rag.
	I tried to trim the hair around his eyes.
	I succeeded in part.
	And now he will not go near me when he hears me walking around with scissors.
	The dog is very smart.
	Might have to take him to a groomer.
	Okay, so let's see what's going on in the chat.
	Cut the hair from his eyes.
	First of all, he's blind.
	So let me just show you.
	Get over here.
	Okay, so he's blind.
	Which is why it doesn't make much of a difference.
	If I just go like this here.
	Let's see if you can see.
	See?
	He thinks I'm going to cut the hair on his eyes.
	He's blind.
	With lenticonis lentoglobus.
	It's an eye condition from birth.
	He was a defect.
	He had a birth condition.
	Now I'm going to get in trouble.
	He had a birth defect.
	It's called lenticonis lentoglobus.
	Blind from birth.
	And he was a rescue from an agency called Westies in Need.
	So he's blind.
	So I don't need to cut the hair.
	I tried to just because I actually looked at his eyes and I like them.
	Even though it's like they're totally white, milky and whatever.
	But now he won't let me come near him when he knows that I have scissors in my hand or when he suspects I'm coming in for the clip.
	But sex bots in the house early.
	Come on, people.
	Get out of here.
	Naked H to X, Y, Z. Okay, I think I got them.
	All right, let's see what we got here.
	Can we talk about how Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson, managed to get herself on such a committee?
	Oh, wait.
	That's Liz Cheney.
	For a second, I'm sitting there.
	I didn't think Nancy Cartwright had anything to do with this.
	And what a world in which we live.
	Now that you mention it, Nancy Cartwright is a woman doing a young boy's voice where the Simpsons show itself got in trouble for Hank Azaria doing Apu's voice.
	I guess one was a stereotype or just, you know, an accent and the other one is not.
	But are we not living in the world now where an elderly woman would not be able to do the voice of a young boy because we'd have to get a young boy to do the voice of a young boy?
	But no, I don't know what Nancy Cartwright looks like.
	I don't know if I see any resemblance between her and Liz Cheney.
	But thank you for the super chat and which allows me to get into the first disclaimer.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornication advice.
	I will be peppering in the facts while watching this hearing.
	But I'm going to try to time my comments a little better with the actual hearing itself because I was re-watching my reaction live commentary to the first day, the first two-hour part of this.
	And yeah, I might have been talking over a little bit too much.
	Because some of the points, which I think were amazing, we could not contextualize with the comments.
	So, I'll be peppering in the facts, if I may do that.
	Salt and peppering in the facts, speaking of my hair.
	Second disclaimer, YouTube, on every one of these Super Chats, takes 30%.
	If you do not like supporting YouTube, given all of their rampant chicanery, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has the equivalent called Rumble Rants.
	And Rumble takes 20% and not 30%, so it's better for the creator, better to support a platform that actually supports freedom of speech, and there's that.
	But the best way to support, if you want to support Robert, Barnes, and myself, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Viva, can you stop banning my bots?
	How else can I forward all the S superchats to streamers?
	It's weird, man.
	I don't know why they come here.
	And who clicks on, like, even if you're prone?
	To, you know, using that aspect of the internet.
	Who would click on a link through that?
	You have to be asking for viruses.
	Digital viruses.
	Shadow.
	Shad you.
	Shad you.
	GOP submitted seven GOP house rep.
	Nancy didn't like them.
	And to sign seven of her own, only two accepted.
	Okay, that's even more interesting because I know that Cheney and...
	Who's the other guy?
	Who's the other GOP?
	Unlike CTV.
	Speaking of which, while we wait, let's get to the intro video.
	I'm going to click the link to that.
	I put a car vlog out.
	I haven't done one in a while.
	And now I remember why I've phased those out and phased into the live stream, snipping and clipping for clips on the Viva Clips second channel.
	They are energy consuming.
	When I do those videos and I got to sit there and say these lines and then get it out with energy, with passion, and then I got to go back to the computer, edit it while I hear kids screaming in the house, dogs whining and barking.
	It's hard work.
	But I did put a new video up today and it's the detailed breakdown with receipts of what I talked about yesterday.
	CTV.
	They're just liars.
	There's no other way.
	They're scornful liars.
	They make a mistake in an attempt to defame, to lambaste, and then they simply refuse to correct their mistake.
	And then in updating and clarifying, they proceed to make yet more defamatory statements about me.
	I hear my voice now.
	So I'm going to post the link here for anybody who wants to go watch it and share it.
	It's not for the internet drama and there's no but.
	I don't want to sue anybody.
	Lawsuits are crap.
	It's a painful, tedious, costly process.
	Everyone should avoid it to the greatest extent possible.
	But they come out.
	They lie.
	They trick me.
	First of all, they trick me.
	And in preparing this video, I actually went back.
	To the original reach-out email that they sent me from a producer at CTV News.
	Oh yeah, we're at CTV.
	A producer at CTV W5.
	It's Canada's longest-running journalism show.
	And I know it.
	I used to watch it when I was a kid.
	W5.
	From the five W's of journalism.
	Who, what, when, why, where, which, what the hell, and why can't you correct your own damn mistakes?
	They reach out to me with a beautiful email.
	CTVW5.
	It's a reputable journalist program.
	We'd love to talk to you because you're a very popular content creator.
	We want to talk to you about Rumble, a Canadian platform, and we'd like your perspective as a Canadian.
	Oh, just...
	It's very nice.
	They want a Canadian's perspective on a Canadian success story.
	Rumble is a Canadian creation from a Canadian.
	Chris Pawlowski.
	It's a Canadian success story.
	And it's taking on YouTube, whether YouTube acknowledges it or not.
	It might even surpass YouTube at some point in some respects.
	Not from, you know, people going there reflexively and having 2 billion daily users.
	Not necessarily from that perspective, but from a 360 media platform.
	It's integrated with locals.
	It has methods.
	It does video licensing.
	It does video licensing.
	Arguably as well as some of the video licensing agencies that I've used in the past.
	It's a full 360 entity.
	It's a Canadian success story.
	And you would think that a Canadian investigative journalism news platform would want to celebrate that.
	You'd think they'd want to celebrate that unless they are jealous, scornful government propagandists, which is what they are and prove themselves to be.
	CTV, Global News.
	CBC, Radio Canada, if they're not getting direct subsidies from the government by way of their actual existence, a billion dollars a year in federal taxpayer dollars to CBC and Radio Canada, if they're not getting that, they're getting 600 million plus in bailout funds.
	And I guarantee you CTV is among the recipients of that, without question.
	And if they're not getting 600 million bailout funds, they're getting COVID ads.
	They're giving government ads, which subsidize their failing, their flailing, and their rubbish platforms.
	You'd think they would be celebrating Rumble, Pavlovsky as a Canadian success story, but no.
	They sell it that way to get into my living room, literally.
	And then it becomes clear this is a hit piece against Rumble, and they use me as the tool for that hit piece.
	And it's outright false statements that will cause people to think badly of me.
	They said Viva has had videos pulled from YouTube.
	Challenged by Facebook, but never by Rumble.
	Lie, lie, and lie.
	Because I've never had anything challenged by Rumble, but on my main channel on YouTube, I've never had videos polled or Facebook posts challenged.
	So there's nothing for Rumble to address.
	And instead of just correcting it, they rebroadcast an updated story linking Rumble to January 6th or linking Rumble's rise in popularity.
	Falsely linking Rumble's rise in popularity to the events of January 6th.
	And in that same broadcast, at the end of it, Kevin Newman, a man who's now face I no longer, I don't like looking at.
	He came into my house.
	He was a nice guy.
	In person.
	Hold on, I hear some audio in the background.
	The second of at least six hearings.
	He comes into my living room, all smiley-dialy.
	And...
	Whatever.
	In the end of this broadcast, he corrects his story by saying, Mr. Fry informed us he had a COVID video pulled down and challenges on Facebook are generated automatically.
	Lie and lie.
	The video that was pulled down wasn't a COVID video.
	It had nothing to do with COVID video.
	It predated COVID by two years.
	It was a breakdown of a deposition, which is what made the pulling so absurd.
	But another lie.
	And why lie about it being a COVID video?
	Because you've got to demonize Rumble and make Rumble look like the go-to for COVID misinformation.
	Lie.
	Lie.
	And I inform them that Facebook challenges are automatic.
	I don't even know that.
	I don't even know where I would have gotten that from.
	I never did it.
	I couldn't have done it because I didn't even know this.
	Liars.
	So anyways, I put out a vlog breaking it down.
	Go check it out.
	Now, let's hear what's going on with January 6th.
	Pull this up here.
	Hold on.
	How do I do this?
	I gotta go.
	What's my problem?
	Do we hear this?
	This is not where we're at.
	This is not where we're at.
	Hold on, people.
	I think I just lost everything.
	Okay, so we see this here.
	You guys only see me flailing to get a hold of what's going on here.
	Okay, I'm closing this window.
	Here we are.
	The idea that the election was stolen and that Joe Biden was illegitimately and fraudulently elected.
	So today's hearing is going to drill down much more deeply into that.
	We're going to be hearing from more people.
	Actually anticipated on that witness list were both the former campaign manager, Bill Stepien, who just this morning...
	What's going to happen today?
	It's actually not going to be testifying.
	We understand his counsel.
	Let's hear the scheduling statement in his stead, but there's still some developments potentially moving on that.
	That was due to a family emergency.
	We should note that there's also going to be a man named Chris Steyrwall who's going I wonder if Ray Epps is going to testify.
	One of the big stories we remember about him after the election is Fox actually called Arizona for Joe Biden accurately on election night.
	And that was one of the reasons, later reported, that Mr. Steinwald was actually fired from his job.
	They called Arizona accurately.
	Did they not pull back?
	Did they not retract their calling Arizona and later turn it into too close to call?
	Despite being told that was not true.
	The fact that Chris Tyrell was let go is also a part of this dynamic of understanding the...
	Okay, so we're going to put this on mute.
	I'm not going to put it on mute.
	I'm just going to wait for this to go.
	I don't want to broadcast...
	I don't want to broadcast this.
	I'm not sure that I'll be commenting enough on this to make it...
	What's the word?
	Transformative.
	So when it goes to the public hearings, I will get back to it.
	Okay.
	So...
	Hold on.
	Yeah, they're going to include witness tests, yada, yada, yada.
	You know what they're going to turn this into, by the way?
	And some people on Twitter have already called it with 5% of the vote in, I believe.
	Well, let's just go ahead and get ahead of the curve on this.
	I'm going to bring this back in.
	Take it off mute.
	Cut and paste.
	Let's just go to Google.
	And we go Fox News calls Arizona.
	Fox News doubles down after calling.
	This is from November 2020.
	This is from 2021.
	Do we need to put in another word?
	Retract.
	Let's see.
	I do believe...
	I do believe that they retracted.
	Jared Kushner calls.
	Did they ever retract it?
	And then bring it back to too close to call.
	I thought they had.
	Let's see.
	November 4, 2020 from the Daily Beast.
	Fox News stars keep undermining the network's Arizona call for Biden.
	Nearly 24 hours after the Fox News decision desk ruled that former Vice President Joe Biden has won Arizona, a key battleground state in the 2020 presidential election, it's unclear how many of their own colleagues at the network are ready to accept those results.
	On Tuesday, Fox News projected that Biden had won the Grand Canyon State.
	I love these creative descriptions.
	They have to find the Grand Canyon State.
	They could have called it the Saguaro National Park State.
	They could have called it, I don't know, a number of other things.
	That place where they have the replica of the Wild West.
	Shutting off a major avenue for president to reach the necessary 270 electoral college.
	But throughout the day on Wednesday, some of the network's pro-Trump personalities seemed either oblivious or unwilling.
	So this is going to be to affirm the story.
	Did they not retract it the evening of?
	Anybody in the chat who knows?
	Let's see if we can get that.
	The lie that he had actually won the election.
	Bill Stepien would be front and center in those conversations.
	I should also note that...
	Okay, we're going to put that on pause and take it out.
	We'll come back to it when we're live.
	Back to the evening of.
	And then bring it back to too close to call.
	I thought they had, but maybe my memory is...
	Maybe my memory is off.
	So what's going to happen with this hearing, by the way?
	They are going to turn this into an attack...
	Not just on Trump.
	I mean, they tried to impeach him over this.
	Not just on the 500, 600 individuals mercilessly charged and prosecuted for all of this.
	It's now going to pivot into an all-out attack on anybody who questions things.
	Anybody who has questions about, they're going to link those questions, that questioning, To undermining the system.
	To inciting the erection.
	That's where this is going.
	And it's clear as day.
	And they're going to pivot away from the actual incidents of the day.
	And they're going to broaden this into, this is what happens when people are allowed to believe misinformation, question the legitimacy of the system.
	It leads to violence.
	And therefore, we now need to...
	Suppress misinformation.
	We need to impose the Disinformation Governance Board.
	We need to prevent people from being allowed to question to avoid motivating and inspiring this type of insurrection ever again.
	That's where it's going.
	Thank you.
	Someone just says, why are you bringing up election?
	I can't bring that.
	I'm not bringing that comment up.
	For some reason, I was unsubbed from you, Viva, but I'm back now.
	All love to you, homie.
	NPG, thank you very much.
	Looks like you have a channel as well.
	I am drinking my morning vitamin C emergency with carbonated water.
	President's choice.
	President's choice, choix du président in Quebec.
	That's where it's going today.
	PBS.
	It's the public broadcasting station.
	So I think I could listen to the commentary on this and offer my two cents.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	This went beyond just trying to influence people around him, that there was pressure on government officials to overturn and undermine those election results.
	But 140,000 documents, 1,000 witnesses and interviews who've come before the committee, you have to imagine we'll be seeing more of those kinds of video clips.
	We'll be seeing more of those kinds of video clips.
	The question is...
	Are we going to see anything new?
	...messages between some of these people.
	The committee says they're letting the facts lead the case and that the facts themselves will tell the story.
	So we'll be watching that story as it unfolds on this second day of those hearings.
	Can you believe that there are people out there who actually believe this?
	The committee's going to let the facts tell the story.
	The human elements.
	You know, one of the pieces that got a little bit of attention in the first hearing that might get additional attention today in future hearings was what the people who were out there that day believed to be true.
	Oh, here we go.
	Pivoting.
	They're reporting every single person we talked to who had come in to the Capitol grounds that day.
	And I'm talking about people who got in their car and drove 7, 8, 9, 10 hours just to be there.
	A couple of people I met who flew in from California just to be there.
	Central to their decision to be outside that day, whether they participated in any violent act or not, was the idea that the election was fraudulent, that Donald Trump had actually won the 2020 presidential election, and that's...
	Okay, that's exactly where we're going with this.
	Some kind of messaging around those words.
	And so I can say firsthand, I think one of the committee's premises that the language of the big lie helped to feed and fuel people showing up that day, whether or not they participated in pated violence.
	That's absolutely true.
	So for me, I think I'm going to be watching to see if more of that kind of language is included.
	I also think some new folks we're hearing from, Chris Stierwalt among them, could reveal some new information.
	No, by the way, they had their day one to bring out their bestest, strongest arguments.
	And what they brought out was highly, whatever.
	You see exactly where they're going with this.
	I mean, she's basically just said it right now.
	Everyone there was duped and deceived by the misinformation that they heard.
	Some of which was actually misinformation.
	I mean, Barnes and I were talking about it.
	Certain things were never going to happen.
	Period.
	Some people didn't like us for saying that.
	And I'm lumping us with Barnes only because I don't want to misappropriate his knowledge.
	Barnes was ahead of the curve in calling out certain movements as what they refer to as psychological operation movements, potentially.
	Talking about things that were not actually happening, did not actually happen, and were not actually ever going to happen.
	I'm infuriated by this.
	Big lie.
	They do not know.
	Or they know and they don't care.
	They're repeating an anti-Semitic Hitler trope.
	Literally.
	Literally.
	The big lie.
	Either they don't know this, which makes them ignorant buffoons, or they do know it, which makes them much worse.
	The big lie.
	German.
	Große Lüge.
	I think.
	I don't speak German.
	I can't even read it, but it can't be a grobe.
	I want to say grobe lüge, but it has to be a große lüge, is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth used especially as propaganda technique.
	The German expression was coined by Beethoven Schmittler when he dictated his 1925 book, Minecraft.
	By the way, that's when whenever I hear Minecraft, I can't but hear Minecraft.
	It's a...
	Audible joke that I cannot unhear.
	So he wrote his book, Minecraft, to describe the use of a lie so colossal that no one would believe it.
	So colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
	Claimed that the technique had been used by the Jews to blame Germany's loss of World War I on German General Eric Ludendorff, who was a prominent nationalist.
	Political leader in the Weimar Republic.
	They are repeating a Hitlerian trope, and they think that they're doing it to demonize the Trump side, but they're actually repeating the trope themselves.
	Now, some people said that Trump was the first one to have invoked that term.
	I don't think so.
	And even if he were, let me rephrase, if he were, I would level the same criticism against him.
	But I'm fairly certain it was the media that initially used this concept, referenced this term, and then Trump ran with it, co-opted it, and, like with fake news, turned it on its head to use against them.
	All right, people.
	Looks like we're going live.
	The most boring show on television.
	The masked men in the crowd hold the cameras, wondering what will happen today.
	They stare at politicians who are well-dressed, clean-shaven, unlike the bum.
	Who is commentating in real time.
	The hearing will begin soon, says the caption under the screen as we pan across the room.
	Look at this beautiful room.
	Only the best for the government.
	50-foot ceilings, ornaments, chandeliers.
	Only the best for your government, which is the new God.
	Surprised to see five American flags in the background that must trigger some people.
	Who knows?
	A man looking at his phone.
	He had better turn it off.
	No, I don't think they have to turn it off for the hearing.
	That actually looks like a...
	No, that's a digital camera.
	Okay.
	Oh, Mamacita.
	Okay, we'll see how long we can do this for.
	I have to do pickup this afternoon.
	I have pickup duty.
	The cameraman, for some reason, is enamored with the chandelier.
	Why doesn't he have one like that at his own home?
	He wonders.
	Oh, yes.
	And their contractor friends built all that shit for 20 times the normal price.
	Undoubtedly.
	Undoubtedly.
	Because the cuts don't take themselves, people.
	People have to look up the history of the Olympic Stadium in Canada.
	It's a glorious, phenomenal history of corruption, kickbacks, shaving off the top, using crappy materials so you could...
	What's the word?
	Amplify profit while minimizing costs.
	Who agreed to pay for this?
	Sorry, consent not necessary, to quote Borat.
	Agreement not necessary.
	So, I have to pee again, which is very early on in the day.
	Okay, people, while you go look at this.
	$20,000 for a toilet seat.
	Okay, you remind me.
	I'll be back in 30 seconds.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	By the way, as I meandered to the restroom, I heard my mother-in-law's voice in my ears.
	David, you should not say you have to pee.
	You must say that you need to relieve yourself, or may you have a moment?
	The hearing will begin soon.
	Who are we looking at?
	I don't know who we're looking at.
	M95 mask.
	An M...
	I believe that's...
	Is that an M...
	Are those two M95 masks?
	The amount of fear that one has to live with in order to willingly continue to wear that much of a mask, unless they know that they have COVID, in which case they shouldn't be there, or unless they have a cold, in which case I would thank them for being courteous.
	I saw someone walking outside Sunday afternoon.
	It was like 25 degrees, sunny, alone on the street wearing a mask.
	And it's like...
	In a way, it's exactly like the religious sort of self-flagellation, like people want to harm themselves, or they have to hurt themselves to show allegiance, to repent for sins.
	I mean, it's superstitious in nature, in form.
	And then what I saw yesterday, another one, this one just blew my mind.
	The guy pulled, he was outside, pulls down his mask to smoke a cigarette.
	Pull down his mask to smoke a cigarette while wearing a mask outside.
	Viva.
	I just passed through the Montreal airport last week and there were no such mask.
	And there were such...
	See, I keep reading this in the way it's phonetically spelled.
	And they were such mask people.
	We don't want to go back to Canada anytime soon.
	That's part of the design.
	If Trudeau makes it so unpleasant, so painful, so costly...
	For foreigners to visit Canada and see the unconstitutional madness going on in this country, it'll create a de facto hermit state like North Korea.
	And if they make it so painful, so difficult, so costly, and in some cases impossible for Canadians to leave and go see the freedom in places like Florida, Texas, Europe, well, you've got your de facto hermit state.
	You've created it not through enacting objectively Authoritarian, dictatorial laws.
	You just do it by making it impossible.
	No one's going to want to come here.
	Who's going to want to come here to do business, to travel, when you get stuck at the airport for hours, when the government can freeze your bank accounts extrajudicially with no due process while purporting to hold harmless, to indemnify or to immunize the banks?
	Who the heck would want to come here?
	So you create a hermit state without having to create Totalitarian laws to create that hermit state.
	Oh, I just saw something right here.
	Let's see what we got here.
	JB Morrison says, just watched your W5 vid.
	I think you should absolutely sue their pants off.
	Evidently, their pants are on fire anyhow.
	Anyway, do them a favor.
	It was actually, in reviewing that, I pulled up the original email I got from the producer.
	Dr. Vladimir Zelensky says we will all be digital ID'd by 2025.
	What do we got here?
	I noticed the NBA Finals game.
	Only people wearing masks in the crowds.
	Okay, I don't know about that.
	I can tell you.
	From here, I see all sorts of things in Canada.
	But the thing is this, there's sometimes a reasonable explanation for wearing a mask if they feel symptomatic but not with COVID and they want to be courteous.
	It's a thing that we haven't done in North America but we've seen overseas.
	But the reality, it's healthy people who are probably vaxxed, double vaxxed, boosted, maybe double boosted and they're doing it because they now actually live in a state of perpetual fear where they think there's something floating around in the air outside.
	And if they don't wear it, they're at risk.
	Why take a chance?
	Okay, no medical advice.
	Why take a chance?
	And then there are others who say, I'm doing it just to show that I'm courteous to others.
	Because fear has become the new virtue.
	And catering to other people's irrational fears has now become the virtuous thing to do.
	I'm such a kitty.
	Oh, I see what you're saying.
	Okay.
	So, that's it.
	What's worse?
	Hiding online in your house or wearing a mask outside?
	Checkmate.
	Who, Skywalker, are you suggesting is hiding online?
	I don't think you're suggesting I'm hiding online because that would just be overtly factually incorrect.
	What's worse, though, between someone who doesn't want to leave their house and someone who wears a mask outside?
	What is more of an indication of fear?
	They're both equally indicative of people uncontrollably possessed by fear.
	Any fish pics for us today?
	Thanks.
	No, I didn't get to go fishing over the weekend.
	I did go to a public beach yesterday on the Lachine Canal.
	Not on the Lachine Canal.
	It's the Verdun Beach.
	It's beautiful.
	It was beautiful.
	And now the government has come in and turned what was a beautiful public beach where kids could swim.
	We could play.
	There was a little barricade of rocks that creates the calm space where people swim.
	Yesterday I went back.
	They had four lifeguards, which is fine.
	They set a little rope out so that you couldn't swim past a certain point.
	Okay.
	And then I was told I'm not allowed walking on the rocks anymore because, I don't know, I got whistled down by a lifeguard.
	The government comes in and regulates the fun out of everything.
	Last time we were there, I saw a massive bullfrog and that's what I wanted to see this time.
	Can't do it now.
	Can't go on the rocks.
	I can't access a public place because the government says it's for your own protection.
	You might fall off the rocks into still water and swim back to shore.
	C-SPAN is less dramatic than PBS is.
	Their live feed says it will start at 10.45.
	A witness had a family emergency.
	10.45.
	So I must now not kill time.
	We must use six minutes of time.
	Thank you for the info.
	See, tell them to F off is not the type of conflict I look for.
	On a daily basis.
	Plus, they're young kids just doing their job.
	What am I going to yell at a young kid?
	It's like that video that went viral of this guy going into, was it a Cold Stone?
	An ice cream shop?
	At 8.29 when they closed at 8.30 and then berating the 15-year-old kid behind the counter?
	No, I mean, that's not the solution.
	I don't know what the solution is.
	And then I was going to post a short video of them.
	I saw someone else going out on the pier.
	I was like, oh, they're going to whistle that guy down.
	And they did, but I don't want to put people's images online who just went to the beach for the day.
	All right, so what else?
	W5 bastards.
	It's like...
	By the way, I'm talking to my wife yesterday after the whole thing happens.
	I just see her like...
	Staring at the ground.
	I said, what's up?
	Is anything wrong?
	She's like, nothing's wrong.
	I'm just disappointed.
	When my wife gets disappointed, then you know you've done something very, very wrong.
	A fishing trip, yes.
	First of all, we're going to have two trips coming up.
	I want to catch a fish, man.
	We had a good fish where I finally filleted a pike.
	With a butter knife.
	Wasn't quite a butter knife.
	This guy right here, he's channeling something.
	Oh, they're zooming in.
	Who's this?
	Did we all just see that man channeling?
	Mmm.
	you Bye.
	Thank you.
	This cameraman really is moving around.
	Who's in the front, people?
	Oh, yeah, there you go.
	Everybody's in there.
	They're all going to get...
	99% of the same photograph.
	It's only going to be a question of whether or not one photographer in there captures anything remotely unique that will be a standout photograph.
	It's like everyone in there is basically capturing the same images, but everyone wants their own so they can go stick it on Alamy or what's the other one there?
	What's the stock photo website, the biggest one?
	It doesn't matter.
	Excellent facial hair.
	Let me zoom in.
	The FOIA request from Judicial Watch showing that the decision not to prosecute or not to charge, the only person who actually immediately, directly took someone's life that day, not going to do it, even though it seems that he might not have been entirely truthful in his testimony.
	About the events surrounding Ashley Babbitt.
	And what they managed to obtain via FOIA request.
	The Capitol building was understaffed security-wise because of COVID.
	Yep.
	And that's not to justify any of the acts of destruction that occurred that day.
	It's to explain it.
	And if you're looking for a solution, Maybe to look for the proper solution, which is when you know you're going to have a serious event, don't go understaffed.
	Maybe, just maybe, between weighing the risks, being understaffed at the Capitol building, being understaffed because of COVID is not the risk that you need to protect against.
	Oh, look at these people.
	And they must feel so important.
	Who is this guy?
	Who's this person right in the center?
	At the center of the attention, he's got so many cameras pointing at him.
	Here we go.
	Voice over.
	As I sat there, staring at the horde of cameramen, all just dying to get one picture of me sitting in a chair, I realized I had truly attained success in life.
	Oh!
	Now we go to the door.
	Something's happening.
	I wonder if they're understaffed today.
	All right, you know what?
	While we get started...
	Kabuki.
	I'm not going to change the screen because I want to keep it up there.
	I'm going to see what kabuki means.
	I don't know what the origin of the term is.
	I feel a little ignorant for not knowing.
	And I'll read it out loud.
	Kabuki theater.
	Meaning?
	Dictionary.
	What does kabuki theater mean?
	Kabuki is a form of classical theater in Japan.
	"This Much I Knew" known for its elaborate costumes and dynamic acting.
	The phrases Kabuki theater, Kabuki dance, or Kabuki play are sometimes used in political discourse to describe an event characterized Hmm.
	I like.
	Very nice.
	Now I understand.
	That was sort of what I thought.
	I thought it might have had a specific show trial.
	Like there was the trial of Mr. Kabuki.
	I thought maybe it was named after an actual individual political show trial, as opposed to just a broad description of theatrical entertainment.
	Maybe they shouldn't have been understaffed if they allowed the National Guard request to go through.
	Sorry, maybe they wouldn't have been understaffed if they allowed the National Guard request to go through.
	No question about that.
	I hate headphones.
	Oh, that is a good look.
	This is a good look, people.
	See what happens.
	January 6th hearings.
	I don't support PBS.
	Is it starting?
	Looks like it's starting.
	This is like Anchorman.
	This is Anchorman-level intro.
	Good morning, I'm Judy Woodruff and welcome to this PBS NewsHour special live coverage of the January 6th hearings held by the Select Committee of the House of Representatives to investigate last year's attack on the United States Capitol.
	This is the second in a series of hearings the committee plans to hold over the next two weeks.
	Today's hearings is starting a little later this morning than expected because of a last-minute witness change.
	Bill Stepien, who was former President Trump's campaign manager at the end of the campaign, will not be appearing due to a family emergency.
	We're going to go there just as soon as Chairman Benny Thompson calls the committee to order.
	As we wait, we'll say that in the hearing last Thursday, Chairman Thompson and Republican Representative Liz Cheney, there you see her on his left, on your right.
	Let's just see her.
	Oh, let's go to C-SPAN.
	I guess it might be better.
	Jan 6 C-SPAN live.
	Yeah, why can't I see it live?
	Why would it be so hard to find?
	Jan 6 committee hearing.
	That's not how you spell committee.
	I know, people.
	C-SPAN.
	Okay, here we go.
	Inaudible conversations.
	Yes.
	Let's do this.
	Okay.
	This is better.
	I don't want to hear people talk, except for me.
	I have brung down the gavel.
	The January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order.
	Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point.
	Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the chair announces the committee's approval to release the deposition material presented during today's hearing.
	Good morning.
	Last week, the select committee laid out a preview of our initial findings about the conspiracy overseeing and directed by Donald Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election Listen to how many times they're going to repeat this.
	and block the transfer of power, a scheme unprecedented in American history.
	My colleagues and I don't want to spend time talking about ourselves during these hearings, but as someone who...
	Oh, and they're going to, one talking point.
	And that's the end of the line.
	Except those results.
	That's what it means to respect the rule of law.
	Did he talk to Tracy Abrams?
	That's what it means to seek elective office in our democracy.
	Because those numbers aren't just numbers.
	It's the backbone of society.
	They are your votes.
	They are the will and the voice of the people.
	And the very least we should expect from any person seeking a position of public trust is the acceptance of the will of the people.
	Win or lose.
	Donald Trump didn't.
	It's so easy talking about someone when they're not there.
	He lied.
	And he tried to remain in office after the people had voted him out.
	He tried to remain in office after the people voted him out.
	Okay.
	This morning, we'll tell the story of how Donald Trump lost an election and knew he lost an election.
	And as a result of his loss, decided to wage an attack on our democracy, an attack on the American population.
	people by trying to rob you from your voice in our democracy.
	And in doing so, lit the fuse that led to the horrific violence of January 6th, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol sent by Donald Trump to stop the This is too much for some people to listen to.
	Today, my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren, and our witnesses will detail the select committee's findings on these matters.
	Let's hear it.
	But first, I will recognize our distinguished vice chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she's cared to offer.
	Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	Last week, as the chairman noted, our committee began outlining a seven-part plan overseen by President Trump to overturn the 2020 election.
	Seven-part plan.
	Today, we will begin looking at the initial part of that plan.
	President Trump's effort to convince millions of Americans that the election was stolen from him by overwhelming fraud.
	A federal court has already reviewed elements of the committee's evidence on this point and said this, quote, In the months following the election, numerous credible sources, from the president's inner circle to agency leadership and statisticians, informed President Trump and Dr. Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud, sufficient to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
	The court's opinion methodically documents each of the principal reasons for that conclusion, and I would urge all those watching to read it.
	But I'm not going to.
	What is this intended to be?
	Is this an impeachment 3.0 or is this about January 6th?
	This is bastardizing of any legitimate object this committee ever had.
	You will also hear much more from President Trump's own campaign experts, who had also concluded that his fraud claims could not be supported.
	Let me focus briefly on just three points now.
	First, you will hear firsthand testimony that the president's campaign advisers urged him to await the counting of votes and not to declare victory on election night.
	The president understood even before the election that many more Biden voters had voted by mail because President Trump ignored the advice of his campaign experts and told his supporters only to vote in person.
	knew before the election that the counting of those mail-in ballots in several states would not be begin until late in the day and would not be complete for multiple days.
	This was expected, reported, and widely known.
	Does that make it appropriate?
	You will also hear testimony that President Trump rejected the advice of his campaign experts on election night, and instead, Oh, this is slanderous.
	This is somewhat slanderous.
	He falsely told the American people that the election was not legitimate.
	In his words, quote, a major fraud.
	Millions of Americans believed him.
	Second, pay attention to what Donald Trump and his legal team said repeatedly.
	Is this about January 6th or is this another attempt to impeach Trump?
	I think we all agreed on that.
	All told him the same thing.
	Here, for example, is White House lawyer Eric Hirschman.
	His view was shared by many of the Trump team whom we interviewed.
	There's an expression in French, les absents ont toujours tort.
	The Dominion stuff was...
	I never saw any evidence whatsoever to sustain those allegations.
	Agreed.
	Everyone agrees with that.
	That's why some people believe it was a sigh-off to begin with.
	They called the campaign experts to give them a briefing on election fraud and all the other election claims.
	On January 2nd, the general counsel of the Trump campaign, Matthew Morgan, this is the campaign's chief lawyer, summarized what the campaign had concluded weeks earlier, that none of the arguments about fraud or anything else could actually change the outcome of the election.
	That sentence can have two different meanings, by the way.
	Generally discussed on that topic was whether the fraud, mental administration, abuse, or irregularities, if aggregated and read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome determinate?
	Oh, they just covered it up.
	And I think everyone's assessment in the room, at least amongst the staff, Mark Short, myself, and Greg Jacob, was that it was not sufficient to be outcome determinate.
	As is obvious, this was before the attack on the Capitol.
	The Trump campaign legal team knew there was no legitimate argument, fraud, irregularities, or anything to overturn the election.
	And yet President Trump went ahead with his plans for January 6th anyway.
	What were his plans?
	Let's hear your description of his plans.
	It's an outrage.
	By the way, now, if anyone out there believes what Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney says they believe, it's going to be criminal.
	Fought police, literally.
	Fought crime.
	As one conservative editorial board put it recently, quote, Mr. Trump betrayed his supporters by conning them on January 6th.
	And he is still doing it.
	Another conservative editorial board that has long supported President Trump said last week, Donald Trump, quote, won't stop insisting that 2020 was stolen, even though he has offered no proof than we can reasonably show in one hearing.
	But today, we will begin.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I yield back.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I yield back now.
	I recognize you to give another grandstanding The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Ms. Lofkin, for an opening statement.
	Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	In our opening hearing, we gave an overview of our investigation into the January 6th attack.
	The plot to overthrow the election was complex and had many parts, which we'll explore in remaining hearings.
	But today, we examine the false narrative that the 2020 election was, quote, stolen.
	Former President Trump's plan to overturn the election relied on a sustained effort to deceive millions of Americans with knowingly false claims of election fraud.
	All elements of the plot relied on convincing his supporters about these false claims.
	Today, we'll demonstrate the 2020 election was not stolen.
	Please read a Time article magazine.
	...will present evidence that Mr. Trump's claims of election fraud were false, that he and his closest advisors knew those claims were false, but they continued to peddle them anyway, right up until the moments before a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol.
	Where is my breakdown of that magazine article?
	By the way, she might have a good point here.
	That's not Trump, though.
	Well, that might be true, which might be why some GOP members are going to be on board with this plan here.
	Mr. Trump claimed that the only way he could lose an election would be as a result of fraud.
	You know the things with bundling and all of the things that are happening with votes by mail where thousands of votes are gathered and I'm not going to say which party does it, but thousands of votes are gathered and they come in and they're dumped in a location and then all of a sudden you lose elections if you think you're going to win.
	The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.
	Remember that.
	It's the only way we're going to lose this election.
	This is going to be a fraud like you've never seen.
	Did you see what's going on?
	Take a look at The funny thing is they might not be making the point that they think they're making with these clips.
	Hmm.
	Mr. Trump decided even before the election that regardless of the facts and the truth, if he lost the election, he would claim it was rigged.
	Mr. Trump was right about one thing.
	It did not end well.
	On election night, Mr. Trump claimed even before the votes were counted that his loss was a result of fraud.
	Now Thursday, we had testimony from Attorney General Barr about the Department of Justice investigation of Mr. Trump's fraud claims.
	Barr told Trump directly that his claims were BS.
	They're so happy.
	We got a swear word.
	We can keep going back to it.
	That's how honest Barr is.
	fraud.
	You'll hear detailed testimony from Attorney General Barr describing the various election fraud claims the Department of Justice investigated.
	He'll tell you how he told Mr. Trump repeatedly that there was no merit to those claims.
	Mr. Barr will tell us that Mr. Trump's election night claims of fraud were made without regard to the truth and before it was even possible to look for evidence of fraud.
	Attorney General Barr wasn't alone.
	I doubt they're going to play CNN reporting on electric voting machines from 10 years ago.
	I doubt this committee is going to play that.
	The claims he was making were not supported by evidence.
	The election fraud claims were false.
	Mr. Trump's closest advisors knew it.
	Mr. Trump knew it.
	That didn't stop him from pushing the false claims and urging his supporters to quote, fight like hell, to quote, take back their country.
	Are politicians forever precluded from saying that?
	You'll hear testimony today from a renowned Republican election litigation lawyer who explained the normal process by which candidates challenge an election.
	Rather than accept the results of the election and the decisions of the courts, Mr. Trump pursued a different strategy.
	He tried to convince the American people the election had been stolen.
	Many of his supporters believed him, and many still believe him today.
	The attack on January 6th was a direct and predictable result of Mr. Trump's decision to use false claims of election fraud to overturn the election and to cling to power.
	Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
	These are all people...
	Thank you very much.
	...ideologically aligned...
	...just...
	We're joined today by former Fox News politics editor Chris Stilwald.
	They hate Fox News unless Fox News agrees with them.
	Trump's former campaign manager was subpoenaed to be here and was in Washington this morning prepared to testify.
	Kevin Marino, Mr. Stepien's attorney, is here with us today.
	Thank you, Mr. Marino, for coming.
	And he has advised us that Mr. Stepien's wife went into labor this morning.
	Mr. Stepien unexpectedly had to travel to be with his wife, and we wish him the best.
	Due to the depth and rigor of our investigation, we have several hours of Mr. Stepien's testimony from when we interviewed him in February, and we will be presenting that testimony today.
	I'll now swear in our witness.
	I'm not sure that we can...
	The witness will please stand and raise your hand.
	Probably end by three o 'clock, people.
	So four hours of this drivel.
	You swear or affirm on the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth...
	Oh, hold on.
	I love this image.
	So help you, God.
	Thank you.
	You may be seated.
	Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative.
	I now recognize myself for questions.
	Let's hear this.
	He recognizes himself.
	I want to start by showing a video that tells the story of what was going on in the Trump White House on election night in November of 2020.
	I recognize myself to ask a question.
	I'd like to start by testifying.
	Remember where you were on the night of the election, November the 3rd?
	I was at the White House.
	You know where, specifically over the course of that night, you spent your time within the White House?
	There was an event that was organized in the residence, so I moved between the residence, a room sort of off the residence, where some family members were.
	I take it the president was upstairs in the residence.
	He was upstairs.
	We were kind of on the first floor, so not upstairs.
	By the way, everyone appreciated it.
	We just saw a spliced edit of two different portions of two different compositions.
	Can you just describe the atmosphere?
	What were people expecting that night when you got to the White House?
	I think that there was, typically for people who show up there on election night, it's going to be a self-select or positive environment.
	Another splice, Jason Miller.
	People were a little bit nervous, not knowing what was going to happen with the red wave or the...
	I don't think she's testifying against her father.
	I don't think she has a problem with her answers.
	...is calling Arizona for Joe Biden.
	That is a big get for the Biden campaign.
	Arizona's called.
	Do you remember that?
	I do.
	What do you remember happening where you were when Arizona was called?
	You must have put your head through the wall.
	This is nauseating for me.
	Who was surprised?
	Most everyone in the room.
	Most everyone in the country, by the way.
	Yes.
	Did that shift the atmosphere, the attitude in the White House?
	There's no storytelling happening here.
	This is just evidence that they've spliced together to create a narrative.
	Fox News was the first one to go out and say that.
	Totally appropriate.
	So was it anger kind of directed towards Fox News for making a call more so than a disappointment that maybe the campaign lost Arizona?
	All the above.
	So both, anger and disappointment.
	How do we know what they're in or out here?
	Concerned that maybe our data or our numbers weren't accurate.
	Were you in the White House residence during the sort of past midnight into the early morning hours of November 4th?
	Yes, oh sure.
	It went over beyond midnight, yes.
	Do you remember Rudy Giuliani being at the White House on election night and into the early hours the next morning?
	Slice and dice editing, indeed.
	What do you remember about when he came?
	This is not evidence.
	This is creating a movie.
	It might have value.
	And there might be truth in it.
	This is not evidence.
	This is manufacturing a narrative from others.
	You know, in that aforementioned reception area.
	He was looking to talk to the president, and it was suggested instead that he come talk to several of us down off the map.
	You said that you had heard that Mr. Giuliani wanted to talk to the president, and then he was directed your way.
	Did you end up talking to Mr. Giuliani when he was directed your way?
	I did.
	What was that conversation?
	A lot of conversations were directed my way.
	A few of us.
	Myself, Jason Miller, Justin Clark, Mark Meadows gathered in a room off the map room to listen to whatever Rudy presumably wanted to say to the president.
	Was there anyone in that conversation who, in your observation, had had too much to drink?
	Oh, my good God.
	Now, what is this?
	What is this?
	A morality parade?
	Tell me more about that.
	What was your observation about his potential intoxication during that discussion about what the president should say when he's addressed the nation on election night?
	Silliness would be too easy.
	This is malice.
	...know his level of intoxication when he spoke with the president first.
	Oh my God forbid he should be drunk on election night.
	People I mentioned, Mr. Steffian, Mr. Meadows, or anyone else, about whether the president should make any sort of speech on election night.
	I mean, I spoke to the president.
	They may have been present, but I spoke to the president several times that night.
	There are suggestions by, I believe it was the mayor to declare victory and say that we'd won it outright.
	It was far too early to be making any calls like that.
	11,000 people watching.
	Ballots.
	With no meaningful commentary.
	Ballots were still being counted.
	Ballots were still going to be counted for days.
	And it was far too early to be making any propaganda like that.
	I don't know if you care if Giuliani was drunk.
	This is about January 6th.
	Not about trying to malign the campaign in a third impeachment.
	Okay, can you be more specific about that conversation, in particular what Mayor Giuliani said, your response?
	Because he was drunk.
	He was really drunk, right?
	Don't forget that.
	I think effectively, Mayor Giuliani was saying, we won it.
	They're stealing it from us.
	Where did all the votes come from?
	We need to go say that we won.
	Essentially that anyone who didn't agree with that position was being weak.
	What was your view at the time?
	They're going to use this as evidence, as support to destroy Giuliani, revoke his license, go after him?
	I don't know that I had a firm view as to what he should say.
	In that circumstance, the results were still being counted.
	It was becoming clear that the race would not be called.
	On election night.
	My belief, my recommendation was to say that votes were still being counted.
	It's too early to tell, too early to call the race.
	By the way, can we all appreciate this video montage, like a bar mitzvah montage or a wedding montage, is in the questioning.
	That Benny Thompson has authorized himself to do.
	This is their questioning.
	They may as well not have witnesses.
	They may as well not have witnesses.
	You know, the next day or the next day, whenever we had something to say.
	And did anybody who was a part of that conversation disagree with your message?
	Yes.
	Who was that?
	The president disagreed with that.
	I don't recall the particular words.
	He thought I was wrong.
	He told me so and that they were going to go in a different direction.
	This is a fraud on the American public.
	This is an embarrassment to our country.
	We were getting ready to win this election.
	Frankly, we did win this election.
	Really, it seems that this audio byte seems to contradict what they just said Trump said.
	That's November 4th.
	He wasn't saying we won.
	Did President Trump have any basis to declare victory on November 4th?
	After you've watched this highly edited video that we've put together for you, let me ask you a loaded question.
	Mr. Stepien also testified that President Trump had no basis for declaring victory at that point in time.
	Five minutes video played that they added together.
	One question.
	Oh, God.
	Here, let's go back to another five-minute video.
	Then I'm going to ask you another question.
	Benny, you might as well sit yourself down on the testifying stand.
	My recommendation was to say that votes were still being counted.
	It's too early to tell.
	I'm predicting this is all going to have a very, very serious reverse effect than the intended desired effect, I think.
	Because people are not stupid enough to watch this and be convinced by this.
	And we, you know.
	I think we're in a good position, and we'll have more to say about this, you know, the next day or the next day, whenever we have something to say.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Starwalt, after the votes were counted, who won the presidential election of 2020?
	Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. of the great state of Delaware.
	Thank you.
	That's the bottom line.
	We had an election.
	Mr. Trump lost, but he refused to accept the results of the democratic process.
	Pursuant to Section 5C8 of House Resolution 503, I now recognize the gentleman from California for questions.
	They are doing exactly what they got onto Veritas for.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	This is a hundred times worse.
	This is a hearing.
	I'd like you to explain a term that was thrown around a lot during the election, and that's the so-called red mirage.
	What does that mean?
	Funny thing, I never heard that term, actually.
	In the 40 or 50 years, let's say, that Americans have increasingly chosen to vote by mail or early or absentee, Democrats prefer that method of voting more than Republicans do.
	So basically, in every election, Republicans win Election Day and Democrats win the early vote.
	And then you wait and start counting.
	And it depends on which ones you count first, but usually it's Election Day votes that get counted first.
	And you see the Republicans shoot ahead.
	And then the process of bailing and binding and unbinding all those mail-in votes.
	And some states, like Pennsylvania, refuse to count the votes first.
	So you have to wait for all of that to come in.
	So in every election...
	Pennsylvania refused to count the votes first.
	But their Attorney General, I forget who was, predicted they were going to win.
	He said Pennsylvania is not going for Trump.
	When you put together a jigsaw puzzle, it doesn't matter which piece you put in first.
	It ends up with the same image.
	So for us...
	Who cares?
	But that's because no candidate had ever tried to avail themselves of this quirk in the election counting system.
	We had gone to pains and I'm proud of the pains we went to to make sure.
	That we were informing viewers that this was going to happen because the Trump campaign and the president had made it clear that they were going to try to exploit this anomaly.
	And we knew it was going to be bigger because the percentage of early votes was higher, right?
	We went from about 45% of the votes being early and absentee to because of the pandemic, that increased by about 50%.
	So we knew it would be longer.
	We knew it would be more.
	So we wanted to keep telling viewers, hey, look.
	The number that you see here is sort of irrelevant because it's only a small percentage of these votes.
	So this red barrage, that's really what you expected to happen on election night?
	Happens every time.
	I'd like to play a clip of Attorney General Bill Barr, who also explains what was expected to happen on election night.
	Can you also play the video clip of Josh Shapiro, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, predicting that Trump was going to lose?
	Do we go after him for that as well?
	Trump says he was going to win in advance.
	Can we go after Josh Shapiro?
	Or no?
	potential evidence.
	And it seemed to be based on the dynamic that at the end of the evening, a lot of democratic votes came in, which changed the vote counts in certain states.
	And that seemed to be the basis for this broad claim that there was major fraud.
	And I didn't think much of that because people had been talking for weeks and everyone understood for weeks that that was gonna be what happened on election night.
	Mr. Stepney obviously could not be with us today.
	When they predict the future, it's fine.
	When Trump predicts the future, it's not fine.
	But he also had discussions with the president about the red mirage.
	That is, that it would be a long night and that early votes would favor him.
	But lots more votes would be counted over the course of the night and the days after.
	So let's play clip one from our interview.
	Does everyone appreciate how absurd this is?
	They have a witness up there who has done less testifying than video montage that they're submitting.
	Just like I said, in 2016 was going to be a long night.
	I told him in 2020 that it was going to be a process again.
	The early returns are going to be positive and we're going to be watching the returns of ballots as they rolled in thereafter.
	Is it fair to say you're trying to present what you thought would be a realistic picture of what might happen over the course of that night being election night?
	That night and the days that followed.
	I always told The president, the truth, and I think he expected that from me, and I told him it was going to be a process.
	It was going to be, you know, we had to wait and see how this turned out.
	So, just like I did in 2016, I did the same thing in 2020.
	So let's watch a short clip of President Trump speaking.
	Let's just watch video evidence that we've spliced together.
	And then I'll ask you one question.
	We want all voting to stop.
	We don't want them to find any ballots at 4 o 'clock in the morning and add them to the list.
	So when former President Trump said that, it contradicted what his advisors had warned would happen.
	We all know that mail-in ballots played an important role in the 2020 election.
	However, President Trump continuously discouraged mail-in voting.
	Mr. Stepien was so concerned about the president's position on mail-in voting that in the summer of 2020, he met with President Trump along with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
	Let's play clip four.
	Meeting that was had, in particular, I invited Kevin McCarthy to join the meeting, he being of like mind on the issue with me,
	in which we made our case for why we believed mail-in voting Not to be a bad thing for his campaign,
	but the president's mind was made up, and you understand how many times to go to the well on a particular topic.
	Yeah, I understand.
	Tell me a little bit more about the argument that you and Mr. McCarthy made to the president in that meeting.
	Why it wasn't a bad thing that mail-in voting was available?
	Largely two pillars to that argument, both of which I've previously mentioned.
	One, leaving a good deal to chance.
	Pushing or urging your voters to vote only on Election Day leaves a lot to chance.
	That's A. And B, also previously mentioned the fact that The Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee, the Republican Party had an advantage of grassroots workers and volunteers on the ground that would allow an advantage to enhance returns.
	It's going to go on for weeks.
	Two weeks, six hearings.
	Those were the two pillars of the argument.
	And what, if anything, do you recall Representative McCarthy saying during that meeting?
	We were echoing the same argument.
	I mean, his words echoed mine and vice versa on those two topics.
	Mr. Starwalt, you were at the decision desk at Fox News on election night, and you called Arizona early for President Biden.
	It was controversial.
	How did you make that call, and where did you think the race stood in the early hours of the next day?
	Well, it was really controversial to our competitors, who we beat so badly by making the correct call first.
	Our decision desk was the best in the business, and I was very proud to be a part of it.
	Because we had partnered with the Associated Press.
	And the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, thanks to my colleague and friend Arnon Mishkin, had built a wonderful device for forecasting the outcomes of elections.
	So we had a different set of data than our competitors.
	We had more research, and we had a better system, and we had a great team.
	So what you're waiting to see is, do the actual votes match up with the expectations in the poll?
	The real votes are testing the quality of your poll in targeted precincts and in targeted places.
	Let me just toot my own horn.
	Our poll in Arizona was beautiful, and it was doing just what we wanted it to do, and it was cooking up just right.
	Cooking up, probably not the best analogy.
	But at some point, it became clear that Arizona was getting ready to make a call.
	So we, around, you know, my boss, Bill Salmon, said we're not making any call until everybody says yes, because that was always our policy, unanimity.
	And you have to understand, in this room, you have, you know, the best.
	People from academia, Democrats, Republicans, a broad cross-section of people who had worked together for a decade were really serious about this stuff.
	So we knew it would be a consequential call because it was one of five states that really mattered, right?
	Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona were the ones that we were watching.
	We knew it would be significant to call any one of those five, but we already knew Trump's chances were very small and getting smaller based on what we had seen.
	So we were able to make the call early.
	We were able to beat the competition.
	So long as that's your motivating factor.
	Everybody says yay, and on we go.
	And by the time we found out how much everybody was freaking out and losing their minds over this call, we were already trying to call the next state.
	We had already moved on.
	We were into Georgia.
	We were to North Carolina.
	We were looking at these other states.
	So we thought it was, we were pleased, but not surprised.
	I see.
	Oh, I see.
	After the election, as of November 7th.
	You did very good.
	You guys are so smart.
	In your judgment, what were the chances of President Trump winning the election?
	In your judgment?
	After that point?
	Yes.
	None.
	I mean, I guess it's always possible that you could have a truckload of ballots be found somewhere, I suppose.
	But once you get into this...
	I'm sorry, but when Trump said that, that was controversial.
	...about what are the largest margins that could ever be overturned by a recount and the normal kind of stuff that we heard Mike Pence...
	Did this guy just say it's always possible to find a truckload of ballots?
	He said, you know, we'll keep every challenge.
	That's a problem.
	Nothing like that.
	In a recount, you're talking about...
	Hundreds of votes.
	When we think about calling a race, one of the things that we would think about is, is it outside the margin of a recount?
	And when we think about that margin, we think about, in modern history, you're talking about 1,000 votes.
	1,500 votes at the way, way outside.
	Normally you're talking about hundreds of votes, maybe 300 votes that are going to change.
	So the idea that through any normal process in any of these states, remember, he had to do it thrice, right?
	He needed three of these states to change, and in order to do that...
	I mean, you're better off to play the Powerball than to have that coming.
	Good joke!
	On November 7th, the other major news outlets called the race for President Biden.
	Now, Mr. Stepien told the committee that he thought the odds were, and this is a quote, very, very, very bleak, and held a meeting with the president that same day.
	Let's show clip eight.
	Can we appreciate he just said it's always possible to find a truckload of ballots.
	What picture are they using of this guy?
	Biden surpassed Trump in the vote totals.
	So as the week wore on, as we paid attention to those numbers multiple times a day, internally, I was feeling less confident for sure.
	What was your view on the state of the election at that point?
	Very, very, very bleak.
	We told him...
	The group that went over there outlined, you know, my belief in chances for success at this point.
	And then we pegged it at, you know, five, maybe 10%.
	Where is this audio even coming from?
	That, you know, either were automatically initiated or could be initiated based on, you know, realistic legal challenges, not all the legal challenges that eventually were pursued.
	But, you know, it was, you know.
	No, we don't know.
	Five to ten percent is not a very good optimistic outlook.
	Where is this audio from?
	Now, as President Trump and others continued to claim that the election was stolen, there were lawyers who were a part of the campaign.
	Is this a question, Lofgren?
	Who were responsible for investigating the fraud claims.
	Here, let me play a video.
	Who could not validate the claims that were being made, including those being made by the president.
	That's because it's not for the lawyers to validate.
	It's for the court to validate.
	Let me testify some more.
	Let me throw in a video.
	Oh, here we go.
	It's two emails, actually.
	The first is from Alex Shannon to you and Jason McPherson.
	Why wasn't this one video recorded?
	Mark Meadows, Justin Clark, and Jason Miller, the subject being AZ Federal ID Voters.
	If you look at the original email there, it says, Bill, we completed the AZ analysis you requested.
	I assume that's about Arizona.
	Because of the substantial uncertainty surrounding the databases, this is a highly unreliable way to identify ineligible voters.
	Can you explain the task that you gave to Ms. Cannon for this Arizona analysis?
	Sure.
	Previously, I described some of my frustration with some of the claims that people would throw at President Trump.
	Regarding, you know, you need to look at this.
	You know, this happened in this state or that happened in that state.
	And it would be, you know, those would flow to us to look into.
	I talked about that before, I think.
	You know, this is an example of that.
	Why did they pick this picture?
	In Arizona, someone had...
	I believe this to be the claim that there were thousands of illegal citizens, people not eligible to vote, having cast their ballots in Arizona.
	Someone had thrown out that claim to President Trump.
	And with, you know, the margins being as close as they were, as I previously described, you know, that could potentially matter.
	So, this wild claim is thrown out, which, you know, on his face didn't seem, you know, realistic or possible to me.
	I asked Alex to look at the, you know, the claim.
	And I haven't read this full email, but I recall the response to that.
	The reality of that was not illegal citizens voting in the election.
	I think it was like overseas voters voting in the election.
	So obviously, people who were eligible to vote.
	I won a copyright dispute on Viva Clips.
	When these findings were passed up the chain to President Trump, he became frustrated.
	Is it a question, Lofgren?
	Are you just making up whatever you want now?
	Just don't even ask witnesses questions anymore.
	He became frustrated.
	Let me play a video.
	It was during the second week.
	This is beyond atrocious, by the way.
	Where he was growing increasingly unhappy with his team.
	Me, less so because I was less involved at this point.
	But still me.
	Growing increasingly unhappy with Justin Clark.
	And that kind of, you know...
	You know, paved the way for, you know, Justin to be moved out and Mayor Julian to be moved in as the person in charge of, you know, the legal side of the campaign and for all intents and purposes of the campaign.
	Now, when Mr. Stepien became campaign manager, he was the second...
	Trump campaign manager for the 2020 race.
	And there were only about 115 days until election day.
	So let's play the video.
	More testimony.
	I inherited a campaign that was, the day I was hired, was President Trump's low point in the 2020 daily average polling against President Biden.
	It was a campaign at a low point in the polls.
	It was structurally and fiscally deficient.
	We're not doomed.
	People need to see this and realize how preposterous it is and atrocious.
	In both of those areas.
	So most of my day spent fixing what I think I took over with 115 days left in the campaign.
	Most of my time spent fixing the things that could be fixed with 115 days left in the campaign.
	Now, Mr. Stepien has been in the campaign field for a long time, and he worked for lots of different candidates in campaigns.
	He testified to this committee about his concerns, given the claims that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell and their team...
	Do we appreciate that there's an actual witness on the stand and that Ms. Loughran is doing nothing more than just testifying, showing video, testifying, showing video?
	What the heck is the witness even there for?
	Loughran, go sit there.
	You take the seats.
	...some of what you were hearing from the Giuliani team and others that sort of stepped in in the wake of your departure?
	I didn't mind being categorized.
	There were two groups of family.
	We called them kind of my team and Rudy's team.
	This is the same guy, so why were they showing a picture with audio from the other answers and video with this one?
	You know, I said, you know, hours ago early on that, you know, I've been doing this for a long time, 25 years, and I've spanned, you know, political ideologies from Trump to McCain to Bush to Christie, you know, and...
	You know, I can work under a lot of circumstances.
	I would say drinking game for, you know, but we'll be, you know, unconscious.
	A situation where, and I think along the way, I've built up a pretty good, I hope, a good reputation for being honest and professional.
	A lot of people patting themselves on the back.
	I didn't think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that point in time.
	Best call in media?
	Do you have a question for the witness?
	For the witness, Ms. Loughran.
	The president did get rid of Team Norble, and I'd like to play a clip showing that the president found the people he needed to perpetuate the claims of fraud.
	She's testifying, presenting evidence.
	They're a big truck bringing in 100,000 ballots in garbage cans, in waste paper baskets, in cardboard boxes, and in shopping baskets.
	And every single one of them was for Biden, because they were being notified by Smartmatic in Frankfurt that Biden was way behind, and they better come up with a lot more ballots, and we can prove every single thing I just said.
	Giuliani said too much.
	If you gave me the paper ballots, I could probably turn around each one of these things.
	I'm absolutely convinced if you let me examine each one of those ballots, I pull out enough that we're fraudulent.
	That it would shake the hell out of the country.
	It can set and run an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden.
	Sidney Powell also said bad, silly things.
	Some people didn't like hearing that in real time either from this channel.
	It broke the algorithm.
	One of the things Mark said at some point was...
	You can't show an actual vote was flipped, which I found at the time to be a remarkable assertion because you don't have to have the gun to see the body lying on the floor bleeding out with five bullet holes in it was killed by a gun.
	what they were proposing, I thought was nuts.
	And the theory was also completely nuts.
	I mean, it was a combination of Italians and Germans, I mean, different He's got a baseball bat in the background that says justice on the hitting end.
	Is that after a baseball player?
	Somebody who says they wrote a software in, it's something with the Philippines, just all over the radar.
	Did you ever share...
	What he said was right.
	It was all over the place.
	And they said some very silly things which were totally false and demonstrably so.
	I guess...
	Why don't they have...
	Why are they showing a picture of Jared and not the video?
	Basically, not the approach I would take if I was you.
	And an unflattering picture.
	How did President Trump react when you shared that view with him?
	We said, you know, I have confidence in Rudy.
	I think I had conversations with probably...
	They cut that sentence.
	I have confidence in Rudy.
	End of clip sentence.
	Disengaged with the campaign.
	Okay, fine.
	The general consensus was that...
	I thought it was the justice bat.
	Law firms were not comfortable...
	In Canada, that would be an illegal bat.
	...the arguments that Rudy Giuliani was making politically.
	I seem to recall that I had a similar conversation with most all of them.
	I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the president was bullshit.
	Ah, there, go play it again.
	Do a remix.
	I didn't want to be a part of it, and that's one of the reasons that went into me deciding to leave when I did.
	No doubt you did not want to be a part of that.
	Do you have a question for the witness?
	Offending herself in a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems argued that, quote, no reasonable person would conclude that her statements were truly statements of fact.
	Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
	You didn't ask a question!
	I thank the witness for joining us today.
	First panel is now dismissed.
	You did nothing, sir, other than say no to one answer, pat yourself on the back for calling Arizona early, and then sit there and listening to self-serving, grandstanding testimony from the people who are supposed to be asking you the questions.
	Serenity now.
	Serenity prayer.
	Lord, give me the strength.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Last week...
	Did he wink?
	his testimony that former President Trump started making claims of election fraud immediately after the election and that Barr concluded the claims were untrue.
	Now, due to the length of Attorney General Barr's testimony, we're only going to include relevant portions.
	We're only going to include snippets.
	Let's play the video.
	Did he just wait?
	I'm going to go back.
	When we received specific and credible allegations of fraud, made an effort to look into these to satisfy ourselves, that they were without merit.
	And I was in the posture of trying to figure out, This is our problem, Terry French, because they're doing exactly what they're doing to the January 6th protesters to the Ottawa protesters in Canada.
	Also, I was influenced by the fact that all the early claims that I understood were completely bogus and silly and usually based on complete misinformation.
	And so I didn't consider the quality of claims right out of the box to give me any feeling that there was really substance here.
	For the first time since the election, the Attorney General spoke personally with the President on November 23rd, and this was at the White House.
	Let's play the video, please.
	So on November 23rd, I hadn't spoken to the president since the election.
	And in fact, as I said, since the middle of October, roughly.
	And it was a little getting awkward because obviously he had lost the election and I hadn't said anything to him.
	And so Cipollone said, you know, I think it's time you come over here.
	And so I came over to meet with the president in the Oval Office and Meadows and Cipollone were there.
	And this is leading up to this conversation with Kushner.
	The president said there had been major fraud and that as soon as the facts were out, the results of the election would be reversed.
	And he went on on this for quite a while, as he's prone to do.
	Got to something that I was expecting, which is to say that apparently the Department of Justice doesn't think that it has a role of looking into these fraud claims.
	So I said, you know, that has to be the campaign that raises that with the state.
	The department doesn't take sides in elections, and the department is not an extension of your legal team.
	And our role is to investigate fraud, and we'll look at something if it's...
	It's specific, credible, and could have affected the outcome of the election, and we're doing that, and they're just not meritorious.
	They're not panning out.
	And as I walked out of the Oval Office, Jared was there with Dan Scavino, who ran the president's social media, and who I thought was a reasonable guy, and believe is a reasonable guy.
	And I said, how long is he going to...
	Carry on with this stolen election stuff.
	Where's this gonna go?
	And by that time, Meadows had caught up with me and leaving the office and caught up with me and said that...
	He said, "Look, I think that he's becoming more realistic and knows that..." There's a limit to how far he can take this.
	And then Jared said, you know, yeah, we're working on this.
	We're working on it.
	Even after his attorney general told him his claims of election fraud were false, President Trump continued to promote these claims.
	I felt that things continued to deteriorate between the 23rd and the weekend of the 29th.
	And then on November 29th, he appeared on Maria Bartiromo's show, Sunday Futures, I believe it was.
	And he said that the department was missing in action.
	Well, no, we had glitches where they moved thousands of votes from my account to Biden's account.
	And these are glitches.
	So they're not glitches.
	They're theft.
	They're fraud.
	Absolute fraud.
	This election was over.
	And then they did dumps.
	They call them dumps.
	Big, massive dumps.
	In Michigan and Pennsylvania and all over.
	How the FBI and Department of Justice, I don't know, maybe they're involved, but how people are allowed to get away with this stuff is unbelievable.
	Now, spurred by what he saw, Barr told the Associated Press on December 1st that there was no evidence of election fraud.
	And immediately after, Attorney General Barr's statement went public.
	Mr. Trump berated and he nearly fired Barr, but Barr persisted in telling the president that there was no evidence to support the fraud claims.
	This got under my skin, but I also felt it was time for me to say something.
	So I set up a lunch with the AP reporter Mike Balsamo.
	I've been on mute for a while.
	Sorry, people.
	that could have affected a different outcome in the election.
	Yeah, I've been told that the crypto market is crashing.
	Meeting scheduled at the White House at 3 o'clock with Meadows.
	This too shall pass, people.
	But first, it needs to be seen.
	...come up, and I went over there, and I told my secretary that I thought I would probably be fired and told not to...
	This can't be true.
	So what meeting is he trying to get out of now?
	He said the president was angry.
	He didn't really go get into the issue of the fraud.
	Uh, And then I went up to Pat Cipollone's office, and we were talking with each other.
	And word came down that he wanted us both to go to the Oval.
	And the president was as mad as I've ever seen him, and he was trying to control himself.
	And the president said, well, this is, you know, killing me.
	You didn't have to say this.
	You must have said this because you hate Trump.
	You hate Trump.
	And then he raised the big vote dump, as he called it, in Detroit.
	And that, you know, he said people saw boxes coming into the counting station at all hours of the morning and so forth.
	And I explained to him that at that point I knew the exact number of precincts in Detroit.
	I had a typo so bad in the original tweet.
	I had to delete.
	I said, Mr. President, there are 630 precincts in Detroit.
	And unlike elsewhere in the state, they centralized the counting process.
	So they're not counted in each precinct and moved to counting stations.
	The normal process would involve boxes coming in at all different hours.
	So there's nothing.
	And I said, did anyone point out to you?
	Did all the people complaining about it point out to you?
	You actually did better in Detroit than you did last time.
	I mean, there's no indication of fraud in Detroit.
	And I told him that the stuff that his people were shuttling out to the public was bullshit.
	I mean, that the claims of fraud were bullshit.
	You know, he was indignant about that.
	I'm on mute again.
	Not market advice.
	This too shall pass.
	Don't panic sell.
	And these claims on the Dominion voting machines.
	This hearing too shall pass.
	And I specifically raised the Dominion voting machines, which I found to be my most disturbing allegations.
	Disturbing in the sense that I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations.
	But they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public, that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn't count and that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense.
	And it was being laid out there.
	And I told them that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that.
	Okay, so the very next day, the president released a video rehashing some of the very same claims that his chief law enforcement officer had told him were, quote, nonsense.
	I'm not turning off the closed captions.
	People like those.
	This is Michigan.
	At 6.31 in the morning, a vote dump.
	Of 149,772 votes came in unexpectedly.
	We were winning by a lot.
	That batch was received in horror.
	Horror!
	We have a company that's very suspect.
	Its name is Dominion.
	With the turn of a dial or the change of a chip, you can press a button for Trump and the vote goes to Biden.
	What kind of a system is this?
	Are they going to play CNN's report on Dominion from a decade ago?
	Just wondering.
	Well, at least Lofgren has just abandoned even pretending to call witnesses.
	Just let them all testify.
	Pursued to Rule 503 of the House Select Committees, I authorized myself to testify and make evidence and sentence the accused in absentia.
	Through the Dominion machines, and a report had been prepared by a very reputable cybersecurity firm, which he identified as Allied Security Operations Group.
	What did you mean to chat?
	He asked that a copy of it be made for me.
	And while a copy was being made, he said...
	You know, this is absolute proof that the Dominion machines were rigged.
	The report means that I'm going to have a second term.
	And then he gave me a copy of the report.
	And as he talked more and more about it, I sat there flipping through the report and looking through it.
	And to be frank, it looked very amateurish to me.
	King Viva, the benevolent king.
	Always right and always listening.
	I'm joking.
	No.
	Gaslighting is not the word.
	This is flamethrowing.
	No, it's gaslighting.
	...
	engage in fraud or something to that effect, but I didn't see any supporting information for it.
	What investigation did you do, Mark?
	Just out of curiosity.
	You're probably right.
	What investigation did you do before coming to that conclusion?
	We're in December, November, December, a month?
	Keep editing, people.
	Go mid-sentence.
	Splice together Havana out of Bill Barr's testimony.
	Havana.
	I won't sing it.
	I don't want to get copy-claimed.
	My opinion then and my opinion now is that the election was not stolen by fraud.
	Okay.
	That's a very interesting statement.
	It wasn't stolen by fraud.
	Can we now go back and read that article?
	The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
	Let me clip it in there.
	Maybe you can assess that 2,000 people are talking about that.
	Well, I mean, just in a nutshell, you know, I just think the GBI was unimpressed with it.
	And I was similarly unimpressed with it because I think if you because.
	I was holding my fire on that to see what the photographic evidence was, because I thought, well, hell, if they have a lot of photographs of the same person dumping a lot of ballots in different boxes, you know, that's hard to explain.
	So I wanted to see what the photographic evidence was.
	Hillbilly, I'm going to read it with a southern accent.
	They think they're slicker than a lard bucket in a hot summer sun.
	This will backfire.
	Thanks for trying to help the blind, you know, see cell phones.
	Hillbilly Hart, thank you very much.
	And now I'm going to be visualizing a lard bucket in the hot summer sun.
	By definition, you're going to find many hundreds of them have passed by in space.
	These people.
	Go buy a box, you know, five boxes or whatever it was, you know, that that's a mule is just indefensible.
	By definition, you're going to have hundreds of this.
	I mean, I saw one contractor said that our truck alone would account for six cell phone signals.
	You know, some kind of contractor.
	And, you know, our route would take us by these things on a regular basis.
	But then when the movie came out, you know, I think the photographic evidence in it was completely lack.
	I mean, there was a little bit of it, but it was lacking.
	It didn't establish widespread illegal Harvesting.
	The other thing is people don't understand is that it's not clear that even if you can show harvesting, that that changes the...
	There wasn't any, but if there was, it wouldn't have had a difference, and if it did have a difference, it was justified, and you're wrong for criticizing it.
	What date is this from?
	It's still a burden on the challenging party to show that illegal votes were cast.
	Votes were the result of undue influence or bribes.
	Constitutionally unqualified is the appropriate term.
	But absent that evidence, I just didn't see courts throwing out votes anyway.
	I felt that...
	What date is this testimony from Barr from people?
	Is it December 11th, December 12th?
	Had he seen Dinesh D'Souza's documentary?
	Are they purporting that this debunks Dinesh's movie when it predates Dinesh's documentary, I should say?
	I felt that after the election, he didn't seem to be listening.
	And I didn't think it was, you know, that I was inclined not to stay around if he wasn't listening to advice from me or his other cabinet secretaries.
	So on December 14th, Barr quit.
	Now, the Attorney General wasn't the only person who told the president that his claims were false.
	Other officials and close advisors told him the same thing.
	Roll it!
	Where is this recording taken from?
	Is this surreptitiously recorded?
	Okay, so Barr's testimony was December 14th.
	Of what year?
	2021.
	Some people have already looked at that, and we know that you're getting bad information.
	That's not correct.
	It's been demonstrated to be incorrect from our point of view.
	A month and a half or so after the election day and at that meeting various allegations of fraud were discussed and You know,
	Eric and Pat didn't, you know, told the group, the president included, that none of those allegations had been substantiated to the point where they could be the basis for any litigation challenge to the election.
	President Trump's own vice president and his top advisers also knew.
	But there wasn't evidence to support the claims that the president was making.
	Anyone else other than Mr. Meadows who asked you about the status outside of your legal group, you know, Mr. Morgan and the others you mentioned?
	Anyone else who asked you the status of what you were finding in your assessment of it?
	Yes, sir.
	Who's that?
	Peter Navarro.
	When did you talk to Mr. Navarro?
	Mid-November.
	Around the same time as Mr. Meadows?
	Yes, sir.
	Tell me about that conversation.
	I recall him asking me questions about Dominion and maybe some other categories.
	I have funny jokes that I know would be funny.
	But it's not in my nature.
	I think that one of the jokes would be, this is the kid from the Shreddy's commercial when he grows up into an adult because he's got a very young face.
	It's a joke that is fitting for the content, but I won't make it directly.
	I'll make it indirectly.
	We all appreciate in hindsight now, and this is to tote the horn of the channel a little bit, there were bad arguments to be raised, and there were decent constitutional arguments to be raised, and the bad arguments are coming back to haunt everybody's otherwise potentially legitimate.
	Potentially legitimate arguments.
	Anyone else besides Mr. Meadows, Mr. Navarro, Mr. Hirschman that you had discussions with?
	Inquiring about what you were finding in your review of the allegations that were pouring in.
	I'll keep making jokes.
	They've got to be good-natured jokes.
	I believe I had about a 15-second conversation with the Vice President about it as well.
	What was that?
	That was after I ate the sweet side of the leaves.
	During one of the visits to the White House.
	Don't expect.
	There will be no objections.
	There's no legal standard to this.
	This is all political.
	None of it is legal.
	And he remembered me and saw me.
	And he asked what I was doing on the campaign.
	And I told him that, you know, we were looking into some of the issues related to voter fraud.
	And he asked me, I don't remember his exact words, but he asked me if we were finding anything.
	And I said that I didn't believe we were finding it or I was not personally finding anything sufficient to alter the results of the election.
	And he thanked me.
	That was our interaction.
	He winked at the committee.
	Thank goodness this is being broadcast, by the way.
	You'll hear live testimony from the former acting deputy attorney general of the Department of Justice.
	And by live testimony, I mean I'm going to be talking while a witness stands in front of me.
	Later, you're going to hear me testify for and in front of a witness.
	again, put this in perspective and try to put it in very clear terms to the president.
	And I said something to the effect of, sir, we've done dozens of investigations, hundreds This is cringe.
	This is like a high school presentation.
	Badly done and poorly evidenced.
	We're doing our job.
	And then I went into, for instance, this thing from Michigan, this report.
	If I take a nap live, would that be improper?
	One in 15,000.
	So the President accepted that.
	He said, okay, fine, but what about the others?
	And again, this gets back to the point that there were so many of these allegations that when you gave him a very direct answer on one of them, he wouldn't fight us on it, but he would move to another allegation.
	So then I talked about a little bit about the Pennsylvania truck driver.
	This is another allegation that had come up.
	And this claim was by a truck driver who believed, perhaps honestly, that he had transported an entire tractor trailer truck full of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania.
	And this was, again, out there in the public and discussed.
	And I essentially said, look, we looked at that allegation.
	When it's crossed?
	The people load the truck and the people unload the truck.
	Benny Thompson is going to do Lofgren's cross.
	So when Ms. Lofgren asked you that question, it was super duper truth for your answer, right?
	Again, he said, okay.
	Barr's voice is hypnotic.
	I didn't mention that one.
	What about the others?
	And I said, okay, well, with regard to Georgia, we looked at the tape, we interviewed the witness.
	Oh, are they going to call Joe Biden to testify?
	The President kept fixating on this suitcase that supposedly had fraudulent ballots, and the suitcase was rolled out from under the table.
	And I said, no, sir, there is no suitcase.
	You can watch that video over and over.
	There is no suitcase.
	There is a wheeled bin where they carry the ballots, and that's just how they move ballots around that facility.
	There's nothing suspicious about that at all.
	I told them that there was no multiple scanning of the ballots.
	One part of that allegation was that they were taking one ballot and scanning it through three or four or five times to rack up votes, presumably for Vice President Biden.
	I told him that the video did not support that.
	Then he went off on double voting at the top of the next page.
	He said dead people are voting.
	Indians are getting paid to vote.
	He meant people on Native American reservations.
	He said there's lots of fraud going on.
	Now they're going to bring in hearsay accusations of Trump being racist.
	We look at the allegations, but they don't pan out.
	Mr. Barr and his advisors were not the only ones who determined that the president's allegations regarding Dominion voting machines were false.
	So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this hearing reports issued by the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, otherwise known as CISA, that addressed and rejected the claims of manipulation of voting machines in the 2020 election.
	Without objection, so ordered.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I do not object to your move.
	...to include in the record a report prepared by the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee that disproved claims of election fraud in Michigan, as well as a statement by 59 of the country's leading election security scientists noting the absence of any credible evidence that the 2020 election...
	Predictions on whether Benny Thompson is going to allow it.
	And five other reports from organizations and individuals confirming there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election or describing the spread of the former president's lies.
	I'll allow it.
	I'd also like to include a picture of Donald Trump, depicted as a stinky man with stink lines coming out of his face.
	It is ordered as well.
	The chair declares the committee in recess.
	For a period of approximately 10 minutes.
	That, I'm going to say, has to do with a small bladder or potentially prostate issues that require someone to go to the bathroom.
	And by that person, I'm talking about me because I have to go.
	I may need a moment yet again.
	It's what happens every now and again when I have vitamin C first thing in the morning.
	Love you, Viva, but I can't watch these lies.
	Carathius, I understand.
	This is...
	It's not just...
	Lies.
	This is cartoonish.
	I won't say villainy.
	That would be from Megamite.
	This is cartoonish in its outlandish stupidity.
	You have nine members, each of which are patting each other on the back in a circle.
	It's a circle pat.
	Because I don't like the other expression.
	It's gross.
	This is a circle back scratch.
	Appreciate.
	I don't know who that witness was that they had up this morning, the guy from Fox.
	They had him up for 30 minutes, 20 minutes, and they asked him three questions to which he answered, one of which was a no.
	The other was stroking his own ego as to how good Fox News was to call, to be the first to call Arizona.
	And then the questioning members of the committee, the bipartisan committee.
	Went on to provide their own evidence, their own testimony, their own documentation, highly spliced, highly edited videos of clips and snippets from depositions, and not ask the guy a damn question.
	And then they go to move to have admitted in evidence reports, which nobody's seen these reports, or they're probably there, but nobody's going to see them is what I mean, which they characterize, describe, summarize.
	And then move to have admitted as evidence.
	And then the other circle, pat on the back, scratchy, McJan committee thingy thing says, yeah, we're going to allow that too.
	Look at the robust evidence we have in this file.
	I don't even know what this is about anymore.
	Is this about Trump?
	Is this about Trump or January 6th?
	Is this about exploiting this opportunity to present a public argument for why these were the most secure elections ever?
	Or was this supposed to be about the violence?
	On the Capitol on January 6th.
	And it's the only argument going to be, well, we have to show that this was the most securest of all fortified elections ever to justify, to explain away how so many people got so carried away on that fateful day that they believed the big lie and were motivated to commit violence.
	And this is why we now have to...
	Impose the Disinformation Governance Board.
	We need to censor online content.
	Even if it's not hateful or calling to violence, if it's promoting what we call misinformation, that might lead to riots.
	We've got to censor it.
	That's where this is all going.
	Let me just see something here.
	That's my video from this morning.
	Oh, here.
	I just want to bring something up.
	We'll come back.
	Who has not yet read this article?
	Everyone out there must read this article.
	This is from the reputable time.
	Right there.
	Time.
	This is politics, 2020 election.
	Hold on, let's just get the date.
	The date should be first and foremost, not under there.
	February 4, 2021.
	January 6, 2021.
	This was a month after the events of January 6. Wait a minute, when did January 6 happen?
	November 2020, Jan 6th, 2021, February, January, February, January to February, so about a month later.
	After January 6th, this is what time publicly discloses, publicly states to the world.
	The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
	I'm not even going to put in any commentary here.
	I've done an analysis of this.
	Now we're just going to read.
	A salient paragraph.
	Jesus.
	Jesus.
	Thank you.
	That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream.
	A well-funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies.
	Working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media companies.
	They were not rigging the election.
	They were fortifying it.
	And they believe the public needs to understand the system's fragility in order to ensure that democracy...
	Can you believe that?
	Can you believe that?
	Let me do that again.
	Just read that again.
	And I'll do it in my British voice.
	That is why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream, a well-funded cabal of powerful people raging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage, and control the flow of information.
	They were not rigging the election.
	Oh, no, you fool.
	You'd have to be a buffoon to think they were.
	They were fortifying it.
	And they believed the public.
	Excuse me.
	Needs to know the system's fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.
	No self-reflection to ask themselves whether or not what they just described there, in fact, is undermining democracy.
	That's the article, people.
	I didn't write this.
	And had anyone written this on January 5...
	Cozy, a new one-of-a-kind...
	What am I doing here?
	You're not too old to dance!
	Okay.
	Had anyone...
	Had anyone...
	What's going on?
	Two unskippable ads on C-SPAN.
	Good for them.
	I'm not even jealous.
	I'm just impressed.
	How do I go live?
	There was a way to...
	No, no, no, no.
	No, thank you.
	So someone said you click on that button and then it goes live.
	I don't know how to do it.
	...by these television companies, including Sporklight, Wow, and Verizon Fios.
	So that was the article.
	How do I go here?
	No, wrong one.
	Yeah, there I'm back.
	Okay.
	That was the article.
	I'm just going to take that out for a bit while we do this.
	I'm just going to post it again and just share it around in the event that someone has not actually read that article yet.
	Okay, hold on.
	Fart sausage.
	Sorry.
	I thought that was French for fart sausage.
	Can you hear the people singing, chanting and singing the songs of liberty?
	We will no longer be slaves.
	That sounds like Robert Charlebois, if I have to guess.
	I don't know if it is.
	I actually don't know very many French singers.
	I presume that's from a French song, but if you do know a good one, Robert Charlebois, Si J 'avais Les Ailes d 'Ange, Je partirai pour Québec!
	And, okay, so that song by Robert Charlebois, Si J 'avais Les Ailes d 'Ange, If I Had the Wings of an Angel, and the other song, I forget who sings it, Je voudrais voir la mer, I Want to See the Sea, or I Want to See the Ocean.
	Two beautiful French songs.
	Two of my favorites.
	That and Y 'a pas d 'arrangement by that French rap hip-hop band thingy-thing.
	Oh, my goodness.
	People.
	Oh, yes.
	They all stand around.
	Sit down so they can all get the pictures taken of them.
	Never have they felt more important in their entire lives.
	Sit down for the pose so that their faces can be run in 0910 Pacific time.
	Okay.
	Inaudible conversations.
	Just seriously, guys, why are they sitting there for photo ops and then getting up and leaving?
	Who are these people?
	That's Mike from Breaking Bad right there.
	Now he's gone.
	Okay.
	None of them appreciate you could take just as good of a picture with your iPhone.
	Is that Wolf from Pennsylvania on the right-hand side?
	Let me get back to the chat so I can actually see the balding gentleman.
	Oh, nobody can even see the video because I'm an idiot.
	The gentleman right there whose hand was just on his back, is that Wolf from Pennsylvania?
	He looks a lot like Mike from Breaking Bad.
	And yes, people.
	I'm truly an idiot because I was commenting on video that people were not seeing.
	Christine Ferguson, welcome to the channel.
	Membership has its privileges, but not all that many of them, so don't have any high expectations of membership perks on the channel.
	Sneak peeks of vlogs, community posts.
	We can't see you.
	Sorry about that, people.
	Corinthians 10.13.
	It's your calling to sue CTV.
	Let me just screenshot that and go see what Corinthians 10.13 is.
	Seize the day.
	I know who you are, so I doubt it's a violent passage from the Bible.
	Because everyone knows my policy on all of this.
	Without exception.
	Even though some people don't like that.
	We'll see what happens with CTV.
	I think I've actually...
	I think people who were initially not...
	What's the word?
	Encouraging or not on board who thought it might have been stupid, might have been exaggerating, making a mountain out of a molehill, are now saying you might have a reason.
	Who's spamming?
	Let's not spam, people.
	Don't spam.
	I don't know what's going on.
	Viva Frye can...
	Okay, I thought my comments were just disabled.
	Canadian Prime Minister Justin...
	Again, test positive.
	There's two...
	There's multiple ways...
	I haven't heard this.
	Either it proves that the tests might not be totally reliable, or it proves something else which I can't and shan't say, or it proves that he's lying and trying to get out of another important meeting.
	It's one of a few possibilities, none of which, none of which are good.
	Let me just make sure.
	And the second panel coming together now as the January 6th committee hearings continue.
	We'll also show you the hearings in their entirety each night.
	Tonight, that'll be at 9 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
	I'm going to tune in.
	I promise you, C-SPAN, I'm going to tune in to watch reruns of this drivel.
	If I leave and then come back, I might have to watch another ad.
	So let's just keep it here.
	I'm just going to go make sure that Justin Trudeau has been re-diagnosed yet again.
	CBC.
	Surely it's going to be front news on the CBC.
	Nope.
	Front news on the CBC, by the way.
	This is hilarious.
	This is CBC.
	No, we're doing this in real time because this is important.
	CBC, by the way, you know, Canadian content requirements.
	What's front page on the CBC?
	Canada Broadcasting Corporation Media.
	I don't see Justin Trudeau having COVID yet.
	I see the January 6th committee hearing.
	Why would this be?
	Now, I appreciate the hypocrisy because I'm a Canadian content creator and I'm covering this.
	I am not the Canada Broadcasting Corporation, and whether some Canadians like it or not, my channel was built on analyzing American stuff because I find it to be more interesting than analyzing Canadian stuff.
	So I'm aware of that.
	This is not confession through projection or accusing others of doing what you're doing.
	I know the nature of my channel.
	I've got 60-some-odd percent American audience.
	It was built on breaking down lawsuits that I found of interest, which were American, and it's now turned into law politics stuff.
	I am not the Canada Broadcasting Corporation.
	I'm not governed by the Broadcasting Act, which requires me to be recognized as Canadian content, to cover Canadian content.
	Although one thing is for damn certain, if Bill C-11 passes in Canada, and I've talked about it many times, if I cover the Jan 6, Undoubtedly, they will consider me not to be Canadian content, CanCon, and they'll demote my stuff on YouTube if Trudeau gets his way.
	Undoubtedly, CBC would still be Canadian content, even though they're covering the same American stories.
	Is Justin Trudeau with his corona diagnosis here?
	Oh, here we go.
	Look at this, people.
	Look at these pathological propagandists at the CBC.
	It's not the headline story.
	It's not even the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. It's the eighth little thing underneath here.
	You actually have to scroll down more than a full internet page.
	Trudeau isolating after testing positive for COVID.
	Again, it means one of three things, people.
	Oh, we got to wait through another ad.
	This looks like a scanner darkly.
	Okay, skip.
	Oh, we're back.
	Today by BJ Pack, Al Smith, and Ben Ginsberg.
	Mr. Pack is a former United States attorney for the Northern District of Georgia.
	Mr. Smith is a former city commissioner.
	I have to take a pause.
	To 22,000, where he represented George W. Bush in the Bush v.
	Gore litigation.
	I will now swear in our witness.
	Please stand and raise your right hand.
	Do you swear or affirm on the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
	So help you God.
	Thank you.
	Please be seated.
	Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
	Pursuant to Section 5C8 of House Resolution 503, I now recognize the Joan woman from California, Ms. Lofman, for questions.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Before the break, I think you all heard Mr. Barr and Mr. Donahue talk about the false claims that Mr. Trump and his supporters made.
	I'm sorry, did he just recognize the gentlewoman?
	Is Benny Thompson a biologist?
	Who thoroughly investigated that issue.
	Mr. Pack, I want to thank you for appearing before us today.
	You were appointed by President Trump.
	Sex bots back in the house.
	Hold on.
	Where is it?
	Where is it?
	You served from 2017 until January 2021.
	You were the lead federal prosecutor there and worked for the Department of Justice under then Attorney General Bill Baird.
	Were you ever asked by AG Barr?
	Were you ever asked to investigate?
	Thank you for the question.
	Approximately December 4th, I believe, of 2020, Attorney General Barr and I had a conversation about an unrelated case at issue.
	At the end of the conversation, Mr. Barr had asked me if I had seen a certain videotape that was being reported in the news where Mr. Giuliani, in a Senate subcommittee hearing that was held the day before, May 3rd, Showed a videotape of a purportedly, a security tape.
	Yeah, briefcases under the table.
	In Atlanta, which is also in Fulton County, the city of Atlanta.
	I'm sorry, city of, yes.
	At the time, Mr. R. asked me that he had made a public statement that he had not seen any...
	Widespread election fraud.
	Widespread.
	Just pay attention to that word.
	Outcome of the election.
	Widespread.
	And because of the videotape and the serious allegation that Mr. Giuliani was making with respect to the suitcase full of ballots reported in the video, he asked me to find out what I could about it because he had envisioned that in some days after our call that he was going to go to the White House for a meeting and then that issue might come up.
	I don't know what Trukey means, so I can't say that.
	...to get to the bottom of, to try to substantiate the allegation made by Mr. Giuliani.
	Thank you.
	I understand the Georgia Secretary of State's office investigated those State Farm Marina allegations and didn't find any evidence of fraud.
	What did you find when your office conducted its own investigation?
	Well, hold on.
	Did he say he even conducted the investigation?
	We found that the suitcase full of ballots, the black suitcase that was being seen pulled from under the table, was actually an official lockbox where ballots were kept safe.
	We found out that there was a mistake in terms of misunderstanding that they were done counting ballots or tallying ballots for the night.
	And the partisan watchers that was assigned by each of the respective parties.
	We're announced to send home.
	Well, once they realized the mistake, someone from the Secretary of State's office had indicated that, no, no, no, we're not done for the night.
	You need to go ahead and continue counting.
	So once they packed up the lockbox full of ballots, they brought back the official ballot box again and continued to tally the ballots from the lockbox.
	Unfortunately, during the Senate hearing, Mr. Giuliani only played a clip that showed them pulling out.
	The official ballot box from under the table and referring to that as a smoking gun of a fraud in Fulton County.
	But in actuality, in review of the entire video, it showed that that was actually an official ballot box that was kept underneath the tables.
	And then we saw them pack up because of the announcement that they thought they were done for the night.
	And then once the announcement was made that you should continue counting, they brought the ballot box out.
	And they continued to count.
	We interviewed, the FBI interviewed the individuals that are depicted in the videos, that purportedly were double, triple counting of the ballots, and determined that nothing irregular happened in the counting, and the allegations made by Mr. Giuliani were false.
	Thank you very much.
	I'd like to play a video.
	A testimony from Mr. Donahue.
	Is that the extent of his investigation?
	Is that the extent of this guy's investigation?
	Is that one incident?
	We talked about whether or not the White House president was informed about the Anthrum report.
	On the results of the investigations, the interviews that have gone on on Fulton County, how would those results have been communicated to the White House, to the president?
	I don't know how they were initially communicated.
	I do know that they came up in subsequent conversations with the president and Dagros and I essentially told him we looked into that and it's just not true.
	Okay, so he was informed.
	I told the president myself that several times in several conversations that these allegations about ballots being smuggled in in the suitcase and run through the machine several times.
	It was not true.
	That we looked at, we looked at the video, we interviewed the witnesses, it was not true.
	Mr. Pack, after you left the U.S. Attorney's Office on January 4th, 2021, did the next U.S. Attorney there, I think Mr. Trump's personal pick, Bobby Christine, did he investigate any remaining claims of fraud?
	And if so, did he find any evidence that supported the President's claims of voter fraud?
	It is my understanding that Mr. Christine continued any investigations that were pending at the time of my departure, but he was unable to find any evidence of fraud that affected the outcome of the election.
	That affected the outcome of the election.
	Just pay attention to those words.
	It's not an accident.
	Widespread that affected the outcome.
	Is it your view today that there was no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the election in Georgia?
	That is correct.
	Thank you, Mr. Pack.
	And I want to thank you also for the service that you've given to our country.
	We appreciate that.
	Next, I'd like to turn to President Trump's false allegations about election integrity.
	Don't preface it too much there.
	The Attorney General discussed these allegations at some length.
	You know, the idea, the President has repeatedly suggested that there was some kind of help pouring.
	Unexpected votes in inner-city areas like Philadelphia.
	As recently as January 13th when he walked off the NPR set, he was asked by the interviewer, "What's your evidence of fraud?" And he said, "More people voted in Philadelphia than there were voters." And that was absolutely rubbish.
	The turnout in Philadelphia was in line with the state's turnout.
	And in fact, it was not as...
	As impressive as many suburban counties and there was nothing strange about the Philadelphia turnout.
	It wasn't like there was all these unexpected votes that came out in Philadelphia.
	So, you know, I think once you actually look at the votes and then there's an obvious explanation.
	It's important to watch it, even if it enrages you.
	You need to know what they're saying.
	You need to know how to respond to it.
	And you need to know where they're misleading people so you can reach them.
	Candidates, he ran weaker than the congressional delegation running for federal Congress.
	And he ran weaker than the Republic, I think.
	I haven't looked at this recently, but he generally was, Weak element on the Republican ticket, so that does not suggest that the election was stolen by fraud.
	It wasn't stolen by fraud.
	It was fortified.
	Go read the article in Time magazine.
	By the way, here's how you know you have a troll in the house.
	Let me just do one here.
	Viva trying to lawyer this.
	You know Trump lost.
	You know it.
	Attacking intentions.
	And then there was a second one.
	Hold on here.
	Daniel, this will be the last time I respond to it, unfortunately, because this is...
	Hold on.
	Where is it?
	It's another all caps.
	You know Trump lost.
	He lost.
	I think we can all agree on that.
	He lost the certification in the election.
	Where was the second one that this same individual had?
	Your defense is laughable.
	Attack intentions, shame an individual.
	Ryan Day, thank you for your contribution.
	That will be my last response to you, sir.
	Ferris Bueller.
	We have another witness here today who has detailed knowledge about the election process in Philadelphia.
	Mr. Schmidt, at the time of the 2020 presidential election, you were serving as the only Republican member of Philadelphia's three-member city commission, which is responsible for overseeing elections throughout the city.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct, Congressperson.
	So, President Trump made numerous claims regarding fraudulent voting practices in Philadelphia, including the claim that dead people were voting.
	In fact, Mr. Giuliani told Pennsylvania state legislators that 8,000 dead people voted in Pennsylvania.
	You investigated those claims of voter fraud.
	Can you tell us what you found?
	Not only was there not evidence of 8,000 dead voters, As it turns out, even Mr. Trump's campaign lawyers knew that the dead voter claims weren't valid.
	I guess the crooks in Philadelphia are disappointed in this.
	They only submitted 8,021 ballots from dead people.
	Mail-in ballots for dead people.
	Probably easier for dead people to submit mail-in ballots than it is to vote in person.
	Rudy was, at this stage of his life, the same ability to manage things at this level or not.
	And obviously, I think Bernie Kerik publicly said it.
	He never proved the allegations.
	Now looking at the background again, I see the panda.
	Or a Warshak test.
	Do you have a question?
	Mr. Schmidt, on November 11, 2020, President Trump tweeted about you, saying, and here's a quote, a guy named Al Schmidt, a Philadelphia commissioner and so-called Republican, or RINO, is being used big time by the fake news media to explain how honest things were with respect to the election in Philadelphia.
	He refuses to look at a mountain of corruption dishonesty.
	We win.
	As a result of that tweet and the CNN interview you gave where you stated the dead voter claims in Pennsylvania were false, you and your staff were subjected to disturbing threats.
	Can you tell us about that?
	Yeah, here we go.
	The threats prior to that tweet, and on some level it feels almost silly to talk about a tweet.
	But we can really see the impact they have.
	Because prior to that, the threats were pretty general in nature.
	Corrupt election officials in Philadelphia are going to get what's coming to them.
	You're what the Second Amendment is for.
	You're walking into the lion's den.
	So the threats existed before the tweet.
	After the president tweeted at me by name, calling me out the way that he did, the threats became much more specific, much more graphic.
	And included not just me by name, but included members of my family by name, their ages, our address, pictures of our home, just every bit of detail that you could imagine.
	That was what changed with that tweet.
	Behind me are redacted threats that you received, that you provided to the committee.
	Now, we redacted portions of the text to protect your family.
	Mr. Schmidt, I think I speak for all of my colleagues when I say we are deeply sorry for what you and your loved ones have been through.
	And I also want to thank you for your service to your country and for standing up for the rule of law.
	I want to thank both Mr. Pack and Mr. Schmidt for their service, their testimony, and for standing up for the rule of law.
	Now I'd like to turn to another subject.
	By the way, people, doxing, threatening online, people think it's just tweets.
	Don't do it.
	But my goodness, they just go and exploit everything.
	What is this about now?
	Now they're criticizing Trump because after he tweeted at somebody, they started getting online hate?
	Are they going to impeach him a third time?
	Mr. Ginsburg, you've spent your entire career representing Republicans in election Lulu Bobson, I think it's his third time testing positive.
	On Republican presidential campaigns in 2000, in 2004 and in 2012, you played a key role in the
	That's Mike from Breaking Bad.
	How many questions?
	than the kinds of election litigation you've been involved in and know about?
	In the normal course of things, any campaign on the night of the election and the days after, We'll do a couple of different things.
	One is that they'll analyze precinct results to look for abnormalities in the results, and they'll send people to those precincts to ask more questions.
	Secondly, all campaigns will have poll watchers and poll workers and observers in the polling place.
	And so campaigns will talk to those people if they saw any irregularities.
	That could cause problems in the election.
	Now, the Trump campaign talked pre-election about having 50,000 poll workers.
	So presumably they did have eyes on the ground in all these places.
	And so in the normal course of things, a campaign will analyze the reports that come in.
	Trump campaign had a couple of basic problems, however.
	Number one, the 2020 election was not close.
	In 2000, That was 537 and close.
	In this election, the most narrow margin was 10,000 and something in Arizona.
	And you just don't make up those sorts of numbers in recounts.
	And when the claims of fraud and irregularities were made, you've heard very compelling testimony from Mr. Stepien, from Matt Morgan, from Alex Cannon about Those claims and how they didn't believe them.
	So that put the Trump campaign on sort of a process of bringing cases without the actual evidence that you have to have in which the process is designed to bring out.
	So are you aware of any instance in which a court found the Trump campaign's fraud claims to be credible?
	No, there was never that instance.
	In all the cases that were brought, and I've looked at the more than 60 that include more than 180 counts, and no, the simple fact is that the Trump campaign did not make its case.
	The select committee has identified 62 post-election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and his allies between November 4, 2020, and January 6, 2021.
	Those cases resulted in 61 losses and only a single victory, which actually didn't affect the outcome for either candidate.
	Despite those 61 losses, President Trump and his allies claimed that the courts refused to hear them out, and as a result, they never had their day in court.
	Mr. Ginsburg, what do you say about the claims that Mr. Trump wasn't given an opportunity to provide the evidence they had of voter fraud?
	How many cases were dismissed on standing?
	How many cases were dismissed on standing?
	About half of those cases that you mentioned were dismissed at the procedural stage.
	Oh!
	Oh!
	Or there wasn't sufficient evidence.
	More latches?
	Dismissed on a motion to dismiss.
	But in the other, there was discussion of the merits that was contained in the complaints.
	And in no instance did a court find that the charges of fraud were real.
	And it's also worth noting that even if the Trump campaign complained that it did not have its day in court, there have been post-election reviews in each of the six battleground states that could have made a difference.
	And those ranged from the somewhat farcical Cyber Ninjas case in Arizona to the Michigan Senate report that was mentioned earlier, the hand recount in Georgia that Mr. Pack addressed.
	And in each one of those instances, there was no credible evidence of fraud produced by the Trump campaign or his supporters.
	Thank you.
	You know, as Mr. Ginsburg has explained, there are no cases.
	that there was widespread fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election.
	Widespread?
	Over and over, judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike directly rebuted this false narrative.
	Rebuted, I don't think is the word.
	And I don't think that happened, by the way.
	They called out the Trump campaign's lack of evidence for its claims.
	And the judges did that, even in cases where they could have simply thrown out the lawsuit without writing a lawsuit.
	a word.
	You can see behind me a few excerpts from the decisions in these 62 cases.
	This is so, so atrocious.
	This is beyond laughable.
	quote, charges require specific allegations and proofs.
	We have neither here.
	Advertising.
	Another Trump-appointed judge warned that if cases like these succeeded, quote, Any disappointed loser in a presidential election able to hire a team of clever lawyers could flag claimed deviations from election results and cast doubt on election results.
	The list goes on and on.
	Allegations are called, quote, an amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation.
	In another, strained legal arguments without merit, unsupported by evidence.
	Derived from wholly unreliable sources, a fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution.
	The rejection of President Trump's litigation efforts was overwhelming.
	22 federal judges appointed by Republican presidents, including 10 appointed by President Trump himself, and at least 24 elected or appointed Republican state judges dismissed the president's claims.
	Oh, look at how now they're going to...
	Look at how they're going to now exploit the wrongful persecution of lawyers who represent the Trump.
	This is how it works.
	It's a big circle.
	Licensing practice law suspended in New York.
	And just this week, a newly filed complaint will potentially make his suspension from practicing law in D.C., Permanent.
	Permanent.
	But Clinesmith, who falsified evidence that he submitted to a court to obtain a legal warrant, disbarred for a year retroactively back in practice.
	This is how they exploit their previous abuses to justify their current abuse.
	Unbelievable.
	As stated by U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, this was, quote, a coup in search of a legal theory.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I yield back.
	Thank you.
	Thank you that I've just testified more than you have.
	I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today.
	They've made great sacrifices to serve their country.
	Members of the Select Committee may have additional questions for today's witnesses, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing to those questions.
	What questions could you possibly still have after 500 days?
	10 business days to submit statements for the record.
	Including opening remarks and additional questions for the witnesses.
	The second panel of witnesses is now dismissed.
	Someone's got to do the, just the tally, talking time, of the panel members, the committee members, versus the testimony of the witnesses that they have called.
	I guarantee you, the committee testimony, or sorry, questioning, is four to one for actual witness testimony.
	But this is the wrap-up smear of the licensure aspect.
	They go after Julianne...
	Without objection, the chair recognizes the general woman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for a closing statement.
	Oh, closing statement, because you've done so well this morning.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Now that we understand the litigation efforts by President Trump and his allies, I'd like to present additional actions taken by the Trump campaign during this time.
	President Trump continued to push the stolen election narrative, even though he and his allies knew that their litigation efforts, making the same It's worth pointing out that litigation generally does not continue past the safe harbor date of December 14th.
	But the fact that this litigation went on, well, that decision makes more sense when you consider the Trump campaigns.
	Fundraising tactics.
	Because if the litigation had stopped at 2014, there would have been no fight to defend the election and no clear path to continue to raise millions of dollars.
	Mr. Chairman, at this time...
	I'd ask for unanimous consent to include in the record a video presentation describing how President Trump used the lies he told to raise millions of dollars from the American people.
	These fundraising schemes were also part of the effort to disseminate the false claims of election fraud.
	By the way, it wasn't Trump who did that.
	It was the GOP.
	I'm senior investigative counsel with the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack in the United States Capitol.
	Between Election Day and January 6th, the Trump campaign sent millions of fundraising emails to Trump supporters, sometimes as many as 25 a day.
	The emails claimed the, quote, left-wing mob was undermining the election, implored supporters to, quote, step up to protect the integrity of the election, and encouraged them to, quote, fight back.
	But as the select committee has demonstrated, the Trump campaign knew these claims of voter Here we go.
	By the way, people should have a problem with what they're describing here, but to blame it on Trump is fundamentally wrong.
	Here, guys, watch this.
	Clip it, snip it, share it.
	It's in the chat now.
	Highlight from my interview with Jenna Ellis and Barnes, where we talked about this.
	It was a grift.
	It just wasn't Trump's grift.
	Or maybe he ought to have opposed it more than he did.
	It was a party grift.
	President Trump and his allies raised $250 million, nearly $100 million in the first week after the election.
	On November 9th, 2020, President Trump created a separate entity called the Save America PAC.
	Most of the money raised went to this newly created PAC, not to election-related litigation.
	The Select Committee discovered that the Save America PAC made millions of dollars of contributions to pro-Trump organizations, including $1 million to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' Charitable Foundation, $1 million to the America First Policy Institute, a conservative organization which employs several former Trump administration officials.
	$204,857 to the Trump Hotel Collection, and over $5 million to Event Strategies, Inc., the company that ran President Trump's January 6th rally on the ellipse.
	All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened, radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing.
	The evidence developed by the select committee highlights how the Trump campaign aggressively pushed false election claims to fundraise.
	Telling supporters it would be used to fight voter fraud that did not exist.
	The emails continued through January 6, even as President Trump spoke on the Olympics.
	30 minutes after the last fundraising email was sent, the Capitol was breached.
	This is not a video presentation.
	This is edited, partisan documentary filmmaking.
	I mean, this is like, this is wedding montages.
	Every American is entitled and encouraged to participate in our electoral process.
	Political fundraising is part of that.
	Small dollar donors use scarce disposable income to support candidates and causes of their choosing.
	There will be, before that, sir, let's see who that was.
	Tater, before the Tim Pool...
	There will be midterms.
	There will be midterms and we'll see if it's a red wave.
	There seems to have been a rip-off, by the way, that needs to be addressed.
	because people did fund, donate on campaigning that was built off the legal challenges, which never actually occurred.
	Without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for a Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	I would like to thank all of our witnesses today.
	And I'd also like to, in particular, wish Mr. Stepien and his family all the best on the arrival of a new baby.
	You're all such good people.
	You're so virtuous and beautiful.
	And in the coming days, you will see the committee move on to President Trump's broader planning for January 6th, including his plan to corrupt the Department of Justice and his detailed planning with lawyer John Eastman to pressure the vice president, state legislatures, state officials, and others to overturn the election.
	Let me leave you today with one clip.
	Are we done?
	Are we done today?
	Here, let me just preview with more rubbish that's not going to come.
	Previews?
	You're two days into this, Liz Cheney.
	We don't need previews anymore.
	Get to some new evidence that shows what you think it shows.
	Two days into the hearing.
	We don't want previews.
	We want evidence.
	Are you out of your effing mind?
	Oh, he swore again.
	We got a swear word.
	I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth for now on.
	orderly transition.
	Impeach him again.
	Impeach him even though he's out of office, Liz.
	Thank you.
	At the conclusion of last week's hearing, we showed you a video of rioters explaining...
	Why they had come to Washington on January 6th.
	It was because Donald Trump told them to be here.
	Today we heard about some of the lies Donald Trump embraced and amplified when it became clear he didn't have the numbers of votes to win the election.
	We heard about how officials at different levels of government explored claims of fraud and found no evidence.
	Yet the former president continued to repeat those false claims over and over again.
	Today, we'll end things where we did on Thursday, back on January 6th.
	Hearing words of individuals who wanted to stop the transfer of power.
	We know they were there because of Donald Trump.
	Now we hear some of the things they believe.
	Without objection, I enter into the record.
	Without objection, I allow my own propaganda as evidence.
	I know exactly what's going on right now.
	Big election.
	They think they're going to fucking cheat us out of our vote and put Congress fucking Biden in office.
	It ain't fucking happening today, buddy.
	You voted?
	Yes, sir.
	How did it go?
	Voted early.
	It went well, except for the...
	Can't really trust the software.
	Dominion software all over.
	That guy must have been watching CNN.
	Why are they showing this?
	Why would they show this?
	We're not taking it anymore.
	So, we're standing up, we're here, and whatever happens, we're not laying down again.
	It absolutely worked.
	It didn't work.
	No!
	Trust the system.
	200,000 people that weren't even registered voted.
	430,000 votes disappeared from President Trump's talent.
	And you can't stand there and tell me that it worked.
	I don't want to say that what we're doing is right.
	Who's this guy?
	Who's this guy?
	The election's being stolen.
	What is it going to take?
	Do we know if this guy might be...
	I mean, just floating it out there.
	Do we know if that guy's another Ray Epsis type person?
	Who is that person?
	The chair requests those in the hearing room remain seated until the Capitol Police have escorted members from the room.
	Without objection, the committee stands adjoin.
	Please, you lowly hoi polloi, you stay seated while your political elite, your kings and queens, are escorted out.
	Do you have enough Capitol Police today, committee?
	No COVID issues?
	Today you're sufficiently well protected?
	You all stay seated while we leave.
	Without objection.
	I have made the rules, issued the rules, allowed the evidence, confirmed the evidence, adjudicated on my evidence, ratified my adjudication, and ratified the sentence.
	They're going to come out of this, push for...
	Eliminating the Electoral College.
	Push for criminal charges against Trump to keep him somehow off the ballot for 2024.
	And I'm glad it's over.
	Because I don't have the stomach to do this anymore.
	That and I also think I have an appointment at 1.30.
	I did not realize this was going to end early.
	Thank goodness.
	Let me just see something here.
	It is at 1.30.
	Good!
	Yeah.
	Now, I'm not saying I'm happy that it's over for the day, but I can take that level of torture.
	Is this it?
	I thought it just ended.
	Yeah, we're still seeing an empty room.
	Oh, no.
	That's from the beginning.
	Woo!
	It's over, people.
	We can go get some sunlight.
	I don't think I have enough time for a bike ride before my appointment.
	I thought I was going to have to do an entire call on mute.
	While you all watched.
	That is stomach-turning.
	It's preposterous.
	It's outlandish.
	It's self-serving.
	It's partisan.
	It doesn't respect any recognized rule of law, nor does it have to because these are not legal hearings.
	These are not legal hearings.
	We've been demonetized, by the way.
	We were demonetized a little while ago.
	I'm just refreshing to make sure.
	Yeah.
	Being reviewed.
	This is not a legal process.
	Everyone's like hearsay.
	Yada, yada.
	It's not supposed to be a legal process.
	It's supposed to be a political process.
	It's being passed off as a bipartisan political process, but it is...
	You know, people are saying McCarthy was right, though, and I don't want to compare.
	It's a Kabuki theater, McCarthy-esque show trial that would make Kim Jong-un green with envy.
	They are making their own evidence.
	They are adducing their own evidence.
	It is not being challenged, cross-examined, or put to any test whatsoever.
	They are administering their own evidence, ratifying the administration of their own evidence, testifying for their alleged witnesses, and it proves what they think it proves.
	I mean, so far, by the way, we're two days in.
	We're two days in, and this is clearly not about January 6th.
	This is clearly about Donald Trump.
	This is clearly about...
	Attacking the...
	Maybe it's part two of the...
	Part two of the...
	Jeez, Louise.
	Stop that.
	Stop that.
	Part two of the secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
	Recall, people, what was in that.
	Let me just go to...
	Raging Across Industries.
	Changing rules and laws, steer media coverage, and control the flow of information.
	This might just be the next step in the fortification.
	They've got to control the flow of information.
	And what they're going to say right now, what they're going to say right now, I got distracted by a particularly outlandish comment, but what they're going to say now, we need to control the flow of information because it's because of the...
	Free-flowing information on the interwebs that people were wrongly duped into believing a certain thing and then descended onto the Capitol Hill.
	We need to make sure that never happens again.
	So we need to control the free flow of information on the interwebs.
	That's where this is going.
	Whether or not this ever gets back to January 6th in any meaningful sense, this is now going to be about not criminalizing information, but demonizing Rightly or wrongly, and it's going to go after the sources and try to censor the free flow of information on various social media platforms.
	Trudeau is one step ahead of the game when it comes to this.
	Bill C-11, Bill C-10, you know, trusted news sources, certified journalist stuff.
	They're going to go and try to say we need to control what is posted on social media.
	We need to have more latitude to take down posts that might incite people to protest because we need to avoid people getting convinced by misinformation leading to a January 6th.
	That's where this is going.
	Yeah, we knew what they were going to do, but this is way worse.
	Nature Lover, it's revolting.
	It's revolting.
	And beyond anything.
	But hold on one second.
	Before we go, I want to just share one victory with the world.
	No, that's not an incognito, so I don't want to share that.
	I don't know if this is an incognito.
	Let me see here.
	This looks like it's an incognito.
	Okay.
	Viva Friat.
	We're not an incognito, so let me just make sure not to pull up my messages.
	I just want to pull one victory lap here.
	I contested a copyright claim, which I believe is the...
	It's a copyright troll claim by its very nature, because what they do is algorithmically just pull up any clip, however small, to claim a three and a half, four, seven hour live stream because of...
	Incidental audio use, incidental video use, or fair use.
	And most people don't contest it.
	And then they go and they make sweet bank claiming the ad revenue of a seven-hour live stream or a three-hour live stream based on a fragment of use of content, which is either fair use or incidental.
	In this particular case, I have to go see what my basis was.
	I think it was both fair use and de minimis incidental usage.
	I don't remember which, but I...
	It goes to show just perpetual diligence.
	I contested and I won.
	It's good.
	Good for me.
	Whoop-de-doo.
	A headache.
	An unneeded headache based on not a malicious, but I would say an abusive or frivolous copyright claim.
	And I don't know how long ago it was, but a week or two or three later, I got it.
	I hope we have a better candidate than Trump in 2024, but if they keep him from running, things will get worse.
	Well...
	DeSantis would be good.
	I mean, DeSantis is obviously the biggest name that comes to mind.
	But I wouldn't want DeSantis leaving Florida because even Florida, the great free state of Florida, every state is one election away from going to a Nicky Freed or another candidate who will just turn Florida into the mess that New York has become.
	Causing people to leave New York and go to Florida.
	But I think, man, I feel sick and dirty and kind of guilty covering this and giving it more coverage than it would otherwise get or maybe that it otherwise deserves.
	I think people need to see this.
	And they need to know how badly they are being manipulated by the process itself.
	I agree.
	This is political.
	It's not supposed to be legal standards.
	It's supposed to be...
	Theater, grandstanding to some extent.
	But people need to know when they're being played, and they're being played.
	And there are legitimate criticisms of the way things went down, at least from the arguments made by Trump and his allies.
	We called it out at the time.
	Giuliani said things which were demonstrably false.
	Sidney Powell said things which were demonstrably false.
	There were other stories going around people were sharing that were demonstrably false that allowed people to say, It allowed people to lump together everyone who had a bona fide legitimate constitutional argument with people who were claiming there were servers being raided in armed raids in Germany.
	And they lumped them all together, and that might have been part and parcel of the strategy.
	Lump the good with the obviously outrageous and outlandish so that you no longer have to address the good arguments.
	You can just treat them all the same.
	Servers in Germany, things being sent off to China, I don't know where.
	But Giuliani and Sidney Powell and others said things which were demonstrably false.
	We said at the time could lead to defamation lawsuits.
	They would have very little defense against those statements because they ought to have known they were false or at the very least have done some due diligence.
	But there were legitimate arguments to be raised and they are all thoroughly detailed in the Time Magazine article.
	I've linked again.
	The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
	That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream, a well-funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perception.
	Change rules and laws.
	Steer media coverage and control the flow of information.
	They were not rigging the election.
	They were fortifying it.
	And out of that, a meme was born.
	Election fortification, which has now been turned into election fornification.
	All that I can say, people, it's not that I don't like spending time with all of you.
	I'm glad it's over for the day.
	I don't know when it's going to be back.
	But I'll be covering it again when we're back.
	And then some other stuff.
	CBC...
	CBC.
	What was I on my phone just about to look for?
	Oh, Rumble.
	I was going to go to Rumble and see if I missed anything.
	CBC.
	Front page news.
	January 6th.
	And you scroll down.
	And you have to scroll down a fair bit to even get to the Justin Trudeau story.
	And noteworthy.
	Noteworthy and I say even metaphorically appropriate.
	Oh, do they take that story out?
	It seems they took that story down.
	Maybe they saw my tweet.
	They were more important than the Justin Trudeau story was invasive lampreys in New Brunswick.
	In the hierarchy of the story that they showed, blood-sucking snake-like fish arrived in New Brunswick waterways to spawn.
	That was more important.
	That was more of a headliner.
	Then Justin Trudeau, testing positive.
	I believe it's the third time, but I might be wrong.
	It's the second time within three months.
	That much I can tell you.
	February, March, April, May, June.
	Four months.
	He allegedly tested positive during the convoy.
	Had to go into hiding.
	He's tested positive now.
	He's had it before.
	So it's the third time he's tested positive.
	But more important than that is the Jan 6 hearing and parasitic...
	Lampreys invading New Brunswick waterways to spawn.
	Okay, go, people.
	It's a beautiful day.
	If I can see through the blinds in the basement, it's a beautiful day.
	Get out there, say hi to people, have conversations in real life.
	I would say have a bubble tea, but now I can't do bubble tea anymore.
	500 calories?
	300 to 500 calories for a bubble tea?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Not worth it.
	I have a Red Bull in the fridge.
	Okay, go.
	See you definitely tomorrow.
	We'll see what's on the menu for tomorrow, but stay tuned.
	And people, Viva Clips for the second channel.
	Viva Family for occasional fun stuff.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	And stay tuned, because Thursday night, we're going to be on TimCast.
	Pavlovsky from Rumble, Barnes and me, live, talking some very interesting stuff.
	To be seen, to be continued.
	See you all.
	Enjoy the day.

▲