Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 27, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:22:48

Protests in Canada; Darren Beattie from Revolver on Ray Epps AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	He was someone who cared nothing about rules.
	He cared nothing about the law.
	Cared nothing about rules.
	He cared nothing about the law.
	He was someone who cared nothing about rules.
	He cared nothing about the law.
	He accuses people of doing things he himself is doing.
	If I let this run, it's the stuff of nightmares.
	Like, this would be FBI interrogation, psychological torture tactics.
	So let this run all day, every day, for a week.
	You will say anything to make it stop.
	He was someone who...
	He cared nothing about rules.
	He cared nothing about the law.
	This is Hillary Clinton talking about Donald Trump.
	And she's talking in the longer clip.
	She actually talks about projection.
	She uses the word projecting.
	When talking about what Donald Trump does, while then proceeding to accuse Donald Trump of not caring about the rules and not caring about the law.
	Let's just do it one more time.
	He accuses people of doing things he himself is doing.
	He was someone who cared nothing about rules.
	He cared nothing about the law.
	Just three good examples.
	Clinton staff destroyed devices with hammers.
	CNN's Evan Perez confirms Trump campaign senior advisor.
	Do you see how they try to shift this?
	I didn't read the byline on this.
	CNN Evans-Perez confirms Trump campaign senior advisor Boris Epstein's claim that Hillary...
	It's no longer a claim if it's been confirmed.
	It's a fact that Hillary Clinton's staffers destroyed her previous mobile devices using hammers.
	That's something you just see in government every day.
	But it's not a fact.
	And it's not even a statement or a claim.
	It's Trump campaign.
	It's like it's Trump saying it.
	So believe it was a lie, even though we just confirmed the claim coming from Trump that Hillary Clinton's campaign destroyed old mobile devices with hammers.
	Someone who cared nothing about rules.
	He cared nothing about the law.
	Which was this?
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	Clinton broke federal rules with email server.
	Oh, yeah.
	She should have surrendered all emails dealing with the State Department issues, the audit found.
	But she had smashed...
	He cared nothing about rules.
	He cared nothing about the law.
	Federal campaign watchdog fines DNC Clinton campaign over dossier spending disclosure.
	That's when they lied about having funded the Steele dossier, using foreign assets to provide fake information that they then gave to the FBI.
	through their lawyer who wasn't representing Clinton, but billed the campaign for the meeting with the FBI lawyer where he sent them this steel dossier that the FBI then leaked to Yahoo News, who published an article that the FBI then used to go to the FISA court and say, look, we need to spy on Carter Page.
	What was she saying about not following the rules or the laws?
	Someone who cared nothing about rules.
	He cared nothing about the law.
	He accused...
	Joseph Goebbels didn't say it like this, accuse your enemies of your own sins.
	Maybe he did.
	Joseph Goebbels.
	Adolf Hitler's propaganda minister.
	That's all we need.
	That is all we need, and that is all we can take.
	Hammer and politics always go hand in hand.
	There's a joke in there.
	There's another joke in there that I won't make because I'm not a Steven Crowder, salty cracker type.
	It's a Pelosi joke, but it's not a funny one.
	You can't laugh at other people's misfortune.
	Good.
	Afternoon.
	East Coast.
	Good morning.
	West Coast.
	Good evening.
	Europe.
	Top of the morning to you, Australia.
	All right.
	We've got a show today.
	It's going to talk about hypocrisy.
	It's going to talk about...
	It's not hypocrisy.
	It's lawlessness.
	This is lawlessness.
	Hillary Clinton, for whatever the reason, still relevant in U.S. politics, talking about Trump.
	Having no respect for rules or the law.
	It's not hierarchy.
	It's not hypocrisy.
	It's lawlessness.
	It's so that one side can get away with smashing mobile devices with a hammer, wiping it with a bleach bit, hiding 30,000 emails, destroying them with impunity, while they then simultaneously try to prosecute and persecute their political ideological adversaries.
	Asinine.
	Asinine is not the word I'm looking for.
	Anodine.
	Innocuous.
	Innocuous transgressions.
	Maybe it's Maybelline.
	Who said that?
	Hold on a second.
	Where did the Maybelline go?
	Maybe it's Maybelline.
	We're going to get into some more hypocrisy.
	Or I don't even know if it's hypocrisy.
	It's just not caring.
	The media does not care about Dylan Mulvaney.
	about transgenders, transgenderism.
	They don't care.
	The media doesn't care about it.
	Politicians don't care about it.
	Celebrities don't care about it or them.
	Corporations do not care about it or them.
	They don't care about the movement that they co-opt.
	They care about what they think will be the increase to the bottom line after they co-opt a movement for their own superficial virtue signaling.
	Social media currency.
	And sometimes when it doesn't pay off, well, they just give those people the straight boot to the ass out the front door.
	How does it feel?
	We're going to get there.
	We're talking today before Darren Beatty comes on, and I'm going to call Darren Beatty.
	I'm going to call him Warren at least three times because I've got it stuck in my head.
	Warren Beatty, Darren Beatty.
	So when it happens, forgive me, the same way it happened earlier this week where I kept on calling Jessica Rachel for some reason.
	Darren Beattie is coming on.
	He's going to be in at 1.30.
	We're going to be long on Rumble by that time.
	And he's going to be talking to us about the latest.
	Hypocrisy?
	I don't use words like sedition or treason.
	But I know some people do.
	The 60 Minutes.
	It's not just running cover for Ray Epps anymore.
	It's like I've qualified it.
	It's running.
	Chernobyl-level denialism for Ray Epps.
	It's running a psychological operation to try to tell a lie to people so egregious that people are going to sit there saying, how dare they...
	Try to make us believe a lie this egregious.
	I'm outraged.
	I'm going to go do something stupid, which 60 Minutes will then say, look at this.
	We talked about how these lies about Ray Epps were exposing him to online harassment, and now people are doing it again.
	Just like they did with Tiffany Dover, NBC, they revive a conspiracy theory.
	For the purposes of trying to whip people into a frenzy yet again so they can then demonize the conspiracy theorists, demonize those who exceed bounds of civil discourse on social media.
	They're doing it with Ray Epps by trying to get you to swallow the biggest, stinkiest, steaming pile of feces imaginable.
	We're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about some Canadian stuff too.
	Many of you may or may not know...
	There are protests going on in Canada now.
	Massive protests.
	Of course, it's not those racist, misogynist, xenophobic, transphobic, anti-Black, racist, anti-Semitic truckers who I walked among as brethren.
	It's not them.
	It's not those dirty, awful people.
	It's federal workers.
	Federal workers demanding increased wages to reflect.
	Inflation, which they've now accurately pinned at 13.5% as per their demands, over 150,000 federal workers are protesting or supporting the protests.
	They are on the streets from, let's just pick a town, Halifax to Vancouver.
	They're blocking or interfering with traffic on roads.
	They're not blockading roads, but they're hindering traffic.
	They are hindering the...
	What's the word?
	Provision of essential services, passport offices, border crossings, tax form thingy thing processing.
	They're not yet being forced back to work, but I can see that in the mail.
	We'll see what happens.
	We'll see if the government caves and just gives them everything they want.
	But there's no Emergencies Act.
	There's no widespread condemnation of this protest that is holding Canadian citizens hostage.
	No!
	Jagmeet Singh is up on Parliament Hill with the protesters taking selfies.
	We'll get there.
	Some other outrageous poo-poo coming out of Canada involving Randy Hillier, the member of provincial parliament, facing charges for mischief for allegedly encouraging people to call 911 when that's not what he did.
	Assault on a police officer for moving a barricade so that protesters could access Parliament Hill.
	His lawyer, David Anber.
	Who I've had on the show many times made a motion for change of venue to get out of the Washington, D.C. equivalent of Canada, Ottawa.
	The epicenter of the people who think that they were held hostage by racist terrorists.
	Motion for change of venue summarily dismissed.
	Not even a substantive hearing.
	Summarily dismissed.
	No venue change for you.
	We're going to talk about that and we're going to go over some trans stuff.
	Let's actually start with...
	Because we're on Rumble.
	Because we're on both Rumble and YouTube.
	Before we head over to Rumble, let's just start with some of the trans stuff.
	Pete Buttigieg, they just...
	Just the other day, I was...
	Quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet.
	Pete, I'm not done intro yet.
	Hold on a second.
	The camera just started focusing again, and I don't know why.
	Show me.
	Okay.
	Come down a little bit.
	Forget it.
	Freeze.
	Tracking off.
	Okay.
	Pete Buttigieg was on Comedy Central.
	It's so bad.
	I mean, it's so bad.
	Oh, hold on.
	Before we even get into this.
	Sorry.
	Forgotten everything.
	Remove this.
	Standard disclaimers, people.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	If you so choose to support the channel through these things called Rumble Rants or Super Chats on YouTube...
	Bear in mind, YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	So if you see that little highlighted comment come up, YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you want to support, we are, or should be, and I should check it out, simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Where we will be going exclusively in a bit.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	They typically take 20%, but for the rest of 2023, 100% of that support goes to the content creator.
	Come 2024, they're going to be taking their 20%.
	We are also...
	Simultaneously streaming on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where I go for an after-stream post-mortem to take some questions there exclusively, so you can come join there.
	You can join and support the content on Locals.
	Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year, or more.
	Some people decide to support with more.
	And it's a wonderful community.
	We've got 106, 108,000 members.
	That's not supporting members.
	That's just the community.
	There's stuff for everybody, and then there's stuff behind the paywall for the paying supporters.
	It's a great community.
	As Barnes says, we are all above average.
	Now, break it into the stream.
	Add to stream Pete Buttigieg on comedy.
	They got to call it so-called Comedy Central.
	It's neither comedy nor central.
	What it is is shit.
	It's poo-poo.
	Let's just call it that.
	It's poo-poo.
	Now, let me see.
	Why can't...
	Oh, here we go.
	This is it right here.
	It's poo-poo.
	It's so wildly, laughably unfunny.
	But they just cannot stop lying.
	The Don't Say Gay bill coming out of Florida?
	Lie.
	I mean, it's just, it's such a lie.
	There are some people who acknowledge that it was a lie.
	There was one guy, a gay rights activist, who said the Don't Say Gay, it doesn't say don't say gay.
	In fact, it doesn't say don't say anything.
	It doesn't say don't say heterosexual.
	So we can't talk about heterosexual sex.
	As if that's the own.
	That's the purpose of it!
	The Don't Say Gay.
	This label is a lie.
	Anybody who says it is a liar.
	Anyone who believes it is an idiot.
	They've got the new one now.
	The Republicans are trying to kick trans kids off of sports teams.
	It's a lie.
	Anybody who says it is a liar.
	Anybody who believes it is an idiot.
	Let's listen to the liar.
	Just the other day, I was testifying in the appropriations subcommittee explaining how our budget was going to help with things like railroad safety, air traffic control, and other transportation needs.
	Listen to the way this guy talks.
	It's so inauthentic.
	It's so, hey, let's take a public speech course.
	Well, what you want to do, you see, is you want to speak and enunciate very clearly and never point a finger because that's aggressive.
	That's why you always saw Bill Clinton doing the thumb thing.
	This is aggressive.
	This is accusatory.
	This.
	Just the other day, I was testifying in the appropriations subcommittee explaining how our budget was going to help with things like railroad safety, air traffic control, and other transportation needs.
	And we had to take a break so that they could all go and vote on a bill to kick transgender teenagers off of sports teams.
	That was the priority for the House GOP that day.
	You got your barking seals in the cloud.
	Booing.
	Booing.
	So they could go kick transgender kids off of sports.
	As if that's what it was.
	Pete Buttigieg, maybe not the best political position to take.
	You're a misogynist.
	Anybody who says that the bill to protect women's sports was about kicking transgender kids off of sports teams is a liar.
	And anybody who believes it is an idiot.
	Period.
	Anybody promoting that lie is a misogynist.
	I'll say it loud and proud and clear.
	Especially if they're a male.
	I guess if they're a woman, they could be one of them self-hating women.
	Any man who comes out and says that this bill is about punishing transgender kids is a misogynist because they are going out of their way lying to penalize women and girls.
	The ban, as we know it, is to protect women's sports.
	And it says, you be you.
	You be who you want to be.
	But if you're born a male, you don't get to compete on the girls' competitive sports teams.
	You can train with them.
	That's what the bill said we went over last week.
	You don't get to compete against girls and women where men, boys, have biological advantages that are recognized by such bigoted websites.
	Such as Wikipedia.
	But Pete Buttigieg is a liar, and he's a misogynist, and he comes out and spouts the lie and wants to penalize girls and women by compelling them to compete with men and by compelling them to be exposed to male genitalia.
	This is one of the things that Riley Gaines was talking about, complaining about, crying about, testifying about before Congress, that she was forced to be exposed to the genitalia, the male genitalia of the individual going by the name Leah Thomas.
	comments.
	It's not just misogyny.
	And I'll take it one step further.
	It's actual sexual harassment.
	Flaunting your male genitalia in front of women is not a trans right.
	It's sexual harassment.
	And five years ago, had the Democrats, you know, Remained true to their principles.
	It was a cancelable hashtag MeToo offense five years ago.
	Now these liberal democrat progressives who are in fact regressive misogynists are forcing women to be exposed to male genitalia under the pretext of transgender rights.
	They don't care about transgender rights now.
	Any more than they cared about women's rights five years ago when they were trying to protect them from being exposed to male genitalia.
	They only cared about the power of politics.
	How could they use these victims for political purposes?
	Five years ago, the victims of being exposed to male genitalia were women.
	And they weaponized it and they exploited it to go after their ideological adversaries.
	Now, screw them.
	Who needs the women?
	Now the perceived victims are males who...
	Suffer from gender dysphoria or whatever condition it is that they do not identify with the sex assigned to them at birth, which is their sex.
	Not their gender, but their sex.
	Now that's the perceived victim.
	So let's go ahead and exploit them.
	And in five years from now, piss off with them.
	It'll be a new purported victim that they can exploit for political purposes.
	It's a power politics game of disingenuous hypocrisy, faux support.
	And you got Pete Buttigieg.
	Lying about the fact that trans kids, that is to say, boys who think they're girls or boys who identify as girls, which, you know, it's such a thing that's been around for so long that it's totally normal that there should be such an explosion of this in the last two years.
	The argument it's been around forever?
	It has.
	It's been around forever.
	And when the chart of something that has been around forever goes like this to this...
	Something else is going on other than having been around forever.
	Social contagions are a thing.
	Trends are a thing.
	Fads are a thing.
	You know, people used to be into self-harm back in the day, anorexia, goth.
	This just happens to be one of those trending social contagions that leaves much more meaningful scars than some of the previous ones.
	But you got Pete Buttigieg exploiting them.
	Who else do you have exploiting them?
	Oh, that's right.
	You had Bud Light.
	Bud Light was exploiting them because they saw a marketing opportunity.
	Understand, everybody, this is their own words.
	Hey, Bud Light.
	I forget what her name was.
	Whatever her name was, we'll get it in this article.
	We've inherited a product that's been in decline.
	We have to refresh it.
	We have to make more money.
	How can we do that?
	Well, what's the trend of the day?
	What's the social contagion of the day?
	Transgenderism.
	Let's go milk that.
	That's an interesting pun.
	Let's go exploit that.
	Let's go bilk that for our own profit.
	Couldn't give a sweet, sweet bugger all about the actual people behind this.
	Couldn't give a sweet bugger all about women's rights when half of these companies that support women's rights actually behind closed doors exploit women's rights or exploit the women.
	The bull on Times Square with the brave girl standing in front of the bull, they exploited women.
	Oh, I got to pull that up.
	Who doesn't know that story?
	Everyone knows that story, right?
	You know the story of the brave girl on Wall Street?
	In Rumble, oh, I guess we can do it in both.
	One for yes, I know that story.
	Two for no, I do not know that story.
	The story behind the brave girl celebrating women's rights.
	Brave girl exploited women.
	That was on Times Square.
	No, it wasn't on Times Square.
	It was Fearless Girl is what it was.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Fearless Girl.
	It wasn't Brave Girl.
	Fearless Girl exploited women.
	Let me get the article.
	Let me get the article.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	Fearless girl.
	I'm not going to be able to find it.
	Fearless girl exploited women employees.
	Here we go.
	I'll just bring up the Google search.
	We don't need to go into too much of the article.
	Here we go.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Ignore the typo.
	The firm that commissioned the popular fearless girl statue in New York's financial district has agreed to pay $5 million, mostly to settle claims that it discriminated against 305 top female employees by paying them less than men in the same positions.
	They don't care about the cause.
	They just care about the way they can exploit the cause.
	They don't care about the people behind the cause.
	They care about how they can exploit the people behind the cause.
	And Bud Light...
	is the latest one to try to jump onto the bandwagon and I gotta tell you, it couldn't have happened to a better company.
	They don't care about trans rights.
	They don't care about trans kids.
	They don't care about anything other than the bottom line and how to exploit and co-opt the contagion of the day for their own corporate needs.
	We all know what happened with Dylan Mulvaney.
	We all know that the subsequent boycott outrage that caused Bud Light or Anheuser-Busch to tank.
	Well, I think the woman behind that who gave that wonderful interview where she talked about the preppy frat boys that they had to shed that image.
	Well, she's on paid leave.
	She's on leave.
	At least two Bud Light executives are on leave after Dylan Mulvaney partnership blowback.
	In early April, Mulvaney posted a video of herself.
	We're living in a bloody clown world.
	He has a penis.
	He is a...
	Was a gay man up until recently.
	This is not, you know, even in religion, when you convert, and they say, you know, like, you don't talk about the old religion of the person once they've converted.
	That's an ideology.
	That's a belief system.
	And even then, you don't get canceled for talking about someone's conversion, being raised Protestant or Catholic and having converted to Judaism or vice versa.
	They're telling me.
	Refer to this man with a penis as a her.
	And if you don't do it, you're a bigot.
	And if you don't do it, you're deadnaming.
	Well, deadnaming is different.
	You are misgendering.
	I'm misgendering Dylan Mulvaney by calling him a him when he has a penis.
	We're going to get into this other one, another article in a second.
	It's just, that's not radiation.
	That, you know.
	What's the word?
	Not aborted, but when you lose a baby.
	That miscarried, deformed fetus, that's totally natural.
	It has nothing to do with the radiation.
	Now go back to Chernobyl.
	In April, Mulvaney posted a video of herself holding a custom Bud Light can with her face.
	They're trying so hard.
	With her face on it, she said it's the greatest beer she's ever tasted while she put her supple lips to the can and she took the biggest gulps she has ever taken since her...
	Earth, which the company sent to help celebrate a year since beginning her transition.
	A partnership between Bud Light and transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney sparked...
	Transgender influencer sparked discussion about representation in the beer industry and a boycott from some conservative consumers.
	I think it was a little bit more than some conservative consumers.
	Whoever drank that...
	Swill in the first place.
	I don't understand it.
	Weeks later, the sole Instagram post that sparked the discourse continues to shake things up.
	At least two Bud Light marketing executives are on leave.
	Mulvaney said she's faced transphobic harassment, some bars are halting product sales, and an alt-right beer grift appears to be on pause before it even launched.
	How did it start?
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Who is the marketing officer?
	Critics said that the beer should, quote, know its audience and demanded Bud Light cut ties with Mulvaney and stop going woke.
	Conservative figures Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the kid asked for boycotts.
	Kid Rock, you know, he did this whole thing.
	What's this then?
	For days, Bud Light's social media stayed quiet.
	The company released a statement about the company's various.
	They put out that awful, cliched ad afterwards.
	But Mulvaney's supporters said they wanted something more direct as the starlet, starlet, First of all, don't harass anybody.
	Don't harass anybody.
	Nobody knows what they mean by harassment.
	Is harassment like negative comments and trolls on Twitter?
	If so, we all face harassment.
	Don't harass.
	Don't threaten.
	The people who don't do this don't need to be told not to do what they know not to do already.
	How much of this is actually potentially people who are allied?
	Putting out this harassment anonymously so they can then say, look how badly we bring harassed.
	We're the victims here.
	Now go buy a Bud Light for reparations.
	Don't harass.
	It goes without saying.
	Dylan Mulvaney can do whatever the heck he wants with his body.
	It's his body.
	And you know what?
	He can even try to market it the way he wants.
	Good for him for milking this shtick to the bank.
	My ultimate concern is that this is going to leave Dylan.
	Feeling very empty and very exploited at the end of the day because the companies that he's getting money from right now who are exploiting him and who are subjecting him to this public ridicule don't give a good goddamn about Dylan Mulvaney or anything that Dylan Mulvaney might believe in.
	They don't.
	They broke their social media.
	They said they never intended to be part of...
	On April 14, the company broke its social media silence with a statement from Anheuser-Busch, CEO Brendan Whitworth.
	He said the company never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people.
	Bullshit.
	If you never intended to, then you're idiots.
	You intended to.
	You're liars.
	And it didn't work out the way you wanted, so you better walk that back for your own bottom line purposes.
	If you believed in the cause, Whitworth, you wouldn't say something like this.
	What you would say is, we don't care if it tanks.
	We don't care if you boycott.
	We don't want your business, bigots.
	That's what you should say.
	We never intended to be something of a discussion that divides people.
	We just happened to have our marketing officer come out and basically take a steaming dump on our consumer base.
	Okay, we don't need to read that anyhow.
	So who was it?
	There you go.
	Alyssa Heiner.
	Heinerscheid?
	Heinerscheid?
	What does that mean?
	I'm going to look that word up.
	I guarantee that means something in German.
	Last week, Bud Light, Vice President of Marketing, Alyssa Heinerscheid, leave of absence was announced.
	Conservatives previously criticized Heinerscheid for a resurfaced podcast interview where she discussed moving Bud Light away from the fratty ties.
	The leave of absence was first reported by the...
	I don't celebrate when anyone loses their job.
	Let me take that back.
	When a politician gets voted out of office because of their shitty policy...
	I don't celebrate, but I certainly take note.
	You know, like when Rachel Gilmore got fired from Global News, losing your job is a terrible thing, whether you hate someone or love them.
	Now, if you lose your job because you're bad at it, it's a consequence of incompetence.
	But to revel in someone losing their livelihood, not necessarily the best thing, you know, unless there's highly attenuating circumstances around it.
	Don Lemon might be one of them, but even then.
	Heiner Scheidt is a leave of absence.
	Okay.
	By Monday, a second executive, Daniel Blake, who oversees marketing for Anheuser-Busch's large brand, was placed on leave.
	All right.
	Previously, a debunked rumor was circulating that Anheuser-Busch laid off its entire marketing team because of the right-wing backlash.
	I guarantee you the backlash is not so right-wing.
	Mulvaney speaks out.
	In her first major interview since the Bud Light Backlash, Mulvaney spoke to the level of bullying the transgender community and their allies face.
	Thank you.
	Something about having influencers specifically and overtly say they're coming after your kids.
	Bully.
	When they come out and tell you how to refer to them, call you a bigot if you insist on referring to someone with a penis as a he.
	When you refuse to partake in their compelled speech, when they tell you, What to say, what to think, and not only what to say to them, what to say about them when you are talking to other people when they're not even around, when they try to shame you, when they try to call you a bigot if you don't do it.
	They're now accusing others of bullying.
	It's interesting.
	Accuses your enemies of doing what you're doing.
	It's bullying in the fact that they want anyone who associates themselves with trans people to be under fire.
	No!
	Nobody does that.
	But how about you just don't come out and tell me how I have to talk?
	How about not telling me that I have to say that if you have a penis, you're a he.
	And not calling me and others like me a bigot on social media for saying I will not be compelled to refer to you as her when you have a penis.
	Because like that idiotic shtick out of a...
	We can close this down.
	Like that idiotic shtick out of that television show with the autistic doctor.
	I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not, but they have this whole shtick where the autistic doctor doesn't recognize transgender patients.
	This kid comes in saying that she's a she, and the punchline is that she ends up having testicular cancer, and you got your virtue signaling doctor who says, with a beautiful British accent, you have to refer to her as a she because she suffers from gender dysphoria and does not identify as her designated sex at birth.
	And then the autistic kid's like, I was not taught that in school.
	And then he says, well, he has testicular cancer.
	And then the other...
	Virtue signaling doctor says, you mean she has testicular cancer?
	And I gotta tell you, I don't know if it was intended to be satire, a commentary, or celebrating.
	But yeah, no, no.
	They're not the bullies.
	Telling someone that you have to refer to a male with a penis as a she and let them compete in girls' sports, that's not bullying.
	Getting upset about it is bullying.
	Um...
	So Bud Light is facing the consequences of their own actions.
	And then they come out and apologize.
	We didn't mean to do anything when it didn't work out economically.
	Bud Light doesn't care about trans rights.
	It doesn't care about trans kids.
	It wants to exploit them as much as any other corporate, heartless, corrupt entity out there exploits the flavor of the day.
	And when it's no longer a cool flavor, they move on and they leave the wake of destruction behind them.
	And Dylan Mulvaney will be in that wake of exploitive destruction once Bud Light and all these other companies are done exploiting Dylan Mulvaney.
	And then Dylan is going to be sitting there, I suspect, with both regret and not feeling all that good about having been so exploited.
	But they will be long gone and won't care whatsoever by then.
	What was the other story?
	So let's get into the bullies.
	Being told how to refer to people in their absence.
	And then after this story, we'll go over to Rumble.
	I see something here.
	This is one of those stories.
	I'll call it now.
	I'll be a little bit ahead of the curve.
	I've done a little bit more homework, apparently, than CNN.
	This is one of those stories where you say, I think we're missing a detail.
	Summarize the news.
	No, thank you.
	Do I want...
	CNN summarized news every morning.
	No thank you.
	This is a story where I initially said, I don't believe it.
	There are additional details in here.
	Possibly.
	It might be true also.
	But this is one of those stories that people jump on.
	They monetize, which you'll see here because now they've started a GoFundMe for this poor victimized 18-year-old who allegedly...
	Was denied entry to her prom because she was wearing a suit to suggest that this Christian school, by the way, which has a code of conduct that you presumably agree to when you go to the school, but I guess maybe contracts aren't for people who identify as transgender.
	But there's more to the story.
	Small business owners in Nashville will host prom for student denied from school dance for wearing a suit.
	I have questions.
	Flags are going off.
	Having seen the way this has happened in the past, flags are going off.
	And this is like one of those stories where everybody wants to virtue signal hard here.
	They don't have the details.
	They don't know what happened.
	They don't know if there's a damn good reason for this that is not related whatsoever to transgender contagion.
	Doesn't matter.
	They want to virtue signal hard.
	Let's raise money.
	Let's give this poor victim the prom that she so deserves.
	This is the picture.
	Remember this picture for later, because I actually do a little bit of homework, unlike CNN, propagandists.
	They wouldn't let me in because I'm in a suit.
	Now, I've worn a suit my entire life.
	I didn't like it.
	I don't wear them anymore.
	That doesn't look like a suit.
	The guy in the back, let me see, can I zoom in on this, who doesn't look so happy about the picture, that's a suit.
	This guy right here.
	That looks like a suit.
	That looks like a three-piece suit.
	Never wore a three-piece suit before.
	This is not a suit.
	It's not ugly attire.
	It's actually kind of cool, but it's not a suit.
	Okay?
	Let's just bookmark that and move on.
	Small business owners in Nashville, they're stepping up.
	Oh yeah, that's a Trudeau term right there.
	That's what you do when you're a good compliant person.
	You step up.
	After a high school student was turned away from their senior prom for wearing a suit.
	Their senior prom.
	Wait until you hear all of this.
	It makes so much sense that B. Hayes, 18, who uses they, he pronouns.
	I tell you that this is a game and people accusing others of bullying.
	It's not just that they try to bully with the pronouns.
	Refer to me as he, him, even though I have a vagina and breasts.
	Well, the breasts, I mean, there's some men that have breasts.
	Even though I have an XX chromosome.
	Refer to me as He, him.
	That would be enough for some people to say, that's bullying.
	Don't tell me what to say.
	Don't tell me what to talk.
	Don't tell me what to think.
	Now they want you to defy linguistic rules.
	They, he, they, she makes absolutely no sense unless someone is testing the bounds of how much they can browbeat someone into submission.
	They...
	Is either supposed to be gender neutral, hence the he would make absolutely no sense afterwards, or they is intended to be plural, in which case they're saying, how far can I push this to make someone refer to me as a he, they, which has no gender logic, even if that were the underlying principle, and is grammatically impossible because this is still an individual human and not multiple people, that I should refer to he as a they, she as a they.
	From a gender perspective, even if that were the underlying rationale, it makes no sense.
	I'm neutral they, but also he makes no sense.
	I'm they plural, but he singular makes no sense.
	And by the way, it also makes no sense because this person says, who is the school to tell me what it means to be a woman?
	We'll get there.
	According to their Instagram, why not his Instagram account?
	Oh, that's right.
	They told me and they bullied me to say they instead of his.
	They said they weren't allowed in the doors.
	Because they weren't wearing a suit.
	Now, by the way, this is how I also know that we're being lied to.
	Because CNN is not making the statement.
	They're not saying that this person was not allowed in because they were wearing a suit.
	CNN is not saying that Hayes was not allowed in because she was wearing a suit.
	CNN is saying Hayes was not allowed in because Hayes said...
	Sorry.
	Hayes said...
	They, quote, weren't allowed in the doors because they were...
	So they're not making a statement of fact.
	They're repeating a statement from the individual who might not be either speaking the truth, might not understand the truth, or might not understand the rules for which she was not allowed in.
	Hayes Post had more than 23,000 likes because nobody understands what the hell's going on here.
	Did anybody go see the rules of the school?
	I doubt it.
	And almost 2,000 comments as of Wednesday.
	Hayes says they, he...
	It didn't say he up here, so why can't I say he says he has...
	Like, why is it they have when it says he?
	Even if I want to go, it makes no sense.
	And yet, people who refuse to play by these rules are getting accused of bullying when they're not being successfully bullied into playing by these irrational, illogical rules.
	Hayes said they have attended the National Christian School for 13 years, so they should know the rules.
	Listen to this.
	I should not have to conform to femininity to attend my senior prom.
	I will not compromise who I am to fit in in a box.
	End quote.
	The post read, who are you to tell us what it means to be a woman?
	Make it make sense.
	This person who identifies as they, he is now saying, who are you to tell me what it means to be a woman?
	But I thought the whole issue here is that you're not a woman.
	So now you're a woman.
	Nobody has the right to tell you what it means to be a woman, except you're saying now that as a woman, call me he, they.
	This is youthful rebellion that the adults in the room Have allowed to become a social contagion, institutionalizing of adolescent rebellion.
	Who are you to tell me what it means to be a woman?
	Now refer to me, this woman, as he, they.
	A spokesperson for the National Christian School said in a statement to CNN that it has established dress code requirements for both school attendance and special events and, quote, all students and families are aware of and sign an agreement to these guidelines when they enroll.
	We don't need to read the rest of this.
	Then it's like how business owners are so virtuous.
	They go out there and start a GoFundMe.
	$30,000 so they can give Hayes the prom of her life.
	And if there's anything left over, they're going to donate it to the charity of Hayes' choice.
	Did CNN go look at the school guidelines?
	I hope these are the right ones.
	I mean, it's always nerve-wracking.
	You never know if you're dealing with the right document online because it is conceivable that you just pull up the wrong Christian school.
	Hold on, where is it?
	Here we go.
	Nashville Christian School.
	I think this is the right school.
	If I'm wrong, I will gladly correct myself.
	I'll come on Mehdi Hassan's channel.
	And let him grill me about having pulled up the wrong National Christian School 2022-2023 student handbook.
	But I think this is the right one.
	And if I recall, let's just do this together, people.
	It was at page 20. Here we go.
	Dress code.
	Lower school, middle school, upper school.
	Let's just go to the dress code, which everybody agreed to this.
	You signed the terms and you come into the school.
	Now, some might say when you get to these terms that they're...
	Bigoted because they say, for the ladies, these are the rules, and for the gentlemen, these are the rules.
	That presumes gender.
	I might go one step further and say that even if I think the school might have been inclined, I don't know, I'd like to ask the school, that their refusal to allow Hayes in was not because she was wearing a suit, but because she wasn't even wearing a suit.
	Look, here.
	So, 6 to 12 gentlemen.
	This is for dress form, uniform day.
	So I don't think that's what we wanted.
	A standard school day.
	Was there a special events day?
	Dress form?
	Standard school.
	There was a special events day.
	Okay, that's for the boys' kindergarten.
	Okay, kindergarten through five.
	It might have been up there.
	Okay, so it might be up here.
	Let's see.
	Hold on.
	Sorry.
	Dress uniform day.
	Let's just assume that this is it.
	Dress uniform day.
	Let me find where the special events are.
	NCS necktie or bowtie through Max and Alice school uniforms.
	Did anyone see a necktie or a bowtie on what Hayes was wearing?
	I didn't.
	White long-sleeve shirt purchased from the store.
	Khaki twill pants.
	Black, brown.
	Okay.
	Dress shoes with socks.
	Required.
	Standard school day.
	Oh, additional details.
	That's for the gentlemen.
	Now, hold on a second.
	There was special.
	Special events.
	There was a special event.
	So let's go with event.
	Towards the page 20, and now we're already past it.
	There was a special event dress code.
	Gentlemen have to wear a suit with a necktie or a bow tie, et cetera, et cetera.
	Let me see if we just do special event.
	No.
	Let me just do this one more time here.
	See if we can find this.
	Dress code and section 20, page 20. A hush falls over the crowd.
	The intent of the uniform dress code is to train our children to realize that although many types of clothing are acceptable for us to wear, some are more appropriate for specific activities than others.
	Because the type of clothing we wear can influence our attitude and behavior, the following dress code represents the acceptable model of dress for our school and its activities.
	Adherence to the dress code is the parent's and student's responsibility.
	Thank you.
	My God, school is like prison, isn't it?
	On any dress code related issue.
	In addition to being issued demerits, students found to be in violation of the dress code policy may be required to contact parents to provide appropriate clothing or wear appropriate clothing provided by NCS.
	Repeated violations may also bring an increase in the severity of the consequences.
	The dress code includes a dress uniform that will be worn by predetermined days, including but not limited to special occasions.
	That's the word I was looking for.
	Such as praise and thanksgiving.
	Grandparents' Day and school-wide chapels, the dress uniform, as well as the standard day uniform and additional details outlined below.
	So it was special...
	What was the word I was just looking for?
	Special occasions.
	Necktie, bow tie, yada, yada, yada.
	Let me just see if we can find a special...
	Special...
	For goodness sake, special events during the courts of the year.
	Special events.
	At each of these events included but not limited to the homecoming dance, candle pass, etc., there are expectations for behavior and dress that must be followed by the students to participate.
	The appropriate faculty staff members will work with the administration to communicate these expectations.
	All right, we're out of there.
	Did anybody notice a bow tie or a tie?
	No.
	Could this student have gotten in had she been wearing a proper suit that might have been reserved for the gentleman?
	I think maybe.
	Robert Grouse.
	I've never seen you before, but I'll accept the critique.
	Did anyone see that?
	No.
	Might I suspect there might be more to the story?
	Yes.
	Will that more to the story come out after this student has claimed full victimhood status, raised $30,000, had a special event put on for her, businesses can feel good about themselves for having exploited the social media currency to its fullest potential?
	Yes.
	I'm not triggered.
	I'm open to constructive criticism.
	That's the story there.
	Oh, now you've made the camera follow me.
	Okay, let's go over to Rumble, shall we?
	Hold on.
	Let me make sure the link is there.
	It's utterly absurd, they say.
	No, I guarantee we're going to find out that...
	Hayes was not barred from the event because she was wearing a suit.
	She was barred from the event because she wasn't even wearing a proper suit, even if she wanted to push the limits and say, I would like to wear a suit because who are you to tell me what it means to be a woman?
	Now refer to me as he, they.
	Madness.
	It's absolute, illogical madness.
	Okay, move on over to Rumble.
	I'm going to deactivate the camera again here.
	No, that's too far there.
	Let's go like this.
	Okay.
	And...
	Stop facial tracking.
	There we go.
	Boom!
	Let's go over to Rumble, people.
	And we're going to talk about what's going on in Canada.
	Did I miss the Ray Epps commentary?
	No, you didn't.
	Darren Beattie's coming on in 14 minutes, give or take.
	So move on over to Rumble.
	I'm going to talk about some Canadian stuff.
	I might not even get to some of the stuff that I wanted to.
	Let's do this.
	Okay.
	Remove from YouTube.
	Head on over to Rumble.
	See you there, people.
	Booyakasha.
	Okay.
	Oh, it's institutionalized madness.
	The patients have taken over the asylum.
	Okay, so, well, very quickly, Randy Hillier.
	This is Canadian stuff, and it's going to segue into the juicy Canadian stuff.
	Randy Hillier is an Ontario member of provincial parliament.
	You may all remember him.
	He's a very soft-spoken elderly gentleman, very smart.
	Very principled.
	Was speaking out against COVID measures before it was cool to speak out against COVID measures.
	Has been principled from the beginning, not a political opportunist like Pierre Poilievre.
	Randy Hillier was charged with a number of crimes, mischief-related crimes, because at one point he put out a tweet that says, phone in to protest, and people took that.
	He said, phone in.
	It was not call the police to flood essential services lines.
	He specified non-essential services line.
	The accusation is that he encouraged people to phone in 911 emergency services.
	It overloaded the emergency services, caused problems.
	He got charged with mischief for that.
	And he got charged with assault because he displaced a bike rack off of the steps leading up to Parliament Hill so that protesters could go up on Parliament Hill and protest and That act of moving the bike rack was considered to be assault.
	The accusation of assault came out of that.
	To say that the protesters and anyone involved in Randy Hillier in particular have been defamed, harassed, insulted online, especially from Ottawa government, Ottawa citizens, and Ottawa officials, it would be an understatement of the decade.
	Daniel, that's my brother's name.
	David Anber is representing Randy Hillier and made a motion to change venue out of Ottawa because things that politicians have said, things that citizens have said, and he's going to be facing a jury trial, would make it inconceivable that Randy Hillier can get a fair hearing in Ottawa.
	In one of the threads...
	Amber goes through all of the evidence that public posts, look at this, a post from the City of Ottawa.
	Today, Zexy Lee received the City Builder Award in recognition of her exemplary action inspiring contributions to the community during the occupation of Ottawa.
	Amber put out tweets from politicians, tweets from officials, tweets from Ottawa citizens to show that it would be impossible for Randy Hillier to get a fair jury trial from a jury of his peers in Ottawa.
	Amber's request for change of venue was summarily dismissed.
	And I made the joke, you know, nothing better than asking the judge who you accuse of bias or the venue of bias to recuse themselves or to change the venue due to their bias.
	It's not just that they refused the motion for change of venue.
	They refused this summarily, which means he didn't even permit the parties to have a hearing.
	He said it was so outlandish.
	I'm not even going to allow you to adduce evidence in the context of your motion for change of venue.
	I'm just dismissing it summarily.
	I don't know what that impacts in terms of appeals.
	I don't think you can appeal that decision in any event.
	At least not without permission to appeal.
	I actually don't know what the rules are in Ottawa, although this is criminal.
	In Ontario, I mean.
	Summarily dismissed.
	Randy Hillier will not be allowed to change venues.
	He's going to go.
	And be tried by a jury of his peers when those peers literally think that the protesters were racist, xenophobe terrorists who occupied downtown Ottawa and nearly killed people with their honking.
	All right, but that's not even the worst that's coming out of Canada.
	But before we get into that, let me just read three super...
	Three crumble rants.
	Share screen.
	Go to Canada.
	And tier.
	STFUFFS means shutthefreakup underscore for freak's sake says which Canadian has two thumbs and doesn't check YouTube superchats?
	Did I miss any YouTube superchats?
	That would be me.
	Let me go back and see in a second.
	Heart Tackle Company made in America fishing lures.
	Hey, hey, big box lures headed your way.
	We finally did the Twitter.
	Throw us a follow at Heart Tackle.
	Amazing.
	And I'm going to go to...
	I think I'm getting a new pair of shoes from Murph's Kicks on Instagram.
	Go follow Murph's Kicks.
	He's made those two beautiful shoes for me.
	I've jogged those shoes into the ground.
	He's sending me a new pair of shoes.
	It's going to be beautiful.
	So I'm going to go to the post office and pick those up.
	Heart Tackle, thank you.
	Crash Bandit says, Honk Honk.
	Keep up the good work.
	Viva, thank you very much.
	STFUFFS says, In honor of the great ex-YouTuber John Ward.
	Whenever you mention Don Lemon, you should refer to him as worst journalist of the year.
	Don Lemon, worst journalist of the year.
	Okay, thank you very much for that.
	Now, hold on.
	Let me go see what I missed in terms of Super Chats.
	That's not my stream.
	Why would that stream be there?
	Give me a second here.
	Give me a second.
	I'm going to go back to YouTube, see if I can find it.
	What did I miss?
	But thank you very much for those rumble rants, for the support.
	You've got to hear the latest hypocrisy coming out of Canada.
	It's not hierarchy.
	It's lawlessness.
	But let me see if I can't find the super chat.
	Can I find the super chat if I go back to watch?
	Hmm.
	Why isn't it playing back?
	Ah, whatever.
	Okay, I missed it.
	Sorry about that, whoever gave the super chat.
	The latest out of Canada.
	I mean, I made a super cut from a CBC...
	A CBC video on YouTube.
	And I even hate to give CBC the view, but you gotta see this.
	We're living in a bizarro universe.
	It's straight up certifiably bizarro universe.
	Here, look at this.
	This is CBC reporting on the current protests that are currently underway in Canada.
	United and defiant.
	Throngs of workers hit the picket lines.
	United and defiant.
	And we will win this fight!
	Win this fight?
	I thought that was a call to violence.
	I mean, when Trump said protest peacefully, they're going to win this fight.
	Scenes like this stretch right across the country.
	From St. John's to Winnipeg to Vancouver.
	More than 155,000 Public Service Alliance of Canada workers say they need a better deal from the government.
	It's funny.
	I just heard that they just opened up the Ottawa Downtown Corps just in time for this.
	True, they're not blocking the streets.
	They're not blocking the streets.
	But wait until you see what problems they are causing for essential services in Canada.
	I think that we're showing them that we're here and they need to listen to what we want.
	We're here and they need to listen to what we want.
	But if your trucker's doing that, fuck you.
	Canadians are already feeling this strike.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	What did you just say?
	I missed that.
	I couldn't hear it over my own voice here.
	Hold on.
	Canadians are already feeling this strike.
	One more time?
	Canadians are already feeling this strike.
	Some services like pension and employment insurance payments will...
	Essential services only.
	Due to a labor disruption, available services include employment insurance, Canada pension and old age security...
	Social insurance number.
	Continue.
	But new passports will only be issued in exceptional cases.
	New passports only issued in exceptional cases.
	And I clipped out the part of that video where they interviewed a guy who's trying to get a passport so that his son can meet his parents and his family for the first time because of COVID they've been stuck overseas and they can't get their passport.
	Essential services will be, you'll get your social security.
	You'll get pension stuff.
	But you might not get your passports.
	In fact, you won't, except under exceptional circumstances.
	And what else?
	The government warns of long waits, processing taxes, immigration papers, passing through borders, and more.
	Long waits for processing tax returns?
	What was the other one?
	Immigration.
	Immigration papers, passing through borders, and more.
	The Canadians, we know that...
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	They're not blocking the Ambassador Bridge.
	That would cause a lot of hardship.
	No.
	Good luck crossing the border.
	You're going to wait a lot more.
	Immigrants?
	Piss off.
	Don't care about you either.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	We were all about you a couple of months ago.
	Well, then, not today.
	Oh, what's that?
	The federal workers on strike?
	We care about immigrants.
	We want to bring them in.
	Diversity is our strength.
	Well, not when we're protesting.
	You'll wait.
	You'll wait in your war-torn countries.
	You'll wait in your impoverished countries.
	You don't get to come in yet.
	We want a 13% raise because of inflation.
	Our strike poses unneeded challenges.
	A strike poses unneeded challenges.
	Let's hear that again.
	Who was she?
	President of the Treasury Board.
	We know that...
	Our strike poses unneeded challenges.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I thought that was the basis for invoking the Emergencies Act.
	Oh, no.
	When federal workers go on strike, then you can get screwed at the border.
	Delays in your tax returns.
	And by the way, the government will still charge you 8% interest on whatever you are deemed to owe.
	We know it poses unnecessary challenges.
	Just shut up and deal with it.
	except for the truckers.
	The government says it'll let the strike process play out for now.
	Oh, who's that guy posting selfies?
	The party propping up this government, the NDP, joined workers on the picket line on Parliament Hill.
	It's not hypocrisy.
	It's lawlessness.
	You don't get to protest and we can burn down the city if we so choose because it'll be peaceful fires.
	That's Jagmeet Singh on Parliament Hill meeting with the protesters.
	And what did they say that he said?
	This government, the NDP, joined workers on the picket line on Parliament Hill.
	He joined the protesters on the picket hill on Parliament Hill.
	It's lawlessness.
	Your essential services are going to be delayed.
	Border crossings are going to be delayed.
	Tax returns, immigrants, immigration papers.
	That's fine, though.
	Protests are inconvenient, but you don't get to inconvenience when you're truckers.
	Oh, and let's see when Justin Trudeau invokes the Emergencies Act or legislates these employees back to work.
	But what are they protesting for, by the way?
	This is the ultimate kicker.
	They're asking for a 13.5% salary increase to keep up with inflation.
	Federal workers have the best benefits of pretty much any worker out there, or at least, you know, unionized workers.
	They have some of the most fat, pork-choppy benefits that any employee can get, and they get pretty much a guaranteed payment from the federal government.
	Why do they want 13.5% salary increase?
	To keep up with inflation.
	Why is there inflation?
	Because of what the federal government did over the last three years.
	Our employer, the federal government, screwed Canadians with its COVID measures.
	By firing unvaccinated employees, by shutting businesses down, by interrupting supply chains, by destroying the very fabric of Canadian society.
	And as a result of all of that, there's inflation, and we're now going to go protest so that our salaries...
	Are jacked up to keep up with the inflation resulting from the incompetent and corrupt policies of our employer, the federal government.
	All the other non-unionized employees, all those other truckers who are protesting similar things, piss off.
	Nobody cares about you.
	It's not white privilege.
	It's not male privilege.
	It's political privilege.
	And they're letting the world know.
	Oy, oy, oy, oy, oy.
	STFFFS says, from what I understand, you can get the Super Chats from StreamYard in YouTube Studio or whatever, or the stream appliance you're using.
	They were quality Super Chats too.
	Avoid FOMO.
	Okay, well, now you're making me very, very, very, very...
	I can go back and play this stream with...
	Here, hold on.
	I'm going to refresh this and then the chat comes up.
	Okay, good.
	Here, I can see the chat now.
	There we go.
	Let me see if I can't find...
	If I go like this...
	Oh, it doesn't...
	It's not easy.
	Oh, here we go.
	There's a $20 super chat from Golden Violet.
	Thanks for keeping Canadians in the news.
	Thank you very much.
	$20 super chat from Golden Violet.
	Let me see if I can do this here and just find some more.
	Golden violet.
	I'm going to backtrack a little bit more.
	Okay, there's none there.
	Hold on.
	If we scroll back a little more, none there.
	So I should be watching the chat while I do this.
	I see a lot of angry faces in the chat, like emojis.
	Okay, so that looks like it's decent.
	I thought I would have seen it in the front.
	Okay, let me just see if I can't quickly find more.
	Okay.
	Go to the end.
	Ah, there's one from STFUFFS.
	I'm getting a migraine from the Supercoat shim story.
	Okay, I don't know what that is.
	Then we got another one.
	Okay, no, that's STFU.
	All right, so that's good.
	I think I got to two of them.
	That's as good as I can do right now.
	So that's what's going on in Canada, people.
	Oh, here's another one.
	Master Malrubius.
	Viva is more upset than I am when I don't get my canned food on time.
	That's a $5 super chat from Master Malrubius, who's a cat.
	Apparently.
	Okay, I got that one.
	Okay, I think that's it.
	I think I did good there.
	Okay.
	Oh, Darren Beattie's in the backdrop.
	All right, people.
	Now we're getting to January 6th.
	Ray Epps, 60 Minutes.
	Operation Mockingbird 2.0.
	Everybody, tweet it out now and let everyone know that Darren, aka Warren Beattie.
	I'm joking.
	I'm going to condition myself to do it badly.
	Let everyone know that Darren is in the chat.
	I'm going to link this out one more time.
	Darren has entered the stream on Twitter.
	And let's do this.
	Boom shakalaka.
	All right, Darren, I'm bringing you in.
	In three, two, one.
	Et voila.
	Sir, do we do it like this?
	No, we'll back out a little bit.
	How are you doing?
	Great.
	Great to be here again.
	It was once before, a long time ago.
	And we talked about, we're going to talk about, by and large, a similar, what we talked about last time, but it's been revamped now.
	But Darren, for those who don't know who you are, and we're not going to go over the childhood thing like we did the last time, but who are you?
	For those who missed the first stream, everyone should go watch it, but who are you?
	30,000 foot overview.
	Absolutely.
	I'm Darren Beattie, a former speechwriter for President Trump.
	Former Duke professor of political theory and currently the founder of Revolver News, the most cutting-edge place for investigative work challenging the regime and the national security state, and one of the best aggregators around to boot.
	That's Revolver.News.
	Now, how long has Revolver been around?
	It's actually quite...
	Young, comparatively.
	It's not even three years old.
	Its launch date, I believe, was July 1st, 2020.
	Revolver?
	Still a baby.
	How many people work there?
	How many journalists do you have?
	What's the size of the enterprise?
	It's a bootstrap enterprise.
	Two and a half full-time employees.
	I mean, two and a half employees, I guess you could say maybe two full-time, three full-time.
	It's a very, very small operation, a very effective operation.
	It's an elite unit.
	It's the SEAL Team 6 of journalism.
	And with our extremely modest budget, we've been able to completely shape.
	The national narrative and the national conversation on a variety of really important issues, including and perhaps most famously about January 6th, what I call the January 6th Fedsurrection, not the insurrection, the Fedsurrection.
	Who first coined that?
	I mean, I know that I've been hearing that, but do you know if you were- That's true.
	That's a revolver news term.
	That's us.
	Actually, before we get into the January 6th story, just explain, how do you go about starting Revolver News?
	For those who might have the ambition of doing something similar, what goes into starting something like that?
	How do you get started?
	How do you find financing?
	How do you make money while you do it?
	It's really tough.
	I'm not inherently a businessman.
	Inherently, what I was supposed to be is a kind of aloof academic.
	It's what I'm best suited for.
	Unfortunately, academia is not really conducive to people who should be academics in the proper sense, but that's a story for another time.
	So just kind of as a fluke, it's something that I fell into.
	The throb of inspiration initially was the fact that the Drudge Report had taken such an unfortunate and radical turn for the worse.
	And as I mentioned, Revolver has killer aggregation, and that's originally kind of what it was set up to be, but then it evolved into something much more in kind of an unanticipated fashion.
	It became, I would say, one of the leading investigative reporting Websites, not just on the conservative side, but more generally.
	And I will say it's not an easy thing to do.
	It's a first business.
	Like I said, I don't have a history of starting businesses.
	First business and in a very, very difficult terrain.
	It is not the most advisable business model to repeatedly irritate.
	Aggravate the FBI and other extremely powerful institutions.
	It's simply not the best business model, and it can be a huge pain in the ass.
	And now that Tucker's been in the news and he's been great and an exemplar, I think, of what somebody in the media with a national perch should be, just a quick anecdote is I remember an occasion I was on Tucker's show.
	He was congratulating.
	Our reporting for January 6th, and in a certain sense, I said, okay, well, as far as the news business goes, it doesn't get much better than this.
	Here's the number one cable news host praising our work before an audience of millions.
	Apart from just satisfying the ego, this has to be good for business, right?
	Well, the next day, as, you know, I guess, and it...
	An example of what happens when you become somewhat influential, the next day we were banned from Google Ads.
	And therefore, what should have been a great time in terms of business, in any other context, and some prominent person is praising your work, that's good for business.
	In the media, it's very different.
	It's a completely different...
	Kind of endeavor when you're swimming against the current, which in this case we most certainly were.
	And so there have been full-time George Soros-funded people who have, you know, with the vigor and attentiveness and the kind of sociopathy of an obsessive ex would...
	Look, every little time there's some new advertiser that appeared, this woman would just freak out and send a bunch of emails to whoever was on the other end saying, are you sure you want to do business with a conspiracy theory, Trump side, and this and that?
	With no substantiation.
	It's like this person who has...
	You know, no credentials, no achievement, no record of original thought, and who doesn't even bother to give an explanation as to what's so objectionable about the site.
	All you need to use is a couple buzzwords and, you know, the poor, you know, whatever, probably 25-year-old woman on the other end of the line who has, you know, a master's in marketing or whatever.
	Just sees those buzzwords and she's like, oops, this is naughty stuff, you know, liability.
	And then, you know, they cut you off and it's just one big headache after another.
	And so luckily we've been able to, after a long, laborious work, repair some of this and develop direct.
	Advertising relationships, but the encumbrances and the headaches are something like, you know, I could never have imagined.
	On top of the fact, we had, you know, emails.
	When we first launched, we were popular from the very start.
	We got something like, you know, close to a quarter million email signups.
	And we were quickly cancelled from over four.
	Different email services, the kind of services like MailChimp that you use to send out mass emails.
	So I had to start up my own thing.
	Literally, we have our own server.
	We have the whole infrastructure for ourselves.
	And so now we can finally send email.
	But something as rudimentary as that, to think of the headache that it...
	The headache to go through to set up something on your own like that.
	So now we are sending emails.
	So for people listening to this, sign up.
	We're going to try to build this again and get to a million email signups now that we have our own robust infrastructure.
	So heads up, revolver.news, sign up for the email.
	But the long story short to answer your question is it's just a different world.
	It's not supposed to happen to be able to really criticize the regime in an effective way.
	That's not supposed to happen.
	But what's really not supposed to happen is to be able to make a living criticizing.
	And exposing and embarrassing the regime.
	That's really not supposed to happen.
	And there are a variety of pretty brutal mechanisms in place to make somebody's life difficult who endeavors to do that.
	That being said, I think it's great.
	I'm not being forced to do it.
	I do it because it's invigorating, it's important, it's fun, and so far it's been very successful.
	But it's not necessarily something that I would recommend to people who don't want to endure all of these headaches, because even like myself, there are a million other things I could be doing and maybe should be doing.
	If it were a different world, I probably should have some academic perch where I would continue to write about Heidegger, which is the subject of intense interest.
	I dedicated my entire 20s to philosophy, reading it, and to writing it.
	But things turn out to be more interesting than you'd expect sometimes.
	And so here I am as the founder of Revolver News and somebody who's become Kind of an expert or authority on the January 6th fed surrection of all topics.
	We're going to get into it.
	I'll have a few more questions relate to other stuff afterwards, but let's make sure we can get into this.
	Okay.
	First of all, who was the primary journalist or the primary person covering investigating January 6th?
	At Revolver.
	It's you, correct?
	Yeah.
	Let's say, how do you start off?
	You see, January 6th happens.
	What are you thinking the day it happens?
	And when do you start looking into this?
	And where do you start looking into it to find what you think is the truth?
	Well, you know, we've been on January 6th for a long time, really close to the beginning, before the whole sort of Fed Surrection narrative blew up.
	And that, I think, our first major piece on that was around June.
	But before that, we had gained a pretty fair deal of attention for our coverage of the case of Brian Sicknick.
	And we had a really big piece called MAGA Blood Libel.
	And that was really about the fact that all of the reporting on January 6th was calling it deadly, not because of what happened to Ashley Babbitt, but because There was this Capitol Police officer, Brian Sicknick, who at the time was reported to have been bludgeoned to death by the mob with a fire extinguisher.
	We've been known to do very deep dives, and we did a deep dive into these reports and said, this is a total fabrication.
	There's simply no evidence whatsoever that Brian Sicknick was bludgeoned with a Fire extinguisher, it's totally false.
	And the media responded and shifted its narrative.
	They shifted their narrative to Brian Sicknick dying as a result of bear spray that was deployed against him by the mob.
	We took that narrative on and basically refuted it using a variety of tools, including a kind of comparative image analysis using heat maps, showing that the specific New York Times reporting is suggesting that these particular individuals use bear spray that ultimately injured Brian Sicknick, that that couldn't have been the bear spray.
	And then finally, after that, The New York Times and the rest of the media changed its story yet another time and finally kind of begrudgingly admitted that Brian Sicknick died of natural causes, which is now sort of the official and accepted version, but not without all of that initial damage having been done of saying the bloody MAGA mob, the murderous mob, the deadly insurrection, all of that.
	All of that terminology really emerges from the false narrative, that initial false narrative of Brian Sicknick.
	And there's still kind of an ambiguity there as to how the case of Sicknick is talked about by very prominent elected officials.
	There was one guy, I forget his name now, but in Congress or in, I forget where he was, but a politician in government saying, Referring to Sicknick as the guy that was murdered at the January 6th.
	Two questions on Sicknick in particular, actually.
	The first one is, from a National Review article, they said that people who knew, knew from day one he was not bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher because that's not the type of thing that you can make a mistake on.
	Period.
	And then the second one, before I forget, you know, the stroke, natural causes.
	And I want to ask if you know anything or anyone has any suspicions about that potentially being...
	COVID jab related because we're at the point in time where everyone there had to be double vaccinated or were and whether or not that panned out or anyone had looked into that aspect.
	But starting with the first one, who knew as of when that Sicknick was not bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher?
	Well, I would imagine that any of the variety of mainstream outlets that reported this, if they had done the very basic due diligence, would have known that.
	I mean, I don't have any insight into the actual due diligence that they may or may not have done, but as you pointed out, it's hard to get that wrong, to put it that way.
	It's hard to see how that could be an innocent mistake, but whether or not the initial mistake was innocent, The dilatory manner in which it was ultimately corrected, I think, is certainly not innocent.
	And the manner in which that original mischaracterization simply spread and continued to dominate the way that people in the news and elected officials spoke about the death of Sicknick and January 6th more generally, I think that is very damning, very malicious.
	Very much politically motivated in order to kind of amplify the severity of this event on January 6th, which the entire media and the regime, I would say it's fair to say, wanted to amplify this into something serious enough that could serve as a pretext for further weaponization of...
	The national security bureaucracies and the justice departments politically against Trump supporters and people who question official narratives and mobilize on the basis of those questions, like what happened in January 6th and other sort of protests against the outcome of the 2020 election.
	I'm just going to read this.
	I keep bringing this up.
	This is still on the internet.
	He dreamed of being a police officer, then was killed by a pro-Trump mob.
	The death of Brian Sicknick.
	And you know what's more amazing?
	Look at this down here.
	Update.
	New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police Officer, Brian Sicknick, that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol, and yet they still keep the article up with that absolutely maliciously dishonest headline.
	All the propaganda that's fit to print, this is the state media.
	That's the thing.
	There's all this controversy with Elon Musk.
	Is he going to label NPR state-funded media, this or that?
	It's amazing how sensitive these institutions are to that specific challenge because beneath it all, exempting certain formalities in every meaningful functional sense.
	The New York Times, 60 Minutes, all of what we've come to call the mainstream media is effectively state media.
	Because they're state media and their purpose is propaganda, they simply don't have to play by the ordinary rules of ethical journalistic conduct.
	Had anyone looked into, and I don't want to sound like...
	I say a conspiracy theory, but it's only in hindsight now that we've seen how many strokes have been attributed to the jabs.
	Did anybody look into that?
	Did anyone look into when Sicknick might have been jabbed and the proximity of that to his death by stroke?
	I have not looked into that just because I think there's a lot more downside than upside at this point.
	I take the victory of the media at least conceding that it was natural causes.
	Further than that, I haven't really delved into it, at least not to the level that I'm prepared to speak publicly on it.
	But I think it's sufficient just to note, this is how desperate they were from the very beginning for a particular narrative on January 6th.
	And I think the fact that we got in there so early to...
	I think it helped to keep the door open for further re-evaluation of January 6th.
	Because with these things, if you let the false narrative crystallize, once it's crystallized and it becomes this kind of sacred thing, it's very hard to challenge.
	And so you have to get in very early before it's crystallized and it has this...
	Kind of aura of invincibility and kind of sacred character that you can't touch.
	And I think it was very important to get in there early before that initial wave of the false narratives around January 6th was able to really do its permanent damage.
	There were a number of suicides that were attributed to the police officers in the wake of January 6th.
	Had you delved into that at all either?
	I haven't looked into that,
	and again, that's the kind of thing that I just leave alone because I think it's probably, not that I have reason to suspect anything off there, but that's definitely the kind of territory that if you look into it, it's very easy to become the victim of very aggressive lawfare techniques.
	And, you know, we can talk about this because Ray Epps amazingly has retained this lawyer who works for disgraced Democrat hatchet man David Brock.
	And he's gotten this lawyer to kind of throw around.
	I think it's very difficult for them to do with Ray Epps because he's such an unsympathetic figure and his case is so...
	Manifestly ridiculous because so much of what we claimed is on camera.
	And he himself has been exposed through his text messages of having described his own behavior in terms that are far more, quote unquote, defamatory than anything that I've ever said.
	He literally texted his nephew and said, quote unquote, I orchestrated it.
	Let's get into that now, because it's like, you know, truth is the absolute defense to claims and defamation, and I guess someone can't defame themselves, so Ray Epps is judgment-proof, at least as relates to his own admissions of his own conduct.
	When do you find out about Ray Epps as the individual?
	Like, when do these videos start trickling in, and how does he get identified?
	When's the first time you identify him by name?
	Well, the Ray Epps story came a little bit later.
	I don't remember exactly when our Ray Epps Part 1 piece came out.
	I mean, people can Google it.
	The classic series now is Meet Ray Epps, and then there's a Meet Ray Epps Part 2, which is the real classic, and it has a pretty astonishing video, not only of Ray Epps, but of a host of other curious characters who played...
	Collectively, I'd say a decisive role in laying out the preconditions for January 6th to turn into what it did.
	And none of these people have been arrested and in many cases haven't even been identified.
	I've spoken about this individual referred to as scaffold commander.
	I think it's very, very...
	Bizarre case of someone whose behavior was just as egregious, if not more so than Epps, who hasn't even been identified yet.
	And I've devoted a considerable amount of resources to identifying him with no success.
	And so I would love to know who this person is, for one.
	But his identity, along with so many other things, remains a mystery to this day.
	And how did you find Ray Epps's...
	By name?
	Like, was it the aggregate knowledge of the internet?
	People were posting clips?
	Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on in the internet.
	Ironically, a lot of this stuff comes from sort of very active and thorough sort of left-wing researchers who, you know, did these very comprehensive files on all these people-related genuistics, because in their view, all these people are Trump-loving fascists, and they think, you know...
	Their working theory about people like Epps is the reason they're not charged is the government's just full of Trump-loving fascists and they're protecting the insurrectionists.
	The notion that there's a different aspect of the story or that maybe the government isn't such a friend of Trump and his supporters and the government maybe did something to set them up or that's totally outside of their...
	World view, because all of the power centers are far-right, neo-Nazi, Trump-aligned, and they're just these brave leftists speaking truth to power.
	And the cognitive dissonance of the fact that every single powerful institution in the country is basically on that.
	That hasn't really sunk in yet, because I think it would be really devastating their political psychology.
	They can't admit that they're kind of working on behalf of the regime.
	So there's really kind of a weird dynamic there.
	But notwithstanding all of that, they've done some valuable research in terms of, you know, getting...
	Collecting the footage that there is on people like Scaffold Commander and so forth.
	They're just not able to put it together, I think, in a realistic and coherent and compelling narrative.
	So you scrutinize the internet, you get all these videos, you start putting it together.
	When do you decide that you're doing the deep dive into Ray Epps and January 6th?
	In the one or two months, or is it six?
	I forget when it came out.
	Is it six months later?
	And how long does it take you to scrutinize all of the evidence that's submitted to you to put together the part one of Meet Ray Epps?
	It takes a while because we want it to be very thorough, and people will see that Meet Ray Epps part one and part two are extremely thorough works of journalism.
	And very long, but these are meant to kind of stand the test of time.
	They're still getting tons of views.
	They've become sort of the go-to for people who want to crash course in the Fed's erection.
	I say at this point, there are two smoking guns of the Fed's erection.
	One is the story of Ray Epps, and the other one is the story of the January 5th and 6th pipe bombs that we've also covered.
	Extensively.
	And there are so many other areas of January 6th that I'm aware of just as a consumer of media, but I just haven't had the time and the bandwidth to go deep in it.
	Other people are doing it.
	There are claims of people opening doors and the Columbus doors.
	There are all kinds of other aspects of the story.
	Everything is going on at the east side of the Capitol.
	Revolver's focus has been chiefly on that initial breach on the west perimeter of the Capitol, in which Ray Epps was certainly involved, and the pipe bomb issue.
	We've talked about the pipe bomb multiple times, but not in thorough, meaningful detail.
	Tell the world what the controversy was over the pipe bombs.
	My memory is that...
	This was another one of the initial narratives.
	Pipe bombs were found outside, I forget which building.
	And then it was never spoken of again.
	And the suspicion is that the pipe bombs never existed and it was just a total lie?
	Or were there actual pipe bombs and nobody found out who put them there?
	No, I mean, there were pipe bombs.
	So this, to get into the full version, just because we have limited time, it takes a while.
	But I've been on the record.
	I've been multiple.
	We have multiple pieces on it.
	So I just encourage people, go to Revolver.News, go to the exclusives, go look at the pipe bomb stuff.
	We have a bunch of stuff.
	The long story short on the pipe bomb issue is that the circumstances under which the RNC pipe bomb was found, the circumstances under which the DNC pipe bomb was not found until it was, those independently are kind of...
	There were infinitesimally low probabilities.
	And both of those independent low probabilities had to happen together in order for the official version to be true.
	And apart from analyzing those aspects, we've also done forensic analysis of the surveillance footage given to us by the FBI of this supposed pipe bomber.
	We showed that...
	The FBI is withholding critical footage that's in its possession that would depict the pipe bomber actually planting the bomb, which is relevant because the DNC bomb was allegedly sitting out there for 17 hours undiscovered when there were a ton of motorists, a ton of pedestrians.
	We showed that there was a physical security guard stationed no more than 10 feet away from it.
	And the big one is that the Secret Service United States swept That entire area and is on record as having done so because Kamala Harris was in the building while the pipe bomb was there.
	The Secret Service managed to miss this pipe bomb sitting right out there out in the open.
	Their dogs managed not to smell the explosive devices that are allegedly part of the pipe bomb, the powder.
	The dogs had COVID, I guess, so they didn't have the sense of smell that day.
	So they're just one thing compounded on top of another that's implausible.
	And so on top of all that, it is kind of weird that...
	The FBI censored the piece of footage that we know that they have, we prove that they have, that would show definitively that the bomb was actually planted there at the time that they said it was.
	So there are a lot of things going on with the pipe bomb.
	One specific thing that I've called upon all of these sort of congressional committees to take action on.
	Is to get the full chain of custody and the full raw unedited footage of the DNC surveillance tapes that the FBI used.
	And, you know, they did a lot of dirty things.
	Like they slowed down the frame rate to 1.4 frames per second, something like that, which is unheard of.
	So there are so many dimensions to it, but it's a whole different universe.
	There are interesting areas of overlap between the ep story and the...
	And the pipe bomb story.
	But for the most part, they're separate domains.
	And to get into the pipe bomb stuff would take probably an hour and a half to even give an adequate summarized version of all the key points pertaining to the pipe bombs.
	Then I'm going to have to invite you back, Darren, because I would like to get into that.
	Okay, Ray Epps then.
	Let's deal with Ray Epps.
	He, along with Scaffold Man, Scaffold Man still unidentified, Ray Epps, was on the FBI's most wanted list, was removed from it.
	I forget if he was removed the next day, the next week, or if it was a longer period of time.
	A long time.
	No, that's the thing.
	It took a long time.
	He was removed right after Revolver's reporting on potential federal involvement.
	Started to gain national attention.
	He was removed very quietly.
	We actually, again, I don't have this off the top of my head, but we actually interpolated using the Wayback Machine to within like a five-minute margin exactly when it was removed.
	So again, people just go to revolver.news, read the Ray Epps series.
	You can see that.
	But the fact that he was included.
	In the first place, I think is important for a variety of reasons.
	One is it showed that his behavior was pretty egregious.
	I mean, he's the only person caught on camera as early as January 5th urging people in this seemingly like rehearsed, methodical fashion saying, I'm probably going to go to jail for this.
	I know I shouldn't say this.
	I'm probably going to get arrested for this.
	But tomorrow we need to go into the Capitol, into the Capitol, that sort of thing.
	He's doing that on camera on the 5th, and it's not like he has this one-off idea that's kind of crazy and he forgets about it.
	He is fully dedicated to this stated mission the next day.
	If I can stop you there, just remind everybody, I've played that video ad nauseum from your reporting.
	He starts getting booed by the crowd, chanted, fed, fed.
	Someone who was posting it on another platform that had one of those digital voices, they called him an effing boomer.
	So he got shouted down the day before and then proceeds on January 6th.
	That's one of the most successful...
	Super chats of all time.
	Because the Ray Epps footage must have been seen like one of the most iconic pieces of political footage, arguably, in a long time.
	And that one super chat, shut the F up, Boomer.
	Whoever did that got his money's worth.
	The super chat heard around the world.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It's pretty amazing.
	And you could argue, well, that alone isn't...
	It's the type of egregious behavior that if he committed other crimes, even trivial ones, ordinarily you would think the government would go after him to make an example of him because his behavior...
	collectively was so egregious and the kind of similar principle, although in a very unjustified way, what they did to the shaman, you know, that a lot of people were inside the capital.
	Epps did not go into the capital, but a lot of people were in the capital.
	And so when they, you know, approached the issue of kind of selective prosecution, prosecutorial discretion, you have to think.
	Who were the people that kind of behaved in an egregious fashion such that they would want to make an example of them?
	And I think Epps kind of fits this bill because, again, he was the only guy very, very emphatically urging people to go into the Capitol on January 5th, and that became kind of iconic footage.
	He's there the next day on the 6th.
	Now, he's given conflicting reports.
	One aversion I believe that he gave as to why he went to D.C. in the first place was that he had this bizarre premonition that there would be a terrorist attack or explosives or some kind of violence going on.
	And his son wanted to hear Trump's speech.
	And so his wife said, look, it's going to be dangerous for his son, so you need to accompany him.
	Something like that.
	And so it's kind of on a whim, a last-minute thing where he goes to accompany his son to the speech.
	The only thing is...
	He doesn't attend the Trump speech.
	Instead, he's directing people to the Capitol.
	And ultimately, he ends up abandoning his son.
	He's not even with his son for most of his participation in January 6th.
	So that seems to call into question.
	On a whim decision to go to D.C. to do this thing, how does that explain how dedicated he seemed to be to this mission to get people into the Capitol?
	He already had it in his mind and he was repeatedly, emphatically, methodically calling for it.
	Then on the 6th, he skips the speech that he ostensibly flew across the country to attend.
	The guy wearing the Trump hat doesn't go to the Trump speech.
	Instead, he's there in the morning directing people to the Capitol, saying, and you probably have this footage, it might be a good idea to play, he's saying...
	After Trump's finished speaking, go to the Capitol.
	That's where our problems truly are.
	It's in that direction.
	Spread the word.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Over and over and over and over again.
	And then, of course, he's pre-positioned right at the site of the initial breach of the Capitol on the Western perimeter.
	And it's so egregious that he's standing there right at the bike rack.
	And whispers into a guy's ear two seconds before the breach occurs.
	Here we go.
	I think it's this part right here.
	And then I'm going to have a question for you after this here.
	We are going to the Capitol where our problems are.
	It's that direction.
	Oh, it's so over the top there.
	It's so over the top.
	But hold on.
	You said that he never entered the Capitol.
	I'm not wrong in understanding that although he didn't enter the Capitol, he was in fact in restricted areas?
	Right.
	Well, that's another dimension.
	So the latest major piece that we did on January 6th actually covered the kind of the tragic and outrageous case of Green Beret Jeremy Brown, who was recently sentenced to over seven years in prison.
	And it's a story of the government using a trivial misdemeanor trespassing charge in order to cook up a more serious felony charge.
	In this case, felony charge, basically the details of it, maybe in another context we could get into it, but it was one of these things where they created phantom January 6th weapons charges in order to justify a search that otherwise wouldn't have been legal.
	And on the basis of what they found on the search, they charge him with illegal possession of weapons.
	They removed the phantom charges linking the weapons to January 6th, which was the only basis on which they could have done the search.
	So long story short, they do the same type of gymnastics you see them doing in other sort of really aggressive, politically motivated cases, like, for instance, the Trump indictment.
	You know, the document...
	Charges, whatever they were, those were basically misdemeanor charges.
	In order to amp it up to a felony to circumvent the statute of limitations, they had to connect it to a phantom campaign finance violation charge.
	So very different context, very different type of case, but similar in the kind of contrived gymnastics they have to undergo in order to...
	In order to prosecute someone, they did this in the case of Brown, but the anchor point was actually this trivial January 6th trespassing charge.
	And Revolver News is the first to point out how ridiculous and malicious this whole trespassing issue is, because in the Meet Ray Epps Part 2 series...
	One of the things included in this shocking video that we compile is footage of people methodically removing fencing, indicating that it's a restricted area before Trump's speech is even over.
	Oh, that's a different one.
	So, no, this one here, I'm pulling up this clip, which is also from, I think it's from part one, but this is where they go past barricades, and unless I'm misunderstanding things, once they go past these barricades, they're in restricted area.
	Well, yes.
	So they're already, you know, they can get close to a restricted zone.
	So that's a case of it being obviously restricted because they're removing barricades and basically storming through.
	But the point is, there were other areas that didn't have those bike racks but had fencing.
	And there were people very methodically removing the fencing such that when the crowd...
	When Trump finally got to the Capitol after Trump was done speaking, they wouldn't even see the fencing.
	And so they would be trespassing without even knowing it.
	So hundreds and probably thousands of people technically committed this basic trespassing offense.
	The handful of people who have been charged for it are people that, again, for one reason or another, the government wanted to make an example of.
	They wanted to make an example of this individual, this Green Beret Jeremy Brown, because of all things, he was actually a whistleblower, the Fed's erection.
	The Feds tried to recruit him as an informant in early December for January 6th, and he said no, he recorded it, and he released the recording saying, look, this is a federal infiltrated operation.
	And it was...
	Only after that, the feds basically decided to retaliate and cooked up the phantom charges that were anchored in the trespassing misdemeanor.
	But the point with Epps, though, is that he didn't go into the Capitol, but he could very well have been charged with trespassing.
	It's a silly charge, but it's a charge they had at their disposal if they wanted to inconvenience him or make an example out of him.
	And as pointed out, On paper, he's exactly the kind of person that they would want to go after.
	He's the guy in camo gear and a Trump hat directing people to the Capitol over and over and over.
	He's the former head of the Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers, the most demonized and prosecuted militia group associated with January 6th.
	I happen to think there are even more serious conspiracy charges that they could have indicted Epson.
	And there's an exact kind of precedent for exactly this model of charge.
	But even leaving that aside for the moment, they had a trespassing charge at their disposal and they didn't use it.
	And that's sort of one element of kind of inexplicable federal protection that Epson enjoyed that was not extended to others.
	So, but no, Epps did not, to my knowledge.
	Go into the Capitol.
	And a lot of sort of the unsophisticated, quote unquote, debunkers who say, Epps didn't go to the Capitol, of course he was arrested.
	It simply ignores the fact that many people were arrested and charged with trespassing who did not go into the Capitol, for trespassing and conspiracy who did not go into the Capitol.
	You know, it's amazing.
	I'm looking at one of my older tweets where I'm poking fun at 60 Minutes with that Ray Epps video, and I'm noticing I can't retweet that tweet.
	I just asked Elon on Twitter why that might be the case.
	Okay, so his explanation as per that 60 Minutes propaganda piece was that as soon as he knew that he was on the FBI's most wanted list or wanted list from the event, he contacted them and said, I'm going to cooperate with you readily.
	I jokingly said, first of all, who has a direct line to the FBI unless he calls the Google number and says, hey, guys, I'm Ray Epps.
	I'm on your sign.
	Come and talk to me.
	But there were a number of other people who were convicted or people who were charged, I should say, who immediately collaborated, cooperated with FBI.
	I got a two-part question.
	Well, the bottom line is, do you think Ray Epps is either an agent, an informant, or a remunerated agent provocateur for the government?
	Well, Well, let me put it this way.
	Based on all the evidence that I've seen and based on the protection that he seems to have received from the government, based on the...
	Unusual sympathy that he enjoys from mainstream media outlets that otherwise are fully dedicated to demonizing anyone who was remotely associated with January 6th.
	I would say, at the very least, I do not think that he was an authentic actor on that day.
	I do not think that...
	It simply came to him on a whim, this kind of mission that he seemed to have to get people into the Capitol.
	I think that there were some third parties who gave him that idea.
	Now, who those third parties may have been, that's a matter of speculation.
	But I think there's, you know, do I think it's the FBI?
	Actually, I don't think he works for the FBI.
	I mentioned in a variety of interviews that...
	Before he retained this David Brock employee, who actually, before working for David Brock, he worked for Perkins Coy, which is sort of the Democrat machine law firm.
	Most responsible, I think it's fair to say, for cooking up, it's the laboratory in which the falsified Steele dossier was cooked up.
	And the fact that these would...
	Types of people would be bedfellows of Epps, just in keeping with the New York Times doing a puff piece on him in 60 Minutes.
	It's just very bizarre.
	But before Epps got this David Brock lawyer to intimidate Revolver and Tucker Carlson, he had a lawyer who was a nine-year veteran of the Phoenix field office of the FBI.
	And this guy went on this publicity tour telling everybody with an ear to hear it that Ray Epps was not...
	An employee of the FBI, not an informant of the FBI, and he'd never been associated with any law enforcement agency.
	And he really clung on to this term law enforcement agency for dear life.
	Now, I believe that that's true, but it's important to point out the Department of Homeland Security is not a law enforcement agency.
	Military intelligence is not a law enforcement agency.
	Any private organization that might do contracting work at the behest of any of those organizations would not be a law enforcement agency.
	So there's a variety of arrangements that could sustain what I think is likely is that he wasn't acting as authentically, he was acting on behalf of some other party.
	For a malicious reason.
	That does not involve him working with the FBI.
	But again, that's simply speculation.
	The facts that we have before us, though, are here's the guy.
	Calling to go into the Capitol in advance.
	Here's the guy with the camouflage and the Trump hat who flew across country allegedly to hear Trump's speech, who skipped the speech and instead stuck with this bizarre, inexplicable mission to get people into the Capitol.
	And we see the video evidence of what that's like.
	Here's a guy who's texted his nephew saying, I orchestrated it.
	Here's a guy who's caught in Multiple, if not lies, certainly inconsistencies in his various accounts of what he was doing and why he did it.
	Just for one example, he told, I believe, the January 6th committee.
	They asked him, so why were you telling people to go into the Capitol?
	His response is very bizarre.
	He said, oh, I thought it would be perfectly legal and they would just open the doors.
	Well, that's a weird thing to think, given the fact that there actually were instances of...
	Police opening the doors, but not exactly in that context.
	But also, it's totally disingenuous, it seems, because in the footage itself, he prefaces his exhortations to go into the Capitol by saying, I'm probably going to get arrested for this.
	I'm probably going to go to jail for this.
	So that directly refutes his later position that he thought it would be illegal because he acknowledged the illegality.
	In his very statements on the issue, I think he had another statement to the committee that, oh, once he got to that area with the bike rack, then he knew it wasn't going to be legal anymore.
	And at that point, he abandoned any idea of going into the Capitol.
	Only that seems to be contradicted by video evidence that Revolver compiled, and it's in the Revolver piece, of Epps in an exchange.
	And here's where I think, based on precedents of other conspiracy charges, the DOJ, if it wanted to, could have given him a serious conspiracy charge.
	He's talking to this other individual right at the bike rack.
	That individual, I believe, is holding bear spray.
	He's someone referred to by researchers as Maroon Proud Boy, and I think he did a lot of vandalism, and he actually did go into the Capitol and so forth.
	And Epps says, When referring to the bear spray, when we go in, when we go in, leave this here, we don't want to get shot.
	So the when we go in indicates that at that point where he said he already abandoned any conception of him or anyone else going in legally.
	He's already saying when we go in, leave this here, we don't want to get shot.
	And the fact that the guy he talked to actually did commit vandalism and I believe actually did go in, that exchange, anticipating going in, could very well have been a conspiracy charge.
	Would it have been a good charge?
	I don't know, but I can state for a fact that very similar types of exchanges had served as the basis of conspiracy charges in relation to January 6th.
	In fact, this gets us to the Sicknick thing.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	All right, I didn't appreciate the...
	Right.
	That's a conspiracy charge, I believe, if the DOJ wanted.
	Now, it's important to put out a caveat, qualify here.
	I think the DOJ has been really maliciously aggressive in a lot of its prosecutions.
	I'm not saying all things being equal, like in kind of a blank slate situation, should they aggressively do a conspiracy charge here?
	Probably not.
	But the point is that they've done conspiracy charges for very similar types of exchanges.
	And my point here is only to basically refute those who say, yeah, Epps may have been sort of egregious, but...
	There was nothing that they could have charged him for.
	And I'm pointing out that in addition to the trespassing charge, which they certainly could have, this particular exchange could very well have served as the basis for a conspiracy charge, especially when you look at how flexible they've been with using conspiracy charges on...
	It seems like the same flexibility that the government exhibits to go after the people they don't like, they're displaying a similar type of flexibility to not go after Ray Epps.
	And then the question becomes, why are they protecting him in this fashion?
	It's funny.
	You go after it from the angle of charges that obviously could have been brought had the DOJ been so inclined.
	That's a no-brainer.
	To me, it awakens me to the fact that this would be an indication of some sort of pre-planning where he says, look, we can go in and so long as we don't push the envelope too much, nothing bad will happen to you.
	Forget about worrying about getting arrested.
	That'll be the least of your problems if you get shot.
	So in advance, he said, this is how far you can go.
	This is what you can do without pushing that limit of getting shot.
	So telling the guy, leave the pepper spray here, but not telling him.
	When we go in, it's like a fait accompli.
	Of course we're going in.
	It's happening.
	It's not even a question.
	When we go in, leave this here, we don't want to get shot.
	And this is right before the initial breach, right before he goes up and whispers into the other guy's ear before the breach happens.
	Whatever he said to the guy's ear, I think it's pretty much immaterial at this point.
	There is basis, I think, for charges.
	And the only question that remains is why?
	Why is the DOJ kind of protecting him?
	And why are all of these other institutions that are so invested in demonizing and persecuting basically every other January 6th participant, why are they interested in protecting Epps as well?
	Like New York Times, you know, the point at which Ray Epps was one of the first 20 people on the FBI's most wanted list, the New York Times did this feature called The Day of Rage on January 6th.
	And, you know, they were trying to gin up this narrative of January 6th as the worst insurrection in the history of the world, worst in the Civil War, all that.
	They had so much footage that they could use to reinforce that narrative.
	Out of all of the footage that they had, they chose to use footage of Ray Epps in their Day of Rage.
	So it wasn't just the FBI.
	It's like anyone looking objectively at the footage.
	If you wanted to make a case that there was some plan in advance, the Epps footage is probably the best you could do.
	And the New York Times certainly determined that in the Day of Rage profile.
	And then something weird happens.
	Revolver starts talking about federal involvement.
	Epps is quietly taken off the FBI list.
	The New York Times goes from featuring Epps in Day of Rage to doing fully dedicated puff pieces on Epps that ask none of the basic and most pressing questions pertaining to his involvement.
	Where did you get the idea to go into the Capitol?
	Why don't you think you were arrested, Epps?
	60 Minutes doesn't even ask him that.
	New York Times doesn't ask him that.
	So it goes from...
	Featuring him as the FBI's most wanted, demonized the New York Times as the ominous day of rage.
	Complete about-face.
	Adam Kinzinger, who's never met a Trump supporter he doesn't want to see rotting in prison for less than 50 years, he's coming to Epps' defense.
	Now Epps is getting lawyer.
	Now Epps is tapping into the David Brock Hillary Clinton machine for legal counsel.
	How does this happen?
	It's fascinating.
	I mean, I presume you watched the 60 Minutes thing.
	Did you notice how Epps' own explanation, he says, you know, we're going to go into the Capitol.
	And his testimony was, or sorry, his interview was, well, when I got in, I saw the people scaling the wall and I was so ashamed of what I had done and what was going on.
	He didn't say what I had done.
	Of what was going on, I decided to leave.
	And yet, after he leaves, that's when he sends the text to his nephew, boasting about having orchestrated it.
	So even by his own 60 Minutes answers, it doesn't make sense, because he clearly was not ashamed of what he witnessed.
	Because the first thing he did when he got out after witnessing what he was so ashamed of was text his nephew to boast about having orchestrated it.
	Okay, this is fascinating.
	You're still digging into this?
	You're not letting up on this story, and it's not letting up on itself?
	No, I think it's a story worth pursuing.
	So just leave it at that.
	Both that and the pipe bomb are very much worth pursuing.
	But one thing I'd like to say about the 60 Minutes issue, because the 60 Minutes segment mentions Revolver News five times.
	Revolver's reporting on Epps is the foundation of the entire segment whose purpose is to kind of Repudiate that reporting.
	They interview Ray Epps in a, I would say, on the whole sympathetic fashion.
	Not only that, they interview some fourth-rate national security think tank guy.
	That was the real bizarre thing.
	They got some...
	Pudgy-cheek guy with crooked teeth out of a fifth-rate think tank and label him a national security expert?
	And they say, so what do you think about the Epps stuff?
	And you say, oh, there's no factual basis for this, blah, blah, blah.
	If Epps was an informant, he would have been the worst informant ever.
	Give me a break.
	They have this guy on, and they don't have...
	Me on to defend the reporting that the whole segment is meant to attack?
	And this isn't just saying, oh, how unfair this is, blah, blah, blah.
	Yes, it's unfair.
	Yes, it's not journalism.
	We know that.
	They're not journalists.
	They're janitors.
	They're janitors for the regime, and they did a mop-up job, but it was a sloppy job.
	These aren't even the A-list janitors.
	These are the night shift.
	Janitors, you know, on some special work program.
	So, but the thing is about the fact that, you know, and the producer reached out to me weeks in advance saying, oh, you know, we're doing a segment on Ray Epps.
	It's largely based on your reporting.
	Would you be interested in an interview?
	So, so forth.
	And I said, sure, I'll do it.
	And the fact that they canceled that on me at the last minute really speaks volumes.
	Because it's not about, oh, you know, why won't they have me?
	It's not fair.
	Think about it from their point of view.
	Think of all of the home court advantages they have.
	Splicing and dicing, adding the right B-roll, contextualizing, finding naughty, politically incorrect tweets that I did, you know, a year ago and using that to set me up.
	If I happen to make an especially compelling point, they could simply edit it out of the segment.
	They have a million tools at their disposal to make me look bad, and yet even with all of those home court advantages, they decided that their case was so weak and so brittle that they simply couldn't have me on at all.
	I think that speaks volumes about the confidence they have.
	In their defense of Epps.
	And then again, it's the insult to injury.
	It's one thing they have Epps on to talk, but to get this fifth-rate laughingstock?
	I mean, I wish you had the footage of this guy, just so people can see what I mean.
	Let me see if I can't find it real quick.
	A fifth-rate laughingstock from a think tank that is only the subject of ridicule because of its tremendous low status, who does consulting work for the FBI, so you get a pudgy consultant for the FBI to simply state authoritatively that there's nothing to the Ray Epps issue?
	Here we go.
	I got it.
	Okay, good.
	Let me minimize.
	Hold on.
	Do like this.
	Present.
	Yeah, if Ray Epps...
	Oh, first of all, it's not even true is the problem because Ray Epps did exactly what he needed to do and suffered no consequences as a result of it.
	Here.
	Let's see this here.
	My God, look at that.
	Imagine that on national TV.
	He is the worst covert plan of all time.
	If you are part of some elaborate conspiracy against thousands of people in Washington, D.C., I don't know why you'd want to stand out from the crowd the way Ray Epps did.
	Tom Jocelyn is a researcher and author, one of the country's top terrorism experts, tapped by the January 6th committee to help write its final report, which found evidence far-right extremists like the Proud Boys planned and executed the breach of the Capitol.
	He says the committee interviewed Epps and found he wasn't important enough to put in the report.
	I wouldn't defend Ray Epps or anybody else who was on the Capitol grounds that day.
	I would just defend the facts.
	So the idea that he's leading the charge or really orchestrating it is just contradicted by this mountain range of evidence.
	And that's what the, such as his own tweet, his own text messages that I orchestrated.
	Fiery theorists want you to want you to do, right?
	They don't want you to look at this mountain range of evidence.
	They want you to turn around and focus on this pebble on the ground named Ray Epps.
	They also don't want you to look at what president Trump was saying in doing.
	He calls Epps'behavior baffling, but not evidence of a conspiracy.
	They've got to come up with some sort of connective tissue between Ray Epps and the FBI, and they've got none.
	And so they can make up all sorts of ad hoc arguments to justify their beliefs, but that's all they are.
	It's not actual investigative work.
	It's not...
	The January 6th committee looked at the evidence, video, phone records, travel receipts.
	So did the FBI.
	I'll just say I love those cacti.
	Oh yeah, the January 6th looked at the evidence and decided not to disclose tens of thousands of hours of exculpatory video showing the shaman, QAnon shaman Jake Angeli being escorted around the Capitol by police officers.
	I like the analogy, like a sloppy mop-up job.
	I cannot understand how dumb, ignorant, or partisan someone would have to be to not watch that 60 Minutes interview on its own four legs and understand it's a crooked, broken table.
	It's the most outlandish piece of rubbish by its own reporting.
	To believe that he orchestrated it, there's just nothing there, except for video and a text message that he orchestrated it, and everything we could see with our own eyes.
	Right, and the thing is, and then there's this completely stupid...
	Specific focus on the FBI as though I've ever maintained that he worked for the FBI.
	We've already been over that.
	The point isn't whether or not he worked for the FBI.
	I think the likely answer to that is no.
	The question is, where did he get this idea, this mission to which he was dedicated to get people into the Capitol?
	Where did that come from?
	Do we really believe that he just got that on a whim?
	And, you know, just, oh, I'm happy to be here because my wife said I should go look after my son.
	And then he's just, he gets this epiphany, you know, maybe, you know, Moses, you know, God appears behind a burning bush and says, hey, you know, we need to get people into the Capitol.
	And that all of a sudden becomes his all-consuming mission.
	And he tells people to go in on the 5th and he skips the Trump speech on the 6th and he's just...
	All methodical and seemingly rehearsed and so persistent.
	He just got that out of the blue and he came up with it on his own.
	Where did he get that idea, number one?
	And number two, given that he was saying, I'm probably going to get arrested for this, I'm probably going to go to jail for this.
	Why don't you think you've been arrested?
	Why hasn't Epps been arrested?
	Why does he enjoy special protections?
	Because he cooperated with the FBI, but when Brandon Strzok, for example, found out he was going to be arrested and then turned himself in, cooperated, etc., he got three months house arrest.
	He had to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges.
	I don't know who didn't cooperate with the FBI.
	Once they found out that they were on a list.
	Oh, but like Kinzinger says, Ray Epps helped expose the lies of Rep Massey.
	Did you see the tweet from Kinzinger referencing Massey where he said, I hope you get sued by the man he trusted you.
	Did you see that tweet?
	It was very bizarre.
	The whole thing is bizarre.
	The whole thing that Kinzinger is out there, like, you know, if you look at the transcript of the January 6th committee's interrogation website, I believe there were two, actually.
	There's only a transcript of one, which is interesting.
	But in the...
	Available transcript of the January 6th Committee's interrogation of EPSA.
	As I pointed out, it's one inconsistency after another from EPSA's point of view.
	It's actually pretty incredible.
	I mentioned that he said, oh, I thought it would be legal to go in.
	Well, if you thought it would be legal, why did you say...
	I'm going to get arrested for this.
	Why do you say I'm getting arrested for this?
	But it got even more ridiculous.
	At one point, he was asked, well, what about the part of the footage where people are pointing at you saying, fed, fed, fed, fed?
	His answer, I'm not making this up.
	You could go and look at the transcript.
	His answer to that was, I don't recall that happening.
	My son doesn't recall that happening.
	I think that that's doctored footage that could have been edited in.
	That's the level of delusion.
	I describe it like it's like the Shaggy song.
	It wasn't me.
	They caught you on video.
	Oh, it wasn't me.
	They caught you in the bike rack.
	It wasn't me.
	You almost have to admire that level of chutzpah.
	It's like you're on camera.
	No, but I say it's like Soviet-level denial of Chernobyl radiation.
	That's not radiation.
	That's my analogy.
	The Shaggy song, now that you mention it, is another good one.
	I need to get that transcript.
	He doesn't have to have...
	Did anybody FOIA...
	I don't know who could be FOIA'd for information as it relates to finances of Ray Epps.
	Who put the idea in those unemployed individuals living in the basement of a vacuum shop to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer?
	It happened, at least for some, to have been The FBI.
	It happened to have been the authorities.
	Who planted that idea?
	You've opened my eyes to the idea that he could be a DNC operative.
	Well, you know, the thing is that that's all I maintain because there's a lot of room for speculation here.
	And I will say, based on the research, based on the evidence...
	I can say, you know, still it's an opinion.
	I can't state this as a fact, but I'm strongly convinced, number one, that he was not an authentic actor, that he simply didn't come up with the idea on a whim by himself to get people to go into the Capitol.
	He's acting on behalf of some third party.
	That's my strong opinion.
	The question is who.
	And secondly, he's enjoying...
	A very bizarre level of protection.
	And I happen to think that him possibly working for a third party or acting on the third party and the protection that he enjoys, I think those two things are very likely connected.
	The protection and where he may have gotten that mission to go into the Capitol or to urge people to go into the Capitol in the first place.
	Those two questions have never been adequately addressed.
	I have heard no innocent explanation for either of those two that's in any way remotely convincing.
	When you look at the case of Epps contextually in relation to other people who have been charged and so forth, and think about this, he would have been a perfect poster boy for the...
	Think about this.
	He was the former head of the Arizona Oath Keepers.
	If the media wanted, they could have crucified this guy.
	They could have made an example of him.
	They could have declared the Oath Keepers a terrorist organization.
	Exactly.
	They could have said, look, the Oath Keepers guy was the guy calling to go into the Capitol in advance.
	Think of how much incentive they had.
	To add that to the list, given how much they were trying to demonize the Oath Keepers and so forth.
	They have a guy who was the former head of the Arizona chapter.
	For that matter, did the feds even search him?
	Did they look through his electronics even?
	To see if he may have had communication with Oath Keepers?
	We don't even know that.
	We don't even know if he was subject to a basic search.
	Let alone not, you know, not being arrested, anything like that.
	It's, it, it, I don't, I cannot, even if I'm putting on the devil's advocate trying to, you know, represent the other side, I cannot come up with a remotely plausible innocent explanation for the fact pattern that we see.
	I'm just looking to confirm because I don't want to make a mistake that, yes, there were informants.
	So the idea that this individual...
	Let me just get the archive link.
	Is this it?
	Here we go.
	The idea that it would have been inconceivable that he's an FBI informant, they already had informants within the Oath Keepers.
	And actually, incidentally, Jeremy Brown, the agents that approached him, the guy who was just sentenced to seven years, I was talking about his case where they used the trespassing charge as a kind of anchor point to give him more serious felony charges.
	They were trying to recruit him in relation to his...
	So the Oath Keeper is very much part of their radar.
	Now, based on what I've learned about Epps is I think he kind of severed his relationship with the Oath Keepers.
	I don't think he was, you know, doing stuff with the Oath Keepers as pertains January 6th.
	But just because he wasn't, the point is...
	It would have been such an easy narrative for the media and the DOJ to use.
	And they're certainly not shy about unfairly using these kind of narratives in other contexts.
	So again, why does he enjoy that extreme benefit of the doubt, that extreme leniency?
	It doesn't make sense to me.
	It's not even leniency, and it's not benefit of the doubt.
	It's overt protection and demonizing of anybody who comes to the obvious, rational, and well-evidenced conclusions.
	Right, and that's the other thing, is look at how aggressively the regime has attempted to close ranks on this narrative.
	When we first started reporting on the Fed's erection, the regime went absolutely nuts.
	And since then, it was basically like...
	I have to say, between Revolver's reporting and Tucker's amplification, the whole narrative about January 6th changed on a national level, and this infuriated the regime.
	This infuriated their lackeys in the media, and they simply can't tolerate it.
	It has to close ranks because there's so much invested in this false narrative of January 6th.
	That was...
	The 9-11 they needed for the next Patriot Act.
	As ridiculous as it sounds like to compare 9-11 to January 6th, the comparisons are actually accurate and appropriate, not in terms of the damage, the destruction, the severity, the magnitude, but simply with a view toward how these events are used as a pretext for further abuses.
	On the part of the national security state, they absolutely want a Patriot Act corresponding to the so-called insurrection.
	In the same way they got the Patriot Act after 9-11.
	And in fact, they're reforming and repurposing the very institutions that were erected in the aftermath of 9-11 to persecute this new war against American conservatives.
	And you see it in the DHS, Department of Homeland Security, set up to fight the war on terror in the aftermath of January 6th, now in the aftermath of 9-11.
	Now the DHS is the tip of the spear when it comes to the domestic war on terror, the war on people who object to, you know, drag queen story hour, open borders, and, you know, Biden's general senescence.
	So there was a lot at stake here with January 6th, and I think it would be inaccurate to say that the agenda has been stopped because they've been very successful in weaponizing national security state.
	But nonetheless, we've profoundly delegitimized their carefully cultivated pretextual event.
	To accelerate this trend to the next stage.
	And that's why they're so furious at me, at Revolver News, at Tucker.
	And that's, again, that's kind of stepping outside of the playpen.
	And that's why things can get so inconvenient.
	That's why it's hard to monetize.
	That's why we have full-time, you know, Soros paid operatives.
	You know, acting like an obsessive, angry ex calling up every advertiser.
	That's the kind of reward you get for stepping outside of the playpen with this kind of stuff.
	And just as a last point, because I really have to go soon, but just as a last point about Tucker, because he's in the news recently and so forth, I've just got to say, he was the only guy on American national TV who was...
	Willing to step outside of the playpen.
	And he was unique not only with respect to his colleagues at Fox, he was unique with respect to the entirety of the media in the United States.
	And there are many instances on which he was the lone voice of opposition, the lone voice advancing an alternative view on absolutely critical issues.
	Of life and death importance to the American people and to the country.
	And so I suppose just given what we've become, the globalist American empire is only a matter of time before he had to be removed because the lies are so brittle that they can't even withstand one guy for one hour.
	On a prime time slot, exposing them.
	And despite how much money he made for Fox News, they also financially or politically could not tolerate it.
	Darren, one last question.
	Let me know if you can answer it.
	Have you received any lawyer letters from Epps attorneys?
	And to the extent you can mention whether or not you have received them, explain any of the content.
	And I don't know anything, so if the answer is no answer, no comment, let me know.
	If you can comment or if you can answer.
	No, I haven't.
	I mean, again, they've been threatening for a long time.
	So far, we haven't received anything, and I'm fully prepared if it comes to something like that.
	But again, it's like this is a very weak leg for them to stand on because anyone with a smidgen of common sense looks at the case of Epson, knows how bad it is.
	If they were smart, they would do everything in their power just to memory hole it.
	That's what's so strategically...
	I'm ill-advised about this kind of redemption tour for Epps.
	They're better off just not talking about it because every time they put it, they kind of re-up it in the public consciousness.
	People look at it and say, that is weird.
	That doesn't add up.
	And, you know, even people who are being intellectually honest, even people...
	People who hate Trump's guts, who hate Trump supporters, who think the idea that the 2020 election was stolen, they think that idea is absurd.
	People who think that the overwhelming majority of J6 rioters were scum.
	Even people with all of those beliefs, if they approach the issue of epps with intellectual honesty, I mean...
	It's just right there in your face.
	EPS is the absolute weakest leg they have to stand on.
	So again, they tried it with the New York Times piece.
	It blew up in their face because it was such an egregious and sloppy mop-up job.
	And here again, you have it with 60 Minutes.
	You think it's going to make it look better to do a whole segment on EPS because you got some fourth-rate think tanker with pudgy cheeks and crooked teeth?
	State authoritatively that...
	There's nothing to the Epps issue, who does consulting work with the FBI.
	I mean, it just makes them look incredibly stupid and sloppy.
	So I think if they're smart, they'll just let the Epps thing go away.
	But who knows?
	They're not smart.
	There could be other things going on.
	So we'll see what happens.
	We'll see how it develops.
	Yeah, I think they're doing it to get people enraged so that people send him hate harassment threats so that he can then purport to be a victim.
	And then they could say, look how bad these Trump supporters are.
	You know, one other thing about it, and of course, I strongly condemn any kind of harassment.
	Here's a weird thing.
	If we had just a couple more minutes.
	Go for it.
	This is super weird.
	Super weird.
	The New York Times puff piece on Epps.
	Most of it is totally, you know, insubstantial, ridiculous, so forth.
	They're portraying him as this victim of revolver news and Tucker Carlson.
	But there is a really weird line in there that talks about death threats that Ray Epps received from a Mexican drug cartel.
	Now, I'm thinking, the whole tenor of the piece is, how dare Revolver and Tucker talk about Epps?
	He's a poor victim.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	And then, weirdly, seemingly out of context, there's this reference to death threat he received from Mexican cartels.
	Like, is this a suggestion here that cartels are such loyal Trump supporters that they're infuriated that, you know, raps could have been some, like, informators?
	Where does this come from, this cartel thing?
	And it's really bizarre because the guy who wrote the piece is sort of their go-to janitor called Alan Foyer.
	He's, you know, quote-unquote expert on cartels.
	He wrote like the, you know, the CIA approved version of...
	The history of the Sinaloa cartel and El Chapo and so forth.
	So it's kind of weird that the guy who does the cartel stuff writes this puff piece on Epps.
	And then in the puff piece, there's this weird kind of out-of-context reference to death threats that Epps received from a Mexican cartel as though the cartels are big fans of Revolver and Trump or something.
	I mean, it's just really weird.
	You know, I strongly condemn any kind of threats, any kind.
	I'm very much against it.
	Would not encourage it.
	Would strongly discourage it.
	But it's just very bizarre how this has come up.
	And again, we'll just have to...
	See how it develops.
	There's one other thing I wanted to say, but I just forgot.
	So I guess I'll just...
	We'll save it for next time.
	I'm going to end the stream with you and we'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Darren, thank you very much for coming on, enlightening all of us.
	It's fantastic.
	The Revolver expose was the greatest thing.
	I'm going to go dive into the pipe bombs one because I'm not as up to speed on that as I should be.
	But Darren, thank you very much.
	I'm going to put all your links.
	Send me your links, but I'll put up the links in the pinned comments so people can find you.
	Everyone out there, I'm ending the stream on all three platforms because my wife is going to kill me as well.
	Locals, I'll see you in a bit.
	Ending stream.
	Darren, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.

▲