Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 20, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:47:11

Sidebar with Owen Shroyer - Going to Jail for SPEECH! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's high time.
	It should have been done a long time ago.
	And then what do you think about his previous comments, though, that it was too escalatory to do, and then now it's not?
	I think he was wrong.
	I think, you know, every different weapons system first is too escalatory, and then we eventually gave it to them.
	And they're fighting not only for their lives, they're fighting for democracy, they're fighting for the world order against, you know, just...
	Fighting for the world order.
	And are you concerned that they will enter into Russian territory as there have been recent reports of Elgorod, the border city?
	I'm not concerned.
	I wouldn't care if they did.
	You wouldn't care if they wanted to do Russia?
	Nope.
	Turnabout's fair play.
	I don't think they're going to do it on any large scale.
	But why should Russia feel that they can invade somebody else?
	And that total safety at home?
	Well, but that would cross the line to a U.S.-sanctioned invasion of Russia.
	We don't have to sanction it.
	Well, you would be providing the weapons that conducted it, is what I'm saying.
	We're not providing it for that purpose.
	I said I personally wouldn't mind.
	You personally wouldn't mind.
	He's so cute.
	You are a representative of the government.
	Well, I'm part of the government.
	I'm not part of the executive branch.
	Right.
	But I think we should give them whatever they need.
	Okay.
	And, you know, if an F-16 was to be used on Russia, you wouldn't come out and say, that's too much?
	It's too far?
	No, I don't think that's going to happen in any event, but no.
	They're going to use F-16s for air defense, basically.
	But there are these reports right now that American weapons are going to be used in Belgorod, which is, you know, a Russian territory.
	It's already happening.
	That may be, but they're not going to use major weapons.
	Okay.
	I need to find out where I'm hearing the doubled audio from.
	What the heck is my problem?
	I don't even have that many windows open today, so it's going to be easy to find.
	You all, though, might, however, be noticing that the audio is good.
	First of all, I need to thank a specific...
	Oh, I should thank the Twitter handle.
	Well, someone on Twitter helped me, members of Diaglom, tweak my audio so that it would be good.
	The audio should be good.
	Can you believe...
	I want to say Ralph Nader.
	It's Herb Nadler.
	No, Jerry Nadler.
	Jeez Louise, what's his name?
	Jerry Nadler.
	Just so cavalierly talking about what I believe are war crimes and, at the very least, conduct that would escalate a war into a third world war.
	And I've been looking for a good reason to refresh everyone's memory on Jerry Nadler having said that.
	And today's a pretty good pretext because it's part and parcel of the reason for which our guest of the evening, Owen Schroyer, got into trouble.
	According to his Wikipedia page, which I think they're going to update tonight.
	I think they're going to update the Wikipedia page after our interview.
	According to Wikipedia...
	Let me see here.
	Bring up the Wikipedia propaganda rubbish.
	According to Wikipedia...
	The reason why Owen had a guilty plea entered, if you go to the last paragraph here, the guilty plea in the charge of illegally entering a restricted area for January 6th,
	he had a deferred prosecution agreement for interrupting a congressional hearing back in 2019 in which he interrupted one of the impeachment hearings for Donald Trump to claim that Trump was innocent and, quote, Jerry Nadler and the Democrat Party are committing treason against this country.
	And that was well before what I believe is a suggestion of an egregious war crime at the very least.
	Do we want to play?
	Do we want to play?
	Why do I have a dog that just came in the room, didn't close the door?
	Get over here.
	We got a dog that came in for the party, people.
	Behold, Winston.
	We have to appreciate what Jerry Nadler was suggesting right there.
	I don't mind.
	We're going to give him weapons.
	If Russia wants to invade Ukraine, why should Russia feel safe at home?
	There's a word for targeting...
	I think the suggestion was targeting civilian populations.
	It sure as heck was not, to me, suggesting striking military targets within Russia.
	It's if Russia wants to invade another country, why should they feel safe at home?
	Let's use some weapons that if we provide them to Ukraine and they use them to go strike interior of Russia...
	Civilian targets potentially, but oh yeah, we'll steal Matt and say military targets.
	Wouldn't that be the US sanctioning that condom?
	Well, we don't have to sanction it.
	We could just give them the weapons and close our eyes and say we didn't know what they were going to do with it.
	War criminals.
	Treason would be, you know, maybe contextually inappropriate, but potentially worse.
	All right, let's get the Wikipedia page out of here.
	I see Robert Barnes in the backdrop and I'm getting annoyed by a dog here.
	Stop.
	This dog maybe feels that he hasn't gotten enough attention today.
	I'm going to bring Barnes in.
	I see Owen Shore is in the back.
	At least the screen is up.
	Maybe he's going to come in in a second.
	And I want to bring Barnes in so that we can equalize the audio.
	Audio's good, right, people?
	Did everybody watch the interview with Stephen Horne?
	Go watch it.
	This is a journalist convicted of journalizing on January 6th.
	Viva Fry was an...
	See, I don't know if this is a...
	Viva Fry was an...
	Hey, we were all inside jobs, people.
	How do you think humans are made?
	Okay, Barnes, I'm bringing you in.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Now everyone's going to say, is my audio better?
	You don't hear crackling?
	It's not like blown out?
	I spent like a solid hour tinkering with it to get it proper.
	Robert.
	Are you following what's going on on Rumble?
	On Rumble, on Twitter, about with Rumble, with Twitter, with the UK government?
	Now, like, asking social media, hey, we just want to ask you, are you still monetizing that guy over there?
	It'd be a shame if something happens to your social media companies.
	Oh, we're going to talk about it on Sunday.
	And some questions I have following the interview with Stephen Horn.
	So we got Owen Schroer.
	He's in the backdrop.
	I see him.
	Man, Owen Troyer, I cannot look at Owen and not see...
	You need two minutes?
	Are you ready?
	Two minutes?
	Oh, he's doing the peace signs.
	Hold on.
	I cannot see but Brad Pitt.
	Owen, you get Brad Pitt all the time, right?
	You're not the first person.
	You might be the first man, but not the first person.
	Look, I'm not saying...
	If I were, Brad Pitt is a beautiful specimen of a human being.
	Owen, so this is the first time...
	I feel like we've talked before, but I'm senile.
	We did a show.
	Yeah, you've been on my show actually a couple times.
	It's funny because I bring you on to talk about U.S. legal stuff and you're always like, first of all, I'm Canadian, eh?
	But you'll still talk about it with me.
	No, no, I'm going to totally see that because when someone else is on another channel, no, no, when it's on another channel, it's like a totally different context.
	And now I'm trying to think of the things that we talked about.
	Owen, first of all, you got an impersonator on Twitter who got me.
	They put out a tweet.
	Oh my gosh, this is crazy.
	This is crazy because one of Robert Barnes' great attorneys, Lexus, just filed a cease and desist.
	To that individual for that exact reason.
	I just finished doing an interview with her about it.
	We're filing it tomorrow.
	That is crazy that you just brought that up.
	I'm not even kidding.
	She's probably still here watching this.
	And we just are filing a cease and desist because of that.
	What's amazing is they put out a tweet.
	And it was...
	I mean, first of all, I go to check the profiles now ever since I accidentally picked a fight with a 14-year-old kid.
	I went to the profile.
	It wasn't obviously...
	You don't have to admit that.
	The profile was not obviously a parody enough, but the tweet, and it's funny, even when I make a mistake, it wasn't that bad.
	They said, I'm going to D.C. I'm going to tell the judge to give me 60 days, five years.
	I was like, oh, that sounds like, that's very defiant.
	It's a bold move, Cotton.
	Let's see how it pays off.
	And, you know, it wasn't you, but you ended up getting 60 days.
	Well, this person, you know, it's going to be very curious because we are going to try to find the identity of this clearly psychotic, deranged individual.
	So I'll be curious to know, is this somebody who has like a grudge from my past?
	I mean, I can't even think of anybody who would.
	Is it maybe somebody that works for the government?
	Is it a Democrat voter?
	I mean, I don't know.
	I mean, we'll see because here's the thing.
	This is what's so crazy about it.
	And I don't fault you for falling for the fake Twitter account.
	You're not the first, certainly.
	I hope that you're the last, but I know you're not the first.
	They're verified.
	They have a verified account.
	So X obviously has some personal information about this individual that hopefully we're going to get access to.
	But what's even more frustrating is that my personal account is yet to be reinstated.
	My actual verified personal account is yet to be reinstated.
	I have filed three reinstatement requests since Elon Musk took over, and I am still yet to be reinstated.
	Maybe this helps me in the reinstatement process, but nonetheless, they verify a fake Owen Schroer account, and the real Owen Schroer can't even get his account back.
	Well, it's clear that they have a grudge.
	It goes back, because when I started going through tweets, it seems to go back to statements you and Alex Jones made back in the day of Sandy Hook about undermining or...
	Suggesting one of the fathers, and I forget his name, was a crisis actor.
	I mean, that's, in my mind, undoubtedly what it goes back to, and I can sort of understand that some people will never forgive you, Alex Infowars, for those mistakes or for those bad statements.
	So I suspect that's what it goes back to, if I had to guess.
	I think timing-wise, it's actually more recent.
	The account was started in October of last year, so it's been around for almost a year now.
	And thanks for Lexus's good work.
	We're getting a lot more of these details.
	But it's even wilder.
	The odds are that this individual is tuned in to this show right now.
	As we were announcing the cease and desist that we're going to follow tomorrow, the individual was tweeting out from the fake account about the show.
	Look, I don't...
	Parody accounts are fair game.
	They just have to be clearly identified so that people don't think it's for real.
	I got wise when I saw some of the other tweets, but that was only after retweeting the one that said, you know, that was a defiant move.
	And I thought it's believable.
	It was close enough.
	I'm sure you were thinking the same thing.
	Well, I'm glad that you appreciate my commitment to defiance, but that was certainly not me.
	So, Owen, we're going to establish one thing, or I guess maybe Wikipedia is going to update its page.
	May I ask what year you were born in?
	1989.
	Wikipedia is going to go update it.
	No longer any uncertainty.
	It's not 1990.
	We made news.
	Sorry, Barnes, I think I cut you off there.
	No, no, no, no.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, so, Owen, for those who don't know who you are, I think most people do, give us a 30,000-foot overview, and we're going to get into the stories of the day.
	Well, you know, I'm glad that you give me this opportunity because when you're one of the most banned and censored and now politically persecuted men in America like I am, It's hard for people to get a fair representation or feeling about who I am.
	And I think that even the U.S. government, quite frankly, is underestimating this because I've been an extremely likable and, quite frankly, popular person my entire life.
	I'm not somebody that has a shortage of friends, okay?
	And, in fact, I'm even friends with my parents' friends.
	And so, you know, they're basically, I'm not trying to claim I'm some sort of a choir boy here, but I mean, you're basically going after a Boy Scout.
	You're basically going after an individual who, I mean, I would say everybody, if not 99% of the people I've come into communication, touch with, relationships with in my life, I've been a positive, joyful experience, transaction, friendship with them.
	You're targeting a person who's pretty much liked, if not loved, by everybody that I've ever met.
	And so even liberal friends of mine that have known me forever, they're like, dude, what they're trying to do to you is unreal.
	I can't believe how corrupt things are.
	So I guess that's how it had to be.
	But to give a 30,000-foot view, from St. Louis, Missouri, and what's tragic about this is I knew in high school that my American dream was to be in media.
	I knew that in high school.
	When I wasn't the best player on the varsity soccer team and basketball team and baseball team, I knew that my dreams of being a professional athlete were probably not going to come through.
	So at that point in time, I knew that media was what I wanted to go into.
	And I've really been doing this since I was 16 years old.
	I was a senior writer and editor for my high school paper.
	I started, well, I won't say I did it individually.
	There were some other individuals, obviously, but I was one of the founders of the morning news broadcast that goes on at my high school still every day to this day.
	I helped start that.
	Even in college, I was a senior editor, cedar writer at my paper, and I was a professional in sports media.
	By the time I was 21 years old, I was hosting my first talk shows.
	Now, granted, this was all in the sports media.
	And when I got a little more experience and into my adult years, I realized that the sports media is not where I wanted to be.
	Not because I didn't enjoy it or even enjoy sports, but you start to realize it is just a game at the end of the day, and there are more important things like politics and foreign policy and law enforcement and the justice system.
	So I made the pivot probably, I think I was maybe 24 years old or so.
	I'd have to go back and check it.
	The pivotal moment was the Boston Marathon bombing and then the Michael Brown riots in Ferguson.
	And that's when I decided I was going to make my pivot to politics.
	And so I did it.
	I had some viral videos on the Internet, eventually ended up getting hired by Infowars in 2016, became one of the first big political personalities to be in support of Donald Trump.
	And you might say the rest is history.
	But so when dealing with my case now of the Justice Department wanting to criminalize my speech, you know, really, look, I'll be honest with you.
	I'm a type A personality.
	My biggest pet peeve is wasting time.
	I'm productive.
	If I don't have a productive day, I'm like, I feel empty.
	I feel hollow.
	Like, I don't even know what to do with myself.
	And so, yeah, I don't want to go to jail.
	I don't even know what I would do with myself sitting around all day.
	I don't know.
	I probably just do push-ups and read all day or something.
	But what breaks my heart is that I feel like I've had such an opportunity to accomplish my American dream and become a part of the political media and be a journalist.
	I fear for younger Americans.
	I feel for the 16-year-old that's in high school right now writing stories for his high school paper.
	I fear for the college student right now that's going on the air every day to talk politics on their college radio stations.
	My heart breaks that they're going to be afraid to speak with punishment from the government.
	That's what breaks my heart.
	And Victoria Sparts, who's a congresswoman in Indiana, she immigrated, her family immigrated here to get out of an oppressive country.
	She fled an oppressive government country, and she's at Capitol Hill today addressing Merrick Garland saying, you've become the new KGB.
	You are now more corrupt than the country that I fled oppression.
	You are now putting Americans in fear of the government.
	So aside from the fact, obviously, I don't want to go to jail.
	I mean, look, if they want to make me into a political free speech martyr case, then so be it, I guess.
	But no, my heart breaks because of the high school student, because of the college student that now has to live in fear that what they might say could end them up in jail.
	How did you grow up in Missouri?
	What did your parents do?
	What was your family like?
	What was your upbringing like?
	You know, I was pretty, I would say, middle-class American.
	We weren't the richest family, but I felt rich because I had a family that cared about me.
	I felt rich because I grew up in, I mean, I don't know how a community could have been better than the community I grew up in.
	Again, it's about middle class.
	But, you know, it was, my dad was, he owned his own business.
	He was an entrepreneur.
	My mom used to own her own business, doing physical fitness and therapy.
	When she had me, she kind of just gave that up.
	She started to get more into the professional world when I got older.
	Conservative family, not really political, but definitely a conservative family, a Christian household.
	I grew up Catholic and Christian.
	Went to a Catholic...
	Preschool and then grade school.
	And then I went for high school to what used to be a military academy.
	They kept a lot of the military rules from the academy, but it was no longer an accredited military academy when I went there.
	It was a Christian school when I went there with the military academy background.
	And a lot of the sergeants, drill sergeants, corporals and lieutenants were still teaching there as well.
	I greatly value my upbringing for that.
	Really, my family wasn't really politically charged.
	I mean, I do have veterans on both sides of my family, but not too politically charged.
	I've got some liberals in my family.
	I've got some conservatives in my family, but it wasn't really a political upbringing in mine at all.
	In fact, when I started to pivot to politics, because you got to understand, making it in sports media is really tough.
	It's really one of the toughest industries to make it in because once people get in, they don't leave, right?
	I mean, so you're waiting people out for decades just to try to get a job.
	And I had my foot in the door for a lot of different...
	And I met a lot of different people that were going to give me opportunities.
	And so when I switched to politics, I think, you know, people in my family are like, are you nuts?
	You don't even know the first thing about politics.
	What are you doing?
	Leaving sports media.
	But now they realize I made the right decision.
	And, you know, the funny thing, too, is that, yeah, somebody that knew nothing about politics in 10 years can become one of the most influential and banned political figures in the world simply by telling the truth.
	That's all I had to do.
	I just had to tell the truth and I leapfrogged 90% of the media.
	So, I mean, that's basically an upbringing for me.
	But, I mean, you know what?
	I would just say it like this.
	I'm just the average American boy.
	I'm just the average all-American boy, all-American man.
	And so, of course, this is what the Democrats and now the Justice Department want to make illegal.
	We could also put to bed another rumor, Schroyer.
	You're not Jewish.
	It's the last name.
	It's a Germanic origin, which means cut or chop, most likely originally born by a woodcutter, which brings me into the question, Owen.
	How many generations has your family been in America?
	This is an incredible question, and I'm lucky enough that I actually know the answer.
	I had a couple of great aunts.
	May they rest in peace now.
	A couple of great ladies.
	Man, I could tell stories about them all day long.
	But they lived into their 80s, I believe, both of them, 70s or 80s, and they became obsessed in their later years with finding out the Schroyer lineage.
	And so I may have forgotten some of the details are kind of cloudy in my head.
	It's been years since I sat down with them, and they're no longer with us.
	And actually, I was vying.
	They had...
	My Aunt June had...
	Stacks of binders.
	I mean, like, five stacks of binders all tracing the Schroyer lineage back to when the Schroyer name first came to America, which was, I believe, the 1670s.
	It was seven Schroyer brothers that came here in the 1670s.
	They lived in Pennsylvania for decades as farmers, and then they started marrying off, and they started moving about the country, and it became harder and harder to track and trace where it all went.
	But they traced it back to the 1670s.
	Schroer brothers moving here from Germany, being farmers.
	And it was funny when they would tell me this story, and I was really into it, and I was begging.
	I was like, when you die, my poor Aunt June, when you die, give me these documents.
	I want these documents.
	She gave them to her son, who's now probably in his 60s himself.
	Maybe I'll get him someday, too.
	They went to courthouses, and she would explain they had to crowbar.
	Into archives.
	And they would crowbar into these archives that hadn't been opened in decades.
	And you can imagine dust just comes pouring out.
	And they got the records.
	And some of them were like, look, you can take whatever you want.
	Just take it.
	And so she actually was able to take some of the records and laminate them and put them into these sheets.
	And so it's funny because people will make all types of assumptions about you.
	I'm unaware that you actually know where you came from.
	And so I love it when people actually bring that up.
	But yeah, that's the Schroyer name.
	As far as I know, I don't think there's any, I don't believe there's any Jewish history in my family.
	I don't think anybody.
	No, I know.
	It's the reflex that, you know, being Jewish, whenever I hear a Germanic last name, it's because I've grown up with that.
	We're the Germanic people who fled Europe.
	We're Jewish, but I mean, look, the reality is that not every Germanic last name is of Jewish origin at all.
	And Schreuer, I mean, I had to look it up and just satisfy my curiosity there.
	How many siblings do you have?
	I've got a younger sister.
	That's it.
	Okay.
	So are you still Catholic?
	I mean, you know, when you get confirmed into the Catholic Church, technically you're Catholic the rest of your life, but I'm not a practicing Catholic.
	I don't know the last time I went to Mass.
	Out of curiosity, at what point did you transition to more non-denominational, if you will?
	That was really more following my parents that started going to a non-denominational church when I was in high school.
	When I was in grade school, you go to Catholic Mass two times a week.
	But they started going to non-denominational when I was in high school.
	And then really, I mean, honestly...
	People talk about it a lot, because we do have a large Christian audience at Infowars, and I have some people that, you know, they talk about me and tell me I need to go to church and stuff, and I know it's all in the goodness of their heart.
	And my problem has always been, because I've been to church a couple times, the problem has always been, it's just like, I feel like there's more truth in what I do every day than I get from any of these preachers.
	I mean, it feels like, to me, like, how can I...
	I don't know.
	I just feel like when the preacher doesn't even understand the real issues that we're facing right now and the real issues that even Christians are facing right now, it's hard for me to motivate myself to spend hours in those churches.
	And I know there's other reasons, and I'm not knocking people that do.
	Obviously, these are some of the best people.
	But yeah, I don't really go to church, and a lot of people give me trouble for it.
	Well, I had said that when there was a meme going around, are you right wing?
	And it says, goes to church, has a family, has kids.
	Check, check, check, but I don't go to church.
	But I think the church is symbolic for something else, which is, you know, spirituality in a broader sense, not necessarily the organized religion sense.
	Oh, and we're going to end this on YouTube now because YouTube, as they say, is asshole.
	And we're going to go over the rumble.
	So I'm going to end it now.
	We're going to get into when it was that you became public enemy number one because...
	First of all, we've known each other, or we know each other as we've known on the internet.
	You seem like a good guy.
	Not everybody's perfect, and I certainly know that the world is hanging its hat on maybe the one mistake, but I need to know when you became public enemy number one.
	Did it predate certain things?
	We're going to get that answer on Rumble, because we're ending on YouTube right now.
	Three, two, one.
	Okay, so you're in sports.
	You've got a great voice.
	Do you study journalism?
	Do you study radio?
	Do you do anything to train that skill, or is it a natural thing that you've had?
	Well, I mean, I think there is natural talent for anybody that excels in what they do.
	I mean, you guys are great lawyers because you have natural talent for that, but obviously you've honed your skills over the years.
	I mean, I've been heavily involved in media, like I said, since I was 16. I mean, I was doing groundbreaking things for a high schooler.
	I mean, like I said, I started the morning news that they still run every morning in my high school.
	So I've been doing media stuff forever.
	It's always felt very natural for me, I would say.
	I like to talk.
	And quite frankly, I'm kind of a media addict myself.
	I mean, when you see my house, you're like...
	What are you doing?
	Why do you have five TVs running the news 24-7?
	This is your home.
	What is wrong with you, sir?
	I just love media.
	And so I've been able to hone my skills over the years.
	I mean, I've done pretty much every type of broadcast on the planet, hosting political shows, hosting talk shows.
	I used to do play-by-play for sports as well before I got started in that.
	I've even worked on the production side for television and radio.
	Sound engineering.
	So I've really had a wide array of skills that I've honed over the years.
	And I'm grateful for that work ethic that was instilled in me for my parents to gain those skills.
	But so now I'm at the point where I feel that at 34 years old, I'm really just blessed from my experience.
	And now I'm also blessed because I've been able to come up under some of the most influential people in my life.
	Like Alex Jones, who I work for, I got to host his show today.
	I mean, that was a huge influence for me on my political broadcasting was Alex Jones.
	Now I get to host his show.
	And it was the same thing when I was younger, too.
	There was a local Emmy-winning talk show host, Kevin Slayton, that I grew up listening to in St. Louis.
	And by the time I was 23, I was filling in for him when he would go off air and producing his show.
	So I've been extremely blessed as far as that's concerned.
	So I think it's a little bit of mix.
	There is some natural talent and tendency there, but also I've been hitting the ground running in my media endeavors since I was 16. How would you trace your political trajectory, both in terms of ideas and in terms of activism?
	I mean, it's got to be more than anything Infowars.
	I don't know what else I would really...
	What it was for me is that when the Boston Marathon bombing happened, it was the first time I watched television news.
	And when I say that, I'm being literal.
	I never watched cable news.
	Ever.
	Didn't care to.
	Now, I grew up listening to talk radio because I just loved the medium.
	So Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, some other local hosts.
	But that's just because I love talk radio.
	It wasn't even necessarily a political thing.
	I just liked listening to talk radio.
	I liked the debates.
	I liked the disagreements, whatever.
	But I never watched cable news.
	So I'm on air, in sports media, covering the Boston Marathon bombing.
	And the same tenacity and the same thirst for truth that I have in politics, I had for sports then.
	So I'm figuring out, hey, what's going on with this deal?
	I want to know the truth.
	So I turn on the cable news for the first time in my life.
	And it was just like, day one, I'm like, this is fake.
	Everything about this production is completely fake.
	And now I've got these FBI people.
	I've got these Boston police people.
	Clearly, they're not being fully honest with me.
	So it was just like, it was like, whoa.
	Like, what?
	It was really, I mean, you might call it my red pill moment.
	In such an organic way, okay, so now I'm looking for truth.
	I'm like, well, what's really going on with this Boston Marathon bombing?
	I have all these different questions and everything, and ultimately I end up finding InfoWars and Alex Jones, and it was just like the mind expansion.
	It started happening overnight, and my desire to be in sports started to wane, and my desire to be in politics just continued to grow.
	Now you're saying it out loud, and it's bringing back memories.
	Boston bombing was 2013.
	It was the Tsarnaev brothers or the Tsarnaev brothers.
	One of the brothers fell out of the car or got shot.
	The other brother ran him over.
	Then the other brother went to jail.
	They made this pressure cooker bomber out of, like, what was it?
	Not a rice cooker, but a pressure cooker.
	What was the biggest red pill of that story, the narrative?
	There was a shooting spree.
	Oh, and what was the...
	Most factually incorrect thing that they were saying in the media that you discovered looking into it?
	Ah, boy.
	You know, there were a couple things, and I would just start it with this.
	That was my final year in college, and I was fortunate enough, too, and I ended up graduating with psychology and media studies from college because I realized if you want to do anything in psychology, you've got to basically get a master's.
	So I was like, I'm done with school.
	Because I actually, believe it or not, I mean, you guys probably do believe it.
	When I was about to graduate, because one of the guys I was working for was an attorney, I had attorneys basically headhunting me saying, hey, I'll send you to school, and as soon as you get out, you're working for me.
	I was like, two more years of school?
	How about F you sideways?
	No, thank you.
	But so I was like, okay, I want to go into media.
	So the head of the media department at the school I graduated, University of Missouri-St.
	Louis, I mean, I was in classes like...
	Radio production, television broadcasting, and I would go to his office and I'd be like, yeah, yo, here's my paycheck for being on air last week.
	Yeah, here's my paycheck from CBS Sports Television.
	Do I really need to be in these classes?
	And he said, well, no, I'll tell you what.
	I'll give you credit if you just keep working.
	So I was able to basically work through college.
	Now, why do I bring this up?
	My final project that I submitted was basically a 20-minute dissertation on why I didn't trust the official narrative of the Boston Marathon bombing.
	Now, imagine.
	You're the head of the Media Studies Department, and this is my final project, and this is what, he's like, some guy questioning the mainstream narrative, but he gave me an A on it.
	He was like, well, this has been an incredible presentation.
	I don't even know what to think anymore, but anyway, you get an A. So, some of the things I remember, I even remember the names.
	Rich Delorier was the FBI, he was the guy in charge of the FBI investigation.
	His narrative kept shifting and shape-shifting.
	Ed Davis was the Boston police chief at the time who continued to go in front of the media, seemingly unable to answer any questions.
	I also remember at the time, because the younger Sarnia brother was in school, and apparently he was pretty popular.
	And so there were a lot of younger college kids that were speaking out while all this was going on.
	Obviously, the mainstream media wasn't picking up what they were putting down.
	But they were like, this doesn't make any sense.
	I was with him that day.
	He's not like this at all.
	I don't understand how any of this could happen.
	So him getting lumped into it.
	Then they have these whole citywide lockdowns and search parties that got totally out of control.
	He ends up hiding in some boat and there's blood all over it.
	Then they shoot his larynx out from 30 yards.
	They shoot his larynx out.
	So now he can't talk somehow.
	And then there was the older Sarnyev brother.
	And it came out that apparently this guy was a CIA or FBI asset.
	So they already had information about this guy.
	And I've got the FBI and the boss police saying, we have no idea who it is.
	We got a manhunt.
	Please help us identify this guy.
	And he ended up already being known to law enforcement.
	So none of it made any sense to me.
	I mean, those were just some of the things.
	Oh, my gosh.
	I don't even know if I should get into this.
	I mean, there were conspiracy theories at the time.
	That even the individuals who had their legs blown off and stuff, that even that was just theater.
	And that they didn't even believe that that was the case.
	So, I mean, it was just, really more than anything, it wasn't necessarily that I reached any conclusion.
	It was more that I had so many questions that went unanswered.
	And it's like, you're telling me the FBI, the police chief, and the mainstream media are completely befuddled by these two young guys that pulled this thing off?
	It just didn't make any sense to me.
	Speaking of Infowars, how did you get on the radar of Alex Jones?
	So I had a YouTube channel that was kind of my pivot, was my own YouTube channel, where I was doing political stuff, and I used to go out into the streets, and really, I would say, the first big thing that put me on the map was my coverage of the Ferguson riots, the Hands Up Don't Shoot Riots, and so at that time...
	There were three individuals.
	There was an app called Livestream.
	And this was really kind of the first breakthrough app where you could livestream from a phone.
	And so that was like blowing up during the Mike Brown riots.
	And it was Tim Pool and myself.
	And there was a third individual, I forget.
	But we were basically for two weeks straight covering these things and topping the charts every night.
	And Tim Pool was number one every night.
	And then it was myself and this other person kind of vying for second place.
	And so that was really the first time I think I kind of landed on the political map.
	I did have, with some of my other coverage, I had some world star hip-hop picked up some of my conspiracy theory videos.
	But I met a few of the Infowars reporters in Ferguson, Missouri during those riots.
	And so I started to kind of have a rapport with a couple of them.
	Then there was a video from a Trump rally in 2000.
	It had to be April, I believe, March or April 2016.
	Donald Trump has a rally in my hometown of St. Louis.
	And this was before most people were even supporting Trump.
	And this rally had a line around the arena.
	And so it was kind of a mind-blowing thing.
	I went there with my dad that day and a couple friends, and we didn't expect the scenes.
	I mean, we thought we were going to be able to get into this rally and go hear Trump speak.
	And by the time we got there, it was like, no, nobody's getting into this rally.
	The mile-long line, nobody in the line is even getting in.
	So they set up a little screen outside, ended up hanging out outside, and there were a bunch of Trump protesters outside.
	And so you know how these people are.
	So I'm out there, and they're calling Trump this, and they're calling Trump that.
	And at the time, I'm not right or left.
	I'm really not.
	I'm just, you know, I'm just kind of, I'm anti-big government.
	I'm anti-corrupt government.
	I'm not left or right.
	And there's all these Trump protesters saying things about Trump.
	And I'm just like, at this point in time, I didn't realize liberals were out of their mind.
	I mean, genuinely, I did not think they were out of their mind.
	I thought that they would have been just like me and they'd want to know the truth.
	They'd want to know the unheard, unseen truth.
	So I'm just like, hey, that's not true.
	Here's the truth.
	Hey, that's not true.
	Here's the truth.
	And then they start attacking me.
	Now I'm a white supremacist.
	Now I'm this and I'm that.
	And so I just wouldn't have it.
	And so there was a famous 20-minute exchange.
	It's famously known as AIDS, Skrillex, and Carl the Cuck.
	And there's this 20-minute exchange where I'm basically just roasting liberals left and right.
	I mean, I'm just taking the political torch to them for a 20-minute video.
	And this thing just goes massively viral.
	It was the biggest video on YouTube that day for sure.
	I was in the front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and it just so happened...
	That InfoWars had a cameraman that was there filming as well, and they were still allowed on YouTube at the time.
	So this video got hundreds of millions of views on YouTube, and InfoWars reached out.
	I went on and did an interview, and then the rest is kind of history.
	I started doing some more coverage for them, covered the Cleveland RNC for them, and at that point, it was like, yeah, this guy's a bonafide member of the team now.
	It was really my viral Trump videos, specifically that one in March or April of 2016 at the Trump rally, just roasting liberals that eventually landed me here.
	You were sort of disliked, I guess, by the liberals before you joined Infowars because apparently the truth and the liberals are mutually incompatible.
	Did you notice the moment where it really picked up to the next level?
	You join Infowars.
	Is it immediate or is it only after some of the comments on the Sandy Hook, which seems to be the linchpin of what took Alex Jones off of other platforms and down to some extent?
	Well, no, actually, I got lumped in with the Sandy Hook stuff for like four minutes of content, I think.
	That's all they had.
	Bob's shaking his head because he's seen the case.
	I think it was like four minutes of content that they had.
	And if you go back and you look at it, I didn't even say anything, really.
	I read a New York Times story.
	That's all I did, was I read a New York Times story.
	And then I read a Zero Hedge story, is what I did.
	And then it's like four minutes of all the content I've ever done at InfoWars, which at this point has to be, I mean, even at that point was probably thousands of hours.
	So we're talking four minutes of content where I just read a story.
	That's it.
	Just read a story and play video clips from NBC.
	And somehow that lands me in these cases.
	So I think that was just a dragnet.
	I got drug into the whole Alex Jones thing.
	That was not what put me on their list.
	And I'll tell you what put me on their list.
	In December 2019...
	During the Trump impeachment hearings, Jerry Nadler is chairing the hearing.
	And I stand up and I called the Trump impeachment bogus.
	I said you had no evidence.
	And I called them out right to their face.
	That's what did it.
	And I'm even more convinced that that is the case now than ever after what we've been through.
	Because this is from December 2019 and the government still won't drop the case.
	They still won't drop this case.
	Now let's be perfectly clear.
	Go ahead.
	Do you mind if we play this?
	It's a minute and 19 seconds.
	Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing.
	I will make an opening statement.
	I hate this guy so much.
	Then I will recognize the ranking member for an opening statement.
	Penguin!
	After that, we will hear two sets of presentations.
	We will hear 30 minute opening arguments.
	This is impeachment number one.
	The majority and the minority of this...
	The Senate and the Senate party are committing to the name of this country.
	You've been teasing me out.
	But if you want to make a lot, you are going to get a matter.
	You're the one committing to the president.
	America's done with this.
	America's sick of the treatment.
	We committed by the...
	Order in the room.
	Order in the room.
	We're not going to sit here and watch you run an impeachment.
	in the committee room.
	We're going to remove our vote.
	We voted for Donald Trump, and they're simply removing it because they don't hire him.
	Americans are seeking to repeat this man.
	They're seeking to Democrat treason.
	We know we're committing the crimes, and it wasn't Trump.
	Trump is an incident.
	So, other than the fact that it's 100% accurate, let's see what smug bastard Nadlitz is.
	Obviously, I shouldn't have to remind everyone present that the audience is here to observe.
	That's right, American people.
	Sit down and shut up.
	Not to indicate agreement or disagreement with any witness or with any member of the committee.
	The audience is here to observe only, and we will maintain decorum in the hearing room.
	So, Owen, other than the fact that you're 1,000% right, you were right, the rightness of what you said has been proven over time, you were less disruptive than a lot of the, you know...
	pink pussy hat wearing people, the Kavanaugh interrupting people, the Missouri interrupting people, and they went after you for that.
	So let me give you even a little more detail about that.
	Because like you said, this is not an uncommon occurrence in the Capitol.
	It's not at all.
	It happens all the time.
	And quite frankly, my disruption there is about as low level as they get.
	Again, you pointed to a couple.
	The pink pussy hat wearers.
	You had the climate change protesters.
	And I mean, to even get more absurd with it.
	In fact, let me not get ahead of myself.
	So, OK, so that was about a, like you said, 30, 60 second disruption, whatever.
	Everything I said there ended up being accurate.
	When the police take me out of the room, because this happens a lot.
	OK, they take me out of the room and they're kind of sitting there.
	The one cop that had me was it was a new cop.
	He was a younger cop.
	So he kind of had to get direction from some other guys.
	They said, yeah, yeah.
	Just take him out of the facility and just let him go.
	So, okay.
	I'm not even cuffed.
	I'm not even cuffed.
	I'm walking out with the guy, not even cuffed.
	He's like, hey, what do I do, boss?
	He's like, yeah, just take him outside and let him go.
	So, okay.
	It's like a two-minute walk to the door.
	He takes me out.
	They're about to just let me go.
	I'm about to just walk out on the streets and just go about my day.
	Someone clicks in on the radio.
	He goes to his ear and he goes, oh, wait, hold on a second.
	Hold on a second.
	He's like, hold on a second.
	Stay right there.
	Stay right there.
	So now they're holding me.
	Another cop walks away, he gets on his radio, and he's like, actually, we're going to have to detain you.
	So it's pretty obvious what happened.
	I don't know if it was Jerry Nadler, I don't know who it was, but somebody told him, Nancy Pelosi, somebody, somebody said, hey, no, no, no, you're not letting him go.
	You're arresting his ass, and you're charging his ass.
	They were about to let me go.
	They were about to release me onto the streets when somebody got in their ear and said, not so fast.
	So I'm convinced now that was a direct order from the top that, no, you're going to charge him.
	And so they were going to release me.
	Now, again, there's so much precedent dealing with disruption of Congress here that it's ludicrous what I've gone through and that the government still is not dropping it here.
	Four years later.
	In fact, David Hogg just disrupted Congress in a very similar fashion.
	And do you think he's going to see a courtroom, let alone a jail cell?
	Of course he's not.
	That's only for Owen Schroyer to see.
	But let me just do this now, too, because it's even more ludicrous.
	Honestly, it couldn't have worked out better for my public case, quite frankly.
	As I'm in court last Tuesday, Democrats stormed Kevin McCarthy's office.
	As I'm in court, Democrats stormed Kevin McCarthy's office.
	Do you think any of them will see a courtroom, let alone jail cell?
	Of course not.
	The next day, Wednesday, the Biden administration sends out a memo that says we need the American media to push back against the impeachment.
	So I'm sitting in a courtroom for pushing back against impeachment and allegedly storming the Capitol.
	When Democrats storm Kevin McCarthy's office, the Capitol, and Democrats demand you push back against impeachment.
	I mean, a double standard of justice just in that 24 hours alone couldn't have been more obvious.
	Oh, and here, this is not the one that you're talking about, but just by way of example.
	This is David Hogg interrupting a committee meeting on gun control.
	Where are the police?
	Oh, you'll see.
	They come in.
	Here's one.
	Notice how slow they are.
	Notice how slow they are.
	They are not coming from Mexico.
	You are reiterating the flight of a mass shooter, sir.
	This is exactly what we just witnessed with you.
	Exactly.
	Maybe the committee hearing was a little different.
	One's impeachment.
	One is, what was this, gun legislation meeting?
	I think that might be the exact same room.
	Yeah.
	It usually is.
	Outrageous.
	Okay.
	And I assume before you went in there that you had seen plenty of people stage that protest without it ever being charged as criminal conduct.
	Honestly, I expected what happened.
	I expected I would stand up.
	Say my piece and get escorted out of the building, which was about to happen.
	That was exactly what the cops were going to do.
	That's what I expected.
	And actually, well, I didn't even expect to do it that day, to be honest with you.
	I didn't even know that I was going to do that.
	But it was strange because we were looking for, I don't remember what we were looking for, actually.
	I was there with a cameraman, and I think we were actually there looking for something else.
	And we ended up in that room, and I was like, oh, okay, we'll do this.
	And then I was like, Honestly, it was totally organic.
	I was like, this bothers me so much.
	This impeachment inquiry is such a hoax.
	I have a First Amendment right.
	I'm going to say my piece, get escorted out, and that's going to be that.
	And then that's what was going to happen until somebody said, oh, no, no, no, no, no.
	We're going to get a piece of Schroyer's ass.
	Did they, like, hook you, process you, do the whole nine yards?
	Yep.
	What was that like?
	I assume that was the...
	I'm guessing.
	I'm assuming that was the first time you've been through anything like that.
	I was a bit of a wild man in my late teens.
	And the government, of course, they're bringing up that.
	They're bringing up activity from when I was 19 and 20 years old in the most recent filings.
	That's legal standard.
	That's not necessarily something that only happens to me.
	But I was a bit of a wild man when I was 19 and 20. I had a bit of a legal record.
	Never harmed anybody.
	Never harmed anybody.
	But I was known to law enforcement in Boone County, Missouri.
	It wasn't the first time I've been booked and processed.
	I'll just leave it at that.
	I won't pry, despite the fact that I have many, many questions.
	So do you think it's a question of you get up there, you make the scene, and they don't know who you are yet, and then they discover it's Owen Schroyer, and you're with Infowars, and you're well-known at that time.
	They discover who you are by name as they're taking you out.
	Although, as we've seen with January 6th, man, you could have gone home to Alaska.
	They would have found you six months later.
	Do you think they just didn't know who it was and then they discovered it as you're being escorted out?
	You know, it might be that or it might just be because obviously I'm not a Democrat.
	At that point, they know I'm not a Democrat.
	So it's no, you have to arrest him.
	You have to book him.
	You have to process him.
	He needs to sit in a cell.
	I think it was that more than anything.
	I don't necessarily think it was because I was Owen Schroyer from InfoWars.
	That might be it.
	I think it's because I wasn't a Democrat.
	I think it's because they know I was not a Democrat protester, and so I have to face the full extent of the law, whereas if I was a Democrat protester, then I would have had nothing.
	I'm curious how much your experience was with Infowars.
	When I was introduced to Infowars, there was a lot of people, particularly political voices, that would avoid it.
	That even, you know, congressmen, senators, a few would appear and then almost none did.
	That the media did such a good job of sort of blacklisting it that, you know, Alex Jones has been on Fox's blacklist for a very, very long time.
	Piers Morgan made the mistake of asking Alex on and Alex showed him up quite famously.
	And so I knew, like, young conservative talent.
	That would avoid Infowars back in the day because they bought into the blacklist or were just worried that, hey, if I'm at Infowars, I can't go anywhere else politically.
	That really started to change sort of the confirmation of it when Trump appeared on Infowars in 2015.
	And, of course, today, you know, you ask conservatives, you ask Trump supporters, you ask, you know, about half the country who they would trust more for accurate information.
	The New York Times or Infowars, and by a 3-1 or 4-1 margin, it's Infowars.
	That there's been a complete, despite all the smear campaigns and censorship campaigns and deplatforming campaigns and all the rest, despite all the various lawfare that's been waged across the scale, despite the efforts to put you in prison, that the net effect...
	How much have you seen that and witnessed that?
	How much were you concerned at all?
	Okay, if I'm going Infowars, I'm sort of making a commitment that sort of locks me in some places, locks me out of other places.
	And how much have you seen that transformation that the more the Infowars became popular, the more the system tried to crush it, which only led to Infowars being more popular.
	Well, there were definitely voices in my ear discouraging me from joining Infowars at the time.
	And it was much more taboo back then.
	The difference being...
	I mean, for me, there was never any doubt.
	And I'm sure you guys are familiar with Cernovich's work, The Gorilla Mindset.
	I've always had The Gorilla Mindset, so it was never really anything I cared about.
	I knew InfoWars was the team I wanted to play for.
	I knew InfoWars was the only place that was going to allow me to do the work that I wanted to do.
	So it was never any doubt for me.
	Now, it was a little bit different at the time, too, because I had a bit of a vision that I think it's a lot more obvious for people to see now that The internet is where everything was going eventually.
	So thinking about, hey, I got to get on Fox News or I want to be on cable news, I never really had that desire.
	I knew that that medium was not going to be the platform that I was ultimately going to end up on.
	And at the time, YouTube, I mean, Infowars Alex Jones was like one of the top things on YouTube.
	So, I mean, we still could make huge numbers publicly.
	And it didn't really bother me, the taboo of it.
	It didn't really bother me, the voices saying, hey, you shouldn't do that.
	It's going to cost you this.
	It's going to lock you out of that.
	I always knew that that was going to be the case.
	But, yeah, so it's harder for me to really say, you know, have I seen the transition?
	Because really, I've just been looking forward the entire time and has just ignored those negative voices.
	But there's no doubt.
	I would say that it's like the lore.
	Has kind of changed, right?
	It's not just, oh, I'm going out to a Trump rally with an InfoWars mic and maybe people like me or maybe they don't or whatever.
	Now it's like, you know, we show up at a political event and it's like, oh my gosh, it's like there's InfoWars, there's Alex Jones.
	It's like, you know, it's like the Beatles or something, or it's like George Washington marching through on a horse.
	So I think it's really just more kind of the lore and the legend of it has reached such a peak now.
	That it's really hard to explain.
	You have to really kind of see it and experience it to get a full grasp of what it's really like.
	It's kind of surreal, really.
	What's it been like both?
	What have you learned from working with Alex?
	What's it like being around him in public and the rest?
	And what's probably the thing people think about him that is the least...
	That people would be surprised it's true.
	Like, in my interaction with him, he reminded me of Wesley Snipes' acting skills.
	Like, Snipes could on a dime do a lawyer.
	He's like, Barnes, can you do this?
	And he would do a lawyer.
	And I was like, no, I can't.
	I'm not that skill of a performer.
	But Jones is one of the most natural talents I've ever been around.
	And usually has tons of insights and advice.
	And is much more of an ordinary guy than I think a lot of people sort of project on him.
	There's all these craziest, probably the most caricatured man in the world.
	You could say that about Trump in certain respects, but Jones even more so.
	People believe the wackiest, looniest things about him and is one of the nicer, more accessible people of success that I've ever met.
	But what's been your experience?
	Well, you know, you bring up the wacky conspiracy theories and everything else about Alex, and I think that that's kind of been the craziest part.
	Because like you said, I mean, really, at the end of the day, he doesn't want to carry himself like a celebrity.
	I mean, he walks around in jeans and a t-shirt, right?
	And, you know, it's kind of like, that's the kind of guy he is.
	But I think more than anything, the learning experience has been...
	And it's been a bit humbling for me, you know, somebody that's considered a conspiracy theorist, right?
	When I see the conspiracy theories about Alex, it, like, makes me question my own conspiracy theories, because I'm just like, you people are whacked out of your mind.
	The stuff that you believe about Alex Jones is so inaccurate, it's like, you don't even realize how stupid you sound.
	And it's like, and so I see that, and I'm like, I don't want to look as stupid as you.
	Like, I don't want to look like an idiot that makes up conspiracy theories thinking you know everything about Alex Jones or all this stuff, and it's like, You're so inaccurate, you look so stupid.
	And so it's like, I have to question my own conspiracies now, specifically when it's dealing with individuals.
	Because it's like, I don't want people who know that individual, even that individual, to look at me and think, just because of one bad opinion, I have them like, wow, Schroyer's a complete idiot.
	His judgment of that guy is completely off.
	So that's kind of been the thing.
	It's just...
	When I see people in their whacked-out conspiracies about Alex, it's just they don't realize how much of an embarrassment they are to themselves and how inaccurate their analysis is.
	And so that's kind of been the learning experience that I've had as far as that's concerned.
	I mean, a perfect example.
	You've got people that think Alex is controlled opposition.
	Alex can barely even control his own life.
	I mean, it's like...
	These people don't realize how whacked out they are.
	And so whatever, I get it.
	He's a big personality and it's hard for people to believe anything, right?
	It's hard for people to believe that anybody can be good or anybody successful can be the real deal.
	And that's not to say Alex is perfect.
	He wouldn't tell you he's perfect.
	But these whacked out conspiracy theories, they make me kind of...
	You know, hold my tongue sometimes when you have conspiracy theories or notions or attitudes or whatever towards other individuals because I've seen how stupid people look when they talk about Alex Jones like they know him or know anything about him.
	And so now I'm just like, you know, before I judge somebody or before I go off on a conspiracy theory with somebody, I just want to make sure that I'm not going to make myself look like an idiot because so many people have with their commentary on Alex Jones that it's just like, dude.
	You are so off that if only you knew, you'd laugh at yourself.
	The amazing thing was, like, one of the bridges that I had to cross was when Alex Jones came on the channel for the first time, and I'm like, I'm going to piss off a lot of people that I know who still buy into everything that they've ever heard and read about Alex Jones.
	People were saying, A, controlled opposition.
	B, Mossad.
	C. It's not really Alex Jones.
	His voice sounds deeper and more raspy than normal.
	Setting all that aside, because I think people do it almost as a joke, as a trope, or whatever.
	Or they make their living off of it.
	It's literally like their career.
	Absolutely.
	But then some people say, like, okay, they're making the frogs gay.
	And they say, he's a total crazy conspiracy theorist.
	My wife's a neuroscientist.
	And she's like, all right, might not be making them gay, but the underlying truth is actually...
	Somewhat accurate.
	When he says, they're using 5G cell towers to control your thoughts, or no, for mind control.
	And then we talked about it.
	And it's interference with sleep patterns, which some people say interfering with or destroying is a form of control.
	It's not control in the sense of making you become a Manchurian candidate, but it's the type of interference that might qualify.
	And the more even educated people with degrees hear him speak, beyond the hyperbole, they're like, oh, He's actually not wrong, and if he's made one or two outright mistakes in his life, he's still exponentially better than CNN.
	And so the amazing thing is anybody who actually takes the time to take more than five minutes to listen to what he actually says as opposed to the media, they come away with a totally different impression, but that's the toughest thing to breach is to get people to actually do that.
	But Owen, that wasn't the question.
	That was a rant.
	You get arrested by Nadler, and then they charge you, but then you make a plea deal.
	And some people are going to say, you are now suffering the consequences for having, what is the word, born false witness to yourself.
	What ended up happening there?
	Because you plead to something that is now coming back to bite you in the ass and possibly send you to the clanker for 60 days.
	Well, let me put it a couple ways.
	First of all, would you like to be in front of a DC jury?
	Okay, you don't have to answer that.
	But we'll just say, would you like to be in front of a GC jury facing potentially five?
	Again, everybody knows this is a tactic from federal prosecutors.
	They greatly overreach in their charges so that they can bring a plea deal down and keep their conviction rate 100%.
	So I think that you guys understand the context of what I'm saying here.
	So the legal strategy I still think was a good one with me and my attorney Norm Pattis.
	And let's not forget.
	They were still trying to lock me up for the Nadler interruption.
	In fact, that was the thrust of their entire argument against me.
	In the indictment, the majority of the pages were actually from the Nadler thing.
	So they're claiming they're indicting me from January 6th in the indictment, but then the majority of the filings is from the Nadler interruption.
	And then, even in the sentencing memo that they had...
	They had against me for last Tuesday in the sentencing hearing.
	Even that wasn't even about what I did on January 6th.
	That was about things I said not even on that day.
	So we weren't expecting that.
	And the legal strategy here, aside from what I just pointed out, which I think is obvious for legal minds to understand, the other legal strategy is, and look, I'm perfectly open to criticism about our legal strategy.
	I'm perfectly open to criticism of people that might say, What you're alluding to, or even these people arguing, well, why'd you cooperate with the federal government?
	You should have known better.
	Well, look, my legal strategy and my attorney Norm's legal strategy was we want to put yourself in the best position possible, right?
	And from my standpoint, I'm going to operate in 100% good faith.
	Call me a fool for that?
	Perfectly fine.
	I'll accept the criticism.
	But that was my legal strategy.
	I'm going to operate in 100% good faith.
	With the U.S. government.
	What does that mean?
	I've been on probation since the Nadler disruption.
	So we're talking about the last four plus years of my life.
	I've been on probation on good behavior.
	Okay?
	And so not only that, I have turned over two cell phones to the U.S. government, which they still haven't returned, by the way, but okay, whatever.
	I'd like those back.
	You're probably listening right now.
	Can I get my phones back, please?
	I've turned over two phones, any electronic data requests I've given them that they've wanted.
	I sat down for a proffer session, a question and answer.
	You guys know what that means.
	You guys know the importance of that.
	I've never missed a court date.
	I've never missed a pretrial services meeting.
	I've never missed a house visit from probation officers.
	So I have been on 100% good behavior.
	And let me just tell you something else.
	It's a little humiliating when you have to...
	Pee into a cup in front of a government agent.
	Not really a fan of that, but I've done that too, okay?
	So I've been 100% good behavior.
	Now, when the pretrial services office filed their sentencing memo, because you get the prosecutors to file their sentencing memo, you get the probation, pretrial services, they file their sentencing memo too, they suggested no jail time, and they said two years probation would suffice, which I've already served more.
	So they're basically saying, hey, he's done his time.
	Leave him alone.
	This guy's not a problem.
	And by the way, I've been through three pretrial service officers.
	I've spoken to federal probation officers, and I'm not trying to get anybody in trouble here.
	But let's just say they're scratching their head while they're dealing with me, too.
	And in one of my last interactions with the pretrial services here in Austin, they put me in touch with...
	I guess somebody that kind of overlooks maybe more managerial as far as the office is concerned.
	And they asked me, they said, do you mind if we use your case for an example that we can use for other officers as this is what perfect behavior looks like?
	They literally are going to be using my case to say this is what perfect behavior under pretrial services looks like.
	And so despite all that and the understanding between myself My lawyer and the U.S. government that, hey, you're good behavior.
	We're not going to give you any jail time.
	Well, obviously, they didn't hold their end of the bargain on that.
	And I guess the one regret my lawyer has is not getting that in writing, right?
	So maybe just make sure you always get everything in writing.
	But look, I don't regret my legal strategy.
	They were going to get the pound of flesh against me no matter what way it was going to go down.
	And quite frankly, at this point in time, My best case is in the court of public opinion.
	You know, I don't know if anybody can get a fair trial in America right now dealing with these issues.
	So my best chance is in the court of public opinion.
	And everybody can see.
	Owen Schroer is not only on good behavior.
	He did nothing illegal on January 6th.
	He didn't try to amp up anybody.
	He did the exact opposite on January 6th.
	And this just shows you.
	You can be on perfect behavior.
	You can serve more than four years probation.
	And the U.S. government will still try to get your pound of flesh if you're not affiliated with the Democrat Party or the liberal ideology.
	So that's what this has become.
	So America just gets to witness.
	They're gonna go after the best people.
	They're gonna go after grandmas.
	They're gonna go after people, fishermen in Alaska.
	They're gonna go after pro-life activists.
	And so that's now what I've had to prove.
	If they wanna make a free speech martyr out of me, if they wanna turn me into a political free speech prisoner in modern day America, That's just what they're going to have to do, and they're going to have to show how evil they really are in the process.
	There's two aspects.
	One, I want to get into January 6th.
	But first, you've experienced the lawfare on a civil side.
	Ultimately, they dismissed all the Sandy Hook claims against you, and most of the other cases, finally, they went away.
	But you got to experience the insanity of it.
	I remember when I first talked to Alex about all this.
	In fact, what's always struck me about the whole Infowars crew is that down deep, they're idealists.
	They're not so much cynics like people would caricature them as.
	But as part of that idealism, sometimes they're naive even about the system.
	And in talking with Alex, he was kind of naive about how the civil justice system would treat him.
	And I remember trying to say, well, I've been doing political cases for a quarter century.
	Unfortunately, all the rules get thrown out.
	When the political players have other agendas afoot.
	And his Sandy Hook cases are still the biggest joke of civil justice in the history of American law.
	But you now also got to experience the insanity and the injustice of our criminal justice process.
	You know, a lot of conservatives kind of had confidence in the FBI just a decade ago, confidence in law enforcement.
	I mean, often they were the least receptive audience when I would say, no, we've got systemic issues.
	We've got institutional flaws.
	We've got judges who are not upholding their oaths.
	We've got agents who are breaking the law whenever they can.
	Because they were targeting the politically marginal or the socially marginal or the economically marginal, people weren't really paying heed.
	They don't hear it when it's some defendant they don't like.
	But now everybody's got to witness it.
	But you got to witness it in person.
	The selective prosecution, the double standards, that they don't uphold their own promises, that they misrepresent things during the process, they mislead through the process, that the courts are often complicit and cowards to prosecutorial corruption rather than contesting it and challenging it.
	How much of that whole experience was kind of shocking to you in the sense of what we grew up in America believing our civil and criminal justice system is versus what...
	You've had to experience and live the opposite of.
	Well, I think there's...
	Let me kind of answer that in two different lanes.
	One, as an American citizen that has never harmed anybody and would never even think of harming anybody, and I never promote harming anybody, to go through this is sadly a harsh reminder of exactly what you're talking about.
	It's...
	I mean, again, like...
	It's not like I'm some hermit that nobody knows.
	I have a lot of friends.
	I know a lot of people.
	I've been around the block, folks.
	I've been in the media.
	I mean, you know, so it's like, and I think that's kind of the process that people are just like, wow, like they really will just go after a good person.
	And that's what this is.
	I mean, I'm not trying to fluff myself up.
	Again, I don't posture myself as a role model or anything like that, but I'm a good person.
	I'm a good person.
	Everybody knows I'm a good person.
	Everybody knows I try to do the best for the people around me.
	Everybody knows I have a good work ethic.
	Everybody knows I wouldn't do anything illegal or criminal or ever try to hurt anybody.
	And so to put me through the ringer like this, I think has just been a big wake-up call for the people around me.
	And I think, you know, at a personal level, it's just disheartening, right?
	Because it feels like I don't live in America.
	I mean, that's what it feels like.
	It feels like I live in some sort of a, you know, communist, authoritarian, fascistic country.
	And I guess that's what it is now.
	I guess that's what it is now.
	And I guess that's the level of corruption that we have.
	Now, the other lane I would go into is, let's just get straight up with the legal process here.
	Even if I am a cynic, which that might be fair to say, and, I mean, I've been stunned.
	Let's say I'm going into this expecting the worst from the U.S. government, and I've still been absolutely stunned.
	A lot of people don't know this.
	In the first case, when me and my attorney, Norm Pattis, let me just tell you, he was more shocked about this than anybody.
	He couldn't even believe this.
	The things that he's witnessed now, just defending myself, I mean, his entire worldview has changed, quite frankly, every time we go through it.
	When we first got into court for the 2019 disruption charge, we had to get to, we went through, we went to two judges before we landed on a judge that would actually hear the prosecutor's case.
	The first judge we got in front of, the U.S. government wanted to ban me from the entire District of Columbia.
	They wanted to completely ban me from the District of Columbia for political speech that happens all the time, that's unheard of.
	So the first judge got that from the prosecutor and was like, are you nuts?
	What is wrong with you?
	And said, hell no, I'm not doing that.
	So the prosecution said, well, we want to see a new judge.
	So he said, okay, fine.
	Take it to another judge.
	We got to the next judge.
	And the next judge basically, the prosecution argued basically kind of what was in the probation deferred sentencing agreement that we agreed to, except there were no parameters.
	It was basically like, okay, you just can't go anywhere near the Capitol.
	So it went from banned from the District of Columbia to completely banned from the Capitol.
	The second judge said, no.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	The prosecutor asks for another judge and you get another judge right away?
	Yes, we went right into a courtroom probably 20 minutes.
	Okay, that's amazing.
	Sorry.
	And then the second judge says, that's where I cut you off.
	So now they're trying to ban me from the Capitol.
	Second judge says again, this is egregious.
	This is not only a First Amendment violation.
	He's a journalist.
	You can't do this.
	So, okay.
	The prosecution says, well, let's get another judge then.
	Okay, fine.
	So now we're in front of a third judge.
	This process probably took maybe an hour or so.
	And so now they've lightened it to, okay, he's not banned from the Capitol, but he can't go into the Capitol and I can't disrupt Congress again.
	And this is where we didn't plan on having to re-litigate this because there's a whole legal battle we could have about this.
	But they're arguing that I violated my deferred...
	Well, we would argue that I didn't because when you read the fine print, yeah, it says Schroyer cannot parade or he can't do this or he can't do the other thing and they say, see, he violated it.
	No, read the entire document.
	It says I can't do that with intent to disrupt Congress.
	I had no intent to disrupt Congress.
	In fact, the activities we were hoping to happen in Congress that day, we were in full support of.
	It's what we wanted.
	That's why we went to the Ellipse in support of the events of Congress that day.
	Why would I want to disrupt them?
	We're on tape saying we don't want to disrupt them.
	So no, I did not violate my deferred prosecution.
	I had no intent that day.
	But see, again, part of the plea deal was this is thrown out.
	You don't have to litigate this.
	You don't have to deal with this case anymore.
	It's done.
	Well, lo and behold, here comes the sentencing memo and they tell the judge that I violated my deferred sentencing and now all the media says, see, he violated it.
	He belongs in jail.
	No, I didn't violate it.
	And the plea agreement was I didn't have to relitigate that.
	So that's what happened in the first case.
	I mean, they tried to ban me from the entire District of Columbia for a less than 60-second disruption of Congress that happens all the time.
	So take what you want from that.
	But that's what happened.
	I laugh because there's only laughter or crying at this.
	It's so absurd.
	But the bottom line now is what?
	Did you agree to 60 days?
	Did they sentence you to 60 days and you're going to appeal it?
	Like, where are you now?
	My attorney Norm Pattis filed our appeal yesterday.
	The government now has until September 27th to respond.
	And I mean, you guys know the legal process here, and I mean, really, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that if the appellate court rejects it, and by the way, he's also requested that I stay out of jail during this appeals process, and the attitude in the courtroom when my attorney said we plan on appealing, the attitude in the courtroom was like they were kind of biting their cheek, but they were like, yeah, okay, yeah, you can probably appeal.
	It's kind of like they didn't want it.
	Again, everything has been so shocking about this, maybe they will reject the appeal.
	If we don't get our way in the appellate court, we do plan on taking this all the way to the Supreme Court, whatever that means.
	And so whatever my fate is, whatever the outcome of this appellate case is, whether they reject it or hear it, we'll go to the Supreme Court if we have to.
	And so the government has until the 27th to respond.
	It's our expectation.
	Maybe I'm naive, as you said earlier, Barnes, but...
	It's my expectation that they're going to allow me to remain free in the same pretrial services that I've been under since 2019.
	And we will get to have our appeal.
	And you can read the appeal.
	And really, it's about government overreach and criminalizing free speech.
	That's what this is about.
	And so it's a really unique case because it's not just about the charge that I pled to.
	It's about government overreach and it's about criminalizing free speech.
	And so that's what we're hoping the appellate court will hear and see in this case.
	Because really, that's what this is about.
	And, I mean, man, oh man, I wish there were cameras in that courtroom because I swear I heard the Twilight Zone music playing in the background.
	Because the prosecution is arguing, and they're having their cake and eat it too, they're arguing that, oh, this isn't about speech, but here's what Schroyer said.
	This isn't a First Amendment case, but here's what Schroyer said.
	They had four sections in the sentencing memo.
	All four of them were about what I said, not about what I did.
	So they're telling the judge that this isn't about speech, but everything they're trying to get me incarcerated for are things I said.
	I mean, literally, it's Twilight Zone going on in the courtroom.
	So we're hoping that the appeals court can see that and just dismiss the case, because that's what we want.
	And in fact, we argued to have the case dismissed when we first got in front of the judge, and the judge said, well, because our argument was political persecution.
	Which, quite frankly, now in the year 2023, our case for dismissal based on political persecution is a lot stronger than it was in 2021 because at the time it looked like Judge Kelly was maybe open-minded to it and there was enough evidence that maybe it was political persecution.
	In fact, there was a magistrate judge that said the government violated the law in charging me at all because they didn't go through the process of charging a journalist.
	That was a magistrate judge.
	And he said, hey, I filed this complaint saying, hey, did you go through the protocols to charge a journalist?
	And the U.S. government just said, eh, F you.
	We don't care.
	And so he was stunned by that.
	That was in the Wall Street Journal.
	That was in the New York Times.
	That was in all kinds of legal blogs that that happened.
	And so we're hoping that now it's like, okay, well, the judge argued at the time.
	Well, they're still charging people.
	So maybe your proof of political persecution here doesn't stand because the investigation is ongoing.
	Well, it's now September 20th, 2023.
	And the case that this is political persecution is a lot more stronger now for dismissal than it was then.
	So there's a lot of different angles.
	It's a very unique case.
	We're hoping the appellate court can see that.
	If not, we'll take this thing to the Supreme Court.
	I hope I'm not incarcerated during this entire process, but I suppose that that chance is still out there.
	Sorry, just to bring this up, because I want to steelman what you said, but in steelmanning it, I'm going to prove a point that I made a little while ago.
	U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, he's the one who's in charge of sentencing the earlier guest that I had on Horn.
	Jeez Louise, Stephen Horn.
	He says, handed down the punishment after a two plus hearing, two hour plus hearing, saying that January 6th, quote, Mr. Schroyer was not merely at the building, but he also did play a role in amping up the crowd on the steps that day, end quote, leading chance, quote, 1776.
	I said this is a joke, a sick joke, almost a few weeks ago, when DeSantis didn't come out in support of Trump about the indictment.
	He said they're going to come after DeSantis for human trafficking.
	They're going to indict him.
	He can't run for president.
	Vivek.
	His campaign slogan is a 1776 moment.
	Owen, may I ask you what you meant when you were saying 1776?
	Well, sure.
	And I explained this to the judge, too, and he discounted it.
	And look, you know, there's a level of, I understand this judge isn't in political media.
	He's not in political activism.
	And so...
	I'll assume the best about the judge that he just, you know, maybe doesn't understand this stuff.
	And so that's why he doesn't believe it.
	And that's fine.
	But also, I mean, you might not know this, but do you know what the state motto, it's on the flag of Virginia.
	Do you know what that is?
	I would say don't tread on me, but I'll say 1776.
	Well, it's death to tyrants.
	Sick tempered tyrants.
	So I guess the state flag and motto of Virginia is now criminal speech now too.
	Because just so people get the full context.
	Not just chanting 1776, chanting USA is also cited.
	Chanting USA is also cited.
	And of course saying death to tyrants, which is the state motto of Virginia.
	So now here's what's confusing about this.
	In the sentencing memo, and I'll answer your question, I promise.
	In the sentencing memo, there's two other quotes in there that are very important.
	They also quote me saying we're here to peacefully voice a message.
	That's a quote from me.
	Saying we're here to peacefully voice a message.
	So how does that resonate with trying to amp up the crowd?
	There's also a quote in there saying we're here to de-escalate.
	That's in the memo.
	A quote.
	We're here to de-escalate.
	How does de-escalate equal amp up the crowd?
	Now, okay, why am I chanting 1776?
	Two reasons.
	One, anytime you're in a big political moment like that, You always have it in your mind that you're shooting content, right?
	Okay, so we're just getting promotional content.
	I'm saying 1776, that's just great promotional content for commercials and marketing and all that stuff.
	It doesn't even have anything to do with that day.
	It's like being at a hockey game and wearing a hockey jersey and, you know, chanting, let's go team.
	It's just like, that's just the theme.
	And now they're, oh, look, they're shooting a commercial of a hockey player.
	With a hockey fan chanting, let's go hockey!
	Like, that's just standard marketing stuff when you're in media.
	But this is really what was going on, and I explained this to the judge.
	Alex Jones is on the megaphone multiple times saying, don't go into the Capitol.
	They quote us in the sentencing memo saying, we have to de-escalate this.
	So that was our goal that day.
	So if our goal is to de-escalate that situation, and there's a crowd, a loud crowd of people...
	Well, how do you possibly do that?
	Well, first, you have to get their attention, right?
	If I don't get their attention, then how can I possibly de-escalate?
	Well, how do you get their attention?
	You start a chant.
	You start a chant, and now people are chanting with you, and now they're looking at you.
	Now you have their attention.
	Now we can say, hey, now that we've got your attention, get out of the Capitol.
	Get off the steps.
	There's a speaking event down the corner.
	That's where we're going to speak.
	Okay.
	I explained that to the judge.
	He didn't believe it.
	And so that's the answer to your question.
	It's a natural thing.
	Like, again, if a hockey social media team sees fans chanting for the hockey team, they put it in a commercial.
	We're at the Capitol with American flags.
	We're making promotional content.
	But that's just like natural.
	You just go along with it, right?
	It's just an instinct.
	The reason why we were getting the attention was because we were trying to de-escalate.
	And I can understand to the judge how that sounds hyperbolic.
	I can understand that.
	But I tried to explain it.
	It's like, hey, we can't de-escalate if nobody's listening to us.
	But if Alex Jones is up there getting people's attention, now maybe we can de-escalate.
	And it's clear with all the evidence that that's what we were trying to do.
	So that's why we were chanting that.
	We were trying to get the attention so we could de-escalate.
	I explained it to the judge.
	He didn't believe it, apparently.
	Well, what's interesting is, I mean, the government has evidence of all the de-escalation efforts, including efforts by you, Alex Jones, at Infowars to have access to the Capitol speaker system to tell people to get out, you know, get out of the Capitol, get off the steps, get away from it.
	I mean, can you imagine that, Alex?
	Everybody get off the Capitol!
	Everybody leave the Capitol!
	It probably would have worked!
	Oh, because that's why they didn't let him.
	I mean, it definitely would have worked.
	I mean, now there's evidence.
	I talked about it early on at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	The first ever hush-hush was about January 6th.
	I mean, Alex and I had discussions beforehand, and Alex was actually concerned about a month or so before of the risk that it was some sort of setup.
	And I was like, ah, the Capitol is so secure that day.
	They have, you know, 2,500 Capitol Police.
	They're going to have National Guard.
	That place is going to be on lockdown.
	It's the most secure building in the world on that day of January 6th.
	I was like, there's no chance of, you know, any.
	And I was like, Trump crowd has never lost control despite all kinds of efforts to provoke them going on.
	Not just, hold on a second.
	Not just Trump crowds.
	Tell me any Republican crowd that's ever done that.
	There's not one in U.S. history.
	Completely.
	And so you combine the two, I was like, yeah, there's a little risk here.
	And then, you know, I ended up finding out later on that day, I mean, I would have been down there, but I was up at a Trump White House official having discussions about how to make the best presentation before Congress that day.
	And I was curious, it's like, how is it they're going to dodge this politically?
	How is Mitch and...
	And McCarthy and the rest of them are going to avoid having a meaningful debate and discussion about what are clear constitutional questions about the election.
	I had suspicions about Pence, that he had been probably lying all along, and then he, of course, revealed he was, as part of the provocation, quite frankly, waited until the last minute to let everybody know, I've been lying, I'm not going to do anything, I don't really think I have any power, and I got this whack job judge who...
	Who said it's okay for the President of the United States to go and kill people if they're an American, as long as he calls them an enemy combatant and they lose all their constitutional rights.
	But then, of course, we see what happens that day and there's an unusual lapse in certain parts of security.
	All kinds of provocative efforts that they're still hiding on tape in terms of the Capitol Police.
	Initiating violence, instigating violence, directing traffic.
	So they caused one crowd to be upset.
	Another crowd, they waved into the doors and waved them in from the outside.
	I mean, that's where the gates got taken down.
	Some gates were taken down by other people.
	Some gates were taken down by Capitol Police.
	And you can see them, people coming down, looking for where the rally is and being directed to the Capitol instead of where the rally was scheduled to be.
	And all of that.
	And but again, the all the evidence in for as soon as you got down there was to deescalate, to get people out.
	It's why they wanted to prosecute Alex Jones, but they can't.
	And they went after you instead using the thin reed of the of the Nadler issue as their pretext to do it in what was a clearly politically motivated prosecution.
	Now, you should definitely get bail pending approval.
	But the other issue you have here is a very unique...
	To my knowledge, in the history of American criminal jurisprudence, which is an effort to punish entirely predicated on First Amendment protected activity.
	Because they didn't have any evidence of escalation, they didn't have any evidence of disrupting or obstructing Congress, they didn't have any evidence of disorderly conduct.
	Instead, the entire memorandum is all based on speech, 99.9% of which, Isn't from January 6th on the Capitol steps for that very reason.
	They talk about speech that happened after January 6th.
	Speech that happened before January 6th.
	Well, and let's be clear, too.
	The Capitol was breached long before we got anywhere near it, and the barricades were torn down long before we got anywhere near them.
	Absolutely.
	And in fact, I mean, this is where I thought it was clearly a planned provocation by certain people.
	Had people waited...
	For the people from the Ellipse to get down there, the reality is it never happens.
	If Alex gets to be there in advance, he makes sure people steer clear of all of it because he wanted to make sure that didn't happen in particular as a sabotage effort.
	I don't think it's a coincidence.
	They had provocateurs, some people of which have still never been identified, people breaking glass outside the Capitol, people dressed in all black, people changing clothes before they go in there from one outfit to another outfit, then back to another outfit, and then disappearing.
	Would you like a little more of a story tell on that situation, actually?
	Because this is actually crazy.
	This actually happened.
	So we're there at the Ellipse, and we're in the second row or something.
	And Secret Service actually comes and takes us down like a secret path because at this time, we're expecting that we're going to march with Donald Trump to our speaking setup, which we paid to have a permit for.
	So our understanding here is, hey, Secret Service is taking us aside so that we can march with Donald Trump to the speaking setup that we had that was on the other side of the Capitol.
	Alex and I actually, you know, we've butt heads a couple times, obviously.
	We work together a lot.
	When they pull us aside, we're standing behind the ellipse at this point.
	I don't know the exact timing of it all.
	And Alex is saying, we need to get there and stop it.
	He's like, hey, we need to get there and stop it.
	We need to get there and stop it.
	And I'm pushing back and I'm saying, no, let's wait for Trump.
	We need to wait.
	We need to march with Trump.
	We're here to march with Trump.
	Let's wait for Trump.
	Let's wait for Trump.
	He said, no, no, no, we got to get there and stop it.
	We got to go right now.
	We got to get there and stop it.
	I'm like, no, Alex, we need to wait for Trump.
	We're here to march with Trump.
	Let's march with the president.
	That's what this is about.
	No, no, no, I know it.
	We got to get there and stop it now.
	So, I mean, we had like a 10-minute like butting heads like as heavily as we ever have even about whether we were going to go or not.
	And so what's wild about that is it might have helped us in the long run because we were even farther delayed from when it was breached.
	Or when the barriers were taken down.
	This is all on video, too, so it proves that we didn't even have a plan.
	We didn't even know what was going to go on that day.
	And, again, since the government has no proof that I had any intent, that further proves my case.
	I was waiting for the president!
	If I would have waited for the president, I would have never even been there!
	Owen, am I going crazy?
	I'm trying to look for the video as you're talking.
	Was Alex Jones not saying it's a setup, don't go down to the Capitol building on January 6th?
	Yeah, go to band.video.
	I don't know what you would search, but it's certainly on band.video.
	I'll share it afterwards.
	I know that I saw it, and I find nothing on YouTube anymore where Alex Jones was saying it's a trap.
	No, no, but it's the biggest place where people go for information.
	He said it's a trap, do not go down there, it's a setup, and I can't find it.
	But Owen, let me ask you the tough question.
	I mean, I'm being tongue-in-cheek.
	It's kind of the tough question where people are going to say, you know, people accuse you of being an FBI informant, collaborating, etc., etc.
	You turn over your cell phone.
	You rely on your collaboration, cooperation with an evil regime as a testament to your good faith, which I don't think anybody of sound mind would deny.
	Those who would find conspiracy theory where it doesn't exist are going to say, You're collaborating with the government.
	You're an informant.
	You're giving them all your cell phones, your stuff.
	They can find all sorts of information on your phone, and therefore that makes you an FBI informant, collaborator, etc., whatever.
	What is your response to that accusation?
	Well, let me just lay out the facts.
	I mean, I have nothing to hide here, and so let me be fully transparent.
	I've never received a dime from any government institution, A. Never received a dime.
	Did I cooperate in this investigation?
	Absolutely.
	I have been fully transparent in that case.
	And let's be perfectly clear about something else.
	Not only am I cooperating to prove good faith with the investigation, there's nothing to hide!
	There's nothing to hide!
	I gave them two cell phones.
	I had two active cell phones.
	One's a work cell phone.
	One's a personal cell phone.
	I gave them both!
	There's nothing there.
	It's all my text messages with Alex Jones.
	It's all my text messages with other people in the media.
	It's all my text messages with the crew.
	Hell, it's my personal text messages.
	I knew there was nothing there.
	Sure, have a look.
	It's only going to prove my innocence.
	Why wouldn't I cooperate?
	That's how I look at it.
	Cooperating proves my innocence.
	I mean, come on.
	So they take multiple cell phones, electronic data requests.
	They get nothing.
	And so they have nothing, so they have to go off what I say on my radio show?
	Yes.
	That's exactly what happened.
	So as far as, I mean, people can make up whatever conspiracy theories they want.
	I mean, if you want to say, oh, look, Shroyer cooperated with the FBI.
	You caught me.
	You're right.
	I turned over my phones to prove my innocence.
	That was my legal strategy.
	You caught me.
	Am I an informant?
	Have the FBI ever asked me to be an informant?
	No.
	I've never taken a dime from any government agency.
	In that regard.
	So, but whatever.
	People can believe whatever they want.
	It really doesn't matter.
	I mean, again, I'm not trying to get anybody in trouble here, but I'm just going to tell you the truth.
	When I turned my phones over to the FBI agents, they both looked at me and they were like, yeah, this is totally political.
	So they all know.
	They all know.
	Well, I love it also.
	It's like typically informants don't go to jail.
	So this is like four or five D-level checks where to prove that you're not an informant, they're going to send you to jail for two months.
	Oh my goodness.
	Yeah, well, I mean, it's extraordinary.
	But I mean, the case is of great constitutional consequence because they're trying to not only lock you up for 60 days.
	And I was going to ask, did they specifically make that the D.C. jail, or is that not yet to be assigned?
	I was going to ask about that.
	I believe we left the, I don't know what the exact legal is, but we basically gave the jurisdiction to the Department of whatever it is, the Department of Prisons.
	Yeah, Bureau of Prisons.
	Yeah, that's the one.
	Okay, so it's not necessarily D.C. And here's another thing, too, and let me ask you a question, because It was my understanding going into this and other January 6th defendants, this came up in their cases.
	I didn't think that you could sentence somebody to jail and do supervised probation.
	I thought it was one or the other.
	It is.
	In fact, that's been ruled on recently.
	That's what I'm saying.
	I got both.
	Yeah.
	They can't.
	I mean, that's just a basic error.
	You can ask Lexi what I think about particular jurists.
	I won't say it publicly.
	I've already said publicly some things about certain jurists in D.C. So I'll let it go.
	Let's just say I'm not a big fan.
	There's some that are better than others.
	I'll put it that way.
	But why it's a great constitutional consequence beyond you as an individual is that this is, again, the first ever example where...
	They're saying, based purely on protected political activity, speech, press, and petitioning the government, we can increase your punishment.
	We can change your punishment based solely, wholly, and exclusively on protected First Amendment activity.
	That's never been done in American history before.
	And that's why the case is such a dangerous case if it's not reversed by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court.
	Because it's very unusual.
	The sentencing memorandum, I thought, okay, well, maybe there was some misinterpretation or something.
	And then I read it, and it's as bad as she laid it out being.
	They're saying, he said this, please put him in jail for this.
	He said this, please put him in jail for this.
	No criminal behavior, all constitutionally protected behavior, almost all speech on January 6th, doesn't even concern the alleged offense.
	All of it.
	He says things that question the election.
	Please put him in prison.
	Well, see, that's it right there.
	That is everything right there, Bob.
	None of it deals with the alleged offense.
	Period.
	Exactly.
	And that's what makes it so dangerous.
	If they can use this as precedent, they will expand it and extend it into effectively criminalizing speech.
	They'll find some little technical thing they can hang somebody up on.
	Crossing the street in the wrong time or whatever it is.
	Some nuisance, trespass, disorder, whatever language they want to stick on there.
	And then say, but punish them because they're political dissident speech.
	And that's what First Amendment protects.
	It'll be the first, to my knowledge, selective punishment in violation of the First Amendment issue that's ever arisen before the Court of Appeals or if it goes to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court.
	And that's why the case is of great consequence beyond even your individual concern.
	And so I encourage people to continue to support the case.
	Now, because of all the crazy lawfare, InfoWars is stuck with frozen accounts, effectively, with the bankruptcy proceedings governing it, not allowing certain amounts of legal fees to even be covered and paid.
	So I know there's some crowdfunding efforts on your behalf.
	Where can people go to support the litigation?
	Because this is a First Amendment concern, a universal concern for all Americans.
	Well, I'm glad you bring that up, not just for the issue of me having legal funds, but also so that people understand.
	I mean, we're capped here at Infowars, folks.
	They literally put a cap on us.
	And so it's beyond just me not being able to pay legal fees.
	I mean, like, we can't even travel.
	I got to pay for security now.
	I got to pay.
	For travel and lodging now.
	But that's a side issue that I have no problem with.
	And the audience has always supported us.
	And I'm eternally grateful for that.
	But yes, this is a legal battle.
	We did not expect this.
	Honestly, we expected that this was all going to be over last Tuesday.
	And that was going to be that.
	But sadly, I've learned otherwise.
	So I am crowdfunding for legal funds.
	DefendOwen.com.
	DefendOwen.com.
	And just as an act of good faith.
	To the audience that I'm eternally grateful for and their continued support of me, I've decided that I'm going to even get litigious in other areas that I don't even want to get involved in with one of your great attorneys, Lexi, that you brought up.
	And I'm now actually issuing a cease and desist to X and a cease and desist to an individual that is stealing my digital identity on X in an illegal way.
	So just as an act of good faith that your support of me financially at DefendoAnd.com is not just a wasted thing and I'm just going to accept it and lay down.
	No, it's inspired me to get even more litigious.
	So I'm also now getting involved in the offensive here, not just the defensive.
	But DefendOwen.com is where to go.
	And I'm just glad, you know, you got an eye for talent with Lexi.
	She's a young go-getting attorney.
	And she's decided to be the representative for me in my now cease and desist that we're going to file tomorrow against X and an individual stealing my digital identity.
	So that's just me saying to the audience, not only am I eternally grateful for your financial support so I can pay these legal bills, I'm not giving up either.
	I'm going to go above and beyond every time.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Just one additional component on that.
	Can you explain to people that...
	I've tried to explain to people that the deplatforming was not just about censorship, but it was about licensing defaming.
	And that because you cannot defend yourself, and now people can just lie left and right without consequence about you because you can't defend yourself on those platforms in the court of public opinion.
	But on top of that...
	The actual act of deplatforming is an act of defamation because they lie about the basis by which they deplatform you.
	And again, you don't have a chance.
	But now they've taken it to a third level, which is pretending to be you, faking that they're you, saying ridiculous things that people think are said by you.
	And so, you know, stolen image, invasion of privacy, all of those torts on top of defamation and libel and slander.
	You know, that you've had to experience, along with Alex Jones and other people at Infowars, ever since the deplatforming campaign began.
	Well, and let me just be perfectly clear that when I was banned from YouTube and Facebook and everywhere else, I never even got a reason.
	Yet to this day, even from Twitter, never got a reason.
	But let's just focus on Twitter or X because that's what we're discussing here.
	I didn't have three strikes.
	I didn't have one strike.
	They just wiped me out.
	No excuses given.
	I've filed three times for reinstatement of my Twitter account since Elon Musk took over.
	It hasn't took.
	I'm not a litigious person.
	I don't like engaging in this stuff.
	I got better things to do.
	Believe me, I deal with lawyers enough, okay?
	I'm not a litigious person.
	But this case has reached new levels, and Viva, we started the show talking about this, where through no fault of your own, you wouldn't know any better.
	You see an O in Troyer account.
	Verified on Twitter.
	Of course you assume that that's me, right?
	Of course.
	Why wouldn't you?
	Well, it's not.
	And so it's reached a level now where last week, where I was trending on Twitter, a lot of people were covering me.
	A lot of people were reaching out for interviews.
	They reach out to this fake account.
	And, I mean, just to put it simply, the fake Owen Troyer responds with lewd, crude, and rude content.
	And now what do people do?
	Oh, well, gee, I'm not going to support this jerk.
	I'm not going to give this a-hole a platform.
	Hell no.
	But it's not me.
	I mean, that's digital identity theft and potentially even defamation, as you're pointing out.
	And so, hey, look, bud, you're probably tuned in right now.
	Take the easy way out, dude.
	Take the easy way out.
	Shut the account down.
	Stop the illegal activity.
	Or we might have to go farther with this.
	So just take the easy way out.
	You're going to get the cease and desist.
	I know you were tuned into the show when we talked about it.
	I mean, I have situations where there was a guest that was supposed to be on today.
	This is a person I don't know.
	This individual is kind of new to making content on the Internet and I think makes great content.
	And so I said, hey, let's get this individual on.
	New, upcomer, making great content.
	I want to give them a platform.
	I think their content needs to be seen by more people.
	They agree to come on.
	They then go look at my Twitter account.
	They respond saying, sorry, I can't be affiliated with somebody that does this on the Internet.
	It's not me.
	So action had to be taken, and we're going to file the cease and desist tomorrow with your great go-getter, Lexis Anderson.
	Oh, so this is what I wanted to bring up, because someone said this a while back.
	Thanks, Owen, for fighting the Constitution and the...
	for the Constitution, not fighting the Constitution, fighting for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
	Your sarcasm is epic.
	Viva and Barnes, you too.
	I can do it.
	I can do it with both hands, actually.
	Then in the...
	Oh, my...
	You could do it better, Owen, with the...
	Is that hard to do?
	I didn't even know.
	Apparently, a lot of people can't do it.
	Yeah, it is actually.
	Dude, hold on.
	Put your fingers together for one second.
	Let me just see the...
	Oh, God.
	Now people just saw what my hands looked like.
	I got some crooked fingers, too, here.
	I've jammed them so many times playing basketball.
	No, it's a question of which one's longer than the other, but now everyone's seen my mitts.
	I was never playing baseball.
	Oh, and there was one that says, I'm not your buddy guy.
	It says, call me fearful or paranoid.
	This is a rumble rant.
	But I believe, whether as a Canadian I like it or not, the fight for freedom will be the 2024 U.S. election.
	If the collectivists win, there will be no going back peacefully.
	That was actually, maybe this might be the last question so that you can actually end this with maybe a white pill or maybe it's a doom pill.
	My running theory is that peace will be sustained so long as people have the slightest degree of faith.
	When they come after you and others and they basically convict you, persecute you, and sentence you to crimes that you didn't actually commit.
	Or get charged with.
	Or get charged with.
	The disincentive to not commit those crimes goes out the window.
	Typically you say, look, if I behave well and if I'm a law-abiding citizen and I cooperate and I collaborate and I participate and I give them everything they need, then I'll be fine.
	But then when you do all that and they still punish you for crimes you didn't commit or even get charged or accused with, well then the incentive not to commit them in the first place has been lifted.
	What do you say to the people out there who might be doom-pilled, cynic-pilled, whatever the pill is, who say, "Well, cripe, if they're going to do it anyhow, I may as well do it.
	Well, considering everything that I've been through, and we've discussed probably maybe 70% of it here on the show, considering everything I've been through, I still love this country.
	I still believe that I still want to...
	Dedicate my life to what I believe is going to be saving freedom in the West, saving the Bill of Rights, and saving the Constitution.
	I don't see any other where to go.
	Where else is there to go?
	This is why the United States of America was founded, to get government interference and corruption out of our lives.
	That's what this whole country is about.
	There's nowhere to run.
	There's nowhere to go.
	And so if I can still be here and still fight the good fight, then I hope that that's an inspirational act.
	And I've been realizing this, too, that because I've seen men, I've seen other men go through this and keep fighting.
	I mean, I'll name their names.
	Alex Jones, Roger Stone, Donald Trump, Mike Flynn, Clay Clark, you know, so other men have have fought the good fight and without any hesitation.
	And so that's the example that's been set.
	And so despite all the things that I've been through.
	I still have no doubts that this is where I want to be.
	This is where I want to live the rest of my life.
	I'm an American.
	I want to stay an American.
	I have grandfathers that served in the military.
	So I believe America is worth the good fight.
	And quite frankly, I just don't see anywhere else to go.
	Now, as far as the analysis that if we don't win in 2024, what do we do then?
	I think that's a fair analysis.
	I would maybe even agree that if the collectivists win in 2024, we've got a whole other beast, a whole other thing of issues that we're dealing with here.
	And yeah, there's probably going to be a lot of their own Troyers going to jail for their speech.
	So that's not to blackpill, because I hope to be an inspirational factor, quite frankly.
	I hope to inspire other Americans that love this country and care about the future to stand up and fight the good fight like myself and other men have before me.
	And this cliche that's kind of embedded in my head that I think I've come up with myself and that's better men have come before me and I challenge better men to come after me.
	And so I think that that's the attitude we have to have.
	Good will triumph over evil.
	But good has to get onto the playing field and into the arena to have that victory.
	And so I hope I inspire other good men to join me in the good fight.
	And I know that there are plenty of other good men.
	And when I see what's going on in Congress, yeah, you know, I might be going through it and the country's definitely going through it.
	But if you consider where we were at 10 years ago and then what we saw today on the hill in the grilling of Merrick Garland.
	I mean, we're moving the Overton window in the right direction.
	We're moving the hearts and minds of Americans in the right direction.
	I'd rather not be a free speech martyr, but if that's the role I have to play to get other Americans to stand up for what's right, then so be it.
	Perfect.
	Where can people find you?
	They know where not to find you on Twitter, but where can they find you in various social media, your War Room show, and the rest?
	Oh my gosh, yeah.
	Don't follow the big gay sexo and Troyer on Twitter.
	That is not me, okay?
	Let's just be perfectly clear about that one more time.
	But yeah, one of the most banned men in America.
	I wear it as a badge of honor.
	Now, I am live every day, 3 to 6 p.m. Central Time at banned.video.
	If somebody's banned that link, then you can go to madmaxworld.tv or warroomisraw.com.
	It all takes you to the same show, the InfoWars War Room, 3 to 6 p.m. Central weekdays.
	Most, if not all, of my content ends up at band.video.
	I have started an independent channel at rumble.com slash Owen.
	Rumble.com slash Owen.
	I want to be part of the Rumble Revolution, so I wanted to make sure I have a foot in the door and a footprint there as well.
	But infowars.com, band.video.
	Those are the places for most of my hard-hitting political commentary.
	And then for some extracurriculars, rumble.com slash Owen.
	Dude, that's one heck of a banner.
	All right.
	You also got Owen.
	That's amazing.
	Owen, stick around because we've got some stuff to talk about after we stop being live.
	Thank you.
	Amazing.
	You are, in as much as I'm a good judge of character, a good man.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	And anybody who thinks you're not, doesn't know you well enough.
	End of story.
	Robert, okay, so, well, that's it.
	We'll end it there.
	Everyone out there, enjoy the night.

▲