Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes join Roger Roots to challenge a DOJ motion vacating their seditious conspiracy convictions, alleging FBI coercion of witness Jeremy Bertino and prosecutorial misconduct by Jocelyn Ballantyne. Guests argue the government manufactured terrorism enhancements based on social media posts to force testimony against President Trump, while claiming the DOJ now seeks self-preservation over justice. The discussion highlights fears of political retaliation in future elections and speculates on a deep state cover-up involving Brian Cole, concluding that these legal maneuvers reflect broader partisan warfare rather than genuine accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
The Clockmaker Analogy00:04:02
Forgot to start.
Look at this thing right here.
Missing a leg.
I got hit by the breaker.
Let me see you.
Okay, look at this.
Look at the colors on that.
Think about the clockmaker analogy.
If you come across a watch in the middle of the desert, you say, Someone designed this watch.
And you say, Nah, no one designed this.
This is beautiful, glorious.
Missing a leg.
He'll do fine.
All right, do you want to go?
Oh, now you want to hold on.
There you go.
All right, here we go.
We're starting with the beauty of nature today, people.
Look at the way he touches the ground.
One, two, three, four.
Beautiful.
That is so beautiful.
Just want to show you the gator that I saw.
This was on one bike ride.
This is not something.
And it's mating season.
Very often.
There are two gators right there.
Oh my gosh.
The one with its mouth open is a big boy.
I bet you that one has maybe it has babies in its mouth.
I once saw a gator that had literal babies in and around its mouth, but we're too early in the season for that.
Now it's just mating season.
So they're making the babies.
Then they're going to nest.
And then the babies are going to hatch towards, I think, August, September.
It's amazing, people.
And that is.
Not literally my backyard, but close enough in the beautiful free state of Florida.
Wanted to start with something good, totally unrelated.
Today's show is going to be something kind of amazing, kind of unique.
It starts off with just one guest, and then it turns into two guests, and now it's turned into three guests because the news of the week is the news coming out of the DOJ, which is a motion to vacate the convictions of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, who were convicted of seditious conspiracy among other charges.
They were sentenced to Anywhere between like 10 and 22 years, depending on the individual.
And what had happened after Trump came in and after the election came in, day one, pardoned all of the Jan Sixers with two dozen exceptions.
No, actually, not two dozen, one dozen plus one exceptions.
There were some people who fell through the cracks of the pardon and who got commutations, but commutations don't have the same legal effects as pardons.
And some of those people who got egregious convictions, egregious sentences, and were appealing their convictions because despite the commutation, there were still legal consequences that they wanted to reverse on appeal.
Some of the Proud Boys, some of the Oath Keepers, Stuart Rhodes, he's been on the channel many times now.
They were still appealing those convictions, though commuted and though they were free, they had certain legal consequences.
I believe firearm ownership was one issue, suspended military pay, pensions was another issue.
And the news of the week is that the DOJ came in and filed a motion to vacate the convictions at the appellate level.
It has yet to occur.
It's got to be remanded down to the lower district courts in DC.
You know, hopefully they won't play the shenanigans that Judge Emery or Judge Emmett, I forget his name, I think it was Emery in the Michael Flynn case, gave some issues when they wanted to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn.
He's like, oh, I've got to exercise my discretion to make sure that this is a proper dismissal.
I don't think we're going to have that problem now, but thus far, it's just been the motion to vacate the convictions of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, those who got commutations of sentences.
And I wanted to talk with Stuart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers.
Motion to Vacate Convictions00:17:28
Enrique Tario is going to come on.
And then at the last minute, Stuart said, You might want to have one of the Jan 6 lawyers in here, Roger Roots, who's coming in as well.
Now, before we even get into any of this, first of all, good afternoon.
Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida Rumbler.
My daily show at 3 o'clock in the Rumble lineup.
And I'm going to plug it now for the benefit of Stuart Rhodes, because after the justice comes the healing and maybe retribution for those who did the wrong.
I noticed the Oathkeeper's account was unfindable on X.
And Stuart Rhodes has set up a give, send, go because it's the one you use.
You do not use the go F me to try to get some support and try to continue on with life after these unholy persecutions.
Enrique, how goes the battle, sir?
Well, that's it.
We'll bring it, bring it, everyone.
Let's do it.
Sorry.
I didn't know what I was doing here.
And it says join stage.
I clicked it.
So now I'm here with you.
So I've been told, I was texting somebody at Rumble.
I was like, you know, I. I'm using the legacy, the initial iteration of Rumble Studio, because I'm an old boob and I don't like learning new things.
So, on the new version, I can toggle in, or the power to toggle in and out the guests is all I have that power on my end.
Now I don't because I'm still using the older version.
So, next stream, I'm going to have to learn new things.
Roger, you can come on in too.
We're going to have a full panel, we're going to have a full square here.
Enrique, Stuart, how goes the battle, gentlemen?
Good.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you.
You sound great, Roger.
I'm right here.
Can you hear me?
You're good.
And Enrique, I know I can hear you.
You look like you're in the Death Star or something related to Star Wars.
I am.
I am.
This is the Death Star.
Gentlemen, if you could, let's.
I mean, we're going to go in order.
I guess we'll go in clockwise order, starting with Roger.
Introduce yourselves to the chat.
I know, Roger, this is your first time on the show, so people are going to not know who you are, but just for those who have not yet met all of you, remind everybody who you are.
Yeah, I'm Roger Roots.
I was a J6 defense lawyer.
I actually had.
10 jury trials.
I had 10 J6 jury trials, 14 total trials, four of which were by bench, by the judge.
I was in Enrico's trial, Enrique's trial.
We were together for four and a half months in the Proud Boy trial.
I was one of two lawyers representing his co defendant, Dominic Pozzola.
Enrique?
Oh, yeah, that is clockwise.
Sorry, I must have missed that.
And Roger, I think me and you are supposed to be on the phone today at some point.
But regardless, yes, Roger was an amazing, amazing attorney in our trial, one of the best attorneys that we had there.
And how goes it for me?
I mean, I would say I'm not going to say 100% great.
I'd say that we took a great step in the right direction.
You know, I've been very, I think this is something me and you talked about, Viva.
I've been very critical of the DOJ, not because of things taking a long time.
I understand things take time, but they have countered us every step of the way until this Tuesday, where they put that motion in, not only for me, but for my brother here on the other clockwise side to vacate and dismiss all charges, which is better than a pardon.
Amen.
And now, Stuart, you got to remind everyone who you are.
Yes, I'm the founder of Oath Keepers.
I was, Ricky got 22 years, wasn't even in DC.
I was sentenced to 18 years.
I didn't go inside, was standing outside.
We were there doing volunteer security for permitted events on Capitol grounds.
And so, all of us, Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, were the only ones who were charged with seditious conspiracy.
And obviously, the whole point was to manufacture a false narrative that Trump, as the kingpin, Had ordered Enrique and myself to have our men go into the Capitol, complete lie.
And so all of our prosecutions were meant to, well, first of all, holding us all in solitary confinement.
I did a year and a half in solitary.
My co defendants did two years.
I think Enrique did at least two years, right?
Even longer.
So they were trying to coerce us into false confessions.
We didn't do it.
We went to trial.
And so it was really bizarre when we were all set free on inauguration night.
It was fantastic.
But I get down to the release section and they're like, oh, well, you got to report to your probation officers.
Like, wait a minute.
Did I get a pardon?
And said, no, he got a commutation.
So, for whatever reason, we were set aside.
Eight oath keepers, four proud boys were not pardoned and were set aside, given commutation only.
And that, I believe, was to further the false narrative.
I think bad actors in President Trump's own circle, I think that's what I believe.
So, but now that's finally being closed.
That door is being shut by the DOJ's own motion.
And we can talk about why I think that is.
But we're going to get into that for sure.
And Enrique and I mentioned, you know, the fact that.
There were still convictions, bona fide convictions that have been commuted, allowed certain politicians to have certain talking points during certain Senate hearings.
So it always served the opposition very well that you never got a pardon.
So that conviction.
In fact, when Ivan Ranklin and I were sitting in the new J6 Select Committee hearing on the pipe bomber with Brian Cole being railroaded, just like we were, innocent man, you had Jamie Raskin point at me at the audience and say, Look at that.
Stuart Rhodes is here and he's still a convicted seditionist.
Why do the Republicans have a convicted seditionist here?
That's the problem, it allowed that false narrative to live on.
That's not doing President Trump any favors.
So it's really a good thing in the end, whatever their motivation for doing it, it'll be good for President Trump.
So it's going to be wonderful for us, but I think it's also good for MAGA big time.
Just quickly, and I'm going to be very brief.
There's so many ways to look at this, right?
And like all of us have our way of looking at it.
Another way, one thing that I find funny is, you know, this was Zach's motions.
I think we're a huge part of this.
When we asked to argue against the DOJ, the fact that their start witness recanted their testimony and admitted to perjury, that's when the DOJ was like, okay.
You know what?
It might be better to throw this case out because I don't think they want to argue that.
That's right.
I agree.
Who was there?
Are you allowed mentioning who their star witness was?
In our case, and I think it's a similar case with Stuarts, in our case, his name was Jeremy Bertino.
I got him on two depositions with our attorneys.
And also, I got him on a live stream for about an hour and a half where we go through the details of what happened to him through the case and the coercion.
And Mr. Roger Roots up there did a fantastic job.
An amazing job also putting him on cross examination.
Enrique, I know you and I talked about it, or at least I think we did the last time.
Do flesh that out a little bit in terms of how Joey was basically coerced to, I don't know, give false confessions, later recanted, but then nobody wanted to listen to the recanting after the convenient confession.
Look, it's not besides me that the government typically coerces people by saying, well, you're going to do this much time, right?
So I don't think that that's too much of a legal argument.
I think that there is an argument there, but it went beyond that.
They lied to him.
In order to coerce that testimony, that false testimony.
And not only that, they offered him incentives.
They offered him monetary incentives in this case.
And yeah, there was so much that goes.
I suggest if you go to our Twitter channel at Warboy Studios and you look for Jeremy Bertino on the search bar on the top, you know what?
I'll pin it to the top so you guys can catch that interview.
And it was very explosive because we went into detail on that.
We are going to come back to that in terms of who the players were that coerced that or enticed that out of him.
But, Roger, just first, when you say you did 10 trials, and to the extent I'm fairly certain the conviction rates among Jan Sixers was 98%, I presume all 10 of those trials resulted in convictions?
It was a 100% jury conviction rate for Jay Sixers, 100% by the juries.
Now, I had a trial at the end.
The last trial I had was a bench trial, Stephanie Baez, and she was acquitted by the judge.
There were a couple, so the conviction rate by the judges was something like 98% or something.
Something like that.
Roger successfully, just to give him credit here, Roger successfully argued in trial against the sedition count for Dominic Pizzola.
Yeah, that's right.
He was the only one that was not convicted of that particular charge.
He was convicted of a number of other charges.
Yes.
But, you know, Dominic Pizzola had only been a member of the Proud Boys for 30 days.
And here he didn't even know these guys.
He really did not know Enrique.
He didn't even know any of these guys.
And here he was in this trial with his co defendants, the leaders of this Proud Boy organization.
And they threw him in because Dominic had famously been in all these videos clearing out the glass.
There was a broken window.
He was one of the first few people inside the Capitol.
So they threw him in.
Would you say he was a fairly low level proud boy, Enrique?
I mean, they threw him into this trial charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the US government.
And like I said, he had been a member for 30 days.
Yeah.
And it goes beyond that.
We weren't the only case that he was part of.
They were parading him around from indictment to indictment.
And his first indictment that he was joined in with other J6 defendants, they got the plea deals off of that.
Then they moved him to our indictment.
You know, to try to coerce plea deals, but that didn't happen in our case.
Our guys stood strong, and they continue to stand strong as you've seen them recently.
Excited from Jeremy, right?
That's the one.
Besides from Jeremy, yes.
Yeah, correct.
And we had two oath keepers did the exact same thing in our case.
They were pressured, threatened with life in prison.
They rolled over, made a false confession, and then signed a false statement of facts against me.
Same goal was to create, manufacture something that didn't exist.
Well, that's what we need.
We're going to get into that not in the thick of the weeds to the point where people are going to be confused, but just so they understand what led up to this motion to vacate the convictions.
But I think people need to understand what was done, who did it in terms of railroading the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, manufacturing evidence, withholding evidence, and trying to coerce false confessions out.
And by the way, we do an attack on the terrorism enhancements that a lot of you got.
So I don't know if we can go again clockwise and everybody can add an anecdote of the most egregious.
Misconduct that occurred during these respective trials, but who's the best to start?
Go for it, Rutter.
Yeah, let me just say, you know, we've been discussing what this motion that is currently filed has not been granted by the DC Circuit.
The motion is to vacate these appeals and then to order the lower court to dismiss the cases entirely.
So, vacate the sentences, actually, right?
To vacate the sentences, vacate the entire case, and then remand for dismissal of the charges with prejudice.
And let me just say one thing also I want to make this clear.
I'm going to make sure I'm not going to say anything that's going to compromise your good standing.
I don't want to get you into any trouble because I appreciate that the motions are pending and they haven't been actually followed through on.
And this is all good news, and any criticism is going to be righteous, constructive criticism.
But you don't want to piss anybody off before this actually gets through the court system.
I think pissing people off is what got us here.
Well, let me.
There's a way to argue that.
I would like to say here's what's really important in my eyes.
Now, again, I'm pretty steeped in all this January 6th stuff.
Of course, all three of us are.
But.
Not only did I have 14 total trials, but I was working on 12 appeals.
And this is what's important.
I worked my ass off on those appeals.
We had appeals that were so good.
I honestly thought we were going to win a great bulk of those.
We had issues on appeal that would have overturned so much of the J6 prosecutions.
Let me give you an example.
In the Lloyd Cruz case, we had the issue before the DC Circuit, which was this general warrant.
They used the largest general warrant.
In world history, a general warrant is illegal under the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment requires any search warrant to be based on probable cause, specific allegations of an individual suspected of an actual crime.
They used a general warrant, which was to get every cell phone at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th.
And they didn't even state specific crimes.
They said they provided a menu of, I think, 10 or 12 possible crimes that the people who held these cell phones could have been.
Witnesses to or perpetrators of.
That's not a valid search warrant.
So we had that, but I mean, that could have wiped off that appeal, would have wiped off hundreds of convictions, in my opinion.
We had appeals on First Amendment grounds.
I was in a trial where the judge falsely instructed the jury that there are no First Amendment rights at the U.S. Capitol.
That was on appeal.
We had great appeals.
And that's what's important today about this motion.
Enrique and Stewart, they had issues on their appeals that would likely have been very embarrassing.
And even if the DC circuit was going to maybe shrug stuff off or whatever, the facts and the issues are so embarrassing that I think that figures into this.
So I'm going to take notes.
So if it looks like I'm typing, it's not to be rude.
But embarrassment versus misconduct are two different things.
And I want to hammer down the misconduct because I think that might be more of the issue than just embarrassment, like the courts have any shame in the first place.
Enrique, give us the clearest cut example of misconduct that you experienced during your trials.
So, look, most of this is also found in our civil lawsuit against the United States government and the FBI.
But the most egregious things that we put on there are number one, FBI agent, special agent Nicole Miller and FBI special agent Hannick, which both are still employed by the FBI, by the way, were the ones that perpetrated these lies to Jeremy Bertino and this coercion to Jeremy Bertino.
But that's not where it ends with both of those.
They were also tapping into attorney client privilege conversations in our trial.
They also put In an informant within our defense team to take a look at what our defense strategy is.
Another thing, as attorneys, you guys should know that that's a huge violation and instant grounds for not just dismissal at the bare minimum dismissal, but I'll go down to a mistrial in this case and the removal of the prosecutors in there.
And then we move over, we shift over to the DOJ, and the person signing all of this off was.
Her name is Jocelyn Ballantyne, also still employed by the DOJ.
And Jocelyn Ballantyne is very instrumental, not just for the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers trial.
She was instrumental in all the 1,600 defendants because she was one of the leads in the Capitol Siege Division of the DOJ.
She was sitting in the room with Nicole Miller when Nicole Miller lied to Jeremy Bertino, but Nicole Miller and Special Agent Hannock and Jocelyn Ballantyne were in the room.
When they offered me that to lie about President Trump to throw him under the bus and save my ass, they wanted me to sign something that they knew was a false story.
It would have been a false document that I would be signing in order to get the president on sedition charges.
If we go back in a time machine and see what was happening during that time, a little bit after that time, but during that time period, they were trying to knock President Trump off the ballot, Colorado successfully at the state level.
DOJ Missteps and Charges00:14:44
And then it got to the Supreme Court level.
And the Constitution states that if somebody were dealing in insurrection, that person's no longer eligible for office in the United States.
So they didn't have enough charges there, but they would have gotten so much closer if the president would have been charged with seditious conspiracy.
And at the end of the day, that was the name of the game.
It wasn't really about us, it was about getting the president and stopping him from coming back to office and subsequently pardoning us.
And doing all the things that he's doing right now.
That was in Colorado, that was when they didn't get the official charges against Trump.
They declared it, you know, a self declaration or the state gets to declare insurrection in order to remove somebody from the ballot.
And they, you know, actually got away with it for a bit.
And I just want to highlight this so that people understand this.
It's not just that they were listening to what were supposed to be secure lines for solicitor client conversations in jail.
Enrique, they had a mole on the Proud Boy side of the defense.
That they wouldn't admit it, but I think they had to tacitly admit was relaying strategy to the prosecution.
I brought up a comment that said it's not immoral or unethical.
This is an actual effing crime.
And not only did they get away with it, but now it looks like they're going to sweep it under the rug by not even allowing you to argue these violations of the law before the appellate courts.
That's correct.
Stuart, you got to add one here.
You're going to top Enrique on the misconduct?
I can probably just confirm everything he just said.
It might make this a dick measuring contest.
It's long.
Like all of ours is pretty long.
It's pretty bad.
Look, here's the bottom line Enrique was the top of the pyramid in the Proud Boys.
So the whole point was to get him to turn on President Trump.
I was the top of the pyramid within the Oath Keepers.
All the other coerced confessions and false testimony was meant to build up to pressuring me.
Into turning on President Trump.
So the two of us were the primary targets to coerce into bearing false witness against President Trump.
We refused.
So everything else was built up to that.
And then the goal was to put President Trump in prison.
Like Enrique said, they were going to charge him with suspicious conspiracy.
If we had signed on to it, we could have gone home.
Because the two oath keepers that did take the deal never saw any jail time.
They were out on bond or pretrial release the whole time.
And then when Judge Mehta sentenced them and they pled guilty to this conspiracy, He gave them probation only, no prison time.
And then when President Trump was inaugurated, they got pardons.
So I go back to what Ron Paul said truth is treason in the empire of lies.
So we were telling the truth, we were punished.
The ones that went along with the lies, lies were rewarded.
So that was the whole point of everything to put President Trump in prison.
And in our trial, they had suborned perjury, they had perjured testimony by two police officers.
This is what I think they don't want coming out.
So, Glenn Baker from Blaze Media exposed the fact that Harry Dunn and Oscar Lazarus lied on the stand in my trial, in our trial.
They got on the stand and said they were together in this so called confrontation with the Oath Keepers where they were actually helping Harry Dunn.
They got on the stand and lied and said they were together.
Turns out, Steve Baker found video of Oscar Lazarus in the tunnels under the Senate showing that he could not have been in two places at one time.
They were both lying on the stand.
So, there you go.
Hands in the cookie jar, example of perjury.
So they see that.
They know that's coming.
In our appeal, we of course make a big deal out of that.
We'd make a big deal out of the coerced confessions of those two oath keepers.
I would have done the same thing Enrique did.
I would have gone to them and said, hey guys, why don't you come out and do the right thing?
You know, I'm knocking their doors, come outside and just tell the world what happened.
You got coerced.
So they don't want that coming out.
And in our trial, we were not allowed to call Ray Epps as a witness.
We were not allowed to mention his name.
We're not allowed to even show video of him or anything.
Why not?
Why on earth not?
As the judge said, it's not relevant.
Judge Mena said that.
So, my point is that they did everything they can to stack the deck with false testimony and perjury on the stand.
They committed crimes.
Subordination to perjury is a felony.
They did that.
It happened in the Proud Boys case.
It happened in our case.
And yes, Ballantyne was there in the front row coaching our prosecutors the whole damn time.
She'd pop in a lot and she was there making sure things got done her way.
So, I think it's just the iceberg of all the coercion that went on in these cases.
And it was going to come out.
So, I believe that the.
DOJ is making an institutional decision to protect itself as an institution by not having these appeals go forward and having more of this come out.
And I think they're concerned about unfavorable rulings or that might constrict their ability to use seditious conspiracy in the future against somebody else or some other conspiracy charges.
They're worried about a narrow ruling or a narrowing of their ability to do that or maybe even invalidation of the statute.
I think the statute is blatantly unconstitutional.
So I think they're worried about that.
And also, they know we have civil claims.
They don't want to have findings of fact and law.
In the appellate court or at the Supreme Court, that we could point to in our civil case cases.
Now it just goes back to square one.
We got to prove it now when we go to the civil cases.
So I don't believe this is frankly DOJ doing the right thing for the right reasons.
I think they're doing the right thing to cover their own ass, frankly.
I also find it crazy that Jocelyn Ballantyne has been signing every motion, opposition motion, ever since we got out when it comes to the appellate courts.
The only motion in our case that she did not sign.
Was this motion that came down on Tuesday that does not, it's void of her name.
And actually, her boss's name is right under Jeanine Pirro.
So I find that a little bit, I find it like strange.
And while she's still signing the motions in the Brian Cole Jr. case, the same day as your motion to vacate, by the way, on my screen, I see all our names on the bottom, you know, the bottom four, but it doesn't appear on the actual screen.
And maybe on the newer version of Rumble Studio, it probably does.
So just for everybody who's tuning in, Roger Roots, right next to me over here, is an attorney, worked on the Jan 6 cases, a lot of them.
Bottom down there is Enrique Tario, member of the Proud Boys, which I won't even make the joke how it's designated in Canada because it's an effing joke and it's not funny.
And then we've got Stuart Rhodes right down here, not Woads, but Rhodes because I have a typo in the chat.
And he's the founder of the Oath Keepers.
And they were both, you know, basically.
I remember the first time I ever wanted to deal with a story regarding the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers and cover you, Stuart.
I was like, am I going to get in trouble because this organization has been.
Seems very naughty and nasty in America.
And then I realized it was all bullshit.
So, okay, procedurally now, Roger, they come in with this motion.
We're going to flesh out a few more things in a sec.
The motion to vacate the convictions means basically now all of the appeals that are pending, if it in fact gets vacated, remanded, and dismissed, does everybody lose their pending appeals?
Do they disappear?
Do they basically dissolve with the dismissal of the charges?
Yes, basically.
It is a motion to make the appeals go away, which of course will cause the lower court, basically, it'll be like they were never charged.
So these guys were, you know, they will actually be better off than simply pardoned because they won't even have the criminal record on their record.
And by the way, I want to point out that this is just like many, many other J6ers because if you look at Trump's January 20th, 2025 proclamation of pardon.
It begins by saying that the following 14 guys are commuted.
Stuart Rhodes was one of those.
And then the next part said, All other J6ers get an unconditional and a full pardon.
And the next part said, I hereby instruct my attorney general to dismiss all current pending open January 6 cases.
So that's what ruined.
I had 12 great appeals.
I mean, great appeals, hoping to win.
And so the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated all of those and put an end to them.
We will never get rulings, never.
And which, in some ways, it's horrible because it leaves these horrible precedents on the books, rulings of law by the lower courts, which were absolutely horrible.
Those will be on the books.
The appeals were all vacated.
And so I would guess several hundred J Sixers were also dismissed in the same way.
In other words, their record does not show that they were ever convicted, that the cases were completely dismissed.
And so, in that way, it's better than being simply pardoned because someone could point to them and say, oh, you were pardoned, but that doesn't mean you were innocent.
Where these other cases that were live and open are now completely gone, dismissed.
Well, yeah, saving except for the years and the dollars that were squandered on the defenses.
But then the question is is it detrimental to a potential.
Claim for malicious prosecution.
It won't affect the civil claims, but would this potentially be an impediment to a potential claim for malicious prosecution?
I will say that, well, one of the elements of malicious prosecution lawsuit is that the prosecution ended in your favor.
Now, by the way, I will argue that the pardon actually is exoneration for everyone, for all the J 6ers.
I argue that the pardon itself is a ruling of exoneration.
But in these other cases that were simply dismissed, the live cases, it certainly satisfies that element for a lawsuit for malicious prosecution.
Enrique and Stuart, you do have also pending civil claims.
Is there a class action or individual civil claims?
I currently, that I know of, I might be wrong here.
I think the Proud Boys are the five Proud Boys, the only ones that have a direct civil claim beyond just the tort claim.
We filed it in the Middle District of Florida.
We are amending our complaint.
We have until the 30th currently.
It's not going good for the government.
The judge on Saturday did dismiss.
The case, she says that there's merit in the case, but she wants clarity as to the counts that we're alleging and what plaintiff is attached to each count and how they're attached.
So we're going to expand on that.
And we will be expanding the defendant list on our claim.
Somebody, we will be adding here.
Look, you know what?
I'll say it here first.
We will be adding Jocelyn Ballantyne to our lawsuit for her acts during and before our trial.
Her coercion of Jeremy Bertino, amongst other things, deprivation of rights.
So, there's a couple charges that we're going to be adding on to the United States government and the FBI.
So, that's what we have pending civilly, at least the Proud Boys case.
And personally, or in her professional capacity, or both?
As of right now, both.
Okay.
Uh, Stuart, what's the status of any claims you guys have?
Yeah, so now Peter Tickton is my attorney for that, and he's also my attorney for the pardon application.
And so he's taken the first step of doing the tort claims act first, and then after that, we'll go from there.
So that's where we are right now.
So yeah, it's still in play.
So that's why I said what I said.
I think that part of their reasoning may be not just to avoid political embarrassment, but also to not have disfavorable rulings of fact and law that we can point to in civil matters.
So, like I said, I think it's the And also to retain the ability to persecute other people in the future.
They don't want to constrain that.
This is the institution defending itself.
This is the DOJ as an institution.
That's what I think.
I'm very cynical.
Look, as a recovering lawyer, I don't trust our system at all.
I think it's broken.
And I don't believe this is being done out of good intent.
I just don't.
Well, that is my question for all three of you.
Before we even get into who is still there and why, in the name of sweet holy hell, are they still there and whether or not this is the result of vocal criticism or self preservation.
This is the Trump administration.
This is, in theory, the Trump DOJ.
Why, in the name of sweet holy hell, would they not want to put on blast all of the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred under the Biden administration, where they could very easily, maybe it spans before and after, but they could very easily use that prosecutorial misconduct to clean house at the DOJ, which they should have done.
Why, in the name of sweet holy hell, would they not want to do that?
I have, listen, I have full confidence that if Democrats, and God forbid it, Democrats were ever to get power again, and Jocelyn Ballantyne is still employed by the DOJ, Jocelyn Ballantyne will lead the charge against President Trump and the rest of us.
There's no reason to have her there.
She should have been fired on day one.
And look, I made the joke on one of your posts when you were talking about this, and I said, oh, look, chimping out works.
I haven't really been chimping out, I've been expressing my anger to some of these decisions.
That have been made.
Again, it's not a thing about patience for me.
It all has to do with them taking action against us.
So I've been calling for her firing for a long time.
Special Agent Hannock, Special Agent Nicole Miller, Jason McCullough from our prosecutorial team, Connor Morrow, another prosecutor that still works for the DOJ.
Like these people, it's so easy to go fire them.
You know, it doesn't take a lot.
You just walk down the office, knock on the door, and tell them to pack their shit.
It's not hard.
And that's something that we're requesting.
Look, I'm happy.
I'm happy.
And I'm pretty satisfied.
Again, like Roger Root said, it's not over yet, but I'm pretty satisfied with the motion to vacate and dismiss.
I think it's going to go the right way.
Boss Fired, Results Expected00:15:56
But for the most part, these people are going to be a problem in the future.
I'm not looking at instant gratification.
I'm looking into the future.
I'm looking into 2028.
I'm looking into 2032, what it's going to look like.
And I'll tell you what, if Democrats take power again in 2028, on January 21st of 2029, a day after Trump steps out of office, they're going to play reversal.
The first time what they did during the Biden administration, they imprisoned all his supporters and weaponized against the rest.
And then they came after the president.
They're going to do the opposite.
They're going to come after the president and then come get all his supporters.
So our voices will be moot at that point.
By the way, Stuart, when you chat, make sure that you're putting your chat in the all section and not just the private chat, because I see it always thinking.
I don't know how to do that, man.
Okay.
Well, I'll read it because I want it.
It says, yes, Tina Peters, Trump should just rescue her as a material witness to the stolen election 2020.
I took a little bit of shit online for picking your brain and other brains of other lawyers to promote that idea.
We'll get there in a bit, actually.
And all three of you, whoever best can answer this, one of the arguments for why they can't just go in and fire people is you'll get claims for wrongful dismissal, they'll fight their terminations.
Whereas it would seem to me if you had judgments, if you had court rulings that there was prosecutorial misconduct, You no longer need to worry about a suit for wrongful dismissal when you have termination for cause, which would be violation of civil rights and whatever.
So, again, none of us are going to disagree on the obviousness of the answer.
Why the hell would they not go through with it, get findings of fact and law of prosecutorial misconduct, and then fire their asses and not have to worry about the process?
Because they don't want to fire them.
Because, like we already said, I don't give them any excuses for why they haven't done it.
When Obama came into power, he purged out of the military and out of the DOJ and the FBI.
The left, when they come into power, they purge the right out.
They have no problem doing that.
Just fire them, let them fight.
Okay, great.
So they get some kind of settlement.
So what?
At least you got rid of the rot.
At least you drained the swamp.
That has not been done.
And I'm not going to give the Trump DOJ a pass on any of that failure.
You can't, it's not 5D chess.
You know, people were like, oh, the reason why you guys are set aside and only given commutations, they wanted to collect more evidence of wrongdoing.
I don't believe that.
Now that we're on the eve of appeals, they suddenly want to duck out.
It's because they don't want it.
It's the institution.
Unfortunately, the DOJ under President Trump right now is acting still very much like the DOJ under Biden.
I think it can be changed.
I hope that now that Pambani's gone, there'll be a sea change.
But I'm skeptical.
I want to see results.
Enrique.
Go ahead, Roger.
Go ahead.
Well, I was going to say listen, all of this is an uphill battle.
You know, we've, this is a, what we're talking about now, it's a very minor victory, but there are so many hurdles.
One thing that has to be said, I mentioned there was a 100% jury conviction rate for J Sixers.
And that is due to one thing, which is those trials happened in DC.
Now, DC, for anyone who knows this, is, depends on the election year, but it votes 92, 93%, 94%.
For the Democratic candidate in every single election.
So that's the jury pool.
The jury pool that these J6ers were in front of was so rigged for conviction in every J6 trial that these cases just were not fair.
So this is part of the big problem.
I would argue that this same overarching tilt in DC also affects the judges.
And, you know, I have to be very careful about what I say about the judges, but frankly, it is documented that conservative judges.
Samuel Alito is an example, who have to live in the DC, the greater DC area.
They have death threats, they have attackers, they live in fear.
So, it is an uphill battle in the courts, especially the courts of D.C.
So, you know, I agree with everything that's being said here.
And, Viva, you mentioned that it'd be great to get some rulings on the books that you can point to.
Listen, it's not that easy.
I'm going to be working, I work with Peter Ticton Law Firm.
We will be working with all these guys on some civil lawsuits in the very near future.
And let's just put it this way we're going to hope and pray and, and, uh, We'll do everything we can.
But ultimately, Stuart is 100% correct.
The courts in the United States, especially in the District of Columbia, are not the friends of limited government, constitutional limits, or any of those great things.
I will say the great benefit for all of us, though, is that it's a silver lining.
Yes, we're not getting what we really wanted, was to have exposure of everything they did.
We're going to have to keep fighting for that and other methods.
But at least we've been restored to our rights, we will be, once it's finally done, restored to our rights, right?
To keep and bear arms, our military benefits.
All of us that are veterans, there's seven of us left that are veterans, lost everything.
Now I'm a service connected disabled veteran.
So's Pozzola, and so's Jill Biggs, Zach Reel, Kenny Harrelson on the Oathkeeper side, Jessica Watkins.
We've all lost our military benefits.
We got nasty letters from the VA letting us know that it's all gone.
We can no longer even go into the VA to get a tooth looked at, and we can't be buried in Veterans Cemetery.
And so that's what the friggin' letter said.
It's like such an insult to a veteran.
So at least that will be restored, which will be a big deal to us.
Well, and people in the comments section did rightly observe that it's.
Too little, too late for the seven Jan Sixers who took their own lives as a result of the pressure and the torture of this process.
This is not correct.
Absolutely not.
This is not a clearing of the ledger at all.
It's just, you know, it's not as bad, just in our cases.
At least we get something back.
We still lost years of our lives, and then other guys, other men lost their lives.
That's right.
To hit back on that question, let's start with, and I want to make two points on it.
Let's start with this.
So, Those people that are not firing, like Jocelyn Ballantyne or Kash Patel, that's not firing Special Agent Hannick and Special Agent Nicole Miller, those people will be targeted too.
I mean, I'd argue that some in the DOJ will not be targeted.
But those are the people that are going to come after the directors of these institutions.
Those are the people they're going to be turned against their boss once the Democrats come in.
And then to kind of counter your point here, Viva, where they're like, oh, well, they could sue for falsely firing them or whatever.
Okay, fine, don't fire them.
You know, all you got to do is transfer them to the prosecutorial office in like the Canary Islands or the American Samoas or Alaska.
Or Alaska.
Just, okay, hey, congratulations.
You got to transfer to a beautiful region.
I mean, I don't know why anybody wouldn't want to go to Alaska.
I mean, look, have you seen that place?
It's gorgeous.
I'd move them into the middle of Juneau.
Alaska, probably on the outskirts of it, prosecuting like heavy, hard hitting cases in that region.
I'm sure there's a lot of hard criminals over there.
Butchers, whatever.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This is, it is incidentally exactly what Kyle Seraphim mentioned in terms of the solution that would avoid wrongful terminations is what is it?
Not relocation, but reassignment.
I forget which unfavorable locations Kyle had mentioned, but he said that's the practical way of doing it, which they haven't done.
And not, Not only have they not done it, the same people are there.
And when this, you know, the political tides will turn, the same machinery will be there to do this on steroids and make sure that, you know, you'll never get pardons in the future again for the political adversaries.
It'll be exponentially worse.
This is what's bothering me it's going to be exponentially worse for our country.
It's not about us, it's about our country.
And those of us that have been through it, we're, you know, ringing the bell, a warning that people, unless Trump, Drains a swamp, defeats a deep state.
Now, while he's in power, they're going to come roaring back and it's going to be so much worse for everyone.
They're going to do the same thing to more Americans.
One of the notes I took was deep state sabotage.
And I've floated the idea that Pam Bondi's performance was so bloody bad, it couldn't have been accidental.
And we start seeing movement a week or two or whatever, three weeks after she's fired.
Does anybody, I don't want to get anybody in trouble.
My operating theory is that Bondi was beyond incompetence.
And I jokingly say I wouldn't be surprised if and when there's a change in political power, Pam Bondi being a star witness in the next impeachment of Trump and whomever.
And any reasonable explanations for how bad Bondi's performance was as AG?
So, look, I've been, I've said it from, I think I turned on Bondi early in March of last year.
And, you know, I got a lot of shit for it.
People were like, oh, you're going against the president.
I'm like, no, I'm seeing this.
You know, like I've, President Trump, I love him, but he's zero for, for what is it, like four or five AGs.
So, he's never picked a good AG.
So, I went after him.
I went after those AGs.
I think right now, why you're seeing the change is their boss just got shit canned, you know, and the president, the boss is expecting results.
Because I think also reality and mortality is hitting the president as we get closer to 2028.
And I think he's starting to realize oh, shit, they're going to come after me in 2028 if the DOJ doesn't do its job and bring justice.
It's not about revenge and bring justice to a system that was weaponized.
So, I think he's looking for an AG right now.
I don't know who that might be.
I thought it was going to be Lee Zeldin last week, which is still possibly on the table.
I don't know anything about Lee Zeldin.
But I think the president, I think those people that are working there right now is like, I kind of don't want to get fired.
Might as well do the job.
There was something that was amazing.
And I know that you're part of this culture war too, Viva and Stuart too, because I see you guys online.
Like, there's this big civil war divide amongst the conservatives, the MAGAs, the non MAGAs, the libertarians.
Something magical happened the other day when this ruling came down.
All of those groups got together and celebrated this.
Celebrated this.
You know why?
Because this is what we voted for.
We voted for accountability.
We voted to stop the weaponization of government.
If they keep doing this, look, I'm very black pilled when it comes to the midterms.
This might give us a small chance, a little sliver of chance, if they keep doing things like this.
And it's all on the Department of Justice and giving that accountability from now until November.
Yeah, I think it's possible that President Trump is frustrated.
I mean, he's done it in the past, right?
You'll see a post on X or on True Social of him complaining about his own AG.
So it might be that he finally got sick and tired of Bondi's inaction.
So I hope that's true.
I hope Enrique is correct.
I hope he's.
I hope President Trump is starting to push them to do the right thing.
But they're doing the right thing by giving us a clean slate for our records, but at the same time, brushing under the rug all the crimes.
That's why I think there was a way to politically and legally exploit this to use it to clean house at the DOJ that I think would have been more productive.
And just to add to what Enrique said, they're not just going to come after Trump.
Trump, kids, friends, orbit, everyone, like they did the last time.
And it will be.
And it'll be many of the same players in the DOJ and the FBI who were there when they did it to him in 2016, which, not to get political, makes his now support of the FISA renewal, FISA 702, to be even more incomprehensible because they will not necessarily always hold the levers of power and these things will be abused like they were in the past.
Robert, now explain something to me that Jocelyn Ballantyne is still a head lead.
She's one of the big ups there on the prosecution.
No longer on the Jan 6 cases, except for the one in Brian Cole.
Can you flesh out those who may not appreciate or remember, or even maybe they didn't know, the terrorism enhancements and how they were abused and exploited to enhance the sentences of many of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys?
Yeah, it really was ridiculous.
So, actually, all of these cases, you know, the Proud Boy trial and the Oathkeeper trial, I should say plural, there were a couple Oathkeeper trials, were built.
The evidence that the prosecution used was probably 90% social media posts and shit posts.
You could say memes, memes.
And these guys, and so the prosecutors would go through the history of these guys' posts on social media, you know, and a lot of it is hyperbolic, you know.
And that was the evidence against them.
And then the fact that, you know, they tweeted with their buddies this thing or another.
I mean, I was in the Proud Boy trial.
It was farcical.
There was a group that Enrique had started called the Ministry of Self Defense.
And it was designed to be responsible, to get the Proud Boys to be very responsible legally and not get in fist fights all over the sidewalks and whatnot.
And the prosecutors used that, which is an act of, you know, Trying to make the organization more legally responsible and more proper.
And the prosecutors pointed to this Ministry of Self Defense as the internal shock group that was secretly the mastermind of J6.
And they did the same thing in the Oathkeeper case.
You talk about the terrorist.
Yeah, I mean, the terrorist enhancements were used.
I mean, the law in this area, I would say, is not well established.
Okay.
And so they were using things like property destruction.
So these guys had been convicted of shaking offense.
You know, some of them had, of course, Enrique was miles away, but some of them, in fact, Dominic Pazola, who I was representing, was 30 feet away from the fence.
Nonetheless, I think he was convicted of shaking this fence, property destruction of a fence.
He did admit he broke a window.
All right.
And then the sentencing guidelines and the laws about terrorist enhancements talked about property destruction with the intent to, you know, coerce or intimidate, you know, society or something.
I mean, all of this was misapplied.
And every single statute that was used in all these cases was misapplied, had never been used in that way, maybe with a couple exceptions.
We all know about the 1512 charge, this obstruction of an official proceeding charge, which was struck down as applied by the Supreme Court, thankfully.
But even the charge that everyone was charged with was entering a restricted area.
Coercing Plea Deals00:10:15
Let me just say for those who don't know, I'm getting a little bit into the details, but there is a trespassing law that pertains to the U.S. Capitol, there's a trespassing statute.
That applies to the US Capitol.
But they did not use that statute because it's a petty misdemeanor and because it only applies to the internal offices, the special areas of the US Capitol, the offices, the chambers.
And most of the J 6ers had been in the hallways, the rotunda, et cetera.
And there is no law that punishes trespassing in those areas.
So the prosecutors used this Secret Service statute ridiculously, saying that they were in a restricted area as proclaimed by the Secret Service.
Forced them to jump over all these fraudulent claims that the Secret Service had declared areas.
By the way, the Secret Service never did.
And we now know that all the texts have been deleted.
We don't even know what the Secret Service said.
At trial, they only produced a couple emails.
A Secret Service person would email someone in the Capitol Police.
That was the evidence.
We know that, for example, Kamala Harris was going to be there were initial, you know, the Secret Service protection applied to Kamala Harris because at that time she was the.
Uh, vice president elect at that time, and of course, we later learned after a few months that they had taken her over to the DNC, the Democratic National Committee headquarters, to set up a false flag operation of some kind.
We all, those of us who watch this, know that it was some kind of false flag operation.
We don't really to this day really know what was going on.
It was a pipe bomber, yeah, exactly.
They were going to have Kamala Harris be exposed to a pipe bomb or something, and they were going to use that for plan B if.
Plan A didn't work out, or something like that.
I'm not, I really do not know to this day, but we're going to keep digging into this stuff.
Anyways, bottom line is those J6 prosecutions were so unfair and so rigged that it is a national disgrace.
And Trump's proclamation on January 20th last year actually said this is to fix a national.
A national injustice, and nothing could be more true and correct.
We'll see how far we get into the Brian Cole thing.
I just want to ask one question, and Roger, you're probably the best fit to answer this particular one.
They're adding now two new charges, terrorism related statute limitations, I guess, is eight and 10 years, so they can squeeze them in.
And presumably, they can do this to now threaten with massive sentences like the ones they got against the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
And they do this as basically standard, you know, par for the core standard procedure.
To throw on charges with heavy sentences to try to coerce a plea deal to a lesser charge, which would also be very, very convenient for several other people involved in this story.
This is just what they do.
It's Jocelyn Ballantyne.
She did it with the Proud Boys.
She did it with the Oath Keepers.
I think she did it also with Michael Flynn.
Now, just trying to do it with this kid that they are claiming did the Jan 6 pipe bombs.
It's quite common.
That's what they do.
They do these multi count indictments and they expect that the.
Defendant will plead to one count and other counts will be dropped.
This is what was done.
By the way, in January 6, I can just tell you that over half of the people charged with misdemeanors who demanded a trial, over half of them who demanded a trial on the misdemeanors, were hit with superseding felony indictments.
Over half of them.
I mean, this is absolutely outrageous.
And that's what was done in all these J6 prosecutions.
The sentences were.
Outrageous.
Was it specifically in particular or also Jocelyn Ballantyne that did that in the Jan 6 indictments?
Well, let me say, Jaslyn Ballantyne was working in the highest level cases, the Proud Boy case and the Oathkeeper case.
So the misdemeanors didn't figure into those as much.
No, no, just saying.
I think they were also.
The idea of punishing those who would dare fight the misdemeanors, like you have Brian Cole fighting quite hard and getting contempt charges against the lawyers.
And so, how do they reward that?
Slap on two terrorism related charges and say, hey, man, now you might not be going to jail for 10 years.
It might be the rest of your life.
Stuart, you look like you wanted to get something in there.
Yeah.
Don't forget, I was a YOLA graduate.
So I've seen this from, I worked for the Arizona Supreme Court.
I saw it working for my judge.
So they want to make sure Brian Cole is being railroaded, I believe, as an innocent man.
They did the exact same thing to him that they did to us.
Before our trials, they paraded that stupid still image of Enrique and I meeting in a parking garage for the first time.
They said, oh, here they are conspiring.
They did that in advance.
They did a public show trial on the J6 Select Committee in 2022 before our trials.
Polluting the jury pool while we're in solitary confinement.
The exact same thing is being done to Brian Cole right now.
The exact same thing.
He's in solitary confinement.
They're holding a dog and pony show in Congress where everyone on the podium is congratulating left and right, supposedly, are congratulating the FBI and finding the pipe bomber because this is going to cover up for their false flag.
And there's the still image that you use in our.
It has a filter and everything.
It has like that, you know, it looks like a gritty crime drama.
Like it's an undercover cop who got this.
We said hello.
When the dog and pony show on TV, they did not show the video because it shows me walking up, shaking Enrique's hand.
First time we ever met.
I said, Hey, man, nice to meet you.
I'm glad you're out of jail.
He said, Nice to meet you, too.
And I walked away so he can have attorney client privilege with his prospective lawyer to go talk about his case.
Yeah, more moral than the FBI.
It was a total dog and pony show.
They showed a still photo to the world in that dog and pony show in Congress.
The same thing's being done than Brian Cole.
They curate and selectively pick things to show the public.
They don't talk about Shawnee Kirchhoff.
The DC Metro cop that Steve Baker identified as most likely being the pipe bomber.
So they bring this kid out of the file of patsies two weeks later, three weeks later, and they charge him.
It's designed to cover up for their false flag.
And I want to point this out.
And the current DOJ is doing that.
It's not so much that it's sitting on their hands and not firing people.
They're actively, same with Bongino, same with Patel, they're actively roller coating an innocent man to cover for the deep state right now.
I'll tell you this.
It drives me nuts.
I'll tell you this.
Look, the prosecutor on the case is Jocelyn Ballantyne.
The FBI agent that falsely took his lawyer present after asking for one is Special Agent Hannick of the FBI, the lead FBI agent in our case.
So, first off, they start with people that had to do with the Flynn case, with the Oathkeeper case, the Proudboy case.
And like we all know that these were political persecutions.
Then you put them on the Brian Cole case.
Okay, let's say I'm crazy and I'm tinfoil, Hattie.
Like, wouldn't you want, as the head of the DOJ that Pam Bondi was, wouldn't you want the confidence of the people, right?
Then why would you put this woman and this man to lead this January 6th pipe bomb investigation that we know is a farce?
But here's a silver lining and the light at the end of the tunnel for Mr. Brian Cole.
So, you know, we had no chance with the DC jury because we were a bunch of disgusting right wingers, Trump supporters that I think they voted like 93% for Trump.
This is my suggestion to Mr. Cole and his counsel.
He should come out as gay.
He should publicly come out as gay, right?
Because then he is all the oppressions.
He'll be a black man that's gay and he's autistic.
And I think, you know, maybe if he rolls in in a wheelchair, they think he's handicapped, and he will have the best chance of exoneration in the DC court, because that's all they look for.
They look for, as long as you're not right wing, and like he doesn't look like he was, you know, he's went one way or another.
All he has to say is, I'm gay, I'm black, I'm disabled.
And I think he has a great chance of winning in DC.
I think that's sound legal advice.
Uh, this isn't my professional legal advice.
I'm not giving anybody legal advice, but I think that would be the winner.
Uh, in this case, let me jump in on that.
The only oath keeper that was found not guilty was Michael Green, who's a black ex police officer, a military veteran, who also wasn't actually a member of Oath Keepers.
He, I hired him to be my security lead that day.
He was found not guilty by a jury.
So, I think Ricky's right that the only chance you have is being black in a DC jury from a DC jury.
So, here's why I don't think it's even going to go to trial.
I think they're going to offer him a sweetheart deal for a plea deal.
So, once again, they don't want this litigated.
They don't want the actual identity of the real pipe bomber coming into a case.
So, they'll find a way to arrange a plea bargain he can't refuse, make him an offer he can't refuse, and they're going to plead it out.
So, they can say he confessed and he pled out.
He might get no prison time, probation or whatever, mental health, whatever.
But then that way they can brush it under the rug.
That's what I think is going to happen.
And not just that.
I mean, I'm told that even if that's the case, it doesn't bolster or enhance a claim for defamation from someone who claims that they were wrongly identified, but it certainly won't hurt.
And I was jokingly thinking the other day like, there are a number of people right now who have vested interests in Baker getting, sorry, in Brian Cole getting acquitted or Brian Cole getting convicted because someone who said it wasn't me, it was the one armed man.
And if Brian pleads or gets convicted, well, that bolsters their argument.
The Risk of a Confession00:07:21
Exactly.
Right.
Remember what else I want to say?
He confessed.
If he does a plea bargain, it's even better for them.
No risk.
They don't have to go to trial.
He confessed.
It's done.
He was the guy brushing under the rug.
What I love is, I took a note because you mentioned the general warrant that they got.
They surveilled everyone and anyone, with the exception of law enforcement.
Those numbers were excluded from the general warrants, from what I understand.
And yet, despite all that, didn't identify Brian Cole until four weeks after Steve Baker's expose, five years after the incident.
It's so laughably implausible.
They have to think you're idiots to buy it.
Before we go, you guys have another 20 some odd minutes?
Yeah.
All right.
Before we go into the Rumble Premium and the locals after party, and it's going to be for Rumble.
Anyone who's got Rumble Premium, you'll get this, and I'm going to publish it in its entirety, audio and video.
Let everybody know where they can find you.
I'm going to put all of these links in here.
Enrique, you just sent me something you want me to bring up.
I'm going to bring this up.
You wrote a book, sir?
Yes, sir.
It is 13 composition books that I wrote while I was in prison.
I'm turning it into a memoir.
I'm almost done.
These are the pre sales of the book.
It's tariobook.com.
It's part memoir, part memoir.
Manual on navigating through tough political times.
It's pretty much my life's work.
And yeah, I released it for pre sale just last week.
That's amazing.
Are you going to do an audiobook in your distinct voice?
You have to.
I am currently working.
Funny that you say that.
My publisher just messaged me and told me, hey, I need to rerecord because I did the prologue.
And I have to rerecord it because I guess I was too close to the microphone.
But yes, I will be doing the audiobook.
And just a little bit of insider, there's going to be a younger person doing certain parts of the book.
So there's going to be two voices in the audiobook.
Amazing.
Roger and hold on, sorry, I just heard something in the back.
Roger, tell everybody where they can find you and Stuart afterwards.
And I'm going to put up your gifts and go again.
Thank you.
Well, I'm with the Peter Tickton Law Group.
I also do lots of my own libertarian stuff.
I'm on X and F Facebook.
I have a little libertarian blog called lysanderspooneruniversity.com.
But anyway, I can be found.
And this is, I think I brought up two now.
One was picked in and ticked in, and this one seems to be different, but it's the same guy.
This is the website.
Yep, that's the Ticton Law Group.
Yep.
All right.
Well, now you might be getting calls from other people who have some.
Well, we're representing, I think, 400 or more J Sixers.
We're doing preliminary work at the moment, filing basically SF 95s, which are claims against the federal government.
And the law requires a six month waiting period so that the government can potentially settle those claims before we go to court.
So, anyway, we are.
It's going to be preparing some litigation in the future.
And the website is what I took myself out.
Hold on a second.
And the website is called legalbrains.com, which is pretty good.
Stuart, explain the Give Send Go.
I don't think people fully appreciate what it takes for people to actually salvage, get back on their feet, and try to survive after this level of attempted destruction.
Well, I'm rebuilding Oath Keepers so folks can donate at the Give Send Go.com forward slash oath.
We have a new website.
I got to update it.
It's outdated, but it's at oathkeepers.info.
I'm rebuilding the organization.
You know, the bad guys.
Try to destroy us.
We're not going to let them do that.
In fact, Enrique and I were together in the streets of Dallas during the No Kings protest there, protecting Alex Stein about what, two weeks ago?
We had a great, so the lefties lost their mind when they saw us on the street.
They recognized both of us.
They just like went like vampires in the sunlight.
It was pretty friggin' hilarious.
So, what I just saw with what happened to Savannah is indefensible.
So, I offered to protect her.
I think Enrique's down with that.
So, we're going to be stepping back out again in the streets and protecting people.
I was on X.
I got banned again, suspended.
My last pin post was me at the Alamo saying a prayer.
And the post said, as a Texan, as an American, America only patriot, as a Christian nationalist, the only wall I ever pray at is at the Alamo, not some wall in a foreign country.
And boom, I got suspended.
So I don't know.
I mean, it's a pretty incredible picture.
I wish we had it here.
It was touching the wall.
So you sure.
I sent you that.
I know.
I know.
Let me see if I can bring it up.
Are you sure it was that post that got that guy?
I don't know.
It's my last pin post.
I think that was his last pin post.
I'll bring up the picture.
Let me see.
I got that picture up here.
Do you have it?
I have it.
I'm going to see if I got to share.
Hold on a second.
I got to go like this.
I checked it to my last post.
This is a picture.
Not allowed to touch the wall at the Alamo because it will decorate it.
So I just, I just bring it up.
Yeah, it's a beautiful building.
All right.
And the reference, well, everyone gets the reference.
And if you don't, Google it.
I mean, I'm a Christian nationalist, I'm America only.
I'm done with foreign countries, including Israel, having influence over our politicians.
And that's the big dividing line Enrique was talking about earlier.
And I know good people who are like Messianic Jews or, you know, patriots that love our country, but still believe that as Christians, we have some kind of duty to do whatever the Israeli government wants.
And I just don't believe that at all.
So it's a serious dividing line.
So, like Enrique said, it is good to see both sides of that fence, that dividing line, the divided on the Iran war, the divided on Israel, but they definitely agree with, you know, accountability in the DOJ and us getting justice.
We are going to reread.
We're going to raid redacted.
If anybody wants to opt out, just opt out.
That's how it works.
I'm going to read some super chats and rumble rants, which might have questions for you guys.
And we're going to continue going on here in a few minutes after we transition to Rumble Premium and Locals.
Let me bring all these up and see if there's any questions.
There's going to be some jokes over on the Rumble side of things, undoubtedly, with the.
There it is on the bottom.
Real men like to get pounded by Anton's Firm and Juicy Meat, King of Biltong.
Dominant one.
I'm going to skip over these.
Everyone can behold as we do this, but I'll go.
Who's Anton?
Anton is Anton at Biltong.
He makes like, it's South African beef jerky.
It is absolutely delicious.
In fact, I attribute my bowling 255 personal best the other day because I had the door.
It's like carnutzel.
It's basically prosciutto made out of beef.
I'll bring up the words.
It's delicious.
Oh, I thought this was a joke.
Well, the joke is Juicy meat.
Well, the joke is that a dominant one always makes a homoerotic joke about Biltong, who I'll get to Biltongs in a second.
What happens to the January 6th who committed suicide, says Quinn, 1971.
Ginger Ninja 1776 says, All three of these men have strong printles and spines of steel.
Amazing.
This stream for me is still a white chocolate covered black pill.
Is that bad or good?
That means it looks good, but it's bad.
G5 Jets and Bold Snacks00:00:58
I don't know.
That sounds kind of racist here.
Superficially good.
Superficially good.
You would want a black chocolate covered white pill so that deep down it's actually still a white pill.
This is the Biltong.
Craving a bold, authentic snack packed with protein, Biltong packs 50% protein, packed with B vitamins, creatine.
Everyone get it.
Biltongusa.com code VIVA for 10% off.
That's good to me.
Cash has a G5.
What's a G5?
Uh, jet.
I think, uh, because I think, um, Sarah Kyle has been big on the jet flying, so I think he says a G5.
Okay, I thought that might have been a carbon, which there is.
There's better jets, but yeah, G5 is pretty.
It's a nice, it's a nice jet.
I don't know if the U.S. government has a G5.
It might be possible.
I'd have, we'd have to ask.
I think Cash has a G5, right?
It's, it might, it might be.
I just don't know if they'll use a Gulfstream because, uh, with, The amount of use they have, they're very, very expensive to keep up.