← The Charlie Kirk Show
The Charlie Kirk Show
Getting to the Bottom of What REALLY Happened on January 6th with Darren Beattie
00:43:01
Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everybody. Today on the Charlie Kirk show, super important episode. Stop what you're doing and listen to every word of this.
- [00:05]
B
But before we get into it, please
- [00:08]
A
consider supporting us@charliekirk.com support. That's where it all is made possible at charliekirk.com support. As always, you can email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com Action packed episode, everybody. Thank you for supporting us. Thank you for emailing us. And also get involved with TurningPoint USA@tpusa.com can't forget that. Buckle up, everybody.
- [00:31]
B
Here we go.
- [00:32]
A
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
- [00:34]
C
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
- [00:36]
B
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
- [00:39]
A
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
- [00:43]
D
I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa.
- [00:53]
A
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Did you know that 80% of all grass fed beef sold in the United States is imported from overseas? It's staggering and it's a problem. You need to buy meat made in America. And that's why I get my meat from goodranchers.com so look, I talked to good ranchers on the phone. I said, send me the box that you send our listeners. And I kid you not, I got
- [01:23]
B
a box that you wouldn't believe.
- [01:24]
A
This could feed the 101st Airborne. There was enough meat for July 4th, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's and Tax Day. And I know you need to eat a lot on tax day because that's not a good day. And sometimes you got to eat. But my friends are good ranchers. They've traveled the entire United States and met with actual people, real farmers, not the corporate hacks. Look, good ranchers. They love their country, unlike all these wokesters. And they sell you this fake vegan meat made in a laboratory with Bill Gates and underwater or whatever he's doing. This is real because their product is 100% American. When you buy steak and chicken from good ranchers, not only getting amazing meat, but you're also supporting American farms. In fact, producer Connor, I went back to go into the freezer and all the meat was gone. It was gone.
- [02:12]
B
I said, what did you do?
- [02:14]
A
He said, it's good ranchers. Goodranchers.com I had to eat it. And he was right. Check out the Family Fest bundle. If you subscribe, you'll save 20% off with each purchase. So here's how it works. Imagine if you had like a dollar shave club for meat. It's that simple. You get the meat delivered to your door and you don't have to go grocery shopping. No more lines, no more mystery meat, none of that stuff. So stop guessing. Support your country. Know where your meat comes from with goodranchers.com support American farmers. Go to goodranchers.com Charlie to get $20 off and free express shipping. It's 100% American beef and it's goodranchers.com Charlie ranchers with an S. It's a safe and convenient way to shop. You'll get a big box and you'll be happy. I know a lot of you guys want to do cookouts this summer. Maybe it's beef, maybe it's steak.
- [03:00]
B
Maybe it's pork.
- [03:01]
A
Maybe it's chicken. Whatever it is. Goodranchersofthenest.com Charlie Look, I have a, I'm going to guess, just a wild guess here. All of you listening are going to have to eat at some point. If you have to eat, you might as well buy from someone who helps the Charlie Kirk Show. So do that@good ranchers.com Charlie Good ranchers.com Charlie hey everybody.
- [03:24]
B
Welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. With us today, Darren Beatty from Revolver News. You probably saw Darren on Tucker Carlson recently breaking what was probably the biggest story in the country. And I could say it probably still is. It's a shocking story and I want to explore it in great detail uninterrupted by any sort of corporate censors. Here with Darren Beatty. Darren, welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show.
- [03:52]
C
Great to be here. Thanks for having me.
- [03:54]
B
So you run a website, Revolver News. I visit it every day and it's very interesting. It's somewhat of a news aggregator, but also more than that, you guys are breaking your own news. You texted me the story last week and I was doing like 500 different things at once and you said you had a big thing coming. And so usually when people say that, it's like, yeah, okay, well, you actually had a really big story and it somewhat broke the Internet and had tech companies involved and people responding to accusations that didn't exist. Walk us through in detail how you came across the story. What is the story? Because some of our listeners might be doing 100 things at once. They might have heard it and they that they wasn't really sure. Walk us through all of this.
- [04:38]
C
So, yeah, this Revolver News investigative piece, just to give people a flavor of the magnitude of this I've heard from many people this is the most important and the darkest piece of investigative journalism they've seen in years. And it does explore some extremely disturbing possibilities. But the whole reason I think this is important and that it's worth the risk and it's worth talking about is that the American people really deserve to know the truth about 1 6. And we've all heard, I think, by now, about the case of Ashley Babbitt who was shot in cold blood by some kind of officer. We still don't have answers to that. This is not just on her behalf. It's not just on behalf of the hundreds of political protesters on January 6th who are now being held in solitary confinement in horrible conditions, human rights violation level conditions, as has been reported by Julie Kelly, who's done great work on this. It's not just for them, it's actually for all of us. Charlie, it's for you, it's for me. It's for the 70+ million people who are Trump voters, Trump supporters, or who simply disagree with our corrupt ruling class who have been designated now by our own government as de facto domestic terrorists. And the media apparatus in the government is using 16 to facilitate that very narrative. And so that's what's at stake in getting to the bottom of 1/6 to getting to the truth of 1:6. And the way this Revolver News piece sets up the question here is to say the key to unlocking the truth about 16 is the following question of the major militia groups that the government has imputed to 1 6, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, 3 percenters, to what degree was there infiltration involved? Secondly, to put an even finer point on it, of the unindicted persons mentioned in the charging documents related to 1 6, to those who are actually indicted, the people referenced who aren't indicted, who occupy senior position of said militias, to what extent do they remain unindicted on the basis of a prior relationship with the federal government as either an informant or an undercover operative? And to put it simply, since the establishment has coalesced around this narrative that 16 was a result of an intelligence failure. We had uniquely bad security and they just had no idea there was a potential for violence. Do we accept the FBI Director Christopher Wray's position that this was an intelligence failure, or is the truth more along the lines of what this Revolver News piece suggests, or just this actually an intelligence setup.
- [07:50]
B
So you were the first news outlet to kind of say what everyone was sort of suspecting out loud. Can you walk through some of the evidence that you presented in this story at Revolver? Not news that caught the attention of Tucker Carlson and he ran with it probably quicker and more forcefully than I bet you even anticipated, where he led with it, doubled down on it, and tripled down on it. Can you walk through the evidence in great detail to some people that are just saying, ah, this is just another theory, what makes this so different?
- [08:27]
C
That's a great question. And right before I get into that, I want to jump on something you mentioned as you set up the question, which is, we'd all kind of been thinking about this, but this piece really laid it out and articulates it in extensive detail and with persuasive force. I think this really goes to show how important it is to have the right narrative and how we can be completely distracted, just spinning our wheels if we're just kind of close to the right narrative, but not quite there. As I mentioned, there's been great reporting exposing the unjust conditions that a lot of the protesters are now suffering under. There's been a lot of reporting basically affirming the general truth that many of the people who participated in January sex, even who went into the Capitol building when the doors were open were not domestic terrorists. They were basically tourists taking selfies. That's been another kind of narrative. And there's been another narrative that a lot of the people who were most egregiously involved that they were antifa or leftists or something like this. And all of those narratives just didn't really quite catch on. They didn't touch the nerve that this narrative of is it an intel failure or an intel setup? But once we're over that narrative, you see how the media has absolutely freaked out. And, and it reinforces the reality here that finding the right narrative, pinpointing on just what is the key that unlocks the real truth to this, the profound effect and the profound difference that can make. So I just want to point out that since this piece came out, the narrative is no longer, oh, they were taking selfies, or oh, it was a bunch of left wing antifa people. The narrative. Now the question, now the only question that matters that we need to pursue until we have answers and is what did the elements of the government know? When did they know it, and to what extent were they involved? So, like to get that out of the way. As for the evidence, the question is, where do I Start. I might start by addressing the concerns of some of your listeners who may be hearing this saying, what is this guy talking about? Our government doesn't do that sort of thing. This is outrageous. Or in the words of Paul Ryan, that's just not who we are. I suspect a lot of people will be thinking about that and I sympathize with that because frankly, I wish it weren't the case. I wish that weren't not the reality. But to spare everyone the lesson of going all the way back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, we don't need to go that far back. And this is what's so remarkable. We only need to go back three months before this so called storming of the Capitol in 16 to this Michigan kidnapping plot, which maybe people sort of vaguely remember but not really because the news cycle is so accelerated and crazy. So what is this Michigan kidnapping plot? Well, the parallels to 16 are striking in the Michigan kidnapping plot, that is this plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan, this plot also involved storming the Michigan State Capitol. That's interesting. And many of the key players indicted on this plot or imputed to this plot are said by the government to be members of one of the three main militia groups imputed to 1 6. That's the 3 percenters. The so called mastermind of this plot named Adam Fox. Government says, oh, he's a leader of the Three Percenters. That's interesting. Now what else is interesting? Well, of the 18 people who are plotters in this or said to be plotters involved in the plot, we know now for a fact that at least five of that 18 were are federal informants or undercover agents. And the fifth actually revealed himself in a spectacular fashion which we cover in more detail in the Revolver News piece. So we had, oh yes, and for the cherry on top, and this is really the best part, the head of the Michigan infiltration operation, the head of the Detroit FBI field office who ran that infiltration operation, Steven d'. Antonio. Just days after these so called plotters were arrested, FBI Director Christopher Wray quietly and suspiciously promoted D' Antonio from the Detroit field office to the coveted D.C. field office where he went on to oversee, you guessed it, the investigation into 16. So I'm saying that is a heck of a coincidence. We have just months before the 16 storming of the Capitol, a plot to storm the Michigan State Capitol involving one of the main militia groups imputed to 1:6 and where the head of that infiltration operation was subsequently promoted to investigate 1:6. And they had a Fed infiltration ratio of 5 out of 18 at least, and maybe even more that I think is shocking.
- [14:10]
A
Did you ever read the fine print that appears when you start browsing in incognito mode? It says that your activity might still be visible to your employer, your school or your Internet service provider. How can they even call it incognito? To really stop these people from visiting from seeing the sites you visit, you need to do what I do and use Express vpn. Think about all the times you've used the WI fi at a coffee shop, a hotel or even at your parents home. Without ExpressVPN, every single site you visit could be logged by the admin of that network. And that's still true when you're in incognito mode. What's more is your home Internet provider, I'm talking about Comcast, AT&T or whatever, can also see and record your browsing data. ExpressVPN is an application. It's an app that encrypts all of your network data and reroutes it through a network of secure servers. So your private online activity says just that. Private ExpressVPN works on all of your devices and it's super easy to use. So stop letting strangers invade your online privacy. Protect yourself at expressvpn.com Charlie use my link at expressvpn.com Charlie that's E-P-R-E-S-S VPN.com Charlie to learn more.
- [15:18]
B
So Darren, let's go through the three different kind of buckets throughout your piece. Things we know, things we think we know, and things we don't know that we need to find out. Let's start with things that we know. What do we know? 100% true. For example, I'm going to read from your piece. There are what appears to be upwards of 20 unindicted co conspirators in the Oath Keepers indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy who have not yet been charged for virtually the exact same activities and in some cases much more severe activities as those named alongside the indictments. So we know there's 20 of these people. Now some people will say, oh, we're not going to name them because they might eventually get indicted. Is that the case, Darren? What, what is an unindicted coconspirator?
- [16:04]
A
What does that mean?
- [16:06]
C
Right, that's, that's a, it's a very good, very important question. And to set up the answer to that question, I'd like to say a little bit about how I set up the argument. All that stuff I just said about Michigan, I'm not saying all this stuff happened in Michigan. And the logical conclusion is it necessarily happened in 1 6. I'm not making that leap. I simply adduced the example of Michigan to help reinforce the intuition and help to underscore the pressing plausibility of the 16 thesis to those who might initially be skeptical. You don't have to go that far back. They were doing exactly the same thing just months before with the same group, with the same same plan. So what's the argument in relation to 16 itself? Well, the argument is this. To understand why the unindicted persons are important and why the fact that they're unindicted is important and suspicious, you have to understand the standard of in prosecution that's applied to many of the people who are actually indicted. Now, one of the lead people in the prosecutions called Michael Sherwin, he said in an interview very smugly, with great self satisfaction, that he was going to apply a shock and awe standard of prosecution to these 16 cases, invoking wartime terminology from the Iraq war, believe it or not, which is striking in and of itself given how they're trying to use 16 to push this new Patriot act, only this time against patriots. So what does this shock and awe standard of prosecution mean? Well, to illustrate, I would offer the case of George Tanios, who is facing 60 years in prison. He's this sandwich shop owner who was around the capital, around the melee. He didn't go into the Capitol. He was around the Capitol as all the skirmishes were going on. He had bear spray in his bag or in his coat. And his companion went to him and said, is it time? I want to get the bear spray and potentially use it against some of the officers. In the course of this melee, George Tanios responded to his companion, no, no, not yet. On the basis of saying, no, no, not yet. To his companion who wanted to grab the bear spray. George Tanios faces 60 years for conspiracy to assault an officer. Now, an additional detail which makes this even more outrageous is that the whole reason that this bear spray was an issue in the media at all was that an original 16 narrative which revolver News exposed collapsed. And that was the narrative that Officer Sicknick was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher by the MAGA mob. Once that was falsified largely by the reporting of Revolver News, also Julie Kelly and others, they shifted the official narrative to he died of bear spray. Revolver News did a next report doing A very detailed comparative image analysis saying there's no way he died of bear spray. In fact, he wasn't even bear sprayed. The spray that hit him wasn't even bear spray. We later turned out to be correct. And now the official story is that Sick Nick died of natural causes. And so you have this guy, George Tanios, who's facing 60 years for saying no, no, not yet, when his friend wanted to grab bear spray, where the officer that they originally said was basically murdered by the bear spray wasn't even hit by bear spray. So that's an outrage. I think this shock and awe standard prosecution is an outrage. But the reason it's relevant to this argument in the Revolver News piece is it's saying, why is it the case that somebody like George Tanios is facing 60 years for saying, no, no, not yet? And then we have this list of unindicted persons listed in the charging documents who, whose behaviors and actions seem to be far more egregious than that of George Tanios and many, many others indicted. Why are they being spared indictment? And one explanation for this, and I think a strong explanation of this, is that some of those people, in particular those who occupy senior level positions within these key militia groups, that some of those people are unindicted as a result of a prior relationship with the federal government as an informant or as an undercover agent. And one last thing before I stop this spiel, is the argument that I've seen so many straw men in response to this piece, which the media is just freaking out. One of the straw men, which is the absolute most ridiculous, is saying just because charging documents refer to someone as person X, person Y, person Z, an individual, that doesn't necessarily mean they're a federal agent. I never claimed that. And of course it doesn't. The point isn't. The argument isn't, oh, they're referred to as person X, therefore they're necessarily an agent. The argument is how do we explain the double standard between the shock and awe prosecutions of people like George Tanios and the lack of indictment for many of these people listed as persons XYZ who occupy senior positions within these militia groups who are not indicted?
- [22:05]
B
So now let's talk about things that we think we know. If this was the case, Darren, and there were 20 people that were potentially undercover that were doing whatever it might be, is this standard operating procedure for federal law enforcement that when the president speaks, is this standard operating procedure for the FBI to have informants? I'm trying to make the most, let's Say fair question. I can. Darren, to try to say what is the counter to this? Well, the president speaking, therefore we might want to try to diffuse threats or keep eyes on them. Is there something to be said though that maybe some of those 20 were encouraging or inciting? And do we have any detail about those 20 unindicted coconspirators that might be
- [22:54]
A
on federal government payroll or maybe they
- [22:56]
B
had a prior arrangement or maybe they were working in tandem or conjunction about them. Do we know anything about these individuals?
- [23:05]
C
Yes. So another great question, and just to clarify my position, the Revolver News article position is not that we are absolutely sure that every single person who's unindicted, who's referenced in the charging documents is a federal agent. That is not the case. Every single person is not a federal agent. The argument isn't anyone who's unindicted, who's listening in the documents is a federal agent. The argument is there are senior people in the militias who may be mentioned in these charging documents or not indicted that I have extreme suspicions about. But that's kind of, that's maybe something for a subsequent bombshell report. But as to the point of wouldn't we expect federal agents to be around to have security? Absolutely. This isn't about undercover agents who are in a crowd, who are, especially when the president is present. There's Secret Service. There are all kinds of people that, that you expect to be around to provide security. This is about people who belong to the main militia groups in senior positions who have had a long term, who may have had a long term cooperative relationship with the federal government, either as an undercover agent or as an informant. So this isn't speaking to the necessity for security officials at a big crowd. This is speaking to. Given that this term insurrection is really most closely connected with the militia groups, Oath keepers, Proud Boys, 3 percenters. It would be a remarkable thing if senior members of these said militia groups turned out to be federal agents or informants because these are the groups that they're blaming for the insurrection, effectively.
- [25:10]
B
And we know that this has been, this has happened before in bureau history. We know this happened with certain dissident groups. I don't want to call it dissident, but groups that were not viewed favorably, especially free speech groups in the 60s and 70s. Martin Luther King Jr. Black nationalist organizations. That is well documented.
- [25:31]
C
Absolutely.
- [25:31]
B
This would not be, let's just say, uncharted territory, I suppose. And some of the response to these things have been really interesting because Twitter came out and they said they didn't say Tucker was wrong in response to your story, they said. Tucker said, well, it was something like, you can't go to jail for cooperating with a federal agent. No one's arguing that. That's not the point. The point is, to what extent did our own government have information or knowledge, involvement or potentially, God forbid, encouragement for this sort of activity? Was there some sort of buildup of a pattern of behavior where this could have been stopped short, maybe in the weeks ahead of time? Or was there actually federal agents that were raising the temperature of this. This is stuff we don't know. And I want to get to that category now, Darren, which is, wait a second. Were federal agents potentially participating? Not federal agents or federal agents or federal informants that have cooperative relationships and they're somewhat indispensable, indistinguishable, if that makes sense. Right. I mean, in the sense that. That in some ways. Were they raising the temperature?
- [26:50]
A
Is that a fair question?
- [26:53]
C
Right. Raising the temperature or even serving as linchpins of the whole organizational apparatus that constitutes what could remotely be construed as an insurrection. Insurrectionist aspect of 1 6. The only organizational militia like element comes from these three groups. And these three groups have been around for a long time. And in fact, this is not breaking. This is just known that the head of the Proud Boys, it's been reported that he has a history of a cooperative relationship with the FBI, which is
- [27:38]
B
Enrique Tarrio or Tarrio.
- [27:41]
C
Enrique Tarrio. He's not the subject of our piece. This is sort of a side story, but it's been reported that the head of the Proud Boys was actually a federal informant, at least at some stage in his life. And it is very curious, just as a side note, that this head of the Proud Boys, who is a federal informant, he gets in, he flies into D.C. airports, technically in Virginia. And I guess he drives into. Allegedly, this is from reports, he drives into D.C. and apparently he's arrested for some kind of weapons charge. And it just makes me think, and a lot of people think this is. This is very convenient to have the head of the Proud Boys off the table right before January 6th. What better excuse to have him say, you know, I. I'm not able to be around guys, sorry. You know, it's. It's a very suspicious thing. And it's actually interesting. That Stephen d' Antoineno guy I mentioned who was promoted from the Detroit field office to the DC field office, he actually references the arrest of Tario as an example of an intelligence success that, oh, we. We arrested this guy.
- [29:10]
B
Right.
- [29:10]
C
Leading up to January 6th. When, in fact, I think an alternative explanation for this is that this was a way to get him off the table before 1 6, which, you know, you could tell his people, okay, this is why I wasn't around. You know, the thing about. The thing about just speaking generally about people who have an informant role is their job is to get other people to cross the line. Their job is to get other people across the line. And there tends to be a track record of these types getting off completely or getting relatively minor charge where everyone around them gets hit with very serious indictments.
- [29:59]
A
Look, can I tell you something that really bothers me? When good people get scheduled for cancellation for no reason, that's what's happening to Mike Lindell. I was just with Mike Lindell with 15,000 my closest friends in Wisconsin, and Mike Lindell was hosting an entire event. And the media went after him like you wouldn't believe. And they're trying to take my pillow out of every single store. Mike Lindell is a good person. And if you need pillows, maybe you're moving in for college or maybe you want to build a pillow palace, go to mypillow.com and always use the promo code Kirk. Remember, they won't go flat. You can wash and dry them as many times as you want, and they maintain their shape. They're made in the United States. For a limited time. Micah is offering his premium MyPillows for his lowest price ever. You can get a Queen size premium MyPillow for $29.98, regularly $69.98. So if you love America and you want to support the good guys, go to mypillow.com and click on the radio Listener Square and use promo code Kirk. You also get deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including Giza Dream Seats and MyPillow Mattress Toppers. MyPillow.com promo code Kirk. If you love America and you want to support the guys that are trying to do everything they can to save it, go to mypillow.com, buy a bunch of stuff. Promo code Kirk.
- [31:11]
B
So I have a question, Darren and I just want to make something very clear for all the smear merchants and the corporate types that don't like to think outside of the framework that we're only allowed to talk about things is that you are not, and you have never said definitively that you think this is a false flag operation. You have never said that you are just asking questions about foreknowledge the federal government had with these unindicted coconspirators. So here's my question, Darren. What was the final point of which you. You said this right here in this document that has been revealed is the piece that has now said, I'm going to go public.
- [31:49]
A
Can you just talk about some of
- [31:51]
B
the information, the hard information that you saw and your team saw that then compelled you to go public with this series of questions and the. Was it a charging document that you saw?
- [32:04]
A
Was it a Senate report?
- [32:05]
B
Was it the Christopher Wray, Amy Klobuchar discussion? What was it precisely?
- [32:11]
C
Well, I hate to answer like this, but to give the truthful answer would tip off what our subsequent piece will be. So that's fine.
- [32:21]
A
I mean, I'm just generally curious.
- [32:23]
B
I'm not trying to trip you.
- [32:24]
C
No, no, no. I have to punt on that for now. But other than the part that I can't fully reveal now, I think, again, this is. I'm not claiming that this is definitive proof, but I think the Michigan case, the fact that nobody had ever talked about the Michigan plot in relation to 16 was absolutely remarkable given the striking parallels. And that in conjunction with this shock and awe standard of prosecution applied to, virtually speaking, that you had people standing around within a radius of the Capitol who are now just languishing in solitary confinement. And then I noticed people who were unindicted, who would seem to, by the shock and awe standard, be indicted. And just knowing the history of how these things play out, knowing how Michigan played out, it looked deeply suspicious. And so that definitely increased. Increased my confidence level. And the confidence level was extremely robust prior to publication. But if it could get any better, the confidence level is only enhanced by the response that this has received from the media, because I think the objections given are so weak and so hedged and basically set up to say, okay, well, maybe there were some informants in some way. Which gets us to another thing you raised is saying, am I claiming this is a false flag or not? I mean, false flag is not. It has no precise definition. Like, what's the definition of a false flag? I'm saying that key people in senior positions of the major militia groups, which both the Pentagon, the Department of justice, the FBI, our regime media have said these are the organizations that. Are these militia groups most directly responsible for 1 6. If it turns out that senior people in those groups are actually federal informants or undercover agents, you can call that whatever you want, you can call it a false flag, call it something else, but that's a More precise formulation of the possibility that I'm exploring here.
- [34:49]
B
And so I think that's a really important clarification. That means you didn't mean to put you on the spot. I'm just curious as someone who kind of knows how information flows and kind of turning points. So we'll have you on.
- [35:02]
C
Right, well put.
- [35:03]
B
We'll have you on at a different time to kind of explore that. And so I have a question about what we don't know. What we don't know is to what level or sophistication did all this connect together? The pipe bomb thing is sort of interesting.
- [35:19]
C
I think it's very interesting.
- [35:21]
B
Can you talk about that?
- [35:22]
C
Well, yes, this is actually an entirely separate thread. I mean, it's certainly connected, but it was a separate investigative thread. And again, it's another thing that people have basically forgotten. There was this so called pipe bomber who was around the Capitol and they were using this to really gin up the domestic terrorist thing. And the FBI released just incredibly underwhelming footage. The footage they release is pathetic compared to what they have. And they're saying, oh, we need to catch this guy, we need the public's help, there's $100,000 reward. Well, if you're so interested in getting this guy, why don't you release the footage? Which they haven't done. It's extremely bizarre, it's extremely suspicious. And yes, like generally speaking, this fits into the same narrative. Why aren't they interested in finding this person?
- [36:15]
B
Well, and also there's a lot of footage they haven't released. And Tucker mentioned this on his program. Can you talk about that 14,000 hours of footage, if you were wrong then, wouldn't they release it now? Their counter argument is, oh, we're waiting for that for charging documents in some of these trials. And I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything, to be honest. That would be like saying we couldn't release the George Floyd video until we charged Derek Chauvin.
- [36:38]
A
Right.
- [36:38]
B
I mean, is that right? Am I seeing that correctly?
- [36:41]
C
Yes. I mean, this is this particular issue. I haven't looked into it in extreme depth. And so I can't speak on that with any special expertise. But I can say generally it's been extremely suspicious how parsimonious the government has been with its footage, given that in many other contexts they seem to be interested in this like crowdsourced investigation to catch any MAGA mom that was standing within a mile and a half of the Capitol on that day and throw in solitary confinement so it's really weird that in the case of the pipe bomber, they're not so generous with their footage. And in the case of a lot of stuff going on inside the Capitol, they're not generous, especially given that we've seen footage that looks like they just opened the doors to these people. And that's another. Again, this is all part of the same narrative. But how is it that the US Capitol building had uniquely poor security on that very day?
- [37:49]
B
That's exactly right. And so just to go through what PolitiFact just published, I don't know if you saw this, they say that, quote, why the new false flag conspiracy theory that the FBI orchestrated the Capitol attack is wrong. Now, you actually never said they orchestrated it. So that's a very interesting thing. You're just merely asking, what was their involvement? Who are these 20 people? And so PolitiFact says, quote, under almost all circumstances, experts say undercover government operatives and informants cannot be described in government filings as unindicted co conspirators. The main reason a component of a criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit a crime. That isn't what undercover operatives do.
- [38:31]
A
What's wrong about that?
- [38:33]
C
Well, again, this, this is what I'm saying is my confidence level increases when I see the weakness of this claim. Let's pretend for a second I can get into the kind of nuanced explanation about this or I can just begin with conceding, what if they're right? What if they're right about this point? What does that mean? All that means is that there's no one in the charging documents who's listed with the specific and exact phrase unindicted co conspirator who is an agent that doesn't say. Maybe there's someone listed as person X, person Y, person Z, an individual, someone referenced in the charging documents who occupies a senior position, one of these militias who is not indicted on the basis of being a federal informant or agent. So their putting all of their cards onto this technicality that oh, maybe there were federal agents who were senior positions were referenced in the charging documents, but they don't happen to be referred to with the exact technical phrase unindicted co conspirator. Well, why aren't they listed as a conspirator? They're not listed as conspirator because they're federal agents.
- [39:55]
B
And that's the thing, they're not willing to answer. And so I want to end with this, Darren. A lot of lawmakers listen to this program. We talk to a Lot of lawmakers. What's the action item here?
- [40:07]
C
Well, I do need to congratulate and acknowledge Paul Gosar who entered the Revolver News Report into the Congressional Record and he's been pressing on this. I also like to acknowledge the great Matt Gaetz who has taken the questions from this Revolver News Report and formulated them in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding answers to these very pointed questions. And so this is a start in the sense that it takes the issue to the congressional level and it creates an opportunity for, for instance, all of your listeners who are disturbed by this, who want answers to this, pressure your representative to sign on to Matt Gaetz's letter here to get answers. At the very least, that's an important action item to do. There are other action items in the future, perhaps subpoenas. There are a lot of things on the table. But the first step, I think the big step is reformulating the conversation of what's relevant about 1:6. What's relevant about 1:6 now is only one thing. What's relevant. Was this an intelligence failure or is it an intelligence setup? We need to focus like a laser on that question and demand answers from Christopher Wray and other government agencies.
- [41:36]
B
And I also want to add to that Senator Johnson, Ron Johnson has been very good on this, especially excellent in the solitary confinement and the demanding of footage. He's been really good. And I want to make sure I add that because he's been.
- [41:49]
C
And as long as I'm on this program, I would call on Senator Rand Paul to take this up. It seemed like an issue that would be right in his wheelhouse. He's certainly familiar with the historical abuses of these very agencies that we're talking about. And so I hope that he would do the right thing, what he knows is the right thing, and take this issue up and lend his platform and his imprimatur to the question.
- [42:14]
B
I think he will. I think he will. The more momentum that is here. Darren Revolver News, you are continuing to ask the right questions. There's still a lot of things we do not know and I think we're going to find out in the next sequence of thing of questions you ask how this whole thing kind of came to be. But as President Trump says, we'll see what happens. Thanks so much, Darren.
- [42:36]
C
That's exactly what I was going to say.
- [42:38]
B
There you go. Thanks so much, Darren.
- [42:40]
A
Bye bye. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us your questions.
- [42:46]
B
Freedom at charliekirk. Com and again, please consider supporting us at charliekirk.com support.
- [42:51]
A
God bless you guys.
- [42:52]
B
Speak to you soon.
- [42:56]
C
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk. Com.