Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
JAN 6 CAPITOL RIOT: What REALLY Happened? w/ Jacob Chansley & Ex-FBI
Recorded: June 10, 2023 Duration: 2:38:02Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion highlights a significant decline in the cryptocurrency market, with mentions of a market 'dump.' Despite this, there are indications of growth in specific areas, such as increased activity or interest in certain cryptocurrencies like Pepe.
Full Transcription
Alright, let's do this.
So Nick, I heard Donald Trump is joining today's space as a special guest, yeah?
Nick, is your audio working? Is anyone's audio working?
Yeah, can you hear me?
Ah, yeah, I can't heard you.
Okay, did you hear Nick, did you see Nick's news that he's,
Trump is joining the space?
Nick invited him.
I don't know, like, if Nick's done it, then he went really far to do it,
because he just, one thing about Nick is he does, he does give a lot of effort to get his guest.
Like the amount of effort this guy puts in.
Even according to his alter account, it was unbelievable to get guests.
What's his alt account?
There was an all account which said that Nick likes to suck tours even to try and get guests.
Oh, that's why you keep joking about him about sucking toes.
Yeah, yeah, it was funny.
Like the all account was like literally like getting Nick to the seat.
But then unfortunately it got banned.
Oh, the alt account got banned.
Probably Nick got people.
Yeah, Nick probably.
Were there?
Were there just someone messing around with him or it was genuinely serious attacking him?
No, it was a funny one.
It was like a parody account.
Yeah, but you know how there's parody accounts to really make fun of someone?
And there's ones that are just lighthearted, fun messing around.
Yeah, it was just lighthearted. It was funny.
What's the shaman's Twitter handle?
He's requesting so you can add him from.
Oh, you're a co-host, no?
Yeah, but you get emotional.
You get emotional when you add people.
Bro, just help me organize the panel, please.
Oh, there you are, Jake.
Good to have you, man.
Let's get the panel organized.
Can you guys hear me?
We can, man. How are? Is that your first? No, it's no way your first Twitter space. I'm sure you've done others, but good to have you.
Yeah, thank you for having me. I'm glad to be here. And I've tried to arrange it. I've tried to arrange it in a way where my faces won't crash. That has happened numerous times since I have been on Twitter spaces. So hopefully that won't happen again.
I appreciate it. Yeah, yeah. Twitter space is still a bit glitchy. But it's every month, it's better than the last...
Sophie doesn't crash today.
It did crash with us.
Prior to the RFK space,
crashed a lot in those 24 hours because they were testing heavily.
But it's been good this week.
By the way,
Sturley, did you check out the crypto space we did earlier today?
Yeah, yeah.
It seemed hype.
It was insane, man.
Like the crypto took a fucking dump, Danish.
Did you see the dump that crypto took?
It's about time.
I was literally going to say,
I bet Darnish and be like, they deserve it.
Yeah, but come on, man, that's pretty brutal.
They deserve it to a certain extent.
That goes to another level.
Don, it's that if you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
Yeah, but we got burnt already, Dan.
Like, 77 degree, whatever, what a degree.
High degrees of burns since last, end of last year.
Well, but, you know, I was still seeing Joe pumping Pepe, so I think that there's still room to go.
Hold on Joe, I'll remove him if he's pumping pepper.
Joe, are you pumping pepper?
Oh my god.
He keeps accusing me of it, but no.
You're eating right now, yeah? You must be eating right now.
Yeah, I am.
Oh, fine, because you always sound like you're eating, even though when you're not.
I don't know what it is with your mic, but now you are.
All right, um, Nick, Suli, you guys there?
Yeah, I'm here.
Yes, we are.
Cool. All right guys, I'll let you kick off the introduction, kick off the space.
Uh, the house is yours.
Great, awesome.
So bringing up on stage, one of the most pretty much ended up being the media's face of January 6th.
They pretty much insultingly called him QAnon Shaman.
You probably know who he is.
You've seen the pictures.
I don't know if you've made your tweet yet, Mario,
but I'd pin that to the top just to show everybody.
A very recognizable person.
So basically what had happened was,
Jacob, you were...
appearance at the Capitol drew a lot of attention to you.
You know, there were a lot of cameras around all the time.
You were seeing a lot walking through the Capitol.
We're going to talk about exactly how that went down here very shortly.
But...
You know, so we appreciate you coming here.
But, and also, you actually just got out of prison.
You were sentenced to 41 months.
You were let out early.
You ended up in a halfway house for, I believe, two months.
And then you were let out about a week and a half or two weeks ago.
I just want your overall thoughts.
How was this experience for you?
You know, why did you go to the Capitol in the first place?
And how are you doing now?
Well, thank you for having me. Let's start with the idea that unfortunately, the title of this
podcast, I mean, of this space is slightly deceptive because unfortunately I can't explain what
really happened on that day because I currently have a motion in the courts. My lawyer has advised me to
any topics regarding the events of that day to keep to a minimum.
But that doesn't mean that I cannot speak about what happened before as well as what happened
after.
So that I can give you all the juicy details about.
So to answer your question, what inspired me to go to Washington, D.C., well, I went to
the second Magamillion March on December 12th of 2020, and
And everything was very peaceful.
Everything was fine.
People were by the capital.
They were by the Supreme Court, large amounts of people.
Everything was peaceful and fine.
And so I believed that that is what was going to happen on January 6th.
And so I went.
to support not just Donald Trump, but this idea of election integrity.
One thing I think is really interesting about the idea of our elections is they've become more of a
C election process than an election process.
If we look back all the way to say JFK and the idea that the CIA, the FBI and the mob helped
him to get into office, then this is nothing new.
Our elections have been corrupt for quite some time.
And so by going down to D.C.,
by going to the capital.
It was not just about supporting Donald Trump.
It was also about supporting America.
It was about supporting honest, fair, and free, open elections with transparency.
One thing that we have not had for decades.
My going to D.C. had a number of different reasons.
Another reason would be being on the laylines.
I don't know if you guys are aware,
but Washington, D.C. is built on electromagnetic laylines.
The Washington Monument, the Capitol Building,
the White House, the Supreme Court, all of these,
even the...
Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial.
All those things are built on laylines.
And there's a reason why they are built in a Greco-Roman type style
that are harmonic chambers in which energy can be channeled.
So my going to D.C. was multi-leveled.
And being a practitioner of shamanism and somebody that believes in the power of sound
and song and words and drumming and stuff like that,
I also played a very large role.
Yeah, so let me ask you a little bit about that.
You are, so shamanism, I just want you to explain that from the audience a little bit
because given the term that they were using to describe you was the QAnon shaman,
just briefly in like 30, 45 seconds, kind of explain that for the audience if you can.
Well, good luck trying to explain thousands of years of tradition in 45 seconds.
Let's start with the idea that,
Alex Jones was the one that gave me the term or the name QAnon Shaman.
I never called myself that.
So that is disinformation in the media that I gave myself that title or ever went by that title.
That's not true.
The media ran with it because they used Q&N Shaman as a name that they could then pin to me and then create a straw man,
that they could then smear in the media and use me as a...
a face for a shock and awe campaign that would divide the country.
So that's the 45 second answer to that question.
Now, if we want to talk about the depths of shamanism and why I practice it, we can do that.
But that would probably take about two minutes.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, we'll definitely get to that here because I know that was one of the things that.
I believe you wanted to discuss coming on this.
Absolutely.
So we'll definitely get to that.
But, and I don't want you to talk about, if your, if your attorneys told you that it's not a good idea to talk about your case specifically due to impending motions and such, what I do want to ask, though, maybe you can answer this. Do you believe that a lot of the other
prosecutions were politically motivated. Do you think that they were trying to make a point?
Because it seems like there were a lot of people peacefully walking through the Capitol to the point
where you have several congressmen that literally call this the January 6th Capitol tour.
Do you think that a lot of those prosecutions were politically motivated?
Well, let me ask you this. How many prosecutions have there been for lighting federal court houses and police precincts all over the country for over 200 days?
How many prosecutions have there been for the BLM and the Antifa riots?
I mean, these are people that in their official website, their official statements of what it is that they want.
They said that they wanted to destroy the capitalist American system and create a communist system in the United States.
And then they went around destroying businesses. They went around burning and looting.
in their own cities, their own communities.
And where's the FBI investigation?
This is the largest FBI investigation
in the Bureau's history.
They have spent more money and more man hours
combing over that footage
than they have spent money and man hours
and any other investigation in the United States history.
You know, considering the fact that they have gone after Donald Trump in pretty much every single way feasible, every single way using frivolous accusations and weaponizing portions of the statutes or of regulations or what have you to go after him.
Do I think that it's politically motivated to go after his supporters?
I mean, after the media had been calling these people racist and white supremacists for seriously over four years,
after the Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia for four years that we now know 100% was a Hillary Clinton smear campaign.
And where's the prosecutions on that?
Where's the prosecutions on lying to the FBI?
There seems to be a very clear double standard.
And double standards are evidence of corruption.
So do I think that it's politically motivated?
I think that the pattern is evidence of that.
Okay, so one of the biggest concerns,
actually, I want to encourage the audience
to go down there on the bottom right there for
and leave your comments and questions here
because there are a lot of questions that surround this,
and a lot of you ask really good questions on this topic.
But, Jake...
Do you believe that there was federal involvement in inciting this riot?
I know people have talked about Ray Epps, how he did, even on January 5th,
was telling groups of people that we're going to go in the Capitol.
And, you know, even the people in this group was like, no, no, we're not going to do that.
And then they started chanting Fed, Fed, Fed.
And then January 6, he actually was in the front pushing through the gates.
He's never been charged.
He whispered something in somebody's ear, and then that's when they went up to the barricades.
Isn't that true?
Yes.
Yes.
So based on the video that we have seen, yes, that is true.
Would it be safe to say that the feds, in your opinion anyway, did have something to do with inciting this riot?
Just to be clear, we don't know that Ray Epps is necessarily a Fed.
That is the accusation.
Tucker Carlson has said it.
You know, that's...
Right. Well, here's the thing. When we're talking about covert operations or infiltration instead of invasion and the use of underground groups to serve the agenda of a much larger government entity, that is something that is the rule, not the exception.
Okay, so this happens a lot. I mean, if you look at the fact that the CIA funded, trained, and armed al-Qaeda during the Cold War and during the war in Afghanistan with the Russians, if you look at the way the CIA was
funding and contracting with, you know, the Contras and all this stuff with moving of large sums of drugs and arms, you know, during the crack explosion and the cocaine explosion in the country.
When we look at things like Operation Northwoods and the fact that JFK said, no, we're not going to do a false flag here in this country, not on my watch, when we look into the numerous.
numerous scandals, Operation Fast and Furious, the arming of cartel members with American firearms to create the illusion that American firearms are easy to get a hold of for cartel members.
This is, like I said, this is the rule, not the exception.
This is what governments do when they have an ulterior motive and agenda that they want to serve.
Now, do I believe that it's possible that there were feds in the crowd?
Well, isn't it true that the media, like especially underground media is talking about how the whole reason why the government refuses to release this footage was because there are literally hundreds of FBI or CIA or secret service in the crowd that they don't want those people's faces getting out?
Isn't that a news story that's floating around?
Yeah, I want to give a little context
to what you were saying as well
because I know the question revolved around
whether or not feds could have been involved
in inciting this riot.
You mentioned Operation Northwoods,
which was a CIA proposed false flag operation
against American citizens that basically
they were calling for CIA operatives to stage
and commit acts of terrorism
in order to justify the invasion of Cuba
So I believe that's where you were going with that.
But Dr. Denise, I want to bring you in here.
Yeah, so I wanted to start with the commentary around the laylines and electric power that's tied to the universe in D.C.
I know you're going to be talking about that.
But, Jake, thank you for being here.
And, you know, I wanted to get a little bit of context around that.
Could you share more information about what you're referring to?
Absolutely. So around the planet is an electromagnetic field. This is something that we all know. This electromagnetic field does not just go around the Earth. It also moves across the surface of the Earth and all the way down to the Earth's core. Now, where it is that these electromagnetic lines are strongest, these are called laylines, L-E-Y-L-I-N-E-S, laylines.
And these electromagnetic laylines have been the placement for sacred sites, the placement for medicine wheels, the placement for obelisks, the placement for pyramids.
for centuries, for millennia.
And it is also the reason why ancient Greeks and ancient Romans built their temples,
built their buildings on top of these electromagnetic lines,
and in particular in ways that channeled sound,
because sound affects the quantum realm and the in electromagnetic activity.
So if we look at, for example, the Vatican and the fact that the Vatican is built on laylines and the obelisk that's in the Vatican Square, if we look at the fact that the London Palace is built on laylines and the fact that Washington, D.C. and all of these monuments are built on laylines, and how it is that our founders, many of them were masons and understood these electromagnetic nations.
Laylines and their role in the governing of collective human consciousness and how they branched to timelines in the quantum realm that based on human thought, human emotion and human behavior, all of which are electromagnetic frequencies or manifestations thereof.
then we really can get into how it is that Washington, D.C. is built on laylines.
Why it's built on laylines?
So, Jake, I didn't want to interrupt too much, but I did want to say,
do you see, can you recognize that some people may see this?
as evidence of maybe fantastical thinking.
Can you imagine other people saying that?
Because because you are talking at the same time
about something that happened that was so real,
and then alongside that,
you're talking about something that most people would say
would be outside the realm of what we currently know.
Do you see how those two can be confusing
for somebody to reconcile?
Well, only because the public has been largely lied to and misguided due to the fact that our education systems are teaching everybody crap.
I mean, this is physics.
I mean, this is physics.
You can look into what I'm talking about.
I wanted to go to one more thing.
And again, what I'm trying to.
To make clear is that there are inconsistencies.
So I'll walk through one other big thing and then I'll lay out.
Well, hold on.
You said inconsistencies.
I demonstrate the inconsistency.
I will walk through one that was to me the one that made no sense and I would love to get your thoughts on it.
So you were represented by St. Louis attorney Albert Watkins.
Albert Watkins in an interview in KSDK and St. Louis said that you were responsible for your actions.
He regrets where he is today.
And then afterwards, you know, he had asked for a pardon for you.
And when the pardon was not granted, Watkins said he, Chansley regrets very, very much having not just been duped by the president.
but by being in a position where he allowed that duping to put him in a position to make decisions he should not have made.
Did he make those statements with your consent, Jake?
No, he did not.
Albert Watkins is a shill of an attorney, in my opinion.
The man said all sorts of things to the media that I never said on my behalf.
He said all sorts of things to the media without my consent, without my approval.
I never said I felt duped by Trump.
Never said it.
Never said that I denounced a Q or a QN on.
Never said it.
And also, for that matter, I'm not schizophrenic, bipolar, depressed, or delusional.
None of those things were in my psyche vow.
In fact, it is the antithesis of the truth.
In my psyche vow, it says that I am not delusional, that I am not schizophrenic.
It said nothing about being depressed or bipolar.
Albert Watkins and his quote unquote legal strategy was a travesty, and his representation of me was abhorrent and completely inaccurate.
Yeah, so we brought Chris Waste up here on stage.
Chris, you defended multiple J6 defendants, and you were actually pretty successful with it.
Some of them you were, I know at least one of them you were able to get off with simply probation.
So I want to let you jump in here, give your overall feedback, and then I'll have some questions for you as well.
Yeah, you know, let me provide this perspective.
And these J6 cases that I've done, I've done with local counsel who actually is a former federal prosecutor in D.C.,
guy by the name of Chris McArelli.
And, you know, Chris shared with me the β and this is a β you know, over a decade with the Department of Justice in the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C.,
He has never seen anything like what the federal government has done in connection with J6.
I mean, and I say that, you know, I'm not, I'm not necessarily even, you know, dealing with or referring to the felony prosecutions, but rather the misdemeanor prosecutions.
I mean, they, you know, they've, they have pulled prosecutors, line prosecutors off of,
the anti-terrorism folks off of major crimes, sex crimes against kids, all kinds of stuff.
They brought them in to do J6.
And in many cases, it was misdemeanor prosecutions, which the government generally reserved for people who did not enter, you know,
the hall of the house, the, the Senate floor, the House floor, did not enter, you know,
sensitive areas, did not break anything, hurt anybody, et cetera. And, you know, highly, highly
politically motivated prosecutions, in my estimation and in my opinion, just sort of viewing it
from the outside. And I'm not suggesting, you know, that that the elements of the charges weren't met.
In fact,
In almost every case, you know, that I dealt with, you know, our assessment of the case was that the government was going to be able to, you know, to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Add to it the nature of where these crimes were being prosecuted, which was in D.C.
I mean, if you entered, you know, the Capitol building, if you walked through the doors, you know, they had you on a federal misdemeanor.
And, you know...
I mean, I don't want to get into how many federal crimes we have or how easy it is to prosecute people.
But, you know, there's a lot of federal crimes.
And in some instances, you know, we have seen the government come down hard on people in ways that, frankly, are unprecedented with the resources that they've used.
I mean, GPS tracking.
They're looking at people's phones.
They're looking at, you know, all kinds of surveillance.
I mean, discovery process, you know.
hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage.
And what's incredible, you know, in one case, I thought it was defensible because we actually
have law enforcement letting the client in the door, right?
Like waving them in.
And, you know, but for the fact that the FBI brought him into a coercive interview in which
he, you know, basically admitted the elements of the offense that I didn't think were otherwise met.
You know, I thought we might have been able to walk that particular client with a not guilty verdict.
And there have been a couple not guilty verdicts, you know, in some instances, particularly where people aren't talking to the feds.
But, you know,
I mean, you know, anybody that suggests that these, that this prosecution process, at least in some cases, isn't political, I think, you know, isn't being honest with the facts, at least in some cases.
And, you know, it's next to your point, I mean, I've dealt with a lot of these cases and, you know, it's, and my local council has dealt with even more, you know, Chris, Chris McReilly has. And, you know, we're just.
stunned. I mean, and by the way, Mr. McArelli, he does not share my party affiliation. I mean, he is a
long-time, you know, registered Democrat, and he is floored by what the government, what the federal
government has done, you know, with these J-6 prosecutions. Yeah, so let me ask you a question about
you. You did mention the fact that,
The doors were opened by the Capitol Police, right?
In some cases, and by the way, Nick, that depends.
In some cases, things were burst.
You know, it depends on where people, and that's another problem with these
prosecutions, the notion that they're somehow all the same.
In some cases, people broke down doors.
In some cases, people busted glass.
You know, in some cases, people walked in because the Capitol Police let them and, you know,
And, you know, the notion that all of these cases are the same, that all the, you know, circumstances of the cases are the same, that just isn't true either.
But in some cases, one of your clients was only in the Capitol for three minutes, right?
And the video footage just shows him walking around.
But he was charged.
What was he actually charged with to begin with?
Well, the government has, you know, what I call the standard four misdemeanors.
If you just walked in, walked around, and walked out, there were four federal misdemeanors,
one of which was parading and demonstrating in the Capitol.
One was the federal version of a trespassing charge, which in almost every case,
unless the Capitol Police let them in, I think the government's probably going to be able to
prove.
I mean, but they have a standard four misdemeanor package.
By the way, the other two offenses in those four, I didn't think the government could
ever meet, but, you know, they charge it with four, and then they offer a standard plea deal
on the misdemeanor cases where, you know, you plead to one, and they drop the other three.
And...
You know, they've got you kind of debtor rights on at least one, if not two of those four misdemeanors.
And I'm just talking about the misdemeanor charges.
I'm not talking about, you know, the felony charges in which in some cases, I think, there's been some significant overreach by the government.
But I'm just talking about, you know, the standard misdemeanor charges.
Yeah.
Gotcha. Gotcha. So just one more question here. And I want to go to Derek. And Derek was actually charged in J6 related crimes as well. So I'd love to get his feedback. But why could a defense attorney not, I just want to be clear here, not use that as a defense that they were basically let in the door. I mean, personally, most people wouldn't know that they can't just walk through a door that was opened by the Capitol Police.
So to your point, if the Capitol Police let them in, that's going to be a defense to the trespassing charge, right?
I mean, and I'm short-handing that.
I mean, there's a statutory, I could list the four different statutory charges.
It probably would be.
But then you've got the issue of once you're in, if you're going around and you're chanting or you're shouting or your...
marching.
They've got you on another federal misdemeanor, which is the prating and demonstrating
charge.
So, you know, they came at this with these four charges.
And, you know, I know the case that you're referencing where the guy literally just
walked in, walked around for three minutes and left, never chanted, never did anything.
The problem there was, even though he walked through a metal detector, even though the capro police let him in, the FBI sat him down in a coercive interview and he basically gave it up.
And he said, yeah, I knew I wasn't supposed to be there.
I knew it was illegal.
I did it anyways.
Had he not done that? Had he not had that interview where he admitted the elements of the offense?
I think we would have been able to walk him, but he did. And that evidence was there.
And frankly, you know, like everything the FBI does, it's on video and it's there to play to a jury.
And by the way, right, I mean, this is not a favorable forum politically or otherwise, you know, to seat a jury to try and walk somebody.
In that case, this particular client had, he won the judicial lottery, as I like to say it.
and drew one of the two judges, you know, that we were looking at maybe doing a bench trial and try and walk in because there's a couple of favorable judges in the D.C. district.
Otherwise, you know, it's not a good place to be charged with this kind of stuff.
Yeah.
Jacob, I've got a question for you.
I read that there was footage that was not given to your lawyers.
Now, I know that Tucker Carlson released some of it on his show.
So my question to you is, is that the case A and B, do you think that would have impacted your case if it had been received?
And then C, I know you're in appeal.
So have you now got the footage so that you're able to use it?
Well, to answer your question, that is largely what the motion that is currently in the courts is regarding is that footage and the fact that it was not disclosed.
You know, normally I would have a whole lot to say about that topic, but unfortunately, at this current moment, I can't speak too much to it.
Yes, my attorney currently has the footage.
Um, but the litigation aspect to it is a little bit touchy.
There's a lot of nuance to it as the legal system usually is.
So, um, I'll put, I'll just put it this way though, because I think this is something that needs to be cleared up, especially in such a large forum.
Tucker Carlson releasing that footage and McCarthy giving it to Tucker had nothing to do with my release.
There was a lot of disinformation out there about the fact that that footage was the trigger that got me released from prison.
And that is not the case at all.
I was three weeks away from being released to a federal halfway house when that footage aired.
And as hilarious as it was, you know, the stuff I was telling all the inmates and even some of the guards in prison were,
you know, which they didn't believe was right there on the television in front of them.
And there was a very big, like, shock and almost a cognitive dissonance for a lot of them
because all the stuff that I've been telling them for over a year turned out to be 100% true and valid.
It was in the video evidence that Tucker aired.
So I also thought it was really funny because I had...
I had gotten the reputation of being a square while I was in prison because I obeyed the rules and I didn't do drugs and I did what I was supposed to do.
So when one of these liberal talking heads came out on the news and Tucker Carlson played the clip of them calling me a stone cold bug,
everybody on the yard just lost it.
So I've got another question for you.
You mentioned earlier that you had issue with your previous counsel.
So my question to you is, was it court appointed?
And the second point is that based on what you're saying in this space,
are you planning to sue him for basically misrepresenting your positions
in terms of your psych evaluation as well as some of the statements he's made publicly?
Well, I would really like to.
And the thing is, is that litigation is a pain in the neck.
Okay.
And it costs a lot of money.
Um, you know, I, dude, I just want to be all, I want to be done with all this core crap.
And the fact of the matter is, in one way or another, all of this disinformation that was put out in there in the media is easy for me to dispel as long as people give me a chance and they hear what I have to say.
Um, um,
The fact of the matter is his reputation is going to suffer far more than it ever could if I try to take him to court and get money out of them.
Money is not the thing that matters most to me.
What matters most to me is that this message that I have to bring to the people, get to the people.
And money and, you know...
clout or fortune or whatever, that means nothing to me.
What matters to me is that this message that I've been given to gets out to the people.
So, no, I'm not going to sue him, even though I probably could have very real reason too.
But from what I understand, in order for me to actually do that,
we have to prove that he had malicious intent that he was doing this
because he was trying to be malicious and he was trying to do harm to my reputation.
Right.
Yeah, and that's completely understandable because, yeah, it is very stressful and difficult to go through court proceedings.
So that makes sense.
Nick, you had something, but I was going to go to Sarah for it.
Yeah, go ahead.
Sure, sure.
Just real quick, I also want to remind the audience.
Questions, bottom right hand corner.
I'm going to ask Derek a question, and then I'm going to go read those for a little bit west of my event takes over.
Derek.
You were present on January 6th. You were actually arrested soon after January 6th. And you were a Virginia or West Virginia state representative at the time. And, you know, you sort of were forced to resign after that. What were you charged with? What did you do? What, what sort of actions did you take that day at the Capitol?
Yeah, well, first of all, Nick, thanks for putting us together and having me up here.
Great space.
So everything that I'm getting ready to tell you is pinned to the top of my Twitter feed.
People can watch the video for themselves.
You don't have to take my word for it.
I walked through an open set of doors on the east side of the building, the East Columbus
doors, I think is what they're called, walked straight over to a police officer, thanked him
for his service, he gave me a friendly fist bump, welcoming me into the building.
I spent less than 10 minutes inside the public Rotunda area and walked back out.
So as Chris, the attorney there mentioned earlier about everything that the government had
laid out in terms of how they were going to prosecute all of this.
I should be just a misdemeanor person and all of that, which I was originally charged with two misdemeanors.
Then I was arrested January 8th.
Then they came back and added two more misdemeanors.
Then they came back a month or so later and added the 1512 obstruction of official proceeding charge.
so which is a felony so I was facing 24 years in prison for the video you see pinned to the top of my Twitter feed to my knowledge I'm the only one or maybe at the very least one of the only ones who 100% falls in that misdemeanor category that they came after for felonies and it's because I was the only elected Republican in the I'm sorry there was two of us but I was the only elected Republican who entered the building
and the only elected legislator in the entire country had the courage to stand up against tyranny on that day.
So that's how I got swept up in all of this.
And then I actually had a question for Jake, if that's okay as well, Nick, if I can.
Sure, sure, go for it.
Okay.
So Jake, man, this is something I've been wondering.
First of all, man, you're awesome.
Seriously, I hate that you end up being the face of this.
but I think that they really messed up in the process of that because you're such a well-spoken, chill dude.
I think it's really backfiring on them that they made you the face of this and you're very smart.
So I'm wondering, I know when I went to prison, I got out in October, so when I went to prison,
Um, most of the dudes there was like, dude, this is awesome year for January 6th.
That's such really cool.
I was kind of wondering if you had the same feedback there, especially since you were like
the main face of January 6th.
And then I wanted to know the reactions of everybody there when the Tucker tapes came out
because that's something I was wondering the entire time.
Well, sure.
And it's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
So to answer your question, in both the guards and the inmates were very interested in conversing with me and learning my story.
And because my case was over, I pretty much told them exactly what happened.
And, you know, obviously they didn't believe me until they saw the footage on Tucker.
Some people did, but for the most part, they're like, ah, yeah, whatever, you're a criminal.
You're supposed to be here.
You're a felon.
You know, they just wanted me to be one of the guys, I guess.
Yeah.
And I, God love them.
I'm just not like that.
So that's why I got the reputation for being a square.
I'm sitting there talking to them about spiritual transformation and, you know,
becoming a model citizen and using their time in prison to develop their,
you know, good things about themselves and develop their personality and then work on themselves.
Anyway, um,
So, yeah, they had a lot that they wanted to talk to me about.
What was also kind of interesting, though, was because of the Operation Mockingbird Media's campaign,
their smear campaign against me in particular, making me the face of all that stuff,
and then using the term white supremacy, white supremacy, white supremacy, white supremac.
You know, there was a significant portion of the, in particular, the black community that watched CNN
and, you know, these other media outlets, let's ABC, MSNBC, and stuff like that.
And they thought I was a white supremacist, which...
after conversing with me for even, you know, 10, 20 minutes, you know, and getting to know me,
they're like, this guy's not a white supremacist.
This guy's not racist.
That's not true at all.
You know, so there was a kind of cognitive dissonance for a lot of them regarding that in particular.
And after a while, they really kind of, they treated me well, you know, the inmates and the guards.
As far as when the Tucker Carlson footage aired, they were just flabbergasted.
They were flabbergasted because I had been telling them what was going.
I had told them what happened, you know, and they didn't believe me.
And then when they saw it, there was people that came up and they were like, bro, I didn't believe you.
But, you know, I can't argue with what I saw, you know.
So that was nice.
And same thing with some of the guards, you know, and they would come up and ask me, bro, that really happened?
You know, the cognitive dissonance was very real.
And this is why I think it's really important that we do not believe what we see on TV.
I mean, you know, there were people in the 50s and 60s that believed that Gilligan's Island, the people were really trapped on the island.
They were calling like the television station saying, why does somebody go rescue those people?
You know, and that's kind of the level of indoctrination and in some cases, even stupidity that we have nowadays because people actually believe what they see on TV.
Right.
But it also kind of makes sense considering, you know, there are hypnotic frequencies that are back channeled over pretty much all major news networks and pop culture and stuff like that, which that's MK Ultra, you know, that stuff's out there.
It's, it's.
virtually declassified if it wasn't for the fact they destroyed all that information.
But, you know, these things are very real.
And I know some people might say, oh, that's woo-woo.
That's conspiracy.
And it's like, look, dude, the term conspiracy theory came out after JFK was killed.
And people in the country did not believe that it was Lee Harvey Oswald.
It was a smear campaign for anybody that didn't buy the official narrative that our president was assassinated by somebody else, if not more than one person.
And so that term conspiracy theory has been, or conspiracy theorist has been thrown around so much and it's been used as a tool to bludgeon people that question the government.
Well, thank you so much, Jake.
That's kind of what I figured, man.
I had a similar experience in there, as you said.
It seemed to me, when I first got into general population out of solitary confinement,
it seemed there was almost like a fascination when people found out that I was there for January 6th
and they were just, you know, intrigued and just very curious and respectfully asking questions,
people from every culture and background and everything.
So thanks for the feedback, man.
So, Derek, I'm going to let Joe I jump in here, but I just want to ask you real quick.
What?
What is it the pattern?
Because you're talking about the fact that you were in solitary confinement.
How long were you stored there?
Well, listen, I got off easy compared to people like Jake and so many others.
I was in solitary confinement for a little over eight days because I refused the COVID vaccine.
So that was basically my option, take the COVID vaccine or go to the hole.
And so I went to the whole.
They called it quarantine, but they just throw you in the hole in solitary confinement.
So that's where I was at.
It was only eight days.
But it was long enough, trust me, to make me appreciate so many things in life that we take for granted.
And make me appreciate what my fellow J6 patriots are going through and have went through in terms of being in solitary confinement for months at a time.
It's absolute torture.
Joe?
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm just, you know, I'm listening.
And there's just a lot of statements that are made that, you know, this was politically motivated, which is the typical talking point anytime.
something goes against the right.
There was,
there's BLM riders that got two years for throwing a pair of shorts on top of a fire,
right?
Were they,
was that politically motivated?
you know,
we had Michael Cohen on who had one of the fastest arrests ever per his,
per his thing.
Was that politically motivated from the other side?
then it's like, oh, we didn't do anything wrong.
But you just said, I'm the only one who had the courage to stand in front of tyranny.
You know, so what were you doing there?
Were you standing there in front of tyranny trying to do something?
Or were you having a tour of the Capitol?
It's just so it's just so much stuff that just, you know, I kind of left out.
I know the government, the whole legal system is broken.
It sucks.
Sorry guys got wrapped up in that.
But...
you know i'd like to keep it real like there was a crime committed it's not politically motivated
BLM people also got arrested um a lot of them got arrested a lot of them got more charges than what
people did for for you know interrupting the tyranny as they call it um you know and they seem to
forget that and they got worse charges
for doing what they did.
And I don't see it as being as bad for the country what some of the BLM people did by breaking a window of a store, not raiding a capital.
Yeah.
So, Chris, let me go to you on this.
We kind of briefly hit on it just a little bit earlier with Jacob while you weren't on stage yet.
One last thing, one last thing, Nick, Jake said, Jake said that he didn't want to be, he didn't want to be, he doesn't want the fame or the money.
He just has to deliver a message.
Why do you go dressed as a Viking shouting?
Ask the police to take a selfie of you inside the hall.
Like, why are you drawing so much attention to yourself if you don't want to be, if you don't want the fame?
That's what I don't get.
Because you kind of drew it on yourself.
That was a great question.
I have no problem answering it if you guys don't mind.
Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
Go ahead.
Okay, cool.
All right.
So first of all, it wasn't dressed as a Viking.
My attire is a coyote fur with buffalo horns.
Those are not really native to Norway.
I was going for a Native American look.
The coyote fur, the coyote tails in the Navajo tradition, the coyote fur,
or the coyote is a trickster or a deceiver.
So there is symbolism behind my...
regalia and the idea is that
I have the trickster by the tails
and the trickster messes with the bull
he gets the buffalo horns
you know he mess with the buffalo he gets the horns
um the uh
technique of dressing in that manner. First of all, let's start by saying that the shamanic
attire in shamanic cultures is akin to wearing priestly robes. It is not something that is designed
to frighten people as much as it's actually designed to frighten evil spirits and frighten off
evil vibes, evil spirits. That being said,
Part of the attire is also a strategy that has been used by Hioka Shaman for centuries, for millennia.
And that is dressing in a way that shocks the cognitive system, that shocks the visual system.
And in the process, once that shock has been made, then the Hioka Shaman is able to basically go in and help people to reprogram their cultural program and program.
cultural programmed mind. And so we all, whether we like it or not, have our subconscious
program, neurolinguistic programming is a very real thing. And so due to the current state
of mass hypnosis that is going on in the country, I dress that way as a means of shocking
the cognitive system. And I've been dressing that way for years, and not just on January 6th. I'm
dressing that way since like before 2012.
So I've been dressing that way for a long time, and I've been implementing this ancient strategy of shocking the cognitive system.
And then people come up and they ask to take pictures or they ask to talk to me.
And then in the process, I can plant seeds, seeds of knowledge regarding this shamanic wisdom and the fact that we have very much gone astray in the Western world.
We have become consumed with materialism.
We have become consumed with materialism.
possessions. And we have cut ourselves off from spirit. We have cut ourselves off from the interconnected
reality of the universe, of God. And in the process, we have committed soulless atrocities on
nature. We have killed literally millions of species. We've destroyed literally millions of
square miles in ecosystems all over the planet because we are operating based on an illusion.
Right.
So the shamanic attire is an ages old strategy to shock the cognitive system.
It is an ages old strategy to gain people's attention.
Yes.
And it is an ages old strategy that works and it's effective.
And I think that the media using my image and the way that it shocked the public and was used as a shock in all campaign, it's, it's,
largely evidence of what it is that I'm saying.
And now the fact that I'm out of prison and I have the opportunity to do interviews,
I think that this is a very clear and obvious time for me to start planting seeds
and to help steer us away from this parasitic system that is being pushed by globalists,
being pushed by the Bilderberg group, being pushed by the Council on Forum relations
and the World Economic Forum toward a one-world government.
And if we don't change, if we don't change, then we're in big, big trouble.
So let me shift just a little bit to Chris Weiss here, who again was a criminal defense attorney that was representing some J6, detainees,
people that were, you know, walking around the Capitol and such.
So Chris, what I do want to ask you here.
We saw Ray Epps, right, was encouraging people to, you know, going to the Capitol.
It seemed like he was stirring up anger among the crowd.
And he was never charged.
He, you know, has been accused of being a Fed a lot.
And I don't know.
I mean, did you expect to see or do you think that there were government provocateurs there?
I would be shocked if they were not.
you know, a certain number of, I mean, when you look, for instance, at the assassination
attempt on Governor Whitmer in Michigan, you know, there was, there was, I think, at least one
government agent that was implanted in that, in that cell, you know, that provided the
intelligence ultimately to derail, you know, that assassination attempt. And I think, you know,
Ray Epps is a great question.
Is you aware, Nick, I mean, I don't just do criminal defense.
I also represent several members of Congress in various matters.
And I know Mr. Epps has been the target of what I'm going to call congressional scrutiny,
and they've tried to bring him in.
You know, I don't know his role with the government,
but I know that there's high interest in the fact that he plainly, you know,
appears to have been encouraging people to go in this building, and he plainly hasn't been charged.
And he plainly, you know, I mean, I think there's some real questions with Mr. Epps.
And, you know, it would be really interesting to get to the bottom of that.
I know some members of Congress are trying to dig into that.
I did just want to just briefly just address Joe, Joe's comment about BLM.
You know, when we go in and somebody takes a plea, we're preparing sentencing memoranda.
And we, when I say we, I mean, there's a defense attorney list for all these J6 cases.
There's probably, you know, two or three hundred attorneys on this mailing list,
the public defender's office out of the D.C., out of D.C., the federal public defender has organized it.
And the analysis has been done with respect to BLM.
And with all due respect, the contention that somehow, you know, it's not political because of BLM, that is simply a falsehood.
People have demonstrated in sentencing memoranda that no one involved with the BLM movement was criminally charged at all unless they destroy property or they hurt someone.
And that is not the case with J6.
And to suggest that there's a
If they broke a law, of course, Chris, they got charged if they broke a law, going
into the capitals breaking a law.
They did break the law.
They went on to federal buildings.
In some cases, they were not charged.
They did trespass.
They were not charged.
And,
And so this, that equivalence just isn't true.
I mean, and nobody should have.
You're saying, you're saying yourself, people who committed crimes that were part of BLM got charged, right?
And you can find them.
And I feel like they were overly charged for some of the things they did, like throwing shorts on a fire and you get two years.
And people, not all people, some people who went into the Capitol.
also got charged for the crime they committed.
That's all.
So what's the difference?
Why is one politically motivated?
I don't get it.
Here's where your equivalence fails.
In instances with BLM,
there are documented instances of BLM protesters
going on and trespassing into federal buildings,
committing the same crime that the government charged J6 people with,
who did not break anything,
who did not hurt anyone,
And yeah, the J6 people were charged and not one, I want to be clear, not one BLM protester who equally, you know, trespass on the federal property was charged with that crime.
And so this equivalent is just-
You're using your words very wisely, Chris, because you're saying trespassed on federal property not entered the building.
They didn't enter buildings in some cases.
Yeah, I'll look to see if anyone got to...
Sorry, sorry, not to...
But also to Joe's point here,
in Portman, right,
where there was months of writing,
which I was in covering the federal courthouse,
80% of the cases that were brought to the local DA in the office
were dropped.
So they might have been arrested that they weren't actually charged with anything because they were dropped.
Now, when you look at the federal side, so this is the federal courthouse, the month-long siege, I believe I have to double check, but it's from 40 to 50% of the cases that were brought to the feds were dropped.
And we're not talking about trespassing.
We're talking about assault on federal officers.
They were trying to kill...
these people, the Federal Protective Service and all the other federal agencies that were brought into protection
that building. So it is absolutely insane to look at all the evidence that we've seen and look, yeah, BLM people were charged.
But even in other cases, I mean, there was the case of Minneapolis where a guy set a fire to a convenience store, I believe,
and a guy was burned alive in it.
And he got a much lesser sense.
He didn't even face a murder charge for that.
The federal prosecutors praised him for his candor and said,
well, you know, he wasn't doing it for personal gain.
He was doing protesting.
So, you know, this is why we're giving him a light sentence.
So it's just absolutely mind-boggling to me
to hear someone say that there has been equal prosecution
when it comes to these two things
because I was there for the BLM riots.
I was there for January 6th.
And, you know, rights writing, we can all agree with that.
But in the aftermath of all of that, it's just, it's just wrong to say that these have been treated equal.
It's just, it's just, it's just, it's just, it's just, it's just not.
But you're, you're picking out one story.
When you picked out one story, you can argue anything.
I'm just looking at statistics.
But hold on the thing here.
80% of the cases being dropped is not one story.
That's one location.
Fine, I'll give you that.
But it's not one story.
When you have...
It's one protest.
When you have hundreds of days of rioting...
It's one jurisdiction.
Right, but then you look at...
No, no, but that matters, right?
Don't we know that jurisdictions prosecute differently?
I'm so confused.
I thought we knew this already.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, and that's the problem is because when you look at, again, not just, that's just one example that I'm giving you, but it's a pattern that we see.
I mean, but it's an example that actually has completely to do with jurisdiction.
I'm so confused by why this example is so.
The jurisdiction of Chaz or because you got to.
I mean, that's fine.
You can be confused, but other people aren't confused about this.
BLM created their own country, called it Chaz, and declared it as their own.
If that's not, quote, unquote, insurrection or something going against the government, I don't know what is.
Did they ever get punished for that? Not to my knowledge.
Might I had just a quick statistic from a guardian analysis.
Obviously, Garden being a left-leaning website, April 2021.
In most of a dozen jurisdictions examined at least 90% of cases were dropped or dismissed.
In some cities like Dallas and Philadelphia, as many, 95% of citations were dropped or not prosecuted.
This is regarding to the Black Lives Vetter riots.
Oh, wow. Look at that. More than one example.
If that is not political motivation, I don't know what is.
And because then you look, sorry, sorry.
But then you look, well, just because you look at the Kyle Rittenhouse case, he was charged with murder.
All right.
That was a political prosecution.
And you know, Richie, Richie's in here, who's the guy behind Joseph Rosenbaum.
I saw the second half of it.
That was clear-cut self-defense from the very first, you know, couple of days after, because, you know, we're trying to put the pieces together with all the different videos that we took from each angle.
But that was, you know, that's an example of prosecution going overboard.
But because it happened in a BLM riot...
You know, they had their narrative set.
So I just, again, I get what you guys are saying,
different jurisdiction and all that,
but thank you, Kyle, for that additional information.
But the prosecution, yeah, yeah, sure,
thousands of people were arrested during the BLM riots.
But, you know, when you look at what they were arrested for
or, you know, the number,
the charges rarely were followed through on
because they were dropped.
Right.
But isn't that because they're hard to prove?
But isn't that because they're hard to prove?
You don't even know if the people that were arrested committed any violence whatsoever
or broke a law.
And that's typically what happens a lot in protests.
They go and arrest people and then they let them go.
I mean, there's new camera footage.
I mean, but on January 6th, like as Chris was saying, and he has represented multiple
January 6th people that were charged on January 6th or after January 6th,
You know, it was pretty clear cut, right?
I mean, Chris, those are the words that I remember you saying something to that effect,
that because they entered the Capitol, it was automatically clear cut.
So trying to compare that to BLM protests and subsequent potential, you know, subsequent riots,
I think is just not a good faith argument.
So let me address this. The evidence was clear because of the resources the government, you know, directed towards the J6 prosecutions, which was unprecedented. And again,
I'm getting that from local counsel who is a registered Democrat, a lifelong Democrat, who says he's never seen these kinds of resources directed particularly at misdemeanor prosecutions.
I'm not talking about the felony prosecutions where somebody went into a sensitive area generally or was involved with planning or hurt somebody or broke something.
This is unprecedented.
And to suggest, and by the way, there's an entire book of United States Code in which the federal government can charge pretty much anybody for pretty much anything if they set their mind to it.
And I guess I just want to be clear, those sorts of resources were not directed by the federal government towards the BLM protests in any.
in any measure like they were J6.
And that, by the way, is coming from somebody
who does not share my political affiliation.
And in fact, like I said,
is a lifelong Democrat.
Now, you know,
I don't necessarily want to get into the felony comparisons
because I think those charges...
There could be some analogies, but when it comes to the misdemeanance, those are the folks that went in, walked around, walked out, didn't hurt anybody, didn't break anything, it's unprecedented.
And to suggest that it's anything other than politically motivated, I think, is not grasping with reality.
I just, I want to say really quickly that, yes, you're right.
The prosecution of January 6 defendants was unprecedented,
but so was the January 6th riot.
It was unprecedented.
It was something this country had never seen.
That is not true.
That is very true.
The leftists have blown up the Capitol building, the weather underground.
There was a machine gun fire by Puerto Ricans where they actually killed Congress members.
Compared to all of the other stuff that has happened at the Capitol building,
that's, it's not, you guys don't know your history.
Hello?
Yeah.
I do want to ask you a question, though, Mr. Chansley.
A lot of January 6th defendants and participants have said that they felt justified entering into the Capitol because they were invited there by Donald Trump.
Do you feel that you were justified entering into the Capitol building and that you were invited by Donald Trump?
That's question one.
Question two is, do you feel that your jail sentence was warranted?
My lawyer has advised me not to make a comment on any of these legal matters at this time.
I'll answer that really quick. I can help answer that. So for... Thank you, Derek, because you have before. Thank you, Derek.
Yeah, so I do... There have been some people who have claimed, you know, that, that defense. The majority of January 6th defendants have not claimed that,
we felt justified being there because President Trump invited us.
But for me specifically, no, I honestly, what I had in my mind was the people pounding on the doors during the Cavanaugh hearings.
I've seen people protest in this building so many times.
I didn't think it's a big deal.
And then look...
I'm perfectly fine with the misdemeanor charges if they wanted to do that.
I think it's ridiculous that they took it to the extreme that they did, and they, you know, have swatted people and that, you know, they threw people in prison on misdemeanors.
I think that's extreme.
But look, if you wanted to come give me a misdemeanor charging some probation, I would accept that.
So I guess my question is, you guys have seen Jake's tape on Fox News.
Mine's pinned to the top of my Twitter feed.
People who were nonviolent walked through the doors and meandered around and didn't destroy anything, wasn't violent, wasn't destructive.
Do you guys think it was fair that we were facing decades in prison?
I mean, 24 years in prison.
Do you think that was fair?
I'll answer that for you.
I saw your video.
I saw that you walked into the rotunda.
I think you were the one that fist bumped a Capitol police officer.
That was you, correct?
Correct.
Yep.
And I think that what you did, you did trespass, but I don't believe that you should have gotten a prison sentence.
I do believe that Mr. Chansley's prison sentence was justified the moment he entered into the chamber.
Oh, because of the chambers at where you're, I'm just curious as to where you're going a lot there.
That's where I draw the line.
When you enter into a chamber where our, Sarah, Sarah, have you.
Where our government is doing, where our government is doing business trying to certify an election, when you walk in there and you disturb that,
That is a crime.
And also,
did you not see the videos of the Capitol police actually attempting to open the doors for,
for Jacob?
That does not matter.
They still broke the law.
They committed a crime.
Can I ask a quick question for the law and order and keep breaking the law?
Certification was already stopped.
That incident.
The certification was already halted.
I just wanted to point that out.
The certification had already been halted by the time that Jake was there.
It's not like the people were on the floor trying to do this and Jake stormed in there or something.
You're right.
It had already halted because people had already entered.
But to Nick Sane, did I see that yes?
Yes.
Capitol Police, some of them did open up doors and they shouldn't have, and they should have been committed of friends.
It wasn't just that.
If you watch the videos that Tucker Carlson released on this, and for whatever reason, this stuff wasn't released before,
it all of a sudden, you know, just finally came out once McCarthy came in due to be the Speaker of the House.
You can see Jacob walking around pretty much being escorted by Capitol.
Capitol police officers, it almost looked like it was a tour, okay?
And they would sit there and they would try to pull on doors to the chamber.
And, you know, they'd be locked.
When people break the law, whether Black Lives Matter or if it's January 6th,
we need to be consistent.
They need to be charged.
This is how it works.
We can't kind of have selective justice.
I think both need to be charged.
There's nothing wrong with saying that when you break the law,
You should be you should have to pay.
It's how it works in this country.
I need to add.
This is not equal treatment under the law.
That's fine.
Make it equal.
But still, we need to have people understand that the law matters.
Yeah.
If you watch the video.
Equal treatment under the law. That is the foundation of our country, ladies and gentlemen. And whenever that is not happening, that is evidence of corruption and tyranny. And I have to ask a question, what would be evidence of corruption? What would be evidence of tyranny within the system?
The answer is, I think, quite obvious, especially considering what JFK said about infiltration instead of invasion, about subversions instead of elections, about intimidation instead of free choice, about guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.
We are talking about a system which has conspired fast, human, and material resources to create a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, scientific, economic, intelligence, and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not headlined.
It's the centuries are silenced, not praised.
No rumor is printed, no expenditures questioned, and no secret is revealed.
He said that like a week before he died, ladies and gentlemen.
So do you feel that you were given a tour and therefore since Nick stated that you were escorted, that it appeared you were escorted, that you didn't break the law?
Once again, my attorney has advised me not to say anything about these things at the current moment.
Once this stuff in the motion in the courts is done with, you guys, I'm going to, I would like to go on Tucker Carlson and talk about this.
I think he deserves to be the one that gets the interview.
But I will talk about all of this stuff.
But can I ask, were the police officers charged?
Were the police officers charged for gross negligence, criminal negligence?
anything where the police officers
who did escort you on video
to the Senate. They didn't escort him on video.
They followed him.
They walked, no, no, no.
Kyle.
We can stop him.
Let's not play work.
We can replay.
No, we can replay.
We can replay the video.
They were
They were told to stand down.
They were told to stand down.
They were not violent.
They followed someone who has a weapon.
He has a spear with a tip on it.
And they're following him.
Then he says he wants to go into the chamber.
Then he says he wants to go in the chamber.
And they open the door for him.
Allow me to.
Yeah, I'll put it in the fucking nest because you're blind.
Good for you.
Right, right, right, right. So you just accused Jake of having a weapon.
So I guess, you know, we're going to let him respond here for 30 seconds.
I don't know why you're doing that, Joe.
But go ahead, Jake.
You had a weapon, apparently.
Although, you know, everybody, pretty much everybody agrees he were unarmed.
But go ahead.
Thank you.
Look, I'm not going to speak too much about it.
But one thing I'm going to say is there was a reason why I was walking with the police officers.
And it wasn't because I was viewed as a threat.
That isn't saying.
Can you say why?
Can you say why?
Yeah, like that makes no sense.
I would love to tell you.
I don't want to get in trouble with my lawyer for explaining what exactly it happened on that day.
And in all honesty, I'd really like to give the interview to Tucker Carlson and kind of explain everything that happened from beginning to end.
Sounds very common.
What is that even supposed to mean?
Jake, I want to ask you a quick. So this is an audience question. I'll remind everybody, bottom right hand corner, leave you here comments and questions, a lot of good ones in here.
Jake, were you charged with any crimes that were related to entering the Senate chamber? Because I know that Sarah said something about the fact that you should be prosecuted just for entering the Senate chamber.
I was charged with four misdemeanors and two felonies.
The four misdemeanors are the ones that the, I forgot, I'm sorry, I forgot his name.
He was talking about earlier, the four basics.
And then there was the, I believe it's 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding.
And then the other one was basically like rioting.
And so I signed a plea deal.
um one that my previous if you'll call him a lawyer um arranged and in that plea deal i pled guilty to
1512 obstruction of an official proceeding now
What are the logistics and the legalities of all of that?
I cannot say currently whether or not it was justified or not or whatever.
You know, there's people that have been found not guilty of that.
There's also other things going on with that charge in particular that I'm not going to get into just yet.
But I promise you, I'm not running from the questions here.
I'm just doing what my lawyer told me to do.
And I think that's a wise decision for anybody in a legal situation.
Right, well, because it's not over yet.
Chris, another audience.
Can I just say really quickly, Nick?
Nick, just really quickly.
Very quickly, yes.
Very quickly.
I don't, I will disagree with Joa.
I don't believe he came there with a weapon and to do harm.
I do believe that him entering the chamber was breaking the law and therefore deserved a prison sentence.
But Mr. Chansley, I honestly don't believe that you were there to do physical harm to anyone.
Thank you.
Okay, yeah.
So Chris.
Just before you bring Kristen as well,
I think an important thing to mention,
sorry, Nick,
because Jacob mentioned it,
that when he's not able to answer certain questions,
I mean, that is fair.
He's in the middle of legal proceedings.
Like, none of us would ever take a risk that we say something wrong
and then we're going to end up being found guilty
or not have the opportunity to be exonerated.
And so anything that he says,
it can be taken as a negative inference in his case.
So that's just fair enough.
It's not him being obtuse,
which I admit some people are sometimes,
but it's clearly not the case with him.
So I just want to make that clear.
Sorry, you'd make a echo head.
Okay.
So I'll just say for the audience as well, we do have an ex-FBI agent coming in here very shortly to discuss some of this, which should be very interesting.
So stay tuned.
Chris, at what point are we looking at entrapment, right?
I know we have talked about doors being opened by Capitol Police, Jake Chanceley being led into the chamber.
Senate chamber, and, you know, he ends up getting arrested and going to prison. At what point is this stuff entrapment? You feel like you're being invited in?
So let's talk about that. First of all, entrapment is an affirmative defense. The burden then is on the defendant to prove it. You know, it was just in assessing these cases. And again, you know, let's start with.
This is an unfavorable forum, an extraordinarily unfavorable forum, to litigate these cases.
You know, you don't want to do a J6 case in the D.C. district.
I mean, if this were in these folks' home districts where they were from, you know, I think the analysis would be different, Nick.
But at bottom, you know, if somebody is being invited in,
All of these offenses, all four of the misdemeanors, have a mens rea requirement that's part of it.
In other words, there's an intentionality that is required for the government to prove.
And I don't know why you would even resort to an affirmative defense because if somebody's being invited in and they think they're allowed to be there and they have that honest belief, that's going to negate the government's case.
And in one instance, you know, Judge Trevor McFadden found a defendant not guilty at a bench trial because he was invited in by the police.
That was the testimony.
The Capitol Police let him in.
And the government couldn't prove the elements of the offense as a consequence of that.
They have to prove one of the misdemeanor offenses is,
you know, that you knew you weren't supposed to be there, basically, for the trespassing charge.
The problem is, in almost every case, even if that's the case, you still had folks in sort of marching around, joining in what was going on within the building, chanting.
You know, and if you've seen the J6 footage, and I've seen hours and hours of it,
you know, the crowd is chanting, you know, our house, our house.
I mean, that's going to meet the elements of the prating and demonstrating misdemeanor.
And so it's not really a freebie in the sense of, you know, in most of the misdemeanor cases,
the government's offering a plea deal, you plea to one.
You know, maybe they got you on the prating and demonstrating, even if the Capitol Police let you in.
So I don't, Nick, I don't know that I would even go to.
an entrapment defense.
The other thing you've got to prove with entrapment is
that you would not have otherwise done it, basically.
And in almost every case,
you had folks that were at the ellipse,
attending the rally and sort of following the crowd.
I think that's a hard argument to make,
you know,
if you're sort of following the crowd all the way up to the Capitol
steps and into the Capitol,
you know, again, if the Capitol police switch in,
I think the better course,
at least from a defense standpoint,
is government can't meet their burdens.
So, shipwrecked. I went ahead and brought you up on stage. I believe you are Mr. Chansley's defense attorney. You've been representing him for a while now. I don't know how long you've been listening to the conversation here, but, you know, what are your thoughts about the prosecution? How much can you say? Was it politically motivated? Was it fair?
Well, I'll say that I was kind of trolling through Twitter, and I saw the caption of the
spaces, January 6th Capitol Riot, what really happened with Jacob Chansley.
I've been behaving myself.
I've been behaving myself.
He's been very good.
I would say, he's been very good.
And we haven't pressed him on it, you know.
We have had a lot of conversations about what he can talk about and what he needs to stay
away from.
So I was just kind of monitoring it.
So, yeah, let me just explain.
You know, we have a pending petitioner, a pending motion before Judge Lambert to vacate or set aside or correct his conviction and sentence.
And that is focused on the discovery process and what was made available to Jake's lawyer or not made available in the timeframe of his change of plea and later sentencing.
And it really all focuses on the conduct of the government.
So what I told Jake is, look, we're not going to add to the record of the case by having you talk about what you did or did not do because that's not the focus of our motion.
And we don't want to contribute in any way to the government's ability to, you know, come back at us in opposing the motion.
So that's the reason why I've told him, look, you talk about your experience.
You can talk about, you know, the jail setting.
You can talk about the move to the Bureau of Prisons facility.
You can talk about, you know, your belief in shamanism and democracy and all that stuff.
But what you did or what happened, you know, on January 6th, stay away from it.
So that's the reason he's giving the answers he's giving.
Absolutely. In response to what I just heard, the attorney Chris, I'm sorry, I didn't see Chris's last name. Let me see. Chris Weiss.
Chris Weiss. Yeah, on the issue of entrapment. I make this point every time I can because the public, the layman's perception or belief about what the legal defense of entrapment is is not the same as the legal defense of entrapment.
To make an entrapment defense, you essentially have to admit you committed the crime.
You, you in effect, admit that you did, you committed the crime the government has charged you with,
but you only did so because some government actor led you to do it under circumstances where without that motivation,
you would not have engaged in the conduct.
So Chris is exactly right that the information or the defense evidence about being invited in,
it negates intent if it's accepted.
But it's not the same as entrapment as a legal defense.
Entrapment as a legal defense is, yeah, I robbed the bank,
but I was invited to rob the bank by the guy who's the government informant.
So, you know, like what happened with the Gretchen Whitmer thing, Bill?
Like what happened with the Gretchen Whitmer thing?
Well, yes, but the problem with the evidence of the Whitmer case, which is not widely talked about, is that the con, the, the discussion about kidnapping Whitmer predated the informant becoming an informant.
That's what led him to go to the FBI.
They were already discussing it.
He went to the FBI, told the FBI what they were discussing.
They then made him an informant and sent him back.
Now, there's lots of other layers to that case that are beyond the scope of this conversation.
Because, you know, you've got six months...
that transpires between the time he became an informant in the time everybody was arrested.
And there were a lot of things that happened in that time period that had I been the prosecutor,
and I was a federal prosecutor for 21 plus years, had I been the prosecutor, I told the FBI,
shut it down.
It's, you know, we've probably gone too far in some circumstances.
Shut it down.
We'll find these guys.
We'll get them another way on something else.
I would have had, based on what I've read, in the transcripts and the testimony,
the testimony to the agents, the testimony of the formant,
at the prosecutor, I would have said, I don't think this is going to work.
Now, they kept going.
They filed the case.
They took it to trial.
They had a judge sign off on what they did.
They got a conviction.
That's all now subject to appeal.
But there's a lot of layers to that case that are not nearly as simple as a lot of the commentary
online suggests it is.
Derek?
Jacob, I've got a question for you.
In 2019, you were part of a climate change march in Arizona.
So my question to you is, are you a climate change activist,
or are you somebody who basically likes to engage in any form of protest
because you want to make a scene or you want to be, you know, the show,
you want to cause a scene?
I am not a provocateur to answer your question. No, I am not a provocateur. Once again, it's about the message. It's not about me. The reason I was there is because I believe, and I think there's significant amount of evidence to this point that I'm about to make, that the climate change, climate crisis, global warming crowd has largely been deceived.
And I believe that because there's all sorts of evidence that that's the case.
I think that there is a very real environmental crisis that we are going through, but it has
nothing to do with carbon emissions.
It has everything to do with something called anthropogenic chemicals.
We're talking about man-made chemicals that do not biodegrade for thousands, if not tens of
thousands of years.
In the case of nuclear radiation, over 100,000 years.
And these anthropogenic chemicals do something called bioaccumulation because they do not biodegrade.
So they bioaccumulate in the environment and they bioaccumulate to toxic levels.
They kill the microbiological life in the soil and in the water.
And it is that microbiological life in the soil and the water that is responsible for our life as macrobiological life.
systems. It is that
microbiological life that allows plants to grow. It allows
fish to live. Okay?
So because that microbiological life is being destroyed,
we are literally destroying the very foundation
of life on this planet. And it is largely the corporations
that are pushing this climate change agenda that are
manufacturing these
anthropogenic chemicals.
And it is largely these corporations that seek to monopolize all of the resources and all
of the energy in the entire world and all the labor associated with the extraction of those
resources.
These carbon credits are merely an attempt to tax our energy.
our energy to tax our energy consumption to levels where they control everything.
That's why they're trying to move to a digitized energetic grid system so that they can
shut down our energy grids if and when they choose.
This is about the centralization of power.
Now, the climate is changing, and I would like to briefly explain why, we are going through
a pole shift right now.
This is something that is natural.
It's part of the natural cycles of the planet.
It happens every 100,000 years or so.
and this is the reason why a
a lot of the climates are changing because the poles are shifting and the ionization of certain
ecosystems is changing. It is this ionization and this magnetic, these laylines, this magnetic flow
around the planet and the ionization and these ecosystems that is responsible for the spreading of the
elements. It is responsible for the bringing of storms. It is responsible for the bringing of water or
wind or what have you. And so, yeah, the climate is changing. And yes, this has happened a lot before
And if we really want to, you know, pick this stuff apart logically regarding carbon emissions, 10,000 years ago or so, maybe a little bit more, maybe a little less, the Sahara was a thriving metatropolis. So what exactly, what automobiles were going back then? Why is the Sahara now a desert?
Was it, was it, you know, mammoth farts that did it?
Was it Willie mammoth farts that did it?
Was it, what was it that caused the climate to shift 10,000 years ago?
Was it a comet impact into the glacier in the North American hemisphere that caused a massive global flood?
What was it that caused the previous ice ages and the previous deglaciation's?
Was it carbon emissions? No. It was pole shifts. It was cataclysmic events, whether it be asteroids or comets.
So these climate change fanatics have been largely deceived. And Tesla Tower technology, infinite free, clean energy, using delay lines, using the electromagnetic pulse of the Earth is a very real thing that has been kept from these climate activists that are actually trying to save the planet as far as they're concerned, but they're trusting the wrong people to do it.
Because if these people were really interested in saving the planet, then they would be talking about Tesla Tower technology and its infinite free, clean, wireless energy supply, not solar panels, not wind turbines and not lithium mining, all of which destroy the environment just as much as oil drilling and natural gas.
Right. Let me go to, thanks to that. Thanks to Antoin-Darja. Let me go to Derek.
Yeah, I just wanted to throw in here a little bit about the 1512 obstruction official proceeding that Jake was charged with, I was charged with.
And it's important because this is being used against so many January 6 defendants, especially those who are nonviolent, non-destructive.
If they want to hit you with a felony, that's the one you're going to get hit with.
This was created during the early 2000s, during the Enron, Insider Bank trading, all of that.
The entire code is about tampering with a witness.
Right.
No one on January 6th tampered with a witness.
They are using this, in my opinion, once again, politically to overcharge everyone.
And, you know, I would think that those on the left would use this as an opportunity to right now
to build a bridge with those of us in the conservative side in terms of the criminal justice system in our country.
Because I'll just tell you, I knew that there was a problem in this country.
I had never been to prison before until I went for January 6th.
And inside those walls, I thought I was going to meet a bunch of people who claim to be innocent.
What I met were a bunch of people just like me.
I admitted, you know what?
I probably should have been charged with trespassing, okay, misdemeanor charge.
But I was overcharged, over sentenced, and every single person I met in there was the exact same way.
They were not claiming innocence.
They were overcharged and over sentence.
I think that all of us right now are using the...
me included, we're allowing the media to divide us on this issue when really we should be
allowed to be using this as an opportunity to come together and the left should be building
bridges with those in the conservative movement that January 6th are specifically in saying,
hey, we've been beating this drum for criminal justice reform and trying to get some of these
things corrected for years now. We want to work with you on this because we're
This is your opportunity to open up that conversation with those in the conservative movement
to realizing and accepting and understanding and want change in terms of how people are sentenced in this country
because it's happening to the January 6th community.
You know, this is one of the few times I actually agree with Trump at the end.
The interview I posted to video without how he says,
the people who infiltrated the capital defiled our country's democracy.
I agree with him. Finally, something I can agree with on Trump.
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. Thank you very much.
Can I jump in real quick on the 15th?
Yeah, because, you know, one of the comments earlier was, well, none of this is political.
There are open legal issues on these 15-12 charges, and the government has used them in multiple instances of, you know, on J-6 cases.
And I will tell you, they have never been used previous in any of these sorts of contexts.
And there's an open legal issue.
There are open appeals to the D.C. circuit.
I suspect this 1512 issue has applied to J6 is going to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court because it's a stretch, I think, you know, for the government to suggest that what the J6 people were doing was intimidating a witness to a proceeding, et cetera.
I mean, you know, you could make a lot of arguments that the government has on other statutes that they've charged people with.
This is one that doesn't seem to fit, and frankly, is the subject right now of appellate litigation that I think the U.S. Supreme Court's going to end up resolving.
Also, in terms of this being political, when I was in prison, I'd been there for a few months and actually earned the trust of people and they knew who I was and did already research, knew what I was there for.
And there was another January 6 guy who showed up there on misdemeanor charges.
And honestly, he was in a dangerous situation.
These people were...
They had to come get me because they'd never met.
You've got to remember the inmates, they run the prison, they know this system, they know the rules, they know how it all works.
They had never met anyone who was in prison in federal prison for a misdemeanor charge before.
They thought the guy was lying.
I had to, you know, set the record straight that they are sending people to prison on misdemeanor charges.
That's how unprecedented it is.
The inmates were...
We're mind blown and we're in disbelief that this guy was there on misdemeanor charges.
So that is further proof of the political persecution that's taken place right now.
I'm going to, Doc, you've come up.
What's your thoughts on what we've discussed up to now?
So, one, I want to thank Jake for coming in here and just really admire your eloquence
and your obvious intelligence here.
You came into somewhat of a...
What was that movie with Mel Gibson, Thunderdome?
Thank you.
Of competing interests and opinions here.
So thank you for that.
I did want to address the conversation that Joa brought up about,
and Dr. Dynish, who I see has left the room.
about the fairness and the ability to equate what happened, for example, in the Wisconsin capital during, I think it was under Governor Scott Walker, where the unions took over the capital, unadvited against the law.
and or BLM riots the summer of 2020.
And what happened in the Capitol to people like Jake and others,
like Derek, who just walked in.
So two things.
One is on the trespass part specifically, right?
In my opinion, and I haven't looked at the statutes,
the D.C. statutes that this falls under,
but generally speaking,
If an agent of the government in charge of security of facility opens the door and invites you in,
I think that's a waiver against any ability for the government to come in and charge you for trespass.
To me, that's an invitation.
And I don't know that any attorneys have argued that point, but just from a 50,000 foot level,
from someone who's not in federal practice, that's something that I would occur to me during that conversation.
The other thing is, there's a great distinction in the law and practice between the decision to charge somebody, right?
That's basically a decision based by the police.
and the difference between charging someone and prosecuting someone. The power of a prosecutor is one to ruin
lives. We've had J. Sixers who have committed suicide. So they have taken lives with what I feel as an
abusive overreach by the prosecutorial power. We
We had grandmothers, mega-granny as a famous or infamous Twitter account,
who basically was charged with a misdemeanor,
was told that she was going to go to sort of a nice federal facility,
given her age and the fact that she was suffering from cancer at the time
and under treatment.
And she was sent to some basic base federal prison and kept there.
So this is...
in my opinion, been pure political power play.
It's law fair.
It's consistent with what we've seen from the Democrats
in any number of jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C.,
including doctors in California who are being sued
under a brand new statute passed by a House
and executive branch in California with a
veto-proof majorities that made differing from the official California Department of Health
decisions on certain medications, to counter that would subject them to the loss of their license.
We see attorneys in Arizona who are in election claims.
right and they're being prosecuted for just bringing those claims that never happens in the law lawyers traditionally have always looked the other way when another lawyer has you know stepped other line both ethically and criminally that this is law fair and what happened to these guys is the disgrace to sit there on a misdemeanor charge not being able to prove your your innocence with those videos
because the government has slapped a top security label on it.
It's repugnant.
And anyone who defends it, my God, you really need to get right with your God.
Thanks for the mic.
Thanks, Doc.
Let me go to...
Oh, if I could just say something to that real quick and I'll make it fast.
What we're talking about here is something known as prosecutorial discretion.
Okay.
And what that basically means is that the prosecutor, which is like one of the higher levels of law enforcement, whether it be in a state or in the federal government, okay, they have the discretion to charge somebody or Z.
They have the discretion to charge somebody at all.
So this is why it is that people like George Soros have sought to corrupt DAs all over the country.
It is also the reason why we're seeing certain charges dropped within the federal government
regarding the BLM and Antifa riots because the prosecutors have discretion on what it is that they are going to charge people with or charge people at all.
It's part of the reason we have seen so much corruption regarding the Hunter Biden laptop because of prosecutorial discretion.
So what we need to do is we need to really recognize where it is that our system has been corrupted, how it has been corrupted, and by whom it has been corrupted, and to serve what agenda for that corruption.
Because if we look at what is happening...
in this country regarding prosecutorial discretion and how very real criminals who are hurting
people, raping people, killing people are being just let go and back on the streets.
But if you're somebody that is defending yourself or others against these people, you are
being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
That once again, how would there be evidence of corruption?
What would that evidence look like?
What would evidence of corruption look like?
What would evidence of prosecutorial discretion and corruption in that regard look like or politically motivated prosecutorial discretion?
Were you let go early for corruption?
I was let go because I had six months of good time and because I programmed while I was in prisons.
The First Step Act, which has actually been in the Congress for like almost 40 freaking years.
And it's just, they all, you know, promise prison reform when they're running for office.
And then they have this bill sitting in the Congress for decades.
And none of them do anything about it.
But they're certainly willing to enrich themselves and pay their special interest groups and their donors, lots of money, our government money, our public dollars.
But no, I was let go because I had...
Six months of good time, and I did a little over 12 months worth of programming, and the first step act allows for 15 days for every 30 days of programming.
And so because I had almost a year worth of programming, I got six more months off my sentence.
So my sentence was over on May 25th.
and I went to the halfway house on May 28th.
Now, for those of you who are here and are not Trump supporters,
I just want you to know it was Donald Trump that signed the First Step Act into law.
That law could have gone across Bill Clinton's desk.
It could have gone across Barack Obama's desk.
They didn't sign it.
They didn't sign it at all.
And in many cases, a lot of these people that are in these prisons
that are locked up for decades because of the drug laws that Biden wrote
So Trump's putting criminals back on the street earlier?
No, Trump is asking, no, because I'm surprised his whole,
No, because I'm surprised his whole rhetoric is he's the, you know, he's the one that wants put criminals in prison.
This is where you're twisting it.
Yeah, this is where you're twisting it, dude.
And this is what, this is what happens when, you know, there are two sides to it.
No, no, no, what, this is where it's like what you don't understand.
Now, allow me to just explain the details to you, okay?
Yeah.
So the only way that you can get time off your sentence by doing the first step act is if you are of a low recidivism rate, which means that you're not going to reoffend, you have a low chance of reoffending or you're at a medium recidivism rate. You have a medium chance of reoffending. If you are a high or maximum like levels of recidivism rate, you don't get any first step back credits.
Okay. So the only way you're going to get first step credit at first step act credits is if you're at a minimum, a low or a medium level or recidivism.
And the medium levels, you only get 10 days per programming, per 30 days of programming.
If you're at a low or a minimum, I mean, a minimal, I'm sorry, then you get 15 days worth of programming time for 30 days.
I mean, 15 days worth of your, off your sentence per program.
30 days of programming. Now, you can only earn up to a year off of your sentence through this
first step act. And you can also earn up to a year of halfway house time, which halfway house time
is designed to help people that are in the federal system to come and transition into society,
to have a place where they don't really have to worry too much about rent, where they can get a job,
where they can save up some money and they can stabilize their life and become a functioning
member of society. So first,
First of all, the only way you're going to be able to get first step credit is if you program and you try to improve yourself.
That's number one.
Number two.
Another thing I can add to my list, a good thing that Trump did while it was in office.
Thank you for it to give me on it.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
And really quick, Jake, man, at my prison, that was like the talk of every, every inmate in there.
It didn't matter what color they were, where they're from, and you knew that.
The first step act was, you guys, I wish that you guys could just go spend a day or two with some of these people and realize just how much, when Jake's talking about the programming,
when they started rolling this out, like the programming was actually, it was filled.
Everybody was trying to program it better themselves because they wanted that incentive of doing this.
It was, it was the talk of the yard was the first step act.
It was absolutely fascinating.
It was mind-blowing and it was an excellent thing.
And to be honest with you, as great as the first step act is, in my opinion, after everything I learned in there,
I think it's only a small step in the right direction in terms of getting some reform in this whole process.
Yeah.
Well, the thing is they have a second step act waiting in the Congress.
At least that's what I've heard.
And Biden promised prison reform.
You know, and this is a thing I don't understand.
Why are we trusting these old men, these old geysers that created all of these problems that we're dealing with to somehow magically fix them?
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
You know, you can't fix a problem with the same thinking that created it.
And we obviously have all the same people that created these problems and this problematic thinking in office right now, not just liberals, not just Democrats, but conservative and Republicans alike.
And I am just so sick and tired of these people trying to talk down to the American people and tell us that we just don't understand.
You just don't get it.
We're doing our best.
And it's like, no, you're not because you're making all these promises.
Now, this is another thing.
A lot of the people that are running for president,
They're making all these promises.
They don't have the security clearance to get the actual info regarding a lot of the promises that they're making.
They're just making these blanket promises that they have no idea what they're talking about half the time.
The only way that they could is if they were already president.
okay and and then even then there's only so much that they can disclose because what they what they might
disclose might be considered classified and lastly you know this is a problem there's a problem with
government transparency okay because over half
of our government documentation is classified,
ladies and gentlemen.
And there are literally five to six thousand patents that are classified
that are considered quote unquote disruptive patents
because it would disrupt the monopolies
that people like the pharmaceutical companies have
or like the oil companies or the solar panel companies
or, you know,
Any technology that would change the monopolized market that we have based on these 150 corporations around the world owning and controlling all the resources and labor, anything that would threaten their little money train is considered classified.
And that needs to change.
Yeah. So let me go to Joe, who we have up on stage.
Joe, thank you for coming here. You were ex-FBI.
And there are particular reasons that you left.
And, you know, because you and you have some insider information on the organization itself.
And I know Chris Weist, who's up on stage as well, who did defend, uh,
J6 arrestees did mention the fact that the FBI actually took agents off of violent crimes,
such as, you know, even child rape to put them to investigate some of these J-6ers that simply
walked through the Capitol. Is this a normal procedure? Why would we see this? Is it corruption?
Is it political motivation? What are your thoughts?
I mean, just from being, I mean, when I got into the FBI, I'd been in law enforcement for eight years.
So I was very shocked that they considered themselves a law enforcement organization when I was there because it was anything but.
And I feel like I can say that because I was there and was on me inside.
I feel like a lot of people for some reason like to defend anybody that comes out and speaks to.
something about, you know, the FBI and the way that they investigate.
And, you know, I think a lot of people criticize,
you know,
they're speaking out because they just
don't like the groups
that are being unfairly treated.
So yet it's not normal at all,
to be honest, especially when
anybody that's taken off
crimes against children, that's a huge
problem. And if you don't think so, then obviously
I don't know what's wrong with you, but
that's what happened with Steve Friend is
he pretty much said, hey, like, do I really need to work
this? These people that are doing misdemeanors when
there's crimes...
You're with ex-fbii, right? Yeah.
Yeah, Steve was, yeah, that's what one of the issues that Steve had as well is, hey, like, you know, there's, there's, you know, crimes against kids going on.
Like, what is more important than kids?
Oh, people that were wandering around the Capitol?
Like, no, that's not.
It's not at all.
It's completely political.
I've been in law enforcement now for 15 years, and I can tell you that.
It's 100% political.
And if you're just saying, no, it's not.
And you think that the people wandering around that it was crazy and that they were trying to take over, then clear, you're just, you're just not, you're just, you obviously...
Don't like the one side. I get it. But you know, you have to look at it from if that was another group that you agreed with, would you be okay with the way that they're being treated? And you probably wouldn't. And, you know, there's a reason why BLM and Antifa are not being investigated or really charged. I mean, I know this for a fact because I have insider information that those groups are technically by, you know, speaking to somebody who.
well, a former undercover for, you know, many years tasked to the FBI.
telling me that yes, those groups are extremists organizations, but we're not allowed to investigate
them. So that tells you right there. I mean, if you really care about law and order,
then any group that is committing crimes, you should be, they should be looked into. But unfortunately,
what you see is that it's so blatantly obvious that certain groups are being targeted,
certain groups are being let go. Um,
So, no, it's not normal at all.
It's, you know, 100% political.
And for anybody that keeps defending it, I mean, it is what it is.
But you got to some, you got to look because at some point, you know,
If that was happening to an organization that is technically linked to your side,
you probably wouldn't be okay with, you know, all this serious charges.
And people being held in jail for, you know, extended periods of time just for these misdemeanors.
I mean, it is literally a misdemeanor.
And I know Kyle said it before here.
Joe, it is it is trying to stop our democracy.
Period. That's what they went there to do.
Derek said he was there.
Not Derek's Mexican. We are not a democracy.
We're a representative republic.
I mean, we're a constitutional republic.
I don't understand what you.
This is Operation Mocky.
You can play semantics all you won, Jake.
No, no, this isn't semantics.
It is too much for dinner.
You were trying to stop an election.
You were trying to stop.
No, the vast amount of people were there.
That date for a party.
There is a god, apparently. There is a god.
Joe, are you curious? Do you care about the way to the police brutality that day?
Because I actually am in law enforcement.
And did you?
Yeah, not just that day. Also with the BLM people up in New York who got corralled into a corner and beat the shit out of them.
Both of both cases, I think, are horrible. Yeah.
Well, then why did the ones down in D.C. get medals?
Yeah.
because of the situation.
They weren't, there wasn't only,
there was police brutality on the other side, too.
They were being attacked.
I understand that.
And you can use force with force.
BLM in that scenario in New York,
they weren't fighting back, by the way, Joe.
Right.
Can you name some,
they weren't allowed to fight back.
But they're allowed to fight back down there, aren't they?
Do you not see that?
I mean, I'm in the field.
Down where?
Are you kidding me?
Like the video, the video's in the nest of people screaming, fuck the blue, and then they go and attack them.
Right.
It's in the nest.
You can go play it right now.
And that has happened at other riots where they're not allowed to, the police are not allowed to defend themselves.
Do you not understand that?
They're getting bricks thrown at them.
They have to sit there and take it because if they go hands on with certain crowds,
they're going to be labeled in.
They're going to be, you know, the persecuted all over the news.
But with that crowd, you literally, look, what I saw, okay,
and you probably have more information than I do.
I'm just speaking from my point of view looking at both tapes, right,
or both the evidence I saw.
I saw the security at the Capitol trying to hold people back
Okay. Then I saw BLM people in New York that were put into a corner and had the ship eat out of them to the point where they each had to get paid by the government because of what happened. Right. So one, the police went after the people and then you're trying to make the case that...
The, you know, the police force isn't allowed to touch black people, but they are with Jan 6.
That's not what I saw.
That's, I mean, that's not what I saw in the video.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but that's not what I saw.
Certain crowds that are not allowed to go hands-on with.
It doesn't have to be black or anything.
I'm telling you certain crowds, I've seen it.
You're not allowed to go hands-on, and you have to sit there and take it.
Well, what are their crowds?
What are those crowds?
Yeah, I think you've got like the, the Antifa crowds, the trans crowds.
You actually, you're not allowed to, you know, there's a lot of riots or protests that turn violent.
And you have a lot of officers being told they can't do anything or hesitating.
And weren't the policemen in January 6th also told to stand down?
And that's why they followed Jacob through the Capitol, through a lot of the Capitol?
I'm just telling you that if...
You know, if anybody is going to be beating someone to death at a protest, no matter the, whatever the cause is there, it's wrong.
And, you know, it should be, it should be newsworthy.
But for whatever reason, that one woman that got beat at January 6th, it was barely covered until people had to bring it up.
I didn't even know about it until I started getting into one of these spaces and heard about it because it was never covered.
So I'm just telling you that if that happened at certain other crowds, it would make news headlines.
And you know that's true.
Joe, so I want to ask you this.
This is an audience question that we've been getting a lot.
It's been a hell of a lot of discussion around it over the past two years by everybody that is not.
an alphabet
organization such as the FBI,
there were two, apparently,
two pipe bombs that were placed
at the RNC headquarters
in D.C. As well as the DNC
headquarters, so the Republican Party
and the Democrat Party. We never
really heard anything more about this.
Okay? We've had
All these J6s,
with people that have been walking around the Capitol
that have been prosecuted.
And the FBI has released all of these pictures
of these individuals that were merely walking through,
you know, asking for anybody from the public
to try to identify these people.
However, it is worth noting that the person
that placed the pipe bomb
that we saw it was on video. They have not released all of the videos of that. There have been,
there were cameras that were very well placed and the FBI won't release any of that. No details
on him. We don't know his height. We don't know his approximate weight, shoe size, anything like that.
Why is that? In your mind, are they hiding something or is this normal protocol?
I mean, 100% you'd have to be hiding something because I know for a fact,
just checking in with some people I had already left by then,
but just catching up and shooting the shit,
I was told very brief details that there was someone that they were looking at.
They had a license plate and they were, you know,
so that right there tells me in my field,
you got a license plate, you have a car,
you can figure out backtrack who that person is or who they're linked to.
So my only speculation is that,
the person, whoever it is,
if they release that person's name,
whatever, it's going to cause a shit show
because of whatever they're linked to.
So, yeah, I mean,
why would you not release it
unless you know it's going to cause some type of trouble?
So, I mean, that's the only thing I can think of
because it is kind of a big deal.
I mean, I know those bombs were apparently,
I guess they were inoperable,
but still, that doesn't matter.
I mean, but yeah, I would say 100%.
they're not releasing it because of, you know, whoever it is or whatever,
they could be linked to something that's going to cause some type of, you know,
stir the pot or whatever.
So who knows?
Yeah, so I just want to remind everybody, we're typically after these spaces,
we have subscriber-only spaces.
You click on Mario's profile, pay $1.
It all goes to charity.
And you can listen to Mario be a total asshole to everybody.
which is actually kind of entertaining.
And we bring audience members up on stage,
people that typically are just listeners.
And it's very interesting, actually.
And we love to be able to talk to you guys.
Alpha, your thoughts on everything you've heard so far.
And maybe even something about the pipe bomb situation.
Jump in.
Yeah, first for the pipe bomb thing.
One, good to see you, Joe.
You know, when you have a team that has actionable intel to follow through and make a possible apprehension, they're called off.
The only reason you don't do that is because you're trying to protect the suspect, period.
And you've got to ask yourself, like Joe said, why are they trying to protect that suspect?
The second thing is officers don't get to create the exigency.
So when you have officers that are opening the door and shuffling people in, making hand gestures, welcoming people in, you don't turn around and then get to say that the people are trespassing.
If you have officers on the outside that are trying to prevent people from coming in and officers on the inside telling people to come in, the question is which one of those law enforcement officers older supersedes the other one.
And because you can't make that determination, it's always going to go.
to the side of the defendant,
which is the J. Sectures in this case.
The other thing is the one thing that is...
to me, extremely important in this is this is 100% a political attack against a political opponent.
The one thing that differentiates this from BLM or Antifa or any other these other protests
is the prosecution that's taking place here is 100% political.
And there is evidence of that.
There's at least one case that has evidence of that.
And I'm talking about my case.
You have an FBI audio recording where they asked me during my interview,
who did you vote for and who are you registered with?
I worked law enforcement for 14 years undercover gangs.
I did investigations into national and international crime syndicates.
Never once have I ever asked that question.
As a matter of fact, since I worked in a sanctuary city before going to a task force,
add direct orders that when dealing with people,
that we knew were illegal citizens,
we were absolutely not to question them on their citizenship.
We were absolutely forbidden from calling on an allied agency,
customs and border patrol from coming to assist us with those...
traffic stops or sidewalk detainments or whatever it may be.
So that's where we're at.
So for anybody in here to make the allegation that this isn't political,
there's one case that absolutely proves it.
And before you say, well, it's just one case.
The same special agent, FBI agent that's handling my case is the same FBI agent
that's in charge of the officer for known case, the guy that's time life,
the guy with the tattoos and all that stuff.
So he's a pretty important character, and that's the one that asked the question.
So yes, it's that important.
The other thing.
Joe, you keep saying that the officers were escorting Jake because they were assigned to.
You're trying to state something that's fact because Jake's in a position that he can't talk about it because he has an ongoing court thing.
And I'll tell you, man, that's really, really shallow of you.
What do you talk?
Wait a minute.
If you can look at the video, I posted it on the top.
I look at, okay, if you want to say, hey, it's my opinion, then make sure you present the statement when it's my opinion.
But when you got, no, you guys keep saying you got escorted.
And what I argued is they were following him, not escorting him.
Here's the thing.
You have no factual information that says that they were following him.
You don't have it.
There's video of it.
And the video shows he's being escorted.
And the video shows he's being followed.
And the police open the door for him.
Like, what are you talking about?
Let me tell you this, Joe.
I'm like, he's being followed.
Joe, I'm going to explain.
Joe.
They met him at the door.
Do you see that part?
Are you?
Yes, I can see they open the door for him.
I also see them following him.
And you guys ignore that part.
I'm an honest actor and I see both sides.
And you guys act completely blind to whatever doesn't fit the narrative.
You're speaking from a position of limited knowledge.
I'm telling you from working law enforcement, if someone is deemed a threat,
You don't just escort them when they can turn around and hurt someone, create the situation or make it worse.
You immediately detain them.
You immediately make the apprehension.
The only time you're following someone is because you're waiting for them to commit a crime so you can have probable cause to make that detention.
So you can't have both arguments.
You can't have your cake and you're tying you at the same time.
Alpha, let me a few questions.
So if you're going to say that they were escorting them, you have to acknowledge they're escorting them.
I didn't say they were escorting.
Following him.
If you're going to say they're following them, then understand what you're also saying is that he has not committed a crime yet.
That's why they have not apprehended him.
Alpha, since you work in law enforcement, let me ask you a question.
Let's say that you're guarding a school and there's 10,000 people trying to get into that school and you're told to stand down, right?
What is your next course of action?
Is to try to get people in their orderly or like negative.
My next course of action is my next course of action is I'm told by my chief of police that there's a crowd of people coming into a school to do harm and he's ordered me not to do it.
Then I'm going to be insubordidant.
I'm going to put myself between that crowd going into the school and I'll deal with the consequences.
Okay.
It's not a personal question.
I get that.
I commend you and I honestly, I do commend you for that.
And that's my answer.
Yes, but what do people you work with?
What is the normal procedure you should do if you're told to stand down, which we know they were told to stand down, correct?
Well, one thing you don't do if you stand down.
That is public knowledge.
You don't open the doors for them.
because now you're opening the doors for them
so they believe that they can go in.
They're trying to break down the door.
They're breaking down windows.
If you're told to stand down,
that means you back off and don't do anything.
You opening the doors...
is now you got to prove that, you know, try to prove the intent that they didn't know.
If a cop opens a door for me, I assume I can go in.
If he's screaming at me and says, no, you got to get out of here.
He's made it clear I can't go in.
If I continue to push through, obviously I'm ignoring that and breaking the law.
If someone opens a door for me, then guess what?
I'm assuming, especially a police officer, I can go in.
I'm just telling you.
And Joe, Joe, and something that supports what Joe's saying is there is case law that states that when a person, because the same principle applies.
So hear me out here.
I'll do it in 60 seconds.
If a person is not handcuffed.
And if a person has not been told they're detained,
and if a person has not been told they're arrested,
they get they're surrounded by three or four uniformed cops,
or there's a police car in the area with the lights on,
that person has a reasonable belief that they are not free to leave.
Therefore, in their mind, they are detained.
The reverse of that argument also takes place.
If you have people of authority and law enforcement
that are giving you signals and walking you in to do something,
a reasonable person is going to believe,
in law, in the courtroom, that they didn't violate any laws and they had permission to do that.
May I see, I see, I see five, I see, five thousand people screaming, fuck the blue.
Okay.
And there's five guards out there, whatever there was, on the side where the door was open.
Like, I don't blame them, right?
Quick question.
Are officers obligated to inform a suspect of a crime that they are in the,
they are about to commit a crime or in the process of committing a crime and or tell them to stop or cease and desist?
Chris, you can answer that because the cop told you not to go up there.
Let Chris answer that question. Chris?
So there's a bunch of questions that I think I've piled up.
One, the police are not, I think, required to tell you, hey, don't commit a crime.
If they witness you committing a crime, though, typically they've got a legal obligation act.
Typically, if they witness a crime.
I think we're missing something here, which is nuance.
You know, in some cases, you know, there was there was forced entry into the Capitol, right?
that was, you know, patently breaking and entering, you know,
and in other cases, in certain entrances,
the police allowed, in some cases, opened the door for
and held the door open for some of the folks that entered.
And we're missing the nuance,
and one side is arguing, well, you know, they forced entry.
Well, that's not universally true.
And the other side is arguing, well,
the universally, the police let them in,
and that is also not universally true.
And I say that having witnessed, you know,
in the discovery process, probably,
you know, six, seven hundred hours of J6 footage in investigating the cases for my clients that I was representing.
I want to just finish with a couple final points and then, you know, in some cases, my clients went in because the police held the door open.
And then the FBI set them down in a coercive interview because, you know, everything's coercive.
Now, they read them the rights, so there was no rights violation.
There's no Miranda issue.
And they got them to admit that they knew they weren't supposed to be there, even though the police let them in.
And that, by the way, it became a real problem from a defense standpoint because it always is, which, you know, consider this my free legal advice.
If you're being interviewed by the police or the FBI and they want to quote unquote talk with you, there's a reason you have the right to remain silent.
And, you know, just because you have the right to do it doesn't mean you have the common sense enough to do it.
But I would urge people, you know, don't allow, don't put yourself in the situation where you're making the government's case for them.
and in more than one instance that happened and just, you know,
considering this, you know, free advice, don't talk to the police and don't talk to the FBI.
You only make it worse.
Let me go to Jennifer.
Jennifer, go ahead.
Yeah, I mean, if it wasn't political, is my mic okay, Mario?
It's much better now.
Okay, perfect.
If, you know, if it wasn't political, why during the second impeachment trial did they, um,
alter and present fake evidence as it was real.
And I can speak to that 100% because it happened to me.
They took my words out of context.
They added a blue checkmark.
They...
changed my photo. They changed it from a headshot like I have now to one of, that never even
appeared on Twitter. They lifted it off of my Instagram of me holding an AR-15 to make me look
more militant and then accused me of bringing all these people to D.C.
And, you know, you can't really look at January 6th as one day.
There were a whole lot of events and things that happened that led into that day.
That gives it a broader, more like a better understanding of how things transpired that day the way they did.
And, you know, why we held two other rallies in D.C.
And, you know,
as well as bus tours all over the country.
And we had counter protesters everywhere to the point where we had to hire security
because people were coming after us with Moldov cocktails.
So why on January 6th was there no counter protesters?
Why is there video of Antifa dressing as MAGA people and going in the crowd and attacking the people who were in the crowd?
Why did the police fire tear gas and flash bombs into a peaceful crowd?
Why on one side of the building were they fighting, the police were fighting the protesters?
And why on the other side of the building they were letting protesters in?
Why were there people next to the doors pushing people in and telling them to go inside the building?
I myself have reviewed thousands of hours of J6 video.
I was on a legal team for President Trump.
And, you know, I can't even tell you how much evidence is out there if people actually just looked that this was a complete setup and an entrapment of everybody who was in D.C. that day to be peaceful and go to a legally permitted rally that was scheduled for 11 o'clock at the ellipse.
that's why people were in D.C.
They weren't there like Joea wants to say to cause trouble.
Get your facts straight.
What would I didn't say they were there to cause trouble?
You absolutely did, don't lie.
No, I said they went in there to cause trouble.
I didn't say they went to D.C. to do that.
There's a difference.
You're changing your words.
You absolutely said that it's recorded.
I'll make sure to clip it later for you.
Please do.
Please do.
What would evidence of government corruption look like?
I'm going to just keep asking that question.
Because to me, if we don't ask the right questions, we're not going to get the right answers.
What she just said about them altering what it is that her picture was, putting a blue checkmark by it, all this other stuff.
Like, what more do we need?
You know, Ukraine, Burisma.
I mean, the 10% for the big guy.
I mean, like Hunter Biden's laptop, the 51 intelligence agents.
I mean, altering evidence, erasing emails.
I mean, what would evidence of government corruption look like?
And would the media cover it up?
If it's state-run media, would the media cover it up? Yes or no?
And if Operation Mockingbird is a real thing, and it is, then what can we expect from the state-run CIA-run media?
What we can expect is for them to cover up for the state.
And if they have us arguing over talking points that divide the country, meaningless talking points,
while these very obvious levels of corruption only get worse,
then we have to ask ourselves, what would government corruption look like?
What would evidence of government corruption look like?
Would it be taking our public dollars and putting them into private, non-government organization hands?
Would government corruption look like foreign proxy wars that last for decades and funnel literally billions, if not trillions of dollars into private hands?
What would it look like?
It's the whole Hunter Biden thing.
It's the whole Hillary thing.
It's the whole Jared Kushner getting $2 billion from Saudi Arabia to help Saudi
Arabia make Trump rich with this golf course with the live and PGA tour thing.
It's all of them.
The thing is, a lot of people are blind that this happens on both sides and that there's
corruption on both sides, but they love to pick a.
party line so that they can be blind to what's wrong on their side.
There's an absolute corruption on both sides. Hold on. I'm not blind to what's on my side. Hold on. I'm not
blind to what's on the Republican side. I'm a libertarian. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat.
I'm a libertarian because it's the closest thing to what the founders had. You know, it's the
closest thing to what they believed. And I know about people like Dennis Hastert,
I know he was a pedophile and he was a speaker of the house.
I know about people like Lawrence King running child sex trafficking and satanic rituals and abusing children and, you know, doing cocaine.
I know about the corruption on the Republican side.
I don't like Mitch McConnell.
I don't like Lindsey Graham.
I don't like Mitt Romsey.
I don't like Paul Ryan.
Okay.
I don't like John McCain.
All right.
Definitely don't like the Bushes.
And we all can talk about Bohemian Grove and the Skull and Bones Society and all that stuff.
But think about it.
On the Republican and the Democrat ticket in 2004, you know, Bush versus Kerry, they were both skull and bones members.
I mean, to me, it's, yes, it's both sides.
It is a uniparty.
What we are talking about are globalists that have infiltrated our country at some of the highest levels of power.
And they have created a fourth branch of government that we call a bureaucracy,
which has consolidated the executive, the legislative, and the judicial powers into a single branch of government.
And which, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, that is the founder's definition of tyranny.
Okay.
So we're, we're.
Separated powers.
Yep, so we are, we're going to wrap up here very shortly.
I want to get Derek in, and then I want to get Tira to respond,
and then I'll let Salaiman take it from there. Derek, jump in.
Awesome. Thanks, guys. I just wanted to tie in what Jennifer was talking about in terms of her Twitter and everything. I think it's important for everyone to understand that most of us involved in January 6th, whether we were in the Capitol or even went to D.C. Alpha didn't even go to D.C. But anyways, most of us are being
persecuted and charged on things that we said on social media leading up to January 6th.
If you look at our charging documents, so many of us have memes such as I shared a meme that said hashtag stop the still.
And they are using that and trying to say that that was my intentions of going there to cause violence and overthrow the government and all this crazy talk.
it's all on things that we said or on on things that they wanted to perceive that we were thinking it wasn't on the actions that we took that day or even so much as the things that we said that day at the capital it was the things that was leading up to that that is a scary position to be in in our country right now that should concern every single American out there and then i'll go ahead and land i know we're going to wrap up i just wanted to say um
I got caught up in this mainly because you cannot say it wasn't political because they came after me store because I was the only elected official in the entire country to go to the Capitol and stand up against the stolen election on January 6th.
And they have tried to silence all of us.
They used us on January 6th trying to use us as an example to scare everyone else into falling in line under tyranny.
And unfortunately, it seems like it has worked at least somewhat.
but I'm so happy to see that Jake is out here speaking out and so many of us are now.
You guys got to remember we're just now getting to the point where a lot of us who were arrested and thrown in prison are just now getting out.
I got out in October. Jake's just now getting out.
We're just now getting a chance to speak and share our side of the story.
You guys have only heard one side of the story.
So I just ask that you keep an open mind.
I think that you can say that Jake has been fair.
And then I'll just say they're not going to silence me.
I decided that not only was I going to run for re-election on January 6th of this year,
I announced I was running for U.S. Congress as well.
I'm going to take this battle to their front door the way they brought it to mine.
Oh, Tira, I know you just got up here, so I apologize for this, but give me your final thoughts, and we'll go to Chris.
Well, I guess my final thought is actually, they're sort of smaller thoughts.
Mr. Shansley basically pled guilty.
He expressed enormous remorse to the judge, such that the judge said, I think you're one of the most honest people I've ever heard, and etc.
He said, there's no excuse, something like to the extent, if there's no excuse for the breach I know.
things like that. Now, his new counsel has come in, made a motion to the court and said,
we didn't have all the evidence, and there was ineffective assistance of counsel.
The government has responded. The government's response has basically said you had all this information
which,
We gave it to you on numerous occasions.
We did a more or less of a, I mean, to use a terror war, a dump of all of this evidence for all the defendants.
But we also specifically alerted you to much of this evidence and you had all of it.
And you said, and you knew you said you had all of it.
And moreover, even if this little part of it you hadn't really been aware of, certainly that's four minutes out of what was essentially an hour.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is let's just step back a little and read legal documents, which do provide a little more context as to what's actually being discussed here.
Mr. Shansley, if you win, you win.
If you get a new trial, that's absolutely fine.
I believe in the rule of law.
But I also believe that you made a plea deal and reading the motions, I'm not convinced that that motion that your lawyer made will necessarily succeed in this case.
And thank you very much.
I'd like to respond if that's okay, and I'll make it fast.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
So, first of all, thank you for bringing these things up.
I'm glad I can address these issues.
Okay.
So, first of all, normally, the way that this is supposed to work is that the government builds a case and then they make an arrest and then they file charges.
What we have largely seen with January 6th is that they have made arrests, filed charges, and then built their case.
Now, when they dumped a lot of data, they dumped 40,000 hours or more, like 44,000 hours of footage.
And they just gave the lawyers access to all of that footage and said, find the needle in the haystack.
That is not how exculpatory evidence is supposed to be handed to attorneys.
What is supposed to happen is that the government is supposed to do their due diligence.
They are supposed to review all of the evidence.
And then they are supposed to present their case and hand over the evidence to the defense attorney.
And that goes for evidence that is.
in favor of the government's position that they committed a crime and evidence that is considered positive or could be considered exculpatory for the defense.
Now, in my case and in many cases, and this is kind of what the motion is indicating, is the idea that the footage that was on Tucker Carlson was not a part of our discovery.
Okay.
And I'm going to ask you something, and it's kind of a rhetorical question,
considering that it looks, I think it looks like it says you're a,
Tierra, I don't know if you're an attorney or not,
but you probably haven't spent a lot of time in solitary confinement.
I spent 10 and a half months in solitary confinement,
not knowing when I was going to get out,
not knowing what I was going to, what was going to happen to me,
having a 25-year maximum sentence hanging over my head.
Solitary confinement is soft torture.
To the cognitive system, it's akin to being starved or sleep deprived.
Okay.
So all of that being said.
There is great evidence that not just in my case, but in many cases,
the government has not done what they were supposed to do regarding the rule of law
and the procedural aspects of building a case, arresting, and filing charges.
And considering the fact that the FBI was drawing people away from very real crimes,
like against children and murder and terrorism and putting them on misdemeanor cases,
That says to me, once again, let's ask the question, what would evidence of government corruption look like?
Okay. And so, and I also want to just say final thing. I think it's a little kind of telling that you're going to sit here and discuss the nuances of my case when I can't defend myself and say what exactly is going on and what it exactly is that I'm thinking what exactly it has happened on that day. Okay. So when that happens, I will be more than happy to have this discussion with people because I want to talk about it. I'm not running from anything.
But, you know, until that happens, don't go making accusations.
Don't go saying you did this, you did that.
You know, it's like, hey, let's just all be civil here.
Let's all focus on the rule of law.
Let's all focus on what it's like to be fair with each other on both sides of the aisle here,
regardless of your opinion.
And then let's move forward admirably.
And might I say that I thought I was completely civil?
And I'm not sure why you're suggesting that I wasn't.
I did read the motions.
No, what I'm saying is that...
Why are you saying I'm not civil, though, sir?
No, no.
What I'm saying is that I don't...
What I'm saying is that you bringing up the nuances of my case when I can't defend myself.
That's not, I can't respond. That's not a civil discussion that's just, in my opinion, could be considered a passive aggressive attack. That's all I'm saying.
And to point out how big that pay stack is, 44,000 hours of video, if you push play right now and sit there and don't use, don't use the bathroom, don't do anything, it would run continuously for five years.
So when we're talking about this haystack, I want everybody in the audience to really understand what we're discussing here in terms of that, how big that data dump was.
So, Derek, you're allowed to discuss the specifics, but I'm somehow not.
Look, I didn't come on to be difficult or anything.
I thought we were discussing the Chanseley case to a certain extent.
If we're not, we're not.
I don't.
don't have, you know, I'm really not interested in having a fight or in being uncivil.
You've always been fair.
I mean, I'm really not interested in having an uncivil discussion or putting people in a position they don't want to be in, okay?
No worries. I don't think you were here earlier when his attorney was here. And then I just want to say there's a lot of people, almost everybody in prison was there on, was I there because they accepted a plea deal. And that's another issue that's taking place in this country right now.
Territ. Tira, is this politically motivated, Tira?
Wow, now you're going to get me in trouble.
Look, I think what happened in the Capitol, and I, you know, and I know people are going to disagree was I watched it.
I was shocked.
I was appalled.
Okay, you can talk about BLM.
You can say, you know, do all the what aboutisms.
It was sort of awful to watch.
There clearly was violence.
There clearly were people there who were out to stop our Congress from acting in a legitimate fashion.
Right.
Okay, whether you think everyone was, et cetera.
Now, I will point out that a thousand people have
basically something like a thousand people have been arrested.
Not one of them have said they were Antifa.
Every single one of them, as far as I know, who's spoken about this issue.
That's inaccurate.
You have one that is admitted that he's Antifa and said there was a hundred other Antifa.
You also have an FBI document that shows one of the suspects, Evan Newman, is a Ukrainian color guard revolutionary.
Who they allowed to leave the country.
He fled to Ukraine and he went, got political asylum in Belarus.
Right.
He's one of the ones that thing.
Okay, so I would like to just finish.
And since you seem to have gone to the Matrix, let me just finish.
So almost all of the people arrested said they were Trump supporters.
And they were brought there, I'm not going to say by who,
but because they wanted to support Trump.
And in many cases, because they wanted to hopefully stop Congress or convince Congress,
let's just say, not to do things.
So I guess I thought it was...
I mean, I don't know.
The White House hasn't been attacked since what?
Dali Madison.
I mean, I don't remember, but it's been a long time.
What was attacked when Trump was president.
Are you kidding me?
That was six months before January.
Like, hello.
Are you?
You have amnesia?
Wait, to see the capital attack like that by what was approximately, what,
2,500 people to me was very disturbing, okay?
So if you're asking, do I...
When the underground bombed the capital, what about when the underground bombed the capital?
Are you appalled by that?
Do I think that everyone who attacks the capital in any respect should be in trouble?
Yes. Do I think that if there are BLM people who attack state capitals and created violence and killed people, do I think they should be investigated, indicted, etc.? Yes.
I think everyone who does things like this should be in trouble, okay?
I really do believe in the rule of law, and I guess nobody's really understanding that.
So I think there was, was it political?
I think there was reasons to basically charge people.
I think maybe what you're saying is people are not charged in similar type circumstances in other, and that's...
You know, that's very possibly true, but everybody should be charged when these sort of things happen, in my view, if the government can prove its case, if there are legitimate claims, et cetera.
So I sort of let the chips fall where they may on these things.
Could I address this general subject?
Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah.
So I think that we're talking about all of these protesters and rioters and far right extremists that went to the Capitol on January 6th.
And they've all been on trial, hundreds of them.
And I do not want to downplay anything that they have done if they broke windows, entered the Capitol, defraud.
If, you know, disrupted proceedings, trespass, did all of this, no one should condone that.
They acted illegally.
They should be charged.
They should see due process.
They should not be overcharged.
They should not be held as political prisoners, obviously.
But who really needs to be on trial is the government.
And what is their role in allowing this riot to happen?
Because they knew for months and months and months ahead of this.
that there was likely to be a riot on January 6th.
There is plenty of documentation for this.
You could go back to the infamous Time article
with fortifying the election and setting,
it lays out how Trump was gonna be set up
for inciting a riot.
And further on, the FBI illegally used NSA technology to spy on far-right extremists months ahead of January 6th.
So we can assume that these groups, the oathkeepers, the three-percenters, the proud boys, they were all.
infiltrated ahead of time. They knew that what their plans were. You can look at the oath
keepers trial, the plans for seditious conspiracy and all this. You can, you can see that they're
little maps, but nobody carried guns into the building, except for one person who had it,
like concealed carry, I guess, for defense. That was the only case that I found into the Capitol
building. So there was no real threat for the Congress to be overturned. In fact, Congress was
evacuated originally for the pipe bomb incident at the RNC and the DNC.
And we still don't know what happened to there.
If you look at the information about that,
the surveillance video that the FBI released used technology that doesn't even exist in the United States.
Like the frame rate does not even exist.
I mean, it's extremely weird.
And you can listen to Stevenson, the National Guard officers.
You can listen to Trump's former defense secretaries that said there was not going to be a coup.
You can look at Muriel Bowser, not allowing National Guard troops to be there.
The Pentagon, not allowing the National Guard troops to be fully equipped with riot gear.
The Capitol Police opening the doors.
There's a Ray Epps incident, which is extremely strange, walking up to Ryan Samson and like, hate.
And then a moment later, he's there.
And then we find Ray Epps later with the Trump flag in the middle of it.
So this whole idea that Ray Epps was just like some, you know, just some well-meaning,
well-intended citizen who was just there out of the goodness of his heart is, you know, not very credible.
We don't know what Ray Epps, who Ray Epps says.
And I guess that's another quandary for another day.
But the whole thing is the government should be on trial.
And the J6 partisan committee was a...
cover up operation. It did not ask real questions. It did not have actual, you know, balanced
testimony. It didn't bring forth evidence. In fact, it concealed evidence or misrepresented evidence,
turned it into a partisan show trial and a kangaroo court with no standing. And we're all supposed to
believe that,
The government is innocent of this.
The thing that the actors in this government,
they were undercover agents there.
There were dozens of them, according to testimony.
Julie Kelly has done a great job with this.
But you can also go, I've reported some of it on Substack,
and I tweeted those earlier.
Multiple all-de-covered,
officers who were there armed and a prosecutor even conceded this as evidence in the trial.
So there is some validity to that on both sides.
And I have video of it posted of undercutor yelling, go, go, go, drain the swamp, USA, USA,
and other sort of incitement, right, incitement chance.
Undercover officers. So my question is, where are these officers, these Capitol Police officers, who escorted Jacob Chanley? I want to see them. I want to see Michael Byrd in a non-fluff interview. I want to see the government put on trial for January 6th and allowing it to happen. Not just the trespassers, not just the pawns on the chessboard that the FBI conveniently allowed to assemble there and all the other rioters.
I want to see real justice in this case on all sides.
I don't want to see anybody escape justice.
I want to set accountability for the government,
and I want the whole truth to come out.
Right, let me go ahead, Nick.
Yeah, no, I want to ask Tira here, do you believe the characterizations that we've seen what the media has said, right?
We've seen what the media has said about, you know, that were there five police officers that were killed, you know, on January 6th or due to that riot.
Is this actually an insurrection or is that just media hype?
Do you characterize this as an insurrection?
You know, Nick, I'm already getting like death threats.
So honestly, I don't really...
Yeah, I've been getting him the whole space.
I'm really...
This is not correct, okay?
And I understand that I don't care if people don't, you know, feel badly for me, anything like that.
But I don't really care to respond right now because this is getting...
Can we just not play the big for a moment?
You just played the victim, Kyle.
You just tried to blame the government for not having an armed force surrounding the capital so that people didn't go in.
Yeah, they knew there was going to be almost a million people there.
They were ill-a-fitt.
Why did they lie about the location of Kamala Harris?
Right.
Why did they lie and say she was somewhere in danger when she wasn't?
Why, you know, there's so many things which you guys are like just ignoring, right?
And you want to act like it was all on the MAGA people.
It was all on the Trump supporters.
It wasn't.
There was a coordinated effort on January 6th to entrap MAGA people and to make them look like domestic terrorists.
They had been doing it for months.
Yeah.
And they are the ones who instigated this.
And you want to prove it?
Why don't we allow them to have the video to exonerate themselves?
What?
Why? You know what? The only video we have of January 6 from the inside is the one from Nancy Pelosi's daughter, who was there with the HBO film crew doing a high production value of January 6 and what was happening.
Why do we have that video? Why did Nancy Pelosi's daughter go around to January 6 people after January 6, offering them $10,000 a pop?
to participate in her fake-ass documentary
to make them look like more domestic terrorists.
It's a total entrapment of MAGA people
and you guys are like just being ignorant.
Okay, so, Jennifer, MAGA people are weak, and they broke the week.
One second, guys, too many people talking.
Listen, guys, as much as I agree that this does seem like it was a political attack,
and I do seem like, I've been in a number of J6 spaces,
The punishment seems excessive.
There's a number of people who are not being through due process,
which I have a significant issue with.
But guys, the whole reason for this space is to have a debate,
have people who can provide information on the other side,
and whatever side's right is going to win in terms of the refutation.
And you can see on this space, who's coming out stronger.
So you don't need to basically degrade yourself to the level of looking like psychopaths
and basically...
partaking and given death threats such as bang out of order unacceptable
I've been listening to space I didn't engage much much and I think the argument made by
Jacob has been very a lot of the arguments have been very strong and a lot of the arguments
that have been made by the J6 people's sports have been very strong so you just basically
minimise the work that they're doing on this on the stage by basically
conducting yourself in this manner so I just wanted to say that but Joe go ahead
Yeah, I mean, I'm being told I should buy bulletproof vest, fear for my life.
The whole, and during this whole space.
Post screenshots.
I could care less.
But, you know, that could be infiltrators.
That could be feds trying to make everybody in here look bad.
I mean, let's just address that.
Yeah, I mean, almost every single one has MAGA in their bio.
But that could be fake, too.
Yeah, I just said that could be fake too.
But regardless of the fact...
People did act of their own free will.
I don't blame Trump for what happened that day at all, never have.
People do have free will.
People did go into the Capitol.
People did break windows.
People did bring the doors.
I don't think you can blame the fact that there wasn't enough security there for what people's actions were.
I don't think that's a plausible defense, to be honest.
The government does not have a plausible defense either.
Look, the fact of the matter is when it comes to a trend and when we look at history,
the government's behavior has been deplorable.
The government has done all sorts of stuff, you guys, from the Tuskegee experiments to literally...
irradiating cities with radiated fog and with bacterial infections.
We're talking about like giving pregnant women radioactive syrums and stuff.
We're talking about, you know, the...
the false flags, whether it be Operation Fast and Furious,
or it be Operation Northwoods,
or it be bringing Nazi scientists and doctors over here,
and then wiping their war records or war crimes clean
and giving them new names and putting them to work in our government,
whether it be going after very...
like a loving and non-violent citizens like Martin Luther King Jr.
And literally killing them.
I mean, this has been proven at this point.
Or we could talk about Gary Webb and the fact that Gary Webb blew the whistle on the CIA and the contras and the moving of drugs.
And he was found with two gunshot wounds to his head with a revolver and it was ruled a suicide.
We could talk about all of this stuff.
We could talk about it over and over and over again.
Don't even get me started on.
on things like 9-11 in Waco or the Oklahoma City bombing.
Okay.
What we're witnessing, especially with COVID, is a very well-organized move towards centralized power and the monopolization of our resources.
What we are seeing is a very organized move toward a digital currency, toward a digitally run and controlled energy grid.
Okay. And we're all sitting here arguing about January 6th. And obviously there are a lot of questions regarding January 6th, the government's role, why all this evidence was doctored, et cetera, et cetera. And yes, Kyle's right. You know, there's all these questions that the government needs to answer for. And they haven't answered for it because they have the Operation Mockingbird media covering their ass. Now, all of that being said,
I think it's really important that we unite as a people.
And we unite as a people based on a couple of key principles.
Okay.
And I just, I really want to get this out and I promise that I will, you know, not grab the
mic again.
But Jake, how do we unite when we can't agree or what happened?
Well, this is what I'm, this is what I'm about to talk about is what we can all agree on.
I promise you.
I promise you.
I'm not going to fail on this.
Okay.
What we can all agree on is this.
On these spaces to unite, so we can end it by finding a middle.
I really am.
And that's what I'm trying to propose here is the middle ground.
My opinion about you changed hearing you speak.
So, you know, I'm really happy you came on.
I do want to find a middle ground.
I just.
Well, then let me talk and tell me what you think.
Because it won't take long, I promise.
So I think that we can all agree, Republican and Democrat voters alike, that if there is a cure for cancer, which there are many, Dr. Rife, that's RIFE, Royal Raymond Rife, came up with a cure for cancer and a cure for all diseases, viral infections, parasitic infections, fungal infections, bacterial. He came up with it in the 1930s.
by using frequency, the way that you can use
sound and frequency to shatter a wine glass,
you can use sound and frequency
and directed at cancer cells and kill them
without doing any harm to human tissue.
Now, this patent has been suppressed.
This patent has been marginalized
because the Rockefellers have owned the medical industry
and the pharmaceutical companies for quite some time.
So then we could also get into vitamin B-17 or Latrille.
There's a book called World Without Cancer by G. Edward Griffin that
delineates in great detail how it is that the FDA has stood in the way of this drug,
this vitamin getting out to the people and they've treated any doctor that gives it to their
patients to treat them for cancer or treat their illnesses like they're dealing heroin.
Okay.
So I think everybody in the country, Republican and Democrat alike, can agree that if there
is a cure for cancer, which I just gave you two, and I promise there are more, then it should
be released to the public regardless of the impact that it has on the pharmaceutical company's
profits.
That's number one.
Republican and Democrats can agree on that.
Now,
we're going a little bit off here because what is it?
Well,
but hold on a second.
I'm not going to take long.
I promise.
I just got one more thing I want to say.
And then I will shut my mouth.
The other thing I think everybody can agree on is,
is infinite, free, clean, wireless energy through Tesla tower technology, which is what Nikola Tesla brought to the world in the early 1900s.
Using the electromagnetic field of the planet and the laylines and creating a wireless energy signal by tapping into this energy source that is in the Earth itself.
It could give us new communication towers so we don't have to use satellite, cell phone towers, or anything that the globalists own.
We can also control the weather so that things like hurricanes and tornadoes can no longer destroy cities.
We can use it to green the deserts.
We can also use it as a form of transportation because there are vehicles.
Tesla did design a vehicle to operate off of this energy supply.
And we are talking about aerial vehicles.
So we could travel these electromagnetic lay lines like their electromagnetic highways.
okay we also wouldn't have to pay for energy or power ever again it would give everybody
independence all over the planet all over the nation energy independence and here's the thing you
guys most of our wars are fought over what resources and energy okay so it could literally end war
we could end disease we could create surplus we could we could stop all the pollution from all
of these you know industries whether it be the oil industry natural gas the wind turbines
or you know killing birds the the 50 toxic chemicals and
solar panels or the toxic nature to lithium and cobalt mining.
We could literally end the slavery all over the planet.
through this technology.
And that's why it's been kept from the public for over 100 years.
Okay.
So these are two things, just two things that we can all agree on.
And if we would just start coming to these solutions,
instead of arguing over problems that we are handed by the Operation
Mockingbird Media, if we could just talk about these solutions
as opposed to bickering over problems,
we would actually evolve more and to make more progress in the next couple of months,
next couple of years than we have in the last decade, the last 100 years.
Yeah. So like I said, thank you so much, Jake, for coming. We really appreciate it.
It's been awesome. You've been here for two and a half hours now.
And it's really interesting hearing your story. So we sincerely appreciate it.
I want to circle back to J6 for just a second here and give Chris Weist final thoughts.
Yeah, and I kind of want to just, and maybe, you know, Tira and I can have a separate discussion offline.
You know, the defense attorneys, and when I say that, I mean, you know, again, there's a, there's an email list among, you know, both the federal public defenders and those that are those that are otherwise defending J6 clients, private clients, like myself.
You know, we have been through hours and hours of footage.
And the government has literally dumped, you know, thousands of documents and thousands and thousands of hours of footage on the defense bar.
And.
And then they've got, you know, separate discovery that they provided as to the particular defendant.
And obviously, what any attorney wants to know is in assessing a case, kind of, you know, what was the client doing?
Where was he? What did he see? What did he hear? What was going on in front of him? What happened before? He or she went into the Capitol? What happened after?
Yeah.
And it is a fundamental issue of fairness that is embedded in our criminal law out of the U.S. Supreme Court that the government has an obligation to turn over material exculpatory information.
And the fact of the matter is, is that they did not do it.
Right.
in terms of what Tucker ended up releasing,
it was with hell.
And that's a problem.
That's a due process problem.
And, you know, I'm not going to second guess, Mr. Chansley,
for going in and taking a guilty plea on the advice of counsel,
based on the information that they had when the government is not being forthcoming
with their discovery obligations.
I'm not going to opine on what I think the outcome of those motions are,
but it's a dirty pool to withhold...
material exculpatory information, period, in any criminal prosecution, you can't do it.
You're not supposed to do it.
It's a violation of ethics.
And yet it was being done, my understanding, by the Speaker of the House who was withholding
Nancy Pelosi was withholding it at the time.
And when Kevin McCarthy came into office, it was released.
And I'm sorry, even if you think every J-Sixer ought to be rotten in prison because, you know,
that's your politics or that's your view of law and order.
There is a process we have to follow in this country that involves the turnover of all relevant information, particularly exculpatory information.
And if you don't do it, it's a dirty pool.
So, you know, and that I think is just, you know, additional sort of gas on the fire of maybe this whole thing is unfair.
And I think, you know, I would leave people with that.
Why?
Why?
It didn't the government turn over everything at the outset because they should have.
And thank you, Nick, and thank you everybody for having me on tonight.
Thank you so much, Chris. We really appreciate it. To all of our panelists, always appreciate your input. It's been in really interesting space. I'm going to remind everybody, click on Mario's profile, pay that $1. The best dollar you ever spent. A McDonald's Coke is $1.25 now. So, you know, due to inflation. I won't say exactly who might be responsible for that. You all can probably guess that.
but join the subscriber space we're going to launch it right after we're done here we're not we're not
doing it yeah if you want if you want to poison your body drink something we're not doing everybody
oh god yeah well it's it's good the poison tastes pretty good though so are we we decided we're
we're not doing it today tastes good to rats too rat poison taste good to rats just to let you know
nice one jacob educate this guy
So, I don't know, we've been going back and forth about this.
Nobody's been able to decide whether or not we're doing the space, Solomon.
We're not, we're not, we're not.
Not today.
Doing the space.
All right, well, still subscribe.
Maybe you'll get something for it.
But thank you, everybody, and we'll see you tomorrow night.
Thank you very much.
God bless you all.
Love you.
Everything I do, I do it for you.
Thanks, Nick.
Thanks, Mario.
Salam, thank you guys.
