The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Mark Levin & Steve Baker | 10/4/23

Episode Date: October 4, 2023

In an exclusive for Blaze Media, Blaze Media contributor and investigative journalist Steve Baker releases a piece showing evidence that Capitol Police may have committed perjury in testifying about an incident that they claimed happened on January 6 that never actually happened. BlazeTV host Mark Levin joins to discuss the ousting of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker and critiques the reasoning of the House Republicans who voted against McCarthy. Glenn speaks with Blaze Media contributor Steve Baker to review his exclusive investigation into testimony that landed people in prison.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's something else here now. Something new. From. Exclusively on Paramount Plus. It's the series Stephen King calls Scarious Hell. Everything here is impossible, but it's also real. Sci-fi Vision calls it the best show streaming right now. We're running out of time and we still don't know the rules.

Don't miss what the movie blog calls something you need to watch. Saving those children is how we all go home. From binge all episodes exclusively on Paramount Plus. Boy, Stu, I got to... I mean, today, I know you asked, I ask you every day, but what was your favorite part of today's podcast? The third part. Oh, yeah.

Really good. The third part. It depends on how you divide the show up, but I divided it up into three parts. Right. The third part was my... Well, actually, I divided into 41 parts, and the third part is my favorite.

Okay. But I'm not going to tell you, maybe the first part's two and a half hours. We have lots of breaking news. Lots of breaking news. We'll give you an update on, An investigative story that took hundreds of man hours, at least 100 man hours to produce, and then was recalled at the very last moment before I went on air today.

But we have another breaking story about Nancy Pelosi's security detail, chief, apparently perjured himself. And now we have the evidence in an exclusive Blaze Media story you can find on Blaze TV. The great one, Mark Levine, joins us. We talk a lot about, Well, what just happened in the house? And if it's a good thing or a bad thing? He's got an opinion that Mark Levin.

He does. All this and so much more on today's podcast. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Glenn Beck program. So there's another story. Can somebody check and see if this is up on the blaze yet? Is it up on the... Because I got another breaking news.

I don't know if we're supposed to share this one yet. Is it up? do you know can I talk about this you can't talk about any of the stories you want to talk about that's the rule of the day it's kind of like a parlor trick to see if you can do a show without talking about any news well blaze media has we've we've got some things in our future and today is a good example of what's hopefully

coming in a big way it is time to make the media the so-called mainstream media it is time for us to have them react to us. Why do we keep reacting to a group of people who are obviously lying? Everybody in the country, except for like 14% know that they're lying. They don't trust them. So why would we watch them and then, you know, react to them when nobody else is watching them? it's time to set the agenda ourselves.

And so we have gotten together with Steve Baker. He is an investigative journalist. And he has done months of work. This is so expensive. He's done months of work. And he has just released a story on Blaze Media, Theblaze.com. Did Pelosi's security chief perjure himself,

in Oathkeeper's trial. Now, this is something that we have known was coming for a while, those of us who work at Blaze Media, some of us. But the story is more damning when you read it than even I felt it was when some of the details were sketched out for me. Let me give you the narrative here. To prove that the oathkeepers were seditionists intent on overthrowing the U.S. government and preventing the execution of the laws, federal prosecutors claim that while inside the Capitol, members of the group were involved in a contentious interaction with law enforcement.

The incident supposedly took place in an unmistakable public area, the top of the stairs next to the Capitol Rotunda, also known as the small or mini-retunda or Speaker's Lobby. Yet despite the fact that there are at least seven, 1,700 cameras in and around the building and grounds, and 41,000 hours of footage, many of which directly covered this well-traveled area, no direct video evidence of the alleged confrontation was ever presented to the jury. At got our investigative reporter Steve Baker going,

Hmm. Much of the video footage has been kept from the public defenders, no less than the public themselves. So the public people defending these guys couldn't even get access and say, let's see this. At trial, this key piece of evidence purportedly proving the seditious intent of the oathkeepers was based on accounts of two law enforcement officers. Again, this is breaking news, investigative story.

You can find it at the blaze.com. U.S. Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus, a member of the Speaker Nancy Pelosi's security detail, testified that he passed by U.S.C. officer Harry Dunn engaging with four oathkeepers three or four times while he was evacuating staffers for Pelosi who were trapped in a locked office in her chambers. Lazarus went on to explain that he observed Dunn arguing with rioters, and during that exchange he eventually found an opening through the rioters where he was able to rescue 10 or 11 or 12 of Pelosi staffers. During his sworn testimony under oath, Lazarus went into great detail about the problems he had, getting through the crowd of rioters gathered at the top of the stage.

gathered at the top of the stairwell where Dunn was having what became a much publicized interchange with the oathkeepers. Lazarus explained that one rioter asked, who are you? Who are you? And then according to the trial transcript, he testified. And, you know, one attempted to, I had my lanyard with my ID on it. And one, they were videotaping and one attempted to pull at my ID. It was kind of like, they just grabbed it. I grabbed it back and looked and made sure it was still there. And then I saw the opening. So then I just kind of like walked fast to get into the office and check on the staff again.

That's a quote from the trial transcript. Lazarus detailed description of what took place, what Lazarus described as very antagonistic in the three or four times that he, He passed by. This was a dramatic moment in the trial. Quote, Every time I interacted or came by, and yes, it was antagonistic. This is what he said under direct questioning by the assistant of the United States attorney, Alexandria Hughes.

Lazarus was even shown a short cell phone video clip of the four oathkeepers standing in front of Dunn. quote, and are these the individuals you observed, the antagonistic conversation? Yes. At any point in these three or four interactions in this space, did you observe any sort, anything but an antagonistic conversation? That's correct. Well, the problem Blaze Media and Scott Baker has found is that none of that, not Scott Baker, I'm sorry, Steve Baker, none of that actually happened.

What? This is now according to direct video evidence that the jury was never allowed to see. Three Blaze Media contributors, including this writer and the House Oversight Committee staffer, recently examined U.S. Capitol CCTV video, which appears to prove conclusively that Special Agent Lazarus was not in that part of the Capitol at the time he claimed, but was in fact in the lower tunnels that led to the Senate office building escorting senators away from the capital. By analyzing the footage from multiple CCTV cameras and comparing, and I know what you're thinking if you're thinking, oh, well, he was, they just got the time wrong.

It happened. Just keep listening. comparing the timelines associated with Officer Dunn's actual interaction on camera with the oath keepers, it is clear that Lazarus did not arrive at the top of the staircase

until three and a half minutes after the last of the oathkeepers had left the area and were exiting the Capitol building. Got that? So the guy who was being antagonized

that officer, he didn't arrive at the staircase until the oathkeepers were already out. And the Nancy Pelosi staffer claimed he saw him with the oathkeepers at the top of the stairs three or four times and had to get past them. Lazarus returned to that area and the Capitol occurred just after 305 p.m. after tactical units from the ATF and DC Metro Police had completely cleared the top of that staircase, the Speaker's lobby, and the Speaker's offices of all protests. So him doing this heroic save wasn't happening. In the absence of video evidence at the trial, Lazarus' testimony served as verification by a trustworthy law enforcement official of Dunn's account to the jury of his interaction with the oathkeeper.

but even without consulting the new video evidence, both men are on record offering conflicting accounts of the circumstance in which they supposedly encountered each other at the top of the rotunda staircase. Lazarus claimed he saw Dunn involved in a conflict with the oathkeepers as Lazarus came up the stairs. Dunn claims the opposite, that he saw Lazarus involved in a conflict as Dunn came. up the stairs. Blaze Media acquired an advance copy of Dunn's forthcoming book,

Standing My Ground. A Capitol police officers fight for accountability and good trouble after January 6th. It's scheduled for release on October 24th. On pages 79 and 80, Dunn describes his first encounter of the day with Lazarus. Quote, I took off running up a winding spiral staircase toward the speaking. lobby. Now, as I was on the same floor as the rotunda, as soon as I had made it to the landing, I saw Special Agent David Lazarus. He was being hassled by some rioters. Now, apparently neither Dunn's ghostwriter nor his editor checked the Oathkeeper's trial transcript

in which Lazarus claims to recount the same moment in time as this. How was your evacuation efforts? How did you interact with the space? where were you going in relation to what you were looking at now? So I came up from the first level and I came up to the stairs behind Dunn. As I was coming up, I could see Dunn above me as he was coming up the stairs. And I look and I see him standing there and this crowd is like right in front of him. So Dunn claims to have been the first to see, to have first seen Lazarus already at the top of the staircase. being hassled by rioters.

Lazarus testified that Dunn was above me already at the top of the staircase when he arrived. Which is it, gentlemen, which one of you has forgotten which story you were supposed to tell? Capital CCTV now reveals that Dunn reached the top of the staircase landing at exactly 244 p.m. Dunn could not have seen Lazarus there, as Lazarus clearly identified on video now, in the tunnels near the Senate office buildings at the same time. Lazarus could not have seen Dunn interacting with the Oathkeepers, three or four times, quote, unquote, in a, quote, very antagonistic encounter, end quote,

because Lazarus did not arrive at that staircase until 256. p.m. The last oathkeeper left at 253. Again, this is at least three minutes after the oathkeepers had departed. In Lazarus' own

trial testimony, he claimed that he was not present when video footage shows done was actually at the top of the stairs. This important element of Lazarus' testimony was not only missed by all eight of the Oathkeeper's defense lawyers,

but also by the journalists reporting on the trial from the first floor media room in the courthouse. Lazarus truthfully testified that he had been escorting U.S. senators through the tunnels to the Senate office buildings. So as you're going into the tunnels, are you with the United States senators at this time? Lazarus, yes, we evacuate the entire Senate down the back stair into the tunnels

and the tunnels go across constitutional avenue and back up to the Senate buildings, where we had an area that was specifically set up to secure the Senate. Did you remain at this location? No. Once we started moving through the tunnels, I heard shots fired, shots fired. And so once I heard the shots were fired, I saw the senators were doing okay. We had enough agents with them to get them to safety. So I turned around and I started going back upwards where I heard the shots being fired.

Well, the report of shots fired was heard on the main ops one radio channel at 244. This was in response to a single shot of Michael Bird firing that killed protester Ashley Babbett. This is what Lazarus heard according to the radio. There are shots fired in the house floor. I need units to respond. He then testified under oath, verified by capital CCTV, that he was. moving through the tunnels when he heard the shots fired at 1443 hours, which was 243. Dunn reached the top of the stairs adjacent to the Capitol Rotunda at 244.

Oathkeepers entered that same area only 30 seconds later. Those times are also verified by Capital CCTV time codes. Somebody went to jail on false testimony. somebody knew this because it was very easy to verify and somebody in the DOJ decided that that wasn't worth that wasn't the story they wanted to tell who told Nancy Pelosi's strong man this story who told Lazarus who told Dunn and what does this mean for people who are sitting in rotting in jail under false testimony. You're listening to the best

of the Glenn Beck program. My friend Mark Levin, how are you, sir? Let me look. I'm great. What is your take on what happened yesterday in the house?

Well, I've been very outspoken about this. I know many people want to get behind Matt Gates. I am not one of them. So I guess I'm a neocon rhino sell-up. But that said, don't you hate this? Don't you hate this?

I put it on my business card. I don't have one, of course. Look, you and I have spent decades fighting these wars. This is one of the dumbest-ass wars I've ever seen. Why? You got guys who claim to be conservative. One of them, Nancy Mace, who votes against McCarthy because he wouldn't put an abortion bill on the floor. He wouldn't put a gun control bill on the floor.

She's a complete head kiss. You got another guy, Annie Biggs, president of the state senate in Arizona who blocked Convention of States. He runs for Congress. He wins. A woman replaces him. And then Arizona becomes one of 20 states passing a resolution for Conventional States. That's where my head is, Conventional States.

And you got another guy, this guy from Tennessee that nobody ever heard of before. Why is he mad? He says because McCarthy. He criticized his religion when he spoke to him. By the way, I'm not a special pleader for McCarthy, and I'm not a special pleader for Gates. I call him as I see him, as do you. And so he says what he says. It doesn't make, you know why he wrote a chance McCarthy?

Because he chaired a subcommittee, and he said he worked really hard on this UFO issue, and he wanted to chair this committee on the UFOs, and Comer told him he's not in line to him. And he got very angry. That's why he votes against McCarthy. Then we have gates who goes to the floor of the house, and I'm listening to them very, very carefully. This is very important. And he says, we didn't have regular order. He promised us 12 bills.

I had Tom Massey on the show, who's a longtime libertarian concern. He's the best of the best. I love him. He's the gold standard. Love him. He said, that's not what happened. You got to get these bills out of committee. The Democrats were larding up these things.

it was the conservatives who killed them in committee. We couldn't get these bills to the floor. It had nothing to do with violating a promise or anything else. And he said on my show, you can't have it both ways. Regular order where whatever comes out of a committee goes to the floor and at the same time, we need to cut the budget. He said the Democrats were playing us.

Some of the eight and others voted against it to kill it in committee so it couldn't get to the floor. So I'm listening to him and I said, well, then what's this 12 bill stuff that Gates? He said, Gates knows this. I said, okay. Then I listened myself to Gates say, we have $33 trillion debt. And I said on the air, I don't remember Gates speaking up against all this COVID spending. And Massey said, he never did, not once.

I said, well, that was like $3 trillion right there. They wanted to spend $6 trillion. Almost none of it went to, quote, unquote, COVID, or the pandemic, went to the teachers' unions and everything else. Yeah. I am telling you that if you're going to blow up the house, blow it up for the right reasons. I worked in the Reagan administration. We shut the government down eight times. We knew exactly why we were shutting it down.

He wanted his MX missile system. They wouldn't give it to him. He wanted those medium-raged nuclear weapons in Europe to defeat the Soviets, which he, is what happened, and he shut it until he got it. And he fought over water projects and everything. Very specific. This is, we have a $33 trillion debt, so let's burn down Washington. Okay, great.

So what are they going to do now? That was my question. Control the budget now. Yeah. I would love to see the, you know, I'm not a fan of McCarthy. However, what is your plan now? You don't run away from something. You run toward something.

They weren't running toward anything. Who are they running to? Who's going to take it? They ran towards the squad and Hakeem Jeffries. Behind the scenes, they were working with them while complaining that McCarthy's working with the Democrats. I don't want anyone working with them for anything. 15% of the Democrats in the House are Marxists.

They're outspoken, quote, unquote, democratic socialists. Why the hell are you working? with the progressive caucus and going to whatever her, Jamala, whatever, going to coordinate with her. Why you're going to AOC like you have a real love lust for the woman? It's constant. And then you're raising money on it, and that's righteous. He's doing that for the people. He's sending out emails to put together lists to run for governor. Well, at least I'm not paid for by the special end. Hey, bro, you have a 20-point Republican preference. you represent the Republican panhandle of Florida

and those are wonderful patriots. They're never going to vote for a Democrat. Then he got this guy Rosendale from Montana who ran for the Senate lost last time and wants to run again. And he says he prayed for a very small Republican majority in the House. So he and the others would have this contrarant

while that's constitutional. So eight of you could run the House of Representatives with the Democrats? Let me tell you so. He made sure he won his election, but he didn't want enough people to come in where we had a big majority. You know, there's a lot of patriotic conservatives that lost in that midterm election that many of us voted for, like here in Northern Virginia. We had a great guy running. He lost by 1% in a purple or actually more blue district, Loudoun County, Virginia, for God's sakes.

And am I glad he lost? So Rosendale has more power? This guy's from Montana. He has nothing to do with me. And so you've got all, it says so many weird things going on. And people need to scratch their heads and ask this. Is Chip Roy a rhino?

Is Byron Donald's a rhino? Is Jim Chort? Is every other member of the Freedom Caucus who voted against these guys? Are they rhinos too? No. There's a difference between anarchy and country. constitutional conservatism. Read your constitution, folks.

There's no anarchy in there. There's no mobocracy. They opposed the mobocracy. They opposed a powerful central government. You know this. They set up a complex governing system. Our only hope right now is the House of Representatives with a tiny majority. The Senate Republicans have sold us out.

And here's the bottom line. That last bill that they proposed was negotiated by Shiproy and Byron McDonald's with Ted Cruz and other conservative Republicans in the Senate, the plan was that this would pass. The greatest cut in a short-term CR, probably in American history, certainly in our lifetimes, 30% protecting the Defense Department, the Border Patrol, and veterans. That was it. So that would affect the FBI.

It would affect the Department of Justice. It would affect all this stuff. And it was negotiated by the conservatives, get it to the Senate, so we have some leverage over Mitch McConnell. Who's a real SOB, that guy, selling us out every time? Five of them killed it. They said, no, shut the government down. They said, shut it down. This is better.

We don't know what we'll get if we shut it down. Do this. And we have the support. We negotiated with the rhinos and everything else. They're with us. Let's do it. And they killed it. That's why I've had it with these people. And people shouldn't just follow them.

Why aren't they really going to do it? They're doing nothing. Zero. And I'll tell you one other thing. I would not negotiate with Hakeem Jeffries. And these Democrat Marxists and the squad and all the rest of them, if you put a gun to my head. These people are destroying our country.

at every turn they are the enemy not adversaries they are the enemy and you're cutting deals with them you're throwing in your vote with them and then you're saying you're the true believer you're cutting deals for the democrat majority and now we're gonna have a bigger bloated budget the border is gonna remain open because part of that bill that they opposed at the strictest restrictions on the border ever passed by the house of representatives i read it it's how

unbelievable. Would it pass the Senate? Well, they don't control the Senate, but it would have given our conservatives in the Senate something to negotiate with. Look at the House. Look what they've passed, Mr. McConnell. We've got to do something about these things. Now they have nothing. Zero. And so I would ask people who are defending and promoting these people, do you know who they are? How many of you know the guy from Tennessee? How many know the guy from Montana? How many of you really know about Nancy Mays, who's a complete headcase, out of South Carolina? So this is my problem, that we had good momentum going in. Forget about personalities, about McCarthy and Scalia.

I don't care. We had good momentum going in, and now we're stuck. Everything is frozen, everything. And we're attacking the most conservative body we have. If it's not conservative enough, let's fix it. The Senate's gone. The presidency's gone. The courts are gone.

We have a five-vote majority in the House who are doing more with that five-vote majority than anybody else. And we just crippled it. What the hell are we doing? That's my take one. So, Mark, first, let me ask you, do you see a plan? Is there a plan? Is there something that we're hoping for it? at this point?

No, I'd love to see one. I mean, when Gates has asked, who would he accept? He starts naming liberal members of the House. I've gone, holy crap. I don't know what the plan is. I don't even know who would want to be speaker at this point. Forget about McCarthy and so forth, thinking, okay, you're still going to have these eight. And the way this works is, from a propaganda and the McGregory point of view, these guys

are going to claim victory no matter what happens. So in other words, let's say they actually pick, let's say a Jim Jordan, who I love, who I think is terrific. Yes. And they're going to say, see, if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't have Jim Jordan. They've got it all planned out. And the fact of the matter is one of the biggest supporters of the previous speaker was Jim Jordan.

And he even gave a speech on the floor. Why? I asked him. He said, because he let us do what we needed to do. He never interfered. We would tell him what we need. He'd say, if you need a subpoena, whatever you need, I'll take care of it and so forth and so on.

The Rules Committee, there were more conservatives on the Rules Committee in the history of the House of Representatives. They had Tom Massey on there, Byron Donald's on there, and another conservative. Oh, Triproy, who had the power to block anything and to promote anything. And so he said he's been in the House for a while now. He said he came into the same time as McCarthy did.

and he said it's never been more open period and he said it's so open that everybody with a grievance was thinking about voting against them so that's how you get the nancy maces in there and the rosendales and these other people in there and uh and that's why i think chip roy's biggest problem was sometimes we have to accept victory when we have a 30% cut and you border security bill which is the strongest the house has ever passed this is a this is this is this is a 30 day bill why the hell wouldn't we just pass it I said it beats me that's why I'm not a politician I can't figure you guys out to be perfectly honest with you but so you know you said mark that the Democratic Party I

think you said 16% are are named Marxists they are fine with being Democratic Socialist or Marxist. That's correct. How did this happen? Well, here's the truth. The fact is, and that's the point of the book, you're very good. That's a good segue there. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, well. Everything I know I learned from Glenn, man. You are. You are. Top shelf, baby. Look, here's the bottom line with this book. The book explains that the Democrat Party has never accepted America's founding.

has never accepted its principles. We wouldn't have had a civil war but for the Democrat Party. The vast majority of Americans not only didn't own slaves, never met slaves. Even in the South, a tiny percentage, tiny, big enough, don't get me wrong, but not the vast majority of the people in the South. They were too poor to own slaves. Slavery was an abomination. And who perpetuated it? The Democrat Party. Who was prepared to destroy the country to defend, it, the Democrat Party, the Party, the Party of the Confederacy. Look, we don't know enough time. The book's 400 pages long, but I'll tell you this. I decided to take on their icons, FDR, the Kennedy family, Lyndon Johnson.

People are going to learn things about these people they couldn't possibly have known because the Democrat Party writes our history, or I should say rewrites our history. So all the things the Democrat Party today condemns, and we condemn. back in our history is their history. I mean, they did this to the country, and they projected onto the Republican Party, and I talk about that as the biggest con that's ever been perpetrated against the American people,

and I explain that they supported eugenics. For racial reasons, when you want a more perfect society, and you're part of this progressive era, progressive movement, what I call American Marxist, early Marxists, Yeah. If you need a more perfect society, you need more perfect citizenry. And so they backed eugenics aggressively. And you look at Woodrow Wilson, this was a sick man.

I mean, people who are applying to the federal bureaucracy for jobs, the first time they put in place that you had to provide a photograph. So blacks wouldn't get jobs. You'd bounce around a little bit. FDR. The Best of the Glenn Beck program. Steve Baker has been. on the program a few times and he is an investigative reporter that has been doing some have been doing

some work and it's now exposed on the blaze.com. He has been working on the January 6th puzzle for a while now and his efforts have been frustrated over and over again by the politics in Washington when he's just trying to find the truth. The story that has just been released this morning, did Pelosi's security chief perjure himself in the Oathkeeper's trial has wide, wide consequences? Welcome, Steve. How are you? Glenn, I am living proof that a man can live on coffee alone.

You started this a year ago today. It was one year ago yesterday, October 3rd. During the Oathkeeper's trial was the first sent that there was something wrong. Something happened in the trial first thing that morning when the lead prosecuting attorney, Jeffrey Nessler, assistant U.S. attorney, approached the lectern and the bench and said to Judge Ameda, we have a problem. He said we have a rogue attorney that is about to release some FBI 302s. These are interviews of one of the characters in this story.

that we release this morning and that if he does that, these are sealed documents that are not publicly available and we can't have that. And Judge Mayta did something that I had never seen before. And I think, I don't know that any of the media in the media room where I was sitting had ever seen this before. He actually directed the media pool to put out a tweet and threaten this particular attorney and let him know that if he released those sealed documents, He would have him held in contempt of court.

And right then, I went, what are in those documents? So what was in those documents? They're still sealed, but I will tell you that the documents themselves were the actual FBI interviews of one of these Capitol police officers. And the primary problem that the government has with those documents is that the testimony was changed, his testimony about his interaction. with the oathkeepers, which in the first testimony, he revealed to be a positive interaction that the oathkeepers lined up between him and the more agitated protesters and assisted him and keeping them off of him and helping him deescalate. That was in May of 21, that interview.

In August of 21, this officer was brought back in, and the testimony was changed into an aggravated, contentious event with the Oathkeepers, and as well as the creation of a second event to explain the first FBI interview that never happened. So it is amazing to me. Reading your story, it is so well laid out. However, what makes this different, it's not he said, she said, or he said, he said. No. Because you had permission to go into the 14,000 hours of videotape.

You knew what you were looking for. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And in the story, you knew what time it even happened because the testimony was gunshots, you know, gunfire. Right. And so that marked it at a certain time when they shot an innocent. So tell me about what you found, what the story was in the testimony, and then what you found on the tape.

Well, the story in the testimony from special agent, now this is Capitol Police Special Agent, David Lazarus, is that when he heard the gunshots at 243, 244 broadcasted over the radio that shots had been fired, that he was down in the tunnels escorting senators towards. the Rayburn building to the other Senate office buildings. And that's quite a long distance away from the House chamber where allegedly these shots were fired. He said at that moment at 244, he began turning around and heading back. Well, because we knew what to look for, we immediately went there and we started working our way backwards. And we found him in the tunnels at that time. The problem with it is that when he emerged from the Senate building tunnels in the subway system below the Capitol. And by the way, Glenn, these are videos that were never released to the defense attorneys in this trial. If we were living in normal times, the people that had been convicted with any of the testimony revolving around these guys, they would be released.

Any other time in American history, they would be released. because this is perjury and somebody set this up somebody and we're working on that trail as well but going back to lazarus so he emerges and comes back into camera frame on the capital TVs with absolute proof of the exact time down to the second of when he emerged back into camera he even passes under an analog clock in the subway at exactly this moment and it's at 248 p.m. when he finally reaches the other side of the tunnels from the Senate office buildings. And when that happens, the Oathkeeper Officer Dunn encounter is almost already over by then. He's nowhere near it, and he still has a long way to go.

And then we were able to triangulate because he will go out of camera frame for a while, then he'll enter camera frame again from another camera. And then he's down another hall, and then he enters another hallway. And then he shows up on the Senate side. And then by the time he reaches the bottom of the stairs that lead up to the rotunda, and it's in a little area that variously called the mini rotunda or the Speaker's Lobby, when he reaches the bottom of those stairs, it's now 256.45 p.m. And the oathkeepers are long gone.

Okay. So now let me give you the exact verbiage from the testimony in the court. case. Lazarus, the guy you've just been talking about, explained that one rioter asked, who are you? Who are you? Then according to the trial transcript, he testified. And, you know, one attempted to, I mean, I had my lanyard on with my ID on it. And one, they were videotaping.

And one attempted to pull it my ID. And I was kind of like grabbed it back and looked to make sure it was still there. And then I saw an opening. So there was just kind of like, I walked fast to get into the office. and check on the staff again. He then detailed description of what took place, what Lazarus described, as a very antagonistic in three or four times

that he passed by these oathkeepers. Every time I interacted or came by, yes, it was very antagonistic. He said this under oath. When he was then shown in court, a video clip of four oathkeepers, standing in front of Dunn, Lazarus was asked, are these the individuals you observed?

Yes, yes. At any point in these three or four interactions in this space, did you observe any sort of anything but antagonistic conversation? No, that's correct. Here's the problem. They were already out of the building. At the time we know him now on camera, we have the videotape.

the oathkeepers have been gone for almost 10 minutes. It was not quite 10 minutes. But when you're in the Capitol video room viewing this, we can put multiple cameras up on the screen at the same time. And then we hit one button and it sinks all of those cameras to the exact timeline. So we're able to watch Lazarus moving through the building in one quadrant of the screen. And then we can watch when the oathkeepers leave. So as the oathskeepers leave and they're walking back out through the rotunda about to exit through the Columbus doors on the east side, it wasn't until that moment that finally Lazarus reaches that area where in great detail in the trial, and we have the trial transcripts, obviously.

In great detail, he describes what he saw and it just did not happen. So this was an important part of the trial, right? It was a huge part of the trial because the one thing that the government was absolutely intent upon doing was not allowing anything that could be exculpatory or anything that painted the oathkeepers in a positive light. And this wasn't the only positive interaction that oathkeepers had with law enforcement that day. You've interviewed Lieutenant Tarek Johnson. Yes. Lieutenant Tarrick Johnson used two oathkeepers, literally recruited them to help rescue another 16 officers out of a d'A, dangerous situation.

That was never allowed in the trial. So, and I, you know, I learned something from the article. Let me see if I can find it here. I had no idea. Oathkeeper, seditious, blah, blah, blah. Federal prosecutors claim while they were inside the capital members of the group were involved in contentious interaction. I don't know where it is now.

But you talk about the oathkeepers how they've never, they've never had to hear. that 35,000 dues-paying members had more than a decade's worth of spotless record providing disaster relief and security during riots and other large events. They had never once been accused or charged with a crime in thousands of operations. I had no idea. One of the things that the government could not do in that trial is they could not counter that little piece of information. And of course, it didn't matter in front of the DC jury.

I mean, the DC jury, it was a fate of complete before day one in terms of what the outcome of that trial was going to be. But one of the things that the defense did successfully present is the fact that in years and years of disaster relief operations, security details, and all kinds of times, other times when they actually went and were recruited and hired by minority businesses like in Ferguson, like in Louisville, Kentucky, and those riots, where they were recruited by minority businesses to come help us protect our businesses. We were, the defense, the defense, was rather able to show some of those videos. But the one thing that the government could not prove

was that at any time since 2009, when the Oathkeepers were founded, that there had ever been a single time where an Oathkeeper had committed violence in any of those operations, or had ever committed a crime, or any charges had ever been filed. And when you think the Oathkeepers, you think, oh, they're just really bad. Isn't that remarkable how that has been portrayed and carried by the press. Okay.

So there's obviously some sort of conspiracy here because these guys, they don't, they're both saying the same story, but it seems to switch where one is saying, no, I saw him at the top of the stairs. And the other guys say, no, I saw him at the top of the stairs. They couldn't even get their story right. Yeah. It's inexplicable that the editor of Harry Dunn's forthcoming book did not. not check the trial transcripts.

Because when Lazarus, David Lazarus, Special Agent, Nancy Pelosi's head of security, tells his version of events, he says that when he runs to the top of the stairs, that he sees this large imposing figure, because done is six, seven, 300 pounds, plus all the gear he had on. And he sees this large imposing figure in a contentious moment with these oathkeepers that were giving him the business. all right and that's his testimony in dunn's book he explains that when he ran to the top of that stairs and reached that stairwell landing at the top that lazarus was already there and he was being confronted by protesters okay so the questions that we need to ask and what this actually means i'm afraid stew and i were talking about it this morning that um in any other time

any other time in American history, this case would be thrown out now. They would file a charge. It got to throw this case out. And it would be done and people would care. I'm not sure people care. I'm not sure people. I mean, that's where our justice system is. It only moves because somebody says something.

Somebody, the American people just won't take it. What is next in this? And I know you talk to people in Congress, but is this going to move anything in D.C.? I can tell you that not only working with weaponization committee investigators on this story, as well as the high-ranking staffers, and I can't get into specific on-the-record details, that there will be talks about hearings, and we know what hearings result in far too often, But there has to be something next because, Glenn, this is literally an existential threat to our republic, what is taking place in our courts right now in D.C. This is our government not getting it wrong.

No. This is our government setting American citizens up withholding evidence that's a sculptory, sentencing them to long sentences. and apparently several people are involved in this. This is as bad as it gets. Even in one of the specific Oathkeeper's cases during his sentencing hearing, this was the Oathkeeper Ken Harrelson, who you can see in video holding the crowd back from Officer Dunn. I mean, he's literally got his hands extended and he's holding the back,

holding the back as they were agitating and trying to get it done. And there's four Oathkeepers lined up with their backs turned to Dunn. He's at the top of the stairwell holding an M4 rifle, and these guys are holding them back. And in his case, particularly, Judge Mata and his sentencing hearing actually said these words. He said, Mr. Heraldson, I do not believe that you're the man that the government has made you out to be. If I could speak to Mata right now, Judge Mata, I would tell him now we know that he is not the man who the government made him out to be. You need to send him home. Have you talked to their attorneys yet, the oath keepers?

I talk to them every day. And now that this is out and you're able to prove this, are they going to move? They're obviously, they're in transition from their trial representation to their different legal teams that are going to be representing them in appeal. But these guys are hot. They're hot. And of course, they all know how this was set up. And this is where the next part of this story is going. is that, look, we know.

We know that there was the equivalent of a star chamber set up and said, how are we going to get these guys? And we see the process and the pattern of events of how they led to that as well as here. Absolute proof of the creation and manipulation of testimony and of something that never happened. It presented in that trial. This story is a year's worth of a man's life. You must read it by Steve Baker. did Pelosi's security chief perjure himself in the Oathkeeper's trial. It is only part one of a series that Steve is working on,

and you'll find it from Blaze Media at theblaze.com. We'll say, in the phone, all the world can be a guy of the finance. Not a business, not even to have a gross wonder in art, to play to golf, nor be an pro of the crypto. Not a reason to be a guy, no more. In any way, you have always made these affairs.

And the apply negotiates-titred TD you add to renew with your instinct of negotiation. With a support 24-hour-pard-pard-hour-jure, no amount of minimum, and free-mensual. You're made for negotiate, and the apply-negoti-tit-tid is made for you help.

Telecharge it right now.