Liz Cheney, Donald Trump, Jim Hansen discussed on America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
Yeah, okay. So back to the show trials. But the perception. I mean, you're a person who 'cause I do information warfare. So as a profession, try to change narratives and affect people, which is what they're doing. This is information. I'm following in your footsteps. I'm following in Seb's footsteps. I'm following an Andrew breitbart's footsteps. I hope. That's the goal. And frankly, like I said, this looks like this whole show looks like Russia gate part three, 5, whatever. It's at least three. They had two impeachments. And that was like no one talks about that. And then now, it's just endless Russia gate, which is why, again, not to like plug forever, but the movie plot against the president is still key to see because it lays out the blueprint for how they conduct these information ops. And so if for no other reason, but that, for our breakdown of how they wash information through the FBI through a certain New York Times or Washington Post or whatever back into the FBI and it becomes a criminal situation. And then you find yourself in a place where mister the potential attorney general, mister Larry Clark, was being raided in the middle of the night in the exact same way we describe Roger Stone's raid, where it was more about humiliation. I mean, that's Chinese tactics to bring people out in their sleepwear in front of their neighbors. That's part of the point. That's not an accident. And it's so disgusting. And I've had to deal with so many people who I'm actually close with, having to deal with this absolutely ridiculous show trial. And it is ruined people's lives. Like, I like to make a joke out of everything on Twitter. That's my, you can assume everything I tweet is with the laughing emoji because I just find it all so ridiculous that sometimes they just have to say silly things. And that's just what I do. It's all just on a level of absurdity. But at the same time, we must remember, people's lives are being destroyed every single day. The next round of subpoenas. That's another hundreds and thousands of dollars of legal fees for people that have had nothing to do with anything. When no crime was committed and they're all being dragged through the mud. And where do people go to get their reputations back as we say? And actually, one of my favorite things that's happening is my one of my co producers, Daniel bostic, is leading the first defamation case against some of these left wing rags for claiming he was the riot organizer, which is absurd. If you know Daniel, you know that's impossible. So anyhow, a brilliant talk with Amanda will have you back as often as you can, Sam always does. This is Jim Hansen. I'm Sebastian gorka, this is America first, and I'm delighted to welcome our special guest host Jim Hansen. Well, I'm delighted to be back sitting in for Seb doing America first radio, and even more delighted to now have in the chair. One of my favorite lawyers, which is admittedly a short list. I think it's pretty much you and schlichter. But Wilt Chamberlain is here. And I would love will to get your opinion of just how brutally effective the show trial for the invented insurrection has been at throwing the trader Trump into the brink. He's going to jail, right? Well, I think there's so many different problems. We just start with yesterday what happened with Cassidy Hutchinson. I remember watching Fox News and hearing Brett, tell me, oh, this is devastating. Did you hear? This is devastating testimony, and it's like clearly you've never seen a trial because the first thing you notice is it's hearsay. She's almost very rarely is she testifying even to a conversation she herself heard most of the talk is about someone else told her that Trump said X and that's not just hearsay, it's actually what we call double hearsay. The hearsay statement of Trump being offered for whatever the truth of that it was asserted. And then there's the hearsay statement of the person gossiping, right? So you have these it's the legal standard for gossip. We got hearsay, double hearsay, gossip. BS, which is what it seems. And so, you know, it's not that all hearsay statements are inadmissible. There are actually a lot of exceptions to the hearsay rule. But this is the classic example of why we have a hearsay rule, right? You have this woman saying, well, I heard that Trump grabbed the Stuart, you know, this guy, this guy told me Trump grab the steering wheel, and then you realize, well, that's not even possible. And then within an hour of the testimony, it comes out that the Secret Service agents are perfectly willing to say under oath, no, that never happened. But why in the world didn't the January 6th committee check that out beforehand? Oh, I'm sure they did. In fact, I'm sure that they have depositions of the Secret Service agents. They almost certainly knew, which makes what Liz Cheney did, not just a mistake where she fell on her face, but actually kind of appalling. She was soliciting maybe Cassie hush didn't know that the testimony was false. She might not have known what happened in that car. She might well have believed the gossip. But Liz Cheney was sitting on the committee hearing all those depositions. So Liz Cheney knew what happened in that car. But she's got immunity from anything because she's sitting in Congress. She's got that garbage immunity that they get. And the thing was, it wasn't even about getting Trump for that thing. They wanted the headlines that say Trump led the charge, wanted to grab a musket himself, you know, and impale Mike Pence for failing to dethrone the constitution. Yeah, I mean, and then Liz Cheney even, you know, of course she links to an article by David French, where French is like, oh, they've really got Trump this time. And then apparently his whole argument is that somehow this testimony will lead to Trump being prosecuted on incitement. On insightment of violence, which is just omitting the fact that he said that they should go over peacefully. And there's just no way you're going to get an insight into charge under these facts. They're starting to remind me of boss hogg and sheriff rosco P Coltrane from the dukes of Hazzard where gonna get them duke boys. They're always trying to get Trump and he's always driving away in the beast, jumping over airplanes. He's been out of office for 18 months and they're still trying to get him. Guys, he's not the president anymore. You can relax. They can't relax because they're literally scared to death. He's coming back. So that's true. And you know, they didn't get him. This is like round three of official attempts to get him. And he is just so slippery. Yeah, he's like or maybe he doesn't commit any crimes. I wonder if they considered that. Yeah, no, maybe he didn't commit any crimes. And at the end of the day, what is the long-term conclusion here? Are they saying Trump didn't act particularly quickly on January 6th? Well, if you were paying attention to Twitter that day, you knew that was true, right? He could have tweeted about it faster. He didn't. We knew that that day. Oh, you think he was unhappy with Mike tents. He gave a speech about how he was a happy with Mike Pence. But we knew that. It's not illegal to be unhappy that Mike Pence is not going to do what he's being asked, which was to go ahead and say, let's hold off on this and maybe before we seal this with the Electoral College, maybe we should look at a couple states, you know, in a way that hasn't been done yet. Right. It's legal to ask for that. Sure. It's just all this stuff, they're prosecuting people for a legal strategy at the end of the day. Now, they want to prosecute Trump because people like breach the capitol. Well, that wasn't on him. They were breaching the capitol before his speech was done. And he said to go over peacefully. None of this is, it's all really just kind of a joke. And the degree to which they're trying to say, oh, this bombshell testimony. It's like, no, it's not. It's not bombshell testimony. And it's also, they would actually benefit. The left and the people going after Trump would benefit from having some people on the committee who weren't who were Trump defenders. Because then you might have an adversarial moment or two to keep everybody's attention. But instead, all you get is this one sided boring direct examination that falls apart in the media within an hour. It's like a long episode of CNN before there are guys said you can't everything can't be breaking news. Every single story that happens can not have the breaking news Chiron on it, as if this is the most earth shattering thing ever. And they keep saying every day, this is the one. This is the secret witness who's going to finally take Trump down. And when we get down to it, it's the same old hashed over garbage. Yeah, and I mean, there's nothing dramatic about it. Think about when you watch a trial or something, what's the most dramatic moment in a trial? It's not direct examination. It's cross, right? Because it's adversarial. It's adversarial. So maybe you have a moment where you have a hostile question, but the witness turns it around on the questioner or something is revealed. But here it's just dull. It's just the direct examinations over and over and over. Here's the problem they have. I'm not sure they've got anything they can use to flip. You know, like you said, okay, they come back at someone and cross examination and they think they're going to get them, but the witness throws them a curve ball and actually proves the point. They don't have anybody who can prove a point because there's no point to prove. They started with a premise that doesn't exist. They invented an insurrection, and now they're trying to create through show trials and through the media and through some fairly egregious abuses of the people they've actually prosecuted and who have copped to please. The idea that this was an actual event. And I don't think you can do that if anybody throws a flag on the planet..