Presidential Pardons for Sale! DOJ Whistleblower Reveals All.

(upbeat music) Jonathan Gross, thank you so much for doing this. So you've had this remarkable life, and I almost hesitate to ask you to start with your bio, but I just want to explain one thing, 'cause I think it frames the conversation that we'll follow. So you're a congregational rabbi, in meaning you have a congregation. You're not just a symbolic rabbi, you're actually running a synagogue in Nebraska, in Omaha. And then the next thing you know, you're a lawyer working at DOJ on civil rights cases. Like, how did that happen? Those are totally separate worlds, I think. - Yeah, so, yeah, I was a rabbi, and I followed in footsteps of my grandfather who was also a rabbi, and I did that for about 15 years, 10 years in Omaha, Nebraska. I'm very proud of that career, and then-- - That's a full career, I mean, that's like a full-- - Yeah, you didn't just dabble in it. - No, no, no, it was a full career, yeah. - Absolutely, that's for sure. And yeah, so then we move back to where my wife's family lives in Baltimore, Maryland, and at that point, we decided that I wanted to move into something else. I'd always wanted to be a lawyer, I think, since I was in college. And I went back to law school at the age of, I think, 37 or 38 years old, with four little kids. My wife encouraged me, and we made it work. And I graduated, thankfully, and I went, you know, did the clerkship, making $40,000 a year, working for a judge, and filling up water pictures for the litigants at 40 years old. And then, but thankfully, I was able to move into a pretty good career. I was working at a civil rights firm that was, we were doing pretty high-level civil rights religious liberties work, and then January 6th happened. And I saw what the government was doing to January 6th offence, and it distressed me and my wife greatly. And my wife doesn't like me, you know, telling this story so much because she's heard it so many times. But basically, we were sitting around one Friday night, and we were just praying. And I said, why isn't anybody doing anything? And she said to me, you have to do something. And she encouraged me to quit my job, and figure out how to help January 6th offence. And I didn't know any January 6th offence. I'd never practiced criminal law day in my life. But I knew that I had to help. So I just made my wife together. - I mean, a mother of four small children, all your kids are at home, right at this point. - That's not the person typically encourages her husband to quit his job and go into something with like no real prospects of getting paid. Like, why would she do that? - 'Cause she's an extraordinary woman with a deep faith in God. And she encouraged me to do that. - Yeah, that's just wonderful. So I just, you told me that in practice and made me emotional. I just wanted to get that on tape because that's incredible. So what happened next? - So I turned my eyes towards my father in heaven, and I said, I know you want me to do this. I don't know what to do. And it's a long story, a few things led to the other. And ultimately, it came because I met Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was one of the most unbelievable advocates for January six defendants. As a Congresswoman, there wasn't much that she could do, but whatever she could do she did. And one of them was to introduce me to people. And she got me involved in J6. I got my first defendants through her. And then I tried to help as many as I could and they started calling me from all over the country. And I represented over 20. And I advised probably close to 100 of J6's defendants. I tried to help everybody that I could. And some people I charged nothing, some I charged nominal fee what they could afford. And we, and I'm very proud that I did that. And we did it for all the way up until January. I had a trial scheduled for January 21st, 2025, which was canceled because President Trump pardoned people. But they were arresting people until December of 2025. They would have gone, I mean, to December of 2024. They would have gone forever with arresting people. So then when President Trump was elected and I did everything that I could to try and get into the DOJ because President Trump had expressed that he wanted to get to the bottom of this weaponization that was going on. And, and, and through also a miracle of God, I was somehow pointed by President Trump to be Senior Counsel to Harmeet Dylan who was nominated and confirmed as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. And that's, that was my position at, at DOJ. Amazing. - So 10 years before you were rabbi with a congregation in Omaha, and now you're an advisor to the head of the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dylan, who I should say at the outset I've known for decades who was our family lawyer, and I advocated strongly for her to get that job, not that it made any difference, but I certainly wanted her to get that job. And so I should just say that upfront, I've always been very pro-harmeet Dylan. And so I'm glad that that's where you wound up. So what happened then? - So I had one agenda when I was in DOJ, and that was to get to the bottom of weaponization. And one of the things that I was trying to get into the government, I thought that it would be great if President Trump would appoint me somewhere within the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, and that way I could lead the Capitol siege unit. The Capitol siege unit was this special unit that they created to go after J6ers for four years. Now mind you, there was no BLM riot unit. There was no anti-ice protester unit. They did the special for J6, and I could easily, in my mind, come up with at least a billion dollars that this thing was funded to, and it drew resources from all over the country, all 50 states from FBI to DOJ to US marshals, and local law enforcement, and even media propaganda, the press releases, they were all over. The every local paper was tipped off to every misdemeanor grandma for to destroy their lives gratuitously. So I said, you know what, put me in charge of the Capitol siege unit, I'm the biggest expert on J6 in the DOJ, and let me open it up, and let's find out who gave the orders, and let's find out how this happened, and make sure this never happens again. - Yes. - Yeah, that would have been a great thing. - You mean it didn't happen? - They closed the Capitol siege unit immediately, and they buried all that stuff, and it's like, I always say like Indiana Jones, and the Raiders of the Lost Ark at the end, where they just kind of like take the ark, and they put it into some warehouse. So that's where all this stuff is, they hope to bury it, and they just want to move on. And so that wasn't happening. So I was in DOJ, and I got involved to different assignments. - Are you surprised? - I was shocked, I was shocked. I thought that President Trump as a victim of this would have made this a priority, and I was hoping that this would be something. - How long did it take for you to discover that it was not a priority? - You know, a couple days. - Couple days? - Yeah, I just, you know, there was nobody there who kind of shared my sense of urgency. I said, guys, we have only four years to do this. I mean, we have to do this. And I, you know, everybody, my wife and I always joke that we're only invited to dinner parties once, 'cause, you know, (laughs) - Oh, I've been there, Rabbi. (laughs) - You get me started on J6, and I'm never ending, and I was, even from the very beginning, hi, my name's Jonathan Gross, it's my colleagues, you know, and J6, like what are we doing about it? But not just J6, remember, my interest in J6 was because this could happen to anyone. This was like, you know, this was just so bad. So I said, we need to, while President Trump is in office, this is all we've got. And not only that, I assume that this is a priority because this is what he campaigned on, draining the swamp and ending this kind of weaponization, and this is what I would think his base would want. And to get to the bottom of it, because ultimately, you look the J6ers in the end of the day, they went to DC, and frankly went from the ellipse to the Capitol because President Trump told them to, I mean, and President Trump himself is a January sixer. He was charged with one of the January six charges. So I would have thought that this would have been a priority, number one, to find out what the hell happened, and go after it, and just, like I said, I'm not even interested about necessarily going after the bad guys. I don't want them to work there anymore. You know, and you know, should people go to jail or things like that? Look, that's for, that's secondary. The first thing is to make sure that this cannot happen again. Don't have this unchecked power of federal prosecutors to be able to do something like this, to demonize a whole class of people, and use the media to destroy their lives, to taint the jury pool, keep it in DC, to create all kinds of crazy presidential law that if this would be applied to anyone, they would say, this is the most unfair process I've ever experienced, and the process itself destroys you so that even if you come out innocent on the other side, which is almost impossible, but to the extent that you do, Google your name forever, and you know, and nobody believes you to the extent that you even were able to be that 1% to defeat the government in federal prosecution, then people just say you had a good lawyer or you got off on a technicality. They'll still assume you're guilt. Nobody will ever, there's this presumption of goodwill that still exists for the federal government that if they go after you, then you are guilty. and that goes from the minute they show up with the FBI with their guns and lasers and knock down your door and then all the press releases come out and the indictment is their side of the story. And your lawyer tells you you better not say a word to the media because if you do, then the government and the judge will punish you more, which happens. Just happened to a guy named Michael Castellera who he's the victim of weaponization and he has to report to prison in only a few days. And he's, and he said I'm not going to go silently and he went on diamond and silk of all people who were present Trump's earliest supporters and he went on their show and he had the temerity to accuse the government of of weaponization. So the government wrote in the sentencing memo when deciding what his punishment would be that he should get punished extra because he went on a diamond and silk and he lied and he said that we this was a political hit job on him and the judge agreed and gave him an extra year in prison that he's going to have to serve. So it's three in the afternoon you've had your coffee but you're still staring blankly at your screen, rereading the same line, waiting for energy because you're just innovators the afternoon slump. And that's what we're excited to partner with Trumy. So Trumy makes gummy supplements made of mushrooms I know. This sounds like the spooky ones. But these are not the mushrooms you're thinking of. These are the ones you put in your soup, the legal ones. Trumy makes products for the basics, energy, focus, calm, sleep. It's all made in America. It's third party test. There's no artificial dyes, no fillers. You can read the label and actually understand what's in it, which is pretty crazy these days. So the one to start with is Trumy boost. It's made with Horticeps. That's a mushroom people have used for centuries to support stamina and endurance. Trumy uses a triple extraction process and that means they're more potent and they absorb better. So the energy is just steady. It's not a spike and then a crash. And the routine couldn't be easier or more simple. Two gummies a day about a buck. It tastes like candy. A plant-powered fix for a problem that all of us recognize. And if you're not into it, full refund, no risk, no hassle. So if you want to try to beat the slump, we recommend Trumy. Trumy boost. Get 20% off with code TCN20. Trumy.com/tucker. Trumy is, by the way, T-R-O-O-M-Y.com/tucker. So but it doesn't even make internal sense. So in other words, the government saying, "Because you accused me of being corrupt, I'm going to act corruptly and punish you more." Correct. And then they hear themselves. It's crazy. That happened. I want to mention another case. There was a woman who I've never met. Her name is Tijuana Brown. She was a local counsel person in North Carolina who obviously must have gotten in some kind of dispute as my guess. But basically, they charged her with a common thing that they're going after nowadays. It's basically like opening up the doors on January 6th, letting the people in and then charging them with terrorism. What they did was, is during COVID, they gave out these PPP loans. And President J.D. Vance just announced, maybe a couple of weeks ago, that there are 870,000 people that they're going to go after for fraud. They were for these PPP loans. Basically, the government shut down your business, made you stay at home, made it so you could not earn any money and then said, "Oh, but here we'll give you money. Here are these PPP loans." So people took advantage of it. And lo and behold, some of those people they're going to say now, "Well, that was fraud." So this woman, Tijuana Brown, they charged her federally for fraud for the PPP loans. And no jury is going to remember what the circumstances were from 2021. And she, they charged her and her daughters with, they charged her to want to brown with only $20,000 of fraud for these PPP loans, which is ridiculous that the federal government even went after it. That alone should tip you off that. And the fact that she's a political person should tip you off that there's weaponization of foot. And she went on TV and she said, "This is political." So her daughter's only got probation. But the judge and the prosecutor said, "She should get more because she had the temerity to say this is political." So she's going to jail. Now she just report for 10 months in federal prison for $20,000 of a legit fraud on these PPP loans, which, which once again, it was, it was basically a tripwire because she complained about it. Because she complained about the prosecution. Yeah. So they wanted to make her a felon. But then once she said, "This is a political hit job," then they said, "We're going to give you extra penalty." We would have given you probation. And I and J6 are the same thing. It's called the trial penalty. Is that they said, "Had you pled, we would have given you probation." But because you decided, you had the temerity to exercise your constitutional right to a trial by jury, you caused more time for the court, more time for the prosecutor. This is routine. We're giving you more jail time for that. And I have a lawsuit right now that is talking about how the I'm suing Todd Blanched. And we can talk about that for these course of plea deals, specifically that they did to J6ers. But this is a Stalinist tactic that the government is using, that where they coerce plea deals out of people, it's routine. Every person who's ever been indicted for a federal crime knows that your lawyer will say to you, "Hey, the government says if you don't fight this and you don't go to trial, you will get less time in jail or no time in jail. Maybe we'll let you off and we'll just charge you with a felony. So you'll be branded for life a felon. You'll have restitution, but maybe less restitution that you'll have to pay money to Wells Fargo or something for the rest of your life. But at least you won't have to spend more time in prison." And some people say, "No, I'm not going to do that. The truth is on my side." And your lawyer said, "Well, good luck. We're all the dice with the DOJ." So you say, "Fine, I'm going to do it anyway." So then the government says, "Oh yeah, well your wife worked for the business, didn't she? Be shame if she became a co-conspirator and your children were orphaned." So then they get a lot of people to plea and they say, "Evil." It happens routinely. Nobody disputes this either. Okay, so I guess we'll skip to this. President Trump was being interviewed, I think in June of this year, by MSNBC. It was right after that whole idea for one minute they said, "We're going to try and compensate the J6ers." And then everybody went crazy. So then he was on MSNBC and they asked him about it. And she said, "Why should these people get compensated?" So President Trump said, "These people, these were his words, were destroyed by weaponization and dirty cops." So then she said, "Yeah, but they all pleaded guilty." And what she means by that is they all signed a statement and swore under penalty of perjury that I'm guilty of whatever the government says I'm guilty of. And they signed those statements and went up in court and said, "Yes, I swear that that's true." So obviously they're guilty. So President Trump, who's not an idiot, he said, "Of course they did. They were frightened. They were facing 50 years in prison for misdemeanor charges." So that's why obviously they they pled guilty, not because they were actually guilty. And everybody should know that, especially liberals and leftists who claim that they believe in these things. So President Trump said, "J6ers were destroyed by weaponization and dirty cops." So the next day, I started a group with J6ers and the group is called J6ers were destroyed by weaponization. And we filed a lawsuit called J6ers were were destroyed by weaponization, V Blanche. And we are not asking for money in that lawsuit. All we are asking is that the government investigate those plea deals to the extent that any is found to be coercive, then they should void those plea deals. And I but basically will just settle for an investigation. And I listed in the lawsuit, it's a 60 page lawsuit. And I listed all these different Stalinist tactics that they used on the J6ers that they routinely use on American citizens, the pre-dawn raids where they bring the press with them. And they bring you out in front of your neighbors and handcuffs. You're a law-abiding citizen who's never even got a traffic ticket. And all of a sudden, they break down your door. Your kids are screaming. The guns and lasers pointed at you. They take you out and handcuffs. They rough you up. They throw you in a holding cell. And then a lawyer comes to you and says, "Whoa, I've never seen anything like this. You better plea fast." If you want more of this, they threw people in jail to pretrial. So we offered to settle for a one hour meeting. I said, if Todd Blanche will meet with a group of J6ers for one hour, we will drop this lawsuit. And they refused to drop the lawsuit. And they filed a motion to dismiss. I have to respond to that in a few days. So Drinking water with electrolytes makes a huge difference when you want to stay healthy and hydrated. You should do that. So for the best option you can buy, we recommend Relight. Relight starts with unrefined sea salt, real salt, which is completely natural. Zero sugar, no artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors, and no chemical preservatives. The ingredient list is very short and you can actually pronounce everything on it without a degree in chemistry. If you start adding Relight to your water, we believe you will feel different very quickly, way better. No sluggishness or afternoon crash, just more energy, better workouts, all the benefits that come with true hydration. And Relight tastes awesome. Mango flavor, piniacalata, come on now. So if you're ready to give Relight a try, visit Redmond.com/tucker, use the code Tucker for 15% off your first order. Redmond.com/tucker code Tucker, 15% off your first order, or you can click the link in the video description or scan the QR code on your screen. Who is Todd Blanche? Todd Blanche is the Attorney General of the United States. He was a lifelong Democrat. He was always a Democrat. I've never seen his voting record, but I assume based on his party affiliation that he probably voted for Barack Obama Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, maybe even Kamala Harris for all we know. Obviously, I have no way of knowing that, but I mean, he was Democrat. And he worked for the Southern District of New York as a prosecutor. The Southern District of New York federal office is, in my opinion, the worst of all of the weaponized offices, they're terrifying. And he was there for all eight years of president Obama. During his tenure there, they prosecuted Denesh D'Souza, who I'm sure you know very well. I think you've even had him on his show, on your show. Denesh D'Souza, it was for like $15,000 that he allegedly gave to a lady who he knew for a long time who was running a doomed Republican congressional campaign in New York where no chance of winning. And she said to him, Denesh, come on, we know each other a long time. So he gave her $15,000. And he didn't check with his attorneys to do it properly. So he was arrested for that. He was held on bond for $50,000, which was multiple times the amount even in question. There was no victim could barely articulate the crime to the public. And President Trump pardoned him because President Trump. And then he went to jail. And he was a felon. And I'll tell you, Ted Cruz wrote a book where he talks about weaponization. It's a whole book. I forgot what it's called. It's about the in the subtitles weaponization. And he writes that Denesh D'Souza, after he moved to Texas, he called Ted Cruz. And Ted Cruz was very close with President Trump at the time. This was in his first term. And he says, he said, please, you know, Senator Cruz, could you please bring my case to President Trump and see if you can get me pardon. Ted Cruz writes this in a book. And Ted Cruz writes, well, I was hesitant because it's really, you know, a pardon is really an extreme remedy. And, you know, you don't give him out lightly. And Denesh did break the law. And I don't know about it. But, you know, what I decided, I'll bring it up to President Trump. So I was in the car with President Trump and his chief of staff. And I say, and sheepishly, and this is all Ted Cruz's own words. You can read in the book. He's sheepishly. I said, ah, you know, President Trump, you know, Denesh D'Souza, you know, he's been treated really badly. So President Trump without missing a beat basically says, yeah, you're right. He turns the chief of staff pardon Denesh. And then he gets out of the car and that's it. That was the whole thing. And Ted Cruz said, I was shocked. I can't believe how quickly he did that. And then chief of staff turns to me and he says, who? You know, like that was that's in Ted Cruz's book. So, I mean, so President Trump obviously sympathetic to this. But Todd Blanche was there in the office. Now, was he the prosecutor? No, because I don't frankly, I think he's a mediocre lawyer. And I don't think he was, you know, trusted with things that high. But he was there prosecuting other people. What else was going on in that office if they would go after a guy because he made a movie critical of Barack Obama. And then all of a sudden, five solanists, you know, show me the man, find me the crime. And he's this high level, very, you know, famous political personality and he's thrown in jail. Shouldn't we have an investigation into that office? Todd Blanche was in that office during that time period. Those are his friends. It was when Barack Obama was there with a United States attorney that was Senate confirmed and appointed by Barack Obama and by the senators, right? Because you can't become the head of one of these offices without the recommendation of the senators. So who was the senators when he was there? Hillary Clinton and whoever else at the time was the senator. So that's Christian Jullabran. Christian Jullabran. I think she took over Clinton's seat. And she maybe I'm wrong. I mean, Schumer, Schumer, Schumer. I'm so sorry. Yeah. But it doesn't matter. But the point is is that that's who, who that office was. That's what it was doing. That's enough evidence that that should necessitate and audit into what the hell was going on there. And by the way, go back to the Barack Obama years because there are people today who, because of those offices and others, you are now branded a felon for life. You could still be in prison, by the way. You know, you, if you're a felon for life, sometimes endless restitution is one of the other collateral consequences of this. I have a client in Montana. His name is Kevin Moore, total political hit job. And we're trying to, you know, deal with the whole thing now. They've destroyed him completely. He was a successful businessman. Now he's a senior citizen on social security. And they give him $900 a month. They're taking $200 a month out of his social security for this man. And I'm trying to, you know, get through the whole thing to figure out what the heck is going on. But restitution is something that could destroy you for life. And I can mention lots of other people that are in the situation. And it's like people who were making a million dollars a year. I know one man, in particular, I'll even say his name, his name is Robert Grebel. And he's in, he's in New York. And he was a lawyer, a phenomenal lawyer. And they needed him because his client, there was a political hit. And they needed to go after they, he, the client had an absolute defense of advice of counsel that my lawyer said, it's okay. So the DOJ says, no problem. We'll just make your counsel a co-conspirator. So they got him. They, his client, by the way, was acquitted of the very conspiracy that he was convicted of. And the guy was a top lawyer. He could have, his dream was to be a Supreme Court justice. And he could have been so smart. And, and he ended up paying restitution to not like grandmothers or anything like that. And he's still paying it. They're going after his 401k. They've made him destitute. And President Trump could get rid of this with the stroke of a pen. Police God, if he would pardon him and others. And, and once again, these are all things. If you looked into SDNY during those eight years that Todd Blanche was there in Obama. But it didn't change when President Trump became president. And it didn't change when Biden. It's all the same. So how did, how do you think since you were there for it? You're at DOJ. How did a lifelong Democrat who worked in the most corrupt, uh, division in the country, SDNY? How did that guy become attorney general? Well, by the way, it gets worse because this is the way that it works. You're in those offices. And then you leave them and you go to white collar defense at the high level. You see, white collar defense at the high level, in my opinion, is just lobbying because they hire all of the former prosecutors. So then you hire the former prosecutors and then they know their friends. And then you could horse trade and, uh, and help people. So that's, uh, so, so he left and he went to Wilmer Hell. Yeah. Just a big law firm. Now Wilmer Hell, at the time he was there, he was a partner there. So was Robert Mueller. Robert Mueller and Todd Blanche were partners. And you could fact check me if I'm wrong on that one. But they were both partners at Wilmer Hell and I believe at the same time. And, um, and Wilmer Hell president Trump in this term early in his, uh, like in January, February of 2025, he put out an executive order about Wilmer Hell that says that their clearance is gone. They had clearance apparently. And they're gone because they're a weaponized, uh, you know, complete law fair firm that is for, you know, all the stuff that were against open borders and things like that. And, uh, and that that's Wilmer Hell. So there's an executive order that's still issued today against them. He left Wilmer Hell and he went to Cadwalder, which is no better. It's just another one of these firms. And then eventually he left and, uh, and he got the gig to represent president Trump in, in New York because he was charged with these 34 felonies in New York. Now you would think maybe if he did a great job, he got shot out 34 to zero. That he went down, President Trump went down on every single one of those counts. But apparently he gained President Trump's trust at that time. And he was appointed 3040. So he didn't succeed as Trump's lawyer. No, he failed. He was shut out. Yeah, 34 to zero did nothing. But let me look in his defense. I mean, yeah, no, it's impossible. But, but I say whatever he charged, I could have done better for cheaper. That's all I'm saying is that's I mean, but I'm saying all he did was profit from weaponization because he was a white collar criminal attorney who profits from the weaponization. They don't want anything to happen to the weaponization because it's a revolving door. You may get a prestigious relatively high paying job when it compares the rest of the country, uh, job is a prosecutor. Then you know, you're making 250 year maybe with all your benefits and all the prestige that goes along. Then that on your resume, you go to the white collar firms and then you can work as, uh, you know, on the other side of that and you're making millions of dollars from clients like President Trump and others and all these other people and the more they weaponize the better businesses. So you're not against weaponization and then and you make money because and you're a prestigious firm because you're able to get, uh, favorable plea deals for your client because you know the people involved. That's why you hire those firms. Yes. And then, uh, then you go from those jobs sometimes back to DOJ other times you get appointed to high level positions like Todd Blanche and that's, that's where he is and how he got to where he is. Now I say to, I always said like this is the best you could do. You couldn't find anyone who was part of the program and frankly they should have hired somebody older who is at the end of their career who's not afraid of, um, of the, you know, of the attorney grievance commission taking away their bar license or it's not afraid of getting smeared in the media and it's not afraid of what this will do to your career. Have somebody at the end of their career who's been with you since day one, somebody who's been with you since 2015 or earlier. Why would you take somebody who came on board literally at the last moment? We think about that. Like where was Todd Blanche on January 6, 2021? Was he with President Trump? Uh, you know, Washington, of course not. He was sitting in New York and, uh, I mean, he didn't have anything to do with the people who actually supported President Trump who would do anything for President Trump to so he could, uh, fulfill his agenda. So the, and that's routine. If you go, I would walk through the halls. of DOJ. And there are people there who worked for things like LawFair.com, which is a left-wing thing, the Brookings Institute, which is another left-wing thing. Imagine walking through Joe Biden or Kamala Harris DOJ and finding high-level attorneys from Turning Point USA who would never happen. Right. Well, here's a truth, a hard truth that modern technology is not yet solved. You can't be everywhere simultaneously. So your land, expensive gear you got, your loved ones could be miles away, you're not with them. But you're still responsible for protecting all of them. So what do you do? Well, maybe you get defend. Defend is a security system that runs on cellular networks, not Wi-Fi, or electrical outlets, and it secures any location. Whether you're watching over your house, your work site, your acres in the middle of nowhere, you are fully connected straight from your cell phone. You just mount it, you open the defend app, and you can go from there, you're instantly live. You don't have to choose a carrier, you don't have a binding contract, the plan is cheap, five bucks a month, they start, most people pay about ten bucks a month. And unlike big tech, defend, protect your privacy. It's an American company, it will not sell your data. So real security is pretty simple, it means having total control over what's yours no matter where you are. If you want to find out more, go to DefendSellCam.com and on the code Tucker for 20% off. Once again, that's DefendSellCam.com promo code Tucker. So this is like, it's within days of arriving at main justice in Washington that you realize that the swamp is not going to be drained. Well, I, I hoped it would, but yeah, I realized that I was alone voice in there, and nobody was doing it. Yeah, so so I started, first of all, I, I volunteered to be the civil rights representative on what was supposed to be the weaponization working group. Yeah, I remember that. Yeah. So, and now they're claiming Emily Covington, who's the head of the Office of Public Affairs, she just tweeted at me because I tweet about all these, a lot of criticism. She just tweeted back at me that I was never on the weaponization working group. I beg to differ. I think there's a lot of evidence that's in DOJ about it. And also what happened was, and this was very strange, another thing that was weird about what was going on in there. In, I want to say July of 2025, I had been at DOJ for a few months, and I had been through a few weaponization working group meetings to extent there were any and and NPR started calling me and started calling DOJ asking about me. And I didn't know how, you know, I had no Twitter presence at the time. I, you know, I didn't basically tell anyone. I didn't, I don't even think I told my wife was on the weaponization working group. And I didn't answer them at all. I don't know if DOJ gave a statement or didn't. And I went to DOJ. I told them right away. The NPR is looking at me. They said, yeah, we're aware. Don't worry about it. And then NPR put out a hit piece about me in July of 2025. And they said I was on the weaponization working group. I don't know how they knew that. And I said that to DOJ at the time. I said, how would they even know that there must be a leak in this office. And that's not the only time that that happened. And there was no interest in finding out who, who leaked that. But if they want to claim I wasn't on the weaponization working group, then somebody asked NPR how they knew I was on the weaponization working group. So what did it do the weaponization work? It didn't do anything there. I, to my memory, there were only a couple of meetings that that I went to. They were canceled most of the time. I don't remember any staff person who was, and this could all be confirmed by FOIA. Everything, if anybody wants to confirm this, it's all by FOIA. So I'm not divulging any secrets. Ask, if you want to ask, ask what the funding was for this. My suspicion is that zero dollars has been allocated towards this. You know, who are the staff people who are, who are just assigned to it? My suspicion is zero. I didn't, I certainly didn't meet anybody. And I go on LinkedIn and try and search and see if there's somebody who says that they're the, the head of the, you know, weaponization working group, you know, support staff or something mind you for the capital C unit. There was tons of staff. And it's on everybody's resume that they were on the capital C unit. So a weaponization working group. It was, there was nothing. They, they were supposed to put out quarterly reports on, including January 6th. No reports, to my knowledge, were ever put out on January 6th. And really, very few reports that all were put out. And we could talk about that later, because they just put one out a couple of days ago that's complete window dressing. But on this line, when I saw that nothing was happening, I started doing two things. Number one, I started writing reports and I was circulating them via the email so they could all be foyered. And, and I, because I said, we need to be looking into these things. And I would point out all of these stuff, nothing from anything sensitive or anything like that. Everything was from my own knowledge as a J6 attorney about what we should be looking into. And so I put out a couple and I was told under no uncertain terms. I was called in somebody's office and he said, you need to pause. That's what he told me. And I said, what are we doing? It's weaponization. He said, we know or aware. And he even said, I don't even disagree with what you're writing. Just we need to pause. Why? I don't know. And I did not get an answer. It was also then kind of told, hey, you can't know January 6th off. I was told that specifically. And I was like, that's crazy. By which they meant what? Like no looking into the response to January 6th to no kind of helping the victims of it. They knew I was crazy about January 6th. And they said, look, what were you here for? No January 6th. It's not your job. So I did that, the reports and the other thing that I did. Were you surprised by this? Yes. I was very shocked and I told them that. I said, I'm shocked. Like what are we here for? And even later as the story goes, you'll see, I express that. So I was shocked. And then the other thing that I did was I started bringing victims of weaponization, including January 6th, into the office. I had access to main justice, which is the main building, the RF Kennedy, you know, off of it, you know, main justice building. And by the way, beautiful building. It's like it at Hallis. Have you been? Yeah. Beautiful courtyard. It literally looks like a palace. And it's locked off from the public. It's only for like the select few. And that should not be that building should be open. And the DOJ lawyer should be in some dungeon somewhere, frankly. Yeah. There are no, no people's houses left to motion. No, there are not. And this one, when I, when I first went in, I'm just, I was like, I'm in the palace. Like this is crazy. Beautiful artwork everywhere. The library, beautiful library, everything. And just not for the people only first select few, you have to get special permission. And I was very against that. So I said, we're bringing them in. So, uh, so I would bring in victims of weaponization. And one of them, by the way, uh, apparently they liked and, uh, it became a very high profile case that, that got, uh, Harmeet did a big press release on. She, you know, and it was, it was one of their signature civil rights cases. But that's because that's a different story. But it went, it didn't go after government. I wanted to go after the prosecutors in that case, but they said, no, no, we don't do prosecutors. And we just went after other people. But, um, so, so that's really it right there. What you just said is kind of the key to everything. Yeah. So in order to drain the swamp, you really have to oppose the swamp. You have to go against the people with power. Yeah. But the story that you're telling suggests that the people who came into reform the system immediately became part of the system and then decided to defend the system. They didn't even become part of the system. They were the system. Todd Blanche and all of his deputies and everything like that are prosecutors. That's where they drew them from. They brought them from different, uh, United States, Tony's offices from all over the country. So they are the, it's not like they like me that they came from defending J sixers and were private practice and supported president Trump and everything like that. No, these are federal prosecutors in different offices who were just either competent prosecutors who they figured, you know, this is a guy at low in his career and will give him a promotion. And that's, that's who is running the, uh, the show. It's former prosecutors. That's, that's really what it is. What could, I mean, this is way above my pay grade, but like, what could possibly motivate a new administration that had been the victim of those very same prosecutors to put those people in charge? Like what, what could that be? I cannot figure it out for the life of me. I don't understand. President Trump in his public statements is very sympathetic to J six, to weaponization. And he's, you know, it's not enough in my opinion, but he has dripped out some pardons to people. And so, uh, Henry Queller and his wife, they were, uh, he was a congressman in a Democrat. And President Trump said this is, uh, they went after him only because he broke with the Democrats and immigration. That's what President Trump said. So President Trump pardoned Henry Queller, rightly in my opinion. And, uh, and but nobody in the Southern District of Texas got punished. Obviously somebody in the Southern District of Texas or in Washington, DC gave the order to go after a congressman and his wife because they broke with the Democrats on immigration. So good. President Trump, you parted in him. Did we fire the people? You know, it's not a secret that you could just go through the thing. One of them was promoted. I just looked on LinkedIn this morning just to make sure before I said it, one of the prosecutors of Henry Queller who's listed on the case was promoted. We know that this was weaponization after a political candidate for breaking ranks at the Democrats on open borders. So what is going on? Why wouldn't you, and that goes, I, let me tell you another story. I know I'm going all over the place, but hopefully your audience know, but the theme is cool here. Okay, good. Um, well, let me. Yeah. So what happened was when I was in DOJ, I'm going. all over the place, like bringing cases of weaponization left and right. One case that I brought, and I sent emails about this, was percolating on social media. There was a doctor named Kirk Moore in Utah, who was a hero, in my opinion. During COVID, in Salt Lake City, where he was practice was, they were making everyone get the COVID vaccine, including children, apparently. And you couldn't go to school. Your kids couldn't, and all kinds of things, and there were parents who just didn't want it. They had a mental drug on their children, but they didn't want to also not have them go to school. So Kirk Moore, heroically, in the spirit of the people who defied the Nazis, and I say that without hyperbola, the people who opposed the government and illegally hid people so that the Nazis wouldn't get them, Kirk Moore said, "I'm not going to let them do this to your children. Come to my office." And it was known. You come to his office, and instead of giving him the vaccine, he would squirt it out. And he actually, the government said this as a bad thing. He gave the kids a placebo, because he didn't want the kids, got for a bit to go to school, and somebody say, "Oh, were you vaccinating?" They said, "No, I didn't get a shot." So he made sure that the kids thought that they got a shot. And that's where we were at that time. It's such a horrifying thought that we forget, right, that they were so scared that their kids would give them away, and that they would be in trouble. So he didn't want the kids to be implicated in this at all. They didn't want them to have the life. They didn't want the kids to have the lie, or to, you know, have to worry about this. And he helped all these families. And somebody, I must have told somebody that, and got to the government, and they indicted him for, you want to know what they indicted him for, destruction of government property. Because that, that so valuable vaccine that they had millions of things, he didn't give it. He destroyed it instead of giving it to the person. So that's destruction of government property. Because there was no law that they can get him on, which is, that's the whole thing with weaponization. It's to show me the amount I'll find you the crime. Let's figure out how to get him. So he was going to trial in the summer of 2025, six months into the Trump administration. Dr. Kirkmore was being charged, led by federal prosecutor Todd Boughton in federal court. And he was facing 35 years in prison. No way, yes. And what happened was, it was all over, there were protests every day outside the court house, while the trial was going on, it was all over media. There was a bunch of podcasters, one of them, my friend Daniel Harwitz was really all over this story. But many, many people were really trying to get the attention of everybody. And then all of a sudden, and I was, I was sending emails because I said, hey, I'm hearing about this case, you know, Kirkmore, I was telling people, this is one of many cases that I was telling about, nothing, nothing, nothing, and one day out of nowhere, Pembondi tweets, I just found out about the case of Dr. Kirkmore from Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was still in the good graces at that time. This is horrifying. It should never happen. I'm ordering the prosecution and the, and the, to dismiss the charges against him. They were in the middle of trial. It was going to be a two week trial. They had finished the first week. They were going to do second week. They just came back to court the next day, and they said, go home. And that was the end of it with the stroke of a pen. It was done. And that story tells you so much, but one of the things it tells you is that so many people in this country can be freed from this political persecution with the stroke of a pen. They'll tell you, oh, it's a process. You need to go here. You need to fill out your pardon application. It needs to go through this office, and that it is a lie from the very top, either from White House or from the top of DOJ, they could, with the stroke of a pen and these things. And they're not. Pambondi to her credit. And did that case when she heard about it from Marjorie Taylor Greene. I was, I applauded it. And she actually even brought, I, I've spoken to Kirkmore now, a great man. And Pambondi brought him to the, to the justice department and spoken. Now he's trying to advocate for other cases. But, but that, that was going on. And she's saying, as Attorney General, that she had no idea about the case. Now Todd Boughton was the prosecutor in that case. Okay? You think anything happened to him? He's still there. And I looked at his other cases. There was an individual who I've never met, never spoken to. His name is Nick Cioto. During that same period, Nick Cioto was making very good vaccine passport cards, fake ones. Yeah. That he was charging, he was making like $2 a piece on them or something like that. They found out about him. They charged him and he didn't break any law and they charged him and they sentenced him. And he definitely, I did the math on his time. He definitely reported to prison while President Trump was already sentenced. He sent, he sent to prison and he has to pay some like tens of thousands of dollars of restitution, which we'll probably have to pay for the rest of his life. And now he's a felon and he spent time in prison. He's probably out now and I read his probation. He's still on probation. He's on very, very strict probation conditions. So now this poor man who under necessity created something and helped people essentially, didn't break any laws, was politically targeted under Biden, continued under Trump, spent his time in prison and now is on probation and his paying restitution for what he did. President Trump could get rid of that with a stroke of a pen. And I usually say this at the end of interviews, I'll say it right now. President Trump, if you're watching this, you can be the great emancipator. If you look into these cases, you can save tens of thousands of Americans from prison, from being branded felons for life, from endless restitution, from federal indictment, just turn your eyes inward and look at the DOJ, start auditing office by office and have outsiders independently review these cases, tell the prosecutors hands off and audit them. And you will find tens of thousands of people like Dinesh D'Souza, like Henry Queller, like many of the people that you have said were grave injustice and were indicted and now their lives are destroyed. You can restore their lives. And if you do that, even if you start now, you still have two years, your second term will be known forever as the great emancipation. And a hundred years from now, on top of everybody's mantelpiece of all the people and their families and descendants and communities that you have saved and redeemed from this prison, then they will look up to you like Abraham Lincoln and Moses. And it will be the best thing in your legacy, better than anything else that you could hope for. And you need to start now, because we are running out of time. You know, there's no way around it. And a small business needs capital to grow, whether your company is stocking up on inventory or repairing things, hiring more workers, you got to have cash. So where should businesses get that money? Well, you need to trust a partner, obviously big banks are not the answer, getting loans from family, couldn't work really well, but could also be very, very complicated. So if you don't want to do any of that, we recommend Cardiff. Cardiff's application takes only a few minutes. We can get approved and funded the same day, it's a simple process, it's fast, it respects your time. Cardiff doesn't lecture you about how their company is gay during pride month. They don't care. That's not why they're here. They're here to grant trust for the loans, they've done it for two decades, over $12 billion to small business. They've been in business for at least one year and make at least $20,000 in revenue. That's revenue, not profit, right? If that's you, you can apply right now for up to $1/2 million in funding same day. That sounds too good to be true, but it's actually real and it can give your company the boost your company needs. If you want to know more, go to cardiff.co/tucker, cardiff.co/tucker. Real growth, fast funding, borrow better with Cardiff. Well, in order for that to work, there would need to be some systematic effort of the Department of Justice to identify weaponization, identify injustice and bring those again in a systematic way to the White House, so the president who is the unique power department could do that. Under the current arrangement, which I've heard about in great detail from a lot of people, it's totally haphazard and it relies on getting the president's attention and convincing him to pardon. That has allowed an entire economy to grow up where lawyers approach desperate families and say, for this amount of money, $250,000, half a million dollars, a million dollars, I will get you a pardon. That has allowed people like Alan Dershowitz and a bunch of others, Brett Tolman, to start this sideline business getting pardons and getting rich doing it and I feel like that's not a justice system. You said it, it's created the economy and by the way, so many people are implicated in this right now and I don't know what assurances they have that if when there's a new administration, the DOJ is not going to turn around and indict all of those people and but but here's the thing. But is that the system as it is now that is 100% what's going on right now and I will tell you, yes, you can pay for access, but you can't necessarily pay for results. Yeah, the hundreds of thousands of dollars and you just hope and there's no invoice, there's no bill. It's just $100,500,000. No, the less you charge, the less likely you are to get the gig. You have to charge 500,000 so they know the client, the desperate client thinks you're serious. I have Todd Blanche on my speed dial. I know clients, yeah, they've told me that they've hired people. not my clients. Then, and they say, I've top lunch on my speed dial, hire me. I'm going to get a right to his desk. You'll be fine. They pay something like three to five hundred thousand dollars with a million or two million dollar success fee if they get the charges dropped or they get the pardon. Now, if that allegation is out there and I didn't make that allegation, you didn't make that allegation. That's been in the New York Times. I mean, there are. I know people who've paid the money. Five. So do I. I know lots of them. But here's the thing. President Trump could destroy all those. If you destroy the economy by just opening it up and letting even people who don't have five hundred thousand dollars get access, do just, you know, inflation, you know, supply and demand. If everybody has access, then nobody will pay for it. Access is something that's impossible to quantify and it's impossible to, you know, you say, I have access. Well, how do I know if you do? Right? So I'm going. So if you're a famous person and the people I know selling access are well known, then like, I'm a desperate family. I want my husband out of prison. I'll pay you. That's right. And it's so predatory. And I'll tell you, it works the other way also because I wanted to get into this. So I represent a group that is being completely treated unfairly. They're called Return to the Land. And we'll talk about this more. I hope so. Return to the Land is a group of people who, it returns to land is actually a just an association of a thousand people nationwide that it's like an online community for people who identify with European heritage. Right. So a small group of them started an intentional community in rural Arkansas where they raise goats. It's like it's a few families. It's a, you know, a couple dozen people. And, and they're struggling to raise money. They don't, they don't have anything. And, and they, they're just trying to raise their goats. And they do their podcasts where they talk about their philosophy, which the Justice Department may or may not agree with or whatever, but you should have nothing to do with their activity. And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, the Justice Department, not for, it starts with the Arkansas government and then goes to the Justice Department and HUD, they hit them with four separate ongoing, nebulous investigations. One of them is an Arkansas of securities investigation, where they're not even a security, but it's just an open-ended investigation forever. Now, it is impossible to do business if you are under the microscope of a state or federal agency for fraud, essentially. Now, they've done nothing and they've never been accused of actually even doing anything. And that's been ongoing for a long time. Now, I'm confused. So these are people who want to live near each other because they have something in common, which I think was allowed in the United States and there are plenty of communities. In fact, some of, honestly, some of the best communities of which I'm not a part and not allowed in, but some of our best communities are like that. And the government is going after them on what grounds. That's the problem. Also, they're claiming that there's a fair housing act violation, but they don't sell housing. They don't advertise for housing. And the government barely hasn't even accused them. There's not even been a complainant. And just to give you an idea, which there's no, they're not even identifying a victim of this. No, there's no victim. There's one civil lawsuit against them of a lady who tried to join the membership organization of a thousand people. And she was a leftist activist and they declined to let her in. She never approached the people who actually own the land, never approached them, doesn't alleged that she even approached them. And she's suing them civilly. So I'm representing them. I'm defending them in the civil lawsuit, but we've also sued harmy Dylan and others because they've opened up all these open-ended investigations with no identifiable harmy Dylan, who they're claiming that they're solving all the DEI for all these activists and everything that you know that have been inside the government for all these years. And and by the way, Greg Trainor, who we're also suing, he's that of HUD. He's he wrote an article make fair housing fair again or something of that nature. And he wrote that in April of 2025, around the time that we were also being investigated, in terms of that, these guys were being investigated. And he said that it's been a racial spoil system. It's been operating like an NGO. It picks winners and losers. It goes after enemies for free speech. He said that. Meanwhile, his agency is going after them two separate investigations from the federal government, DOJ civil rights and HUD. Harmy Dylan's side the one in HUD in DOJ. And what grounds would Harmy Dylan go after these people in Arkansas? Probably doesn't even know about it. It's some deep stator who has an agenda. But at the same time, she goes on, well, he shows all the time and she's saying that we're cleaning up all the anti white discrimination. This is absolutely anti white discrimination. You want to hear something there, a private membership organization, large ones called Return to the Land. Now that's not what their intentional community is called, totally separate entity. There is a a black group called Black to the land. Yeah. It's almost identical. They're not under, you know, fair housing act. You have to be black to be a part of it. It says on their website, we're for black people to get away and to have safety and, you know, and to have their own community, which I support. And the same way I support my clients. But this only goes one way. There were complaints. There were actual complaints. Wait, Harmy does not go after them. To my knowledge, I haven't seen anything about black to the land. There's no case number that I can see. I mean, I'd be surprised maybe in discovery. We'll learn, no, no, we're doing this fairly, but I suspect that they're not. I'm Jewish. There are Jewish communities that advertise in Jewish newspapers that say we want to start intentional communities in, you know, the in North Carolina or wherever and come and join us and it'll be great. And all the amenities that you would need. There's a community in Texas called Epic and Epic. There's been, there were actual complaints against Epic, real complaints. And Harmy opened an investigation. And two months later, she closed it. Now, Epic is a massive development. That's like a $40 million project or it's raised that much money. And it's hundreds and hundreds of actual units that they're building and developing. Who's it for? I've never heard of it. They say it's for Muslims. It's, it's, it's going to be surrounding a mosque. And it's very similar to, let's say, where we're Jewish community. And it's, you know, it's for Muslims. And it's a big development that they're doing. It's called Epic and it's in Texas. So DOJ got a complaint, an actual complaint. They opened up an investigation. They, they looked into the investigation. And two months later, Harmy said, you know what? We don't see anything here. We're closing it. Now, they are a massive project where there was an actual complaint. We are, you know, my clients are a small intentional community on an undeveloped piece of land. They haven't gotten any permits. They have in, they're just like living in homesteading. And they, and they, you know, they live in cabins and, and people commonly. And the civil rights division is pouncing on them. So one of the most powerful interests in the world really fear is not climate change. It's the truth. They don't want a population that knows it or repeats it. They want a population that is docile and easy to command. They maintain power by distracting you with some sparkly new version of current events. They show you a small slice of a picture. So over 50 years, with this in mind, we've been told the very same story about Iran. It's an ancient religious nut to hate our country because we're free. They chant death to America. We never ask why. Well, here's really don't tell you. Iran was once one of this country's closest allies, but something changed. Before even the hostage crisis of 1979, what was that? It's worth knowing. We spent weeks studying America's relationship with the Rummy come through to classified CA documents. We talked to a lot of experts. And what we found is fascinating. It reveals a lot. Watch Operation Ajax, the true history of the broken U.S. Iran alliance. It's now at Tucker Carlson.com. The civil rights division is bouncing on them. They don't advertise anything for sale. Epic advertise they did for sale. And I'll tell you what worse. Listen to this. This is crazy. This is really. This is all in the lawsuit. The HUD, when they did their investigation, they sent us a letter and they accidentally put into our envelope a letter to Epic that was supposed to go to Epic. The Muslim community in Texas. Now, we're in Arkansas. We got our letter that was dated the same day. We eventually got our letter. Their letter is very apologetic. It says we're so sorry. There's a complaint. We have a statutory duty to investigate every complaint that comes against you. But here are all your rights. And it's going to be a limited investigation. And if we don't find anything after a certain time, we're going to close the investigation. And if you want, we can conciliate, which means that we could maybe we'll come to some kind of agreement. In the end, Harmeet dismissed the civil rights investigation against them because they three things, I think they said they hadn't gotten any permits. They're still in the early stages of planning. And they're going to amend their advertising to say it's for everyone. My clients got none of that. Their letter was accusatory from the start. It's no victim at all. They the it goes one of the things that they're investigating or two of the things that they're investigating are private solo member LLCs that once a handyman business, the others in excavation company that just belong to these people. And one of them was a fictional entity that doesn't even exist. And and and it's just like you did this wrong. Not only that. And they all got this all from activist journalists who sent this to them. It all came from activist journalists. Journalists. Activist journalists. They got screenshots from the internet archive that you know, in other words, they just like we're digging deep and saying you one time on on returns of the land's website. Mind you, they're an attentional community. There's nothing to do with it. They have no website. They don't do any advertising. Returns of the land is a private membership organization that's totally first amended protected. And they so they say, oh, we we found these screenshots where you said something that could be construed possibly as that you guys are somehow advertising for these guys. And by the way, ignoring that there was a big legal disclaimer on the website that said, we are not a, you know, for a sale of land. Now, all of these investigations, four separate investigations, okay, two from the Arkansas, one of them securities, securities investigations are incredibly expensive because you need a very specialized attorney to deal with. Yeah. And then two civil rights, one from HUD and one from civil rights, all four still open right now. Open ended have not found anything wrong, zero. That's undisputed. And they wouldn't conciliate with us. They wrote us a letter to conciliate. They said, we'll let you out of this. If you give $40,000 to a victim compensation fund that we get to decide who the victims are and give it out, that's the racial spoil system. What? That Greg Trinner, $40,000, $10,000, they've never been accused of victimizing anyone. Nobody $40,000 to a victimization fund and a $10,000 fine. Now, who's going to give out the money, who's going to administrative, where's the money going to go? No information on that. Greg Trinner, the head of HUD, President Trump's appointee, he said this, he said that it's a racial spoils system, where essentially they go after these white people and they collect money from them, extract money at gunpoint. And then they just distribute it to whoever the heck they want to distribute it to, even though nobody ever complained. And they wanted $50,000 from these people who barely can raise any money at all, who have nothing. I mean, they are bleeding money for all these investigations. And they called me up and they told me about their case. And I said, definitely, I want to be a part of this because I think that this is going to be one of the great civil rights cases of our generation because it's horrifying. Has anyone taken your side in this? Anyone with power anywhere? No. And that's what I'm getting back to access. I know, Harmito, and I have our email address, you know, to DOJ. I know the people underneath there. I know who's in charge of special litigation, who is the one signing off on all this stuff. I've emailed them. And I said to them, hey guys, we need to do something about this case right now. This is horrifying. It's a bad look for DOJ. If you're trying to say that you're ending anti-white discrimination, I guess you could start first by ending it within the DOJ and getting rid of this. So no answer. Before I filed a lawsuit, email after email after email. No answers from them. Just completely ignored me because you know what? I don't have access. So I can't. But you just work there this year. I know. Well, I've been a little critical of them. I don't know if you know about that. But yeah, we'll get to that. But the point that you're making is not related to anyone's personal grudges or personalities. I mean, you're describing a principle that Trump ran on. I mean, I would think it would be President Trump himself said that J6ers have been, they were destroyed by weaponization and dirty cops. What does that mean? If he has any input into what the DOJ should look like, then we should be, that should be a priority. We should be looking it out and carving it out. And you know what? A lot of people would have to be fired from DOJ because hundreds and hundreds of lawyers were brought from all 50 states to be part of the Capitol siege unit. The FBI agents, if I showed you what I know from the discovery of some of my clients, the amount of surveillance that they were subjected to by the FBI, the amount of agents that participated in pre-duan raids on people, not even for misdemeanors. Siyaka Masakwa, you know, he is, he's a, so Siyaka was a J6er. He walked into the building for 30 seconds. A cop saw him said, hey, you turn around. He said, okay, no problem. And he walked and he left. And that was the end of it. And he didn't know he wasn't supposed to be there. They got him on, before they even arrested him on a search warrant. They, and they were surveilling him. He was speaking at political events. They were surveilling him at political events. And I mean, so many people, and that was all the FBI field office in Los Angeles. And I could breathe out a hundred page report about the FBI field office in Los Angeles and why it should be shut down. And on the same topic, the FBI field office in Minneapolis that allowed BLM, that allowed, you know, anti-ice protests to attack federal officers. All these things never went after people. And, and then, you know, when they wanted to go after Don Lemon, because he walked into a church or something like that. So for that, people left. They said, oh, I'm not going to take part in this, right? All of those people, there were J6ers, including Victoria White. Victoria White was a single mom from Minnesota who went to Washington, D.C. She's on video. Heroically, there were these, these antifa-like guys in Black Block who were trying to smash a window. And nobody was doing anything because people were scared of a provocator who was actually there with a, you know, to cause harm. That person was never arrested. Victoria, a small single mother with children at home, tackled the guy. And yes, it's all on video and starts screaming at him and pushed him away from the building. Then she was caught up in the Malay. She was punched in the face repeatedly by a police officer Jason Bagshaw on video. And she was dragged through within an inch of her life. She'll never be the same. She was permanently entered from it. And she was forced to, Laura Logan did a whole piece on Victoria White. I encourage everybody to look at it. She was forced to plead guilty because she had little children who would become orphans. And, and they got her on a felony, a ridiculous felony for, and she absolutely could have gone to trial. And I think that she could have been, she of the, all the J6 or she could have been acquitted. Had they, the judge actually let her show the evidence, didn't matter. She pled guilty because, you know, her life was so destroyed by it and everything like that. Then she sued. And the, and the D.C. Court threw it out and said she sued the police for beating the beating, beating her up. And the, no, no, she pled. And in her plea deal, she basically says that she's an insurrectionist and a rioter and everything like that. So, so her, her loss, it was thrown out. So I'm saying, she was arrested in Minneapolis. That field office, that, that refuses to go after BLM, refuses to go after anti-ice, that this, and our, and our co tyranny that people talk about where it's one standard of justice for one political group and another, for another one, that all exists. And you could go office by office by office and show all of this. And that's why J6 is such a bad topic for them because it involves every office. There was no office. I, I heard, and I don't want to say this, but there were a few people in few offices. There were some brave people who said when it came to their desk, they said, I'm not going to participate in this. Okay, that, and that's a very high level, I think. We don't know of anybody who stood up and said, not only am I not going to participate, I'm going to go to the press and tell you about this. That never happened. So why can't we start investigating it? We have the White House. The White House is the, our only chance of gaining the, the executive branch. And President Trump is the best possible candidate we could ever hope for because he was a victim of it. If we don't go after it now in these next two years, we will probably never have another chance. So I just want to cycle back a little bit to your experience at DOJ. Like you come in, I think with the purist motives, you come in because you've been so focused on the injustices done to the J6 defendants and you find out in short, there's not going to be like a real effort to help them. You're working for another, I think, idealistic appointee, Army Dillon of the Civil Rights Division, then you're working directly for her, I think. What are your conversations like with her? So I was Senior Council, which I think sounds fancier than it is. Essentially, a lot of us, but essentially, I really dealt with her through Chief of Staff and her deputies. So I didn't interact with her so much, although I think I said earlier, I definitely think that she liked me before she didn't, because whenever I did interact with her, it was always positive. And I liked her, frankly, and she brought me as her plus one to the very select Hanukkah party at the White House. And that was in December that was shortly before I left. So what happened was I was going around the building and I wasn't going directly to her meat, but I was going to anybody who would listen and I would bring in victims of weaponization. I brought in J-Sixers. I brought Enrique Tario into the building. Enrique Tario is a J-Sixer who was charged without even being there. And he was sentenced to 22 years in prison for conspiracy to obstruct a official proceeding. And he wasn't even there. And his allegation, frankly, is horrifying. His allegation that he makes in a lawsuit, and he said this publicly many times, I think you should have him on your show, because he has a very compelling story, was that he was basically thrown in prison pre-trial. He was arrested very early. And a prosecutor said to him, essentially, that all this can go away if you will just implicate President Trump and will basically say the President Trump put you up to this, which was absurd, and it would have been a lie. He did not do that. As a result, they held him pre-trial for years. They shuttled him around the country, which is called diesel therapy, which is a horrible routine procedure that they do, where they shuttled you from jail to jail, because very disruptive, but just when you get settled in one place, they move you to another, and they do it to kind of shake you up and shake you down, essentially. And he didn't, he wouldn't falsely sign a plea deal, and they went to trial, and he lost, obviously, in the DC Court, where nobody could possibly win, and the judge sentenced him to 22 years in prison. It's a horror of two years. 22 years, he got 22 years. years. Thank God he's out now. So and he's suing the federal government. He's alleging this. But what I brought him through the building with others who were also victims, other J6ers, other people who were indicted for other things that I learned about. And I would take him in some people where, you know, we're interested in the story, but like they weren't not my problem. I'm not getting involved. I'm not on that. And other people you could tell were just very like nervous because they are prosecutors and they know, in my opinion, that, that these are routine tactics that are used. In Reke's story is not something that is difficult to prove. And it's not like we don't have thousands of people who can attest to it, thousands, thousands of people you could feel stadium with the people that could give testimony on, on the kind of things that he's alleging. So I was bringing people like that around and then one of them, essentially, maybe I went into the wrong office or something and I got reported on. So, got reported on, what does that mean? So I got, I got, I got a call basically from Harmeets Chief of Staff and Harmeet wanted to see me about it. And they were, they were, and she said, why are we getting yelled at by the ODAG, which is the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, which was Todd Blanch at the time. That office is telling us why is one of your attorneys going around and doing this stuff, whatever it was. So I explained. I said, these are victims of weaponization. I had nothing to hide. It's not like I snuck people into the building. I checked with security. Their names were, I didn't give them fake names or anything. They had to give their IDs and clear and I brought them in. And I said, these are victims of weaponization and we should bring them in. Because we're against weaponization, right? You would think. And then what happened was I was told by Harmeet in her office where she said, the only reason somebody like that should be coming into the office is with their lawyer to basically give a proper meaning they're ready to plead guilty. But, but what you're doing is wrong. And I said, wait, what? I said that. I even, I think I even said this to her. I said to her, this is a civil rights issue. You know, we're civil rights attorneys. I said, this is why I said this. I said, this is absolutely weaponization. So she said, it doesn't matter where the DOJ now. And I said, but many, much of this happened under Biden. She said, it doesn't matter. We are the DOJ. We protect the DOJ. And she said that out loud out in front of other people in front of her principal deputy and her chief of staff. And I was shocked. I was stunned. And I said, what is their recourse? And she said to me, they need to hire these people who you know have access. And she didn't say those words, but she said, you hired, you know, some person who has friends in the White House or otherwise. And then that's how you deal with it. But if they're going to come into the building, it's only with a proper to plead guilty. Are you kidding? That actually, that happens. It was shocking to me. So basically she's saying that not only we're not going to make any effort to reform this corrupt system, our job is to defend the corrupt system. And if you want justice, you have to pay effectively a bribe. I mean, that's basically what you're paying a lobbyist. I would call it a ransom, a ransom. And I was very shocked by that. And she does, she does interviews all the time. I hope that this interview gets enough attention. I would love to hear her side story. I will. I hope I would love to hear her side of the story. I've been told that her side of the story is that I was fired from misconduct and unethical things. I have my report that when I, when I eventually quit. And I got it. And it says there's no disciplinary anything on it. It's perfect. And it says at the bottom, thank you for your service to the Department of Justice is appreciated or something like that. At the bottom of me, the unethical, why would it be unethical to bring a victim of weaponization into an agency that had declared its opposition to weaponization? I think it would be unethical for me not to do that. I mean, I think that these people are victims. Their lives are destroyed, destroyed. And they, you know, like I said, they're under indictment. What that does to your family, what that does to your community. Their careers are destroyed forever. They can go to prison. They can pay endless restitution. They're branded founds for life. I mean, if I am aware of a case that I think I look at the case I review it. And I say, oh my gosh, this is absolutely weaponization. There's no articulable crime. There's no identifiable victim. And there's a clear motive that there's some political reason that is obvious on its face. So when I see something like that, I would think that I would be morally obligated and ethically obligated to bring that to the attention of my superiors and to say we need to do something about that. You'd be celebrated and rewarded for doing that. That's the whole reason people voted for Donald Trump to drain the swamp and end corruption in Washington. And then you have the head of the Civil Rights Division, whom I've known for decades. And I've always liked enormously my personal lawyer, by the way, looking at you right in the face and saying we are the DOJ. Our job is to defend the DOJ. That really happened. Yes. And there were two people in the room when it happened. And to the extent if she denies it that it didn't happen, you know, once again, what motive did I have? I was not taking money. I never took a penny from anybody for these kinds of things. Why would I bring these people into DOJ, bring them around from office to office, let her produce the reports that I wrote and show the public what I was doing. I would love to see that I wrote reports and I sent them to Colin McDonnell to at the time was Todd Blanche's, like right hand deputie, who's now been promoted to the assistant attorney general for fraud. And I sent these reports to him. And I said, I want you to look into these things. And I told him orally, also other things that I put in email. I told him a case, I'll mention, I can mention 100 cases all day. There was a guy named Ken Ravino. Well, by the way, as a Democrat, he was a black man who grew up in grinding property, the children of sharecroppers. He grew up to become one of the best criminal defense attorneys in all of Maryland. And he won. And the United States attorney's office, in my opinion, did not like that. So what they did was there was a foreign national international drug dealer who was doing 25 years in prison, who can had some relationship to his representation while he was a criminal defendant. They went to him serving three years or four years of his 25-year sentence. And they said, how'd you like to get out? And they made him the star witness against Ken Ravino. And they said, essentially, that, listen to this. This is what the indictment says. It's so crazy. They said that Ken Ravino was a conspirator because he told this criminal defendant that if he wanted to get away with his crimes, it would be better to use cash instead of other means of payment. And it would be better to meet in person than to talk on the phone. That's what they alleged was Ken Ravino's advice that made him a conspirator in his criminal defendant's clients crimes. So they bring out the drug dealer who is now free. He was a foreign national. He was serving 25 years in prison. And now he's free. And they locked up Ken Ravino. He beat all the charges except for one or two of the charges. And it didn't matter because you beat most of the charges. That's one of the tricks the government uses routinely where they charge you with 10 things. And Jerry says, well, I'm sure he did something. So they charge you with one of them. You're not 10% guilty. You're 100% guilty. He's in federal prison right now. He's a senior citizen. He has health problems. And he was a very respected person, a lawyer, a great lawyer who saved a lot of people. And now he's in prison. That's going on. I was telling people about cases like that. And I was going through the building. People were sick of me, frankly, but I didn't care. I said, I'm here. And this is my job to do this. Any case that I found out about I was trying to tell people orally and somebody put in writing, they set the Decomic Donald. I have those reports. If Army Dillon wants to respond to this and say that I was fired for some other reason, by the way, I was never fired. And I'll get to that. Let her produce to the public. My reports that I wrote let them see what I was reporting on. So I think a normal person, just a normal like me. I'm pretty normal. I hear that story about the lawyer, the Democrat lawyer, Black guy, Ravino from Maryland. And I instantly feel sympathy for the man. I think that's a normal response. I don't think you need to be special to feel empathy at all. Did you ever get the sense that people in charge over there felt empathy for the lives being destroyed? No person in authority who could help these people, in my opinion, had empathy because if they did, they could get rid of these cases with the stroke of a pen. Ken Ravino could be sent home tomorrow, as can so many other people, just like Dr. Kirkmore was. It's the stroke of a pen to let these guys go. Look into the case. Have somebody independent. Look into the case. You know what happens with the stupid pardon applications? They tell you, oh, fill out your pardon application. You don't need the pardon application. No. You don't need that at all. You think Darryl Strawberry filled out a pardon application. It's not how it works. They tell you fill out the pardon application. You know what they do with that? The first thing, let's call the prosecutor and ask them. The whole point of the pardon application is to say, this is totally unfair. What is the prosecutor's going to say, yeah, you're right about that. Of course not. Why should the pardon? Why should the prosecutor have any input? Not only do they have input, I think they have the most input. If the prosecutor says, no, this was good. Don't even touch that one. Then that person rocks in prison. The prosecutor's the one who did it in the first place. Correct. Why would you solicit his opinion? Good question, especially if you're president Trump, who these prosecutors went after? So I've had a bunch of people come to me before no one comes to me now, but in the last year, can you call Trump? Because I need a partner. My friend needs a partner, whatever. I'm not against that, but I didn't in this term because I felt it was getting so transparently sleazy. that anybody connected to the pardon thing is going to be in trouble at some point. It's just, "Ooh, my spuddy senses went off." It feels very corrupt the way this is working. I think I said this earlier in the interview. If they want to get rid of that specter and shadow of corruption, all they need to do is actually look into these cases and do them, they could be doing 100 a week, 1000 a week. Just looking into these cases. Bringing justice. You mean real justice. Yeah. Saving people who shouldn't be in prison in the first place. Let's look. Is there any dispute? There was a book written by Harvey Silverglake called Three felonies a Day. Did you ever read that? Okay. No, but I remember the book. You don't have to read it. Just the title. Three felonies a day. Essentially, if the government wants to go after you, every one of us is violating at least three felonies a day. It's just a question of what Stalin said. Show me the man. I'll find you the crime. So we all know this to be true. For some reason, the public still gives the presumption of good faith to the federal prosecutors. I don't know why that is, but that said, President Trump shouldn't let him turn his eyes inward and look at office by office and appoint outside people like me, like others who have been critical. And let's look at these cases. Let's look for once again cases where there's no art, art, art, art, articulable crimes. Some complicated securities, Ponzi-like scheme. That's a big thing that they do. Let's look for no identifiable victims. And number three is, is there some kind of circumstance of motive that this could have been political? Dinesh D'Souza is the perfect example. You can give that easily. There's no art, articulable crime. It's campaign finance violation. Campaign finance violation. We should get rid of it. It's inherently political. It only targets politics. It's selectively enforced. And essentially, George Soros can give a billion dollars because he has the right lawyers to do it. And D'Souza can't give 15,000 because he's not, he's basically the people who should, who are actually tampering with our elections or the ones who are getting away with it because they have the best lawyers. Exactly. So it's inherently political. Who was the victim? The voters are the victim. There was no victim. 15,000 dollars in a political campaign in New York City doesn't even pay for one like, you know, fundraiser in a thing. He committed no crime and he went to jail. So obviously, that's political weaponization. It's not hard to identify. That's what I'm saying. I'm so brazen about it because there's been no oversight to this that I bet you there are probably even emails that implicate them like smoking gun emails if there would be a real investigation of these people. So why not? I just, I'm still confused by the motive. So Trump is the victim of weaponization of the justice system. There's no question about that. It's one of the reasons a lot of people supported Trump when they saw his wife's underwear drawer get rated at Mar-a-Lago three summers ago was like, this is ridiculous. So why wouldn't the administration do everything it could to expose the crimes of the previous administration and reform the system? I don't get it. I'm going to go back to my earlier answer that the people that they put in charge of doing it are the people, the very people who who did it. Who did it? Yeah. So why would you think that they would put them in charge? Like, okay, let's specifically on January 6th. That is a absolute red line. There's no question about it. Like you cannot push too hard on January 6th. That's just a, it's still an inflamed wound. What are they hiding from January 6th? They're hiding everything. I mean, we can go into just the terror watch list. They were all put on the terror watch list. The terror watch list exists. It's called the terror screening center and it's a division of the FBI, which is under DOJ. FBI is under DOJ. I don't know that and essentially, it's a one-man show essentially. All you need is reasonable suspicion that somebody is a terrorist, which is anything because any trespasser who was anywhere in the vicinity of the Capitol, that's reasonable suspicion that they're a terrorist. They were all put on the terror watch list just to punish them. It was just, it was punishment. You don't have notice of it until you go to the airport to fly and you have four S's on your thing or until local law enforcement who's disseminated to pulls you over with guns drawn because you had a tail light and they get a thing that you're a terrorist and that's happened to people. I intend to file a lawsuit about that. That's my next lawsuit that's going to come out and it's still persists. So the terror watch list is this, it's a database, do we know who's in it? No. It's hidden from us. We don't know anything about it, but it's disseminated to, as far as we know, to local law enforcement partners, to foreign governments. You could be detained and I know J-Sexer who was, you traveled overseas, he was detained. He didn't know why, but he knew why, obviously, but they don't tell you and they just detained him in a foreign country. I know people have been pulled over and the cops actually admitted to them that, yes, you know you're a terrorist, you're labeled as a terrorist. These people could have been killed. If you think about that, you're a local cop, you don't know, it's the difference and you get a flash that says you're a terrorist. And by the way, I mean, you have no way to appeal it. There's no one to turn to. Do you know that you're on it? No. You don't know that you're on it until you kind of find out, but no. And so you don't get notice that you're on the terror watch list, but foreign governments and local police departments get notice, but you don't know. You have no idea. And do you think that that information, the factor on the terror watch list, is sent to non-governmental entities? It's possible. Let's find out, right? You would think that that's what the Trump administration would go into and that was one of the things that I wanted to talk about. And I believe it's one of my reports that I hope gets released to the public is that I talked about the terror watch list. And I said, what are we going to do about this? Are we going to do it? What are the weaponization working group? Can we look into the terror watch list? It's the easiest low-hanging fruit in the entire world. Because if you break it open, it's the most enormous civil rights violation that you could ever imagine. It basically creates a social credit score because essentially, you're put on a list that can affect you in a million different ways. You're put on just with the click of a button and you're taken off by a click of a button. And all the J6ers were put on it. And then there was no directive to do this. But when President Trump pardoned them, they were all taken off. Will they all be put on the minute there's a new administration? Maybe there's nothing that prevents that. Are you on it? I don't know. Am I on it? I have no idea. So why can't we know who's on it? Nobody's even raising the question. I was in DOJ. And I- Where's Emily Dillon here at the Civil Rights Division on this question? You would think. Look, the federal government is by far and away without rival the largest violator of civil rights in the country. It is the biggest. There's no local government that can violate your civil rights as well as the- There's no intentional community in Arkansas that could- Yeah, exactly, yeah, exactly. So you would think that the Civil Rights Division would be going after it. They're going after- I'll say that they're going after things like DEI and anti-white discrimination. So they say, but they'll go to a few colleges and say, "Hey, your admissions are a little wrong. So a few people in Harvard can get in who- who got in. Oh, good. We could rest peacefully at night." But then they're targeting a small group of- of Arkansas's who just want to move into a rural community and raise goats. They are supposedly going after the trans agenda we were told. Everybody's applauding them. Oh, the trans agenda. It's wonderful. Going after the trans agenda. There's a woman in California named Shayna Gaviola. Shayna Gaviola's son in California was in a public school where in California they are secretly, socially transitioning these kids and indoctrinating them into the cult of the LGBTQ transgender thing. She learned about it too late, unfortunately. They had already gotten the kid to move out of the home and they got a protective order. She was able to get him out and get him to a deprogramming school in Missouri. Well, she violated protective order interstate, so the federal government arrested her and charged this single mother of trying to save her child from this cult that's supposedly our federal government now is against. And she is now today in federal prison. She reported just a few weeks ago. What? Her name is Shayna Gaviola and it's horrifying. Wait, this was her child. This was her child that was taken from her and they got a protective order because the child was in high school and was indoctrinated into this cult and she tried to rescue him from the cult and get him to a deprogramming school that was in a different state. And for doing that, she violated federal law by violating a protective order, a restraining order that was interstate. That's a federal law. If you do that, then the FBI can come knocking down your doors and a knock and they did and they arrested her, they wanted to shut down the deprogramming school. So they arrested her and the headmaster and the headmaster was acquitted, thankfully. But she was convicted of rescuing her own child from this cult. Now, our administration should look into that case at the very least. Forget which you're going to read from there, press with people like, well, I read the press release and it sounds terrible. Yeah, of course, because it was written by the prosecution that wants to put her in jail. I ask anybody, think about that for a minute, you're a single mom. Your child is indoctrinated into this cult. What wouldn't you do? And she did it. And they acquitted the headmaster, they convicted her. She is in prison. She just reported. She spoke to her right before she reported to prison, it was horrifying. Her children, she told me, they are being sent to child protective services because now they have no mother. And you would think the judge would think about that for a minute. It's like, oh, she's a bad parent. So I have an idea. Let's make these kids. So she's in, she's in federal prison right now. Why wouldn't the federal government, you think they're even looking into her case? Not even looking into it. This was done by a line prosecutor in Sacramento, you know, area or something like that. Why shouldn't the people at the top who we elected President Trump to put in people? look into that see maybe you know what prosecutor we trust you but trust and verify let's get another set of eyes on this case and see if there was any political motive to put this poor single mother in jail and take her away from her children and nothing was done and you know and going back to the question that you asked the people of influence the people who who have the power they don't have the empathy if you mentioned their case yeah we have other things to worry about we're not interested in Shayna gaviola but imagine having the power what would you even cost you think who cost President Trump anything politically i'll tell you another case probably never even heard of it Kyle Meeney okay you know who Brianna Taylor was yeah Brianna Taylor was this woman I think in I want to say Kentucky and you know there was a no-knock raid on her house yes and tragedy happened it's very very sad right but you know I think they were looking for her boyfriend or some man in the apartment something of that nature exactly right and tragedy happened okay what's her fault was through not I don't know it became one of those black lives matter say her yeah yeah okay so the very politicized Biden administration said we're going after everyone here civil rights division this is harmeets division so they charged every cop involved in that so not only did they charge every cop involved in it they charged every cop who was it not just was there but who had anything to do with it so they charged the cop who wrote the search warrant that that apply for the search warrant and they charged that police officers supervisor Kyle Meeney for not supervising him enough now Kyle Meeney was not at the raid criminally charged him criminally charged him with 18 USC 241 which is deprivation of civil rights which according to the statute if it results in loss of life this is in the statute then the punishment is can be life imprisonment or the death penalty so Kyle Meeney supervised a guy who wrote a warrant and then that went to the judge and the judge approved it and then the raid happened so the DOJ under Biden said that that guy who wrote the warrant he wrote false information and his supervisor should have supervised him better so Kyle Meeney was facing life imprisonment or the death penalty okay this is so bonkers and that went into the Trump administration under Pam Bondy and Todd Blanche and they knew about it I mean obviously I mean it's under them and that case was going on in Kentucky and was set for trial thank god finally they dropped that case that case was dropped all the people who did it nobody's been punished never made a statement about it you would think the Trump administration would declare victory and say look what happened to the Biden administration by the way remember all those people who they went after for reading Bibles in front of abortion clinics and and and they charged them criminally with the same thing 18 USC 241 deprivation of civil rights civil rights cases I was working in civil rights with people high level people with you know big responsibility who are career you know prosecutors and attorneys whose names were signed on those lawsuits I mean they're still in DOJ you would think to yourself you know hey I'm president Trump has said those people were pardoned and you know but but there's no accountability the people are still there they still have their jobs and but you don't but I do so what okay yeah so by this point I think anyone has watched the this conversation until now is convinced of your sincerity I don't think you've gotten rich from this you did it out of principle in the first place how did you wind up getting separated from DOJ so I was in the office and going back to the story we said earlier her meet Dylan says to me you know what you did was wrong I so I just said you know what I have nothing to say I take full responsibility I and what you did was bring victims of weaponization into the building yes in a in an administration that was dedicated to ending up and internally write reports that uh that talked about weaponization yeah and send them so you did what you were hired to do by Aaronic you know the first time I saw her meet Dylan I just saw this right now first time I ever saw her was when you brought her on your show because of that guy James Broadmore from Google yeah remember who James DeMore yeah DeMore yeah DeMore and he wrote internal yeah since I Google and he was fired for remember that so that's uh that's what's going on I had her on a million times yeah so um so I was I was writing these internal my most I did not I didn't do any media I didn't tweet or anything like that it was all internal and I was um and I brought people into the building who were victims of weaponization and told them to tell their stories and I was told that's unacceptable and um and and we're gonna fire you so I said no it's and then they said um we want you to resign and I said I'm not resigning I'm I'm not gonna resign that's crazy so um so I refused I said I'm just not gonna resign so they put me on two weeks paid leave and said while we figure out what to do with you and then I came back and they moved me out of the main building and they put me you know a mile plus away and like some you know empty building with uh you know with a few of the career people they took me off of all of the cases that I was working on they took you know I was supposed to testify at like uh she put me on anti-semitism ironically and um or not ironically but uh it should put me on anti-semitism so I was supposed to testify at the civil rights hearing and I you know I was you know other people were were put on that and and basically I was in an empty office with no work and just just sitting there and then um and I was trying to figure out what to do what am I gonna stay am I gonna leave like there's nothing to do and then um I like I got I got an email that and this email you can get from FOIA and it like said all of a sudden it said like uh oh on this date you missed a meeting and on this date you weren't here on this date you know you need to meet with this supervisor and and talk about it and I wrote back I said I'm here in my office meet with me anytime because I you know I didn't miss any meetings or anything like that I thought this I saw the writing and the wall was going on anyway they never met with me they never responded to my email back but I went home to my wife and I said look I I see what's going on here I think it's better if I if I resign at this point because otherwise they'll generate some reason to get rid of me so I was wasting your life sitting in a office with yeah with no work yeah and I didn't come there to just collect a paycheck and have the government benefits I went to do something and I wasn't gonna do something so uh so I so I quit and then I opened up my own practice again and started from scratch and now I'm just trying to fight the government have you talked to anyone at DOJ since you left there was less than a year ago right yeah it was uh I I came on I think I want to say in April of 20 25 and I left in March of 2026 and so you know like I said I don't have access I've on behalf of some of of returns of the land I tried to I wanted to work it out with the government I thought that the government knew about that they were had these investigations into these white people who were doing nothing and meanwhile at the same time their closing investigations were not opening into all these other people that's civil rights and and our administration is not equal application of the wall it's not equal application it's disparate treatment exactly so I thought that that actually I was bringing this to their attention now obviously I've been critical of them on on X and I went on brand in stocks uh show and I did uh I did two interviews with him so I mean I didn't think that they liked me for sure because I was trying to bring attention to this but at the same time okay but let's separate that and I'm bringing what I hope is oversight you know is is just you you miss this but one of the careers who was doing the same thing under Biden is still doing it under you and signing your name on it so can we I thought I was bringing that to our attention and maybe I would get some traction would say oh my gosh we're really sorry and let's see if we can work this out but uh I got silence so why if the only way to get their attention is to file a lawsuit so let me ask just kind of wrap it up on a philosophical question that maybe you can answer which is how do people go from opposing a system to defending it so quickly because it sounds like that is the core problem once you decide I'm here to defend the system in place by death if it's a corrupt system you're you're corrupt like the second you decide to do that and they're good people like army who I just want to say for the third time I've known all these years and really liked and like but how does someone like that make that decision how does everyone get captured? I know and and just to end it also to mention one more case is that there's a case right now Ron Elfinbim who's a doctor from Maryland's whole story I hope you have him on your show and he's going to trial in January and it's the most ridiculous case you will get people can look it up online and that one I know is in front of them right now because they have to decide just I know as a lawyer that they have to decide right now if they're going to prepare for this man's trial or if they're going to drop it because they're going to it's going to be a big trial and it's their second go at it which people can look at online so right now they are making that decision and he's another one of these cases where he was a doctor and there's a COVID doctor. COVID doctor no articulable crime no identifiable victim there you know and you know and they're clear political atmosphere that posed and people can look up the details this case which is fascinating case I just got a full read on it but basically he opposed the system in place he went up against the the COVID system yeah he was going up against the COVID regime and actually actually presenting what could have been a cure, which is a monocolonial bodies, and they did not want that. So even though it cured President Trump and whatever it was. So he went on TV and spoke about it. And then four months later, they got him on some process crime unrelated from earlier. And so there's the atmosphere and everything like that. So now they won the trial, but an Obama judge overturned it with a 95 page opinion and said the government did not prove their case. The government appealed it, never ever happens. I mean, it's so, that's what I'm saying. You have a opinion written by the chief judge of the district of Maryland, who was appointed by Obama, who wrote a 95 page opinion, going through detail why this is a terrible case. - Overturning a jury decision. - Overturning a jury decision, saying that there's no basis in law to convict this guy, which by the way, tells you about a lot of these cases that the judges maybe don't overturn it, but there's no basis for the jury. So Ron is now facing trial in January. It's now it's October. We're getting into mid-October. So they're going to have to start preparing for trial. - The government even after a judge overturned the jury's verdict because it was inconsistent with the law, the government took up the case again? - Yes. My guess is it's because this guy gave the finger to the system. That's always the real crime. - It could be, it could also be because if they dismiss it, then it opens up, why was this brought in the first place? And then maybe we're going to find a smoking gun email that says Fox News, Ron Elphanbaum, in the same sentence, through an easy search and we're going to find out somebody, maybe I'm not alleging, but maybe somebody sent an email and said, "Hey, this guy, I'm Fox News. Here's the link we need to find a crime on him." I would not doubt that they, if they did it, maybe they did it on signal or whatever, but I would not doubt that they even sent it in the government emails. And I think that they have to get a conviction on him. And that's why they're committed to it. But that's the line prosecutors. What about the people at the top? What about those people? Where's Colin McDonald, who's now the head of fraud? This is under him. He is a Trump appointee to an assistant attorney general position. Let him look at this case and evaluate it in the context, not only the context of whether we can win or lose the case, but how about the context of, maybe there's something fishy going on here. Maybe it's not worth destroying a doctor be over, you know, over this, but maybe there's something, some other factor that makes this case a little bit unusual and we should just drop it. So what I'm hoping, once again, and I thank you again for giving me this opportunity to talk about as many cases as I can, is that instead of doubling down, because we don't want to act under pressure, because we don't like that guy or that guy, because they're speaking out against us, let's just take what they say face value and let's start being honest with the public. Let's respond to these accusations of weaponization. Let's maybe admit that we're wrong. You find a million press releases by them that say that, you know, this person's under indictment for here's our allegations against him. You'll never find a press release from the DOJ that says, you know what, we got that one wrong. Never happens. So it answered your question of why these people, they are married to this system. The people who are in these jobs, they, from the time they were kindergarten, wanted to go to Harvard and Yale and all the Ivy League schools and everything. So therefore they are conditioned from the youngest age to never move this way or that way outside of authority, because you don't get into Harvard and Yale if you did something here or here. So that is their conditioning like Pavlovian instincts that it's just the authority to the system, the audience to the system, the audience to the system. So by the time they get into these positions, their minds and their essence, their soul, is so corrupted by the system that produced them, that they're not even capable of seeing it and they could have cognitive dissonance and they're not, they're the wrong people to be in this, in, you know, to challenge the system because they're not capable, they're produced by it and they're looking to move up in it because that's all, it takes a great person to throw all of that away and to move on. So that's, that's- - That's about the nicest summary I've ever heard. - Well, my one editorial comment would be, these are prizes that are not worth winning in the first place. And so that's what they don't understand, which is like the whole secret to life, which is getting rewarded by a corrupt silly system and getting your married badges and your little ribbons and all that stuff. It's like it doesn't add up to anything. Do you think? - Yeah. - Sad. - Well, I, you're one of the very few remaining of a dying breed of civil rights lawyer who kept this country free, annoyed the hell out of a lot of people for 60 years, but, but kept the country free and I'm just sad to see there aren't more of you, but I hope you inspire more. So thank you for doing this. - And thank you. - Jonathan Gross. (upbeat music)