Oath Keepers’ Stewart Rhodes Sentenced to 18 Years in Prison





Liz sits down with Julie Kelly to discuss the conviction of Oath Keepers member Stewart Rhodes to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy related to January 6th.

First, Julie Kelly argues that while Rhodes may not be a figure conservatives would naturally defend due to his inflammatory statements and distasteful opinions, the government’s use of seditious conspiracy charges, usually reserved for terrorist organizations, is a concerning overreach that criminalizes political dissent.

Furthermore, the case against Rhodes sets a dangerous precedent of punishing political speech and dissent on the right, highlighting the slippery slope towards silencing and punishing individuals based on their beliefs, regardless of their actual involvement in violent actions.

Next, Kelly points out that Rhodes’ conviction was based on a text message mentioning forceful action without a direct threat or plan. The judge’s view of this as a call for revolution raises concerns about criminalizing political opinions, including constitutionally protected rights like referencing 1776 or discussing protests against potential election rigging. These prosecutions serve as a warning to Republican voters, implying possible consequences for future dissent and protests.

Then, Kelly criticizes Judge Amit Mehta, appointed by Barack Obama, for presiding over both the criminal prosecution and civil lawsuit against the Oath Keepers. She alleges bias and potential conflicts of interest, pointing to Mehta’s statements and rulings that demonstrate a lack of impartiality and raise fairness concerns in the Washington, D.C. legal system.

In response to Kelly’s point, Liz highlights the double standard in the legal system, where Antifa or Black Lives Matter affiliates receive lenient sentences for violence and terrorism, while Trump supporters face harsher consequences for expressing controversial opinions. This unequal treatment based on political affiliations undermines trust in the legal system and raises concerns about fairness.

Finally, Kelly mentions special counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Merrick Garland, who is investigating seditious conspiracy allegations related to January 6th. Despite claims of independence, she believes the investigation lacks true independence. Smith is looking into two lines of inquiry, including the handling of classified documents. The indictment regarding the classified documents is expected to come first, followed by a multi-count felony indictment against Donald Trump for his involvement in the January 6th events.

Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

You better not even have private chats. You better not post any silly memes on Facebook, because if you do, we’re coming for you. 

That is Julie Kelly. We’re talking about a very controversial topic on the show today, but a topic that must be discussed if we want to conserve the liberty in our nation. I’m not trying to sound hyperbolic right now, but there are several fronts in the battle to maintain the United States of America. The battle like that pose an existential threat, right? The border poses an existential threat. The neo Marxism that comes packaged as critical race theory and as queer theory poses an existential threat. And so do the prosecutions, the unfair convictions, the political targeting of the January 6th defendants. And I know every time we talk about this on the show, I always get a bunch of text messages, even from other conservatives and Republicans. I get dms, I get emails, people that are like, Liz, come on. This makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Don’t wait into this territory. 

This isn’t good for your reputation. You don’t wanna, you don’t wanna be talking about this. Let’s just move forward. Let’s move on. We can’t move on. There will be nothing to move on to. What is the future if we have surrendered the future to these bureaucrats and our federal government who are weaponizing the law against American citizens? And the reason, by the way, what we’re gonna talk about today is we’re gonna talk about the conviction. Stewart Rhodes, who’s the leader of the Oath Keepers, was convicted of seditious conspiracy with a terrorism enhancement. He’s been sentenced to 18 years in prison, 18 years in prison. Keep in mind, he did not bring a weapon to Washington DC. He left his weapon in Virginia lawfully legally. He did not go into the Capitol. He did not encourage anyone else to go into the Capitol. He did not attack any police officers. 

He did not harm anyone. And yet, the judge has sentenced him to 18 years. For what? For private chats in a group, in a group text message thread that he said, because he has unsavory and distasteful opinions on how to push back against the radical left opinions. I don’t share opinions. I’m sure you don’t share opinions that we both completely disagree with, but they’re his private opinions in a group text message that he didn’t act on. And the government’s putting him in prison for two decades. Listen, it’s not a coincidence that the government goes after someone like Stewart Rhodes, because Stewart Rhodes is a very distasteful person, right? It’s, it’s very similar to when social media companies banned Alex Jones. They banned Alex Jones first. This was before the spate of cancellations against conservative starts. Alex Jones was the first. And the reason that they canceled Alex Jones first is because at the time, you and I didn’t wanna defend Alex Jones, he was, he was claiming that the Sandy Hook shooting, which killed this shooting, which resulted in the death, the murder of two dozen young elementary school children, it was one of the most horrendous things that we’ve ever witnessed in this country. 

He was claiming that that was fake, that that was a hoax. That these were, these were actors and these parents that were grieving were liars. And we were all disgusted and revolted by this. No one wanted to defend him. No one wanted their reputation smeared by association with him. And so the Left said, you know what? We’ll target him. We’ll target him, because who’s gonna actually push back and defend his right to have horrendous opinions, his right to, to free speech? Because they’re not gonna wanna be tarnished by those opinions. And you know what? The Left was right. Conservatives didn’t push back. Some conservatives did. A few of us did, but not enough. Not strong enough, not loud enough. And it started, it moved the Overton window closer and closer to mainstream conservative viewpoints. Until now. What do we all face? We all face situations on social media where we’re not allowed to talk about transgenderism. 

We’re not allowed to talk about election integrity. We’re not allowed to. We’re not allowed to push back against, up against radical leftist narratives or else we will lose access to that platform. We’ll be de platformed. We’ll be silenced, we’ll be censored. That’s exactly why the government is going after Stu Stewart Rhodes, because even Congressman Matt Gaetz said, you know what? I’m not gonna defend, you know, you lost me. If you want, defend someone to defend Stewart Rhodes. Yeah, because the guy says gross things. The guy, I don’t wanna be associated with him. I’m sure you don’t wanna be associated with him. But just because he has said things that we find distasteful and bad, doesn’t mean that Biden’s Department of Justice and the federal government have a right to violate his constitutionally protected rights, his constitutionally protected right to free speech, his constitutionally protected right to due process of law. 

Do you know that the judge presiding over this case who was appointed by Barack Obama, suppressed evidence about what Stewart Rhodes and his group were actually doing on January 6th? They didn’t let the jury see the activities of what Rhode was doing on that day. Activities that were a better example of the fact that he wasn’t doing anything violent. He wasn’t waging war against the US government, which is what seditious conspiracy means, that he wasn’t acting as a terrorist. He was acting as well on January 6th. His actions were basically nothing. His words in his group text to his other Oath Keepers friends were bad words. They were bad opinions. They were, they were loud mouth, nasty stuff that he was saying that he didn’t do. And there’s no evidence that he ever intended to do. So. What we’re gonna talk about today is we’re gonna talk about this. 

We’re gonna talk about why we should defend Stewart Rhodes, even though he may be a gross, distasteful person. Because what the government is doing, what prosecutor Matthew Graves and what this judge, judge Maa that was appoint appointed by Barack Obama, what they’re doing right now is they’re writing the playbook for exactly how they were going to criminalize our speech. They’re going to criminalize us. If we question the outcome of an election, they’re going to, they’re going to not only label us as terrorists, they’re going to prosecute us as terrorists. If we dare to question, well question anything that the Left does. So, sitting here, I don’t care. I don’t care how many emails I get, I don’t care how many text messages I receive. I don’t care how many warnings I received from seasoned Republicans telling me that this is a topic that I should just stay away from. I refuse to stay away from this topic because this is an existential threat to our freedom. This is an existential threat to our country. And we’re gonna break it all down so you fully understand why we cannot be silent about this. Let’s get to it. 

All right. So with me today is the number, the person who has followed this more closely than I think anyone else in the country. We talk all the time about this stuff because she is the predominant expert. She’s the only one that’s willing to buck the mainstream media trend and publish piece after piece after piece following along. Cuz that’s the thing about all of these cases, all of these prosecutions is it’s convoluted and it’s intended to be, they intend to confuse people because if you don’t follow along bit by bit, drip by drip, day by day, then you’re going to get lost. You’re not going to push back, and they’re going to get away with air corruption. So I’m talking of course about Julie Kelly. She’s a senior contributor at American Greatness. She’s with me now. Julie, thanks for joining. 

Hey, Liz, thanks so much for having me on. 

Okay, Julie, the first thing that I wanna talk about is the man that was sentenced to 18 years in prison. His name is Stewart Rhodes. We can show his picture up on the screen. he’s, he’s the head of the Oath Keepers group. A lot of people are familiar with that name. It’s it’s oftentimes associated with the proud boys. The left likes to lump the two of them together. Proud Boys and Oath Keepers both had a presence on January 6th, although they have, they’ve had presences other places, many other places, many other times as well. He was charged with just a horrendous, horrendous charges and convicted, sentenced to 18 years in prison. And the first thing that I wanna establish here is why they chose him to target in this way. Why they elevated his charge with a terrorism charge. Why he’s going to serve nearly two decades in prison. 

And you can correct me if I’m wrong here, but part of the reason is because he’s not exactly a type of character that a lot of conservatives would naturally defend. Some of the things that he says are inflammatory. Some of his opinions are actually kind of distasteful to a lot of us. We don’t agree with his strategy or his opinion. And I actually think that’s exactly why the Left and the Biden Administration Department of Justice is targeting him. It’s almost like Alex Jones, when he got kicked off of Twitter, a lot of conservatives were like, well, we don’t wanna defend that guy. And that’s why they picked him. Same with this guy. 

That’s exactly right, Liz. So Stewart Rhodes is a distasteful figure, and the things that he says are very inflammatory. Nothing that you and I would have in even private discussions. but that does not certainly rise to the level of seditious conspiracy, which is equivalent to waging war against the United States. Liz, as you know, this is a Civil War era statute that was supposed to be an alternative to charging supporters of the rebellion with treason. That is where this originated. It has been like so many other laws bastardized, taken out of context and weaponized by this Department of Justice, D.C. U.S. attorney Matthew Graves, to criminalize political dissent. Liz, no American has ever been convicted of seditious conspiracy. Usually the people, the handful of people, individuals who have been convicted of seditious conspiracy are Isis Al-Qaeda, Taliban terrorists, for example, the Blind Sheik and nine of his associates who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993. 

Part of it killed six people, injured a thousand more. They were convicted of seditious conspiracy, not a loud mouth like Stewart Rhodes, who’s shooting his mouth off throughout 2020, about a stolen election, and then organized as a handful of people to go to Washington to protest a rigged election. That’s the slippery slope that we are on. And you’re right, a lot of people don’t wanna speak up for Stewart Rhodes. I’m not defending everything that he said or his tactics, but Seditious conspiracy, the government, Matthew Graves’s office asking for 25 years in prison, including a terrorism enhancement. These are things that have never happened in American history, and it is a slippery slope to criminalizing any sort of political dissent on the right. 

Yeah, it’s banana republic stuff. Honestly, when you analyze what he did on that day, because if you’re gonna criminalize Americans who say distasteful things, Americans who say really unfortunate things, horrible things in the privacy of their own text messages, then all of us are going to be in jail. And I don’t say this comment to be to make some kind of joke. That’s the point of it. They want to make it so that everything that we say privately rises to the rises to the level of a violent crime. They want our words to be illegal because they don’t believe that we should be allowed to think what we think about the current president and believe what we believe about the 2020 election. It’s, it’s shocking. So on January 6th, what did Stewart Rhodes do? What were his actions on that day? Can you walk us through that? 

So he was sort of communicating with these group of Oath Keepers, some of whom came from Florida, other states. they stayed at hotels outside of Washington, dc The firearms that they brought with them on the drive from wherever their state was, say Florida to Washington, dc they stayed in a, you know, gun rights friendly state in Virginia. They left whatever firearms that they brought in the hotel, because of course, Liz, that’s what you do when you’re gonna overthrow the government in wage war against the United States, is you take whatever legal firearms you transport and you leave them at, at your hotel room so you don’t break Washington DC’s very strict gun control laws, which is what many of them testified until the FBI. So Stewart Rhodes is sort of communicating with his people that day. He did not go inside the Capitol. 

He was outside the Capitol. several of his associates did go inside. and then they sort of reconvened afterwards, talked about what happened. Some of them bragged on social media or in text to family members about what had happened. None of them were charged with weapons violations. None of them as, as I said, brought any weapons to the Capitol. None of the Oath Keepers are charged with assaulting police officers. In some cases, Liz, and this is evidence that the government successfully suppressed in these trials. They were helping police officers. The Oath Keepers are former veterans and law enforcement officials and they have sworn to take an oath to defend the United States. but in many of these, in instances, and if you go back to what was happening in Washington DC throughout 2020, groups like the Oath Keepers and especially the proud boys, viewed themselves as sort of vigilant anti protective units to reinforce police that were being overrun by left-wing rioters and helping police. And there’s a video of Oath keepers helping calm down Capitol police officer Harry Dunn. And at one point, Kelly Meggs, whose photo we saw with Stewart Rhodes he was actually chatting with police and directing people to leave the building. So they were not traitors, they were not terrorists. Were they big talkers? Yes. Were they saying things that most Americans would be uncomfortable reading? Yes. But again, this does not make them domestic terrorists except in the eyes of Joe Biden and Matthew Graves’ Department of Justice. 

And this is the thing that I think should throw up a red flag for anyone listening. Even, even if you like me and like you, Julie, don’t like what Stewart Rhodes said and wouldn’t be a part of a group that said something like that. It’s, it’s not virtue signaling to note that that can be true. And it can also be true that he’s worthy of defense against the charges that he’s facing in this conviction, this phony conviction that an imprisonment that he’s now facing. So he didn’t bring a weapon illegally into Washington DC He left it. he handled his weapon legally in accordance with the law. He did not enter the Capitol. Stuart Rhode did not enter the Capitol. He did not direct anyone or tell anyone to enter the Capitol. He did not harm anyone. He did not assault any police officers. And then he wasn’t arrested immediately, or even in the, in the aftermath of January 6th. He wasn’t arrested for an entire year afterward. 

That’s right. So let’s look at that timeline. So while many Oath Keepers were arrested in January and February of 2021, their leader, Stewart Rhodes inexplicably, was not, which led some people like me to su to suspect that he was some sort of government asset or agent, because there were f FBI informants run into the Oath Keepers. There were numerous f FBI informants run into groups like the Proud Boys months, years before January 6th. So suddenly Matthew Graves takes over the DC u s attorney’s office. If you recall, towards the end of 2021, the Democrats, Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and others were under a lot of pressure because they had not brought any charge close to insurrection. So people like us on the right, were making fun of the media for calling it an insurrection. How can you have an insurrection when most people are charged with parading in the Capitol? 

So shortly after Joe Biden appointee, Matthew Raisz, took over the reins of that office. He came in with seditious conspiracy charges, indictments against Stewart Rhodes, several members of the Oath Keepers. And then a few months later the leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tario and some of his associates. So this was a political indictment. This was to give cover to Mayor Garland. And the Justice Department was under a lot of criticism from the Left for not bringing, and some federal judges, by the way, Liz, for not bringing harsher charges against January 6th. Defendants knowing also that they will get easy layup convictions, which in most of these cases, seditious conspiracy cases they did before a DC jury. And now you have domestic terror enhancements allowed by the court for seditious conspiracy convictions. This is, like I said, this is precedent, precedent setting legal territory that now Democrats who are in charge of the DOJ for now, or who knows how long, will be able to, to capitalize on against their political votes. 

And by the way, people are gonna, people listening to this and watching this are gonna ask, okay, well, what did he say? You talk about him being distasteful. What did he say? And I actually wanna read one of his text messages that he sent to other oathkeeper leaders, just so you have an idea of what he, it was saying what he was saying. He said, quote, it will be 1776 all over again. Force on force is the way to go. So that’s one of his text messages upon which the conviction hinged. I don’t agree with him. I don’t think that force on force is the way to go. That’s not even a direct threat. Like if you reported that to the police, they would say, that’s somebody’s opinion, right? Like in this, I’m talking about like a local police scenario, not, not Joe Biden’s Department of Justice. 

But if you tried to, if you tried to tell a police officer, Hey, this is someone that’s making a death threat, they’d be like, no, that’s not a death threat because it’s not an active I will do this. This is just his opinion about the best way to go. It’s a bad opinion, it’s a destructive opinion. But this is what the judge, this Obama appointed judge said, what we absolutely cannot have is a group of citizens prepared to take up arms in order to foment a revolution. And that’s what you did. But Julie, my question about that is the word prepared, like, aren’t we all prepared to take up arms? Isn’t that what the second, and I don’t say that to be bombastic, isn’t that what the Second Amendment, I understand Second Amendment is all about. That’s why we have firearms. We are prepared to take up arms as our forefathers did in 1776. I’m not advocating for violence, I specifically condemn it, but I don’t understand how you can convict someone because it’s their opinion that there should be force on force as the only way to go. Like this scares me. 

And it should. And I’m sure even as you say these words on a podcast, you’re thinking, okay, you know what I mean? It’s like 1984. It’s like the surveillance state could very easily take any of our words that we’re saying right now out of context and cherry pick them and put them in an indictment and say them to a jury, which I’ve seen repeatedly, but especially in the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. seditious conspiracy trials. I mean, you have the government repeatedly using any citation to 1776 as incriminating evidence. This includes flags or you know, memes that talk about 1776 and, you know, watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood O of Patriots. That sort of thing is being, is being cited as incriminating evidence. So to your point, these are our constitutionally protected rights. This is why we have the Bill of Rights. 

This is why we are told we do not have to bow down to tyranny. and when these folks were talking about this mostly in private group chats, some that were encrypted, many of which had FBI informants in those chat groups reporting to the FBI, what was being said. so that is just one of the more alarming aspects of how these prosecutions are going down. Unless it’s not just to criminalize what happened in 2020 or supporting Trump. This is a shot, this is a warning shot to every Republican voter for 2024. They’re gonna try to do the same thing, not with Covid rules, but rig the election in many of the same ways. And God forbid you protest, you certainly are not invited to the nation’s Capitol to do so. But if you speak this way, even privately, if you plan to demonstrate against the outcome of a 2024 election that we believe might be stolen again, here are the legal consequences that you will suffer and you’ll suffer far more in your community, your family members. You’ll lose your job. You’ll, we bankrupted I mean, this is the climate that is being created very quickly by this Department of Justice and judges on the DC District Court. 

And there’s no time limit on this, right? Like Stewart Rhodes said these things before January 6th, they’re on January 6th, and he wasn’t arrested until a year later. A year later. So it’s just gonna hang over your head. This is another, this is another comment from another comment from the judge. Judge Mehta. He said, recall, a civil conspiracy need not involve an express agreement. So I guess that means that you can be involved in trying to wage war against the US government and not know it. It’s, it’s almost laughable if these people didn’t have the power to make this a reality. One of the things, Julie, that I want you, that I I want your opinion on or I want you to speak to, is these, these people that are accused of trying to overthrow the US government. And this is includes Trump and Stuart Rhodes and the different January 6th protestors who’ve been charged. 

Some of them have been convicted or pled guilty. One of the common commonalities among them is that they actually tried to use the law to seek recourse for what they believed was a wrong against them, right? Everyone talks about President Trump trying to get Mike Pence to stop the certification of the election, but he was actually exploring whether that was a legal, a legal possibility under our constitution, which seems like a funny thing to do if you’re trying to subvert the Constitution to try to abide by it if you’re trying to subvert it. The same thing with Stewart Rhodes. He actively, his agenda was to try to convince President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. What would that not be? And I’m, I’m not a legal scholar here, I’m not saying whether that applied or not. It most likely did not. But again, not a legal scholar here. But isn’t this contradictory to the argument from the Department of the Biden, department of Justice that Rhodes was trying to overthrow the US government if he was trying to use an existing statute on our book as recourse for what he considered to be a wrongdoing? 

Yeah, that’s such a great point, Liz. I mean, who tries to overthrow the government and abide by the laws of the government, both federal and local government at the same time. And Liz, let’s remember, and it’s so important for people to be reminded of what was happening when the breach occurred. It was not that Congress was counting or certifying the electoral college votes, know what was happening for the first time in a very long time, you had a senator, a Republican senator, and a Republican House member joined together per the Electoral College Act to vet the results of six contested states. They were going to have two hours at peace to go through those six states. And for the first time, the American people were going to hear all the claims and accusations, valid allegations about voter fraud in these states. It started out with Arizona. 

So when this happened, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Ted Cruz were starting to object to the electoral college results in Arizona. And that is when the breach occurred. That’s when everything shut down. And then when they returned after the insurrection all of that vetting went away. The American people did not hear about voter fraud in those states. And Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were were certified at about 3:20 AM on January 7th. So that is what the Trump supporters who I talked to who were ensnared in what happened in January 6th, they were upset about the violence. Most of it caused by, you know, inside job the violence that caused the joint session to shut down because they wanted those results. They wanted the electoral college vetting to happen in public. They wanted the 10 day audit commission that Republican senators were going to ask for that day. They did not want the proceeding shut down. The only people who wanted the proceeding shut down that day were Joe Biden, the Democrats, and a lot of never Trump Republicans, including Mitch McConnell. And that’s exactly what they got. 

Hmm. What a coincidence. What a, what a funny way for someone to be convicted of a conspiracy to abandon the rule of law when he is actually trying to operate within it. So talk to me a little bit about this judge, this Obama appointed judge. I noticed you actually tweeted about this. I did not identify this myself. You tweeted that he told a lie about I actually that o that police officer Brian Snick, who died after January 6th. But this judge, I mean, I think it’s pretty obvious that he’s biased given, given the comments that he made to to Stewart Rhodes, including, by the way, this is what the judge told Rose. He said, you are compelling and charismatic. That is what makes you dangerous. So I guess, Julie, you’re compelling, you’re charismatic, I’m compelling, I’m charismatic. I guess this makes us a danger to our democracy, according to this judge. he lied about this officer dying on January 6th. What else do we know about this man? 

So Judge Mehta, as you noted, was appointed by Barack Obama. He, unfortunately, also sits on the Pfizer court, which should alarm every American. he is e extremely smart. He’s probably the smartest judge on the DC District Court. He’s very shrewd. what he’s doing right now is auditioning, like a lot of them are auditioning for a promotion to the DC Appellate Court, which of course is a launching pad for the United States Supreme Court. So I’m sure Judge made a very bright guy envision, envisions himself as possibly the first Indian American to be appointed by a Democrat president to serve on the Supreme Court. The passage that you just read from where he says that Brian Cick died as a result of January 6th, which of course he didn’t. This pertains to a civil suit, Liz, that was brought by Benny Thompson, me, democratic members of Congress who wanted, who are suing Donald Trump and the Oath Keepers and other groups for hurting their feelings on January 6th, violating their civil rights. 

How can Judge Mehta oversee a civil lawsuit for a group in which he’s also overseeing their criminal prosecution? Then he states in a ruling to allow these lawsuits by Democrat members of Congress to go forward. He blames, he already basically convicts the Oath Keepers, said that there was enough evidence to prove that they entered a conspiracy, possibly with Donald Trump, related to the actions of January 6th. How can you be an impartial judge then, which of course he was not. When you’re overseeing the criminal prosecution of that very same group, when you say Banana Republic, that’s actually a nice, nice way of putting it. but it certainly applies to what I call also the legal and judicial of health in Washington DC. Keep in mind, the Judge Meda refused numerous times to move these high profile oath keepers trials out of Washington DC Even at the same time, Liz, when the January 6th select committee was holding nighttime nationwide televised hearings specifically blaming the Oath Keepers and proud boys for what happened that day, mentioning defendants by name on national television, while jury selection is going on for those trials, judge Maita refused to move that trial. 

He got angry when these defense attorneys begged, especially towards the end of 2022 when the report was coming out, begged and gave him all this evidence as to why the jury pool was so tainted by these hearings and the work of the January 6th committee. And he said, I don’t care if this January 6th report lands on the steps of the courthouse. We are not moving this trial. 

Ugh. I mean, it’s so unfair. It’s hard to believe it. and except by the way, if you step back and you look, think about the Antifa riots, right? the Black Lives Matter riots and e either of the two, you can, you can, you can conflate the two, you can separate them, whatever. But think about the lack of accountability for the people that were assaulting police officers, that were vandalizing buildings that were, that were ruining private property, that were looting that were violating the law of the cities. Think about those two lawyers in New York City that actually threw a Molotov cocktail at a police car, burned up a police car they could have easily and perhaps intended to commit murder. We don’t know there happened not to be a police officer in the car at the time. And these two lawyers were sentenced to one year and one day in prison and 15 months in prison for committing what seems pretty obvious to me to be an act of terrorism. And the reason is because they’re Antifa, they’re Black Lives Matter, they support the Left. But God forbid you’re a Trump supporter and you say something kind of unseemly in a text message, all of a sudden you’re a domestic terrorist equal to the ones that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Like, this is not going to sit well with the American people. 

Well, I mean, to the extent, and that’s why I appreciate you for getting this out to the American people. I’ll tell you, these trials should be televised so people can see what’s happening. At the very least, people should be able to call in, I can’t cover these trials list unless I go to Washington DC early on. I could cover the trials, the hearings, like the pretrial detention hearings, the arraignments sentences, et cetera, because they were still under covid rules right before these major trials started. They pulled all of the virtual access. If the American people could hear what these judges are saying, if they could see what this government and prosecutors, the shoddy evidence that they’re presenting to bias DC juries, they would be outraged. But no one really on our side is covering it. And again, I have to go to DC and sit in a courthouse or a media room if I wanna cover what’s going on. 

That shouldn’t be the case. They’re trying to cover up what’s happening in these Banana Republic kangaroo court style proceedings. So that’s another one of their little tactics is to let this happen behind closed doors so the people can’t see. Wait a second, most of the evidence is just texts and like crazy videos of these people posted on Facebook. You mean they didn’t bring, you know, ar fifteens or AK 47 to the Capitol and try to shoot up Nancy Pelosi? No, they didn’t. some of them acted badly. There’s no doubt a lot of them had heated rhetoric, as you said, that we don’t, that we don’t like. But imagine the sort of things that were in group chats, Liz, three years ago this week when this country was burning down at the hands of BLM and Antifa rioters, especially in Washington DC it prompted the lockdown of the White House. There were rioters, torching St. John’s Church right across the street from the White House. They were vandalizing public federal property. They were assaulting federal police officers, including Secret service and Park police. I mean, what happened in DC for months in 2024, worse than anything that happened for four hours on January 6th at you have the same D C U S prosecutor Matthew Graves, who has not charged one person for 2020 from 2020 with a federal crime, while he is still now 29 months later, rounding up January 6th, defendants even for low level misdemeanor trespassing charges. 

If, I mean, I, when you put it side by side by that, I know some Republicans don’t wanna talk about this. I actually always get texts and phone calls and messages and dms after we talk about these topics that are like, Liz, come on. You don’t wanna look like crazy. You don’t wanna look like a conspiracy theorist. You don’t wanna, you don’t wanna be talking about this. Let’s move on to the future. And I just kind of laugh cuz I’m like, what future is there to move on if we surrender our liberty right now to the Left? And because they’re taking it away from us, what they’re doing is preventing us. And this is what I, this is where I want us to go in this conversation. They’re going to prevent us from ever being able to hold them accountable for things that they do to interfere in elections. For example, the assistant US attorney Katherine Raus, raki Razi Rai Umi talks about Riky, thank you Riky talks about this terrorism enhancement that Stewart Rhodes face, in addition to being charged with seditious conspiracy, it was enhanced to a terrorism charge. And when she was asked about the reason why she points to interviews that he gave in jail where he quote repeatedly alleged that the 2020 election was stolen and would be again in 2024, that’s what she is pointing to. So an opinion that’s held by, I don’t know, roughly half of the country, she’s saying that’s the reason for the terrorism charge. 

That’s right. I mean, and I’ve posted this on Twitter, Liz, if people wanna check out my Twitter feed from last week, I was posting screenshots of this 183 page insane sentencing memo and the justification rationale the prosecutors gave in seeking this terrorism enhancement. It’s crazy, but to your point, mo, in most cases, it is the fact that these defendants still believe that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen. In one case, Jessica Watkins, who is a transgender oath keeper, she’s been in jail since February of 2021. the prosecutors wrote, well, just as recently as a few months ago, you know, she was making fun of Capitol police officers who were attacked and assaulted and compared them to 2020 police officers. And she still believes that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected. This is in American Court documents from our own Department of Justice. They are retaliating against Americans who protested Biden’s election, who still don’t believe he was legitimately elected. To your point, the overwhelming majority of Republicans who still don’t believe it to this day and it is again, this is a warning, you better not do this in 2024. You better not even have private chats. You better not post any silly memes on Facebook because if you do, we’re coming for you. 

It’s insane. It’s, it actually reminds me more of a reeducation camp in communist China where your crime, you’re not just being punished for violating someone else’s civil liberties. It’s a thought crime that you’ve committed. And the only way for you to be redeemed back into society is for you to be brainwashed and for you to prove that you will regurgitate their talking points for you to actually change your beliefs, for you to be completely indoctrinated. is this all leading back to charging Trump with the same thing? Because the allegation from the Left is that his comments about a so-called stolen election are what they say incited January 6th. 

Absolutely, Liz, and especially as I wrote for American Greatness, the convictions of four members of the Proud Boys on Seditious conspiracy really ratcheted up the legal jeopardy for Donald Trump on the very same charge. The reason why is that this DOJ made Donald Trump a key figure in that seditious conspiracy trial. The very first clip that the assistant US attorney played for the jury in closing arguments, and I was there was not of the proud boys violently attacking the Capitol with firearms and trying to overthrow Congress. No, it was the clip of Donald Trump from the 2020 presidential debate where he offhandedly after being goaded by Joe Biden twice to specifically name the proud boys. Donald Trump says, proud boys, stand back and stand by. That’s the first clip the government played for the jury. They called the Proud Boys Trump’s army. they said that the proud boys were jubilant, jubilant after Trump said that during during the debate. 

And then they tied the date of the conspiracy, Liz, to the day when Donald Trump tweeted on December 18th, 2020 to go to the Capitol on January 6th will be wild. That is when they said the sed the seditious conspiracy began. That’s not by accident, that’s so special. Counsel Jack Smith can now take these convictions. Also the Oath Keepers who are giving security to Trump. Associates like Roger Stone, they can take these convictions. Now, these outrageous sentences the court imprimata on that show this to a d c grand jury and seek the very same seditious conspiracy indictment against Donald Trump. It will not be a heavy lift in Washington DC 

When do you expect that to happen? And who would, who would be behind it? Would that be Matthew Graves, that same prosecutor? 

No, it would be special counsel Jack Smith. The never before seen prosecutor who handpicked prosecutor, by the way, was appointed by Merick Garland in November of 2020 to give the illusion that this is an independent investigation, which of course it is not. so Liz Jack Smith is looking at two lines of inquiry. One, the classified documents handling. I think that indictment will come down first from Jack Smith followed up b a month or so afterwards with a multi count felony indictment against Donald Trump for January 6th. People keep asking, asking about a timeline. I think the classified documents investigation is pretty much wrapped up. That could come sometime this month in June the January 6th could be late summer, early fall, but it will come at the most politically advantageous time for the Biden regime, maybe to bury some bad news somewhere or to really stick the knife in Donald Trump. but that will really escalate as you can imagine, where we are with this prosecution and ratchet up this divisive, dangerous political divide that the Biden regime and the media continue to fuel and take this to another level where again, the American people, our country has never been. And that is the criminal indictment, federal criminal indictment of a former US president 

Just in time for his reelection campaign. No less, it’s chilling. Julie Kelly, thank you for following along with us. Thank you for your diligent reporting, especially when no one else will do it. Thank you for sitting in those stuffy media rooms in the Washington DC courthouses to follow along cuz otherwise we wouldn’t know. We will have no recourse At a certain point, I’m not trying to sound doom and gloom, I’m not trying to sound fatalistic, but this is a significant threat against our liberty. And most people have been, even people within the Republican party have been somewhat cowed into believing that if they talk about this, it makes them a conspiracy theorist. If they defend sometimes unsavory characters, it means that they endorse the behavior or the words of these unsavory characters, which it absolutely does not. And you have been the strongest tide protecting our liberty or the strongest fighter of protecting our liberty on this aspect. I greatly appreciate it. Everybody go to American Greatness. Make sure you read every single one of Julie Kelly’s pieces. Go to Twitter, follow her on Twitter. You can search for Julie Kelly. She comes right up. Thank you for being here. I really appreciate it. 

Thanks for always covering my work, Liz. I really appreciate it. 

Again, Julie Kelly’s Twitter account is Julie underscore Kelly too. I highly recommend that you go follow her because this drip drip of information that we would miss if it weren’t for, it’s not just journalists like Julie Kelly. It is Julie Kelly. She is the journalist that’s doing this. If it’s not clear at this point why the January 6th prosecutions, these so-called convictions, these, these, the evidence that’s been suppressed at trial in order to paint the narrative that the Left wants the jury to believe in order to convict people who shouldn’t be convicted of cons of seditious conspiracy with a terrorism enhancement. If it is not clear at this point that this weaponization of our legal system poses an existential threat to your liberty and to my liberty, to our self-governance, then I don’t know what else to do to convince you. establishment Republicans who deny this, who distance themselves from talking about this are cowards. 

And they’re not just cowards. Some of them are complicit. Some of them refuse to acknowledge the reality of the political enemy that we’re facing. They refuse to acknowledge that compromising the legal system is also a tenant of cultural Marxism. It’s a tenant of Antonio Grimey’s plot to subvert our civil institutions, which includes our legal system in order to then topple our free market and our governmental institutions. This is, this is what’s happening. It’s at our border. It’s in our classrooms, it’s in our legal system. It is happening before our eyes. And if we for one second, think that we can just speak out when they’re telling white children that they’re racist and that when they’re trying to trans our little boys and little girls, if we think that we can only speak out against these evil, if Republican is or establishment Republicans think that it’s only appropriate to push back on uncomfortable topics when there’s a gigantic consensus on both sides of the aisle, by the way Democrats and Republicans then we’re never gonna actually defeat the enemy that seeks to imprison us for our thoughts, in our words and our beliefs and not our actions because our actions violate no criminal statute whatsoever. 

I highly encourage you, please share this episode, text it, send it, DM it, email it. Tell your friends, tell your family that they need to pay attention to this. They need to be able to talk about this. Have faith, have courage, take heart. We will be able to defeat this if only we acknowledge the reality of what we’re facing so that we can adequately structure our strategy to defend against it and to overturn the captured institutions, which propagate this on us all. Please also drop me your email address at lizwheeler.com. Our email subscription is up and running. It’s hot off the presses. All this kind of information, the research that goes into this, the articles that I’m reading, the everything from Target to Tucker to Bud Light, to the La Dodgers we’re hitting your inbox with as it comes out. So you know the information that can, that can inform you about the reality of the political enemy that we’re facing. Go to liz wheeler.com, drop me your email address. Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show. 


Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top