The CRAZIEST Part of Trump’s Indictment





In this episode, Liz discusses the recent indictment of President Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith over the events of January 6th. She argues that Trump didn’t do anything wrong, and that every prosecution of January 6th defendants seemed to be building towards this moment.

Liz breaks down the charges President Trump is facing in the new indictment, which include conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

She criticizes the indictment, stating that Trump had the right to speak publicly about the election and express his beliefs. However, the indictment claims that his actions constituted obstruction of an official proceeding.

Next, Liz discusses a mass shooting attempt at a Jewish school in Memphis that wasn’t widely covered. She highlights the importance of security protocols at the school that deterred the shooter, emphasizing the need for proper security measures in schools.

Later, Liz discusses scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s dismissal of biology and embrace of gender identity over biological sex. She highlights the dangers of transgender surgeries gone wrong and stresses the importance of speaking out to protect individual freedoms and societal wellbeing.

Show Transcript

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

Special Counsel Jack Smith finally indicted President Trump over January 6th. We’ve been predicting that this would happen for a long time. We’ve known that this was coming every prosecution of a January 6th defendant was building towards indicting President Trump for nothing. He didn’t do anything wrong on January 6th. You can agree or disagree with his take on what happened during the 2020 presidential election and the campaigns beforehand and the electioneering and all of that. But every single thing the Department of Justice has done in depriving the right of due process to the defendants on January 6th in overcharging people and sentencing, yes, unsavory characters like Stewart Rhodes to 18 years in prison because of a text message the guy sent. All of this has been leading directly to Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by Merrick Garland indicting Trump. And finally that happened last night. The special counsel filed under seal an indictment with the judge. 

This is by far the worst part of this indictment. Lemme read this to you. So the charges, by the way, that President Trump is facing in this new indictment, I’m gonna read you that first before I read you. The charges are conspiracy to defraud the United States conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. Now, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding sounds insignificant, but the legal precedent that the Department of Justice has set when they’ve been prosecuting January 6th, defendants for obstruction of an official proceeding, this is usually their justification for pretrial detention. All of the January 6th defendants that were held for years before their trial, it was because they were deemed a threat to our government’s processes because they were charged with obstruction of an official proceeding. So this is what the indictment reads. 

This is the, I mean, it’s chilling. The defendant, Donald Trump had a right like every American to speak publicly about the election and even to claim falsely that there had been outcome determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. So let me just pause there for a second. So Jack Smith in this indictment is saying that President Trump had a right to free speech and that he had a right to his own opinion, he had a right to believe that there was fraud, even fraud that rose to the level of altering the outcome of the election. And he had a right to speak this publicly. This is where it gets really, really chilling. The indictment says he was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits, challenging ballots and procedures. 

Indeed, in many cases, the defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results, his efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts audits or legal challenges, or his efforts were uniformly unsuccessful. The indictment then says shortly after election day, the defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In doing so, the defendant perpetuated three criminal conspiracies, a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government. A conspiracy to corruptly, obstruct and impede the January 6th congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified a conspiracy against the right to vote and to have ones vote counted each of these conspiracies, and we’re gonna go through them in a second. 

I just wanna read this to you first, each of these conspiracies, which built on the widespread mistrust the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud, targeted a bedrock function of the United States Federal government, the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election. So how do you reconcile these two things? The beginning of what I just read, you says, Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by Merrick Garland says, the defendant has a right to believe to say whatever he wants to believe that the election was stolen and to publicly say that the election was stolen. And then you go down to the bottom and you realize that Jeff Smith doesn’t believe that the Department of Justice doesn’t believe that they are indicting President Trump because they believe that President Trump’s opinions about, or conclusions, I mean, whatever you wanna term this, it doesn’t matter. 

It could be his opinion and you may believe his opinion is wrong. It could be the results of his analysis. It could be the conclusion that he drew from the evidence that was laid in front of him. It doesn’t matter for the purposes of this indictment, at least it doesn’t matter. But they’re saying because they do not agree with his conclusions, that it constitutes obstruction of an official government proceeding. So his words saying that you should peacefully and patriotically march down to the Capitol, that constitutes obstruction of an official proceeding because he pressured Vice President Mike Pence to send batches of electors back to their states because he didn’t think that those states elections had been done according to state law. That constitutes obstruction of an official proceeding. I don’t think so. What that is, and let’s be very clear, that is criminalization of free speech. 

That is the prohibition on a political opinion that the Department of Justice run by leftists disagree with. It is the weaponization of the federal government against the sitting president of the United States Chief political opponent. It’s Banana Republic stuff. President Trump is awaiting a summons. Now, we don’t know whether they will attempt to hold him in pretrial detention, but this is what he posted on Truth Social. Now, president Trump knew that this indictment was coming shortly before the prosecutor had filed this indictment in front of the judge. President Trump posted on truth social and said, I hear that deranged Jack Smith in order to interfere with the presidential election of 2024. We’ll be putting out yet another fake indictment of your favorite president at 5:00 PM It happened a little bit after 5:00 PM but President Trump was mostly correct. Why didn’t they do this two and a half years ago? 

Why did they wait so long? ‘Cause they wanted to put it right in the middle of my campaign, prosecutorial misconduct. He’s exactly right. This isn’t really about the 2020 presidential election, it’s about the 2024 presidential election. It’s about Joe Biden using corruptly, abusing his power, using the federal government to target his chief political opponent. I mean, this is something you would expect to happen in like I can’t in the Soviet Union in communist China conspiracy to defraud the United States. What does that mean? Conspiracy to defraud the United States because you believe, not just believe that there’s evidence that states changed laws when they didn’t have the authority to change the laws, which means that some votes, while the voters themselves may have been valid voters, the time and the place in which they cast the vote wasn’t valid. And yet those invalidly cast votes were counted as valid votes in violation of state law. 

Observing that and calling that out, demanding accountability, observing the empirical evidence that that impacted the outcome of the entire election, not just individual state ballot counts. That’s a conspiracy to defraud the United States. It’s funny because in Saul Alinsky’s book ‘Rules for Radicals’, he explains that one of the tactics that leftists should use is accusing other people of what you are doing, yourself accusing the other side of the crimes that you are committing. Because it’s really hard if you’re saying, if Jack Smith is saying Trump, you defrauded the United States for Trump to be like, nuh, you defrauded the United States, even though that is of course what happened during the 2020 election, the Democrats defrauded the voters of the United States. This is classic solinsky tactics. Joe Biden is using the Department of Justice, so conspiracy to defraud the United States conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. 

How can you obstruct an official proceeding with words? How come all of these protestors that broke into all of these state capitols, picture Nashville after the Covenant School shooting in Nashville, the Left, tried to use this to push gun control. And you had these, these elected representatives in the Nashville State House blocking the legislative procedure. They had to adjourn the house, and yet they weren’t charged with obstruction of an official procedure, even though that’s what they did. What about the Kavanaugh protestors who tried to bang down the doors of the Supreme Court? Were they charged with obstruction of an official proceeding? They were not. And yet Trump, who didn’t even do that, all he did was try to convince Mike Pence that a legal theory that Mike Pence disagreed with was a valid legal theory. And he told President Trump told the people at his rally outside the White House on January 6th to go down and let their legislatures know through peaceful protests that they were unhappy with what the Congress was doing, unhappy with the outcome of the election because the outcome was based on fishy practices. 

That’s obstruction of an official proceeding. No, no, no, no. What we are witnessing right now in the United States of America is the criminalization of free speech. And make no mistake, if the Department of Justice and Biden and the Democrats are willing to so abuse their power to criminalize the free speech of the former president who is running for president again, who is the chief political rival of Joe Biden. It’s not just going to be Trump Trump’s just the first soon they’ll come for us too. We didn’t hear much about this story. Something happened in Memphis, Tennessee, and you would think at first glance when I read you the headline of this story, you would think that this would be a headline all over the country. But it wasn’t. I find this to be interesting because of the reason why it’s not a headline all over the country. 

So Fox 13 Memphis, lemme read you the headline. It says, man accused of firing shots outside of Jewish school identified. What happened is a former student at a Jewish school in Memphis, a disgruntled student, obviously a psychotic student, tried to open fire. He was an attempted mass shooter. He tried to commit another school shooting, which you would think would be on the news. You would think that, I mean, think about what happened when, when the Nashville Covenant School shooting happened, this was all over the news as it should be. This is a horrific thing that happens when it happens, but you didn’t hear about this. And it’s not because he wasn’t successful, it’s because of why he wasn’t successful. Thank God this, this deranged former student wasn’t successful. He fired some shots, he ran away, he fired some more shots. He then police were called. 

Police chased him down. He fired shots of police, and police returned fire and ultimately killed the guy. But the reason he wasn’t successful was because this Jewish school had very tight security protocols. They had very tight security protocols that deterred this would be shooter. So the reason you’re not hearing about this isn’t because the atrocity was averted. It’s because of why the atrocity was averted. The Democrats tell us that the solution to mass shooters is gun control. Gun control’s the euphemism for taking guns away from us. Law abiding American citizens. Obviously, criminals don’t follow the law. So why would they follow that law? You’re never gonna be able to completely de-gun America. So if gun control passed, the situation in our country would be all criminals would have guns and no law abiding citizens would have guns. It would be awful. It would be worse than anarchy. 

It would be tyranny and this. And yet the Democrats don’t want to arm schools. They don’t wanna harden schools. They don’t wanna make sure that there are security protocols metal detectors, locked doors only people beeped in who have permission to be beeped in security on staff, people, cameras. They don’t want schools to be hardened. They claim they don’t want schools to look like prisons. Apparently, they prefer schools to look like graveyards in many of these cases. And so when the security protocol at a Jewish school worked, and the fact that this is a Jewish school is pertinent to the story because the Jewish community has faced violent anti-Semitic attacks for a long time in our country. And Jews took it upon themselves at their Jewish schools, at their synagogues to harden their institutions themselves so that they don’t face these massacres. They have armed security at school, they have armed security at their synagogues, and thus they don’t face the same sort of mass shootings or the same sort of successful mass shootings that other schools that have bought into liberal wokeness suffer. 

And so you don’t see this headline, you don’t see this headline anywhere that an attempted mass shooter was averted. Thank God these children’s lives were saved because of the reason why, because of the reason why. So there’s a weird phenomenon that’s happening as musicians are touring across the country, giving concerts this summer. There’s, I I don’t know where this came from actually, it’s very odd, but fans in the audience of concerts have begun to throw objects at musicians on stage. I’m talking about throwing hard objects like whipping a cell phone onto the stage at the singer or performer, and it’s hit. These objects have hit several performers in the face. They’ve narrowly missed pretty seriously injuring performers. Like I said, I’m not sure where this originated from. I’m not sure what the point of it is. I don’t know if these people are high on drugs or drunk out of their minds or if they’re haters, stalkers who are trying to hurt them if they’re just attention seekers trying to get a video to go viral, which I suppose they did. 

I don’t know what the motivation is, but a lot of musicians seem unsure about how to handle these situations. Cardi B faced a situation at her concert in Las Vegas recently where a fan threw ice and water on her, and she reacted in a little bit different way than some of these other musicians have acted. And there’s a debate going on about whether she was justified in what she did or whether she well committed battery. So Cardi B, the rapper, I mean, she has quite the reputation. We don’t talk about her often on this show because you can’t show a single video of her without her being in some state of nudity or uttering some obscene level of profanity. However, she responded a little bit differently when some of these fans threw objects at her while she was on stage. This wasn’t even a cell phone or a hard object. This was some fan that threw a cup of water with ice on her. And she responded by hurling her microphone like, with great force back at this fan. This is a video of it. Take a look. 

Oh, and by the way, we had to mute out this video because the music behind it, but you can see, did you see that she hurls that microphone back at that fan before hers and yells at that fan before the security absolutely surrounds her. Perhaps the funniest, we’re gonna talk about whether this is the right way to handle this or the wrong way to handle this. But perhaps the funniest part of this video is that after she hurls her microphone and stops, if you listen, and she continues singing, meaning her voice is still broadcast over the, over the speakers, which means she was lip syncing. She was faking, she wasn’t really singing. This is supposed to be like the cardinal sin among musicians to fake live performances. But that’s neither here nor there. So I’m watching this video earlier today trying to make up my mind what I think about this because I understand how frightening, how startling and how dangerous of a situation it would be if you’re up on stage. 

I mean, I obviously am not a rapper, thank goodness. But if you’re up on stage and someone throws something at you that’s horrible, that’s horrible, and it could be dangerous if it’s a hard object. So I’m up there like, okay, well, something has to put a stop to this trend. Like it needs to be stopped. This cannot be tolerated. There has to be a zero tolerance policy. And I see someone throw something, throw that water in ice at Cardi B, and I see her curl the microphone. And I gotta tell you, I can’t endorse what Cardi B did. I can’t because she could have seriously, maybe she did. I don’t know. She could have seriously hurt someone and I can’t endorse harm of another person. And maybe this makes me a bad person, but I do sympathize with her a little bit. Like I watch that and I think, okay, I can see why you did that. 

I can see why you thought, well, you’re gonna try to hurt me here. Let me dish it out. And you’ve tasted a little bit of your own medicine here. I get that. I still can’t endorse what she did, but I’m telling you my reaction to Cardi B, this might be the only time that I felt sympathy for Cardi B. Usually I think that she’s a ridiculous person, but I felt, I felt a little sympathy for her. The weird thing about this story though, and this is where my opinion, I my opinion, I don’t feel solidified on this opinion, whether it’s right or wrong, whether it’s wrong, but I understand why she did it. The the situation’s a little convoluted here because there’s an additional clip from this concert or from her appearance at this beach club in Las Vegas where she was asking fans to throw water on her because she said it was really hot on stage. 

The weird part of this is we’re not exactly sure if this video is from before she hurled her microphone or after, but she’s deliberately, I mean, you can watch this, we can play this on the screen while I’m talking about it. She’s asking fans, so she’s saying it’s really hot up there and she says, throw me some water up here. And then people start throwing water on her. And what does she do? She walks over towards the water that’s being thrown on her, turns around, like, throw this on my back. So she was asking people to throw water on her because she was hot. They threw water on her. She was happy. If this happened before she threw her microphone, then what on earth could possibly a trigger her anger to the point that she heard the microphone or justify that? That is strange to me. 

So one of the fans who was hit by this microphone filed a police report against Cardi B. She’s being investigated for battery right now. And like I said, I can’t endorse what Cardi B did. Part of me when I first saw this video reacted like, oh, okay, I understand why she did it. Although you’re supposed to, as an adult, you’re supposed to, and a responsible citizen, you’re supposed to restrain yourself when you feel anger, even if you feel that your anger is justified, you’re not supposed to hurt someone else. You’re not supposed to be reactionary like that. but it changes the whole thing. I think it changes the whole situation. If she was asking fans to throw water on her and throw ice on her, and then when they did it, they complied. Then she threw the microphone. Yeah, that’s not good. That’s not good at all. Not good at all. Okay. Neil deGrasse Tyson, one of the most famous scientists in the world. He’s what I would call a celebrity scientist. I’m not sure if he does any science or if he just talks about science, but he is decided to abandon si abandon science. He announced that he no longer believes in science. It’s quite something to behold. I mean, imagine literally the most famous scientist on earth announcing to the world that he no longer believes in science. You gotta take a look at this. 

My point is, apparently the X X X Y chromosomes are insufficient because when we wake up in the morning, we exaggerate whatever feature we want to portray the gender of our choice, either the one you’re assigned, the one you choose to be, whatever it is. And so now, here, so, so now just to, to tie a bow on this, I say to you somewhere, I read somewhere, I think I read that the United States was a land where we have the pursuit of happiness. Yes. Suppose no matter my chromosomes today, I feel 80% female, 20% male. I’m gonna, I’m gonna put on makeup. I’m gonna do that. I’m tomorrow, I might feel 80% male. I’ll remove the makeup and I’ll wear a muscle shirt. Why do you care? Yeah. What, what, why, what business? It is it of yours to require that I fulfill your inability to think of gender on a spectrum. 

Part of me hopes that that’s satire. But given how woke Neil deGrasse Tyson has become, I suspect he’s being authentic, and I wanna answer a couple of his points directly. So, the most famous scientist in the world, a celebrity scientist, he’s definitely a pop culture scientist, announces that he doesn’t believe in science anymore because he believes in gender identity versus biological sex. So the first thing to note here is he dismisses science by saying, no matter my chromosomes, no matter my chromosomes doesn’t matter if x x, x, Y. That doesn’t determine whether I’m male or female. It’s just what I think, what I think I am. So that’s the abandonment of science because XX and xy, that is science, that’s biology, that’s d n a. That’s not something that can be changed just because you are identifying differently one morning or one evening, that that is indisputable, that is objective reality science has observed the objective reality of male and female. 

So I want to remind Neil deGrasse Tyson and anybody else who is thinking in this way of what the difference is between sex and gender. I reject the, i the whole idea of gender, not just gender identity. I reject the word gender. We as a society have used sex and gender as synonyms my entire lifetime, probably your entire lifetime. But they’re actually not synonyms. Sex and gender are two different things. Sex is your biological sex. Are you biologically male? Are you biologically female? Gender is a concept that was invented by John Money. I just talked to psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman last Friday about this. John money invented the idea of gender identity, but the reason he invented gender identity is because he himself had discomfort in his own body because he had seen, because he’d been abused by his father. And he, he wanted to pretend that he wasn’t a boy. 

So he invented this idea that your biological sex was different than your psychological sex. And he proposed that every single person on this earth, regardless of what their body looked like, their DNA looks like their genitals, regardless of all of that, that you are essentially what Dr. Grossman calls a psychological hermaphrodite. That you’re a blank slate when you’re born. And psychologically you can be formed into identifying as whatever gender you want, regardless of your biological sex. So the, the word gender is not a synonym to sex, even though we’ve used it. And I, I’ve been guilty of using this too. I didn’t know this history when I started using it, it was just societally accepted that gender was almost the politer term. Like, oh, what is the baby’s gender? A gender reveal? It was a gentler term to use than using the word sex. 

But that’s not now. Now I know better because I know who coined the term gender and how tied it is to this false idea, this unscientific idea of gender identity, which of course brings us to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s question of why do you care? Why do we care? Why should we care? Don’t we live in a country where people can do whatever they want inside their own homes as long as they’re not violating somebody else’s inherent, inherent God-given, right? And the answer to why we must care whether you’re conservative or whether you’re liberal, whether you’re Republican or Democrat, is because if government officials get to redefine words, then they’re authoritarians. If they get to tell us what’s real and what’s fake, then they’re tyrants. They have complete control over our lives. If according to their arbitrary whim, even if they hide that whim under the guise of the popular vote, or judges on the Supreme Court, whatever it may be, if government officials get to redefine words, then they essentially are the arbiters of truth and arbiters of truth. That’s just a euphemism for authoritarianism. So we have to care about this. We have to care about this if we want to be a free people. And that, of course, is aside from the harm that the transgender ideology or gender identity inflicts on young people, look at this headline. I wanna bring this up on the screen. I’m gonna read this to you. 

It says, 18 year old boy died after doctors tried to create a vagina from part of his colon. So this 18 year old boy was undergoing a surgical transition, this bodily mutilation surgery. And then the way that this happened, this is very graphic, by the way, just to warn everybody. I’ll say it as blandly as possible, but it’s pretty horrific. What happened is, after this 18 year old boy was castrated, they used his castrated penis or the skin and the flesh of his castrated penis to, they inverted it to try to create this neo vagina. But he had been on puberty blocking hormones previous to the surgery. And so he had not, he had not, his penis had not matured. So it was small. So there wasn’t enough skin, wasn’t enough flesh wasn’t enough material to use to create this neo vagina. 

So they surgically removed part of his colon to create this neo vagina. And what happened is exactly what you would expect to happen. I know this is horribly graphic, but this is the kind of Frankenstein experiments that are being done in our children right now. What happened is exactly what you’d expect to happen. There was an infection. Your colon, what is in your colon? Feces, bacteria. They put this inside of a wound they created in this young man, and he got infected. He got horribly infected. Infected to the point that he died. They had to do multiple surgeries to remove dead parts of his colon from inside his body because it was becoming toxic, and he ultimately died. This happened several years ago. This is not an anomaly. This is the reality of a transgender surgery. So to answer the question that Neil deGrasse Tyson poses, why should we care? 

We care because we care about objective reality. We don’t want government officials to become the arbiters of truth, who redefine words because that makes them authoritarian, which means they control us. We also care about these individual people. We care about what happens to them. We care about this young man who was mutilated and then died because someone told him that his discomfort in his body meant that he should, he should castrate himself and do horrible, unspeakable things to the body that God gave him. So it’s not a rhetorical question. It’s not something that we should mind our own business and let people live and let live. If we care about our country and we care about the people in our country, then the impetus is on us to speak out in their defense. All right, we have time for one last random thing from the internet. This is a bad lip reading video. These are some of my favorite videos on the internet. By the way, the bad lip reading slays me every time. This is called The Grumpy King. Take a look. King Charles in his carriage looking pretty grumpy. This is from his coronation. And this is what a lip reader thinks. That grumpy King Charles was saying, 

We can never be on time. The subtitles read. This is a negative. There’s always something. This is boring. Wouldn’t that be hilarious? On his coronation day, he was saying, this is boring. Imagine. You know, king Charles has always acted the part, a little bit of a petulant, spoiled child. So it wouldn’t shock me if he was bored on his own coronation day. That’s a lot of pumping circumstance. Bad lip reading, man. That’ll get you. That’ll get you every time. Guys, if you haven’t already gotten your copy of my book, hide Your Children, exposing the Marxists Behind the Attack on America’s Kids Pre-Order Now. We are seven weeks from release date. I can’t wait to get this book into your mailbox, into your hands. I can’t wait to hear your reaction. Go to Hide Your children That’s hide your children Thank you for watching today. 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