August 23, 2023 • 37 mins
In this episode, Tudor welcomes Julie Kelly, an author and investigative journalist, to discuss political corruption and the weaponization of government institutions. They delve into the ongoing legal situation of former President Donald Trump, including multiple indictments and the potential impact on the Republican primary debate for the 2024 presidential race. They also explore the excessive punishments imposed on individuals involved in the protests against Joe Biden's election, highlighting the attempt to stifle political dissent. The conversation touches on the legal jeopardy Trump faces in relation to the January 6th Capitol riot and the potential consequences for the upcoming general election. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday, Wednesday, & Friday. For more information visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, this is Buck Sexton and you're listening to the
Tutor Dixon Podcast, part of the Clay Travers and Buck
Sexton podcast Network.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. I am so glad
you're here today because I am joined by Julie Kelly,
an author, an investigative journalist who is known for her
unique and breaking news coverage. Whether it's the COVID nineteen
lockdowns January sixth, or the many indictments against Donald Trump,
Julie has covered some of the most pivotal moments in
(00:30):
recent political history, and she has a particular affinity for
rooting out and exposing the weaponization and corruption occurring in
our government, which we seem to be seeing more of
every single day, particularly at the DOJ and FBI. And
as we sit here on the morning of the first
Republican primary debate for president, I want to thank Julie
(00:51):
for joining me as we dig into some of that
recent reporting and how she thinks that's going to impact
this twenty twenty four race for president. Julie, thanks so
much for being here.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Hey, Tutor, thanks for having me on joining you from
the other side of Lake Michigan.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
So for having me on.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Well, thank you for joining me from that side. It's
a beautiful lake. We're very blessed to be in this
area of the country. You're there because something really big
is happening today, and that is the debate for the
next Republican nominee for president of the United States. But
one of those people is not going to be there.
(01:30):
We all know that the former president Donald Trump has
said he's not going to be there. I mean, I
think there's still some debate as to whether or not
he may just show up at the last minute, because
he is someone that is always unpredictable. That's one thing
that we know about Donald Trump for sure, is that
you don't know what he's ever going to do, but
you know a lot about what he's going through right now,
(01:51):
and that is for indictments.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Can you explain?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
I think that one of the things that people have
been asking me a lot about is what does this
one in Georgia mean, because we seem we've kind of
unpacked this and said if they convict him, how does
he get out of that. There's no federal parton, there's
no gubernatorial part in there.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
How does that work?
Speaker 3 (02:14):
You know what looks like in terms of the Georgia
indictment that it's going to be difficult, and we already
see that former chief of Staff Mark Meadows has filed
a motion to move this to federal court, I think,
successfully arguing that he was a federal employee at the time,
that Georgia really has no purview over trying to criminally
charge him, which they've already done. So I assume that
(02:37):
Donald Trump will be doing the same thing. I see
some legal observers, some fair ones on our side, feeling
pretty certain that these local county state charges won't stick
against the federal employees, Mark Meadows, possibly Jeffrey Clark, who
was the acting deputy Assistant Attorney General at the time,
(02:57):
and certainly Donald Trump. We know she has no purview
over this. You know, this is the broad version of
the federal Rico statute that she's exploiting. Half tutor half
of the one hundred and sixty one overt acts that
she cites in this ninety page plus indictment have nothing
to do with anything that happened in Georgia. She's talking
(03:18):
about conversations that relate to Pennsylvania and Arizona and other states.
So have those conversations well, I think she has those conversations,
just like Jack Smith did. They lifted a lot of
information from the January sixth Select Committee, their witness interviews
in their eight hundred and thirty seven page.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Report, so she certainly didn't.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
How would she have obtained a text between Mark Meadows
and Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry asking for the phone number
of the Republican head of the state legislature, Like, how
is that even evidence of a crime? So, as we know,
this is a stretch, But unfortunately have now issued two
(04:01):
hundred thousand dollars bond for Donald Trump, and it sounds
like he will be reporting turning himself in on Thursday,
which is crazy.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
I know, it is crazy. How can this not be
election meddling when you have him? I mean the timing
of this alone, everybody is going to want to talk
about this debate, and suddenly the debate is just going
to go by the wayside because everything, all news stations
will be following him turning himself in, and it'll be
(04:33):
all the focus will be back on Donald Trump. And
what does that mean for the rest of the Republican
Party right now?
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Well, it is election interference and it's not just election interference,
of course for the general but you're going to see
these Republican candidates get not probably half of the questions
will relate to Donald Trump's multiple indictments. What's going to happen,
you know what their viewpoint is on that, So voters
really are not going to to have a chance to
(05:01):
differentiate between all the candidates on the various issues. But
of course this is all really targeting the general election.
You see poll after poll where Donald Trump is not
just pulling away from the rest of the Republican field,
but now highly competitive in a matchup with Joe Biden.
I think there was a poll that just came out
(05:22):
that showed Donald Trump three or four points ahead. So
is this exactly You know, there's some thinking, tutor that
this is what the Democrats, the Biden regime, and the
media want. They want all these indictments to bolster Trump's
popularity and his standing in the polls. But how the
other Republicans, I'll tell you, have responded. I think it's
(05:43):
pretty lackluster. But we'll see furthermore what their answers are
and how they're going to handle this. In the very
rare chance that any of them are elected president, how
they'll handle it. Not just Donald Trump, tutor, but eleven
hundred Americans who have already been charged with January sixth,
who face extremely serious charges, and this DOJ continuing to
(06:06):
round up new January sixth defendants every single week. So
it's not just about Donald Trump. It's about the eleven
hundred plus American citizens who also have been ensnared in
this abusive, retaliatory, vengeful prosecution.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
That's I actually was just going to say that because
you say they've been lackluster, and I haven't. I mean,
maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard many of
them talk about January sixth. Then I got to tell
you I was talking to somebody earlier this week who said,
to be honest with you, I'm voting for him because
I'm hoping that when he wins, he'll pardon us. What
are the other When are the other candidates going to
(06:40):
address this? Because I think when you say eleven hundred people,
there are people in prison. They're essentially political prisoners. Can
you tell our audience a little bit about that, because
I think most people, everybody is afraid to talk about
the subject. Let's be honest we are afraid to talk
about January sixth and be honest about it.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
And because of.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
That, I mean, because that you say it's lackluster, and
I agree. I think that the candidates are like, oh, man,
I don't want to say anything, but people are really
in jailed that don't deserve to be and they've never
even seen a trial. They've never even talked to anyone
about this. Explain a little bit about that, because I
think that people have no clue.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
So thank you for asking me that. I've been covering
January sixth really since the very beginning, and what really
attracted me to what was happening was seeing that the
DOJ was asking for and receiving what's called pre trial detention,
and that means denying bond to people who are arrested
related to their involvement in January sixth.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
And so it's not that they have to they have
an opportunity to even get out.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
They were taken. They have no trial.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
This is like guilty before you have a chance to
preve your innocence. They don't have a chance to pay bail.
They have no way of getting out. Correct, that's exactly right.
They were rounded up, they were subjected to the FBI's
terrorism Unit, subjected to pre dawn raids with SWAT teams
with armed agents holding rifles pointing them not just at
(08:09):
the suspect, but family members, including children. I mean, I
have horror stories and I write about this in my
book and I'll have more follow up there. You cannot
believe this is happening in America, Gestapo style rates of
people's homes. Eventually then charged with not seditious, not insurrection,
(08:29):
not you know, domestic terrorism, charged with things like obstruction
of an official proceeding or conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Or are these are these felonies? What are these?
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I mean we because we've all been told that this
was an insurrection. But if it was an insurrection and
they're not charged with the Insurrection Act, then what are
these crimes? And are they worthy? What they are charging
them with? Is the punishment worthy of the crime, Well.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
The punishment, I mean, the process is the punishment, right.
But what I talk about also, I just have a
piece up on my substack Declassified with Julie Kelly, and
I talk about how if you really had to describe
the events of January sixth, based on the criminal charges
that have been brought it would have to be called
a parade because the overwhelming most common charge is a
(09:20):
petty offense of parading in the capitol, and this has
been slapped against hundreds of January sixth defendants. But in
addition to weaponizing this charge, which usually the federal court
never deals with, it's handled in the local DC court.
People get a slap on the wrist, a fifty dollars fine,
and then they're like, oh, they never even have to
come back to court. That's not the case with January
(09:43):
six ers. In addition to bringing this very rare petty
offense federal offense tootor what's happening is DOJ and federal
judges are signing off unlawfully on something called a split sentence.
These people who are either pleaded guilty or were convict
did of this low level offense. Judges were imposing jail
time and probation, violating federal sentencing guidance. And I just
(10:09):
talk about in my new piece, because the DC Appellate
Court came down and said no, no, no, it's either
jail time or it's probation. But these judges don't care
the government. This DOJ flagrantly violates the law because they're
never held accountable. And now the DC Circuit has come
down and said, no, this is not right.
Speaker 4 (10:29):
This is how you should read the statue. It's either or.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
And now you have sixty sixty or so sentences that
could be overturned because the DOJ and federal bunch in Washington,
DC continue to weaponize the law, ignore sentencing guidance just
to impose extra judicial and excessive punishment against people who
(10:52):
protested Joe Biden's election more than two and a half
years ago.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
So that so that means there are about sixty people
that are in prison in DC right now.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
No, so a lot of them for this low level offense,
have been have been sentenced to either like fourteen days
in jail up to maybe four months. So a lot
of them have already served their prison time, but they're
still on probation.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
And get this, still probation. You have judges who have.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Admitted that they wanted to impose three years probation term
so they could monitor them through the twenty twenty four election.
This is not just election interference like you said, it's diming,
it's criminalizing political dissent, political activity, and the judges aren't
even trying to hide it, which is crazy. So again,
(11:40):
excess far beyond Donald Trump. It's all in all these
Americans who have been ensnared in this.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
On the Tutor Dixon Podcast, we had a guest on
the leader of the walk Away movement, Brandon Strock. He
was convicted of I guess it was a misdemeanor, but
he ended up with house arrest for I think twelve
months and maybe longer. I need to verify that, and
he is on probation until twenty twenty six. That seems
(12:12):
really radical to be he can't you know, he's in
the state of Nebraska, can't move, can't go anywhere else
without permission to have any movements whatsoever. I think that
people don't realize that this is happening. I mean, is
his case one of those cases where you would say,
is this election monitoring? Because he had a movement for
(12:33):
people to walk away from the Democrat Party and now
he can't leave the state of Nebraska, which is probably
not a hop in political state to be.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Well, you know, we're a Midwesterner, so we're going to
be kind. And my grandmother was from Nebraska, but I mean,
I think he was a home incarceration for at least
three months, possibly six, and now he is on probation.
He's able to travel, but he still has to check in.
I know Brandon, he's a friend of mine, has to
check in with his probation officer. I think he has
(13:05):
to get pre approval before he can travel. But of
course they want to monitor Brandon and his organization through
the twenty twenty four elections, set up these tracks to
see if he violates the terms of his probation so
they can either throw him in jail for contempt or
other people for contempt for violating their release conditions or
(13:27):
probation terms. So this is something we haven't seen in America,
and it's still going on. Tutor, This DOJ is still
arresting people every week. You have the FBI hunting down
people every week, announcing charges, announcing convictions, announcing excessive sentences.
So January six for those candidates who say they want
(13:50):
to move on from January sixth, that if they're elected president,
they're just going to move on, this is a losing
political issue. There's no moving on because it's still happening
every single day.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
How many people.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Would you say, we're taken into prison, that we're not
given the opportunity to pay a bail they were Also
they're also waiting for a trial day. I mean, we're
talking about gosh, we're three years almost, we're three years
out now right right, and they're still in prison and
they've never seen a courtroom.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Is that? Is that possible?
Speaker 4 (14:22):
It is possible.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
And I know there are at least a few defendants
Tutor who were arrested in January and February of twenty
twenty one, who were thrown not just in the DC Gulag,
transported to jails across the country, who to this date
still have not face trial. To your point, it is
due process flipped on its head. These individuals are considered
(14:46):
guilty before being proven innocent. To your question, the number
who were held under pre trial detention orders is upwards
of one hundred individuals. Now, a lot of them have
face trial already, have been convicted, have been sentenced, and
are just adding on to their you know, serving their
prison sentence. But I would say close to probably one
(15:08):
hundred and ten Americans denied release by DC judges, held
either in the DC Gulag or other prisons, as the
DOJ at the same time is delaying, intentionally delaying their trials.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
And some of these people are young people, fathers who
have little kids, and we're talking toddlers at home, and
they have not seen their kids.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
They haven't and.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
They're not even charged with violent crimes. And so and
a lot some of them are veterans. Actually quite a
few of them are veterans. Almost all of them have
no criminal record. But if you look at what the
judges say, and you look at DOJS what they say,
it doesn't matter. None of the usual rules apply. The
laws don't apply because what the government DOJ says, what
(15:55):
federal judges say, is the events of January sixth are
so unprecedent. This was an attack, an assault on our democracy.
Christopher Ray is called January sixth an active domestic terror.
So to that end, none of the rules apply, none
of the equal application of justice applies, because they have
(16:17):
determined that January sixth is so unprecedented, was so violent,
was an attempt to overthrow our government, that these men,
any of them who were involved, even minimally, should face
the harshest consequences.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
So I mean not to play the whataboutism card.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
But it's interesting to see this level of vindiction, or
you know, this level of determination to get these folks
and say that this is terrorism when you see what
happened in Minnesota, for example, where people genuinely lost their lives,
(16:56):
They lost their livelihoods, their businesses were destroyed. I mean,
I can think of no thing more domestic terrorism than
ripping someone's business away and having no consequences for that,
burning down buildings, looting stores, destroying people's.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Lives, and those people are all on video too, and
there's no searching those folks down.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
And in fact, when we look at what Democrats are
doing nationwide, they're not tough on crime. They're not concerned
about whether or not people are able to live safely.
And I'm talking about just walk from your office to
your car without having to worry about whether you're going
to have somebody hold you up, or that your car
is actually going to be there and not be broken into.
I mean, now we're seeing San Francisco people are just
(17:40):
broad daylight going in and breaking the windows of cars
and stealing things out of them. There's no place it's
safe in these Democrat cities, but they're doing this. Trump
obviously has been indicted for January sixth, So I don't
think people fully understand. I mean, we hear about this
and it's like, oh, well, it must be a day
that ends and why Trump gotten? Do you know? This
(18:00):
is like the new thing? So explain to us what
this looks like from the presidential perspective, because we kind
of think that presidents have some sort of protection and
certainly speech, and he went out there and spoke that day.
But what exactly are they saying he couldn't he did
that he wasn't allowed to do.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
So I want to pick up on something you were
just talking about, though, Tutor, and that is people who
say and understand, Lee, if you were violent on January sixth,
we want you punished. Accordingly, if you attack police officers,
we want you charged. However, the very same sort of
riot that happened in Washington, DC just six months before
(18:42):
January sixth, where you had rioters on federal property at
Lafayette Square right outside of the White House, you would
belm Antifa rioters trying to scale the fence outside of
the White House. They were burning parts of the Saint
John Church, which is right across the street. From the
White House prompted as you recall the lockdown of the
White House. All of those charges have been dropped, not
(19:06):
only and this is the same US Attorney's Office, by
the way, who dropped all twenty twenty riding charges, who
still are charging January sixers.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
And federal buildings in Portland too. Remember they were throwing
alotov cocktails into the federal buildings in Portland. They were
attacking the people in the federal buildings in Portland. They
couldn't even get out of the building as they were
being bombed. And nobody's in trouble there.
Speaker 4 (19:30):
No, they're not.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
And that's what really enrages people, as you know, Tutor,
this egregious double standard of justice where you're still rounding
up paraders from over two and a half years ago,
yet you're letting major cities devolve into violent chaos every night,
including Washington, d C. So I think that that is
what really infuriates people the most. As far as the
(19:54):
January sixth charges against Donald Trump that Jack Smith brought
last well earlier this month, it seems like last night.
It seems like last year. I think it was August first,
the indictment was announced.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Like I said, every day. Now it's like, which one
is it that we're talking about?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Right? So August first, I think the indictment was handed
handed up. So he faces now four counts Obstruction of
an official proceeding, which is the most common felony related
to the January sixth prosecution. This again another law that's
been weaponized by dj It's a post en run statute
that has to deal with tampering with evidence and witnesses,
(20:30):
not interrupting a congressional proceeding, which you know Americans have
done for decades, centuries really, and then conspiracy to obstruct
and then two other conspiracy charges. So he faces four
counts right now, I believe that the January sixth indictment
in Washington poses the greatest legal jeopardy for Donald Trump.
(20:52):
The Florida the classified documents one is sort of a joke.
Jack Smith knows that, and he's got a very hard
nose judge in Judge Alien Cannon. That is not the
case in Washington, d C. A city who will a
jury will be seated by voters in a city that
voted ninety three percent for Joe Biden, that views the
(21:12):
events of January sixth very personally and differently than the
rest of the country. He has a brazen partisan judge
in Judge Tanya Chutkin, an Obama appointee, who has suggested
suggested in one hearing and I tweeted this a few
weeks ago, suggested in one hearing that Donald Trump should
be behind bars in another hearing that he should face
(21:35):
charges her really inflammatory language and in some cases dishonest
language that she uses in describing what happened in January
six she should automatically be disqualified from handling this case.
But she won't be so Jack Smith brought these charges.
By the way, the entire investigation, the classified documents, too,
(21:57):
is handled in DC because they know they're going to
get faceavorable grand juries, favorable court rulings, and then a
favorable jury who won't care about the evidence. They only
care about the opportunity to put Donald Trump behind bars.
The burden of proof is so low. This is why
DOJ tutor has almost in your perfect conviction rate. In
January sixth cases these juries return and I've watched it.
(22:21):
They've returned all guilty verdicts in record time. Before anyone
can even write the story what happened in closing arguments,
the jury's coming back with all guilty verdicts. So this
is the sort of environment that Donald Trump finds himself in,
and that's why I think it's the riskier one for him.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
So if that's the case, then.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Mark Meadows bringing wanting to take the Georgia case to
a federal court. I mean, I'm guessing that would be
a totally different court system. He's hoping for a different
judge that that would not go to this exact spot.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
But doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Seem like if you're going to a federal court, you're
going to end up in DC, and it's not necessarily
going to be friendly for anybody who's been involved in
something related to January six I'm not.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
Really sure how that would work.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
That's a good question, because I know he's asking for
the federal court in outside of Atlanta to take up
those charges, saying that she really had no jurisdiction, which
she doesn't. So I think that that's part of the
motion that Mark Meadows, and I assume Donald Trump and
Jeffrey Clark will seek as well. But also there are
still six unnamed co conspirators in Jack Smith's January sixth
(23:34):
indictment against Donald Trump in Washington, d C. So we
are expecting more criminal charges against some of the same
folks who were charged in Georgia johnny'sman, Rudy Julians and
Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark who also will be charged in
DC for January sixth, so this is not over by
(23:55):
a long stretch. I also think that Jack Smith will
bring more criminal charges against Donald Trump for January sixth.
It's hard for me to believe that he's only going
to settle for a four count indictment. I would not
be surprised if he does seek seditious conspiracy charges against
Trump as well.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
What is the I mean if he were convicted, what
would he be looking at for punishment?
Speaker 3 (24:17):
So, in the existing indictment, obstruction of an official proceeding
carries up to a twenty year prison term. A lot
of individuals who have either pleaded guilty or been convicted
a trial have spent four to five six years sentenced
to four to five six years in prison.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Tudor.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
You remember Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman. That's what he
pleaded guilty to obstruction and he spent forty one months
in prison. So the likelihood that if this does go
to trial, if he is convicted, he will ultimately be
sentenced to at least four or five years in prison
on that obstruction count alone is very real, and there's
(24:56):
a lot of recent case law to support the fact
that he faces real jail time if he's convicted.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. This is pretty big if you're
talking about the twenty twenty four election. I think there
are certain people who feel like, well, I need to
vote for him because then he can take the country
back and he can stop this stuff from happening. And
(25:24):
then there's got to be other folks that are like,
what happens, We're going to have a president who could
potentially be in prison.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
Well, here's the thing, Tutor.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
Despite what Jack Smith has said about wanting to take
this case to trial in December of this year, which
is crazy, he doesn't.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
It's very unlikely that this case.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
I mean, usually the average time for any of these
JA six cases to go to trial is about fourteen
to twenty months, So it's very unlikely that Jack Smith
will be able to take this to trial before the election,
and he's going to want to delay this too. He's
not ready to go to trial. He just admitted they've
got eleven million pages of discovery evidence that they have
(26:05):
to that they've turned over to Donald Trump's lawyers, So
he doesn't want this to go to trial. So the
likelihood that Donald Trump will be in jail, convicted, and
sentenced before election date or anywhere near it is highly unlikely. Now,
if Jack Smith brings seditious conspiracy charges against Donald Trump,
could he ask for pretrialed attention like he has in
(26:26):
other cases? Absolutely, And I wouldn't put it past him
for doing just that.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
That would be wild, wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Yes? Wow, So tonight tonight we have the rest of
the Republican field that is going They are going to
be debating what give us your predictions on does January
sixth even come up? And then if it doesn't come up,
or if it does come up, what else will they
talk about? That It'll be Trump focused because obviously he's
(26:55):
not there, but I think he's still going to steal
the show in some way or another.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
I think the entire debate is going to be about
Donald Trump. I think that I've heard and I've been
highly critical of some of the answers, especially from Governor
Ron DeSantis, who I'm a fan of. I have a
place in Florida. I really like what he's done there,
but his answers related to January sixth are totally, in
(27:19):
my mind unacceptable. If he says again tonight what he's
been saying to Tutor, which is we need to move
on from January sixth, that if the general election is
about the twenty what happened in twenty twenty in January sixth,
we will lose Ron DeSantis. The state of Florida has
the highest number of defendants in the January sixth prosecution.
(27:44):
He has over I believe one hundred and twenty, and
some of them facing the harshest charges and convictions like
seditious conspiracy. There is no moving on. They're still arresting
people from Florida. They're still holding people under pre trialed attention.
If a man in Floridori who is convicted at a
bench trial from it Reagan judge eighty one year old
(28:04):
Reagan judge Royce Lambert convicted in a bench trial, DOJ
came back and wants this man in jail for fourteen
years for allegedly sprang pepper spray at police that day.
This is not There's no comparable case or sentence like
this in Washington, d C. And now he has left,
He's on the lamb. He's escaping justice because he doesn't
(28:26):
want to spend fourteen years in prison. Ron DeSantis has
not spoken up for his own constituents who are being abused, vilified,
and destroyed. Quite frankly by this doj if he doesn't
have a better answer tonight, and he continues to say that,
I think you will keep seeing the slide in the polls.
(28:46):
But more importantly, I just feel personally disappointed and on
behalf of constituents and defendant's families in Florida who I
talk to. His silence on this matter is really deafening
of the field. Are going to say it was Donald
Trump's fault, He's responsible, it was an insurrection. You know,
Mike Pence will see what he has to say. But
(29:07):
I would expect for those who consider January sixth a
top issue and the biggest example of the weaponization of
DJ and FBI, if they continue to see the sort
of I said, lackluster, I think we really disappointing responses
Donald Trump will just continue to increase his lead over
this field.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
It's interesting because I think about this politically, and you know,
reality and the political world are not always so easy
to meld together, right, you know this? So I mean,
I even here, as I sit here, think about, gosh,
we're going to put this out there, and really it's
one of the only times people will talk about what
is truly going on with January six because everyone is
(29:50):
so afraid that if I talk about it, I'll be canceled,
I'll be taken down. We can't discuss it. But this
is the I mean, why can't we have the conversation.
It's not a four or against it. These are the facts.
Why can't we talk about the facts. And because we're
not allowed to talk about the facts that people have
been taken in, that there are people that will continue
to be taken in, that these trials are going one
(30:13):
way or the other, people don't know. And I got
to say, out of sight, out of mind. I mean,
it was the same thing with Hawaii. You know, everybody's like,
why isn't Joe Biden going there? If he's not in Hawaii,
no one knows how bad Hawaii is. If the news
media leaves Hawaii, then we don't realize how devastated Hawaii
is from this fire. It's the same thing here if
(30:35):
the news media steps away and they're afraid, and to
be honest with you, we're afraid to talk about this
because I'm like, gosh, I could lose this entire podcast
talking just talking about this.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
It really is a fear.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
And so politically, I just think about this and I'm like, man,
I know what these people are thinking. They're like, hmm,
I just would rather not touch that and figure it
out after the fact. And there are thousands of people
that this affected and continue to effectect.
Speaker 3 (31:04):
Right, So, if you're a candidate and you're promising that
you are going to end the weaponization of government, that
you're going to fire the FBI director, that you are
going to take a hold of DOJ, you cannot have
that conversation and you cannot make that sort of a
campaign promise without talking about January sixth.
Speaker 4 (31:24):
It is all.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
It is the fixation of this Department of Justice. It
has been the top priority of the FBI, not just
main FBI, every single one of the fifty six FBI
field offices have been involved in these raids. They are
still investigating people, they are using social media companies, they're
getting bank records from Bank of America, they're getting I mean,
(31:48):
we have a long list of how this has been weaponed.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
How are they how are they even allowed to do that?
Speaker 2 (31:53):
I think that's the thing that people don't get when
they hear about this, And honestly, I think so on
both sides, they're like, hey, they shouldn't have done that,
So whatever is coming for them, I think that's right.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
But there are levels of punishment. There is rule of law.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
There are present cases that show President you know, we
know that not necessarily the way they've gone about this
is the right way. But how are they allowed to
go through your bank economy? Is that really something that
we just didn't know that the DJ is allowed to do?
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Because they go to Bank of America and they say,
we want records of every customer that you have that
used their credit card or got cash from January fourth, fifth, sixth,
and seventh in Washington, DC, and that's what they turned over.
They will go to Amazon and say we have this individual.
We want to see what purchases they made on Amazon
because we want to connect this shirt with this photograph
(32:46):
of this defendant who is outside the Capitol. They've gone
to Twitter and Facebook, social media companies forcing them, not
forcing them. Look, these companies are happy to work.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
With the FBI. We saw this through the Twitter five right.
I mean they're working Brand and Glove.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
So they will go to these companies and they'll say
we want all of the deleted all of the data
that was deleted from this individual's social media account. Then
they go through messages, they go through dms that they
had with people. They use memes that they posted as
evidence of wrongdoing. I mean, people, I hate to pop
my book, but I will. I mean I wrote about
(33:24):
this in my cos January sixth, how the Democrats use
the Capital protest to launch a war on terror against
the political right. I mean that book went to market
January of twenty twenty two. It's still ongoing. So anyone
who wants to move on or is too afraid to
confront this, first of all, they should not be president
because this is the top issue. Second of all, I've
(33:48):
dealt with cowardly politicians now lawmakers for two and a
half years who refuse to talk about this and tutor
not just talk about what DOJ is doing. Talk about
what federal agencies did to provoke the events of January
six That's the big thing. They don't want to talk
about the undercover FBI informants who are involved, the undercover
(34:10):
agents from numerous law enforcement officials. Why they had intelligence
that they claim talked about the threat on January sixth,
but it was buried and not shared with law enforcement.
Why Stephen Sun who just gave that interview with Tucker
Carlson for an hour, talked about how he was intentionally
kept in the dark, that he demanded for two days
(34:32):
extra National guardsmen and was thwarted, not just days ahead
of time, but that afternoon they still refused to give
him the help that he needed. Why is so much
evidence collected from the January sixth Select Committee?
Speaker 4 (34:45):
Why is that buried?
Speaker 3 (34:47):
Why do some congressmen now say some evidence has been destroyed.
Why do we not know more about the FBI's involvement,
and why.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
Why don't we have to haunt Nancy Pelosi responsible?
Speaker 2 (34:59):
Because truly, if I mean, I've talked to some of
the so to be fair, I want to say I've
talked to some of the Congressmen that were in session
that day and they being in that room, had no
idea what was happening, and they truly feared for their lives.
When I hear their stories, they're like, look, we had
no idea what was happening. It was terrifying. I was
(35:20):
calling my family to say goodbye. They were really afraid.
So why isn't Nancy Pelosi held accountable because she knew
all of that information. She knew all of that information
and her duty. But I think people forget she is
in control of Congress, her duty is to protect that building,
and somehow that's never come out. And it blows my
(35:42):
mind that the media hasn't been like, well, wait, when
is Nancy Pelosi going to go in front of the
J six committee and talk about this? And it just
has never happened. I mean, I've taken up a lot
of your time. I want to I would love to
have you back on because there's obviously something else that
I'm interested in, and that is what's happened in Michigan.
(36:02):
I know that you've studied quite a bit what happened
behind the scenes with the governor Whitmer kidnapping attempt, and
there's some information there that I think that you have
that most of the people in the country have never heard,
and that's just for me. It's been really enlightening to
have you here today because these are the things that
we don't know. There's nobody, like I said, that wants
(36:24):
to be putting themselves in the position of discussing it,
and Julie Kelly, honestly thank you for what you do
because there's no one else doing it. Can you tell
people where to get your book and the title of it?
Speaker 1 (36:37):
Again?
Speaker 4 (36:38):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (36:38):
And I would love to come back on because the
only issue I've covered more than January sixth is what
the Whitmer fed napping hoax, and of course the two
appeals for the defendants who finally were convicted after the
second trial. Those appeals were filed last week and they're
very interesting. So I'd love to come back on and
talk about that. My book January sixth, you can purchase
(36:58):
on Amazon. Stack is declassified with Julie Kelly, and I'm
on Twitter a lot posting breaking news, new court motions,
et cetera. Julie underscore Kelly too.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
Thank you so much. It's been very enlightening talking to you.
I mean, honestly, things that I didn't know and I'm
going to be honest, I've been afraid to talk about them,
so I'm glad that you were willing to come on
and chat about it with us.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
We'll be watching these debates tonight.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
Maybe we'll have to have you back and analyze that too,
based on the behavior of these folks and what they
had to say about it. Thank you so much for
joining me on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. As always, for
this episode and others, go to tutordisonpodcast dot com. You
can subscribe right there. We'd love to have subscribers. You
can also go to the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey, this is Buck Sexton and you're listening to the
Tutor Dixon Podcast, part of the Clay Travers and Buck
Sexton podcast Network.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. I am so glad
you're here today because I am joined by Julie Kelly,
an author, an investigative journalist who is known for her
unique and breaking news coverage. Whether it's the COVID nineteen
lockdowns January sixth, or the many indictments against Donald Trump,
Julie has covered some of the most pivotal moments in
(00:30):
recent political history, and she has a particular affinity for
rooting out and exposing the weaponization and corruption occurring in
our government, which we seem to be seeing more of
every single day, particularly at the DOJ and FBI. And
as we sit here on the morning of the first
Republican primary debate for president, I want to thank Julie
(00:51):
for joining me as we dig into some of that
recent reporting and how she thinks that's going to impact
this twenty twenty four race for president. Julie, thanks so
much for being here.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Hey, Tutor, thanks for having me on joining you from
the other side of Lake Michigan.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
So for having me on.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Well, thank you for joining me from that side. It's
a beautiful lake. We're very blessed to be in this
area of the country. You're there because something really big
is happening today, and that is the debate for the
next Republican nominee for president of the United States. But
one of those people is not going to be there.
(01:30):
We all know that the former president Donald Trump has
said he's not going to be there. I mean, I
think there's still some debate as to whether or not
he may just show up at the last minute, because
he is someone that is always unpredictable. That's one thing
that we know about Donald Trump for sure, is that
you don't know what he's ever going to do, but
you know a lot about what he's going through right now,
(01:51):
and that is for indictments.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Can you explain?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
I think that one of the things that people have
been asking me a lot about is what does this
one in Georgia mean, because we seem we've kind of
unpacked this and said if they convict him, how does
he get out of that. There's no federal parton, there's
no gubernatorial part in there.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
How does that work?
Speaker 3 (02:14):
You know what looks like in terms of the Georgia
indictment that it's going to be difficult, and we already
see that former chief of Staff Mark Meadows has filed
a motion to move this to federal court, I think,
successfully arguing that he was a federal employee at the time,
that Georgia really has no purview over trying to criminally
charge him, which they've already done. So I assume that
(02:37):
Donald Trump will be doing the same thing. I see
some legal observers, some fair ones on our side, feeling
pretty certain that these local county state charges won't stick
against the federal employees, Mark Meadows, possibly Jeffrey Clark, who
was the acting deputy Assistant Attorney General at the time,
(02:57):
and certainly Donald Trump. We know she has no purview
over this. You know, this is the broad version of
the federal Rico statute that she's exploiting. Half tutor half
of the one hundred and sixty one overt acts that
she cites in this ninety page plus indictment have nothing
to do with anything that happened in Georgia. She's talking
(03:18):
about conversations that relate to Pennsylvania and Arizona and other states.
So have those conversations well, I think she has those conversations,
just like Jack Smith did. They lifted a lot of
information from the January sixth Select Committee, their witness interviews
in their eight hundred and thirty seven page.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Report, so she certainly didn't.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
How would she have obtained a text between Mark Meadows
and Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry asking for the phone number
of the Republican head of the state legislature, Like, how
is that even evidence of a crime? So, as we know,
this is a stretch, But unfortunately have now issued two
(04:01):
hundred thousand dollars bond for Donald Trump, and it sounds
like he will be reporting turning himself in on Thursday,
which is crazy.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
I know, it is crazy. How can this not be
election meddling when you have him? I mean the timing
of this alone, everybody is going to want to talk
about this debate, and suddenly the debate is just going
to go by the wayside because everything, all news stations
will be following him turning himself in, and it'll be
(04:33):
all the focus will be back on Donald Trump. And
what does that mean for the rest of the Republican
Party right now?
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Well, it is election interference and it's not just election interference,
of course for the general but you're going to see
these Republican candidates get not probably half of the questions
will relate to Donald Trump's multiple indictments. What's going to happen,
you know what their viewpoint is on that, So voters
really are not going to to have a chance to
(05:01):
differentiate between all the candidates on the various issues. But
of course this is all really targeting the general election.
You see poll after poll where Donald Trump is not
just pulling away from the rest of the Republican field,
but now highly competitive in a matchup with Joe Biden.
I think there was a poll that just came out
(05:22):
that showed Donald Trump three or four points ahead. So
is this exactly You know, there's some thinking, tutor that
this is what the Democrats, the Biden regime, and the
media want. They want all these indictments to bolster Trump's
popularity and his standing in the polls. But how the
other Republicans, I'll tell you, have responded. I think it's
(05:43):
pretty lackluster. But we'll see furthermore what their answers are
and how they're going to handle this. In the very
rare chance that any of them are elected president, how
they'll handle it. Not just Donald Trump, tutor, but eleven
hundred Americans who have already been charged with January sixth,
who face extremely serious charges, and this DOJ continuing to
(06:06):
round up new January sixth defendants every single week. So
it's not just about Donald Trump. It's about the eleven
hundred plus American citizens who also have been ensnared in
this abusive, retaliatory, vengeful prosecution.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
That's I actually was just going to say that because
you say they've been lackluster, and I haven't. I mean,
maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard many of
them talk about January sixth. Then I got to tell
you I was talking to somebody earlier this week who said,
to be honest with you, I'm voting for him because
I'm hoping that when he wins, he'll pardon us. What
are the other When are the other candidates going to
(06:40):
address this? Because I think when you say eleven hundred people,
there are people in prison. They're essentially political prisoners. Can
you tell our audience a little bit about that, because
I think most people, everybody is afraid to talk about
the subject. Let's be honest we are afraid to talk
about January sixth and be honest about it.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
And because of.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
That, I mean, because that you say it's lackluster, and
I agree. I think that the candidates are like, oh, man,
I don't want to say anything, but people are really
in jailed that don't deserve to be and they've never
even seen a trial. They've never even talked to anyone
about this. Explain a little bit about that, because I
think that people have no clue.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
So thank you for asking me that. I've been covering
January sixth really since the very beginning, and what really
attracted me to what was happening was seeing that the
DOJ was asking for and receiving what's called pre trial detention,
and that means denying bond to people who are arrested
related to their involvement in January sixth.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
And so it's not that they have to they have
an opportunity to even get out.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
They were taken. They have no trial.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
This is like guilty before you have a chance to
preve your innocence. They don't have a chance to pay bail.
They have no way of getting out. Correct, that's exactly right.
They were rounded up, they were subjected to the FBI's
terrorism Unit, subjected to pre dawn raids with SWAT teams
with armed agents holding rifles pointing them not just at
(08:09):
the suspect, but family members, including children. I mean, I
have horror stories and I write about this in my
book and I'll have more follow up there. You cannot
believe this is happening in America, Gestapo style rates of
people's homes. Eventually then charged with not seditious, not insurrection,
(08:29):
not you know, domestic terrorism, charged with things like obstruction
of an official proceeding or conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Or are these are these felonies? What are these?
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I mean we because we've all been told that this
was an insurrection. But if it was an insurrection and
they're not charged with the Insurrection Act, then what are
these crimes? And are they worthy? What they are charging
them with? Is the punishment worthy of the crime, Well.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
The punishment, I mean, the process is the punishment, right.
But what I talk about also, I just have a
piece up on my substack Declassified with Julie Kelly, and
I talk about how if you really had to describe
the events of January sixth, based on the criminal charges
that have been brought it would have to be called
a parade because the overwhelming most common charge is a
(09:20):
petty offense of parading in the capitol, and this has
been slapped against hundreds of January sixth defendants. But in
addition to weaponizing this charge, which usually the federal court
never deals with, it's handled in the local DC court.
People get a slap on the wrist, a fifty dollars fine,
and then they're like, oh, they never even have to
come back to court. That's not the case with January
(09:43):
six ers. In addition to bringing this very rare petty
offense federal offense tootor what's happening is DOJ and federal
judges are signing off unlawfully on something called a split sentence.
These people who are either pleaded guilty or were convict
did of this low level offense. Judges were imposing jail
time and probation, violating federal sentencing guidance. And I just
(10:09):
talk about in my new piece, because the DC Appellate
Court came down and said no, no, no, it's either
jail time or it's probation. But these judges don't care
the government. This DOJ flagrantly violates the law because they're
never held accountable. And now the DC Circuit has come
down and said, no, this is not right.
Speaker 4 (10:29):
This is how you should read the statue. It's either or.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
And now you have sixty sixty or so sentences that
could be overturned because the DOJ and federal bunch in Washington,
DC continue to weaponize the law, ignore sentencing guidance just
to impose extra judicial and excessive punishment against people who
(10:52):
protested Joe Biden's election more than two and a half
years ago.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
So that so that means there are about sixty people
that are in prison in DC right now.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
No, so a lot of them for this low level offense,
have been have been sentenced to either like fourteen days
in jail up to maybe four months. So a lot
of them have already served their prison time, but they're
still on probation.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
And get this, still probation. You have judges who have.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Admitted that they wanted to impose three years probation term
so they could monitor them through the twenty twenty four election.
This is not just election interference like you said, it's diming,
it's criminalizing political dissent, political activity, and the judges aren't
even trying to hide it, which is crazy. So again,
(11:40):
excess far beyond Donald Trump. It's all in all these
Americans who have been ensnared in this.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
On the Tutor Dixon Podcast, we had a guest on
the leader of the walk Away movement, Brandon Strock. He
was convicted of I guess it was a misdemeanor, but
he ended up with house arrest for I think twelve
months and maybe longer. I need to verify that, and
he is on probation until twenty twenty six. That seems
(12:12):
really radical to be he can't you know, he's in
the state of Nebraska, can't move, can't go anywhere else
without permission to have any movements whatsoever. I think that
people don't realize that this is happening. I mean, is
his case one of those cases where you would say,
is this election monitoring? Because he had a movement for
(12:33):
people to walk away from the Democrat Party and now
he can't leave the state of Nebraska, which is probably
not a hop in political state to be.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Well, you know, we're a Midwesterner, so we're going to
be kind. And my grandmother was from Nebraska, but I mean,
I think he was a home incarceration for at least
three months, possibly six, and now he is on probation.
He's able to travel, but he still has to check in.
I know Brandon, he's a friend of mine, has to
check in with his probation officer. I think he has
(13:05):
to get pre approval before he can travel. But of
course they want to monitor Brandon and his organization through
the twenty twenty four elections, set up these tracks to
see if he violates the terms of his probation so
they can either throw him in jail for contempt or
other people for contempt for violating their release conditions or
(13:27):
probation terms. So this is something we haven't seen in America,
and it's still going on. Tutor, This DOJ is still
arresting people every week. You have the FBI hunting down
people every week, announcing charges, announcing convictions, announcing excessive sentences.
So January six for those candidates who say they want
(13:50):
to move on from January sixth, that if they're elected president,
they're just going to move on, this is a losing
political issue. There's no moving on because it's still happening
every single day.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
How many people.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Would you say, we're taken into prison, that we're not
given the opportunity to pay a bail they were Also
they're also waiting for a trial day. I mean, we're
talking about gosh, we're three years almost, we're three years
out now right right, and they're still in prison and
they've never seen a courtroom.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Is that? Is that possible?
Speaker 4 (14:22):
It is possible.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
And I know there are at least a few defendants
Tutor who were arrested in January and February of twenty
twenty one, who were thrown not just in the DC Gulag,
transported to jails across the country, who to this date
still have not face trial. To your point, it is
due process flipped on its head. These individuals are considered
(14:46):
guilty before being proven innocent. To your question, the number
who were held under pre trial detention orders is upwards
of one hundred individuals. Now, a lot of them have
face trial already, have been convicted, have been sentenced, and
are just adding on to their you know, serving their
prison sentence. But I would say close to probably one
(15:08):
hundred and ten Americans denied release by DC judges, held
either in the DC Gulag or other prisons, as the
DOJ at the same time is delaying, intentionally delaying their trials.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
And some of these people are young people, fathers who
have little kids, and we're talking toddlers at home, and
they have not seen their kids.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
They haven't and.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
They're not even charged with violent crimes. And so and
a lot some of them are veterans. Actually quite a
few of them are veterans. Almost all of them have
no criminal record. But if you look at what the
judges say, and you look at DOJS what they say,
it doesn't matter. None of the usual rules apply. The
laws don't apply because what the government DOJ says, what
(15:55):
federal judges say, is the events of January sixth are
so unprecedent. This was an attack, an assault on our democracy.
Christopher Ray is called January sixth an active domestic terror.
So to that end, none of the rules apply, none
of the equal application of justice applies, because they have
(16:17):
determined that January sixth is so unprecedented, was so violent,
was an attempt to overthrow our government, that these men,
any of them who were involved, even minimally, should face
the harshest consequences.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
So I mean not to play the whataboutism card.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
But it's interesting to see this level of vindiction, or
you know, this level of determination to get these folks
and say that this is terrorism when you see what
happened in Minnesota, for example, where people genuinely lost their lives,
(16:56):
They lost their livelihoods, their businesses were destroyed. I mean,
I can think of no thing more domestic terrorism than
ripping someone's business away and having no consequences for that,
burning down buildings, looting stores, destroying people's.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Lives, and those people are all on video too, and
there's no searching those folks down.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
And in fact, when we look at what Democrats are
doing nationwide, they're not tough on crime. They're not concerned
about whether or not people are able to live safely.
And I'm talking about just walk from your office to
your car without having to worry about whether you're going
to have somebody hold you up, or that your car
is actually going to be there and not be broken into.
I mean, now we're seeing San Francisco people are just
(17:40):
broad daylight going in and breaking the windows of cars
and stealing things out of them. There's no place it's
safe in these Democrat cities, but they're doing this. Trump
obviously has been indicted for January sixth, So I don't
think people fully understand. I mean, we hear about this
and it's like, oh, well, it must be a day
that ends and why Trump gotten? Do you know? This
(18:00):
is like the new thing? So explain to us what
this looks like from the presidential perspective, because we kind
of think that presidents have some sort of protection and
certainly speech, and he went out there and spoke that day.
But what exactly are they saying he couldn't he did
that he wasn't allowed to do.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
So I want to pick up on something you were
just talking about, though, Tutor, and that is people who
say and understand, Lee, if you were violent on January sixth,
we want you punished. Accordingly, if you attack police officers,
we want you charged. However, the very same sort of
riot that happened in Washington, DC just six months before
(18:42):
January sixth, where you had rioters on federal property at
Lafayette Square right outside of the White House, you would
belm Antifa rioters trying to scale the fence outside of
the White House. They were burning parts of the Saint
John Church, which is right across the street. From the
White House prompted as you recall the lockdown of the
White House. All of those charges have been dropped, not
(19:06):
only and this is the same US Attorney's Office, by
the way, who dropped all twenty twenty riding charges, who
still are charging January sixers.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
And federal buildings in Portland too. Remember they were throwing
alotov cocktails into the federal buildings in Portland. They were
attacking the people in the federal buildings in Portland. They
couldn't even get out of the building as they were
being bombed. And nobody's in trouble there.
Speaker 4 (19:30):
No, they're not.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
And that's what really enrages people, as you know, Tutor,
this egregious double standard of justice where you're still rounding
up paraders from over two and a half years ago,
yet you're letting major cities devolve into violent chaos every night,
including Washington, d C. So I think that that is
what really infuriates people the most. As far as the
(19:54):
January sixth charges against Donald Trump that Jack Smith brought
last well earlier this month, it seems like last night.
It seems like last year. I think it was August first,
the indictment was announced.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Like I said, every day. Now it's like, which one
is it that we're talking about?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Right? So August first, I think the indictment was handed
handed up. So he faces now four counts Obstruction of
an official proceeding, which is the most common felony related
to the January sixth prosecution. This again another law that's
been weaponized by dj It's a post en run statute
that has to deal with tampering with evidence and witnesses,
(20:30):
not interrupting a congressional proceeding, which you know Americans have
done for decades, centuries really, and then conspiracy to obstruct
and then two other conspiracy charges. So he faces four
counts right now, I believe that the January sixth indictment
in Washington poses the greatest legal jeopardy for Donald Trump.
(20:52):
The Florida the classified documents one is sort of a joke.
Jack Smith knows that, and he's got a very hard
nose judge in Judge Alien Cannon. That is not the
case in Washington, d C. A city who will a
jury will be seated by voters in a city that
voted ninety three percent for Joe Biden, that views the
(21:12):
events of January sixth very personally and differently than the
rest of the country. He has a brazen partisan judge
in Judge Tanya Chutkin, an Obama appointee, who has suggested
suggested in one hearing and I tweeted this a few
weeks ago, suggested in one hearing that Donald Trump should
be behind bars in another hearing that he should face
(21:35):
charges her really inflammatory language and in some cases dishonest
language that she uses in describing what happened in January
six she should automatically be disqualified from handling this case.
But she won't be so Jack Smith brought these charges.
By the way, the entire investigation, the classified documents, too,
(21:57):
is handled in DC because they know they're going to
get faceavorable grand juries, favorable court rulings, and then a
favorable jury who won't care about the evidence. They only
care about the opportunity to put Donald Trump behind bars.
The burden of proof is so low. This is why
DOJ tutor has almost in your perfect conviction rate. In
January sixth cases these juries return and I've watched it.
(22:21):
They've returned all guilty verdicts in record time. Before anyone
can even write the story what happened in closing arguments,
the jury's coming back with all guilty verdicts. So this
is the sort of environment that Donald Trump finds himself in,
and that's why I think it's the riskier one for him.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
So if that's the case, then.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Mark Meadows bringing wanting to take the Georgia case to
a federal court. I mean, I'm guessing that would be
a totally different court system. He's hoping for a different
judge that that would not go to this exact spot.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
But doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Seem like if you're going to a federal court, you're
going to end up in DC, and it's not necessarily
going to be friendly for anybody who's been involved in
something related to January six I'm not.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
Really sure how that would work.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
That's a good question, because I know he's asking for
the federal court in outside of Atlanta to take up
those charges, saying that she really had no jurisdiction, which
she doesn't. So I think that that's part of the
motion that Mark Meadows, and I assume Donald Trump and
Jeffrey Clark will seek as well. But also there are
still six unnamed co conspirators in Jack Smith's January sixth
(23:34):
indictment against Donald Trump in Washington, d C. So we
are expecting more criminal charges against some of the same
folks who were charged in Georgia johnny'sman, Rudy Julians and
Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark who also will be charged in
DC for January sixth, so this is not over by
(23:55):
a long stretch. I also think that Jack Smith will
bring more criminal charges against Donald Trump for January sixth.
It's hard for me to believe that he's only going
to settle for a four count indictment. I would not
be surprised if he does seek seditious conspiracy charges against
Trump as well.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
What is the I mean if he were convicted, what
would he be looking at for punishment?
Speaker 3 (24:17):
So, in the existing indictment, obstruction of an official proceeding
carries up to a twenty year prison term. A lot
of individuals who have either pleaded guilty or been convicted
a trial have spent four to five six years sentenced
to four to five six years in prison.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Tudor.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
You remember Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman. That's what he
pleaded guilty to obstruction and he spent forty one months
in prison. So the likelihood that if this does go
to trial, if he is convicted, he will ultimately be
sentenced to at least four or five years in prison
on that obstruction count alone is very real, and there's
(24:56):
a lot of recent case law to support the fact
that he faces real jail time if he's convicted.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. This is pretty big if you're
talking about the twenty twenty four election. I think there
are certain people who feel like, well, I need to
vote for him because then he can take the country
back and he can stop this stuff from happening. And
(25:24):
then there's got to be other folks that are like,
what happens, We're going to have a president who could
potentially be in prison.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
Well, here's the thing, Tutor.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
Despite what Jack Smith has said about wanting to take
this case to trial in December of this year, which
is crazy, he doesn't.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
It's very unlikely that this case.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
I mean, usually the average time for any of these
JA six cases to go to trial is about fourteen
to twenty months, So it's very unlikely that Jack Smith
will be able to take this to trial before the election,
and he's going to want to delay this too. He's
not ready to go to trial. He just admitted they've
got eleven million pages of discovery evidence that they have
(26:05):
to that they've turned over to Donald Trump's lawyers, So
he doesn't want this to go to trial. So the
likelihood that Donald Trump will be in jail, convicted, and
sentenced before election date or anywhere near it is highly unlikely. Now,
if Jack Smith brings seditious conspiracy charges against Donald Trump,
could he ask for pretrialed attention like he has in
(26:26):
other cases? Absolutely, And I wouldn't put it past him
for doing just that.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
That would be wild, wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Yes? Wow, So tonight tonight we have the rest of
the Republican field that is going They are going to
be debating what give us your predictions on does January
sixth even come up? And then if it doesn't come up,
or if it does come up, what else will they
talk about? That It'll be Trump focused because obviously he's
(26:55):
not there, but I think he's still going to steal
the show in some way or another.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
I think the entire debate is going to be about
Donald Trump. I think that I've heard and I've been
highly critical of some of the answers, especially from Governor
Ron DeSantis, who I'm a fan of. I have a
place in Florida. I really like what he's done there,
but his answers related to January sixth are totally, in
(27:19):
my mind unacceptable. If he says again tonight what he's
been saying to Tutor, which is we need to move
on from January sixth, that if the general election is
about the twenty what happened in twenty twenty in January sixth,
we will lose Ron DeSantis. The state of Florida has
the highest number of defendants in the January sixth prosecution.
(27:44):
He has over I believe one hundred and twenty, and
some of them facing the harshest charges and convictions like
seditious conspiracy. There is no moving on. They're still arresting
people from Florida. They're still holding people under pre trialed attention.
If a man in Floridori who is convicted at a
bench trial from it Reagan judge eighty one year old
(28:04):
Reagan judge Royce Lambert convicted in a bench trial, DOJ
came back and wants this man in jail for fourteen
years for allegedly sprang pepper spray at police that day.
This is not There's no comparable case or sentence like
this in Washington, d C. And now he has left,
He's on the lamb. He's escaping justice because he doesn't
(28:26):
want to spend fourteen years in prison. Ron DeSantis has
not spoken up for his own constituents who are being abused, vilified,
and destroyed. Quite frankly by this doj if he doesn't
have a better answer tonight, and he continues to say that,
I think you will keep seeing the slide in the polls.
(28:46):
But more importantly, I just feel personally disappointed and on
behalf of constituents and defendant's families in Florida who I
talk to. His silence on this matter is really deafening
of the field. Are going to say it was Donald
Trump's fault, He's responsible, it was an insurrection. You know,
Mike Pence will see what he has to say. But
(29:07):
I would expect for those who consider January sixth a
top issue and the biggest example of the weaponization of
DJ and FBI, if they continue to see the sort
of I said, lackluster, I think we really disappointing responses
Donald Trump will just continue to increase his lead over
this field.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
It's interesting because I think about this politically, and you know,
reality and the political world are not always so easy
to meld together, right, you know this? So I mean,
I even here, as I sit here, think about, gosh,
we're going to put this out there, and really it's
one of the only times people will talk about what
is truly going on with January six because everyone is
(29:50):
so afraid that if I talk about it, I'll be canceled,
I'll be taken down. We can't discuss it. But this
is the I mean, why can't we have the conversation.
It's not a four or against it. These are the facts.
Why can't we talk about the facts. And because we're
not allowed to talk about the facts that people have
been taken in, that there are people that will continue
to be taken in, that these trials are going one
(30:13):
way or the other, people don't know. And I got
to say, out of sight, out of mind. I mean,
it was the same thing with Hawaii. You know, everybody's like,
why isn't Joe Biden going there? If he's not in Hawaii,
no one knows how bad Hawaii is. If the news
media leaves Hawaii, then we don't realize how devastated Hawaii
is from this fire. It's the same thing here if
(30:35):
the news media steps away and they're afraid, and to
be honest with you, we're afraid to talk about this
because I'm like, gosh, I could lose this entire podcast
talking just talking about this.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
It really is a fear.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
And so politically, I just think about this and I'm like, man,
I know what these people are thinking. They're like, hmm,
I just would rather not touch that and figure it
out after the fact. And there are thousands of people
that this affected and continue to effectect.
Speaker 3 (31:04):
Right, So, if you're a candidate and you're promising that
you are going to end the weaponization of government, that
you're going to fire the FBI director, that you are
going to take a hold of DOJ, you cannot have
that conversation and you cannot make that sort of a
campaign promise without talking about January sixth.
Speaker 4 (31:24):
It is all.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
It is the fixation of this Department of Justice. It
has been the top priority of the FBI, not just
main FBI, every single one of the fifty six FBI
field offices have been involved in these raids. They are
still investigating people, they are using social media companies, they're
getting bank records from Bank of America, they're getting I mean,
(31:48):
we have a long list of how this has been weaponed.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
How are they how are they even allowed to do that?
Speaker 2 (31:53):
I think that's the thing that people don't get when
they hear about this, And honestly, I think so on
both sides, they're like, hey, they shouldn't have done that,
So whatever is coming for them, I think that's right.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
But there are levels of punishment. There is rule of law.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
There are present cases that show President you know, we
know that not necessarily the way they've gone about this
is the right way. But how are they allowed to
go through your bank economy? Is that really something that
we just didn't know that the DJ is allowed to do?
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Because they go to Bank of America and they say,
we want records of every customer that you have that
used their credit card or got cash from January fourth, fifth, sixth,
and seventh in Washington, DC, and that's what they turned over.
They will go to Amazon and say we have this individual.
We want to see what purchases they made on Amazon
because we want to connect this shirt with this photograph
(32:46):
of this defendant who is outside the Capitol. They've gone
to Twitter and Facebook, social media companies forcing them, not
forcing them. Look, these companies are happy to work.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
With the FBI. We saw this through the Twitter five right.
I mean they're working Brand and Glove.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
So they will go to these companies and they'll say
we want all of the deleted all of the data
that was deleted from this individual's social media account. Then
they go through messages, they go through dms that they
had with people. They use memes that they posted as
evidence of wrongdoing. I mean, people, I hate to pop
my book, but I will. I mean I wrote about
(33:24):
this in my cos January sixth, how the Democrats use
the Capital protest to launch a war on terror against
the political right. I mean that book went to market
January of twenty twenty two. It's still ongoing. So anyone
who wants to move on or is too afraid to
confront this, first of all, they should not be president
because this is the top issue. Second of all, I've
(33:48):
dealt with cowardly politicians now lawmakers for two and a
half years who refuse to talk about this and tutor
not just talk about what DOJ is doing. Talk about
what federal agencies did to provoke the events of January
six That's the big thing. They don't want to talk
about the undercover FBI informants who are involved, the undercover
(34:10):
agents from numerous law enforcement officials. Why they had intelligence
that they claim talked about the threat on January sixth,
but it was buried and not shared with law enforcement.
Why Stephen Sun who just gave that interview with Tucker
Carlson for an hour, talked about how he was intentionally
kept in the dark, that he demanded for two days
(34:32):
extra National guardsmen and was thwarted, not just days ahead
of time, but that afternoon they still refused to give
him the help that he needed. Why is so much
evidence collected from the January sixth Select Committee?
Speaker 4 (34:45):
Why is that buried?
Speaker 3 (34:47):
Why do some congressmen now say some evidence has been destroyed.
Why do we not know more about the FBI's involvement,
and why.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
Why don't we have to haunt Nancy Pelosi responsible?
Speaker 2 (34:59):
Because truly, if I mean, I've talked to some of
the so to be fair, I want to say I've
talked to some of the Congressmen that were in session
that day and they being in that room, had no
idea what was happening, and they truly feared for their lives.
When I hear their stories, they're like, look, we had
no idea what was happening. It was terrifying. I was
(35:20):
calling my family to say goodbye. They were really afraid.
So why isn't Nancy Pelosi held accountable because she knew
all of that information. She knew all of that information
and her duty. But I think people forget she is
in control of Congress, her duty is to protect that building,
and somehow that's never come out. And it blows my
(35:42):
mind that the media hasn't been like, well, wait, when
is Nancy Pelosi going to go in front of the
J six committee and talk about this? And it just
has never happened. I mean, I've taken up a lot
of your time. I want to I would love to
have you back on because there's obviously something else that
I'm interested in, and that is what's happened in Michigan.
(36:02):
I know that you've studied quite a bit what happened
behind the scenes with the governor Whitmer kidnapping attempt, and
there's some information there that I think that you have
that most of the people in the country have never heard,
and that's just for me. It's been really enlightening to
have you here today because these are the things that
we don't know. There's nobody, like I said, that wants
(36:24):
to be putting themselves in the position of discussing it,
and Julie Kelly, honestly thank you for what you do
because there's no one else doing it. Can you tell
people where to get your book and the title of it?
Speaker 1 (36:37):
Again?
Speaker 4 (36:38):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (36:38):
And I would love to come back on because the
only issue I've covered more than January sixth is what
the Whitmer fed napping hoax, and of course the two
appeals for the defendants who finally were convicted after the
second trial. Those appeals were filed last week and they're
very interesting. So I'd love to come back on and
talk about that. My book January sixth, you can purchase
(36:58):
on Amazon. Stack is declassified with Julie Kelly, and I'm
on Twitter a lot posting breaking news, new court motions,
et cetera. Julie underscore Kelly too.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
Thank you so much. It's been very enlightening talking to you.
I mean, honestly, things that I didn't know and I'm
going to be honest, I've been afraid to talk about them,
so I'm glad that you were willing to come on
and chat about it with us.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
We'll be watching these debates tonight.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
Maybe we'll have to have you back and analyze that too,
based on the behavior of these folks and what they
had to say about it. Thank you so much for
joining me on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. As always, for
this episode and others, go to tutordisonpodcast dot com. You
can subscribe right there. We'd love to have subscribers. You
can also go to the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Start Here
A straightforward look at the day's top news in 20 minutes. Powered by ABC News. Hosted by Brad Mielke.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.