VP JD Vance on Iran Deal, GOP Divide, and Returning to Faith, PLUS Alleged 1/5 Pipe Bomber's Lawyer

Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome. to the Megan Kelly show. We've got a. great show for you today. We are live. from the SiriusXM HQ in New York City. with Vice President JD Vance. And we. have a lot to talk about the potential. end of the war in Iran and his excellent. new book which is out today. It's called. Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith. It's a great read, especially right now. for anybody who's having some of the. same doubts that the vice president had. about his own Christian faith not so.

long ago. He's here with me. I just saw. him in this uh SiriusXM HQ, but he is on. the phone with the president, which is. about the best excuse any guest has ever. given me for being a little late to the. show. [laughter]. That seems like something we shouldn't. interrupt. But it actually works out. well because I didn't really want to. bore him with going over the reports of. what's in this Iran deal, but um because. he knows, but you and I should go. through it together so that you know. when he and I are talking what the. points are that we're that we're going.

over. This is reportedly the deal um as. reported by uh some sources who have. been reliable on reporting previous. points of negotiation between us and. Iran. Number one, we're going to stop. fighting. This is my very simplified. version. Everybody's going to stop. fighting including it says Lebanon and. Israel. Okay, so the deal terms. reportedly now this has been confirmed. by the administration. That's one of the. points of contention here is that they. haven't told us exactly what's in the.

memorandum of understanding. The critics. of the deal already feel betrayed. They. want to know like why can't we know and. so on. But this is reportedly what's in. there. Stop [snorts] all fighting. including in Lebanon. Lift the blockade. of the Iranian ports and in return the. Iranians open up the straight of Hormuz. Nothing's in the memorandum of. understanding as we as we know it um. about the tolls that Iran's been. charging. $300 billion dollars to Iran. uh from theou says the US with its.

regional partners will come up with a. plan for that. Uh the administration has. suggested already that that would be. money from its regional partners to try. to rebuild Iran. So 300 billion not US. money but that would go to Iran. That's. been criticized by some but you know. it's to help them rebuild. um all. sanctions to come to an end uh against. Iran. That's worth reportedly about. hundred billion dollars. That's. sanctions that have been imposed by us, the UN, and the IAEA against Iran. No.

nukes ever for them. That they're this. is to be negotiated, but that we're. going to agree that they they won't. develop a nuke. and um that then the. agreement suggests we may be negotiating. their needs, their nuclear needs, which. is got a big question mark over it. Um. the fate of the nuclear dust is to be. negotiated, the enriched uranium. The. Treasury will allow Iranian oil exports. That's worth about $4 billion a month.

Iran's frozen money will be released. That's worth about $24 billion. And um. then there's a question of. what exactly they have to do in order to. get all this money. So, President Trump. has made clear repeatedly that he's not. just going to give them all this dough. They have to do things in order to earn. this, you know, relief of sanctions and. the green light from the Treasury for. them to export their oil. And that's one.

of the questions we have, which is what. exactly do they have to do? How will we. know when they've done it? and um you. know, how are we going to basically just. hold them to account as opposed to just. opening up the financial spigot and. making Iran very very rich while we. peace out of there. Now, the critics of. the deal, they don't want any of this. I. mean, let's be honest, what the critics. of this deal want is more fighting. That's what they want. They want us to. bomb Iran to smitherines. Um, I think. they'd be fine with Israel growing and.

it its hedgeimonyy uh in the Middle East. and they're not going to be satisfied. until we have it looks like military. occupation over there. How how else. could we ensure that they never do. additional enrichment. that they they don't want them to be. able to do it for energy purposes? They. certainly don't want nuclear purposes. Um, and they don't like how much. maneuvering, how much wiggle room there. is in here for Iran to potentially. resume its nuclear program. Uh, they.

also want the nuclear dust, as Trump's. calling it. That's basically the. enriched uranium that they had in Iran. prior to our bombing 12 months ago, June. of 2025 until, thanks to our bombing. campaign, it's now the equivalent of a. skyscrapers length underground. Not too. accessible. And this is what President. Trump has been saying, like it's they. can't really get to it. And if they were.

to try, we've got satellites watching. them that would tell us immediately. And. we have the magical power of our. airplanes to go back over there if they. were to try such a thing. So, he has. said from the beginning he's not all. that worried about this so-called. nuclear dust, about them like somehow. digging it up and working from there to. make a bomb. But it it's going to have. to be addressed in one way, shape, or. form. um under the Obama deal, there was. a question about what to do with their.

uh enriched uranium and there they said. something like 98% of it was going to be. sent to Russia under the JCPOA which. Trump tore up. Now reportedly under this. deal we it's it's to be negotiated. We. don't have the explicit uh agreement yet. but there uh there has been a statement. let's see Trump had suggested that uh we. would be joining with Iran in down. blending it and then removing it. He.

told the New York Times that that the US. will over time join with Iran in down. blending it. In other words, if it's. enriched beyond the point one would need. for domestic energy and is looking more. like it's for a nuke, you would get it. back down and then removal. But and he. also said this would require near. constant monitoring any sort of, you. know, engagement by Iran with uranium. So he's not ruling it out. That has his. critics upset. That has neocons, hawks,

whatever you want to call them, very. upset because they don't trust Iran. They don't think we should trust them no. matter what. And you know, we had. monitoring of them under the JCPOA. The Obama's defenders and Iran's. defenders say that they were complying. with the JCPOA and its enrichment. requirements back then, which was not. beyond 3.67%. and um that they were complying and that. they didn't start to enrich to weapons. grade until Trump tore up the original.

deal. Uh, in any event, they do have I. don't know if you'd call it weapons. grade, but they have uranium that's been. enriched well beyond 3.67. deep in the earth at those three nuclear. sites right now. And what to do about. those is going to have to be decided. U, we're still waiting on the vice. president. He must be having quite the. call with the president of the United. States. Uh what's supposed to happen. later this week is Vice President Vance. is supposed to be heading to Switzerland.

for the formal signing of this. memorandum of understanding. So they they didn't they did like a docu. sign. So it's already been signed, but. they're going to do a more formal. signing this Friday. And uh so the. president or the vice president shortly. after today's interview uh and some of. the other ones that he's going to have. to do is going to head to Switzerland. and sign this deal. It looks like the. president will stay states side. Okay, it looks like the VP is ready. We're. going to bring him in. Um we'll take a.

quick break just to make that easy so. you don't have to be with us during our. technical [music] setup and we'll be. back in just two minutes. Don't go away. Vice President JD Vance joins me right. after this. Don't miss a moment. Subscribe to this. show on YouTube and follow me on Insta, Facebook, and X. Buy gold and put some. silver in your pocket. I know what. you're thinking. Everything's expensive. right now, so how am I going to buy. gold? Well, pull your head out of the. sand. One thing you can control right. now that does not cost you anything out. of pocket is diversifying your.

retirement savings. Birch Gold Group can. help you convert an old 401k from a. previous employer or an IRA into a. physical IRA in gold. something that can. be a hedge against inflation. And listen. to this. Right now, Birch Gold is going. to give you a special America 250 1oz. silver round for every $10,000 you. purchase by July 10th. Think about this. 10 years ago, an ounce of gold was about. $1,200 bucks. Today, it's around $4,500.

Where will it be in 10 years? Text MK to. 989898 to take advantage of free America. 250 silver with qualifying purchase. before July 10th. Again, text MK to the. number 989898 today. Welcome back. everybody. Sitting [music] here with the. Vice President of the United States, JD. Vance. Mr. Vice President, thanks so. much for being here. >> Good to see you. >> All right. So, what happened with the. president in the phone call? >> Which president? [laughter] Which phone. call are you talking about? You mean.

just back there? >> Just back there. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. I mean, well, you know, he's. at the G7. He's about to go to dinner. over in Switzerland, and so he just. called me to check in on how things are. going with the update. Well, I I meant. which phone I was like, "Wait a second. Do you guys have me tapped in there? I. didn't think you were in there when who. who is feeding you intelligence?". >> They just told us that's why you were. going to be a little late to say. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Sorry, I was confused. at that. But yeah, no, we had just a a. chat about how the G7 was going and. okay, you know, he's asking about how. is, you know, what's the progress of the. deal, what's going on, what are we. hearing, and just the things that you.

talk about when the president, the vice. president, >> what is the progress of the deal? What. are you hearing? How's it going? >> Well, I mean, the the deal is is done, at least the first step of it. And, you. know, one of the things I've been doing. for the past couple of days is. correcting a lot of misinformation about. the deal because I've heard so many. conspiracies, so many things that just. aren't true. So like let me kind of run. you through what the deal is and what. the deal isn't. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So number one, what it says is. effectively the United States will open. the Straight of Hormuz, lift the naval.

blockade, the Iranians will destroy the. dust and then hand it over either to us. or to an international organization. >> They will. So they agree to Exactly. And. the third part of it is assuming they. comply with the terms of the agreement, there are all of these economic benefits. that can flow to the Iranians. And so, so what happens? So if you're an Iranian. hardliner and you want to be out of this. and you want to make this deal, but you. don't want to sort of pitch it a certain. way to a domestic audience, what you do.

is you go through the document, you. identify everything the Iranians could. get, and you say, "We are getting it.". and then you underemphasize or don't. even talk about all the things that they. have to give in order to get those. benefits. And so like the way that I. think about it is there's sort of a you. know we're at a fork in the road in this. entire relationship with Iran uh for 47. years. We've obviously had basically a. terrible relationship with Iran. They've. funded a lot of terrorist organizations. There's obviously the nuclear issue. that's been in the background, you know,

going back well before Donald Trump even. got on the political scene. And here's. where we are right now. Their nuclear. facilities are destroyed. That is just. objectively true. Their ability to. enrich uranium to build a nuclear bomb. completely destroyed. Number two, their. economy is currently in shambles, right? The blockade and all of the other. sanctions have had a very profound. effect. And number three, they are at a. position where what they're saying is. that they want to make long-term. commitments to the United States and to. the Gulf Arab countries to change their.

relationship. So that's true whether. they comply with this deal or not. Now, if they comply with this deal, I think. it's much better for the United States. and it's going to be much better for. Iran. But if they don't comply with the. deal, the straits are still open. We've. still done incredible damage to their. nuclear program and is really, you know, we can get on with our lives as a. country and they don't get anything if. they don't. >> turn off the financial spigot. >> Exactly. Well, the way I'd put it is the. financial spigot has already turned off.

It's been turned off for a very long. time. In fact, we've probably turned the. screws even tighter. But we can either. unscrew the financial spigot or we can. keep it where it is right now, which is. fundamentally just very bad for the. people of Iran. And I'm like, you know, as you know, I'm I'm fundamentally an. optimist about these things. I always. try to think about what can do rather. than just what can happen rather than. just identify problems. But, you know, if we go down the option where the. Iranians comply with their obligations. under the deal, like this totally. transforms the Middle East. And it it's. interesting, you know, there's always.

this question about how is this the. same? How is this different from the. JCPOA, the Obama deal that, you know, Republicans have been very critical of. for 10-15 years? And I actually think I. could walk you through the substantive. differences between what we're talking. about and what the uh what what what. what the Obama deal did, but. fundamentally, how did the Gulf Arab. countries, the Gulf Coast coalition, how. did they respond to the Obama JCPOA? They hated that deal. They thought it. empowered Iran. They thought it did. nothing for them. They weren't. consulted. They weren't a participant in.

the process. How do they feel about this. Trump peace plan? They love it because. they see it as a genuine opportunity to. transform how the Middle East has worked. um for the next couple of generations. So, I I think we have a real opportunity. here. But regardless, if if it just ends. in Iran's nuclear program is destroyed, the war is over, the Straits of Hormuz. are opened. That's a great place for the. United States to be in. >> How How is it though? Okay. How is that. different from where we were before we. launched this war? I get how it's. different thanks to the strikes we did.

last June. That was very helpful. >> Sure. >> But straight open and nuclear sites. destroyed and we're no longer fighting. is where we were in February. >> Well, we did additional destruction to. their nuclear facilities and. particularly their capacity to rebuild. So if you look while a lot of people. were focused on you know we want to. replace the Ayatollah with Raza Pavlavi. or you know somebody like that what the. president always said is we want to. destroy their ability to project power. across the Middle East and you know.

obviously people always talk about. Israel and Israel I'm sure we'll get. into that uh during this conversation. but it was just the Israelis but it was. also the Gulf Coast coalition that the. the Arab countries in the Gulf who were. frankly petrified of the role that Iran. played of their ability to project power. of their ability to launch missiles and. hit some of these energy facilities, but. then also that industrial base that. produced missiles was also useful in. rebuilding their nuclear capacity, right? And so what we've done. fundamentally is destroyed that.

conventional military capacity, also. destroyed their ability to rebuild their. nuclear program. And then what we have. an option to do, and again it really. depends on what the Iranians respond. with. What we have an option to do, I. think, is fundamentally transform our. relationship with Iran. So, >> I mean, I I liken it to what President. Trump was doing in that Middle East. summit with Saudi Arabia with whom we. didn't used to have the greatest. relationship. Trying to say, "What if we. could get along economically?" Like, "What if we could help make you rich?". >> Correct. >> And it it like for a US president to. look at Iran and even suggest such a.

thing. >> has many people upset. But if it worked. out would be transformative. >> Well, it would be transformative. And. what the president has said is I want. Iran to be a successful country. But if. in order to do that, just like with. Saudi Arabia, it's actually a great. example. You know, if you went back 20, 25 years, one of our biggest concerns. with Saudi Arabia is they were funding. Islamic radicalism. >> They sent all the 911 terrorists. >> Yeah. A lot of the ideas, the terrorists. themselves, but also the ideas that were. spreading all over the Middle East, all. over the world were funded not. necessarily by the Saudi government, but. certainly by people within Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis completely cut down on that, transformed their country, have a great. economic and political relationship with. the United States of America. And the. president's saying if the Iranians are. willing to change their behavior in the. same way the Saudis did, then absolutely. we want them to be a successful country. And it's. >> the two governments are very different. >> The two governments are very different, but there actually are there are. similarities, too. And again, we just. have to go down this pathway, see where. we get. If it works out, great. If it. doesn't work out, we're still in a good.

place as in our. >> What do they have to do specifically to. get us to turn on the financial spigot? >> Yeah. So, a lot of this stuff is to be. negotiated at kind of the the technical. level of detail, but it's it's. basically, if you think about it, we. care about their attempt to rebuild. their enrichment capacity. We care about. this enriched uranium, this nuclear dust. as the president calls it. We also care. about, you know, are they getting along. well with their neighbors? Are they. funding revolutions in their neighboring. countries? Are they funding terrorist. organizations or are they being good. partners with uh the Gulf Coast.

Coalition and and and of course other. countries in the region? And what we're. saying is the more that you do, the more. we're going to try to reintegrate you. into the world economy. And that's the. basic template of the deal. And I I said. I'd talk about like what the deal is and. what the deal isn't. What the deal. isn't, you know, we don't list this list. this stuff out specifically. We've been. talking to them directly about what this. might look like. They seem very. interested. But again, we've also been. very clear that if you guys don't do. this thing, none of the actual benefits. are going to acrew to your country. >> How about Hezbollah and Lebanon?

Because, you know, that's a proxy that. they're funding and that could easily. queer this deal. It could quer this deal. this week. People fear, >> never mind on a go forward basis either. side, Israel or Hezbollah. >> Sure. Look, it's it's always it's always. delicate with these things. And you know. what we've seen with the ceasefire in. Lebanon and it's been clear to be clear. a dirty ceasefire. There's been some. shooting back and forth. But frankly. there's very cey there's there's way. less shooting now than there was two.

weeks ago and there's way less shooting. two weeks ago than there was before. So. with these things as the president of. the United States said a couple weeks. ago he said sometimes a ceasefire just. means they're shooting less and that's. the progress and then you get to the. next stage. Is Lebanon included? >> Lebanon. It is a regional peace deal. It's going to include the Gulf. It's. going to include Israel. It's going to. include Lebanon. The idea is this is a. true regional peace deal because again, sorry, forgive me for interrupting. >> No, no, no. The idea is that is that if. the is the if the Iranians comply, then.

we are going to have a true. transformative deal for the Middle East. And if not, they don't get any economic. benefits. The United States, we got what. we came to do and we're done. And that's. the basic approach. we would not not. turn on the spigot if Hezbollah hit. Israel over and over. >> Well, what I would say is like if Iran. is funding Hezbollah, we're not going to. allow a bunch of unfrozen assets to. freeze to the Iranians. Right now, I. want to be clear about this too because. those are not American assets. There's.

been a lot of misreporting on this and. people have said, "Oh, is the United. States going to give Iran billions of. dollars?" No. I want to be very, very. crystal clear. Even if the Iranians do. everything contemplated by this deal, not a penny of American money flows to. Iran. But let me give you an example of, you know, one of these things that. people again have misrepresented. Let's. say, for example, that the United Arab. Emirates, who's been they've been one of. the best allies that we've had in the. region, let's say that they want to. invest in a nuclear power plant in Iran, they really can't do that without us.

lifting some of the sanctions that exist. in the global financial system to make. that possible. Now, are the Emiratis. going to invest in Iran, or is America. going to let the Emiratis invest in Iran. unless the Iranians change their. behavior? No. So, all these people say, well, you know, you're giving Iran. money. No, no, no. We're saying that if. the Iranians change their behavior, we're going to let some of these other. countries invest in rebuilding their. country and creating some prosperity for.

their people. That's like a good thing, right? If the Iranians stop funding. terrorism, if they're behaving and their. relationship is transformed, not just. with us, but with the whole region, like. that's a thing to celebrate. You know, somebody said, I I forget who, but. somebody said, you know, this is like. doing the Marshall Plan when the Nazis. are still in control. And that's wrong. on a few different ways. Number one, the. Marshall Plan was a lot of American tax. money. This is not American tax money. Number two, we're saying you only get. the benefits of the bargain if you.

change your behavior. If that happens, we're talking about a transformed Middle. East. That's a great legacy for the. president, but more importantly, it's a. great win for the American people. >> Will we have inspections of whatever. they are or aren't doing when it comes. to nuclear enrichment? You know, I mean, and and is enrichment. even on the table? Because I haven't. been able to totally understand what. President Trump is saying on that. If. >> if they want the benefits of the. bargain, enrichment is going to be on. the table. And more importantly, verification and inspections is going to. be on the table. >> So that but that means we'd let them do. it a little. Like what else are we.

inspecting? >> No, look our our plan is well what we. would be inspecting is the full part of. building a nuclear weapon. So I'm hardly. a nuclear engineer so forgive uh the. scientists are going to have to forgive. me for this summary, but building a. nuclear weapon is the infrastructure to. enrich uranium. It's the infrastructure. to turn enriched uranium into nuclear. fuel. It's the infrastructure to turn. that nuclear fuel into a bomb that you. can detonate. It's the delivery. mechanism for that bomb. >> The cascades and the centrif,

you know, are those coming out? >> Our our plan under this deal is again. the Iranians are going to get a lot of. benefits so long as they dismantle that. nuclear weapons program. And again, you. know, people always ask me, why do you. believe him this time? I don't believe. them. I don't I don't trust Megan. I. don't trust anything that anybody says. I trust what people do. And the way this. deal is structured is that as they do. more, they receive more. As they do. less, they receive less. And that's the. basic structure. >> Now, the reaction to this from the.

neocons, from the hawks, has been. negative already. They're mad that they. can't see the memorandum of. understanding, which I get actually in. their defense. Why can't they see why. can't we all see theou right now? >> Well, there's there Yeah. So, first of. all, the president said by the latest. Friday, possibly as early as tomorrow, we're going to release the memorandum of. understanding text. Uh the reason why we. haven't released it yet is there are. some delicate diplomatic things going on. where the Iranians and not just the. Iranians but some of our mediators, the. Pakistanis and the Qataris have asked us.

to sequence this in the right way. Uh I. don't frankly fully understand it, but. there are sensitivities that exist in. the Arab and Muslim world that we're. trying to be responsive to. Fundamentally, does it really matter if. the deal comes out on Wednesday versus. Friday? No. that that's why we haven't. emphasized it so much is because at the. very latest the text is going to be out. on Friday. >> Okay. Yeah. And I mean you've already. signed it, but it's not like legally. binding to where you can't undo it. It's. a diplomatic agreement. So it's correct. If people freak out, there's an utter.

meltdown here in the United States. It. could always be undone if you change. your mind. >> Exactly. And and I again, Megan, I could. summarize this deal in like two or three. sentences, which is that if the Iranians. change the way that they behave with. regards to their nuclear weapon, with. regards to their financing of terrorism, we are going to bring them into the. world economy. If they don't, we won't. It's really that simple. >> Okay, so here's some of the reaction. Um. Mark Tissson uh said, "If if the deal. terms are accurate as has been leaked, it's a complete disaster." He's calling.

this, by the way, the Vance the Vance. deal. Um there is. >> I wonder why he doesn't call it the. Trump deal. >> I I wonder too. There is um Ben Dominic. who was on special report last night. called this the a hillbilly Obama deal. I wonder who that's a reference to. >> Seems to be a shot at you sir. Um not. bold foreign policy. There's a guy named. Yanan Maggal who is a an Israeli. journalist who's very close with. Netanyahu. He's basically his. mouthpiece. Who it called you a low. life, called Donald Trump a loser. Um.

the Israeli ambassador to the United. States called this is so disappointing. Um then there's Mark Levin who's been. rage tweeting about it every five. minutes. He demands to see the. memorandum. He demands that this be. treated like a treaty to where now you. have to get congressional approval for. theou. The constitution does say you. need approval to declare war, which. Trump doesn't think he did and didn't. seek. But now and and they and he. defended him on that. But now that we're. ending it, which you definitely don't. need congressional approval for, he.

wants this treated like a treaty and is. demanding you go before Congress, sir. >> Well, to be clear, I I don't think that. congressional approval was required. I I. I really firmly do believe that the. president this is not was never a. full-scale war in the conventional or. legal sense of it. So, we we definitely. made sure that we dotted our eyes and. crossed our tees here. So, I wanted to. defend the administration on that point. But it is kind of ironic that they're. really really worried about stopping. this thing, but they were completely. gung-ho about starting this thing. And. look, I I want to be responsive and and.

charitable to some of these concerns. So, first of all, why do they believe. Iranian propaganda only about one thing, the peace deal? They don't seem to. believe Iranian propaganda, rightfully. so, about anything else. So if you're in. the position of endorsing Iranian. propaganda only when it's related to. this peace deal, then maybe you should. check yourself a little bit and question. your sources. The second thing that I'd. say is what is their alternative? If you. look today, Brent crude is around $78 a.

barrel. West Texas crude is even lower, 75, $73 a barrel. I mean, the the. numbers float around a little bit, but. what that means is lower gas prices for. Americans, lower energy costs for. Americans. That means that this little. blip that we've had of an increase in. energy costs, which has caused a lot of. people some problems, we're now getting. back to normal. And I think that. fundamentally, if you look at what. they're proposing, they're proposing an. endless conflict. They want this to go.

on until every bomb has been dropped or. until every Iranian is dead. That is not. what the president of the United States. wants. What he said is, "I set about. this to end their nuclear program, to. eliminate their ability to threaten. their neighbors and project power, and. to fundamentally make sure that no. future child would have to deal with a. terrorist regime with an atomic bomb. That's why the president set out to do. this. He feels and he's right that he's. accomplished that goal and now we can.

get to the negotiation to see what are. the other benefits that we can get from. this and frankly what are the benefits. the Iranians could get from this if they. behave. I just don't think that that. people who are criticizing this one. they're not actually dealing with the. reality of what's in it. And number two. they don't have an alternative. If your. alternative is just to drop bombs. without any clear goal or any clear. American interest implicated, then. you're not making wise decisions on. behalf of the American people. The. president is and that's why we're in.

this position. >> I'm going to give you a s from sound on. tape from John Poritz, who is the chief. over at Commentary Magazine, which is. very pro-Israel, very neoci. preview. He's not happy. Here it is. >> I honestly don't know if it could be. worse. America is going to be in a. strategically, tactically, and militarily worse. position than it was under Biden. He. made a choice to test America's resolve, and he has choked. He has chickenened.

out. He has bled himself dry. Trump, the. crazy lunatic psychotic who doesn't care. about lives and will do anything and do. anything, could not bear the idea of. putting a boot on the ground anywhere in. Iran and could not bear the idea of a. single American possibly being taken. hostage, which I understand. I'm not. saying that either of those is a good. thing, but if you're going to go to war, you have to put boots on the ground. everyone in the military has volunteered.

to put their lives on the line for their. country and that the country itself may. have to sacrifice in the form of wildly. higher oil prices. If you think that the. American national interest is has to be. engaged in this process and if you go. into the process and you lose it and. it's a complete war of choice, you have. made things worse. The situation is. worse. >> Thoughts on that? Well, there's a lot to. respond to in there, but I actually. think John, I appreciate that because.

John is kind of giving it away the game. He's saying he really doesn't care that. much about higher oil prices for. Americans. Doesn't care about high gas. prices, and he wants boots on the. ground. He. >> doesn't care about casualties. >> Exactly. and and wants boots on the. ground and casualties in a country of 95. million people where again the president. of the United States never said that his. goal was to install Raza Pavlavi to. become the new leader of Iran. What he. said is if the Iranian people want to. rise up great that's their business.

that's between them and their. government. What we want is a sessation. of their nuclear program either through. diplomatic means or through military. means as he ultimately went down that. pathway. And I and I think Megan there's. a there's actually a deeper foreign. policy debate that I think the last few. months has sort of papered over here, which is when President Trump uses. military power, he's not an. isolationist, right? He's not a Rand. Paul guy, Ron Paul guy. He never has. been, never was. But what he is is a guy. who says, "If I'm going to use American. military power, I want to accomplish a.

discrete objective." And every single. day I saw it very, very much on the. inside. He was asking, "Have we. accomplished that objective? Can we stop. this?" And once we got to the point. where people were saying, "Yes, we feel. like we are in a much stronger position, we feel like their nuclear program is. destroyed, we feel like their. conventional military, it's going to be. impossible for them to rebuild it for. very, very many years." He said, "Okay, then I want you to go and negotiate a. deal that transforms the Middle East.". And that's what he did. >> I mean, how integral was the sneaking of.

the oil out of the straight of Hormuz. overnight? Because that to me, that was. the one of the best things we did. Correct. They thought they shut down the. straight and had us by the neck. Correct. >> We closed off their ports which gave. them skin in the game. But we were. secretly getting oil out of there. because the biggest pressure point on us. has been the the prices, the energy. prices. >> That's absolutely right. And so for the. first few weeks of this, actually, there. was this totally misaligned thing where. the Iranians were getting oil out of the. straight of Hormuse, but literally. nobody else was. And we kind of flipped.

that on its head a little bit. We shut. down any access they had to the straight. of Hormuse. They couldn't get anything. in or out. But while that was happening, we were getting sometimes it was 12. million barrels, sometimes it was 3 to 4. million barrels, but it averaged out to. many millions of barrels every single. day that US and the Arab allies were. getting out of the straight of Hormuz. Iran was getting nothing. And that. leverage point did increase the pressure. on them. You know, this this idea of. closing the straight of Hormuz, this has. obviously been in some ways the biggest.

strategic back and forth of the entire. conflict. That's a card you can play, but if you play it every day, it gets. weaker and weaker and weaker. And again, I think that's one of the reasons why we. are in a stronger position here and why. the Iranians are coming to the table. You know, this you John Potteritz is. basically calling it was this Israeli. journalist who said, you the president's. a loser and I'm a total lowife or. whatever he said and and Potteritz. wasn't that far off. What these guys. don't realize is we fundamentally have.

all the cards. like what what is it that. they wanted us to do besides put 300,000. ground troops in Iranian soil which we. were never going to do? The president. felt like he could accomplishes his. objective using the means that he used. he was right about that help is on the. way and that he they don't think he sent. it and they think it's the same. leadership and it was bad leadership. either way. It's not the same guys. By. way, that is different. PE people attack. the president on this, but when the. president says that we're dealing with. more reasonable people, he is actually.

right. Now, again, my my attitude is a. verification. I trust actions, not. words. But we are dealing with people, some of whom our own intelligence. agencies say, you know, these are the. super hardliners. And what they're. saying is, you know what, we are. hardliners, but we've realized after 47. years that maybe this is a mistake. Well, there's a report out today though. saying that Ratcliffe, who runs the CIA, has been listening to their intel, saying they don't mean a word of what. they're saying. They're not going to. live up to any of this. >> Well, first of all, I'd be skeptical of. that reporting. You know, I always see.

sometimes with my own name on it. Administration officials who believe. this or that, I'd be very skeptical of. this stuff. The the inner team of the. Trump administration, we're actually. very tight. We're very close to each. other. There isn't nearly the. factionalism that people say that there. is. So, I'd be skeptical about that. report, but I'll let John speak for. himself. >> Scott Bessent and Bill Py. [laughter]. They're not tight at this point. >> Scott Bent and Bill Pulsey are not super. close. That is true. And I say that as. admirers of of both of them. >> You've admitted it. >> Uh but but fundamentally,

that's why the deal says verification. and action. >> Trust but verify. >> Well, I'd say just verify, right? I. mean, I guess what the president says is. we don't trust anybody. And I think. that's exactly right. He said, "We don't. trust our allies. We don't trust our. foes. We trust action. And that's what. we have to anchor ourselves to. >> All right. Let's talk about what. happened to the GOP base as a result of. all this. Okay. Because it's divided. Um. I know you've experienced it yourself. I've experienced it, too. It's been sort. of a sad, tumultuous, stressful time. >> Sure.

>> It's much more fun, I think, for most of. us who lean right or right leaning. independents to be fighting with the. left. But it's been kind of civil warry. over on the conservative team since this. whole thing got launched. and the. non-interventionalist. right feels very betrayed very betrayed. by it whether you agree with that. they've been betrayed or not uh Mr. Mr. Vice President, what do you say to those. people? >> Well, what I'd say to them is is one, I. I think you can walk through all the. ways in which this has led to a good. place for the United States of America.

And I'd ask them not to sort of view. this purely through the filter. I know, you know, a lot of these these folks are. frustrated with the role that Israel has. in all this. We can talk about that, but. don't look at it from the lens of, you. know, what what is it that different. people think about it. What do you think. about it? What? Like fundamentally, do. you think. >> I've talked a lot about. >> but but I'm saying ask yourself I think. you can make the best argument that the. nuclear program is destroyed. The. Iranian conventional military is. destroyed. We had yes a temporary rise.

in energy prices that's already coming. down substantially. And we didn't get, as I said repeatedly, we were never. going to get the quagmire that a lot of. people were warning about because Donald. Trump is just not George W. Bush. So I. would say first the first argument I'd. make is look at where we are right now. and I think you can make the best. argument that where we are right now is. a good place for the United States of. America. And again if we transform the. Middle East this was fundamentally worth. it. Okay the second argument I'd make. this is maybe. >> uh is is this even if you disagree with.

this particular action it's completely. ridiculous to pick up your marbles and. go home. That's not how politics works. And I've been very much on the inside of. a lot of these debates and. conversations. You know, some some. people have criticized our immigration. policy. Some some people have criticized. tax policy or some people have. criticized foreign policy. The way that. politics works is that you have to stay. engaged in the process. You absolutely. have to make your voice heard. But right. now, right now, we have a very good deal.

for the American people. And. importantly, we have a constituency. right now that is saying that we're. going to send boots in the ground. They. want the Donald Trump to send hundreds. of thousands of ground troops into Iran. The best thing we need people, but we. need people to be pushing back from. inside the tent. The frustration. point. >> and then we're told, and I quote, "Those. who speak ill of Mark Leavvin are not. MAGA." [laughter]. >> Well, the president, as he does, is.

pushing back at a criticism of yours. that he thought was unfair. >> Not just me. I mean, a lot of the. non-interventionalists. >> But I talked to him last night and I. said, "Mr. President, I'm going to go on. Megan Kelly's show and I'm going to. defend the administration's policies. Absolutely. I love that because again, >> good engages. He engages and he's going. to criticize you when he agrees or. disagrees with you. He's going to say. nice things about you when he agrees. with you. But that's what I actually. love about the president is he's not. he's not like viewing these debates from. the outside. He's participating in them. himself. And again, Megan, the.

frustration that I've had with, you. know, the non-interventionist side has. been that the attitude seems to be, we. disagree with the president on this. policy. Look, we can have that debate, but fine. Okay. You disagree with the. president on this particular policy. That doesn't mean you can give up on the. entire enterprise. And and the reason, Megan, the reason why neocons are so. much more effective in politics than the. people on the other side in our. coalition is because they play the game.

They get disappointed. They make their. criticisms and they go back and they. live to fight another day. Right now, right now, we need everybody who. recognizes that this is a good deal for. the American people and that we don't. want, like John Powitz is saying, hundreds of thousands of ground troops. in Iran. Make your voice heard. This is. where you've got to participate in the. process. Disagree when you disagree. Agree when you agree. But I don't like. this idea of the president did something. I like didn't like, so I'm out. I think.

it's a very immature way to approach the. political process. And it's the way to. ensure that your enemies always win. >> I have I've been saying the same uh. because a lot of people have been saying. that they feel blackpiled by the whole. experience, you know, like I'm just out. And I I have been trying to make the. point that that you can't do that, right? You got to stay. But. realistically, as we because after these. midterms are over, >> let me sorry, can I make one more point. about this? This is like very important. I'm sorry to interrupt, but no, >> it is. >> So, look, the coalition that made Donald. Trump the president of the United States. and JD Vance, the vice president of the.

United States, people have to remember. this. It was Megan Kelly and Tucker. Carlson and Joe Rogan. It was also Mark. Levin. It was also a lot of people like. John Poditz who want a more aggressive. foreign policy. What I think is. important, I'm never going to say that. John Potitz is not welcome in the. Republican party. He is, but just as. he's disappointed right now, sometimes. other people are going to be. disappointed at other times. You can't. just quit politics because the leader of.

a country of 330 million people makes a. decision you disagree with. >> I agree with you. I know a lot of people. don't agree with us here. They're very, very angry over the Iran war. it was. like their number one issue and they. feel like Trump is not the man they. thought he was because he betrayed that. promise and didn't explain much about it. and I understand their feeling too. But. I will just say that you know Pedoritz. and Levin and all those that's the. original never Trump crew. They hated. him. Hated him. I was there. I had those.

people coming on my show saying. absolutely not, never Trump. >> And then they embraced him like a bear. hug just as soon as he decided he was. going to attack Iran and was cozying up. with Israel and that's their main issue. And now they're starting to get a little. wobbly. And I wonder whether the. president sees maybe his new best. friends aren't quite as in love with him. and loyal as he thought. >> Yeah. And I would say the same thing to. them that I'd say to the. non-interventionists who have been a. little blackpilled over the last few. months. I'd say you don't quit the.

political process just because the. president, who by the way has way more. information than any of his critics have. as making a decision that they don't. agree with. Disagree with it. We have. the first amendment in the United States. of America. I'm not saying be a pathy. I'm not saying be, you know, a person. who always falls in line. Make your. viewpoint understood. But I I I I think. this is a very important part in a. coalition rep. We have a two-party. system in this country. You've got what. is it 80 million people 85 million. people who voted for Donald Trump. Nobody is going to agree with the.

administration 100% of the time. So, you. know, it actually doesn't bother me that. Mark Lean is criticizing this deal, even. though I think this deal is great for. the American people. I'm going to go on. a show for the next few days. I'm going. to defend it. What would bother me is if. Mark Leven said, "You know what? The. president did something I didn't like. and I'm going to go home. I'm not part. of this coalition. Screw that guy." I. think that's the mistake that way too. many people across our political system. make. >> Has any of this um influenced your. thoughts on a possible run? Don't tell.

me you're not thinking about it. And I. know you gave me that answer, but after. these midterms are done, it's on. You. don't have three years. You have about. six months. >> I'm not thinking about it, Megan. >> You have to decide. [laughter] You're. going to have to decide. >> I mean, you know me and you know that. like like I'm kind of a procrastinator. >> I don't make decisions until I have to. It probably frustrates my wife a lot of. times, but like we still don't have a. name for our baby. And every time my. wife tries to talk to me about it, I'm. like, "Well, let's just, you know, figure it out when we actually see the. baby and see what he looks like and want.

to name it.". >> You know, it's a boy, right? >> We know it's a boy, but we don't don't. have really even like a single name that. we've picked out that both of us liked. and the baby's coming in about four. weeks. >> I just make decisions when I have to. >> Yes, after the midterms, I will. eventually have to make that decision. >> Let's make it. If you don't run, I mean, you represent more of the. non-interventionalist wing. Um, and. you're all over the New York Times as. reportedly predicting this would be a. disaster. It's going to call cause. regional chaos. It's going to break. apart Trump's coalition. >> Don't believe everything you read than.

you were. >> Oh, that's okay. There may be tapes now. given to Maggie Haber, >> which is crazy by the way. That was a. very weird story. So weird. You're. talking about the EP. So, just for your. audience's sake, there was this story. about Epstein that came out in the New. York Times and like half of it or so was. BS and about half of it, you know, >> the way it always goes. >> It's that's how these stories always. there's always an element of truth. There's always an element of non-truth, but there were certain things in there. that legitimately made me worried that. people were like taping. >> Yeah. in the situation room, >> which by the way is like a felony.

>> Yeah. It's a super dangerous. >> So, that was weird. That story was very. bizarre. It was sort of a nothing b of a. story in the sense that everybody sort. of knew all those details anyway. >> But the fact that somebody had taped. >> well where I was going with that list of. predictions of yours that turned out to. be true um was if you don't run who who. would run that would represent that wing. of the party. >> Well, I think the you know committed. non-interventionist America first Ted. Cruz could be a representative for that. wing of the party.

>> Who else you got? >> He's clearly running for president. Um, I you know I I just I think about how do. I be successful in this job. >> There are a lot of interesting people. out there. Some of them run for. president, some of them won't. I I. really just don't think about it. Part. of it is I'm I'm not I'm like, as you. know, I'm not a sort of person who. thinks of all, you know, who are the. people I have to be worried about, who. are the people I have to not be worried. about. I just live my life. It'll all. work out. >> No. In our first conversations in 2017,

you you were offended that I said you. could be a politician one day. You said. I was. You thought you thought you gave. up used cars. >> Now I here I am. There's a secret. service everywhere. [laughter]. >> All right, let's talk a bit about your. book because I actually do think it's a. great book. It's called Communion. It's. called Finding My Way Back to Faith. Here it is right here. You can get it. today. >> And I actually learned a lot about you. in this book that I didn't know. I love. that you begin it with Mama, who is. everybody's favorite person. And here is. what you say. Mama hardly fit the.

stereotype of a sweater knitting, kindly. old grandmother. And her faith wasn't. always well perfectly consistent with. her own religious upbringing. She loved. to say the f-word. I don't I [laughter]. can't relate. And when she died, she. owned 19 loaded handguns. Mama's God. suited her. Loving and forgiving, but. tough, demanding, and possibly packing. >> So, you credit her with giving you the. gift of faith. >> That's right. How did you get to the. point where for a time you lost it? >> Yeah, it just didn't stick. And I I. think this is one of the many reasons.

that motivated me to write about this. is, you know, I've got three little. kids. I've got a fourth on the way. We. take our kids to church every Sunday. And for some kids, even though their. parents believe, even though they pray, even though they try to raise their kids. to be followers of Jesus Christ, it just. doesn't stick. And part of this was sort. of trying to understand why didn't it. stick for me? And I think there are a. couple reasons for that, Megan. I mean, I think one of them is that. fundamentally I started to care about. things that were if not anti-Christian.

than just were totally separate from. Christianity. Like I I I don't know what. it is. Maybe just an innate character. flaw that I have, but I just cared so. much about making as much money as. possible, getting the best job, going to. the best like I I had this fever for. rising. I wanted to rise above my. circumstances. Yeah. which again there. there is a legitimate urge there, right? Which is provide your kids stability, provide your kids some of the things. that you didn't have. I think that's all. well and good, but what I had was way. more beyond that. It was ambition.

>> Describe it as a stver. You said I was a. stupver. And you know, I got to law school and I. had like all of these outward markers of. success. I'd fallen in love with Usha. We were dating at the time but not yet. married. And I started to think to. myself like, am I a good person? And the. answer that kept coming back is no. I. care way too much about stuff that. doesn't matter and way too little about. stuff that does matter. And then at the. same time, like I have this. self-impression, you this is back in the. era of Christopher Hitchens and Richard. Dawkins, the new atheists. I have this.

impression of myself of like I'm I'm. super rational. I form opinions based on. reason and intellect and there are all. these bumpkins who believe in things. like Jesus and it's just a superstition. But yet all of those people who believed. in Jesus or at least a lot of them were. very good people. They were much. happier. They were much more. welladjusted than some of the people I. saw in the elite circles that I was. running in. >> There were like these Yeah. There were. these ray I call it rays of light.

>> where there were these little pieces of. evidence that there was some deeper. truth to Christianity and that it. motivated something that was very good. and very powerful. like it wasn't a. conversion on the road to Damascus, but. I I I just I fell away from my faith, I. think, because I cared too little about. the things that mattered and falling in. love and getting married and becoming a. father started making me care about the. things that do matter. >> I'm thinking about St. Michael be our. protection against the wickedness and. snares of the devil and there maybe he. was for you right in that church in.

France. Is that where. >> Yeah. >> had your light bulb moment? Yeah, we we. were we're on vacation and I was at that. point I would have called myself a. Christian, but I was kind of thinking. like, you know, what kind of church is. home for me? And you know, I I I grew up. in sort of a a Pentecostal or. evangelical tradition, a lot of speaking. in tongues, really good music. You know, I also had, you know, my uncle was. Catholic and I had some Southern. Baptists in in my f friend circle. It. was a very it was like a hodgepodge of. American Christianity. But what I was.

attracted to in in my own church in. Catholicism was just this sense that it. was like stable, right? Things didn't. change that much. >> Never. >> That's exactly [laughter] right. >> I love it. There's always going to be a. male priest up there. You know exactly. what you're going to get. There's not. going to be a homaly on accepting trans. children like I saw in the Episcopal. Church. >> And and you you go to church in New York. City or you go to church while you're in. vacation in France. You go to church in. rural Ohio and it's the same readings.

It's the homaly might differ from church. to church, but like you said, there. isn't, you know, this is why we should. have men playing in women's sports. >> There's not going to be a pride flag. hanging outside. >> And and like more more importantly than. that, there were just a lot of people, good friends of mine, who were good. Christians, who were good people, who. were good role models to me. They were. good husbands and good fathers. They had. what I wanted to have and they were. Catholics. And that kind of led me into. the church. And so, but but that that. said, even though I was sort of. attracted to this church, >> that was in the peak of some of the sex.

abuse investigations that were going on. This is the summer of 2018. There was a. really bad investigation that I think. came out of Pennsylvania. Yes. >> And I've got a little baby boy and I'm. reading these things and I'm like, yeah, it felt like. >> on the one hand, I'm really attracted to. the stability of this church. On the. other hand, this is some pretty icky. stuff. And I just was thinking a lot. about it and trying to reason my way. through it. And we're in this church in. France and Usha's like, you know, in the.

bathroom somewhere. She's not even in. the church. So, it's me, my son. He's, you know, a year old. He's asleep. And. it's just one of these beautiful old. cathedrals and it's the perfect time of. day. So, the light is shining through. this beautiful stained glass window. And. you can kind of see like the specks of. dust in the light. And I just had this. feeling of like, you know, I belong. here. And it's not always perfect. That's one of the great lessons of the. Bible is God takes these people who are. deeply profoundly sinful human beings.

and he actually chooses to reveal. himself through them. And you can't just. like again pick up your marbles and go. home because there is a sex abuse. scandal. The fact that there's a sex. abuse scandal means that you need better. people, that you need people who are. committed to what's good in this. institution so that you can actually try. to fight against the bad. >> And that that feeling of belonging is. ultimately led me to get baptized about. a year later and we've been going to. church every Sunday ever since.

>> And you're raising the kids Catholic. >> We are. >> Okay. And uh I know you point out in the. book, we only have about a minute left, but after Charlie's death, you were both. feeling devastated, you and Usha, and. then that's when you found out she was. pregnant with your fourth child. >> Yeah. So, this this makes me very. emotional to talk about because, you. know, after Charlie got killed the next. day, it was 911. I'll never forget that. because I was supposed to go to n to New. York for for the 911 memorial service. and I flew out to pick up Charlie's body.

and then I flew he and Erica back um to. um to their home in Arizona. So I flew. out to Utah and then to Arizona and Eric. was devastated and you know you know you. know both of them knew both of them very. well and know Erica very well and she. was just crying and so upset but she. said something that like really stuck. out at me which is I wish that we had. had more kids and that just hit me like. a ton of bricks and a couple months. later she became pregnant with baby. number four.

>> Yeah, I don't know. I I'm I'll I'll stay. in my lane, but I wouldn't be surprised. to hear if that baby winds up with at. least a middle name that sounds familiar. to us from that family. All right, I'm. I'm going to stay out of it. I'm sending. lots of love to her in the last few. weeks of this pregnancy and to you as. well. We're praying for you both every. day. God bless. >> Appreciate it. >> Thanks for coming on. Don't forget the. book is called Communion by J. Dance. [music]. Check it out. >> Hey, thanks for watching today's full. episode. If you're new here, throw us a.

subscribe. See what you think. Stay in. touch. There's plenty more goodness. where this one came from. As always, we. really do value your feedback. So, email. me, too. Megan megnanc kelly.com or just. leave a comment down below. I do read. them. I meander over and I scroll. through and I find them very. entertaining and really appreciate the. feedback. But in any event, join the. community by becoming a subscriber so. you miss nothing. We value your support. We may not always agree on positions, but as you know, I'm very open-minded to. people who disagree with me. That's how.

I learn. So, thanks and thanks for. trusting us to always talk about it. openly, honestly, and with provocative. conversations. There is something. refreshing about a company that focuses. on integrity and hard work. With. Brooklyn Bedding, I know they built my. Aurora Luxe mattress in the USA, and I. highly recommend one. uh with high. quality materials and real attention to. detail. It's that classic American. ethos. Do the job right. Stand behind. your product and build something that. lasts. And they delivered it right to my.

doorstep. They could not make it any. easier for you. Brooklyn Bedding knows. sleep is not oneizefits-all. That's why. they offer mattresses for everybody, every sleep style, even in hard to find. sizes. Sleep hot? Brooklyn Bedding uses. copper infused foams and temperature. regulating materials to keep you cool. and comfy all night long. Plus, you get. a 120 night comfort trial with easy. returns or swaps. They have earned. awards from CNET and Wire Cutter, proving they deliver real highquality. sleep you can trust and enjoy like my.

husband and I do. Go to brooklyn. betting.com and use my promo code Megan. at checkout to get 30% off sitewide. That's brooklyn betting.com and promo. code megn for 30% off sitewide. Let them. know we sent you after checkout brooklyn. betting.com. promo code Megan. Back on December 4th, [music] the Trump. administration announced it had. accomplished one of its primary law. enforcement goals of its second term, arresting, they said, the alleged.

January 5th pipe bomber. Federal. officials announced that 30-year-old. Brian Cole Jr. of Woodbridge, Virginia, had been taken into custody and charged. with interstate transportation of. explosives and with malicious attempt to. use explosives. The DOJ has since added. attempting to use weapons of mass. destruction and terrorism charges to the. list. And Cole faces life in prison if. convicted. He's been in custody since. his arrest and is back in court for a. status conference conference next month.

He's accused of planting pipe bombs near. the Republican National Committee HQ and. the Democratic National Committee HQ on. the night of January 5th, 2021. That was. the night before the riot at the. capital, the night before the vote for. the presidential election would be. certified on Capitol Hill. The FBI has. said the bombs were viable, but. thankfully they did not go off. They. were found the next day. The suspect. eluded authorities for almost 5 years.

despite the FBI releasing surveillance. footage to the public. Watch this. This. footage shows the suspect sitting on the. DNC bench before placing the first bomb. Here we see the suspect placed the bomb. at approximately 7:54 p.m. This footage shows the suspect pass. between the RNC and the Capitol Hill.

Club holding the backpack out to the. side. The person continues between the RNC and. the Capitol Hill Club. then continues north on First Street, east on Sea Street, [music]. back into the alley toward Rumsy Court, back onto Rumsy Court.

[music]. They placed the second pipe bomb at. approximately 8:16 p.m. The suspect then turns back onto Rumsy. Court, walking east until the person is. last seen on camera at approximately. 8:18 p.m. wearing the backpack on their. shoulders. The bomb is believed to have. been placed shortly before this video. based on how the suspect is carrying the. backpack.

Brian Cole was not an obvious suspect. He lived with his mother, worked for his. family's business, had no prior criminal. history, and his lawyers say he is. autistic. But the FBI and DOJ say the. evidence against Cole is overwhelming. They say they have cell phone data. showing that he was near the RNC and DNC. when the bombs were planted, that his. car passed through a license pler in DC, and they even say he confessed. Here's. FBI Director Cash Patel talking about uh.

this case and detailing the evidence. against Ryan Cole. Watch. >> Obviously, we need to match the. description of the suspect on video. The. video has been publicized for years, but. what this FBI did was came in and. enhanced the video. I don't know why the. prior FBI didn't do that. I don't know. why the prior FBI didn't look at the. three million lines of evidence. I don't. know why they didn't use our cell phone. capabilities and our technological. capabilities at the FBI. The only thing. I can come up with is either they were. too incompetent in terms of leadership. or intentional. And I think it was.

intentional because it was a further. weaponization of law enforcement. So. when you match up the suspect's height. and physical appearance with things like. a license plate reader that attributes. to him and further information such as. cell phone pings, you're getting into a. very small circle of people that it. could be. And once we're able to execute. law enforcement process and search. warrants over these last few months, we. were able to produce what he bought, where he bought it, when he bought it, and the history of buying it, and how. often he bought it.

>> Director Patel said he had zero doubt. that the FBI had arrested the right. person. >> Let me ask you this. Now, having had 24. hours to process this since, you know, post arrest, is there any doubt in your. mind you have the right man? we we we've. got the right guy um based on the. totality of information and other. information we haven't publicly released. yet that we just can't right now. >> But there is someone who says Cole is. not the man who planted those two pipe.

bombs and that's his lawyer, Mario. Williams. He says the FBI has arrested. the wrong person and regardless of that. that this case should be dismissed for. another interesting reason. Joining me. now, Mario Williams in the red studio. Mario, thanks so much for being here. >> Hey, thank you for having me. >> Yeah, I mean, this is a huge case. >> It's a large case. It's a big deal. >> How'd you get connected to this? >> I actually had previously uh done some. work for Brian Cole, senior. >> and my law partner, John Shore, out of.

DC, uh we had done some work with him. He called us up and told us that his uh. son, who who I actually knew, uh had. been arrested as a suspect in this case. >> Okay. >> And then there's a third uh Alex Little. is another lawyer on the case. Do you do. criminal mostly or civil mostly? What do. you do? >> I do I do a variety of things. I do some. commercial litigation. I do. constitutional law, employment. I do uh. self-defense murder cases, stuff like. that. So, I do a variety of things. I've. seen it on both sides. Uh IRS tax.

defense, uh SEC defense, all kinds of. stuff. >> Okay. I mean, this one's probably the. most serious you've had, I would. imagine. >> It's serious. Uh, I I did want to. correct something though that was said. >> So, I know it's it's easy to say bomb, you know, J6 bomber, J5th bomber, >> but I like facts and I like to put use. facts to put things in context. So, what. I would like the public to understand. that even though what you said is that.

the government said that the bombs were. viable, that's not what the experts say. Now, we have on record an expert. opinion, former FBI U bomb expert. And. so, what I like to refer to as what. people say is a bomb is a device based. on expert testimony and science that. never could have detonated, did not. detonate, and did not harm each other, which is very different from felony. assault, felony battery of people. convicted, and then given a pardon.

regardless. >> Okay. Now, wait. When you say you have. an expert opinion to that effect on. record, you're saying in the defense of. this case, you've found that expert and. you've submitted that testimony. >> Oh, the the opinion's on record. We. filed it. >> Okay. >> And I based on what I believe, we. haven't gotten any push back on it. The. government will say, "Hey, but this this. this." But no, those devices is proven. could not have detonated. And they did. not detonate. >> So, not to be obtuse, but.

>> why is that relevant? like what will. that do to this case? >> Well, first of all, it's an intent. charge. But second of all, as you know, you're a lawyer, public opinion means so. much. So, when you call somebody a J6. bomber and and you and you make it seem. like, hey, these devices were about to. explode and kill thousands of people, and then somebody finds out, hey, these. are no more dangerous than a prop. And then you have a video out here, and. I, you know, I respect Mr. Patel, I. respect him. But you have a video out.

here and he tries his best to match that. up to my client. But the bottom line on. that video is that you can't see anybody. on that video. The bottom line on as far. as suspects are concerned, you had a law. enforcement officer who failed two. polygraph tests and and you probably. read about this because it was part of. some motion practice in the case. Simple. questions. Are you the person on this. video planning these devices? No. Failed. There are other suspects, but I can't. get too far into this because we're.

trying to figure out the different. avenues and different suspects that were. in this case and why those those. basically those investigations were shut. down. But to just say, here's a video, we have ping evidence from the cell. phone and and we're 100% sure it's it's. Brian Cole Jr. when you actually had. other suspects. You're fighting us as. far as revealing the information and. documentation to examine that situation. We're far from from determining and. saying that that was Brian Cole Jr.

>> The person to whom you are referring is. Shaunie Kirkoff. >> She was a uh Capitol Hill police officer. on January 5th and 6th. She now works. for the CIA. >> That's right. And we first learned from. a motion you filed in this case in. defense of Brian that she had allegedly. been given a polygraph by the FBI and. allegedly failed it. >> and [clears throat] um had been. investigated by the FBI even prior to. Brian Cole. >> That's right.

>> Uh coming on their radar. She um she was. also named by the Blaze as somebody who. may have done this uh pipe bomb. >> I believe she sued them. >> and so yes. So, that's what I'm getting. I want to make sure we're super fair to. Shaunie Kirkoff. >> She's now sued The Blaze and Steve. Baker, who's the reporter who wrote the. piece. >> Um, The Blaze has retracted the article. Steve Baker says he stands by the. article. Um, it has officially been. quote debunked because the the Blaze.

says they don't stand by it. >> and that the thing that's in there as. their chief evidence against her is like. gate analysis, like an analysis of how. she walks, which is not scientific. and. it's not that's not reliable in court. And Steve Baker has not produced the. name of the person he claims he relied. upon for that. However, Shaunie Kirkoff. in her now she's filed this defamation. lawsuit. In her complaint, she herself says, "I was given a.

polygraph by the FBI and I was told that. I failed it." So, I mean, we no longer. have to rely on anybody other than. Shaunie for this information. Now, in. [clears throat] her complaint, she. outlines how she alleges she's seems to. be suggesting this is not a good poly. because the examiner referred to some. problems that that were he was having. with the um communication wires and was. sending mixed messages to her and that. she was of course very nervous just. being given a polygraph by the FBI. That'll all play out. But it is.

interesting that she's now admitting. that she was on the FBI's radar and that. she was told that she failed a. polygraph. Now the FBI says it's not. her. They've moved on from her. They've. closed the case on her. It was not. Shaunie Kirkoff and that she has an. alibi tape that on which we can at least. hear her voice. >> dealing with her dog on the night in. question when the bombs were being. planted. So why are you still focusing? >> Well, this is this is what I'll say. I. didn't mention her name. So I I you. brought the name into the place. So I.

just want to make sure she doesn't think. that I'm trying to, you know, put her. name out there. But the issue is not. necessarily all the evidence. For. example, the gate analysis. >> Well, initially we were told the gate. analysis was done and it pointed to our. guy. >> So the FBI said that or. >> that's what they told us. They did a. gate analysis. Okay. >> And and and that that helped support. their case for our guy. >> Okay. So now she's saying the gate. analysis was off and and so now we're. throwing the gate analysis out the. window. My issue with with with Miss.

Miss Kirkoff is her name, right? Is hey. look, there's other people out there. that you all suspected and that we're. trying to figure it out as to why you. closed those investigations and what's. the evidence around it. >> Let me ask this. Would that typically be. something you'd have access to? Like. when the government goes investigating. three other suspects Yeah. before or. around arresting the one suspect. Is it. usually fair game to have all everything. they know about? >> Absolutely. Beyond a reasonable doubt. exists for a reason. And the way you.

create be reasonable doubt is to. understand what other suspects were. involved in the credibility of interest. Yeah. Persons of interest and the. credibility of that evidence. So, it's. absolutely something that we we feel. we're entitled to and we're doing motion. practice. But I want to bring up. something about that. Now, uh Mr. Patel. went on TV to discuss the evidence, some. of the evidence in this case. Now, as. you know, there was a sanction motion. filed saying that we had inappropriately. put our subpoena on file and everything.

Let me tell you something. >> Just just so the audience knows what. we're talking about. you you wanted to. subpoena some of these records and some. of these people and you asked the judge. to give you sort of a a fast track to. getting those subpoenas and you filed. that motion in the public record which. is how most court documents are filed. That's right. But. >> first amendment rights. >> but this one needed to be under seal. because it revealed some addresses I. guess of some of the people. >> Well and some other information that. they were claiming hey we we wanted to. keep this under seal because and I'm.

getting to that point. So. >> okay anyway. So, so that's the motion, the subpoenas and the motion to which. you're referring you file that. Go. ahead. >> So, the government gives us literally. over 700,000 files. >> uh documents basically and so and they. mark them and this is usual. They mark. them all confidential, you know, attorney's eyes only. But somehow. these confidential statements, confidential evidence, confidential. video is put out in the press. That video that they keep talking about,

that's been marked confidential. >> Oh, in the course of this course, of. course it is. Of course it is. So you. you mark everything confidential, including these so-called statements. that he's made. You want us to go and. say, "Oh, let's follow this pattern and. and let's go here and ask the judge for. this." It's okay. We have confidentially. confidential orders for a reason. But. you don't abide by them. You come out. and talk about statements. you come out. and say, "Watch this video." That's not. a public record. That was part of an FBI.

investigation, but because of the. initiation of this situation, you. thought it benefited you. It's okay to. break the rules for you, the government, but it's not okay for us to do something. that we believe is in our best interest. >> I think um is it is South 54 Janine Piro. team? I believe this is one of the sound. bites that you're not happy about. This. is uh Janine Piro, US attorney for DC. Let's watch him. Okay. What was that. moment where you were pretty confident. the investigators were to your mind on.

the right path? >> In my mind, they were on the right path. when it was clear that the cell phone. was pinging in the exact locations where. we had the video of the suspect walking. along the area. Everywhere he walked, his cell phone was pinging at the cell. tower. So, it is it was it is. unmistakable that he was the guy who was. walking along and placing those items.

>> You did the search warrant yesterday, the arrest. Uh have you found the. sneakers? Have you found any items that. match what we saw in the video? >> So, you know about those uh Air Max. speed turfs. Uh he told us that he had. those sneakers and that he got rid of. them after he placed the pipe bombs. Now, I want to talk about that. Yeah, please. That that bothers me. >> Why? >> And I'll tell you why. First of all, let's put things in context. Number one, >> when Brian Cole Senior was arrested, he.

wasn't arrested at his house. Brian Co. Brian Cole Jr., I'm sorry, was not. arrested at his house. They had been. surveying him and following him and. watching him for months. He's autistic. They had the FBI has some of the best. behavioral specialists in the world. Okay? I have DA experts, at all kinds of. people say, "Hey, Mario, they didn't. believe this man was a danger." Because. if you think he's a danger after you've. watched him for months and do the same. thing, get up, go to the store, buy. pizza, walk his dog, say hi to his.

neighbor, uh, characteristics of autism. But if you think that, you go to his. home, you surrounded with probably every. local law enforcement within a country. mile and you say, "Come on out." But. Brian Senior, his business, what he's. involved in, he has to know the law and. he knows his rights. He knows to say. don't speak to talk to a lawyer. So what. happened? Brian Jr. goes down the street like he. normally does. They surround him. They. pick him up. They swoop him off. 48.

hours of interro interrogation. Can't. talk to his family. Then they come and. say leaking contents of confidential. information. They say they cherrypick. They put some stuff out there that will. be. >> the sneakers. >> Yeah. And oh, he admitted to this and he. said this. No context. You don't even know. I don't even know. if she saw the video. She probably was. prepped on that. But the most I can say. about that is we're going to go ahead. and do a motion to suppress evidence. Um, I disagree with the context that she.

said that statement in. And that's the. most I can say right now. Are we talking. about specifically the confession the. the. >> the alleged the alleged confession. statements that they have attributed to. Brian Jr. in that context of taking him. under arresting him down the street. taking him to an interrogation room with. FBI agents I think it was 48 hours. without any contact with his parents. We. are going to challenge that. >> But he wasn't a minor. I mean he's.

>> old is he? >> 30 years old. >> Yeah. So they don't have to notify the. parents. They don't really have. >> That's all right. But you you but you. know you're dealing with an autistic. person. You there's no doubt about it. >> Is there no doubt? Is there is there a. medical diagnosis to that? >> Absolutely. 100%. And they know that. >> So that can be backed up. >> Absolutely. 100%. And they know that. They have the best behavioral. specialists in the world. They. understood that. They followed him. around for months according to them. They saw him do the exact same routine. every day. >> That's how they knew where he was. So. we're going to challenge that. We're.

going to challenge those alleged. confessions. We're going to challenge a. lot of things that I can't I'm not at. liberty to say, "Hey, this is exactly. what we're going to do. This is false. This is" I'm not at liberty to do that, but I feel very confident in challenging. those statements. >> I mean, when somebody has confessed in a. criminal case, one of the grounds on. which you could challenge it would be. that it wasn't actually voluntary, that. he was coerced into giving the. confession. >> There are, but but that's tricky. The. all of is tricky. This is very.

technical. I don't really want to get. into the legal aspects of it for the the. viewers and stuff, but I believe legally. speaking, we can challenge what they are. presenting quote unquote as evidence of. a confession. >> Just to and I understand you can't. reveal everything, so just you tell me. what you can reveal. But um are you. suggesting that he didn't say the words. I did it or that he he did say something. that looks like a confession, but you. don't think it was obtained in a lawful. manner? Well, no. I don't believe that.

he confessed. When you take that that. what we see as evidence in its totality, I absolutely deny the fact that he. confessed to doing this. >> There's no 100%. >> It's not just that you object to the. procedure. That's right. >> It's also you dispute the. characterization. >> Let me let me say this. I believe in. Brian Junior's innocence in this. situation. >> Total factual innocence. >> Factual innocence. Legal innocence. Look, the bottom line is you got to go. into a court and prove beyond a. reasonable doubt that he meets the legal.

criteria. Now, for some reason, people. want to say, "Hey, look, even if he. meets the legal criteria, if you can. beat that, does that mean he wasn't the. person on the video that did that? Hey, he's innocent.". >> It's not my burden. I do civil. litigation. I know what the burden is on. a pliff. It's the government's burden to. say, legally speaking, he did this. And. until we can prove that, he's presumed. innocent. So when everyone says, "Hey, Mario, I want you to tell me." Is that. him on uh putting down those devices.

that they're calling bombs? I I say the. same thing every time, can you tell me. that's him by looking at that video? No, you cannot. You can't do it. >> Well, I agree. I can't. But when I. listen to the FBI do its presser, after. the arrest, >> but of course. >> But I mean, if they found bomb making. components in his room, that's where. they that's where they get you. That. doesn't mean he's the No, they don't get. me on that. >> They get me. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. But they they don't. get me. That's part of the process. Do. you know how many people it appears that.

they might have done something, then. once you get into court, you have to. meet legal standards. Other other issues. come up. Oh, well, that person actually. is innocent, which we'll get to the. pardon. But just on that alone, you. can't just come in and say, "Hey, he's. guilty." Like Cash Patel and Bondie get. on T. he's guilty because XYZ before. you've proven it in court. I can't. reveal all of our strategies, but we. have them. >> Mhm. >> We have they I mean I don't know the. full extent of their evidence, but the. things that have been highlighted as.

their best pieces are the confession, the alleged confession. >> Alleged because I really have to stress. alleged. >> Okay. And we'll eventually see that tape. and we'll know. >> Yeah. Once we Well, see, that's another. issue. Will you eventually see it if. it's not leaked? because we have a a a. motion to dismiss based on the plain. language of the president's part and. saying it applies to him. >> So if that gets granted, you're never. going to see it. >> If it doesn't get granted, you're then. we're going to see it. >> Yeah. So, there's the alleged. confession. There's the fact that he.

allegedly had these same bomb making. materials as the government describes. them in his home, in his room at the. time of arrest and the license plate. readers putting his car and him in the. area when the bombs were being planted. on the night in question, January 5th. >> This is what I can say about that. >> All that that they're putting out is. their side of the story. It's not up to. my team to come in and debunk that in. public, but at trial, we will.

>> Do you has there been any discussion of. a possible plea? >> Well, I'm glad you talk. I'm glad you. you're bringing up the good stuff. Now, let's [laughter]. let's talk about the government's. attempt to get a plea. >> Now, you're a lawyer. >> You know how this works. So, he gets the initial charges, right? We. go through this back and forth of. whether or not you can get them in DC. court for federal court and all this. kind of stuff, but at the end of the. day, he's in a federal court with the. initial charges. We look at everything. We look at the.

pardon language. Pardon language is very. clear. Conduct related to the events. that occur. >> President Trump's pardon of the January. 6 defendants and you guys are arguing. that that should apply to Ryan Cole. whose alleged behavior happened the. night before January 6, but you argue it. was connected and therefore he should be. included in the pardon. >> I don't argue it was connected. the. allegations by the government. demonstrated was connected. Okay. I. didn't say. >> it's only by coincidence, a so-called. coincidence that this happened on. January 5th, the night of the. certification. The government said that.

>> Okay. >> I didn't say I wasn't the police chief. that said the these devices were. absolutely part of a strategic plan. related to the certification within 12. hours. The government said that. I. didn't hold uh committees J6 bomber and. all this kind of stuff. the in fact this. whole J5th bomber only occurred after we. started making the the arguments because. it was always hey he's the J6 bomber. >> the government made those allegations. the government's allegations tie them to. the events that occurred at near the. capital on January 621 so what happened.

so we look at the the language say oh. okay based on the government's own. allegations regardless of guilt or. innocence he's they're tying him to this. so let's seek the pardon now what now. we're going to get to the police Mhm. >> So what happens? We exercise his legal. right, his entitlement to file a brief. and argue for the pardon to apply and. thus dismiss the charges. What does the. government do with no new facts?

Zero. Zero new facts. >> They amended. >> They amend and go for the weapons of. mass destruction, which we all know the. public, you all know when you think of. WMD, you say to yourself, nuclear. warheads. Mhm. >> You do not think of a device based on. expert testimony that could never have. detonated, did not detonate, and didn't. harm a person. But they go and do that. anyways. They say, "Okay, you're going. to go out here and do this." And I I've. dealt with the government. I've sued the. United States and won an international.

court precautionary measures. I've I've. dealt with this my whole adult career. [snorts] So they say, "Okay, you're. going to do that. Watch this. I'm gonna. put this WMD charge on you and then. you're going to be facing life. So, we're going to raise the stakes, >> raise the risk for trial. You're a. lawyer. You know this tactic. Raise the. risk for trial. And why? Because if the. pardon does apply, we want to squeeze a. plea out plea deal out of it or. something by raising the stakes so we. can say we won. >> and put some more pressure on them to.

get something out of this before a. ruling comes down on the pardon. I mean, I will say my government sources say. they feel very confident in their case. and that they think we're going to be. wowed by the amount of evidence against. him. >> Look, you can produce 2 million documents. You. still got to meet the legal criteria. >> Okay. >> It's a circumstantial case. They don't. have his fingerprints on the device. >> That's right. They're talking about gym. shoes and sneakers and and uh in my.

opinion confessions that were unlawfully. obtained but that are not really. confessions takes taken out of context. Uh you're showing me, you know, 30. second clips, which I'm glad you're. showing me because I want to talk about. them. 30 second clips that are. completely a contextual. You can produce. anything you want, but the bottom line. is you got to prove it. They're not, in. my opinion, and my legal team's opinion, they're not going to be able to prove. this. Can you tell us a little bit about. Brian? >> Yeah. So, and I want to talk about I I.

want to tell you a little bit about. Brian in the context of why he's still. sitting in jail for no lawful reason in. my opinion. >> You wanted him out pre-trial and it's. been denied repeatedly by. >> Yeah. So what's going on and in the. context of that I can tell you so when. you and anybody any criminal lawyer. knows this when you go for the bond this. is a little bit different because. there's a rebuttable presumption because. of the nature of the allegations but you. are able to rebut the presumption. >> rebuttable presumption that he would. pose a danger to the community. >> That's right. And so they have all these.

factors. He meets every one of them. Zero. criminal history. But more than zero. criminal history, zero physical history. of actually harming anybody. Cuz you can. have zero criminal history but then have. a reputation, let's say in high school. >> that you were fighting everybody and. doing all kinds of if he did this. This. is a big one. >> But that I'm glad you said that the. argument would be started with a biggie. >> That's the whole point. >> You don't deny bond. Bond is the norm,

not the exception. Mhm. >> You don't deny it based on the. particular charge at the moment. >> Well, look at like look at uh Nick. Reiner out in LA. You know, the guy who. allegedly killed Rob Reiner and. Michelle, his parents, >> with a knife in their bedroom at night. and horrific. You know, he may have had. some sort of a criminal history when it. comes to drugs, but not in terms of. hurting anybody. That that judge is not. going to let him out. >> He should. But see, he still had a. criminal history. >> Even if he hadn't done drugs, it doesn't. matter. There's no way that guy's.

getting out because the nature of this. crime tells the judge he's a danger. >> If you don't, that's not how the law. works though on this. >> That's how. >> that that might be the politics of it. And that's the problem. >> That's the problem. No, no, hear me out. >> Well, let me just ask you this. If Brian. Cole actually did do it, do you think he. should be out walking around? >> Let me answer that. >> If I even believe that he did it, which. I don't, he met the statutory factors. for release. And that's what people. don't have that people have a problem. with. Hey, I didn't make the law. I.

didn't say, "Hey, we're going to because. of the nature of allegations, but we're. going to still examine all these factors. to see if you can get out." Regardless, the the punishment legally speaking on. bond to try to deny bond is the. rebuttable presumption. We're going to. assume you are a danger until you meet. these factors. But once you meet these. factors, including conditions of. confinement, house arrest, cuz see, that's what it is. It's not just Katie. I mean, um I'm sorry I. uh it's not just the issue that of what.

he did. If you can meet these factors, it's not just not having a criminal. history. It's not just, hey, he doesn't. have a violent history. It's not just, hey, he's been working since he 16. It's. all those things plus house arrest. So, if you put him on house arrest with. an ankle monitor and then you wave his. fourth amendment rights, you can come in. and check on him at any time. >> What where is he going? M. >> so if you meet all those factors then.

you put the conditions of bonding on. them and then a magistrate judge gives. an order. I'm not talking negative about. the court because I don't want to be. hauled in in front of a judge. >> Good move. >> I'm just telling you a magistrate judge. gives an order that is just as a matter. of fact was factually erroneous on some. particular issues. It's brought up on. the objection to the district court. judge. We're waiting for an opinion and. it's just a matter of fact that we. didn't get an opinion. We got two. sentences that said, uh, I'm going to.

uphold that. >> Okay. So, then we go up to the court of. appeals with a two sentence affirmments, a docket entry. We're waiting up on the court of appeals. and we get barely more than that two. sentence affirmments. >> I mean, that's not unusual, right? >> That's very unusual. I do court of. appeals all the time. They give opinions. and especially on something like this, they don't just you don't have anything. to fish with. >> Well, what they here the just looking at. the the statute here uh on the pre-trial.

[clears throat] detention the governing. statute 18 USC 3142G. Okay. >> Factors to be considered. The judicial. officer shall in determining whether. there are conditions of release that. will reasonably assure the appearance of. the person as required and the safety of. any other person in the community take. into account the available information. concerning one the nature and. circumstances of the offense charged so. they can consider this is a if true this. is a doozy he tried. >> well let let me say something I got to. stop you that you're taking that out of. context the law says that the weight of.

the evidence as far as guilt and. innocence. >> that's number two the weight of the. evidence against the person. >> That's right that's not taken into. consideration the way you're saying it. >> Well, these are the these are the four. factors. They said that that the. judicial officer shall consider uh in. addition to um whether there are. conditions of release that would. reasonably assure he'll show up and that. people will be safe in the community if. we let him out. Take into account the. the following information. Nature and. circumstances of the offense charged. Weight of the evidence against the. person. History and characteristics of.

the person. nature and seriousness of. the danger to any person or the. community that would be posed by the. person's release. >> Right? >> So, I mean, it is entirely appropriate. for them to consider, do we think. there's a potential danger and what are. the what's the nature and circumstances. of the offense charge? >> I don't want to get into a legal. argument with you, but those are factors. that are etched out by law. >> Okay? So, when you talk about weight of. evidence, the circuit court will tell. you weight of evidence doesn't mean his. guilt or innocence. And we're looking.

for a present danger. And we're looking. for factors that we can actually apply. to him such as house arrest, waiver of. fourth amendment, and in a ankle monitor. so we can know every move that he makes. >> Is he not doing well in jail? I mean, like, why why are you so focused on this. particular. >> I'll tell you why I'm so focused on it. Because And just think about anybody. that you know, including yourself, that's never been to jail. >> Yeah. I don't think I do very well. >> There you go. So when people ask me, they say, "Hey, how's Junior doing in. prison or jail?" There's two. distinctions, but depending on the jail.

that you go to, you might think you're. in prison, but that's another story. But. look, >> I say the same thing. >> Nobody who has zero history with jail. and criminal offenses is going to be. okay in jail. >> However, he talks to his parents every. day. He talks to his grandmother every. day. John Shoreman, who lives in the DC. area, goes and visits him, I say once. every 10 days, 14 days. >> Who's he? >> He's the other lawyer on the case. John. Shim was another lawyer in the case. So.

he goes and visits him. So to that. extent, he he has support, but I I'm not. going to say he's doing well. >> So what how was he living his life. before all of this? >> Oh, another thing. Went to high school, graduated. His father has a bail bonds. business and is national, very. successful. So he worked with the family. business since the age of 16. He went to. to work every day. He associated with. his friends. He had a small community of. friends in school. They played video.

games, stuff like that. Um, and just got. up every day, walked his dog, talked to. his neighbors. Neighbors gave him. affidavit in support of his release from. bond saying he's a very nice person. No. problems, no anger issues, nothing. And. that's that was his day-to-day life. >> You know, you say he's autistic. Sometimes the folks who are on the. spectrum can have serious genius. They. can be socially not that functional, but. very very bright, capable of putting. together a a bomb financially.

>> Let's talk about that. Now, we want to. assume that uh Brian Jr. had a serious. genius and capable of putting it. together a bomb. We have an expert that. laughed at the ability of this bomb to. even def detonate. >> So, I I don't want to really comment too. much. I know that he's he's diagnosed as. autistic. And. >> before all this, was he diagnosed? Well, see, that's another thing. So, before. all this, I don't think he was. officially diagnosed. because a lot of times, especially in.

the African-American community, I feel. very comfortable in saying this, um, in. the era that his parents grew up in now. Nowadays, 2026, man, on the spectrum, I don't even know. what it means. >> Yeah. >> You know, it can mean anything. But back. in the 80s and 90s, you had a child who. you say, "Oh, okay. Well, I'm just. looking to see if he's a problem. If. he's doing well in school, he's not a. problem. He has a small group of. friends. Okay. Well, he might be shy. He.

might be quiet, but we're not going out. to get psychiatric help and put him on. medication. So, when all this happened, yes, he was definitely diagnosed as as. on the spectrum as as autistic. And but. the the role that autism plays. in forming sufficient criminal mena is. something that I just have to leave the. experts. I'm not an expert in that and. it's an emerging field because of the. autism and on the spectrum is an. emerging field especially in Europe.

>> Did they say what kind of autism? You. know there's different. >> levels. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I I can't remember the exact level. that he is, but I know that it was. represented in one of the briefs in. court. >> So, it do was it like asberers? Do you. remember? >> No, I don't believe it was asberers, but. I can't really comment. >> completely on that. I'm trying to rack. my brain to think about, but I know what. he was diagnosed with was represented in. some of the briefing. >> And how about the OCD? That's another.

allegation about that he allegedly has. >> that has to deal with the doctors. They. they put I think it was two medical uh. physicians that put him through a. battery of tests, made these. determination and there's a report. >> that hired by the defense. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I mean that's that's no problem. >> No, that's that's standard. >> I mean [laughter]. >> I mean I know you get people on the. stand and you want to say that to try to. show bias, but I invite the government. >> No, any defense lawyer would do it. [clears throat]. >> And I and I can I can assure you that. these behavioral specialists for the.

FBI, they already made the diagnosis. >> about the autism just having watched. them. You mean. >> having watched him, talk to him? Come. on. >> What's he like to talk to? >> Like what? >> I actually think he's very pleasant. >> Is he does he have an a effect? Like. what? Why? How would I know in talking. to him that he's autistic? >> He he Well, I don't I don't know the. characteristics of autism. I can just. say when I talk to him, I feel he's just. normal in the sense of he answers. questions. He'll say, "Hey, what are we. doing on this?" I don't want to get into. attorney client privilege, but he just.

seems normal to me. But he's been. diagnosed that way. And so you got to. just talk. I just don't feel comfortable. saying how do I how would I know he's. autistic because I'm not a medical. professional. And there's nothing that. really stood out to me to say, man, this. guy has a problem. >> How would the FBI have known that? >> Because they're behavioral specialists. I'm not. They're trained to to detect. minor details in people's, for example, getting up every day or going to the. same routine. I don't know what that. means in terms of the university of uh.

universe of autism. >> What did that look like? What did that. look like in terms of what he was doing? He mentioned the pizza every day. >> I didn't watch it. I didn't see it. I. just was these are in reports, >> you know. But but the thing about autism. is like I said, it's just something that. is going to be have to take shape. throughout the trial if we actually get. there through experts. >> Yes. Right. Will it be relevant. >> outside of the argument over whether the. alleged confession comes in? >> I don't to be honest with you, I don't.

even place it in that argument. See, for. me, the argument about the con the. alleged confession and all these. statements that Patel and Bondi said a. contextually that has everything to do. with the manner in which he was arrested. and interrogated. >> Well, yeah. I mean that's what I mean. the reason that's relevant is did they. get something out of him that is not. usable because. >> autism the role that autism plays in. that is something that at that stage. when we get ready to file that motion if. we believe that we need some kind of.

expert opinion on it or that's going to. affect it then we can take that up with. our experts and and the judges and file. it in the motion but I don't have any. kind of opinion on that at this point. So, what was he doing the evening of January. 5th, 2021? >> Now, if I told you that, I'd give away. the secret sauce. >> Is there an alibi? >> Hey, I'm not going to comment on that, but I am looking forward to the. government trying to make this case. >> Was he planting those bombs?

>> I am looking forward to the government. trying to make this case. >> I'm not gonna see because if I get into. that, >> this is the problem. If I get into that, that's giving away our strategy. >> So, I I'm not going to do that. But I. what I am gonna tell you. >> wholeheartedly is that they have to make. their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I. don't believe they can make their case. beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'm. looking forward to a trial if by chance. we don't get the pardon. Now, you. mentioned that your inside sources say.

they feel very uh strong about going to. trial and winning. I want to know how. they feel about the pardon because the. plain language of that pardon applies to. them. >> Yeah, we'll talk about that in one. second. Boy, wait. I was going to ask. you something about um the trial. Yes. Who right now are you most looking. forward to cross-examining? >> I my colleagues would hurt me if I said. [laughter]. I'm just being honest with you. I'm not. I want to answer everything. Yeah, no. worries. >> You can see that I'm opening up. >> You have somebody's life in your hands. But man, my colleague, if I said that.

and they saw that and I I would get. called on the phone and they would abuse. me. >> We don't [laughter]. we don't want that. >> I can't I can't give you that one. But. let's go to the next question. >> Do we have a trial date yet? >> We don't. When when would you guess this. is likely to happen? >> I'm Well, we're hoping. the 1st of 2027. >> Somewhere about that January, March. We. keep on having to do, you know, continuences because of the the. discovery process. Yeah. And then then.

the judge being updated. >> and so. >> federal court in DC right now. >> Yeah. So we're we're hoping I would say. anywhere from January March of 2027. We. want to do that. >> How about um Brian's political leanings? Can you shed any light on that? >> You know, there's been this big deal. about him uh having voted for Trump. Okay. So, let me address that first. First of all, uh, in this country, technically speaking, you can just vote. for who you want to, and you shouldn't. be attributing certain things to them. I.

know Trump is a very polarizing figure. Um, I have never talked to Brian about. that that particular vote because I. think it's irrelevant to his innocence. Uh, but what I can tell you, and I'd. like to get back to this evidence, is. that when we were doing the bond. hearing, one of my biggest things was, "Hey, your honor, I know you asked the. questions, but can we see some evidence. of political affiliations here?". Like Proud Boys and uh, Oathkeepers, and.

can we see a history of political quote. unquote violence? Can we see a text. message with anyone or saying anything. that you would say that's kind of. disturbing from a political perspective. or this is rightwing or leftwing or. whatever? Nothing. See, and that gets back to be honest. with you getting the wrong guy. See that. stuff that was showed about Patel and. Bondie was at the very beginning of the. arrest. You don't hear any of that.

anymore. >> And the reason why you don't hear. >> I thought you were the one who put out. that he had voted for Trump twice. No, they everybody knew that. >> Okay. So, you stand by that? >> That was known. Oh, yeah. I'm not going. to deny that. Okay. That That's just a. fact. >> That's a fact that's been confirmed. But. but. >> the government was alleging that he he. was disgruntled because he was unhappy. with the way the election was being. handled. Let me ask you, >> this is obviously the 2020 election. >> Well, let me ask you this then. If he. was disgruntled according to them and he.

was unhappy and the certification. process was within 18 hours of what they. alleged he did, then it's related to the J6 events, then. he gets the pardon. >> This is back to your pardon argument. >> Yeah. Yeah. See, see this this in no way. to escape it. You just said the. government is alleging he was. disgruntled with with the outcome and he. was upset about that and then therefore. he went there and did this because he. was disgruntled and the certification. was within I think 18 hours of what they.

allege he did. >> Well then it's related to the events. that occurred or happened on J6. >> I do want to talk about the pardon and. whether he falls within it. They're. making the argument right now that he. does. But I'm I'm just interested in a. couple of these a couple of these. things. I know you gave one other. interview and I thought you said in the. interview with Fox with a DC reporter. that um. that Brian had you talked about how he'd. wiped the data from his phone, right? The government had alleged that he wiped.

>> the government alleged that he wiped. almost a thousand times. >> a thousand times and then uh that came. up on briefing. That's when that all the. obsessive compulsive. But what I what I. morally said to him is show me some data. on it. Now you you're saying he wiped. the data starting on this date which was. well after January uh 2021. >> Mhm. >> The date that they're claiming all this. data was wiped was years. Right. But my. bigger thing is just show you you're at. one on one end you're saying you got two.

million lines of data a million. documents. Well then show me something. Sh if you got all these text messages, all these documents, all this data, you. got all the ability to restore data, ESI, native format, all this kind of. stuff that you know of, all this, you. know, CSI stuff, then show me the. political affiliations. Show me the the radicalism that you came. out with. And the reason why you can. never show it is because it's not there.

>> to where he would drop two bombs or. >> Yeah. Yeah. You you can't show it. So. you got the wrong guy. The image that. you portrayed of Brian Jr. is completely. antithetical to the image that you come. to know. >> So then we're saying, okay, well, where's that evidence now? Now you you. this guy was the uni bomber according to. you when you when you first came out. Where is that evidence? He's not that. person. So, you know, for me it's like, okay, you can keep telling you and Fox.

and CNN all kinds of crazy stuff, but. what's going to happen is you're going. to have to prove that. You're going to. have to get up beyond a reasonable. doubt, prove that. And as far as this. whole whether the pardon uh applies to. him, which I'm very willing to talk. about, is because it's not, and I want. to make sure the public understands. this, it's not me alleging [music] that. his conduct is related to it's the. government.

>> Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments. Coalition, says Washington politicians. are always getting in your wallet. And. now they're messing with your credit. card, too. They say your credit card and. the security it offers are under attack. and that senators Dick Durban and Roger. Marshall want to change the nation's. payment system to benefit corporate mega. stores like Walmart and Target at the. expense of everyday Americans. Credit. cards can keep your payments secure and. provide rewards that families use to. help make everyday purchases more. affordable. The Electronic Payments.

Coalition says the Durban Marshall. mandates would let corporate mega stores. cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks that have weaker. security and fewer protections. Find out. more at guardyoucard.com. and consider telling Congress to guard. your card. For 250 years, Americans have. believed in a powerful idea that we were. meant to live free. Free to work hard, to move, to enjoy life without being. held back. But if everyday aches and.

pains are slowing you down, it might be. time to declare your independence from. pain. Relief Factor is a 100% drug-free. research-based formula designed to help. your body fight inflammation, which is. one of the root causes of pain. It's not. a quick fix or a temporary mask. It. works from the inside out, at the. source. Relief Actor was created so. people could get back to living life on. their terms, walking, working, exercising, and enjoying the moments. that matter. And I have felt the. difference too. This year as we.

celebrate 250 years of American. independence, take a stand for your own. freedom. To commemorate, they are now. offering a special patriotic price. Just. $17.76. That's awesome. So you can declare your. independence from pain and take your. control. It's just $17.76. The 3-week quick start is ready for you. Visit reliefactor.com or call 8004. relief. >> This is a left field question, but we're. just coming off of the verdict in the.

Carmelo Anthony case. Uh a young man. accused of well now found guilty of. killing Austin Metaf at this Texas. >> Is that the the tent? >> Yes. >> Okay, >> that's the one. And. >> I've heard about it. >> There was no evidence in the case at all. that this had anything to do with race. None. The defendant happened to be black. and the the victim happened to be white. But now that he's been convicted, there. are certain folks who are trying to make. it about race. >> And this is a case involving a black. defendant and no clear victim. I mean,

no one was hurt. These pipe bombs didn't. go off. But do you think race has. anything to do with this case? >> Okay. First of all, I want to talk about. the Carmela. I don't know anything about. that. So, I don't want to comment on. that. I don't want to offend the family. I don't want to offend anybody's family. with stuff that I don't even know about. I have never researched the facts of. that case. I did not look at the trial. I didn't even look at the little. snippets that I saw. I would scroll up. because I just didn't look at it. Now, to answer your question directly about. race in this case. This is the problem I have and I'm going.

to explain my experience growing up in. New Orleans, Louisiana. Um, and how race. and my experience as a a lawyer who. deals with constitutional employment. discrimination cases, sex, race, national origin. So. when we file a pardon motion, a motion to dismiss based on the pardon. and you then come back with no evidence. to raise the stakes and you put a.

frivolous and I I I will go to the mat. saying you're never going to prove this. WMD charge. It was just a scare tactic. >> Okay. in my opinion because you could. have done it before, you didn't, but. then you got mad because he filed the. motion to dismiss for the part you. raised to. >> Annie. That does happen in prosecutions. I'm not saying it happened here, but. that that has been known to. >> happen. What's going on? And so, so you. do that, but see what I focus on, >> and this is real big for me, is okay, he.

had the legal right to do it, you did. that, but I'm I'm focused on your. arguments. So the number the first argument is now. sudden he's the J5 bomber when the whole. time he's been the J6 bomber. Now the. argument is oh one of them because it's. a bit basically throw anything up on the. wall to see what sticks. Now one of the. arguments is oh he wasn't there on. January 6. but we know the Proud Boys guy wasn't. there on January 6. He got convicted. We.

know multiple pardon pardon. We know. multiple people who actually pled out. and were convicted for conduct that. happened on January 1st through 5th and. it didn't matter if they were there on. six but you're still making that. frivolous unsupported. factually unsupported legally. unsupported argument. So then you say. okay well. >> but they had been indicted or convicted. prior to the date of the pardon. Okay, let's talk about that because that came. up in a different interview. So, first.

let me finish this. Yeah. So, you bring. up because that has that's a different. argument. >> So, the first argument has no weight at. all that he wasn't there on J6. That has. no weight. >> If what he did on J 5th is related to it. was directly related to January 6. We. have seen other people pardoned. >> That's right. >> I get it. >> Okay. So, that has no weight and they. know it. So, now they say, "Oh, well, wait a minute. Um, this only applies to. people who were convicted or are a part.

of this situation prior to the date the. pardon was issued. Okay? really because without being too. technical, statutory construction, fundamental principles of statutory. construction that apply to this pardon. easily say if the president wanted to. say pending charges and reduce that down. to only at the time of the pardon, he. would have done that. He didn't say it. That's just another way to say let's.

just think of every single thing we can. think of to say what is obvious. We've. already put ourselves in a hole by. relating his conduct, but now we got to. get out of that. So, we're willing to. say anything. That's my personal. opinion. But here's the thing about. race. A lot of people say. women, blacks, uh, Latinos, oh, you. throwing out the race card. No, that's. not really true in my experience. What. happens is those groups, those.

demographics find themselves in a. situation where it's not making sense. where they're saying, "Hey, look, wait a. minute. I know a guy that's on video. assaulting law enforcement officers. He was so out of control that a fellow. Jitcher tried to stop him. He assaulted. him, cracked open the shield of an. officer that laid down and thought he. was about to die, got convicted,

and didn't get his and people need to. understand this about clemency. Clemency. is two things. You can get a commuter. sentence, which just means you can't. spend any time in jail, but then you can. turn around and get a full pardon, which. restores all your rights, >> your rights to gun violence, and. everything else that you might think of. that you had before. You get them. restored. So this person. gets convicted. 49page memorandum by the government for. his sentencing and he gets a full. pardon. Then you start saying okay that.

guy's white. Now let's look at the most extreme. people involved in this situation. Then. some people start saying hey and not not. necessarily me. Some people are saying, "Hey, well, hold on. The government. relates the conduct of my client to. this. These other people actually got. convicted for felony assault." See, some. people say J6 is patriotic. I say. convicted felon. Convicted felon pardon. >> Is it Is it your contention that all the.

people who benefited from the J6 pardon. are white? >> No, not at all. What I'm saying is the. most heinous acts that I've seen that. were committed and people got convicted. on draws the spectre of race. I'm not. saying look I said before I don't accuse. >> he pardoned the blacks. He pardoned the. whites. He pardoned everybody. >> Hey no. with a stroke of a pen. >> Megan I have to disagree on one thing. Uh, the point I'm making is it brings. the conversation to the table because.

you're wondering this African-American. person who didn't harm anybody. No. matter what you say about the. allegations and whether you feel he's. guilty or innocent, no one was harmed. And then people say, "But that was just. a stroke of luck. It's called felony. murder. If you go into a bank and rob it. and you don't kill anybody, you're going. to get lesser charges.". >> Yeah. >> Than when you kill somebody. So. >> he actually planted a viable bomb, which. is what the government claims. I know. you claim no, >> then he's got to go to prison for a very. long time. >> But well, see that that's where I.

disagree because these people. >> doesn't have to go off. >> No, hold on. These people who got. convicted didn't go to prison for a long. time. >> Well, but it's apples and oranges. They. got a pardon. You know, if your guy. didn't get a pardon, >> so when you talk about race, we're. trying to figure out what's the. distinction. >> But that's like that if if every single. J6 defendant was white, that'd be one. thing. But they weren't. Blacks got. pardoned, too. >> That's not that's not true. We're. talking about a sub. Look, a lot of. people feel if blacks were on TV. assaulting.

law enforcement officers, >> they were Did you watch the BLM riots? >> I I did. Oh, no. No, that's not. talking about J6. >> Okay. But I'm just saying. >> I'm talking about J6. >> We saw that and they got it passed. >> I'm talking about J6. There is there is. not one person that I know of convicted. of 22 years. convicted of 22 years. When you say. somebody got a pass, that means they. didn't get convicted. We're talking. about they didn't get arrested.

>> Okay. We're talking about people who got. arrested, convicted, and were on video. got. >> the the pardon was very controversial. for the reasons you're out. >> Yeah. But see what happened, but not. race. >> But you asked me about race. People. start thinking about race when they see, hey, why is the government fighting the. pardon with frivolous arguments? Can it. be his circumstances are different? I. understand your argument that okay, may. they're saying the motivation for. dropping these bombs was allegedly.

disgruntled over how the election was. playing out. But the truth is January. 5th is a whole different date than. January 6th. And January 6th involved a. very different situation. It was rioting. at the capital, insurrection if you ask. the, you know, president's detractors, >> and assaults on police officers, illegal. entry. Those are the crimes that we've. seen charged around J6. And then. excessive treatment of some of the. defendants versus how they'd normally. treat a trespass case, for example. This. is something that was a prelude to it.

that the I think the theory of the case. has been um well actually it depends on. who you ask and who you're looking at as. the the defendant on the theory of why. these bombs were placed there when they. thought it might be this other person. It was a training exercise allegedly to. distract officers from what was. happening on on Capitol Hill. And with. your client, I don't actually fully know. why they say he did it, but it didn't. happen on J6. >> And he we don't know the motivation was. related to let's go back to what you. said initially. You said the.

circumstances are entirely different, but that's saying the same argument. He. wasn't there on J6. That's been debunked. because of the late. I I didn't write. the pardon. Hold on. Let me. >> But what about the fact that he wasn't. indicted or charged or convicted? >> Let me Let me say this. Yeah. >> I didn't write the pardon. >> Yep. >> The pardon says conduct related to the. events that occurred at or near the. capital. >> Let me read it. You're right. Okay. But. here's But you left out an important. word. grants a full, complete, and. unconditional pardon to all other. individuals convicted of offenses.

related to events that occurred at or. near the US capital on January 6th, 2021. Convicted. Convicted. >> Go down to the bottom. >> And above that, it says, "Commute the. sentences of the following individuals.". >> Go down to the bottom. >> I further direct the attorney general to. pursue dismissal with prejudice to the. government of all pending indictments. against individuals for their conduct. related to the events at or near the. cabin. There you go. Pending. What? Read. it again. >> This wasn't a pending indictment at the. time he issued this pardon.

>> So you're you're putting in at the time. he issued the pardon. >> What do you mean? >> It's a pending forever more. >> No. Look at the preamble. The preamble. President Trump said, "Hey, I just want. to get past anything dealing with J6.". >> He said, >> did he say that? Did he say, "I want to. get past this is a a moment in history. we need to get past with anything. dealing with J6." It says P. If he. wanted to limit it to the time that he. issued it, he could have done that.

>> Everybody's trying to read in lang. >> I think he did when he when he when he. said pending indictments. >> Pending indictments. >> That's exactly we have pending. indictments and charges. You think that. that's a statutory construction thing, but I believe based on statuto statutory. construction that that doesn't fly. >> I get it. You're making an argument. there. Yeah, that doesn't fly. >> I'd be making the same argument if I. were. >> And here's the thing. Not only do I. believe it doesn't fly to to sit there. and say the the distinction is. ultimately because that's what you're.

saying. He just wasn't there on J6. As. long as his conduct as alleged by the. government related to J6, he falls. squarely within the pardon's plain. language. And let me say this, they have. another person who played out I think to. 10 years. His whole charges were. putting out pushing in firearms, moving firearms from January 1st through. 5th. >> On that alone, he was convicted. >> on conspiracy. >> in advance of January 6 to be used on.

January 6th. Very, very clearly tied to. January 6th. >> Well, according to them, this is clearly. tied to January 6. Uh the police say. that. >> uh it was a distraction technique. uh. the government has said that that it's. no it's not coincidence that it was done. on the eve of January 6. So we get back. to the same arguments. It's the. allegations of the government. >> They put this at issue, not me. Not. Mario Williams didn't do this. The. government did. >> When's your hearing on this?

>> I don't know. You know that, you know, a. lot of people mistakenly believe that uh. federal courts give a lot of hearings. They don't. So a lot of things are just. decided on. >> You might not get to argue it. >> Yeah, we might not get to argue. And. then, you know, my understanding and my. experience, especially at the court of. appeals level, but even at district. court levels, judges kind of come in. with their mind made up on argument. You. you might be able to say something, but. the chances that you actually reverse a. a preconceived uh position are very. slim. >> So, I'm not so much worried about. getting oral argument. I'm really. worried about just sticking to the the.

paper, you know, the what we argue. versus what they argue, you know, because they they they made that. argument. Hey, he wants. >> their their other argument is that the. attorney general should be the one who. interprets executive intent as part of. the executive branch that they their. opinion of what President Trump meant is. better more worth more than your. opinion. [clears throat]. >> Okay. So, first of all, statutory. construction basic principles apply to. the pardon. DC circuit has already come.

out and said as long as we're applying. those statutory principles, the. government has flip-flopped so many. times on who they're going to support. and who they're not going to support. that there's opinions out there that. say, "Hey, look, this is getting crazy.". >> Like, we can't if we base it on just. what you all feel in a given moment, we're going to be flip-flopping all the. time. We got to get This is the language. of the pardon. >> There has to be something that every. party can go on. >> Absolutely. This is the language of the. pardon. Do the facts apply or not? We're. not going to sit here and say the pardon. applies to charges in Kentucky and all.

this because you say it does. And and. you know that's called Chevron. difference. >> Yep. >> And Chevron difference. The Supreme. Court put a nail in that pretty much in. an immigration case about six or seven. years ago, but they really nailed it a. couple of about two years ago, I think. it was. you know that you're and so that. whole chevron difference argument again. >> you're making an you know technically. speaking. >> you have a duty to actually talk about. opinions that go against what you're. saying so they come in court and argue.

chevron defence knowing that the Supreme. Court has already done away with it. >> right and this term again I mean they. >> they did it again you're right. >> yeah um back to those tapes to the. people who are looking at those tapes. and this figure walking around and he's. not identifiable and we actually can't. even tell if if it's a he or a she. >> That's right. >> Um. but they're going to play those tapes a. lot if this thing goes to trial. And. they're going to do a height analysis. where they're going to try to say they. I'm assuming I don't this is just my.

assumption. >> They're going to try to look at the. height of Brian Cole Jr. They're going. to try to look at the bricks on the. ground and say it matches and so on and. so forth. Are you going to be able to. dispute. >> that that is Brian Cole Jr. in these. videootapes? I'm going to tell you the. same thing I said before. We are looking. forward to them going down that road. But that's all I'm going to say because. like I said, I do have to take. seriously. I can't say certain things. Like I love talking to you and I really. appreciate the opportunity. >> You've been great.

>> Yeah. But I I can't say certain things. because it just will undermine our case. and it'll give them a tip off to. something. But I what I can say is we're. looking forward to them going down that. road and we're actually in the discovery. process. And one reason why my colleague. who I absolutely 100% stand behind who. filed uh those subpoenas and stuff now. they argue that there were some. procedural vagaries in there and stuff. like that but like I said you you all. the one leaking all the stuff that you. say is confidential.

>> on TV saying this stuff and and making. these allegations against Junior on. stuff that I'm looking at confidential. attorney's eyes only but somehow is. making it to the press a contextually. So, you know, >> let me ask it this way. >> In federal court in DC, if you are going. to argue he has an alibi, >> do you [clears throat] have an. obligation to. >> admit that in advance of trial and give. the government notice of it? >> There's an argument to be said for that, >> you know? >> I mean, well, that would just be a rule. of civil proced or criminal procedure. that I like. Aren't you required to tell. them adv in advance if you're going to.

argue alibi? You know, we live in a. country with 50 states and about a. million cases. But I can say that. generally speaking, uh, you would have. to do that, but you know, there's. arguments saying that the timing of that. and and when you do it, basically the. timing is is another issue. >> How are his parents doing? >> Horrible. I mean, you know, I know you read off. those those uh criteria and I that's no. problem, but I do say like I stick by.

the fact that those criteria etched out. in law to mean something a little bit. different with the bond. But the issue. with with the parents, of course, they're going to be feel bad because. number one, he's accused of this and. then he's stuck in in jail and we as a. team firmly believe that he met the the. conditions of release and and that we. could have crafted some some conditions. of release along with meeting those. other factors that could have allowed. him to be at on home arrest. So the idea. that he's still in jail and they they.

just feel bad, but they do talk to him. almost every day, you know, and I go. back with the father, so I know he's a. great guy. >> And and Brian Cole Jr. never had any. trouble as a youth. No juvie record. >> That's what I'm trying to tell you. So. that that's what I that's my point. So. it's one thing as an adult not to have a. criminal history. I'm going, you know, our job, you know, this, you do these. mitigating factor analysis to try to. humanize the person and all that. So, I.

go back, I say, okay, well, let me look. at all the way back to elementary, junior high, high school. There's just. no history of being a problem child. There's no juvie record. There's no. history of fighting. There's no. expulsions. some of these things that. you think is the a marker to say, "Hey, maybe this is a precursor to real. problems that. >> or like this is a sociopath, animal. torture.". >> There's nothing nothing like that. >> Nothing. So, I'm like, "Okay." So, when.

we go into the bond hearing, I start. challenging the government. Like, you. can't prove anything from his past. because trust and believe, if he had a. juvie record, if he had animal to you. would have known by it by now. So, you. can't do that. So, show me the I'm real. big on show me these political uh. affiliations. Show me the the text. messages and things like with these. other people that say, "Hey, uh get. right with God. It's ready. You time to. die.". >> Like, or when he got radicalized, you're. saying. >> Yeah. Exactly. But there is nothing.

>> There's nothing. So, you know, I mean, for me, >> can you speak at all to cell phone. evidence? I mean, that's what everybody. wants to know because the cell phones. tell everybody everything about us, where we were and when. >> Okay. So, the government says that. they're going to match up these pings. um and that he swipe. We already talked. about the swipe and they're talking. about years difference in in the event. As far as the pings, all I can say is I. really want you to do it. I want to see. if you can do that one. You know, it's.

easy. It's easy to come on TV as Cash. Patel or Bondi. You have so much. authority. >> Your position is so high. Um you know, I. respect those people. uh just for what. they've been able to accomplish. regardless of of what I think about. their political thoughts or whatever. You made it up there. Okay, great. So, it's easy for you to get on and just. talk and people say, "Oh, Patel said. this." It's different to prove it. And. so, that's what we're looking forward. to. I want to see you prove this.

>> If they do prove it and your client is. convicted of these charges, is it. automatically life in prison? If they if. they prove the WMD charge, I mean, that's what that's what they raised the. stakes to. >> That's the most serious one. >> Yeah. I mean, you But I I that's just I. know you you can say that's a tactic. I. call it bullying. >> You see, when you when you don't check. now, it'd be different if they said we. have now discovered new factual evidence.

to demonstrate that this man should be. charged with weapons of mass dest. They just straight up tried to bully. him, and they did. as far as putting the. charge on to say, "Hey, you keep pushing. this pardon thing, we going to push life. in prison." So, you can go down as the. only person who the government has said. his conduct relates to J6, but you going. to go down as the only person that. spends life in prison. And see, that's what I'm talking about. I know you you call kind of, oh, well, I.

don't know about race and all that, but. people start thinking about race. >> I mean, they may they think about it. >> You need evidence. >> Yeah. Yeah. You you start thinking about. race when you say, "Hey, look, Brian. Cole Jr., they want to go down as the. >> Jason." Seriously though, Mario. Seriously, you think that they wouldn't. be doing that if he were white just to. bully him into giving them their pay? >> Oh, the WMD charge. Yes. >> But but look, >> and not giving the pardon. They like. they like this is our case. We're going. forward with our circumstances mean a. lot. Circumstances mean a lot. I'm not.

going to get into a situation of. accusing anybody of racism, but I am. explaining why s some people start. thinking about race. Whether you say you. have to have more facts than that, that's your personal opinion, but I can. tell you coming out of the black. community especially, they start. thinking about race when things don't. add up. Those arguments that are made by. the government, he wasn't there on J6. Oh, even though it says pending. indictments and charges and all this. kind of stuff, uh we're going to say. that it doesn't apply because he wasn't.

indicted and didn't have a pending. charge at the time. The part even though. it doesn't say that. >> when you start talking I get the pardon. >> You say, "Hey, what's going on?". >> But I like my question initially was. more about do you think they charged. him? Is has he been charged. because of the fact that he's a black. man? Did that play into this at all? >> Um no. I'm not going to go and say that. he the the actual allegations against. him. >> Yeah, >> man. We got much more discovery to go. through that. I'm not going to say he.

was charged just because he's black. No, I I'd be crazy to say that. Like I'm. talking about when things are start. don't add up. This pardon motion. >> You don't understand why he's not. getting the pardon. >> Exactly. Mhm. >> There's no way in the world that this. man does not qualify to have a dismissal. motion granted in my opinion based on. the plain language of the pardon. It. just doesn't make sense to me. >> I will say this, if you get this case. dismissed based on that pardon argument, it will be the greatest legal victory.

that we have seen in the past 10 years. >> We we already know we're in a battle cuz. and you know this from civil litigation. especially. You know, I sue the. government all the time. I was an. elected official myself out in a small. town Clarkson, Georgia. I I I did. opponent research, getting dirt on. people, making media commercials, all. kind of stuff, helping media commercials. be made. And so I've been around. politics a lot. So, you know, for me, it. when I go into a case, I just think even. if we were to win, even if the district. court were to say, I think he's entitled.

to the pardon, we're going up to the. appeals court. >> Yep. >> And and and then if we were to win. there, we're going to the Supreme Court. possibly. >> And vice versa. So, we're in this for. the long run. You know, we're in it. thinking, hey, win or lose, we're we're. going to be litigating this probably for. the next three to five years on this. issue alone. >> The issue is will the will the trial. courts stay, >> right? They probably don't. >> Yeah, they won't. So, so that's why it's. so important to kind of as soon as we. get it, we have to move quickly to try. to get it up and see what the other.

courts are saying. And they have to do. the same if they lose. So, you know, it's I'm not I just it just doesn't make. sense to me. I'm just gonna always say. that the pardon issue makes no sense to. me because I'm looking at that language. and I'm saying, "How is he not entitled. to this? >> How is he how could he be facing life in. prison as the only person the government. alleges conduct related to J6, but he. could be facing life in prison?" That. doesn't make sense to me. >> I got it.

>> So interesting. Mario, thank you. >> Thanks for coming in here. I appreciate. it. Tell us the story. And I and I. appreciate how upfront you were about. everything. There's I know there's c. certain things certain things I can't. these guys would kill me. >> You got a man's life in your hands. >> They didn't want me to come on here. They be like, "Hey, man. This lady's. going to destroy you. [laughter]. >> This is not This is not local channel 5. This lady, man, this lady's going to. argue with you and kill you." I said, "But man, we can at least talk a little. bit about this.". >> Now, you got to go back and tell them. that they were wrong. >> Well, you're tough, but but you know, it. it was good. It was a good opportunity.

I appreciate it. >> Listen, we're we're grateful to you.