Yep.

It really is.

And I mean, the irony of Jack Smith to saunter around this music festival over the weekend wearing a No Kings T-shirt when he ran a one-man t- tyr- tyrannical, um, special counsel's office, abusing the Constitut- Constitution, ignoring the Constitution, violating the law, violating the norms of just common decency.

What is wrong with this guy that he wanted to surveil everyone involved with the president? I mean, we know now that he snatched White House phone records from the National Archives using the archives' politically motivated agency as an end around the court process to get 87 White House officials' phone records.

By doing so, he collected, uh, communications with dozens of members of Congress and also reporters from numerous news organizations.

That's why he did it.

He didn't just want the phone records of White House officials.

Go ahead.

No

... um, yes, I mean, there, there was collaboration on, on, also I believe with the January 6th Select Committee too.

So they were all working in sync.

So again, not outlandish, but I definitely don't want that gap to overshadow what we learned about, from Jack Smith yesterday, and that is also, again, TPUSA and other groups being under investigation, and his admitting yesterday during his testimony that he was looking at criminal charges for what he called blocking the peaceful transfer of power on January 6th.

There's no law that pro- prohibits people from blocking something, from blocking the certification of, uh, of the presidential election that day.

There's no such law Furthermore, the transfer of power doesn't even happen that day.

It happens on January 20th, which people kept saying about January 6th.

Like, what on earth could possibly justify Jack Smith spreading this dragnet so wide, Julie?

No

... um, yes, I mean, there, there was collaboration on, on also I believe with the January 6th select committee too.

So they were all working in sync.

So again, not outlandish.

But I definitely don't want that gaff to overshadow what we learned about From Jack Smith yesterday, and that is also, again, TPUSA and other groups being under investigation and his admitting yesterday during his testimony that he was looking at criminal charges for what he called blocking the peaceful transfer of power on January 6th.

There's no law that pr- prohibits people from blocking something, from blocking the certification of, uh, of the presidential election that day.

There's no such law.

Like, what on earth could possibly justify Jack Smith spreading this dragnet so wide, Julie?

And if you don't have them on your books, you don't have to testify that you had any informants or any involvement, do you?

Right.

And that's a great point, Jack.

So I'll say two things.

Number one, yes, it is a very easy way to collaborate with a group like Southern Poverty Law Center and kind of the FBI wash their hands of informants or undercover employees directly out of the Bureau who are doing this sort of thing.

However, number two, Chris Ray lied.

We know from court documents, we know from trials, especially with the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.

And Julie, to my understanding, knowledge none of those people have ever been either identified or indicted

And if you don't have them on your books, you don't have to testify that you had any informants or any involvement, do you?

Right, and that's a great point, Jack.

So I'll say two things.

Um, number one, yes, it is a very easy way to collaborate with a group like Southern Poverty Law Center, and kind of the FBI wash their hands of informants or undercover employees directly out of the bureau who are doing this sort of thing.

However, number two, Chris Righ- Chris Wray lied.

We know from court documents, we know from trials, especially with the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.

In the Oath Keepers, at least five FBI informants, including the vice president of the Oath Keepers, all paid FBI informants.

And Julie, to my knowledge, none of those people have ever been either identified or indicted.

Can you explain that?

They did.

So this relates to Jed Bosberg's attempt, thirteen-month crusade, to try to find a Trump official in contempt of court for allegedly violating an order that he gave in the first Alien Enemies Act lawsuit that was brought before Jed Bosberg on March 15th, twenty twenty-five.

Now, I have a lot of background on my Substack as well, but what happened that night is that Jed Bosberg, they, they were flying illegal Venezuelans who were subject to the president's newly enacted Alien Enemies Act proclamation that ordered the immediate removal of illegal Venezuelans tied to Tren de Aragua.

That night, the Trump-- the D-DHS had two planes flying to El Salvador, where all these men were going to go first, and then go to Venezuela because there's no direct diplomatic route between the US and Venezuela to return their six hundred thousand-plus illegals who were dumped here during the Biden administration.

Bosberg outrageously tells the Department of Justice that night at this hearing, it was a Saturday night, "You have to return the planes.

Turn those planes around.

Mm.

Uh, I think she had some solid accomplishments that she should be proud of

ofHowever, the Epstein matter debacle files, whatever you want to call it, uh, just became a dark cloud that still hangs over this administration, unfortunately, to this day.

And a lot of that was prompted early on, shortly after she was confirmed in February of twenty twenty-five, claiming that, you know, with those binders had Epstein files, that this was going to be the first of an ongoing production of so-called Epstein files.

Then she was kinda caught on camera saying that they had tens of thousands of videos of Jeffrey Epstein, uh, with children and w-- child pornography, uh, kind of alluding to a client's list a few times, uh, really amping up the expectations that were then, of course, turned around on, uh, the administration by Democrats in Congress, the Never Trumpers that you're talking about, including people like Tom Massie, uh, who then leveraged this, I think, and made this...

Unfortunately, Natalie, once we look back at twenty twenty-five, the Epstein files, Jeffrey Epstein will be, unfortunately, the animating issue of the president's first year in office, and I think some of that is attributed to, uh, Pam Bondi's handling or mishandling of it early on.

Do you think it's fair to say that the broader department was sort of failing to meet that mark, or do you think that the Epstein situation was more of sort of just an aberration or an anomaly from an otherwise successful department, but he just couldn't get past that?

Yeah, great, great question.

And, um, look, I, I cautioned to people early on, and I know that Steve and I talked about this, and you and I talked about this.

Yes

... covering not just trials and court proceedings against J Sixers, but also the president's, uh, case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, uh, related to the events of January 6th.

So Benny, I have seen probably more than anyone on our side exactly how these, well, old prosecutors, but more importantly these judges conduct themselves, and their brazen partisanship, even Trump appointees, certainly Reagan appointees, George W. Bush appointees.

The crisis in our judiciary is not relegated only to Democrat appointees.

In fact, in some cases, arguably it's worse fr- for- from, uh, Republican appointees.

But Benny, um, and I'm gonna have a piece up on my Substack later today, Declassified with Julie Kelly, from a January 6th criminal defense attorney, uh, o- who has been working in the system for decades.

And I spoke with a few J6 defense attorneys.

Okay, so how does that happen?

You, you've got a very, very different take, ma'am.

Right, and it's also happening here in Chicago.

I mean, we see, uh, prosecutors here who have brought, uh, or tried to bring cases against demonstrators, rioters, protesters, whatever word you want to use, against individuals, uh, interfering in ICE operations, assaulting police officers, federal officers, and they can't get either grand jury indictments or once they get it before a judge or a trial jury in these blue cities, and not even blue cities.

I mean, it's, it's, it's pretty pervasive.

They can't get a conviction, but this is especially insidious in Washington, DC, where you have a jury pool made up, and this also includes grand jury pool.

So a grand jury is larger than a trial jury.

It's anywhere, I think, between sixteen to twenty-four individuals.

What do you recommend? Just we gotta go and get ch-changes of venue? The judges won't allow that, will they?

You've got a very, very different take, ma'am.

Right.

And it's also happening here in Chicago.

I mean, we see prosecutors here who have brought or tried to bring cases against demonstrators, rioters, protesters, whatever word you want to use against individuals interfering in ICE operations, assaulting police officers, federal officers.

And they can't get either grand jury indictments or once they get it before a judge or a trial jury in these blue cities, and not even blue cities.

I mean, it's pretty pervasive.

They can't get a conviction.

The judges won't allow that, will they?

What did Boasberg do today? And I realize people are gonna find this quite unbelievable, ma'am.

Well, Steve, you and I have talked about this for almost a year.

I mean, this is a full circle moment.

From March 15th of 2025, the first lawsuit lands on Judge Bosberg's desk, Chief Judge of the DC District Court.

This is the ACLU filing the first lawsuit to prohibit the President's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, and that ordered the immediate deportation of illegal Venezuelans who are tied to Tren de Aragua, which has been designated a foreign terrorist organization by the administration.

That night, as planes had already left US airspace, two planes carrying AEA subjects, Jeb Boasberg gives what he called an oral command to return those two planes carrying the illegal Venezuelans, that they had not been offered their due process rights and, or, uh, habeas petitions.

So of course, planes were already out of US airspace, as we've discussed.

What is-- So what is Bosberg proposing again? We're gonna have Zoom hearings with these, uh, with these guys in, uh, in, in Venezuela, many of whom I don't even think are incarcerated down there?

And I even think Ted Cruz mentioned that he should be impeached along with your other barrel, how your other favorite, what did Bozberg do today? And I realized people are going to find this quite unbelievable, ma'am.

Well, Steve, you and I've talked about this for almost a year.

I mean, this is a full circle moment from March 15th of 2025 to The first lawsuit lands on Jeff Rothberg's desk, chief judge of the DC district court.

This is the ACLU filing the first lawsuit to prohibit the president's invocation of the alien enemies act.

And that ordered the immediate deportation of illegal Venezuelans who are tied to Trend de Aragua, which has been designated a foreign terrorist organization by the administration.

That night, as planes had already left U.S. airspace, two planes carrying AEA subjects, Jeb Bosberg gives what he called an oral command to return those two planes carrying the illegal Venezuelans, that they had not been offered their due process rights and or habeas petitions.

So, of course, Planes were already out of U.S. airspace, as we've discussed.

So what is Boasberg proposing? Again, we're going to have Zoom hearings with these guys in Venezuela, many of whom I don't even think are incarcerated down there.

What can you tell us about how that defense was used, and who was charged, and what the impact was when it was tried to be cited as defense in the Jan 6 cases?

[inhales] Correct.

So that is accurate.

There are eight, um, there were eight who were charged-... who in varying degrees took, uh, you know, the defense as independent journalists.

Most people are very familiar with Steve Baker, uh, who was not at The Blaze at the time, but, uh, was an independent journalist covering the events.

Of course, he was charged with those four common misdemeanors, as was Owen Shroyer at InfoWars.

I just posted that, uh, criminal complaint by the Biden DOJ and Chris Wray, FBI, and they fully acknowledged that Owen Shro- Shroyer was a host for an InfoWars show, and that did not protect him from also being charged with four federal misdemeanors, and also, um, took a plea deal, and the DOJ wanted him in prison for six months.

You, you see what I mean? Like, h- how did they-- or was it just they were there, and they didn't even get into those kinds of details? Was it, you know, if you, if you crossed over, uh, the barrier, if you were cheering people on? Do they get into the specifics as to what went beyond journalism, or was it just J6, bad, throw you in the dungeon?

What can you tell us about how that defense was used and who was charged, and what the impact was when it was tried to be cited as defense in the Jan. six cases?

[inhaling] Correct.

So that is accurate.

There are eight, um...

There were eight who were charged, who, in varying degrees, took, uh, you know, the defense as independent journalists.

Most people are very familiar with Steve Baker, uh, who was not at The Blaze at the time, but, uh, was an independent journalist covering the event.

Of course, he was charged with those four common misdemeanors, as was Owen Shroyer at Infowars.

Or was it just they were there, and they didn't even get into those kinds of details? Was it, you know, if you, if you crossed over, uh, the barrier, if you were cheering people on, do they get into the specifics as to what went beyond journalism, or was it just J6, bad, throw you in the dungeon?

Julie Kelly, your thoughts, ma'am?

Yes, I mean, that was very interesting for Harry Dunn to admit that.

Of course, Nancy Pelosi herself admitted that.

The afternoon of January 6th, she is seen getting in her SUV with her chief of staff, kind of berating her chief of staff, Terry, uh, McDonough, I think was her name, saying, "Why weren't we prepared? This is our responsibility.

We failed." But, of course, it was intentional, and we know this from, of course, Steve Sund, Harry Dunn's one-time boss, the Chief of Capitol Police on January 6th, who was then the scapegoat for the security failures and forced to resign after- or was actually sort of fired by Nancy Pelosi.

He asked for, days before January 6th, and pleading throughout that afternoon, for approval from Nancy Pelosi's security chief on the Capitol Police board and Mitch McConnell's security chief on the Capitol Police board to authorize the use of the National Guard.

So, i- I mean, and the National Guard was only one part of it.

What, what is your recommendation?

Julie Kelly, your thoughts, ma'am.

Yes, I mean, that was very interesting for Harry Dunn to admit that.

Of course, Nancy Pelosi herself admitted that.

The afternoon of January 6th, she is seen getting in her SUV with her chief of staff, kind of berating her chief of staff, Terry McDonough, I think was her name, saying, why weren't we prepared? This is our responsibility.

We failed.

But of course, it was intentional.

And we know this from, of course, Steve Sund, Harry Dunn's one-time boss, the chief of Capitol Police on January 6th, who was then the scapegoat for the security failures and forced to resign after or was actually sort of fired by Nancy Pelosi.

What is your recommendation?

What stood out to you?

Um, well, this is what Jack Smith and President Trump have wanted, quite frankly, and that is the public sworn testimony of Jack Smith.

And Jesse, regardless of the outcome here, I think it's important that the American taxpayers who paid for this clown, this dirtbag, this thug, and his team of henchmen $50 million in less than two years to try to put President Trump behind bars, I think that they're entitled to see this guy speak for himself.

Um, uh, you know, I think at this point, the hearing's still going on.

There's still...

Or a- as the hearing was going on today, I think Republicans found their footing a little bit and, uh, started to land some blows on Jack Smith, especially, Jesse, and we can talk about this more specifically, what appears to be he did not take an oath of office after Merrick Garland swore him- or appointed him.

Only was sworn in in September of 2023.

Why does this matter?

She says the day did not go well for Jack Smith.

I think it was a disaster for Jack Smith.

I think, um, you know, Democrats, and Jack Smith himself, and the media were preparing for him to really school the committee on all of Donald Trump's criminality, and but for the President winning, he would've been able to easily convict the president in both of those documents, case in J6, but that just did not happen.

And I think [chuckles] you can tell, Megan, by the response, you know, of the media and even Democrats on the panel-... that this did not go well.

So they had to spend every, all of their time talking about Donald Trump, how he tried to steal, you know, overturn the 2020 election, and all of them would say, "On behalf of my state or my district, thank you so much for your service, your 30 years of service." Because they recognize that I think most people view Jack Smith and the entire special counsel's operation as nothing more than a political witch hunt to try to damage and destroy Donald Trump before the election.

Kelly says these failures reflect a broader pattern across Smith's entire career.

Jack Smith has actually a terrible record before higher courts.

He had a lot of luck in Washington, DC because he had two Democrat chief judges who were happy to give him whatever he wanted.

That's what this is.

is....

many of them were with us in the House chamber on January 6th.

I remember it well.

The chairman was there, as was I. There's been a lot of discussion about witnesses today.

Perhaps the chairman could muster the courage to call the four witnesses who I see.

The American public may not see, I see standing behind you, Mr. Smith, the four police officers who risked everything, life and limb, to do what? To protect the Republican members on the dais.

This is-- They've been waiting for this a long time, ma'am.

Did they?

Um, no, I don't think so.

They really were struggling.

At one point they were interrupting, um, Even Jack Smith, when he was trying to answer the Democrats, they were so riled up about the directness of the lines of questioning from Republicans.

So you could see at the end, then Jamie Raskin at the end said, well, if this report on the documents case is allowed to be released by the court, we're going to have Jack Smith back here so he can answer questions about the documents case.

So I think that's a telling sign.

If they thought that this was a home run, Jamie Raskin, shrewd, shrewd as he is, he would say, all right, that's all we need to hear from Jack Smith.

approach to this so you laid out the you followed it intimately you've been very critical in the moment of smith i mean calling him things that even other people haven't called him you laid out a game plan of what you had to do now we've had it are you satisfied that this was carried out the best way possibly can by the house judiciary on the republican side

So what's your advice to these guys? What, what, what are the ones you load up front as the ones you've gotta get to?

I mean, they absolutely have to go for the jugular here.

Um, so I would say, and this was the first question that I posed, that they need to confront Jack Smith with, with...

And this is something that the media, when they covered Jack Smith's testimony last month, completely ignored, Steve.

Judge Aileen Cannon, in July of 2024, dismissed the documents case after determining that Jack Smith's appointment violated the Constitution, violated the Appointments Clause, because he was not appointed by the President, he was not confirmed by the Senate.

He acted as a principal officer, i.e., a US attorney, so she tossed the indictment.

Up until the time that Jack Smith left office in January 2025, he was still signing his name, Special Counsel Jack Smith, on motions and briefs filed in the documents case.

And of course, Nicolle Wallace, Katie Tur, all of them on MSNBC particularly, are gonna be, "You know, he did such a great job, he got buried." Going into this, what is your level of confidence that the House Judiciary Committee on the Republican side can actually deliver?

bleeding julie kelly joins us now because julie you've been doing some research in and you had reached out to me regarding the relationship between renee good and becca good because we just saw the news yesterday that broke that becca good is now under criminal investigation what did you learn about them

So, Becca Good, right here in the video after Renee Good was shot, claimed that she was her wife.

Oh, you just shot my wife, etc.

She gave a statement shortly thereafter, also describing herself as Renee Good's wife.

The media, unquestionably, unquestioning, unflinching, reported, as fact, that really who was the instigator in a lot of this, Becca Good, seen attempting to get into the passenger side there, was indeed Renee Good's wife.

So I did a little digging, my researcher and I.

We checked a few states where the pair had lived over the last, I guess, couple of years.

Wouldn't it actually just revert to her son then, the six-year-old son apparently that they have, or excuse me, that she has?

But that aside, can you walk us through it? I know you've got some interesting developments on, on Boasberg that you wanted to highlight for us.

Right.

So finally, um, Con- Republicans in Congress held a hearing on the, uh, needed necessary impeachment of Jeb Bosberg, J- Judge James Bosberg, who is the chief judge of the DC District Court.

Of course, we have discussed, Natalie, you and I many times, and Steve and I have as well, I've posted for years actually about Jeb Bosberg, uh, and his involvement in the January 6th prosecution.

He gave Ray Epps infamously a slap on the wrist.

Same with Michael Sussman.So, he has designated himself judicial enemy number one of the Trump Administration, thwarting and sabotaging, uh, one of the President's key immigration policies, the Alien Enemies Act, which ordered the immediate removal of illegal Venezuelans tied to Tren de Aragua.

This was back in March.

Julie, I want you to finish kind of the point you were making, just so the audience can understand the, the timeline of events.

Let me just get your reaction first and foremost to what we just saw yesterday in Minneapolis and the way the Democrats, rather than calm things down, are trying to stoke to a greater extent the ongoing insurrection at the hands of the American left.

It's just stunning, the reversal within a 24-hour period, Vince.

You had Democrats spending the entire day on January 6th, on Tuesday, holding hearings, talking about domestic terrorists who were J Sixers, most of whom, almost nearly all of them, peacefully protesting at the Capitol, entering a public building on a Wednesday afternoon, nonetheless hunted down by the Biden DOJ and FBI, more than at least 1,600 arrested and charged before, of course, the president took office.

You had a candlelight vigil held by Democratic leaders on the steps of the Capitol Tuesday night promoting the lie that police officers were killed as a result of January 6th.

We already know that that's one of the biggest lies.

And then less than 24 hours later, they are defending a woman, an obviously deranged woman, who tried to use her SUV, appears to have out-of-state plates, darkened windows, is leading an effort to obstruct an ICE operation, then uses her car to drive into a federal officer who then sh- shoots and kills her.

Now the Democrats call that a murder.

Do you think it's, it's possible or even likely that we'll see a lot more of this going into the summer?

Let me just get your reaction first and foremost to what we just saw yesterday in Minneapolis, and the way the Democrats, rather than calm things down, are trying to stoke to a greater extent the ongoing insurrection at the hands of the American Left.

It's just stunning, the reversal within a 24-hour period, Vince.

You had Democrats spending the entire day on January 6th, on Tuesday, holding hearings, talking about domestic terrorists who were J Sixers, most of whom, almost nearly all of them, peacefully protesting at the Capitol, entering a public building on a Wednesday afternoon, nonetheless hunted down by the Biden DOJ and FBI, more than at least 1,600 arrested and charged before, of course, the president took office.

You had a candlelight vigil held by Democratic leaders on the steps of the Capitol Tuesday night promoting the lie that police officers were killed as a result of January 6th.

We already know that that's one of the biggest lies.

And then less than 24 hours later, they are defending a woman, an obviously deranged woman who tried to use her SUV, appears to have out-of-state plates, darkened windows, is leading (clears throat) an effort to obstruct an ICE operation, then uses her car to drive into a federal officer who then sh- shoots and kills her.

Now the Democrats call that a murder.

Do you think it's, it's possible or even likely that we'll see a lot more of this going into the summer?