On this episode of the Fresh and Fit Podcast, I am joined by Andrew Wilson and Destiny to debate whether or not the events of January 6th were an insurrection or not. Destiny and Andrew both agree that the events that took place that day were an act of insurrection, but what exactly was it that turned it into a riot? And what role did the FBI have to play in the events on the 6th of January, when a woman was shot and killed in the streets of Washington, D.C.? I ll tell you what I think, and why I don t think it was an insurrection. I ll also tell you why I believe it was not an insurrection and why it should be looked at as a piece of political violence, much like the Black Lives Matter riots in Ferguson, Missouri on January 9th, 2019. Also, I ll give my thoughts on the DOJ's handling of the case and the lack of indictments of anyone involved in the J6 rioting, as well as the fact that no one has been charged or convicted for any of the rioting itself, and no one was even charged for the crimes they committed in the first place! Stay tuned to the next episode of The Fresh & Fit Podcast where I'll be joined by my good friends, Andrew Wilson & Destiny, to debate this topic and much more. Stay tuned for that one! -Brent and DGG - Subscribe, Like, Share, Share and Retweet! Subscribe to stay up to date with the latest episodes of the podcast on social media and all things going on in the podcast! . . . and stay tuned in to the newest episode of ! and . in the newest podcast, on the latest episode of "Fresh and Fit! and everything else going on around the podcast, including the latest in podcasting and social media! , , and more! on this podcast, coming soon! (coming soon! :D) - Brent, Brent and DGA Podcast! :D - Brent & DGG, - Derek Gellert ( ) Brent and Andrew Wilson Thank you for listening to this podcast? -Drew, Brent, DGG ( ) - Brent and Destiny ( ) . . Brent & Destiny ( ) - DGR ( & the podcasting podcast, and so much more!
00:01:19.000Today, I'm going to be hosting a debate between them on, was January 6th an insurrection?
00:01:25.000Okay, the way this debate is going to go is we're going to have opening statements by both parties for five minutes where they're going to identify their arguments.
00:01:33.000Their stance, who they are, introduce themselves to you, etc.
00:01:36.000That's going to be five minutes uninterrupted.
00:01:38.000Then we're going to have three minutes where each of them are going to be able to lodge their arguments for three rounds of that for three minutes going back and forth.
00:01:46.000And then we're going to have two rounds where it's an open five-minute dialogue.
00:01:51.000I'll be timing each round, staying as a neutral moderator.
00:01:55.000So guys, if you're not familiar with Destiny or Andrew Wilson, please go subscribe to both their channels.
00:02:00.000Obviously, we don't agree on everything, but I respect both these guys as skilled debaters, and they're good colleagues of mine, so please go check out their channels on YouTube and on Rumble and all the platforms that they're on.
00:02:11.000DominiqueLiberal on Twitter, the PaleoChristCon on X? Just PaleoChristCon, yeah.
00:02:17.000Yeah, on X. So go check them out on all the platforms, guys.
00:02:20.000I'm happy to be able to host this debate.
00:02:21.000So other than that, we're live on all platforms, YouTube, Rumble, etc.
00:02:49.000Looking into the idea of insurrection itself, it isn't exactly clear what the meaning of it is.
00:02:54.000It does always seem to be tied together with violence or some will to overthrow a government law, government system, government itself, or resistance to that law, or something akin to this.
00:03:05.000The Supreme Court hasn't given us any guidance on this as they wash their hands of it, and to date, not a single person has been charged or convicted of insurrection who participated in any of the J6 rioting.
00:03:15.000This includes Donald Trump himself, who was acquitted of inciting insurrection.
00:03:20.000You would think, with no clear guidance of what an insurrection is, a lack of anybody being prosecuted for this supposed insurrection who participated, and a president acquitted of inciting one, that that would be that.
00:03:35.000The events of January 6th were a protest that turned into a riot.
00:03:42.000In fact, Destiny in 2021 completely agreed with my current assessment.
00:03:47.000Please, if you don't mind, play clip one.
00:03:49.000Okay, we will make that available to you.
00:03:51.000Bills is going to roll it up right now.
00:03:56.000And I will go ahead and give you an extra five seconds on your thing.
00:04:02.000Okay, go ahead and play the video, please.
00:04:04.000If you think the majority of the people there were actually trying to do that and all they managed to do was, like, kill, like, one woman got shot by the cops, you're fucking delusional.
00:04:12.000I think most of the people probably showed up to protest because they were fucking mad and then shit got riled up.
00:04:16.000They were probably, almost for sure, I would say, some genuine bad actors there that had fantasies of invading the fucking Capitol and shit.
00:04:22.000Now, I think I heard from the FBI. I don't think every single person who went there, their goal was to destroy the White House or destroy the Capitol building and take it over.
00:04:36.000Because if they were, we would have saw way more shit.
00:04:40.000Now, just so you know, I have no visual on my end when those play, and I'd appreciate it if you guys could put the visual up on my end as well.
00:04:47.000In fact, Destiny even agrees such rioting and political violence is part of the democratic process, akin to voting, he says.
00:04:55.000He said this to justify the George Floyd or BLM riots, that such riots were just one side of the Democrat coin and baked in to our Democrat process.
00:05:04.000The tail's in, and just the other half of democracy, he says.
00:06:01.000Because, as I've debated you in the past, you started talking before January 6th ever occurred about how the BLM riots were justified.
00:06:09.000It was just the other side of the coin of voting.
00:06:11.000Of course, once you realize that grip wouldn't do as well for you when you were debating the Rittenhouse shit, you completely 180'd your position.
00:06:55.000In order for him to justify that he wants them all to be unalived, he needs to brand them all as traitors and insurrectionists.
00:07:01.000In this way, he can build a case that Trump supporters are evil, and so it is justified to use violence against them.
00:07:07.000To recap that, Trump supporters are evil, therefore anything which happens to them is fine.
00:07:11.000Going so far as to say his friend Pisco, to his friend Pisco, the only reason he wouldn't have liked Trump to have been unalived...
00:07:22.000By this would-be assassin is because it would motivate Republicans.
00:07:26.000This, of course, gives us an entailment that if it wouldn't motivate Trump supporters, he would be fine with Trump having met his demise in this assassination attempt.
00:09:28.000So, ultimately, destiny needs to be able to provide us with what an insurrection actually is.
00:09:34.000An actual working legal definition or even a personal one so we can work off of that to understand the mindset of a person who claims this was an insurrection, even as nobody ultimately is prosecuted for an insurrection.
00:09:47.000He, to date, hasn't done this for the same reason the Supreme Court and higher courts won't.
00:09:52.000If they do define it strictly and categorize it strictly, then it's likely Democrats and even Republicans are engaging in them all the time.
00:10:00.000I am, in fact, willing to, in the ultimate spirit of good faith, concede that if destiny just can't really define an insurrection or tell us what goes into that category and not into the category of a riot, That he really has no business calling anybody an insurrectionist, especially when nobody's been charged with an insurrection in regards to J6. Nobody.
00:10:46.000Note in that video that the entire audience, when he was asked this question by Pisco, said, yes, we would have preferred that Trump was unalive during that assassination attempt.
00:11:20.000I believe that the subject matter of the debate is whether or not January 6th is an insurrection or would be considered an insurrection.
00:11:26.000Originally, I thought there was going to be a 1v1 debate against me and Andrew, but I can do a 1v2 debate against my 2021 less educated self as well.
00:11:32.000I have no problem speaking to arguments I've made in prior clips.
00:11:35.000I have no problem speaking to current arguments made by Andrew.
00:11:40.000I think that the first thing that we need to acknowledge when we talk about the structure of the United States government is that the Constitution of the United States It's the supreme law of the land.
00:11:48.000The Constitution is what powers our three branches of government, and it sits above every other part of our government, and every part of our government must comport to the Constitution.
00:11:57.000I think this is a foundational American belief and principle, and if you don't share on this foundational belief, then we're never going to connect in any sort of meaningful way when we talk about how U.S. law or U.S. process or procedure or whatever should be carried out.
00:12:10.000So that being said, there was an amendment to the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and Section 3 of that amendment basically goes on to say that any prior oath-taker that has engaged in or aided in an insurrection is no longer allowed to hold office, essentially.
00:12:25.000Now, the question that we come to today is trying to define what is an insurrection.
00:12:30.000And while in modern times it seems like An insurrection is a term left to a dictionary or a term left to internet debaters.
00:12:36.000At the time that the 14th Amendment was framed, what was an insurrection was pretty well understood.
00:12:44.000An insurrection includes four vital elements.
00:12:47.000One is an assemblage, meaning a group of people that have come together.
00:12:52.000Two is resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
00:12:56.000Three is you have to do this by way of force or intimidation.
00:13:01.000And four is it has to be for a public concern or a public cause, not a private thing that one might be interested in.
00:13:08.000Just for some understandings of when we say an assemblage, we can look to in 1861, Justice Benjamin Curtis said a combination or conspiracy by which different individuals are united in one common purpose.
00:13:21.000So not just a bunch of people in a city protesting different things, but a group of people that are united in one common purpose.
00:13:29.000In the case of Freeze, in the year 1800, he says, if a body of people conspire and meditate in insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States, a statute such as the ECA, the Electoral Count Act, which is what they were united on January 6th to insurrect against,
00:13:44.000they were opposing the execution of that.
00:13:47.000They are only guilty of a high misdemeanor, but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, which we did see on the day of January 6th, regardless of if every member engaged in force or just one, they are guilty of the treason of levying war, and the quantum of force employed neither lessens nor increases the crime,
00:14:06.000whether by 100 or 1,000 persons, is wholly immaterial.
00:14:10.000Doesn't matter if you have an insurrection of 50 people, 100 people, or 1,000 people, you only really need two people there to make it an insurrection.
00:14:16.000Uh, In terms of whether or not they were resisting a law or interfering with the cause of government, we can quote here, An insurrection against the United States requires resistance to any statute or some public law of the United States.
00:14:31.000This is a quote by a judge in, I think, 1826.
00:14:55.000And Justice Fields' opinion in the Great House court case held that any effort to coerce the conduct of government constituted an insurrection, such as when people went to the Capitol to coerce Pence to overthrow the election, which is what Donald Trump told them to do.
00:15:13.000Quoting Justice Marshall in 1807, the most comprehensive definition of living war against the king or against the United States, which I have seen, requires an assemblage of men ready to act and with an intent to do some treasonable act and armed in warlike manner or else assembled in such numbers as to supersede the necessity of arms.
00:15:29.000You don't necessarily need weapons to do it.
00:15:31.000You could just have the numbers of people there threatening to use force or intimidation.
00:15:35.000And then for a public purpose, obviously, the insurrection is to, I'm quoting Judge John Kane here, insurrections to redress by force national grievances or to form real or imaginary evils of a public nature.
00:15:47.000Obviously, they were protesting the vote.
00:15:53.000So, to recount, for the Assembly, there were hundreds of people that breached the Capitol building.
00:15:57.000There were thousands that trespassed on federal land.
00:15:59.000For two, there was a clear resistance to the federal law.
00:16:02.000The trespassers were there to contribute the Electoral Count Act.
00:16:04.000There was a plethora of evidence brought up in the Anderson v.
00:16:07.000Griswold case about this, where, quoting the judges on that case, they said,"...substantial evidence in the record showed that the mob's unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the 12th Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election." The third element, the resistance made extensive use of force.
00:16:24.000This is self-evident just by watching any of the videos.
00:16:27.000To quote the Colorado Supreme Court again, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol.
00:16:32.000Obviously, there were calls to hang Mike Pence and people marched, very famously, with 1776 signs, which, as many in this audience might be familiar with, was a very popular insurrection in U.S. history, or a rebellion even, one might say.
00:16:44.000And then for a public purpose, it was obviously for the public purpose of resisting what they perceived to be as the stealing of the election.
00:16:51.000There are ways to try to counter this argument.
00:16:53.000We can either use nonsense definitions of insurrection, but that doesn't really matter.
00:16:56.000The only thing that matters was the public understanding and the legal understanding of insurrection at the time the 14th Amendment was created and when Section 3 was framed, because that's what the Constitution demands, that we look at what was thought of as an insurrection when the language was added to the Constitution.
00:17:10.000We can try to divert by talking about BLM or anything else, and I'm happy to dive into all of those examples.
00:17:34.000That would be understood as a rebellion.
00:17:36.000Every insurrection is not a rebellion, though every rebellion starts as an insurrection.
00:17:39.000And then when we say, this is a common one as well, why was no one charged with an insurrection?
00:17:43.000People can be charged or couldn't be charged with crimes for a variety of reasons, but for purposes of the 14th Amendment, nothing in there requires the criminal conviction of the crime of insurrection, only that an insurrection occurred and that one engaged in it or aided it.
00:19:58.000Maybe they committed insurrection and they weren't charged for insurrection, but also maybe they did not commit insurrection and that's why they weren't charged with insurrection.
00:20:31.000He also, as he talks about these various rulings, he says treason of levying war comes in.
00:20:39.000Obviously, insurrection seems to have something to do with levying war against the United States, or at least some type of start to levy war against the United States.
00:20:47.000He still has not actually demonstrated any of this.
00:20:50.000He's just given us this really nebulous idea.
00:20:54.000An assemblage resisting any law or interfering with the course of government proceeding by force or intimidating for public.
00:21:01.000So unless Destiny is going to concede that anything which meets this criteria is an insurrection, then I'm not even sure how to go forward with this debate.
00:21:10.000How in the world can he say essentially almost any riot on planet Earth Or any assemblage, even a peaceful protest where they shut down the roads, is an insurrection.
00:21:47.000There's a clear resistance to the implementation or the execution of some federal law.
00:21:51.000The resistance has an aim to make use of force or intimidation, and it's gathered for a particular public purpose.
00:21:58.000BLM almost automatically fails on the fact that these were not usually demonstrations against federal law.
00:22:04.000I don't know the federal law or the federal thing that was being resisted by BLM. But again, I'm happy to dive into any particular BLM supposed insurrection or riot if you'd like.
00:22:14.000But again, I mean, that has nothing to do with January 6th.
00:22:16.000And if you want, then you can see that entire argument.
00:22:18.000We can move on to analyzing individual BLM instances.
00:22:20.000But again, you'd have to show that there was some implementation or carrying out of some federal function for it to be an insurrection against the United States government.
00:22:27.000States might have their own definitions of state insurrections.
00:22:54.000We can complain about people being charged with an insurrection or not, but whether or not somebody is charged with an insurrection, again, has nothing to do with the event itself.
00:23:06.000For instance, if I were to look and see at any number of BLM riots, if I were to look at a riot, would a challenge to that riot be, well, was anybody charged with rioting?
00:23:14.000If I could show you a riot where people clearly engaged in a riot, where there was a mass of people that were engaged in violent behavior that involved the destruction of some property or violent activity, but I would say, well, look, nobody was actually charged with rioting, would you say then that, well, I guess nobody was actually, or there wasn't a riot that actually happened?
00:24:32.000If this ends up going into a whole bunch of BLM stuff, we can get to that, but that has no bearing on whether J6 would be considered an insurrection or not.
00:24:50.000Let me know when you're ready, and I'll turn the clock on.
00:24:53.000So I'm not claiming that this has anything to do with BLM. I'm doing an internal critique and saying that if you're going to apply these nebulous standards to this, then you must apply them to this.
00:25:02.000If this category, if category A over here, also would include everything which includes a riot, then we would need to know what the delineating factor is.
00:25:12.000He claims here there must be some federal element.
00:25:15.000However, that's not in his definition.
00:25:17.000His definition does not include any federal element.
00:25:20.000To go over his definition again, an assemblage resisting law by force or intimidation for public purpose.
00:25:25.000It doesn't say anything about a federal element.
00:25:29.000I don't know where the hell he got that, but it's definitely not in his definition.
00:25:31.000If it was, he should have said that that was in his definition.
00:25:35.000He keeps going back to this illogical idea that just because X doesn't happen doesn't mean X isn't true.
00:25:41.000Yeah, that's true, but it also doesn't mean X is true.
00:25:43.000So making the claim that, well, wait a second, Andrew, just because they weren't actually charged with insurrection doesn't mean they weren't guilty of insurrection.
00:25:51.000Well, that's nice, but it doesn't mean they were either.
00:25:53.000And I have the evidence on my side as none of them were actually prosecuted.
00:25:59.000None of them were prosecuted for insurrection and Trump was acquitted for inciting insurrection.
00:26:08.000He would actually have to demonstrate that this was an insurrection and that they were all wrong, that they were completely incorrect in not charging it this way.
00:26:17.000He just keeps saying, well, there's a variety of reasons why they didn't.
00:26:21.000Couldn't one of the reasons be because it wasn't an insurrection?
00:26:24.000Yes, that seems to be a very obvious reason, doesn't it?
00:26:28.000But going back to my opening, I just want to kind of point out that Destiny has changed his entire idea on this, whereas at first he claimed in 2021 this was in no way an insurrection, that it fit the criteria of a riot better from anybody who's looking at it objectively.
00:27:06.000I don't have to define for you what that means.
00:27:08.000You have to define for me what that means.
00:27:11.000Giving me these four elements here is meaningless unless you can tell me what goes in those categories specifically that does not go in the category for rioting.
00:27:21.000Because as I look at an assemblage resisting any law by force or intimidating or for public, that could all just be rioting.
00:27:28.000That does not really tell me what goes in the category.
00:27:32.000So I would like for you to actually expand on this definition so I can understand what the hell you're talking about and why the J-6ers specifically fit this criteria.
00:30:00.000Relating to the actions of a particular government.
00:30:03.000So you might riot, for instance, BLM might riot against police violence, but there's not a particular federal statute or federal law there.
00:30:11.000In terms of me specifying the federal part, well, I mean, J6 was an insurrection against a federal entity.
00:30:17.000Again, if we want to talk about state insurrections or something, I guess we can, but the differentiating factor here is why I have the federal part is because we're talking about We're good to go.
00:31:02.000So, what I'll do is, that concludes round two.
00:31:08.000Andrew, I'll turn it back to you unless you want me to give Destiny a little bit extra time and I can give you that extra time as well on the back end, but I'll let you choose that.
00:31:18.000Okay, Destiny, go ahead and finish, and I will add that to you.
00:31:23.000Yeah, my final statement is, okay, if you look at the Colorado Court case, they found that Donald Trump acted as part of an assemblage that he helped bring into being.
00:31:30.000It said that Trump was resisting the enforcement of federal and constitutional rules, that Trump took numerous illegal actions to prevent the peaceful transition of presidential power.
00:31:39.000He engaged in an ongoing course of conduct aimed at producing violent resistance to the peaceful transfer of presidential power.
00:31:44.000He attempted to incite his supporters to attack Congress, which they did.
00:31:48.000And that Trump's speech occurred sufficiently close in time and place to when and where the insurrection took place to be considered an incitement.
00:31:53.000Like, every single part of this, like, very easily and very cleanly meets the definition of insurrection.
00:31:57.000If we want to argue that my definition isn't clean or that my four elements aren't being met, that's—well, I don't know how we can argue that.
00:32:03.000I think all four elements are being met.
00:32:04.000If we want to argue that, well, every single riot would, you know, fall into this, then we could say, well, fine, Destiny, I agree.
00:32:09.000For your definition of insurrection, fine, January 6th was an insurrection.
00:32:12.000Now let's talk about these other events, and we could talk about whether they fit or don't fit.
00:32:15.000Or you can give me your own definition of insurrection, and then we can go from there.
00:34:09.000He still hasn't told us the distinction that fits in this category, why this isn't a riot, even though everybody was charged under that kind of branch of rioting and not charged for insurrection.
00:34:23.000And he keeps on saying, well, wait a second, Andrew, why don't you go ahead and concede that unless you can go against all four of these points, why don't I actually have to do that?
00:34:31.000All I need to do is say, okay, all these four points fit a different criteria better Than insurrection.
00:34:42.000The only thing he argues is.2, but his argument for.2 makes no sense because rioting itself is illegal, so therefore you are resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
00:34:53.000Well, the government proceeding is to enforce law.
00:34:55.000You would be interfering with the government enforcing law if you're rioting.
00:34:59.000So all of these fall under the better criteria of riot, which is totally consistent in my mind because that was the criteria in which people were charged, not with insurrection.
00:35:09.000And I really need Destiny to answer to that.
00:35:12.000Okay, that was two minutes and 40 seconds.
00:35:31.000Breaking a law and resisting law are not the same thing.
00:35:34.000Usually when people riot, they're not rioting with the purpose of making arson or murder or whatever other crimes are being broken to make those legal things.
00:35:45.000Usually they're breaking laws not with the intent of resisting the implementation or the execution of those laws or resisting or contravening the execution of some function of government.
00:35:55.000When people were rioting on January 6th, the goal of that was to stop I think?
00:36:16.000And again, I don't know, we can move on this over and over again, but again, if I can show you in Kenosha, if I can show you in Seattle, if I can show you a riot, if I can give you a video of cities burning, people screaming and throwing shit, of property being destroyed or damaged,
00:36:33.000and then you were to go, wow, that kind of looks like a riot to me, I would go, yeah, it kind of does.
00:37:23.000So that concludes round three, and I'm going to turn it to you gentlemen, and you guys can let me know what you want.
00:37:28.000We can either do another round of three minutes uninterrupted debating, if you guys want to formulate your arguments a bit more, because I know there is some disagreement.
00:38:02.000We'll go right back to Destiny's logic again.
00:38:04.000He says just because somebody wasn't charged with X doesn't mean X didn't happen.
00:38:10.000This is complete and total obfuscation, by the way, because ultimately what's going on here is that these do fit the criteria much better for a riot, and under the purview of rioting, these are the types of charges which were levied at these people.
00:38:23.000Destiny says specifically, under point two, And he didn't answer to this.
00:38:28.000He said, resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding wouldn't fit rioting.
00:39:22.000All of these, in fact, fit the events of January 6th perfectly.
00:39:28.000And if he's conceding that, hey, these fit a riot perfectly, the events of January 6th were a riot under this definition, which he essentially has conceded is true, then the charges were appropriate that this was a riot and not an insurrection.
00:39:45.000This could not have been an insurrection.
00:39:48.000His own definition proves that this is more akin to a riot.
00:39:52.000He still hasn't really told us, by the way, what an insurrection is, just these kind of four nebulous points.
00:39:57.000But these four nebulous points fit a riot perfectly.
00:40:02.000And he's basically conceded to three of them on the outset, and then on the second, he's basically conceded that as well.
00:40:08.000Because resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding would fit a riot by its very nature.
00:40:14.000The reason it would fit a riot by its very nature is because it's immediately an unlawful assembly.
00:40:18.000You're resisting the law, you're resisting the police, you're resisting, resisting, resisting.
00:40:22.000So, whether that's done at a federal level or a state level, I think it would still meet the same fate of being more akin to a riot.
00:40:30.000This definition really moves towards a riot and not towards an insurrection.
00:40:35.000He has not told us the distinction yet, and so again, I think that the entire reason he wants this only painted as an insurrection, even though nobody's ever been charged with an insurrection, even though Trump was cleared of inciting an insurrection, is so that he can make justifications for why the other side deserves what it It's because there are a bunch of traders.
00:40:54.000I'm sorry, this definition or this logic adds up.
00:40:57.000The logic of saying, well, just because they weren't charged with a thing doesn't mean it wasn't the thing.
00:41:02.000Fine, but that doesn't mean it was the thing either, and by your criteria, it seems like it was this other thing.
00:41:09.000Okay, that's three minutes and ten seconds.
00:41:10.000I will make the clock the same for you, Destiny, to keep it fair.
00:41:15.000I will start the timer if you're ready now.
00:41:19.000Yeah, I guess we're just going to loop on these points.
00:41:23.000Resisting a law is not the same thing as breaking a law.
00:41:25.000If you could show me that there was a particular riot where people assembled, and the goal of that riot was when they were rioting, they wanted to riot to make rioting legal, and that they had gathered in order to change the law in a particular area, and they were going to use force and intimidation to do it, we're here to riot today because we're going to make rioting legal,
00:41:43.000then sure, then we could argue that that's probably an insurrection.
00:42:14.000In 1847, when Hispanic and Native Americans attacked occupying American officials in New Mexico, that was considered an insurrection.
00:42:19.000In 1851, when Pennsylvanians obstructed official efforts to capture an alleged fugitive slave, that was an insurrection.
00:42:25.000In 1856, when there were rival forces in the United States that were violently resisting the laws on slavery, that was considered an insurrection.
00:42:34.000These aren't just like riots where people are like, We're mad and we're breaking the law by being violent.
00:42:40.000They were resisting an actual federal law claiming that that particular law shouldn't exist.
00:42:45.000They were trying to air a public grievance through force or intimidation with an assembled group of people in the goal of overturning that particular thing through violent action.
00:42:55.000And then on this final thing, there is a difference between resisting law and breaking a law.
00:42:58.000Just because you're engaged in a riot doesn't mean that you're resisting the implementation of the law.
00:43:02.000People that are engaged in riots aren't usually rioting to make riots legal.
00:43:04.000That's what would make that the equivalent.
00:43:05.000And then just the crime of X is not the same thing as the event of X. I don't know why we could send this.
00:43:10.000Nobody was charged with insurrection, therefore there was no insurrection.
00:43:12.000If I walk into a room and I see a person's throat cut, can I not say that there was a murder here if nobody was charged with murder?
00:43:17.000If I see 20 people setting fire to a house and they all run away and nobody gets charged with arson, can I not say that an arson happened?
00:43:22.000If I look on video and I see that there's 500 people blowing up, you know, some shit, and they managed to run away, or the cops, you know, can't arrest any of these people or charge them with, like, the formal, I guess, crime of rioting.
00:43:30.000Does that mean there was no riot that took place?
00:43:31.000The crime of X is different than the event of X. And right now, we're talking about if January 6th was an insurrection, not did any individual person engage in the criminal behavior of insurrection.
00:43:42.000That would be a separate conversation.
00:43:43.000If we want to have that conversation, we could, but we would have to first conceive that an insurrection did indeed take place on January 6th.
00:43:47.000And I believe that the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in good analysis, and they decided that an insurrection had taken place.
00:44:27.000I'm willing to do two rounds of internal critiques, and I'll allow Destiny to start with an internal critique if I can move to an internal critique after.
00:44:35.000So two five-minute rounds of internal critiques.
00:44:49.000Okay, so just so I make sure I have this right so I can moderate it properly, is he going to question you, Andrew, and you're going to answer?
00:44:57.000Yeah, he gets round one, five minutes, and then I get round two, five minutes.
00:45:00.000Okay, so basically, okay, so it's essentially a Q&A between the two of you where, okay, so Destiny, if you're okay with that, we can do that, or we can go to just open discourse between the two of you where you...
00:45:11.000I think I feel like I'd probably, because I feel like...
00:45:14.000Part of my argument is going to be that he hasn't put forth, like, a positive position yet for me to even attack or interrogate, so I'm not even sure what I would do on the Inquisition round.
00:45:22.000So I feel like it would be better to just do back and forth.
00:45:25.000Okay, well, if you want to do back and forth, I'm prepared for that, too.
00:45:28.000Okay, but you guys are good with no more—you don't need any more three-minute rounds to solidify your stances?
00:45:44.000So, Destiny, would you agree with me that the motivation for demonizing the opposition political party often revolves around calling them traitors, accusing them of treason, and pushing for some type of villainization that they are against the country,
00:46:00.000they are against you, they are against everybody?
00:46:03.000For another debate maybe, but that's not at all any of the subject matter here.
00:46:08.000I think it ties in because I believe that the motivation for why you're claiming that the other side are a bunch of insurrectionists, though you have no direct evidence of this, and your own criteria is just that of basically a riot, that your motivation is just to demonize the opposition.
00:46:23.000Sure, but this isn't a debate over my motivation.
00:46:25.000I could be motivated by a hundred million different bad faith factors, and literally none of them would be relevant to this conversation.
00:46:30.000It could be the fact that the DNC actually paid me money to give this precise argument, and Kamal is on the phone with me right now, and it wouldn't have any impact on this particular debate.
00:47:02.000Well, let's say, for instance, the purpose of a riot was because you felt like the law wasn't being enforced.
00:47:06.000It wouldn't make sense to call that part of an insurrection.
00:47:08.000Let's say, for instance, that there was a lynching of a person, and you felt like the cops weren't upholding their duty or whatever, and so you decided to have a protest that turns into a riot, and you all show up with the goal of protesting and rioting because you felt like the law wasn't being carried out here.
00:47:20.000You wouldn't really call that an insurrection because they're not trying to contravene a legal process.
00:47:25.000Just because, again, you engage in unlawful conduct doesn't mean that you're trying to resist the implementation of the carrying out, resisting the laws.
00:47:31.000That would be the same case with insurrection then.
00:48:00.000Yeah, but even if all— Yeah, but even if all— Even if all that's true, Destiny, it still wouldn't matter because the events of January 6th themselves, the intent of the people could have just been to riot,
00:48:16.000not indeed to commit to any sort of treasonous insurrection activity.
00:48:21.000And you have failed to demonstrate this time and time again, how this actually would meet the criteria of an insurrection.
00:48:29.000And just like your take in 2021, right, when you say, hey, look, the damage would have been way worse, way worse if they had shown up with the purposes of actual insurrection or some type of 1776 mindset.
00:48:42.000This is the most armed nation on planet Earth.
00:48:44.000How in the world can you say these people showed up specifically in order to do that?
00:48:50.000None of that argumentation was sequitur.
00:48:52.000People very quickly obviously showed up to protest the certification of the vote.
00:48:57.000They were called there by Donald Trump on January 6th.
00:48:58.000If it's a non-sequitur, then you in 2021 were using a non-sequitur when you made the argument that from the appearance of this, it could not have been an insurrection.
00:49:07.0002021 Destiny was incorrect because 2021 Destiny didn't have the historical context to understand an insurrection.
00:49:12.000If you want to bring him on here and talk to him, you can.
00:51:07.000I'll add an extra minute to the clock, and this is still round one of the open discourse, but just try to limit it to one minute, and then we'll go into round two of it, and then we can go from there.
00:51:16.000And if we need more rounds at the five-minute mark, we can absolutely do that.
00:51:20.000So I have a problem with him ascribing motivation to all.
00:51:43.000Not, did every single person on January 6th engage in the crime of insurrection, or did every single person on January 6th go with the intent to commit an insurrection?
00:51:51.000I said that there was a clear reason why people were called there, because there was.
00:51:54.000Donald Trump called people there to protest, not on January 5th, and not on January 7th, and not in a random part of D.C., and not in a random part of the country.
00:53:10.000Because I don't want to interrupt you guys again like that, so I'll just go ahead and put 10 minutes on the clock, and I will start it right now.
00:53:17.000You guys can pick right off where you left off, Andrew.
00:53:20.000So to respond, right, and I'll be more charitable with the time back your way now that we have 10 minutes, Destiny, but it's actually an illogical argument to make to say, even if Donald Trump had some certain intent in his head, that would not mean that the people who were showing up for the protest had that intent.
00:53:37.000So the thing is, both ways, it's a double entendre for your own logic.
00:53:41.000Either one, you claim, wait a second, there's one clear reason everybody showed up, or two, no, there was no clear reason why everybody showed up.
00:53:48.000They had multiple motivations, even if Trump himself had a different motivation.
00:54:00.000If somebody were to make the call and say, hey guys, we're all going to show up to go and blow this building up, and a bunch of people showed up, and then a bunch of them marched for the crowd, and then they all went and a building got blown up, we wouldn't say like, oh, well, we don't know what the intention of the crowd was.
00:54:12.000We don't know what the intention of the leader there was.
00:54:13.000We don't know what actually happened, because we can't divine the intention of every single individual person.
00:54:38.000So when you're talking about this from a logical standpoint, when you say...
00:54:43.000Oh, if somebody called and said, hey, we're all going to blow this building up, yes, I would agree that you could probably ascribe the motivation to it then.
00:54:49.000Can you show me a tweet or any type of anything from Donald Trump saying, hey, guys, show up, we're going to do an insurrection?
00:55:18.000And then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.
00:55:22.000When he says stop the steal, when they're at the Capitol building on January 6th, and when the election is being certified, what does stop the steal mean there?
00:55:30.000So, first of all, you're attributing to Donald Trump's rhetoric here something which he may not have intended.
00:55:37.000None of that actually shows or demonstrates that he was calling for an insurrection on the Capitol.
00:55:43.000You are just kind of ascribing that motivation onto it for the purposes of convenience.
00:55:47.000You have to show me there where he calls, like your example was, if I say we're all going to show up and blow up this building, that was your example, and then people show up and do it, we can understand their motivation.
00:55:59.000You have to show me where he says, okay, guys, we're all going to show up and do an insurrection.
00:56:02.000You can't then take words that don't say anything about an insurrection and say, but I think he meant that, though.
00:56:08.000So then just before I answer this, what would I have to show you to show that an insurrection was what Trump was planning?
00:56:14.000You would have to give me the criteria, first and foremost, of something which fit the criteria of an insurrection better than some other thing.
00:56:24.000And you would have to make it refutable to that thing from what people were charged under.
00:56:30.000So if the criteria is, I'm going to give you what I think an insurrection is, and it fits a different criteria better than an insurrection, and under that criteria, that's what people were basically charged under, then it sounds like the other thing makes more sense than an insurrection.
00:56:46.000So are we going with the argument that for X event to have happened, like some person needs to have been charged with the crime?
00:56:53.000No, your logic there is faulty as well.
00:56:55.000Then why do you have the second element there for me approving?
00:56:57.000Hold on, you can't just talk for 20 minutes and then as soon as I say one sentence you handle for another 20 minutes.
00:57:00.000You can't ask me a question and then move to another question.
00:57:03.000I can ask you a question and then ask another question as part of my question.
00:57:05.000Yeah, but I wasn't even able to respond.
00:57:06.000You gave two elements to what I needed to prove.
00:57:09.000The second one was that I have to show why people weren't charged with a crime.
00:57:12.000I've answered this thing 50 million times.
00:57:14.000We can center on justice on one point if you want.
00:57:15.000Just because somebody hasn't been charged with a crime of X doesn't mean that an event related to X didn't occur.
00:57:20.000This is Yeah, but the opposite would equally be true.
00:57:56.000I'm not saying that—so you say, oh, John murdered Jane, but that can't be true because he also may not have murdered Jane.
00:58:04.000You're making the claim, John murdered Jane.
00:58:06.000And so I say, okay, that's your claim that he murdered Jane.
00:58:09.000Can you define for me what the criteria would be in which you would consider this to be murder?
00:58:14.000And you go, well, and then you define for me something that is not murder or fits some other criteria better.
00:58:20.000Would not a rational human being, including you, take that and understand, wait, if it fits this other criteria better, it probably isn't actually murder.
00:58:53.000Why would I need to accept your definition?
00:58:54.000Because you're saying that my definition of insurrection isn't valid because it also applies to riots, and I'm telling you very clearly, no, it doesn't, because riots don't typically happen in a planned manner to contravene the execution of some government function or the implementation of some particular law.
00:59:17.000Do you think that resisting a law is the same thing as breaking a law?
00:59:21.000I think that it could be synonymous inside of people's minds, but no, I could see the distinction with merit.
00:59:28.000But when you say resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding, that sure sounds like a fucking riot to me, Destiny.
00:59:36.000Okay, can you give me an example of a riot where that happens?
00:59:39.000Yeah, where BOM burned down a police station.
00:59:41.000That seems like it's resisting the law.
00:59:44.000Yeah, so that's – what law were they resisting the implementation of?
00:59:47.000The law of arson, the law of rioting, all sorts of laws.
00:59:51.000So you're telling me that those riots were trying to make it so that arson was legal?
00:59:57.000Can you point me to a statement where somebody was saying we're rioting because we think that the laws against arson are – Can you show me in your definition where it says that the purpose of the insurrection is so that they can make something else legal?
01:00:08.000Because that's nowhere in your definition, Destiny.
01:00:09.000Resisting any law or interfering with the force of a government.
01:00:12.000Doesn't say anything about making something else legal.
01:00:28.000It says, or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
01:00:32.000Would you not consider, if somebody interfered with the FBI, for instance, for that to be interfering with the course of a government proceeding?
01:00:38.000Or if somebody interfered with police officers, that that would be interfering with the course of a government proceeding?
01:00:43.000Police officers are not federal police officers.
01:00:45.000If you want to talk about interfering with, if you want to talk about, if you want to, where you are, because we're talking about January 6th.
01:00:56.000Why would I be arguing about the definition of an insurrection in a state when we're talking about an insurrection that happened on the Capitol grounds?
01:01:02.000Well, then can you show me in your definition where it says it must be federal for an insurrection to occur?
01:01:33.000You're making a claim on your four points.
01:01:36.000I am making a positive claim that there could be a federal insurrection because I have a historical record of there being statements about insurrections federally and historically.
01:01:42.000I've never had a statement about a state insurrection.
01:01:46.000Yeah, but you not being aware of any doesn't mean that the criteria could not apply to a state insurrection, correct?
01:01:52.000That's correct, but we are talking about an insurrection that happened on federal grounds, so we're obviously talking about federal insurrections.
01:01:57.000Yeah, I agree, but your definition doesn't require federal anything.
01:02:00.000That's not what your definition requires.
01:02:01.000Okay, I think if the only holdout you have is that your definition of resisting a particular law just means that you are breaking a law, then I think I'm satisfied.
01:02:13.000Or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
01:02:14.000This could be localized for non-localized purposes.
01:02:16.000No one here has made any claims about a non-federal insurrection.
01:02:19.000Okay, well, if those are your two holdouts that you think- Okay, well, what is or interfering with the course of a government proceeding mean?
01:02:25.000The record that I'm invoking, we're especially talking about things relating to insurrection, and we're talking about the invocation of insurrection, which is my understanding has only ever happened in federal law and in stuff relating to the United States government, not a state government.
01:02:37.000If you want to show me it happening or show me a historical record or a state constitution or a state criminal statute that references insurrection, then we can talk about that if you want to.
01:02:59.000So you're doing a classic kind of destiny bait-and-switch where you say in this particular case it would because that's what we're talking about.
01:03:07.000Okay, that's fair, but that doesn't mean that that's what the definition says.
01:03:11.000The definition itself does not say that it must be federal.
01:03:26.000What I could do is, because I see that there's a discussion here between federal, you know, if an insurrection could be federal or state, I will go ahead and reset the clock.
01:03:34.000I think maybe this is something that we can kind of hone in on.
01:03:37.000Can an insurrection be, obviously we're talking about it from federal level, but can also be at a state level.
01:03:43.000Do you guys want to shift that conversation to there and make this run specifically for that?
01:04:18.000Okay, well, I don't understand why you couldn't have an insurrection against the state government by this definition.
01:04:22.000You should consult the historical record and come with an example next time.
01:04:24.000Well, just because you never have one, I'm asking you if you can.
01:04:27.000I'm not here to debate whether or not you can have an insurrection against the state government.
01:04:30.000Well, I don't understand that if your definition doesn't include federal.
01:04:34.000No, this is like asking if the murder occurred on January 6th.
01:04:37.000In that case, I would only be talking about murder as it's defined in federal law, not in state law.
01:04:42.000We're talking about an insurrection on whether or not January 6th was an insurrection or not, so I'm only going to be appealing to federal law or federal historical understanding of an insurrection against the United States.
01:04:49.000So I don't know why we're saying, well, what about a state insurrection?
01:05:03.000So you agree that you gave me a definition that it nowhere includes the word federal, correct?
01:05:12.000I also didn't give you a definition that includes the word human, or that includes the words like in this present point of time and not like in the future or time traveling in the past, or that doesn't include like dimension C-138, or that like there's a million other things that I didn't include.
01:05:25.000Yeah, I don't know what that has to do with anything.
01:05:27.000Because why would I include the definition of against the United States when we're talking about an insurrection that happened on federal grounds?
01:05:33.000Because your definition of an insurrection matters.
01:05:37.000Okay, well, in that case, I will simply add on my second part.
01:05:39.000Aren't you appealing to a state court, for instance?
01:06:00.000There is a writer who studied—I think it was constitutional law specializing in the 14th Amendment.
01:06:08.000His name is Mark Graber, and these are the four qualifications that he basically lists out, and then he goes through a number of historical examples to say as much.
01:06:14.000There's also a much longer paper written about the—I think it's like the sweeping power of Section 3, written by, I think, Baud and Paulson, who write like a 130-page paper where they go through listing the historical understanding of insurrection.
01:06:30.000Does he say in this paper that it's a requirement that this be done at the federal level?
01:06:37.000I don't think anybody talks about state insurrections.
01:06:42.000I don't think you can levy war or engage in insurrection against a state.
01:06:50.000For instance, when you say treason, if I were to give you a definition of treason, I don't know if you can commit treason against the state of Iowa.
01:08:26.000And if you would like to introduce your own definition of insurrection, you can do that.
01:08:30.000Because I'm unaware in the historical record of anybody suggesting that interfering with police officers is a matter of insurrection or can lead to an element of insurrection.
01:10:07.000So the thing is, is that even if I concede that it's true, that you could be rioting with the expectation that you get arrested for this X thing, right?
01:11:30.000You're resisting some other law that you don't like, or you're interfering with the course of a government proceeding.
01:11:35.000You would say that that fits criteria, too.
01:11:38.000You would say that this is by force or intimidation, and you would say it's for a public purpose.
01:11:42.000But that clearly is not an insurrection, Destiny.
01:11:48.000The issue is that abortion is not like, this isn't a federal law.
01:11:52.000I could just grant you that and we can move to the state example since you seem unable or unwilling to differentiate between state or federal law.
01:11:57.000Let's assume for a second that it was.
01:11:57.000Let's assume for a second it was a federal law.
01:12:31.000And we're going to show up with a whole bunch of fucking people, and shit's going to get ratty, and we're going to, you know, we know what we're doing, okay?
01:12:37.000It's a day in Capitol Hill that they're going to sign the law into whatever.
01:12:39.000We march down there, and in the course of protesting, like, it becomes a riot, and the riot and everything there was because of that particular law being signed into practice.
01:12:48.000I would say, yeah, that was an insurrection.
01:12:50.000You've shown up with a group of people.
01:12:51.000You're resisting the passage of some particular law.
01:12:54.000You're showing up through force or intimidation, and you end up exercising that, and then it's for the public purpose of a particular law that impacts everybody in the United States.
01:13:03.000I would say that is an insurrection, yes.
01:13:05.000Would you say that's not an insurrection?
01:13:07.000Yeah, I would say that it would not be an insurrection, at least by this criteria.
01:13:11.000That would just seem to me, again, to be a riot.
01:13:14.000That would seem to fit the criteria, again, of a riot better than an insurrection.
01:13:17.000I still can't exactly figure out the delineation point, and I'm trying to.
01:13:21.000Now, to be fair to you, it is nebulous.
01:13:23.000I understand it's nebulous, but I'm also not the one who's making the affirmative claim you are.
01:13:29.000So you're saying that if a bunch of fucking dope-smoking hippies wanted to resist the federal law of being able to smoke marijuana on federal land, and they all showed up and they got stoned, and then they started rioting, that that would be a fucking insurrection?
01:13:42.000If they went there with a common purpose, they were trying to resist the implementation and execution of a particular law.
01:14:06.000You think that that would be an insurrection?
01:14:09.000The historical record, it could be yes.
01:14:11.000Do you have any definition of insurrection whatsoever?
01:14:13.000I don't need to give you a counter-definition.
01:14:15.000If you're not going to give me a counter-definition, the riot definition doesn't include necessarily a public purpose.
01:14:23.000I've already given examples of riots that wouldn't fit my definition of insurrection, and I really only need to give one and I automatically win.
01:14:28.000A riot could very much be in response to a particular sports team winning a game.
01:14:33.000It doesn't fit my definition of insurrection.
01:14:35.000I've differentiated the two, and unless you're going to give me any countervailing definitions, I automatically satisfy that element of my claim.
01:14:54.000To be clear, do you acknowledge that I just gave you an example of a riot that wouldn't be an insurrection under my definitions?
01:15:02.000So I think that that would even be appropriate.
01:15:04.000I think that you could give me tons of definitions of riots that would not fit this definition of an insurrection, but that would not mean that this definition doesn't fit the definition of riot better than insurrection.
01:15:15.000Wait, so if somebody was protesting and it got really violent after a sports game, how would my definition fit that better than insurrection?
01:15:22.000What if they were blockading a federal highway?
01:15:25.000Would that be interfering with the course of government proceedings because there's a federal law that says you can't blockade byways on federal highways?
01:15:46.000So if we're going to be totally good faith here, which I've been trying to be this entire debate, and I think you would concede that, if we're going to be really good faith here, Do you really believe that if a bunch of hippies showed up to smoke a bunch of dope on federal property, okay,
01:16:01.000and a few of them got wild and started a fire and kicked some shit, right, and fucking, I don't know, somebody got beat up with a bat because there was tens of thousands of them who showed up for that protest, do you really believe that that would fit the criteria of what most people think of, including you,
01:16:38.000This is why I'm asking you historically, can you give me an example of an event that you don't think I would want to classify as an insurrection?
01:17:47.000You don't need a charge of a particular crime, and the barrier or the bar for charging somebody with a particular crime is probably a lot higher than declaring an event a thing itself.
01:17:56.000It doesn't make any sense to say because somebody hasn't been charged with a particular thing.
01:17:59.000It also doesn't make any sense to say that because they haven't been charged with a particular thing, that means they're guilty of the particular thing either.
01:19:35.000I'll put three minutes on the clock, and you can put your closing arguments here.
01:19:40.000And this was a fantastic discussion, obviously.
01:19:42.000You know you have a good debate when the chat is like, you know, almost 50-50.
01:19:47.000So, I'll go ahead and turn it to you, Destiny, and you can give us your closing arguments, and then I'll go turn it to Andrew.
01:19:53.000Yeah, I mean, historically, there have been examples of things that were considered insurrections that were incredibly small in nature, right?
01:19:59.000I don't know if anybody died at all in the Whiskey Rebellion.
01:20:02.000I'm pretty sure everybody that got arrested for that was, like, acquitted.
01:20:04.000It was just people basically essentially protesting the whiskey tax laws.
01:20:09.000This wasn't a massive deal that had, like, explosions and gunfire and deaths everywhere.
01:20:14.000I think that we just don't tend to view things as insurrections.
01:22:41.000Right now as we speak, Bill's is firing up the phone line, so we'll get that phone number out and put it on the screen.
01:22:49.000Destiny, if you want to stay, you can telegraph it to your audience and we can answer some questions for the people.
01:22:52.000But I will turn it to you, Andrew, to make your closing arguments.
01:22:56.000Well, it's really funny, this appeal to authority.
01:23:00.000Destiny grabs this entire nebulous definition from some guy that he respects on the internet and then claims that this is some authoritative definition.
01:23:06.000This is the authoritative definition because I read it from some guy on the internet.
01:23:28.000Meanwhile, he takes time today, all day, to assemble a four-point, you know, kind of, this is my definition, completely based on some other guy on the internet, which is crazy to me.
01:23:41.000This is Destiny's personal definition.
01:23:44.000Personal definition of what this means.
01:23:47.000And it clearly fits three of the criteria for rioting right off the gate.
01:23:53.000And then when we apply these, and remember my opening statement.
01:23:56.000I said in my opening statement, this is going to become very broad, right?
01:24:00.000There's no way that we're not going to be able to call all sorts of things insurrections that clearly are not insurrections.
01:24:06.000We come up with the idea of what if a bunch of dope-smoking hippies all show up with the united purpose of smoking dope on federal land in order to resist the federal law.
01:24:16.000And then a couple of them start a fire, and one gets beaten up with a baseball bat or something like this.
01:24:44.000He's only there specifically to villainize the opposition for the purposes of demonization so that when bad things happen to them, he can call them traitors.
01:24:55.000It's been his whole game now for a while.
01:24:57.000And this is what got him on Pierce and all these other things, which I recently reviewed, was that take.
01:25:03.000And so in order for him to justify that take, he has to make you a traitor because you don't believe that that was an insurrection that nobody was charged with.
01:25:13.000Guys, that was a fucking fantastic discussion.
01:25:18.000Obviously, people are going to have different viewpoints on where they go, but that's, I think, the beauty of any discussion like this in debate.
01:25:23.000Good debate always has people with different viewpoints saying, like, oh, I think this guy did better, I think this guy did better, so great discussion from both.
01:25:30.000I am going to open up the phone lines right now.
01:25:33.000I think the number is going to be BlockTalkBills?
01:26:07.000Usually just whoever calls in, they have a single question, they answer the question, and then move on to the next caller, maybe like 30 seconds, very quick, back and forth, so you can get to as many callers as possible.
01:29:26.000Let's assume for a second I didn't know what murder was, and you were trying to give me the criteria for what murder was.
01:29:32.000Could I logically give you a criticism for why that actually would fit something else that I do know what it is better than the idea of murder?
01:30:13.000If the debate has to do with whether or not a person was murdered...
01:30:17.000If that's the debate, was John murdered, and the entire debate is just you critiquing another person's definition of murder, but you're unwilling to put forth your own definition of murder, the implication is that you were never prepared to debate the actual topic of the debate, which is if somebody was murdered.
01:30:57.000Let us assume for a second that you weren't sure exactly what murder meant.
01:31:01.000You weren't exactly sure what the criteria was.
01:31:04.000Another person was calling this group of people a murderer, right?
01:31:07.000You had kind of an idea, maybe, of what that was.
01:31:10.000And so you went to them and you said, okay, can you tell me what you mean by murder?
01:31:14.000And they gave you some other criteria that fit way better with something other than their definition of murder.
01:31:20.000Why would that be illogical or in any way unreasonable?
01:31:23.000That's not illogical and that's not unreasonable, but that would only mean that you would be successful if the debate was, is Destiny's definition of insurrection satisfactory insofar as defining January 6th as an insurrection?
01:33:23.000Or somebody on narcissism who doesn't have a position on the existence of God.
01:33:26.000So agnostics can't have a neutral position about whether or not God exists or not, according to Stephen Von Elba III. A person who's agnostic, you wouldn't listen to the debate on whether or not God is real or not.
01:33:35.000They would say, oh, well, I can't have information about the existence of God.
01:33:38.000And you'd go, okay, well, actually, you wouldn't have this.
01:33:39.000Well, then I guess 50% of the debates on modern-day debate are incorrect because people have a neutral position, an agnostic position, like Matt Dillahunty, a guy you talk to about whether or not God is real, where Matt Dillahunty says, listen, I'm agnostic on it.
01:34:08.000Then bring in somebody that feels, an atheist who wants to have a strong position of, like, he's not real, or an atheist who has a strong position.
01:34:18.000How in the world are you the world's best leftist debater if you don't know you can take a neutral position in debate?
01:34:23.000This is like saying you want to have a debate between two people between who is God or what is God, and one person is Catholic and the other person is an atheist.
01:36:09.000No, I'm just saying, no, I agree with him that it was an insurrection, but wasn't Andrew's whole point that January 6th was not an insurrection?
01:36:17.000Well, Andrew doesn't have a point because he rejects my definition of insurrection, and then he appeals to some universal definition of riot, which I'm not even sure he's given.
01:36:24.000And then he appeals to, well, this is what everybody would think a riot is.
01:36:27.000And then he appeals to, well, nobody would agree that hippie people engaged in your definition of insurrection or committing an insurrection.
01:36:32.000So I guess Andrew's just agnostic on the question of whether or not J6 was an insurrection because he doesn't have a definition of what an insurrection is.
01:36:39.000Okay, but I think you answered his question, Destiny, so we can move on to the next guy.
01:39:38.000Maybe it could be, but what do you mean?
01:39:41.000You mean, is it okay to physically stop Trump from taking office?
01:39:45.000Like, if a bunch of people pulled up and just, like, forcibly, physically, we're saying, like, we're not going to allow you to be president because we think you're going to be awful, do you think it's okay to do that?
01:40:40.000So when you look at the essence of a thing, right, it is possible that all definitions could fall short to an essence of a thing, but that doesn't mean we can't recognize the essence of a thing.
01:40:50.000This is why if we were to take the idea of a bunch of hippies smoking a fucking blunt in a forest somewhere to resist federal law and then they started burning the forest down because a couple of them got too rowdy, calling that an insurrection wouldn't fit the spirit of what that means.
01:41:06.000So while you're looking at both the definition, you're also looking at the application.
01:41:11.000So when you ask, can I define a chair?
01:41:21.000But isn't that what you're doing right now?
01:41:24.000No, it's not what I'm doing right now.
01:41:27.000Because there's still an essence to the thing.
01:41:30.000There's still something which we're perceiving to the thing, which makes it a chair.
01:41:35.000The same way it makes it an insurrection.
01:41:37.000So if it's a criterion of a riot better, and when we see it as a riot, and everybody sees it as a riot more than they do an insurrection, which is why it was charged that way, it seems like it falls under riot better.
01:42:46.000You don't want to give definitions for anything.
01:42:48.000Well, I mean, if I gave you examples, do you think we could agree, like, if I showed BLM footage of their riots, do you think that you would agree that those were riots?
01:42:56.000No, I would ask you very specifically, was anybody charged with a riot?
01:42:59.000And if they weren't, then I would say that by your earlier definitions of insurrection, these must not have been riots.
01:43:03.000What definitions did I give you of insurrection?
01:43:06.000You made it sound like a necessary element of an insurrection having occurred was an individual being charged with a crime of insurrection.
01:43:15.000So you're taking, you're conflating two different ideas.
01:43:18.000So idea one is nobody was charged with an insurrection, which means the powers that be also, when they saw this under their purview, probably didn't think that it fit the criteria for whatever an insurrection is going to be.
01:44:06.000No, because I would ask you for a single historical example, either judicially, legally, or through any kind of historical writing, where they say that you can engage in an insurrection against a state.
01:44:17.000I don't think insurrections are fine for states.
01:44:18.000But if you can show me an example, then I say, okay, fine, then Chaz was an insurrection.
01:44:21.000Yeah, okay, but the definition itself, right, if I were to define it that way, right, like Chaz Chop, and I'm not, right, but I'm saying I can at least look at that and say this is something akin to this, of what I would expect to see under the criteria of X,
01:45:16.000This is, you know, multi-stream between all the different platforms.
01:45:18.000I think between all of us guys, we've got like 50,000 plus, around 30,000 to 50,000 watching us.
01:45:23.000And what I'll do is I'll send a Zoom link to all the Castle Club members and we'll answer questions exclusively with the Castle Club members.
01:45:30.000And I appreciate you guys doing that for me.
01:45:32.000But we'll answer a few more phone calls for guys that are just watching the show regularly.
01:45:35.000But we'll stay on, but we'll answer questions from Castle Club members only.
01:45:37.000But we'll do that in a bit after we answer some more here.
01:45:48.000And before we bring him on, Destiny, Andrew, do you guys want it where he just asked a question, then we just move on, then take him off the line, you answer the question, then go on so we get more people through.
01:46:18.000All right, I'll remain unnamed, but I just want to point out that...
01:46:25.000The particular government proceedings that BLM of the movement was interfering with were the various court cases related to police brutality.
01:46:39.000So does BLM meet the criteria of an insurrection?
01:46:47.000I wouldn't define an entirety of a summer of protests or riots or insurrections as a particular insurrection.
01:47:11.000And they profess themselves in favor of a certain type of outcome in various court cases relating to police brutality and demanded forcefully with intimidation that the government bend to what they wanted the outcome to be.
01:47:27.000How does this not make BLM an insurrection?
01:47:32.000My guess is going to be that if we went through every single BLM riot, that we could probably find some that I would say might meet my definition.
01:47:42.000If we ignore the state-federal distinction, we might find some that meet my definition of insurrection.
01:47:45.000And that Trump is a bad president because he led an insurrection, then Kamala Harris directly provided aid and support No, because I don't think any court has reviewed any of that behavior and found any of it to be an insurrection,
01:49:37.000And we'll take a few more of these guys, then I'm going to drop a link in Castle Club for Castle Club members to come in and ask these questions.
01:49:53.000Hey, I got a question for Destiny, and I think Andrew can pick up afterwards.
01:49:58.000So, based off of your four points that you gave for what would make An insurrection.
01:50:05.000Technically, none of your points make it necessary for there to be violence.
01:50:10.000You say in point three, force or intimidation, but it doesn't necessarily have to be violence.
01:50:16.000So based off of that, wouldn't any legal protest where you're advocating for a certain political cause or anything like that in a public space, wouldn't that also, by your definition, count as an insurrection?
01:50:49.000Or else assembled in such numbers as to supersede the necessity of arms.
01:50:53.000So I don't think you necessarily have to engage in violence, but I think that having the people there with the purpose of, like, intimidation and being ready to act with violence, I think is easily enough to satisfy.
01:51:13.000So do you think that if you were to take over a big portion or even a small, tiny portion of a state and consider it to now be neutral from the United States itself, that that becomes a federal matter?
01:52:03.000Because, well, it seems like if you're going to secede from a country, it feels like part of that would be establishing your own government, establishing your own foreign relations and ambassadors.
01:52:10.000Yeah, but you can still have USD, and they did.
01:52:13.000They had their own armed militant group, who was there armed, definitely intimidating, refused to allow people to come in and out of the zone.
01:52:20.000They were trying to start their own economy, their own gardens.
01:52:23.000They had annexed the buildings which were around them.
01:52:25.000That definitely seems like they're resisting federal law.
01:52:28.000You're not allowed to secede in the United States.
01:52:52.000So if a random person says a particular thing, I thought you said earlier that we couldn't read intent into the Donald Trump crowd.
01:52:57.000You said earlier that we couldn't read intent into the Donald Trump crowd, despite the fact that people were hanging signs saying 7076, hang Mike Pence, and the statements that Trump had made.
01:53:04.000But you say such an inference is fine.
01:53:40.000I would absolutely do that, but I don't know of any statement like that.
01:53:43.000And you can't name a single one, so I don't know what I'm supposed to—I don't know what I can work off.
01:53:47.000If Chaz Chop, if there was such a statement—let's just assume that there was for a second—would you then consider that to be an insurrection?
01:53:57.000If they said that we are going to secede from the United States of America, and they had, like, some organized violent wave and all the other elements, I would say, yeah, this would count as an insurrection.
01:54:08.000But you wouldn't say the same for January 6th because you haven't even given a definition of insurrection, but that's the difference between good faith and bad faith, by the way.
01:54:15.000That's not bad faith for me to do an internal critique in your definition when I can at least take your definition and say, wait a second, all of these apply to a different category, and that was established very well.
01:54:27.000You're critiquing my definition without even having a definition of your own.
01:54:29.000I don't need to have a definition to critique yours.
01:55:08.000That's actually an illogical statement to say that I would need to have a definition of anything to critique your definition of it if I have something else that I can make a comparison to that fits with better that you agree it fits better in.
01:55:59.000I don't know how fucking language works, then, when you say, okay, this is a snicker bar, and I don't know what a snicker bar is, but I can't make comparisons to other things so that I can at least understand where you're coming from with what a snicker bar is.
01:57:03.000There's absolutely no reason why, if you've never, even if you were to grant, I'd never even heard the term insurrection before, that I couldn't understand if you came up with a term for insurrection.
01:57:12.000I said, well, fit this other criteria better, why it is that you couldn't concede that that was true.
01:58:59.000It's kind of like, at the end of the debate, toward the end, he conceded to Andrew's example of the hippie rebellion, a hippie insurrection, If that's the case, then wouldn't you also have to say that the inauguration for Trump in 2017,
01:59:35.000Wouldn't you have to say that those two events, and then, of course, you have the White House bombing after the George Floyd death with Trump and everything, wouldn't you have to say that those would fall within the same definition as well?
01:59:47.000I would have to go through the facts of each of these, but if you can show me that there was an assembly of people that united for a common purpose, that they were there to contravene some type of federal law, that the resistance's goal was to make use of force or intimidation, and that they were there for something that was in the public interest,
02:00:04.000then whatever you're going to give me here, I'm going to say, well, yeah, if it's my definition of insurrection, then I would say these were probably insurrections, sure.
02:00:13.000Real quick, not only would I say that, you should say that too.
02:00:19.000Let's say, for instance, let's say that when Roe v.
02:00:21.000Wade changed or whatever, let's say the federal government was going to do a particular thing.
02:00:24.000They were gathering to—let's just say they were doing a ban on it.
02:00:26.000Let's say that you had—let's say that Kamala Harris was marching with these people, chanting and cheering them on, and saying, like, we're going to stop the government from banning abortion, okay?
02:00:46.000When we talk about whether an insurrection is occurring or not, and we talk about the 14th Amendment, you shouldn't want her to be president again.
02:00:54.000You should say, hey, you took an oath to the Constitution, and now you're engaging in insurrectionist behavior.
02:01:00.000You're violating your oath to the Constitution.
02:01:03.000I don't want you running for office again.
02:01:06.000I would think that all of us should have that feeling, that if somebody has engaged in or aided in helping people engage in insurrection, that you shouldn't want this person who was in office to run for office again, I would say.
02:01:18.000Alright, we'll move on to the next caller.
02:01:20.000And guys, just so you know, we're going to drop the Castle Club link.
02:01:22.000Sorry, the Zoom call link in Castle Club right now.
02:01:25.000So get in there and then raise your hand in the Zoom call.
02:01:27.000And we'll answer one or two more calls and we'll go over to Castle Club guys only.
02:01:31.000But we're going to drop the link right now.
02:01:32.000Castle Club guys, go ahead and join CastleClub.tv.
02:01:34.000You know how to support free speech on our side.
02:01:37.000But we'll take a few more callers while we get that set up on our Zoom side.
02:01:55.000So, this whole debate was over a definition of, was this event the thing of insurrection?
02:02:02.000So, if you were to pick something like, we'll say, there's a shape, and we were going to debate whether this shape was a square or not...
02:02:11.000Andrew's argument seems to be that, oh well, that maybe fits the definition of a rhombus or a parallelogram better, and that basically those definitions are mutually exclusive.
02:02:28.000I think that a lot of people would agree that the January 6th event Does fall under the definition of a riot, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it also wasn't an insurrection.
02:02:42.000So if you say, oh, hey, this shape, well, it has four sides, and each of the four sides is parallel, and say, well, oh, well, that's a rhombus, or that's a parallelogram, that's not actually a square, then,
02:02:58.000like, okay, but you haven't said what a square is, and Destiny is...
02:03:04.000Put forth not just a personal definition, but the legal definition that's agreed on to by lots of courts, and that's how we do lies.
02:03:14.000You know, we use courts' opinions to figure out whether this falls under the courts' Like, the federal definition of what everybody agrees that is.
02:03:27.000And so the saying, oh, well, I don't have to define what a square is, if it's my definition of a rhombus, fine, then I don't see what we're arguing.
02:03:41.000Because it seems like Andrew conceded that all of the criteria that Destiny laid out for his definition of insurrection Andrew conceded that it fit within that definition.
02:03:58.000It seems like he agrees, but he doesn't like the name.
02:04:11.000Do you know where it was that it stopped?
02:04:14.000Basically, I'm just saying that the definition of right in insurrection is not mutually exclusive.
02:04:20.000And so that just because he says that, oh, this fits my personal definition of a riot, does not necessarily mean that it's also not an insurrection.
02:04:30.000And the fact that they were trying to prevent some function of the government from happening, some law from being followed or carried out by the U.S. government, that's the defining factor.
02:04:45.000That's the thing that makes it an insurrection.
02:07:08.000If you can prove that I don't have a good definition for insurrection, then you can prove that my position of saying it is an insurrection is incoherent.
02:07:13.000You haven't even given a position at all.
02:07:15.000So at best, you've only put us both at neutral, which is...
02:07:17.000Do you remember in the beginning of the debate where I gave you the criteria for the concessions that I would make if you were willing to concede on X, Y, Z point?
02:07:27.000Yeah, but we're not here to just argue.
02:07:30.000Does destiny have a satisfactory definition of insurrection, which is what the debate has become?
02:07:34.000But if I have no negation, but we end up on neutral because your definition is incoherent, then do you remember when I said in my opening statement that the goal of that was to show that you no longer have the moral high ground because everything's a fucking insurrection at that point, and that means you're as much of an insurrectionist as the people you're accusing of being insurrectionists.
02:08:16.000If you're neutral on whether or not January 6th is an insurrection, your claim is voided.
02:08:21.000But then so would yours be, unless your claim is— What claim am I making?
02:08:25.000My claim is only that you can't demonstrate it was.
02:08:29.000If I say that January 6th was an insurrection, you wanted to challenge that position, generally the challenge would be that January 6th wasn't an insurrection.
02:08:36.000Not that January 6th doesn't comport with Destiny's definition of insurrection, or I think Destiny's definition of insurrection is incoherent.
02:09:14.000Well, no, you can't be convinced because you can't even accept the definition of insurrection, so that's just not true.
02:09:17.000Well, I can be convinced, and you just saying you can't be convinced doesn't mean anything again.
02:09:22.000So are you unconvinced by historical courts that have convicted people or used these definitions of insurrection in order to write legislation or in order to write constitutional amendments?
02:09:32.000What do you think the founding fathers meant?
02:10:07.000Why do you keep—just because you're talking about charges, criminal court and call— Well, if you're going to appeal to authorities here based around legal definitions, it's perfectly acceptable for me to appeal to the legal authorities, which are refusing to charge under this criteria, Destiny.
02:10:23.000They're refusing to charge under this criteria for insurrection, and it seems every definition that I can find for this is somehow vaguely associated with rebellion.
02:10:36.000It's associated with it because they believed every rebellion started with an insurrection, but that doesn't mean that every rebellion is an insurrection.
02:10:43.000That's why they used rebellion or insurrection, for instance, in Section 2 of the Second Confiscation Act.
02:10:48.000You can't give any historical things, though.
02:10:49.000So I think if there was a big open— So for instance, they say in any rebellion or insurrection, inciting and setting foot on, assisting or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection, which is set on a Section 2 of the Second Confiscation Act, they're not—they're two different things.
02:11:01.000That's why But the reason that I think that the Supreme Court especially didn't want to hear this is because they would end up, like you, giving a definition which was so broad that it would encompass all sorts of things that we don't really perceive of as being insurrections, because we really associate insurrection and rebellion with the same kind of idea,
02:11:19.000which is exactly why I don't believe for a second, while you're over there saying you're good faith, that you believe for a second that if a bunch of dope-smoking hippies to kind of resist federal law No, a couple of them did.
02:11:44.000They started a small fire, let's say, right?
02:11:53.000A couple of them had maybe some melee weapons.
02:11:56.000I don't think we would associate that with rebellion, and so I don't think we would associate that with insurrection, which is what I think we associate with rebellion.
02:12:03.000I'm sorry, because I don't know the logical structures of argumentation as well as you do.
02:12:06.000When you say people probably wouldn't do that, what kind of an argument are we making there?
02:12:10.000When you say that people probably wouldn't think that's an insurrection, what kind of logical appeal are we making to challenge my definition?
02:12:45.000I don't care what most people – I'm looking at the legal and historical understanding of it, right?
02:12:49.000So in the Amy Warwick Prize case, the Supreme Court said insurrection against the government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the government.
02:13:03.000A civil war didn't begin with insurrection?
02:13:05.000No, a civil war did not begin because of J6. It says insurrection against the government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion.
02:13:20.000And I can show you Supreme Court cases where they said they did everything.
02:13:23.000So your idea here of, well, they probably thought they were the same.
02:13:25.000But your definition, unfortunately, is too nebulous here for us to associate this specifically with only the idea of insurrection when there's other ideas that fit it better.
02:13:33.000Is there a single historical scholar, Supreme Court case, writer or framer or lawmaker ever that you can cite to that says that there is a nebulous, there's no understanding of what insurrection is?
02:13:45.000So the Supreme Court justices themselves have stated this.
02:13:48.000I do have a quote from one of the Supreme Court justices who said, this is not an easy thing to tackle because the idea of it is contested in somewhat nebulous.
02:13:58.000I believe, in fact, that was Justice Roberts who said that.
02:14:19.000The Supreme Court clearly did not want to weigh in on this because they were afraid of making a definition like your own, which would be so broad Are you disputing this?
02:14:27.000Are you disputing that you think the Supreme Court didn't weigh in on this because they were afraid that they could make a definition of this which was so broad that things would fall under the category of insurrection that they really didn't want to fall under that category?
02:14:40.000I don't think the Supreme Court made a strong statement about insurrection.
02:15:21.000That's why the Supreme Court themselves, I think, really didn't want to go in and rule on it because it would retroactively make a bunch of Democrats and Republicans That's great, and that's a bunch of reading into that Supreme Court decision that they had never said, but I'm pretty sure that the rationale that they gave and the issue was that different minds could disagree on whether or not an insurrection had taken place,
02:15:42.000and the idea that different states would make different decisions about it seemed to be very difficult for them.
02:17:33.000Just as a quick spiel or whatever, because Andrew has no concept of how law or courts or anything works in the United States, the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with somebody being charged with a criminal conviction of insurrection.
02:17:42.000Criminal conviction of insurrection has nothing to do with any of this.
02:17:44.000And the question before the court in Trump v.
02:17:46.000Anderson wasn't whether or not somebody had engaged in the crime of insurrection.
02:17:49.000And the big issue that they cited, too, for why they rejected that case was because Section 5 of the 14th Amendment said that Congress can pass laws in order to implement something, and they interpreted it as meaning Section 3 could be implemented via the Section 5 power of the Congress, and that's why they threw that case out.
02:18:14.000The idea that a court can't deal with something that's nebulous like insurrection, courts deal with things like murder or affirmative defenses like self-defense or anything else, is a ridiculous claim.
02:18:21.000And it shows the fundamental understanding of what courts are even supposed to do.
02:18:39.000I think that even with a nebulous concept, they can.
02:18:42.000In this case, right, even if we were to grant destiny's argument that they can do this under nebulous concepts, They still didn't charge these people with insurrection, even if that's a nebulous concept.
02:18:53.000What he did instead was he did a bait-and-switch and said, oh, but he doesn't understand the law, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
02:19:11.000It's when you lay a whole bunch of bad claims on over and over and over again with the idea that the opponent can't actually refute them because you keep stacking the same bad claims over and over again.
02:19:21.000You're repeating the same debunked arguments.
02:19:22.000This was a basic lead-in, and I proved the basic lead-in wrong, and so that's when he went off in the diatribe about, well, what the court, blah, blah, blah.
02:19:53.000When he read initially what Roberts said, it seems like that's what he's saying there, is that there's going to be a lot of disagreement here because we can't quite agree on this.
02:20:58.000If you had no idea what rape was, but you knew well what sexual assault was, then any single time I try to define, well, I think a rape has occurred, you would just say, no, I think this fits with sexual assault.
02:21:07.000You would never give a definition of rape, and then you would just use that to try to win the argument, yeah.
02:21:30.000And just for the guys on Castle Club that are waiting, we're not going to put you on camera because we're live on YouTube and all the platforms, so I want to protect your guys' identities.
02:21:37.000But we'll go ahead and get the first person in that had something, Bills.