tv Reps. Matt Gaetz Marjorie Taylor Greene on Jan. 6 Anniversary CSPAN January 7, 2022 4:16am-4:58am EST
>> thank you all for joining us. we request that a larger room, but this was the largest room that we could get from speaker pelosi. it is uncomfortably cramped and not appropriately socially distanced. that was not by her hand. congresswoman greene and i are not here to celebrate
january 6. we are not here to obsess about it. but we are here to expose the truth. to ask key questions about what happened on january 6. who animated the violence. the extent to which the federal government may have been involved. last year was not an insurrection. no one has been charged with insurrection. no one has been charged with treason. but it very well may have been a fed's direction -- fed surrection. we have sent letter after letter to attorney general garland to get to the bottom of
unexplained circumstances, where people on the fbi's most wanted list fall off of that list. the fbi director was asked under oath before the congress about the federal assets and agents that were on the ground january 6. he wouldn't provide clear answers. attorney general garland was asked and the judiciary committee by my colleague about ray. he could've resolved the questions but he declined to do so. it seems that senior officials in our justice department have no problem giving long speeches to try to politically target and smear those they disagree with, what they don't answer the questions that can get to the truth of what really happened on january 6. i want to credit the reporting at revolver news for having aggregated a number of the videos that i'm going to go through now. but i think continue to show
these two concerns that we have. -- i would ask to show the first clip. >> went into go into the capitol! into the capitol! [shouting] >> tomorrow -- [indiscernible] >> we need to go in. into the capitol. >> we need to go into the capitol. >> monument hell. -- hill. >> we are going to the capitol. >> [indiscernible]
[shouting] >> this is the very last thing that happens. this is the moment of breach. if you were the committee, what you want to know what he whispered into that individual's ear? here is a moment of breach. that's part of the breach. [shouting] >> i mean, this is just the information that's been pieced together by citizens, by small media outlets. imagine if we actually had the powers of the january 6 committee, the powers of the federal government to understand why they are not telling people
passionately with later focused at the objective is to enter the u.s. capitol building, then it's not the proud was who and age -- boys who initiate the original breach. ray was on the fbi's list of most wanted individuals. but the day after revolver news publishes an explosive report about steward rhodes, being involved with the oath keepers come all of a sudden ray falls off the lease. we've sent letters asking questions about all that makes minimal circumstance and the fbi and the justice department have given us no illuminating information. but it wasn't just ray who appears to be on video animating violence -- please play the next clip. here you have fences being
cut, removed by this individual here with a backpack. professionally, not whipped up in the crowd, just taking the fence down. moments ago, congresswoman greene and i went to the specific location outside. and we demonstrated how easy it could have been that an individual might've listened to the president's remarks, arrived at the site, saying that fencing was removed and might've been drawn into a place that they weren't supposed to be in, maybe never intended to be. but the fence cutter, the individual we saw in the last video, nowhere on the fbi's wanted list. the committee doesn't want to talk to them. why would that person be doing something that so dramatically impacted the acuity of the criminal conduct and the no consequence? but they weren't alone. in an elevated position, on the top of scaffolding that had been set up for the media for observance of that day, we have some of the -- -- internet has
identified a scaffold commander giving persistent instruction to the crowd that had gathered. play the next clip. >> save our country. don't just stand back. [indiscernible] let's go, cowboys. >> and the next clip, i believe, is also -- [shouting] [indiscernible shouting] >> we are going to go in the
capitol! come on! [indiscernible] climb up over the wall. get on the speaker. >> then the next image. it's not like we don't know who this guy is. the very individual who is directing the crowd to fill the capitol. with persistence, with focus, is this person. i saw recently the federal government has engaged in all type of contracting services with facial recognition companies, and you are telling me they can't find this guy? and what they say is the most expensive and comprehensive investigation in america's history? there may be a perfectly good explanation for why these individuals, appearing to act in concert of purpose, have had very bizarre lacking in their
interaction with the federal government, but we deserve those answers. and tens of millions of americans should not be targeted and smeared and lied about until we got them -- get them. congresswoman greene and i did not speak at the ellipse this day because she and i had a very specific focus for the debate. congressman jordan was preparing to lead a floor effort where different teams would present affidavits and evidence and legal precedent and would review judicial rulings that we thought missed the point of jurisdiction. we were ready to go make those arguments on the floor. on television. for all of america to see as part of our objection to electors from states that we did not believe ran clean elections. we wanted to point out the unilateral changes that occurred in election law that we thought were unconstitutional and illegal. congresswoman greene and i were working together specifically on the state of michigan. so we did not show up on january
6 cheerleading for, hoping for any type of violence or disruption. to the contrary, we wanted to follow the constitutional process to be able to make arguments, and unfortunately, that was the true disruption of what occurred january 6. joe biden's certification still occurred january 6. but we were deprived of the opportunity to make arguments about election integrity to the country. the very same constitutional process that was contemplated when jim mcgovern -- the democrat chairman of the rules committee -- literally got up and objected and 2017 to the state of alabama, a state that donald trump won by over 40 points. so when they do it, they are making a principal point. when we do it, they try to smear us and tens of millions of americans as insurrectionists. that is where we are here today. because we did not want the republican voice to go unheard and we did not want today's historical narrative to be hijacked and captured by those who were the true insurrectionists.
congresswoman greene. >> thank you very much. i think that is an incredible point that congressman gate -- congressman gaetz just made. the republican voice and the republican voter and the trump supporter that has been smeared constantly over this past year, i want you want you all to know that on january 6, i was very upset with what happened that day and it was not because it completely interrupted the work that we had worked very hard on, all throughout christmas, preparing for january 6 two object on behalf of americans that felt their votes had been stolen. i think it is important to recognize that our own federal election commission has an error rate that is .0008%. elections are very serious and taken that way by all
americans. bernie sanders felt his election was stolen by hillary clinton. don't forget hillary clinton forgot her election was stolen . i will tell you from georgia, stacey abrams still thinks she won an 2018, and she is running again. here are some things we do need to discuss. i'm one of those people and i'm not try to tell you -- i don't trust our government. and that's another reason why i ran for congress. because i felt like it's our government that is screwing everything up for the american people. after what we've seen on january 6 and the videos congressman gaetz just walked through, i can tell you right now i don't trust our government even more. when i went through the d.c. jail, i will tell you i did not see, i did not see ray. i didn't see him in there wasting away for months on end, being denied his due process rights, being denied the ability to see his family, getting medical treatments, getting a
haircut and shaved, i didn't see him. you know who else i didn't see? i didn't see a man named john sullivan -- who has participated in antifa, blm riots, and the whole entire movement but then all of a sudden decided to be a trump supporter on january 6. the same guy that was in the capitol and filmed a murder and then sold us videos -- his videos to media outlets. he's not in the jail under the warden. i think we have a lot of questions to ask and the people that should be answering the questions is our fbi and department of justice. with the u.s. capitol riot, there is over 725 arrests that i know of, and only one case has been dropped. for blm and nt for riots, there were over 16,000 240 arrests and over 90% of those cases have been dropped. what's the difference there? i will tell you. for the blm antifa riots,
the victims were the american people and communities and cities all across our country. but on january 6, you know the victim was? the capitol and the members of congress inside. my question is this -- why is this congress obsessed with the self and cares nothing about the american people? this is a two-tiered justice system that should never exist in our country. i'm fed up with it and so are americans all over the country. let's talk a little bit more about the fbi -- they have quite a history of doing things. remember governor whitmer's kidnapping plot? i can tell you we know there were 12 fbi informants involved in that group. we don't know how many federal agents were involved. don't forget about the bundy ranch affair. there were 15 fbi informants involved. we don't know how many actual agents. but we can go back further. another example would be 1968, the democratic national
convention, there were 10,000 protesters, and one out of six were federal undercover agents. you do the math and that is approximately 1600 federal agents at this protest in 1968 at the democratic national convention. here at the capitol security breach, we don't know how many federal informants, fbi agents, agents of other agencies, we don't know those numbers because we have the january 6 committee that is refusing to ask those serious questions. now, what is our fbi doing? why is the department of justice going along with it? i think the question that really should be asked is -- is an informant also involved in making the plans for these types of things and my limbs and the security breach at the capitol? are they just sitting in meetings and listening to plans? are they taking part in planning these things?
i think we can see and it is very obvious with the videos that we have just seen today that ray definitely organized and told people to go in and incited people to do the breach of the capitol. yet he has not been charged. so there is a lot to be answered for. now we have christopher wray of the fbi and merrick garland of the department of justice who we see going after everyone involved and they seem to think that this is the biggest investigation that they've ever needed to -- they've ever undertaken in u.s. history. you know what i think needs to be the biggest investigation in the u.s. history? is what is going on at the fbi and what is happening in the department of justice. and the american people deserve those answers. because it's the american people and the taxpayers that pay for all of it. i don't want to have anything to do with a government that's going to be so obsessed with overturning regime change in
our own country when it should be serving the american people, protecting their constitutional right and individual freedoms. that's not something that should divide people by political parties. not something that should bring people together -- that is something that should bring people together. going forward with the committee, when republicans take back the house, as we are all upset about any type of violence and riots in this country, we should have a january 6 committee that looks for the truth instead of protecting its own and working on its own political goals. when we talk about elections in our country, we need to make sure they are safe and no one's vote gets stolen. and that id is shown to vote and they don't use riots to achieve some sort of legislation. because if democrats cared about riots they, would've cared about the antifa blm riots all over the country in 2020. they would've worked hard to demand -- instead they promoted them.
while republicans are being attacked and the democrats are attacking people and calling in with subpoenas, subpoenaing phone records and bank records, it is important to point out you haven't seen republicans bailing out rioters. sadly so, hardly any republicans have paid attention to the people that are being held months on end, with no one caring about them, their families being left to defend themselves and pay for attorney bills. they are wasting away in jail. i think due process is extremely important. i think our pretrial rights are important for every single person that is charged with crimes in our country. i think it is imperative and it is your responsibility as members of the media to call attention to this because it should never happen to anyone and i don't care what their politics are.
with that, we will take a few questions. reporter: did you actually listen to the president's speech this morning? do you reject every single thing the president said? >> i think clearly we are reflecting. this is exactly what we are doing today. we are clearly reflecting. this is all we reflect on. i will go back to why don't we reflect on the rights the american people endured -- riots the american people endured? >> do either of you plan to go? if not, why not? >> our plan is to be here with you. our plan is to travel out to the original breach site. we do not have plans this evening for that. reporter: -- the january 6
attack. [indiscernible] can you tell me a little bit about your reaction that you saw the footage, the police officers being assaulted? >> i will say the same thing i've set all year long and the same thing i said starting that day -- it was appalling. i want to know why the national guard was not outside the capitol. i'm furious at that. i want you to know that members of congress and definitely the speaker of the house, she knew there was going to be violence that day. president trump requested the national guard, so did others. they knew things were going to happen but for some reason they thought that objects would look bad, if they had the national guard there. as a freshman member of congress only a few days on the job, i'm angry the national guard was not out there and they left the capitol police as sitting ducks to have to deal with all of this. completely wrong. >> i would add to that -- what if those capitol police officers are victims of people like ray?
what if they are victims of people like an orchestrated effort -- of the orchestrated effort by the fbi? i would suggest that every officer that was harmed that day would likely be served well by answering his questions met attorney general garland and director wray refused to answer. -- refuse to answer. >> ted cruz said yesterday it was a terror attack. do you agree with them? >> absolutely not. i think he is smart enough to know that no one has been charged with terrorism, just like no one has been charged with insurrection. i think that was very irresponsible of him to call them terrorists. i completely disagree. >> the establishment will never love you, ted. you can bend over, bend the knee for them, but they are just not going to love you. that was may be an effort by the good senator, who we agree with on many things, to recast
himself in the eyes of some of the folks in your profession. but we didn't find it particularly factual or sincere. reporter: what i heard senator cruz say is and he said the democratic party wants all republicans to be seen as terrorists. that's what i heard, when i spoke to him. i wanted to ask you about the attorney general and a press conference -- they will hold all perpetrators on any level accountable under law whether they were present that day or otherwise criminally responsible. we will follow the facts where they lead. what do you make of that press conference? the attorney general speaking out the day before january 6. >> it was very frustrating for me as a member of the judiciary committee. because the attorney general wouldn't answer congressman thomas massey's direct question about where the facts and the law led. we are worried this might not be a crime so much as it is a cover up, in some circumstances as it
relates to some people. it is challenging constitutionally to deal with the fact that you may have had the department of justice and fbi assets and then performance really increasing the degree of criminality on this day and who was supposed to look into that. there was likely a time when i believed that the republicans should disband this committee for january 6. but increasingly i'm of the view that we have to convert it to a proper purpose to follow the facts and the law and the department of justice has not been forthcoming one members of congress have asked questions under oath. reporter: do you think there would've been no riots, if there were federal officers involved in the crowd? >> i would point you to -- hold on, i would point to the video that we just showed. i would say, take these videos and present them to the skeptics. show them ray at the moment of
breach. there was no breach prior to their video that i showed you. that initial video. the moment of breach, you have him a -- him instigating, pushing, describing exactly what should happen. i think the question you ask is the operative question. the january 6 committee seems to be focused on everything else. >> i do not believe there would've been the same level of criminal acuity on january 6 of last year, but for the involvement of the federal government. i don't think there would've been a kidnapping plot of governor whitmer without the involvement of the federal government. we are starting to see pattern recognition. the federal government inserts themselves into these organizations through assets, and performance, agents -- performants, agents, and they become the very animators of those events. that seems to be precisely the evidence that i just showed you regarding ray.
reporter: your theory of the case is donald trump won the election, they organized the breach to disrupt the results january 6. >> you've imputed a motive, but we still have two investigative. we are calling for republicans to take power and utilize that january 6 committee to answer those questions asked of the motive. in the face of this direct captured evidence, when presented with direct questions under oath, we could obfuscation from the attorney general and the fbi director. that is very suspicious for us. we are not ready to try and convict anyone but these are the operative questions. not whether or not there were plotters who to argument -- wanted to formulate an argument for the floor of the house.
reporter: -- they all got disrupted because the federal government's intent -- >> the motive may not happen to disrupt the debate but to ensnare targeted political movements. they insert themselves into the people that they thought were agitators, communist, then we saw those actions and federal assets increased suspicion. during the rush or hoax, we saw the fbi not as a victim of lying russians, but actually ceding those lies to justify their own actions. you see that through this. this wasn't a one off on january 6. we believe the race a pattern -- we believe there is a pattern and practice of that activity.
reporter: [indiscernible] >> i can't answer for them. i think it's important to let them answer that question themselves. unfortunately, republicans don't seem to want to go into the truth like congressman gates and i are. we will not stand here and be light about. that's what's happening. we're watching it all over the news today and we have seen it for the past year. i'm not one that's going to sit there and duck and hide under when the mainstream media and the democrat party want to label people and tell lies about us. we are here because we want to get out in front and say that we think there is real questions that do need to be asked. another thing is i will never answer for someone else's motive on what they did january 6 because i have no idea. the only thing we cared about and we are working on was
looking into election fraud and we were objecting and worked very hard on the state of michigan on behalf of those people that had signed their names. at risk of perjuring themselves over what they had said. they had seen election fraud. that is extremely important. we are not going to defend people that broke laws on january 6. i certainly don't want to do that. i don't like any riots. i don't care what they are for. what i want to know is, was our government involved and why? why on earth would they do that? if so, there's nothing that needs to be done about it. -- there is something that needs to be done about it. reporter: you acknowledged joe biden won the election and is a legitimate precedent -- the legitimate president. >> i think it is clear joe biden is the president. if i'm trying to impeach him, i think it is clear that i think he is the president. he was on january 6
-- his votes were confirmed and he was sworn in later on in january. i think that is a silly question to ask. >> what do you think of president biden's new direct tone -- mr. trump. >> he didn't even say his name. >> donald trump -- he said donald trump and his supporters were holding a dagger to the throat of the democracy in the country. what do you say to that? >> we are here to ensure democracy and make sure the apparatus is not abuse and torture and entire political movement of tens and millions of americans. i don't think it was a particularly new tone. it seems like the normal speech anticline for amana decline -- in decline for a man in decline.
reporter: [indiscernible] from much of what i've considered. are you worried there are people who don't understand the severity of what happened, with regard to the violence? >> there are a lot of folks that don't understand the severity of what happened particularly it being animated by assets of the federal government. that would be a far greater schedule than anything the democrats talked about or even the republicans have talked about. we have acknowledged from the very beginning that we oppose violence. that this was a violent day. that it was not a good day. it is not a day we are celebrating. and we condemn political violence in all its forms,. -- all its forms, full stop. >> when it to release over 14,000 hours of videotape they
american taxpayers before. you know who pays for this building? the american taxpayers. they pay for those video surveillance cameras and the on the footage. if there's nothing to hide, release it. we should release all of that video and america can judge for themselves. another thing is, i think we need to remember the violent riota. the over 16,000 riot -- the over 16,000 charges for the blm and antifa riots. what is the riot on january 6 the only thing that rings the discussion? here's something for you all. what if the fbi was involved? what if ray, and this man on the scaffolding and john sullivan and other bad actors like them, would've that caused a member of the press to get killed -- what if that had caused a member of the press to get killed? what kind of responsibly would you be placing on the fdr any kind of federal agency if the member -- if a member of the
press had been killed that day because of violence that they had caused the action? this is a serious question. you will work here every single day just like we do. you walk these halls. this is the place where you gather information and do your job. so your safety was also at risk that day. if our federal government was involved in doing so, i think that is something that you should be very upset about. >> do you think the man that through the fire extinguisher was a federal agent? >> we are not here to litigate any particular case, we are no one's lawyer or advocate. we are here to speak to the conditions that existed on that day. to the civil rights of people who have been deprived access to medical care, religious
services. we are not going to get into the facts of any one particular defendant. we have brought video evidence displayed to you and the world. we think those are the specific cases that would warrant the most thorough -- that's what i'm showing you, but you are talking about a case -- >> yes. >> if republicans take back the house, what investigations might you launch involving this or any other sort of related issue? >> we are going to encourage republican leadership to utilize the january 6 committed correctly to answer the questions regarding potential federal involvement. that goes to the top of the list. i'm also heartened that congressman jordan has publicly committed to starting and oversight and investigations of committee of the house judiciary committee. i believe that could foster some very productive work, regarding what is happening at the fbi and
doj. and perhaps other federal entities that were involved that day. >> you briefly mentioned the leader of the oath keepers. what is your opinion on the oath keepers? >> i think it is something that warrants a good deal of review but it's very suspicious to us that stuart rose is like the forest gump of these situations, he appears in strange circumstances, is involved in organizing activity, then seems to always escape any specific charge or inability -- charge or accountability. it begs the question if he's a federal asset or informant. we would like a direct answer to that question. they were part of the same organization. the video is very compelling. we think the roads case also warrants further intake. >> [indiscernible] what's the future look like for those guys? >> i encourage everyone to go to
greene.house.gov, that is where you can read the d.c. gel report that we worked hard to get the information out on what is happening. how people's due process rights are being violated. the d.c. jail has quite a history of being a terrible place, treating prisoners badly. well before january 6. pretrial defendants were being held in there. going forward, no one is defending these people. they are languishing in jail. they are waiting -- awaiting their trials. unfortunately, it is a very sad case, until more attention is being drawn to it. and until more people care to step in and help. i really honestly hope they do. >> [indiscernible] -- that
you've been spreading -- >> i'm familiar with being called a conspiracy theorist. when i was making the claim, often times alone, that it wasn't from colluding with russia, it was in fact the clinton apparatus and the dmc that was colluding with russians to tell lies about trump -- everybody said i was a big conspiracy theorist then, but now we are starting to see that is precisely what happened. and of the ark of the d.c. narrative is first you call me a conspiracy theorist and then months and years later things turned out to be true. because i expected that criticism, we brought evidence and video. i would say, send it to the critics. send it to the folks that produce the main media prime time shows. they want to run a whole lot of video from january 6. but i'm willing to bet you won't see these videos around prime time. and they should be. at shows the american people there's a lot more going on in the game you're watching is not
the game being played. we will do one more question. >> have a question about president trump. you are making the case that in your words this was a fedsurrection, a federally instigated event. it's not the case that president trump -- outpouring of support from his followers. haven't seen him make the argument that this was federally instigated. >> we are not only limited to the arguments former president trump makes, we are entitled to make our own arguments. >> yes. don't think it is one of the other. that is the wrong premise to take here. we were looking forward to president trump's press conference tonight. unfortunately i think he got some bad advice in canceling it. we wish he had done that so people could have asked him questions. just like congressman gaetz