Examining The Congressional Hearing On The Trump Assassination Attempt

In Matthew 16, Jesus chastised the Pharisees who could interpret the appearance of the sky but failed to interpret the signs of the time in which they lived.

Who are the Pharisees of our day? This strong hold of sort of whiteness and white identity and pristineness is really part of what keeps us from making progress.

We need to do better. The Church, rich in theological scholarship, has lingered in academic sanctuaries and ivory towers, failing to translate its lofty doctrines into a tangible and practical cultural apologetic.

At the Worldview Youth Academy we bridge this critical gap. Here theological depth is not an end in itself but a means to engage with contemporary cultural issues for the glory of God and the expansion of his kingdom.

Our mission is to cultivate thinkers who can articulate and apply Christian truths within contemporary societal challenges.

So embrace this call to worship God with all your heart, all your soul and with all your mind.

We will do better as this next generation tears down the idols of our modern culture and works to build a brighter future toward Christendom 2 .0.

Is he hung up on me? YES! What? What?

Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men. The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.

Go into all the world and make disciples. Not go into the world and make buddies. Not to make brosives. Right. Don't go into the world and make homies.

Right. Disciples. I got a bit of a jiggle neck. That's a joke,

Pastor. When we have the real message of truth, we cannot let somebody say they're speaking truth when they're not.

Take and always return. If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.

Proverbs 18 .13. Such a powerful verse. That's a lot of wisdom there.

What's up, everybody? Welcome back to another episode of Apologia Radio. This is the Gospel Heard Around the

World. I'm Jeff. They call me the Ninja. That is Zachary Conover right there. What's up, guys? Director of Communications for End Abortion Now.

We're so glad that you joined us today. So much craziness happening right now in our country and really around the world.

What a news cycle. It is. And so we knew. I think we even said it to you guys before. These are always exciting times for us.

Election years are very exciting because there's just so much to engage with in the culture, in the world around us, worldview stuff, law of God stuff, gospel center stuff.

It's just an incredible thing. And obviously nobody, I mean, well, I think we did.

A lot of us suspected that something like this would happen, but didn't know that we'd be looking at it the way that we are right now.

The recent assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump. There's all kinds of discussions going on right now online across platforms about this, but very, very small amount engaging with this whole debacle from a

Christian worldview and from a scriptural standpoint. So what we wanted to do, we were thinking, okay, there's apology at radio, theology, apologetics, and all the rest.

Like, what are you doing examining the congressional hearing of the attempted assassination of the former president?

And the answer is, is because we want to have a Christian voice in this. How ought we, ought we, like morally obligated to, ought we, moral obligation, how ought we to engage with the information coming to us from the congressional hearing and all the stuff that's out there.

And so we wanted to engage this with divine wisdom. And it's not to say that all of us do this perfectly, but we do know what the word of God said.

God has spoken in this area, and so we want to engage with it. So before we get to it, and point everybody who may be new to the broadcast, or if you're not new, and you just haven't done it yet, you need to, go to apologiastudios .com.

That's A -P -O -L -O -G -I -A, apologiastudios .com. Go there. You can get all the past episodes of Apologia Radio, Provoked, Cultish, Sheologians, they're all there for your listening pleasure.

Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of episodes of all those different podcasts and platforms. And do also go and get your absolutely free

Bonson U account at apologiastudios .com. Dr. Greg Bonson, one of the greatest apologists, philosophers, really, in my mind, in the entire history of the

Christian church. We have his entire life's deposit, all of his teaching that was recorded, up there at Apologia Studios for you.

It is top -tier, seminary -level education, for free, as a gift to you, through us, from the

Bonson family. David Bonson wanted to make sure the world got access to that, and so we are providing it to you.

And so just go, set up your Bonson U account, and just get to work. If you want to learn about church history, books of the

Bible, philosophy, Christian apologetics, ethics, the law of God, you name it, debates, they're all there.

Dr. Greg Bonson, I, in many ways, we, in many ways, stand on his shoulders.

And so, go get it. And if you guys have seen content from Apologia Studios, including this right here,

On the Street Evangelism, debates, apologetics, teaching ministry, whatever it is, if you've seen it, it's because someone just like you joined hands with us in this ministry and is a part of this ministry with us.

They sign up for all access. When you sign up for all access, you make everything we do possible, and we want to bless you.

And so if you're a partner with us in this ministry, we want to give you just some additional stuff, personalized stuff, to bless you.

And one example, very excited about, if you didn't hear about this yet, is Dr. Kenneth Gentry.

One of my very favorites on the issue of eschatology, that's end -time stuff. He came out and he did a series for us for Apologia Academy on the

Book of Revelation. He just released his book, his commentary, that was decades in the making, on the

Book of Revelation. It is The Divorce of Israel, two volumes, about 1 ,800 pages. Just released that, and that goes perfectly with this series on Apologia Academy that is available right now for all of our all -access ministry partners.

So you can go there and sign up. Please do that, be a part of this ministry with us. And here we go.

Let's get right into it. Let's do it. So, started the episode off today talking about the Book of Proverbs.

The Book of Proverbs, we're going through that right now at Apologia Church, and so we're about halfway through the

Book of Proverbs right now. This is the book of divine wisdom. And so you'll notice there is a vast difference between, say, the

Book of Romans and the Book of Proverbs. Especially if you're trying to preach through it. Exactly. It is a very different animal to preach through, very, very different.

And so, Book of Romans, the Apostle Paul didactic literature, teaching literature, it's systematic, it's soup to nuts, it's explanatory, it's following a line of logic all the way through the gospel.

And so, I love the Book of Romans, but it is a different genre than the Book of Proverbs, which is wisdom literature.

And that's a different genre than, say, the Book of Revelation, which people would call apocalyptic literature or unveiling literature.

And a lot of symbols, beasts, harlots drinking blood and riding seven -headed ten -horned beasts and all the rest.

And a lot of symbolism and imagery that comes directly from the Old Testament. It's quoting from the Old Testament into this apocalyptic literature.

Very different than, say, even one of the Gospels, an historical narrative explaining here's who

Jesus is, here's where He was, this is who He talked to, this is what He said, and that's an historical narrative.

And so, there are all these different genres happening inside this one unified revelation. But the

Book of Proverbs is important for us as Christians, and I so wish I had not ignored it like I did as a young, zealous Christian.

And I so wish that all of us wouldn't ignore it today in our lives. This is where God is speaking to us about how do we apply knowledge?

How do we live this out and have skill in living as a follower of Jesus Christ? And so, the

Book of Proverbs should be a part of all of our daily diet in the Word. And the

Book of Proverbs is just fascinating, it's powerful, it's convicting, it's challenging. And what I read at the beginning here is

Proverbs 18, 13. If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.

Now that is a powerful, powerful piece of divine wisdom that goes across a broad spectrum of human experience.

Different applications. Very, very. And you could say right now, in all the information, the various details that are coming to us related to the assassination attempt of the former president, you have to say, you have to hold on to this as divine wisdom, right?

If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. This applies in our interpersonal relationships in the family.

It applies to our relationships within the local church context. I can tell you right now, I think that if this one piece of divine wisdom was held to, a lot of unnecessary conflict would be avoided.

A lot of church splits would be avoided, right? And obviously, there's elements here that you combine in the

Book of Proverbs, like, you know, don't have unequal weights and measures, you know, scripture commands against showing personal favoritism.

Yeah, partiality. No partiality. So if you live that way, no partiality, no unequal weights and measures, and you're not believing something when you first hear it, you're going to save a lot of people from a lot of pain, including yourself.

And the problem I think oftentimes is that all of us in this human experience, this fallen human experience we have, is that we do have favorite faces.

If we're honest with ourselves, we do. We have a favorite face, right? And so there's a conflict.

And the first thing we do is we lean towards our favorite face. And we start, we don't even realize the times that we're doing it, because we're all just sinful and we faceplant constantly, is that we have unequal standards in a conflict between our best face and our least favorite face, right?

And so I got one stone for you, a different standard for this person. I'm showing you favoritism. I'm ignoring contrary evidence for your benefit.

And if you share something with me, because you're my favorite face, I'm going to bite down and believe it almost instantly.

Now we think that that's an endearing quality, like to just sort of firm up our commitments to our team, right?

This is my ride or die. Loyalty to my tribe. Yeah, exactly. People that look like me, that share my affinity for certain things that are a part of my team, as you say.

Yeah. And so we think that's a good quality to sort of like be the ride or die, be the person who's just going to be like,

I'm by your side no matter what, you know, like no matter how much you foul up or sin or whatever, I'm just going to, I'm going to guard you and protect you and be your bro,

I'll be right there by your side. But wisdom doesn't do that. Let me just say it this way, incarnate wisdom doesn't do that.

Jesus didn't do that. Jesus was willing to confront the religious hypocrites of his day, and he did confront them in a very harsh manner, he used the serrated edge.

But you also see in the historical narrative in the gospels, you see that Jesus is confronting his own disciples, right?

Like he doesn't show personal favoritism, he just tells the truth. Now related to the attempted assassination of former

President Donald Trump, the text says, if one gives an answer before he hears it, it's his folly and shame.

And so oftentimes, we're not all up to speed, or aware of all the facts in a situation, especially a situation with so much distance between us like this, right?

Like, you know, we're in Arizona, this happened in Pennsylvania. All we have is like various, you know, video and audio recordings happening.

We know so little. We know exactly. We would know even less if Elon Musk didn't own Twitter too, probably. And so it's true.

That's exactly true. So one of the things I want to just say is that, you know, it's tempting, and dang, it feels good.

It does feel good, admit it. It feels so good to sort of fall into this crazy conspiracy theory stuff.

And look, you know, there are things that I've said, and I've confronted over the years, and people call me a conspiracy theorist for, and turns out

I was right. And so I'm not, I don't have any problem with pointing to conspiracies whatsoever. This is a fallen world, sinful world.

People do engage in some wicked, wicked stuff, and there's no question about that. And so like, yeah,

I mean, there's no question about the CIA's involvement in assassination attempts, the CIA's involvement in all kinds of evil, malicious things.

There's no question about that. The point that I'm making is that we can't see something take place immediately as Christians, with the knowledge of divine wisdom, fall into just conspiracy, conspiracy.

We have to say, I need proof and evidence before I can go where you're asking me to go in terms of like, well, there's this circumstantial evidence over here, there's suspicion over here, and so therefore conspiracy.

What we have to say as Christians is that we've got the reputation of being the most rigorous in our commitment to evidence, evidence, evidence, multiple lines of independent evidence.

We have to be the kind of people that don't just believe something is just because we see it or bite down right on it.

We have to ask deeper questions, like for, let me get an example here. Okay. So scripture gives texts, numerous texts about two to three witnesses.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you have Deuteronomy chapter 19 when it comes to admitting evidences and admitting evidence and in particular testimony of witnesses.

One thing that we're told in that text is, well, two things. Witnesses can't be solitary.

Right. So you have to have more than one line of testimony and it can't be anonymous. So well,

I'm concerned because so -and -so said this, well, who? Where are they? Bring them here.

What's their name? Right. So witnesses can't be anonymous and there also can't just be one.

Right. So when it comes to airing the grievance of a particular malicious witness in that text, we're given instructions on what does a witness, what categories do they have to meet, right?

What conditions need to be fulfilled before we actually receive the charge? So in scripture, there's often that passage is quoted, don't admit a charge against an elder except it's on the basis of two to three witnesses.

That's an application of that text in the newer testament, but it's not even admitting, not even hearing it until these conditions are first met.

Can't receive it. And even, and this is where people get jammed up on this too, is they say, well, we've got two to three witnesses, so therefore it's true.

It doesn't mean that it's true. You need two to three independent lines of witness before you can receive something as Before you can start adjudicating the matter.

Exploration. Yes. Right. Okay, now let's investigate. Yeah, exactly. Now we can cross -examine witnesses and the

Bible has, in God's law, standards for even lying witnesses. If you're caught and found to be a lying witness.

Let's hit that text. Do that. Real fast. So I had it pulled up right here, having all this stuff ready.

So Deuteronomy 19, 15, a single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed.

Only on the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the

Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, which is the process that you're referring to.

And if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother.

So you shall purge the evil from your midst. So just one thing, and I'll toss it over. But the point here is that God is deeply concerned with justice and not just justice in itself.

In a theoretical sense, but in matters of dispute, legal contexts as well, where these kinds of things get fleshed out, witnesses, evidence, accusation.

And it's all based on the ninth commandment. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Love your neighbor as yourself.

That is what all of this is predicated upon here. And so the outcome of this, if you don't love your neighbor as yourself, then you will get the harm that you intended to inflict upon your neighbor.

So it's God meting out this love in this negative way through the judges, saying, you're going to get what you attempted to bring on this person because of your hatred for your neighbor.

Justice for the accused. That's important in God's law as well. You don't just get to willy -nilly throw out accusations against an image bearer of God and do it with impunity.

Justice for the accused. You accuse somebody and you are found to be a lying, malicious witness. Therefore, you are going to get what you tried to do to this person.

And so there's protection there and cross -examination. So the point is, in the biblical worldview, there is a law word of God issue here in terms of receiving accusations, receiving witness, and biting down or believing or not.

There's standards for us as Christians. And wouldn't you know it, Jesus says, I am the way, the truth, and the life.

No man comes to the Father but by me. Jesus is the truth. Yeah. That's what all this is about. Love of the truth.

Love of the truth. We follow the one who is the embodiment of truth. We should love the truth. Christians ought to be the ones with the highest standards of believing something or trying to find evidence.

We should be the ones that set the standard for, nope, can't believe that, not enough evidence for that. I need proof of that.

We should have the highest standards. And, you know, I'll give you an example of just something that's not allowable in the law of God, and Christians should never fall into this, is something that would be considered in the arena of circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence. So I'll give you an example. A murder takes place at 11 p .m. on Van Buren.

11 p .m. on Van Buren and— Not unlikely. Yeah. Not unlikely at all. In Phoenix, not at all.

At Van Buren and, say, 7th Street. So on Van Buren and 7th Street, 11 p .m.

in Phoenix, there was a murder that took place. Now let's say that there was a man who was walking on that street at 11 p .m.

Now he gets picked up by the police, and they say, hey, there was a murder that took place at 11 p .m.,

7th Street and Van Buren in Phoenix. We know from video footage that you walked past that intersection at 11 p .m.,

therefore you are guilty. You did it. In logic, we call that a non sequitur.

Right. It doesn't follow necessarily that you are guilty. It actually could be the case that the guy that's now being accused of the murder because he happened to be at 11 p .m.

crossing 7th Street and Van Buren, it could be that he was one of the potential victims, and he just actually got away.

He wasn't victimized. And so that's in the arena of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances were he happened to walk by 11 p .m.

when a murder took place somewhere around the area of 7th Street and Van Buren, and that's not allowed.

Now it can raise suspicion. Suspicion is different than accusation.

You could say, maybe he's somebody of interest. Let's find out.

Let's ask him questions. But we have to do what according to God's law? Even if it's a suspicion, you have to do what as you enter into that conversation?

Assume the innocence of the person in front of you. You are not allowed to accuse somebody of something unless there is proof.

Proof. Proof. Multiple lines of witness and evidence that prove the guilt of the person.

You see this today with police officers. Police officers are not supposed to, according to the law of God, British common law,

American law, we have constitutionally in our republic, police officers are not allowed to simply start treating you as a criminal instantly because they have suspicion.

So you see so many videos, and I love these videos, I love to see videos of citizens standing up for their

God -given rights. Not answering questions. A police officer walks up to them because they're sitting in a car on a street, a public street, and says, what are you doing, where'd you come from?

Well the answer from the citizen should be, hey, nice to meet you, my name's Jeff and that's none of your business.

Where'd you just come from? Yeah. Right? Like, you don't have a right to come up to me to start searching for evidence that I've done something wrong.

Police officers are supposed to operate off of RAS, reasonable, articulable suspicion.

They have seen that you have committed a crime, or they think you're in the process of committing a crime, or you're about to commit a crime.

And so it's always proper, according to the law of God, to say to a law enforcement official, what's your

RAS? Why are you detaining me? Why are you treating me as a criminal? Because a police officer does have a right to treat you as a criminal if he actually has evidence that you are a criminal, or probably are a criminal.

He can detain you to make sure he examines, okay, what did this witness say over here, and is there video camera footage over there?

Can I get that footage real fast? Because I've got a witness, two witnesses over here that said you were a part of this. That's RAS.

That's reasonable, articulable suspicion. In other words, police officers are not allowed to walk, according to the law of God, up to a random citizen who's doing nothing, has been seen doing nothing, is following the law, just happens to be on a street and start detaining them and starting to find out.

It's like this. You can't, according to God's law, assume the person's guilt and then see if you can find a way to prove their innocence.

That's backwards. You can't do that, right? According to God's law, I've got to have witness and evidence that you are, in fact, guilty before I treat you as a guilty person.

So my point here is, as we launch into hearing the hearings and all the rest, is that Christians ought to have, with the law of God and the wisdom of God, the highest standards in this area.

And that gets me to this point. Last week we did a show with Bill Rapier, member of DevGru, that's

SEAL Team 6. DevGru are the elite group amongst the

SEALs. They're the ones that, when the government's got to send the very, very, very highly trained and very best on some very serious operations, they go to DevGru.

And DevGru, SEAL Team 6, those are the guys that took out Bin Laden, and so Bill Rapier is legendary.

He was a part of that. We had him on as the initial stuff was coming out in terms of, this looks like an absolute mess.

Like, who ran this thing? Who allowed this guy to get on a roof? How did this take place?

A complete, you know, straight line towards the president. Everyone's calling out, this guy has a gun on the roof. This looks like somebody dropped the ball massively.

At the same, so what I said was, preliminarily, this just looks like absolute incompetence.

Right? They sent their B Team, and it's total incompetence. And I think all evidence is ultimately pointing to that now.

I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy, that there's somebody on the inside that wasn't doing something to help this along.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying, as a Christian, I can't believe that and come to that conclusion and start saying that until I have concrete proof with multiple lines of evidence that witness.

Let me give you an example I'm talking about. Some of you guys may have seen, you may have seen, it was compelling.

I will confess. I watched the whole thing, and it was really compelling. I don't,

I can't find it on YouTube. It was on X, no surprise you can't find it on YouTube. But it was on X, and it was a

PhD guy that's, you know, he's very skilled in audio and examining audio and those sorts of things.

And he did an audio examination of the shots. And he had this very highly specialized program that examined the shots and the sound from the shots and like where they came from.

And when you watch that, you go, dang, it does sound like there was a second shooter. Like it's very convincing.

You hear one side. Right. Well, okay. Let's do this. Proverbs 18, 17, the one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him.

You don't want to be found with egg on your face. Right. None of us do. We're all going to make mistakes. We're all fallible. By the way, I'm not saying that I'm never going to make a mistake.

I'm saying that like we want to avoid that like the plague, like believing something that's not true. And then later you have to come back and say, oh,

I was, I was wrong about that. But so as an example of this discussion, you listen to this

PhD and it's compelling. Like it's very well done. Compelling. He examines the audio files.

He examines the stuff. It sounds very different. And it sounds like there's like three shots that came from the roof with crooks.

And then there's like four shots or more that come from somewhere else. And so you're like, dang, it does sound like maybe there's a second shooter.

And you hear also here, you know, there's, there's some hearsay of, uh, at least from my perspective right now of like people saying that there was a second shooter up on the water tower.

Okay. But who's saying that? Where's the proof of that? You know what I mean? Like you can't just go up. I heard,

I heard someone said that there were witnesses that saw a second shooter on the water tower. It's like, okay, let's.

Did we question these witnesses? Did we question the witnesses? Do we have audio? Do we have any video of that? You know,

I can't, my point is as a Christian, you can't just believe it because you heard one person say, Hey, I heard some witnesses said there was a water tower guy.

It's like, uh, let's wait and pause. Let's obey. Let's obey Proverbs 18, 13 first.

Wait to give the answer. You don't want it to be foolishness and shame to you. So I'm sorry.

Just real fast. And I'll kick it over. Yeah. So the, the PhD gives a compelling case for the audio saying it's out and then it does sound like there's a second shooter.

But now we have the body cam footage of the police officers as soon as they climbed the roof to his dead body and they count the shell casings and there was about eight shell casings.

And so my point is that you can't just like see one video and go up second shooter, second shooter.

It's like, well, hold on, wait, wait a second. You got to pull all this together first before you come to the conclusion.

And sometimes, yeah, I admit sometimes the conclusion is nefarious things going on.

There's a conspiracy. Sometimes the CIA is involved in assassination. That's true. But you can't just instantly go to that as a

Christian and say, well, in history, we've had incidents where like government agencies have pulled some pretty malicious and evil things and therefore logically followed.

That's what happened here. It's like, well, maybe not. Maybe I'm open to changing my mind. If a week from now we find witness and evidence that it is the case that there was some conspiracy and people on the inside,

I'm all for it, but I'm not going to be the guy that was saying the wrong thing before. I'm saying let's amass the evidence right now.

What evidence is presented to us at the moment? I was just thinking too, in our context today also, we have this thing called social media, which allows quite the amount of ease to spread disinformation as well as get accurate information out.

In regards to what you're saying here, until we have all the facts and the evidence in place to reach the proper conclusion, we not only have the duty as Christians to not believe it and bite down on it too soon, but also not to spread the false report.

So Exodus 23, 1, you shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit siding with the many so as to pervert justice.

So again, the themes of partiality later on in the same text, bribery, these things that pervert justice and tip the scales in favor of one party, or in this case, in favor of the multitude, right?

This is what everybody's saying. This is the direction that popular opinion is going. So I'm going to fall in with them.

I'm not only going to believe it, but I'm going to spread it as well, and I'm going to keep it going. And you could apply that to, again, like you were saying earlier, the church context, familial conflicts, all the various spheres, but there's a lot of wisdom in the warning there.

Very, very, very, very good. So I want to show everybody what I'm talking about here. Just before we get into the hearing stuff, and we are getting to it, we're going to play a lot of video for you guys today, by the way, some good stuff that came out of the first couple of days of this week.

So, I made a point of waiting until you have all the information. Scripture calls us to that.

Wait until you have all the details before you bite down on something and start just making claims about it, because you're not supposed to bear false witness or spread a false report.

That counts for social media too, right? That counts for social media too. I've often said, like Jesus' warning that people are going to be held accountable for every idle word,

I also say for every idle click, right? How easy is it? It's so easy. And so, again, the

PhD gives a very compelling analysis of the sound of the shots, and you walk away from that and you go, that sounds very convincing.

That does sound very good. Well done. And then you see this. Fallout from the assassin attempt on former

President Trump. New video from the roof released. The Secret Service asked Trump to stop holding outdoor rallies, and the

Secret Service director has resigned. Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas starts us off from Washington. Good morning,

Pierre. George, good morning. Our audience is about to see the frantic seconds in the moments after the gunman tried to kill former

President Trump. It's all caught on police body cam video. And warning to our family at home, what you're about to see may be disturbing.

This morning, new helmet camera video obtained by ABC News showing the moments law enforcement raced to that roof.

After a sniper killed the gunman who opened fire at a Trump rally, officers climbing up a ladder.

In chilling detail, the video shows an assault -style rifle lying next to the dead body of shooter

Thomas Matthew Crooks, a trail of blood seen streaming down that sloped roof. An officer kneels down by the gunman.

There appears to be a small device next to the shooter that was not seen earlier. The officer takes out the battery.

Then pulling out a phone as he checks the gunman's pockets. A range finder.

I think it's in the cargo pocket. Police also seen counting the shell cases.

Looks like, what, at least eight? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. At least eight.

At one point, a law enforcement official who appears to be a Secret Service agent and another officer heard discussing the evidence the shooter was believed to have left behind.

This is his bike with the stuff. And our sniper seen him walking away from that, I believe. This image clearly visible on the phone held by the local officer wearing the helmet cam.

The new video comes amid mounting scrutiny aimed at the Secret Service and how it handled the assassination attempt, both before and after.

There you go. The alleged lack of transparency cost. My point is there, will more information come out?

Yeah, I hope so. But you have to wait until you get all the information to come to a conclusion and start telling people about it.

And you know, when you have this body cam footage of going up on the roof and you have those shell casings up there, you know, of course, people will say conspiracy and maybe you're right.

Maybe you're right. But we need proof of it. Well, somebody went up there and threw those shell casings down. Is that a pot?

Is that within the realm of possibility in a fallen world? That's definitely within their own possibility. For sure. I mean, for sure.

If somebody was on the inside and they got up to the roof first and they threw their shell casings down, that's possible. But right now, what evidence do you have presented before your eyes?

What witnesses there? What's right there is, well, there's eight shell casings up on top of the roof and that's what was fired.

And so we have to take all that together. And before we start saying it, making claims to the contrary.

So what can I do this just for fun? I got to do this just for fun. I'm sorry.

This makes me so ill. Oh, no. Hold on. I think I know what this is.

Let me get this ready here. Oh, yeah. Where is the audio? OK, right there. Let's turn that on mute. OK. All right.

So guys, this this makes me. Is that Megyn Kelly? Yes. Megyn Kelly. It makes me physically ill.

All right. So have you guys heard this ridiculous, shameful, stupid attempt of people to get into this mystical stuff and weird claims?

It's a good way to describe it. It is pure mysticism. Yeah. Well, they'll say things like, you know, President Trump was,

President Trump was, sorry, I'm going to close these out here.

He was he was shot at 6 -11. Yeah. So they'll say

President Trump was was was shot at 6 -11. And some dude says, do you know what

Ephesians 6 -11 says? Put on the full armor of God. Isn't that weird? And people say it's a stupidity of the modern evangelical.

I'm sorry. It is just pure stupidity is to bite down on something that is absolutely so asinine and say, oh, that makes so much sense.

Oh, wow. There's something mystical going on here. It's like, really? You realize, of course, that that the the chapter and verse subdivisions that you have in the

Bible are a modern innovation, later edition, they are a later edition, modern innovation that didn't exist before.

And also, what gives you the right to simply pick a random book and go

Ephesians? There's 66 books and letters in here. That's 66 books and letters.

And you found 6 -11 and you went, uh, eeny, meeny, miny, moe Ephesians. Why didn't you choose

Deuteronomy 6 -11? How about Leviticus 6 -11? Wouldn't have the same effect. Isaiah 6 -11.

You didn't choose any of that. Why not choose any of those books? Or Genesis 6 -11? Proverbs 6 -11.

Psalm 6 -11. I mean, I'm sure if we landed on some of those verses, it would probably be like raising her eyebrows like, what's that got to do with Trump?

Probably nothing like Ephesians 6 -11. What gives you the right to engage in some sort of woo -woo mysticism and say, uh, eeny meeny miny moe

Ephesians, oh, 6 -11. And this, when I saw this,

I saw this clip, I sent it to Isaac at like 3 a .m.

because I was up feeding. This is what you're doing. I'm up at like 3 a .m. feeding twins and then seeing ridiculous stuff like this.

This, this, this actually woke me up at, at about 3 a .m. and I had to send it to Isaac.

And so this is Meg and Kelly. Um, here we go. Let me just figure out how to play this. Okay. A couple of people have sent this to me, 6 -11 p .m.

You read Ephesians 6 -11. What did you say? Ephesians?

Ephesians. Had you seen this yet? No, I haven't seen this precise one, but I've seen other like accounts on X or something like uses like even like, you know,

I think Charlie Kirk was one of them too. I'm just like, so surprised, like this is how you handle God's word.

I thought your standards are much higher than that. Okay. You want, you want irrefutable proof that Meg and Kelly has never actually read this?

Doesn't read the Bible. Has never read this book before? Here you go. Ephesians. Eh? Eh? Ephesians.

Oh man, it's just bad. So it's, it starts bad and just, just gets worse and worse.

So this is from Ephesians 6 -11. Here's more from Meg and Kelly. In the

Bible, it reads as follows in part, put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil schemes.

6 -11, he was shot and that's 6 -11. Listen to that. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil schemes.

I'm almost emotional reading it. It's just what happened to him in our country this weekend is extremely grave and extremely important and we are all so lucky it wasn't worse than it, than it was.

There you go. I like how the camera like zooms in on her face, like all the way up to her eyeballs. Okay. Let's just say

Ephesians 6 -11 doesn't have anything to do with what took place in the horrific assassination attempt of President Trump.

Not at all. It's an abuse of the Bible. It's an abuse of the Bible. It's an abuse of the

Christian worldview to say eeny, meeny, miny, moe, land on Ephesians 6 -11 and say it has something to do with Trump.

And so that kind of stuff is just embarrassing. My point in bringing it up is just this. We've got to do better. Yeah, do better.

That's my point. Our reputation as Christians in the West is just so bad. We used to have a reputation that was strong, that was meaningful.

People understood that Christians set up academic institutions. We focus on education.

We care about the courts. We care about law and all of that. We care about justice and standards and critical thinking.

That's because that's the Christian worldview. That's the Christian worldview. We have the preconditions necessary to satisfy the intelligibility of the arena of science, the arena of logic, the arena of arithmetic.

You name it. Beauty, truth, goodness. It's the Christian worldview that provides the foundation, the solid foundation for all of those things.

And now, all of a sudden, I think a lot to do with eschatology and just a number of other reasons, but I think a lot to do with eschatology.

Christians have checked out of life and the world in so many ways. We've lowered our standards. We don't have any respect for the word of God that gives rise to the

Christian worldview. And so we point to things like Ephesians 6 .11 in moments like this, and Christians are duped by it.

I saw people sharing that nonsense. That's profound. Oh, this is so profound. It's so amazing. It's like, that's not amazing.

It's fortune cookie exegesis. That's very good. Very good. It's not amazing. Why? Explain to me why not

Deuteronomy 6 .11. I'm going to pull it up right now because I keep saying it. So I'm going to see what

Deuteronomy 6 .11 says. Well, I guarantee you it won't have the same ring to it. Or numbers.

Or Leviticus. I'm going to bet you Leviticus is an interesting one. 6 .11. Deuteronomy 6 .11.

And a house is full of all good things that you did not fill and cisterns that you did not dig and vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant and when you eat and are full.

Okay. Well, that doesn't really work really well with Donald Trump.

How about numbers 6 .11? Let's see numbers 6 .11. What does that say? Numbers 6 .11.

And the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burn offering and make atonement for him because he sinned by reason of the dead body and he shall consecrate his head that same day.

Profound. Right? Profound. Or have you seen, and someone called this beforehand, but people using

Revelation to talk about how the head was wounded, but they came back stronger than ever, like that passage.

Yeah. Goodness. I know. Don't do that to the Bible, guys. Let's not have that kind of reputation. It goes back to one of the things you said, like a bad view of the future.

There's just astounding biblical illiteracy. Yes. Astonishing.

Okay. Okay. So let's get right into it. This one was a fun one. I'm going to do this one. So this is

Major E. Taylor Green this Monday talking at the hearing to Cheadle, the director of the

CIA. Formerly. Formerly. Now, I do want to say that if you haven't seen it yet, you got to go look at least at some highlights of the hearing, because it is honestly jaw -dropping that the director of the

CIA came to the hearing like this. Came. Secret Service.

Why did I say CIA? Secret Service. Sorry. Secret Service. Get our government agencies right here. I got the CIA on my mind.

So the director of the Secret Service, did I say it several times, Gabe? I probably did. The director of the Secret Service came to this hearing, was subpoenaed.

That's a very serious issue, but subpoenaed to the hearing. And this is like over a week after the event itself.

She should be the one that knows the most, more than anybody, because it's the CIA. I'm sorry.

The Secret Service. I keep doing that. I keep doing that. I keep doing that.

Maybe they're using one of their energy weapons against my brain right now, trying to throw me off. So of all people,

Cheadle, the director of the Secret Service, should know more than anybody. And if you watch the hearing, it is astonishing.

I mean, I was watching this thing just trying to gather content for what we're going to do today. And I just kept going, this is unbelievable.

I mean, it's just astonishing that she doesn't, either she is really, really bad at her job and just so ignorant and has no right to be there, or she is lying through her teeth.

I don't think there could be any in between there. And let's just play some of this.

There are so many good ones to this day, but this one gets into some very revealing issues. Chair now recognizes

Ms. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Cheadle, I'd like to remind you that you're under oath.

The site team has a senior supervisor, an advanced team, a protective intelligence team, a counter -sniper element, and detail.

Who was the agent in charge? How long has she been the agent in charge? And what is her

Secret Service background? So I'm not going to provide a name?

Why not? You're here to answer our questions. This forum, I'm not going to provide names of our agents. You stated in your testimony, you said,

I am here today to answer your questions. That is correct. Answer the question.

I'm not going to provide names of our personnel. Why not? Today. The American people are demanding these answers from you today,

Ms. Cheadle. I will do the best to provide you accurate information based on the facts that I have at this time.

You're not answering our questions. The advanced element coordinates with other intel or law enforcement partners, identifies threats and weaknesses at the sites and movements.

We'd like a copy of the advanced report. Have you brought it here with you today? We will comply with the request for the documentation that has been requested.

When will that be, Ms. Cheadle, because you should have brought it today. I am certain that our personnel are working on obtaining all of that documentation.

I don't believe you, and neither do the people watching this hearing. That's a good point.

You were given a subpoena as a government official, paid for by the taxpayers.

We're not slaves. We're not subjects. We pay for your position, for you to do your job right, and you have a huge budget.

There was a massive failure with an attempted assassination of a former president. You were given a subpoena by Congress.

That's a big deal. I've sat in front of legislatures across the country, and I've got to tell you, there's no getting around the fact that there is this sense of seriousness.

There's a gravity. There's a gravity. There's a weight to it. No matter how good you are at your subject, and no matter how prepared you are for it, when you walk into that hall and that Capitol building, and you walk and you sit before a legislature, you've got to take some deep breaths and say some prayers.

Lord, help me. She just appealed to it. She said, I'm going to remind you of something, and that's that you're under oath. You're under oath.

And what does that mean? Where does that come from? God is watching. It comes from the Christian worldview. That's right. This idea of perjury, malicious witness, lying under oath, all of those things are the fruit of Christianity that assumes there is an authority outside of you.

And so when you are testifying, it had better be true, because if it isn't, you're going to answer to God. Right. There's going to be a day of judgment where you're going to eat your words.

And this? A hand to God? Yeah. Right. God, watch what comes out of my mouth. That's the oath.

God, I know you're the sovereign. I know you're the all -powerful, the holy one, the God that is full of love and wrath, and I want you to watch the words that are coming out of my mouth right now.

And so I'm swearing an oath. I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help me, God. And so, yeah.

Secularism doesn't give you that. No. You can't get that from an atheistic worldview. You just cannot get that. You have to have the Christian worldview to make sense of this.

But this was embarrassingly bad. If you were subpoenaed, if any of us were given a subpoena by Congress and saying, hey, we want this information when you come sit down before us, and then you show up without it.

I mean, there's like forgetting to bring your homework to the teacher on the day it's due. And then there's this.

Right. This is next level irresponsibility. Not doing well, as Mr.

Moskowitz informed you. You've been sitting here for over three hours, and I have you know, the entire country is demanding you resign and demanding that you be fired if you do not resign.

Things are not going well for you. You need to answer the questions. Was there a protective intelligence team and what technical resources were utilized for that event, specifically drone or helicopter assets?

There were a number of technical assets that were deployed for that event. And there was a protective intelligence team that was assigned to that event.

Why was Crooks able to fly a drone over the entire area the day of the rally and the day of his assassination attempt?

To my knowledge, he did not fly the drone over the entire area. How did he fly a drone over the area, period?

Any part of the area? Again, I would have to go back and check the timeline of when that took place and when the event.

Why didn't you bring the timeline with you today to answer our questions? I don't have all of the answers on the timelines based on the criminal investigation.

Were you not prepared today to answer our questions? I am prepared to answer the questions based on the information and wanted to be able to provide.

Do you have a timeline that you, do you have a timeline at all from any of the day? I have a timeline that does not have specifics.

That's shocking. That is absolutely unacceptable. That's bad.

I mean the whole point of a timeline is that there are details. She pulls out a piece of paper, it's a timeline, it's literally a line that goes across, something happened here,

I just don't know what. But I have a timeline, you see it? It's a line that goes from this to this, it's called a timeline.

It's like Doc Browd in Back to the Future, like past, future, alternative tangent.

But I don't know what took place in the middle there. And you know, you're talking about, this is like the director of secret service over a week after the attempted assassination.

She says she has a timeline, but no details. Again, that is either, in my mind, absolute incompetence and ignorance, or you're hiding something.

It's okay to be suspicious about that because someone in her position, someone in her position should never, ever do what she's doing right here.

And so this was an absolute face plant. I have a timeline, but I don't have any details.

Let's get some more. That means you are a failure at your job. Let's talk about things that are prohibited in Trump rallies, and I've been to a lot of Trump rallies, backpacks and bags, bicycles, firearms, any type of weapon or any other item determined to be a potential safety hazard, like a range finder would be one.

At 510, Crooks is first observed by one of the snipers, AGR Sniper 1, at the building.

510, 510, President shot, President Trump was shot in the face at 611 p .m.

528, AGR Sniper 1 takes a picture of a bicycle and two bags. Those belong to Crooks.

532, AGR Sniper 1 spots Crooks looking at his phone and using a range finder. 555,

Butler ESU Command confirms receipt of photos and states they have been relayed on.

605 p .m., AGR Sniper 1 later communicates that Crooks is seen moving northeast in direction of sheets and that Crooks has a backpack.

Two minutes before the shooting, while President Trump has been allowed to take the stage, people see

Crooks laying on his stomach in a sniper position on the roof, and they're yelling he has a gun, and they are trying to alert law enforcement and Secret Service.

Why was Crooks not shot by the snipers?

So it's compelling, I think all of us have to admit to this, that Green has more information that she's able to put on the table than the director of the

Secret Service. That's shameful. Of course she should have resigned, of course she should have resigned or obviously been fired.

Green has more information than she's willing to give right now in front of the American people, a person who is in the position that she's in, at the good graces of the taxpayers of the

United States of America. That's a serious, that's a serious failure. And so again, you guys, just if you do it on your own, go check out some of the hearing highlights with Cheadle, and it'll blow your mind.

I mean, they were using words like, you're stonewalling us, you know, you're being dishonest, and I'd agree with that.

I would agree with that assessment. If you watch enough of the hearing, you're like, wow, what were you thinking, walking into this hearing and being unwilling to say anything of any value, and also displaying such ignorance, or at least pretending ignorance like you are?

Well, the answers were also somewhat evasive on every count. Very much. There are a number of factors, but that wasn't the specific question that was asked also.

And obviously the absolutely just stupid thing that she said on ABC shortly after the assassination attempt where she said, you know, why wasn't somebody on that roof over there?

I mean, it's common. Anybody that had no experience in protecting a president would look around the area and say, well,

I guess we need someone probably on that water tower, the high ground, and also that building over there. Like that's a direct line of sight to the president.

I think you probably want to get guys over there. And you know, her response to like, why wasn't somebody over there, was like, there's a sloped roof and it presented a danger, you know, we had to be cautious with that.

It's like, well, your counter sniper was on a really sloped roof. And also that roof wasn't very sloped at all.

And people are just walking around on it up there. You see all the video and footage of people walking around up there after the assassination attempt.

And so it's just such bad answers, which of course lends credibility to when people are saying this seems like a conspiracy and something is definitely wrong here.

It lends at least suspicion. It's not wrong to be suspicious. Like right now I'm in a place where the evidence seems to be pointing to just pure incompetence and this kid was out of his mind, but he did this and he failed.

But I'm open. I'm open to new evidence and I'm very suspicious because there's a lot of details here that just lend credibility to suspicion and serious suspicion of this seems like there's more to the story.

And like if you show up to a congressional hearing after a subpoena and you're the director of the Secret Service and you will not give straight answers and you don't even know a timeline with details, something's really fishy.

Something's really fishy. But my point in saying all that is to say divine wisdom says essentially be careful with what you bite down on.

Wait until you hear the whole story. Wait until you hear all sides. Make sure you have all the evidence and witness because what comes out of my mouth in terms of the claims that I make,

I need to be sure they're true. But I'll tell you this, I'm definitely suspicious.

I'm definitely, definitely suspicious. Yeah. Why was he allowed to be there?

As soon as the individual was identified as a threat, they were. No, no, no, no, no, no.

She wasn't having it. No. Okay. I had to stop it there because Greene goes right into it and just blasts her for it.

As soon as the person was identified as a threat, they were taken out. You mean when they shot him? When he shot him?

That's when they go, oh, there's a threat. A bullet came out of the gun. It's like, okay, wait, wait a second.

How does that work? Like, does the secret service really have this standard of, you know, this guy's walking around with a range finder.

He's on a roof in a prone position with a rifle into the president. And they're like, I wonder if this is something I should deal with right now.

And it's like, it's like, no, I'm sorry. Everyone sees through this. It is absolutely crazy for you to think that the American people are going to believe that really shoddy answer that, you know, as soon as he's, he's seen as a threat, then they took him out.

It's like, no, that's not what happened. What happened was, is the guy shot at the president, like eight times, and then they, and then they took him out.

Then the counter sniper took him out. Thank God that they did, by the way. What do you consider to be a threat?

A man with a gun laying in a sniper position, a man that had a backpack, a man that had a bicycle, a man that had a range finder.

At what point is he determined a threat? An individual with a backpack is not a threat.

An individual with a range finder is not a threat. Um, contraire.

Um, an individual walking around an event all by his lonesome, looking through a range finder, right?

When your job is to protect an asset, the president, the president of the United States of America, don't all of us think that person is a potential threat?

Based on the instrument that they're carrying, what is the purpose for that instrument?

Yeah, you could say, I get it, like backpack, yeah, I mean, someone carries a backpack, you can't assume their guilt,

I get that. But if your job as Secret Service is to protect the life, preserve and protect the innocent life of the president at that point, and say, and that's my job,

I have to protect his life. And I see this guy over here with a range finder pointing it over, like you have to say, yeah, that's a threat.

That's a potential threat for sure. I mean, shouldn't we have that rule if we're Secret Service and we have an asset we have to protect, we gotta preserve and protect innocent human life according to God, and we see this dude walking around being real suspicious with a range finder, you would have to go, yeah, potential threat for sure.

We're gonna check this out right away. Yeah, not binoculars. You're not gonna be like, let's just chill and see what happens.

Yeah, let's let it unfold. Let's see how this all unfolds. Let's see what takes place here. That's not how things work. What about a man laying on a building that has direct line of sight of President Trump with a gun that people are screaming and pointing out?

Is that a threat, Ms. Cheadle? Once that individual was identified, they were neutralized.

No, they were neutralized. Crooks was neutralized after he shot President Trump in the face.

Yeah. This is the woman that they've put as the head of the

Secret Service? That kind of answer, right? That's not what took place.

It was when he got a shot off, actually, a lot of shots off.

Yeah, several. And here's what's devastating about this. The biblical principle, it's not atheism, it's not agnosticism, in the

Christian worldview, protect and preserve innocent human life.

That is a rule in scripture. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. And so that's what you have to do.

You ought to do that. You're morally required to do that. And in waiting for this kid to get a shot off, not only did it potentially lead to almost the loss of President Trump's life, but he actually killed somebody, somebody's dad.

He killed somebody's dad. And then other people were injured. And so it wasn't just the president who was affected by it, it's someone's whole family.

Their whole family is going to change forever now because of the loss of the father and the husband. And that is devastating.

And so the failure in protecting and preserving human life led to so many consequences that impacted a lot of people.

And so to give this kind of answer is absolutely a betrayal of her position. That's a good point about that.

The failure to protect and preserve innocent human life involves, the consequence of that is the taking of innocent human life.

In so many cases. I mean, that's one example, but I mean, you could multiply that ad nauseum.

Scripture is really clear. Ten commandments. You shall not kill. What is being referenced there is you should not murder.

That's the command. You should not murder. Because Moses right after that says, basically, if somebody does murder somebody, then you take their life.

And so there's no prohibition in scripture against killing other human beings.

Like you're just never allowed to do that. No, you absolutely have to do that. In the case of murder, in the cases of rape, in the cases of someone molesting a child or something like that, it's absolutely the death penalty.

Question of context. In what sphere are these things carried out? You definitely are given the requirement in God's law to kill those who would kill and take other innocent human life.

And so really the rule for the secret service there should have been like, this guy's prone. If they saw it, this guy's prone.

This guy's got a rifle. I have to protect and preserve not just my asset, the president, but also all the lives of everyone else here.

And so the rule in a Christian society, in a Christian worldview, is you kill that guy as quickly as you can.

As soon as you realize he's got a rifle, it's aimed this direction, he's not supposed to be there, take his life.

And that is something that is a God honoring thing to do. Had they done so, had they done so, they would have preserved the innocent lives of the people who were in the audience and the president wouldn't have been injured in the way that he was.

If we hold the Christian standards, Christian worldview, that's what should have taken place that day. So. Ms.

Cheadle, is he only a threat once he fires the weapon? As soon as the counter sniper identified that individual, they were able to neutralize them.

How were people in the crowd? Okay, then let's just take it this way. People under your command did not consider him to be a threat, yet people in the crowd knew he had a gun and considered him to be a threat.

That means that you are a complete failure as the director of the

Secret Service, that people under your command don't perceive a man laying on a roof with direct line to the president with a gun.

They don't perceive that to be a threat, yet the people in the crowd do. How is that possible?

That's the last question, but please answer the question, Ms. Director. I'm not certain at this time how the information from the people in the crowd was relayed to any law enforcement personnel.

No, you knew that everyone knew. The people there knew that there was a danger.

They knew there was a threat to President Trump and it was allowed to happen. Was there a stand down order,

Ms. Cheadle? Was there a conspiracy to kill President Trump? Absolutely not. Then how did this happen?

And why are you still sitting here not turning in your letter of resignation? Last question, but please.

Good questions. I mean, yeah, I think you're allowed to entertain some suspicion when you hear her respond that way to say, was there a stand down order?

Like if everybody else in the crowd is around this guy, is seeing this guy crawling on the roof with a rifle, they're yelling over to law enforcement.

Are you really that incompetent? Is the law enforcement and the Secret Service really that incompetent? They couldn't get a message quickly.

People are screaming at law enforcement. There's a man on the roof with a rifle. I mean, it seems like, and again, you've got to find out what the witnesses say.

It seems like that the counter snipers saw him, saw him on that roof. And so that's why she asked the question, because it's all right to entertain that suspicion.

Ask the question, was there a stand down order? Like you saw the kid on the roof with a rifle. Did you give a stand down order?

Because everybody else saw him. So why wasn't he shot? And then of course, you know, entertaining the suspicion of, you know, was this an inside job sort of a thing?

And it's appropriate to ask the questions. I mean, my point is, is you can't bite down yet until there's all the evidence that you need.

But you know, it's her fault that now people are entertaining these suspicions because this doesn't even seem like it makes sense.

I mean, the average person watching right now in the thread who has no law enforcement experience, no military experience, no tactical training, none of those sorts of things would say,

I'd have done a better job. I'd have done a much better job. And yeah.

Yeah. I mean, if they had identified him so -called, I mean, on top of that too, there just seemed to be, if it's not intentional, this is not part of a conspiracy where they were trying to get former

President Trump killed as she's trying to flesh out there. Was there just an utter lack of decisiveness?

Like an inability to process the information, receive, you know, the feedback from the witnesses on the ground there, and then act, like make a decision to act in time in order to neutralize the threat?

How do you account for such a blunder? Right. And one of the things that Bill Rapier, the

Navy SEAL who was with us last week on the episode, as we examined some of the attempted assassination footage, he made the point, like, you know, that should maybe take 10 seconds, 10, 15 seconds to call out up the chain of command.

Right. And so the Secret Service is connected to local law enforcement. There should have absolutely been some connection point where as soon as the crowd is saying, man with a gun on the roof, he's right there.

Local law enforcement hears it. They make the call to the next step. Hey, there's a guy on the roof with a rifle aimed at the president.

Instantly, Secret Service goes, get off the stage. Are we going to say it's an equipment failure with the radio transmission?

Like the best technology at their disposal, like all the tools to go along with the job that they're commissioned to perform?

Well, and it's one of the things that also just raises more suspicion. It doesn't prove anything.

It doesn't prove anything. It just raises suspicion. One of the congressmen asks

Cheadle, do you have recordings of the radio communications when you do these events?

Now, I would think in this day and age with the technology that we have, that would be something that's just no question. Why are you asking me that question?

It makes no sense. Of course, we have the technology to record these things. We record every event.

We've got an audio file of every event and all the communications because that's the responsible thing to do.

You shouldn't even have to ask the question of the Secret Service, do you have a recording of all the communications that took place during that day?

That's something that should be happening without question. Every event, they have an audio file storage. And she should have had it for the hearing.

She should have had it for the hearing that everybody could have examined for themselves. And so it raises suspicion because this congressman asks her, do you have an audio recording and communications of that day?

And she said, well, we have recordings of emails. We have recordings of text messages. And yeah, we do record the transmissions and the interactions at these events.

And then he said, he's like, oh, goody, he says, do you have the audio recording of that day? And she goes, no.

Yeah. Why not? Which raises a lot of suspicion. Yeah. The question is, I mean, who's being protected here?

Which gets us back to the biblical admonition too, to warn bribery or avoid bribery. Yeah. Right.

Because it perverts just like, who are we protecting here? Who has given you incentive to make sure that justice is not reached?

Well, that's a good point. That's a very good point in terms of bribery. Who are we protecting? What special interest group are we protecting?

What person in authority are we protecting? What personnel that day? Who are you protecting that day? Are you trying to protect somebody?

Are you trying to save face in some way? Who has given you financial incentive or positional incentive or some type of ability to receive recognition or praise?

Like what? Who's the favorite face here? Right. What dynamic is taking place to get you to not give us all the evidence to review?

To protect this person that you are, I get, showing partiality in favor of?

Right. So you're telling us that you do record the communications at these events. You keep a record of them.

But oddly, the day of the attempted assassination, oops, what, you just didn't hit the record button that day?

Like it's your standard procedure to keep a record of those things, but you didn't do it on the day of the attempted assassination?

Everyone says, as the kids say today, that's a bit sus. A bit sus. Definitely. Here's some more.

This one's a good one too. And Director Cheadle, the American people are watching and they're wondering if there are any questions you can answer honestly today.

So, Director Cheadle, I have a series of questions, very specific questions. I want very specific answers.

Most of my questions are going to demand a yes or no answer. Do you understand? I do. Okay. My first question.

Both sides of the ... Well, okay. This is dangerous because if someone pits you in a yes or no question, they are completely in control and you're at their disposal to answer how they want you to.

It's not always fair to ask a simple yes or no question.

It's not always fair. There's some contexts where it is fair and others where it's not fair.

Like for example, everyone knows the famous one. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?

Right. And it's like, I don't beat my wife. I never have. That's not what I asked you. It just allows you to frame the whole thing.

Okay. Yes. Yes. I don't do that. Yes, I've stopped. Okay. So you were beating her before. It's like, no, I haven't.

No, I never was. Let me fill this out a little more. I've never put a hand on my wife before. Were you discriminating against this person because they were black or a woman?

Which one? Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Not fair. Neither. Not fair. So to be fair, look.

Equal weights. Equal weights. As much as Cheadle just face planted and there's so much suspicious stuff here and it's just deplorable what she did and she shows abject ignorance and incompetence.

Let's be fair to an image bearer of God. When somebody challenges with you answer me yes or no, it's like, that's not always just nor is it even logical.

And so to be fair to Cheadle, I wouldn't let someone pin me down like that in something like this.

I would say, let's be logical here and let's make sure we have context involved here. You can't simply ask, and I would even throw it out there.

If somebody said, have you stopped beating your wife today? Yes or no? I've never beat her.

I don't have a yes or no answer to that. It's never happened before. So you can't put me in a corner like that. That's not a fair way to treat a witness.

They probably felt that they needed to given her evasive answers up to this point. This is on the back end of this.

I'll today have asked for your resignation. Would you like to use my five minutes to draft your resignation letter?

Yes or no? No thank you. Was this a colossal failure?

It was a failure. Yes or no? Was it a colossal failure is the question. Yes or no?

I have admitted this is a terror. This is a yes or no series of questions. Was this a colossal failure? Yes or no?

Yes. Was this tragedy preventable? Yes or no? Yes.

Has the Secret Service been transparent with this committee? Yes. Would you say the fact that we had to issue a subpoena to get you to show up today as being transparent, yes or no?

I have always been eager to come and talk to the committee. Yes or no? You didn't want to answer the question. We had to issue a subpoena to get you to show up today.

That is not transparent by the way. You stated earlier Secret Service is not political.

Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Would you say leaking your opening statement to Punchbowl News, Politico's playbook and Washington Post several hours before you sent it to this committee as being political?

Yes or no? I have no idea how my statement got out. Well, that's bullshit.

So Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record articles by Punchbowl News, Politico's playbook,

Washington Post, all done at 5 .24 a .m., 6 .12 a .m., 6 .34

a .m. A solid three to four hours before this committee got your statement.

Without objection to order. Okay. Is the Secret Service fully cooperating with our committee?

Yes. Okay. You say you're fully cooperating with this committee. On July 15th, this committee sent you a list of demands of information that we wanted.

Has the Secret Service provided this committee a complete list of all law enforcement personnel that were there that day?

Have you done that? Have you provided a list to the oversight committee? Yes or no? I'll have to get back to you on that. That is a...

If you or I got a subpoena from the United States Congress, that we want all the names of everyone who was there, would you show up without it?

Yeah. I'll have to get back to you on that. Did she... Is she just... Is there just like a...

Honestly, this week... You can email it to me later. It's fine. Right. It almost is like... Do you really have the gall, the nerve, just do you have just a fearlessness of the

United States government where you think you could just walk most of yourself on into there? Suddenly. Be like, now

I know you all asked for this with a legal subpoena, but I didn't come prepared for any of it. I don't even know if we have it to give to you.

Would any of us actually behave in that way? No. Especially if we're getting paid the big bucks like the director of the

Secret Service. Well, that's the thing they keep appealing to is the people are calling for this because the people, their tax money pays for your way of life.

And so if it were to be found out that this is what we're assuming it to be, then there's a lot of uproar.

What I think it represents in our government today, I think many of you would agree with me on this.

It represents in our government today that government officials today have a very abominable perspective of their position.

They have forgotten that this is a constitutional republic and that they have the position that they have because of the good graces of the

American citizens. And I think when you see something like this in terms of a person who is the head of a major organization that is very important, by the way, protecting the president of the

United States of America is a very important organization to have, that needs to be very good. When a person who's in that position is just careless and like,

I don't have to, I don't have to answer, I don't have to do anything. It just shows sort of the mindset of the modern government officials is they don't really believe there's any accountability to the

American people. And you see that across a broad spectrum or stream of government officials, whether it's the

FBI, the CIA, Secret Service, whether you see, you could even see it in Congress.

You can see it in the House and the Senate. You can see it in the presidency. You see it in all of that. They don't really believe that they have, many of them don't believe they have a responsibility to the

American people, that they're not really accountable. There's no fear of the American people. Like I'm not really here to represent you and at your good graces.

I'm here because I'm the boss. I'm here because how good I am at this. And I don't really need to answer to anybody.

And that is just not a Christian way of thinking. I think in a perfect Christian world, a Christianized world, people would recognize their responsibility to their neighbor.

And this is a failure of responsibility to neighbor. That's what it represents. No. Have you provided all audio and video recordings in your possession to this committee as we asked on July 15th, yes or no?

I would have to get back to you. That is a no. You're full of shit today. You're just being completely dishonest.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I want to, we have to maintain decorum in this committee no matter how upset we get.

Have you provided any and all memos to this committee that we've asked you on July 15th? Have you provided all memorandums within the

Secret Service? I would have to get back to you on that. That is a no. You are being dishonest or lying.

You're being dishonest here with this committee. These are important questions that the American people want answers to.

And you're just, you're just dodging and talking around it in generalities. And we had to subpoena you to be here and you won't even answer the questions.

We've asked you repeatedly to answer our questions. This isn't hard. These are not hard questions.

Have you provided us all communications from the Secret Service related to that day and that rally? Have you provided this committee?

We've asked for this information on July 15th. Have you provided any of this information that this committee has asked of the

Secret Service? Any of it? I'll have to get back to you on that. Have you even read this letter that we sent you?

Did you even read this? Yes. Okay. And you have said you don't know.

You have no idea. So that's telling, obviously, in terms of responsibility.

She admits, it's her own testimony, it's her own voice. Have you even read this? We requested all these things.

Did you even read this? This is your responsibility now. You're responsible to the American people. You were subpoenaed. This is

Congress. This is a government issue. Have you read this? And she says, yes. But what's that mean?

Yes, I read it, but I just didn't care to show up with the answers. I didn't care to give it to you.

And that is pure incompetence, and a person like that absolutely must lose their job. You have to, because that's just absolute incompetence.

And no respect for the American people. That's the issue. The answer is no. We haven't gotten a single document or piece of information or data from you or your agency in related to the rally that we have asked you for.

So, was this attempted assassination of Donald Trump a failure of training or execution or both?

I think that those are answers that we need to examine. Training, execution, or both? Which one? I think those are answers.

All right. How many Secret Service personnel have lost their jobs due to this colossal failure?

At this time, none. None. How many Secret Service personnel have been required to take a refresher course on how not to let people shoot

Donald Trump? Our personnel are currently operational. We are examining the facts of this investigation, and we will make the changes necessary.

What time did law enforcement become aware that there was an individual on the roof with a clear line of sight to President Trump? I am still verifying timelines.

Oh, that's bad. Like, of all things, in this whole cross -examination here, that's got to be one of the worst right there.

At what time did they get knowledge that there was this guy? I'm still examining, trying to figure it out.

Wouldn't that be one of the very first things you figure out is like, all right, the head of the Secret Service should know these questions and answers.

They should know them. Like, absolutely. I got this for you. And I will say, if you guys get a chance, there's so much footage, guys.

We're talking about like days long hearings and footage. The second day where Congress was able to talk to Pennsylvania law enforcement was much better, and it was refreshing to actually get answers and detailed answers, and they still raised a lot of questions.

And then the next day, talking to the FBI and their investigation was also very interesting on a number of levels.

I think that the FBI representative there was excited to talk about even other things that he needed the

American people to know about in terms of terrorists crossing the border and those sorts of things. It was actually very interesting to hear his testimony.

It looked like he just needed to use that time to make sure the American people knew that there was a danger in this nation about what's happening at the border, terrorists who were inside, and all that stuff.

It looked like he was just thrilled to be able to finally get this in front of the American people. So those are much better, and you just got a lot more information.

But this is just crazy. It is just off the chain crazy that she doesn't have an answer to one of the most important questions that you think that all of us would have sort of right there in front of us.

Like here's when we knew he was there. Here's the details. Here's who saw him. Here's what time and all the rest.

And this is over a week later, and she doesn't know raises suspicion without question, definitely raises suspicion.

So we've been going for a while here, haven't we? Yeah, we have. Okay. All right, guys. So I hope that was a blessing to you.

We thought it'd be a good idea to engage in this large cultural conversation in a way that many people aren't in terms of responding to it from a

Christian worldview. What is the law of God regarding this issue? What does the law of God say?

What are principles of wisdom? How should we actually receive accusations, believe things, spread reports?

That's very important, because we don't want to be found to be spreading false reports. And I hope you guys heard my heart in this is that I want to make sure that if I make a claim,

I can back it up and I can prove it because Christians need to have the highest standards. We need to have the reputation as the ones who have the most rigorous standards when it comes to truth and accusations and making claims.

People should know that if I come to the Christian church and I deal with Christians on any issue, Christians are going to have tight lips, very tight lips in regard to making accusations or making claims.

And if the Christians are opening their mouths about something, it's because they've got a reason to do so, and they've got a lot of proof.

Circumstantial evidence and suspicion is not proof, right? Proof is on a very different level in terms of being able to make an accusation with a claim and proof.

And so that's what we wanted to do today is engage this from a Christian perspective. I hope it was a blessing to everybody. I wanted to point everybody to a couple things before we sign off here, and that is go to apologiastudios .com,

go to the store. There is so much there. You've got all kinds of gear and t -shirts and tracks that are just some, just,

I love these tracks. I know there are tracks, but there's some of the best. Tracks you can hand out, gospel tracks, gospel for Mormons, if you want to do outreach and evangelism to the

Latter -day Saints, there's stuff here you can use at the abortion mill to plead with mothers and fathers not to kill their babies at the abortion mill.

And I wanted to end this. Please listen to this. Very, very important. We're going to start unveiling a lot more in the coming weeks about what's been going on in the state of Arizona with the ballot measure.

If you guys aren't aware, ballot measures are taking place across the nation right now, and this more than likely affects you, some of you, many of you right now.

Last I heard is 14 states with ballot measures happening right now across the country. And if you're like, what's a ballot measure?

The ballot measures that are happening across the country right now are essentially to alter the state constitution of these various states and make abortion rights something that is a constitutional right according to the state.

And those abortion rights are not like they were before. It is from fertilization all the way through essentially nine months of pregnancy.

And what I've said is, is we are about to enter into the bloodiest and most brutal part of this

Holocaust that we've been experiencing for decades. And so in Arizona, we had a ballot measure happening.

They got all the signatures that they needed. We are challenging that. We are working alongside

Arizona Right to Life right now, End Abortion Now, Arizona Right to Life, and Red State Reform are all working together right now to challenge the ballot measure here in the state of Arizona.

We're working very, very hard around the clock. And I can't give you all the details, but let's just say we need you to pray because there are some really, really good things happening so we can challenge the ballot measure and ultimately kill it and not the children.

And we want to be able to hopefully have victory in this area and then pass on to other states what we did alongside

Arizona Right to Life to essentially decertify this thing and to make sure it doesn't pass or get on the ballot.

And so what we need from you right now is your prayers, because we have Apologia Church is working around the clock.

Praise the Lord for the members of Apologia Church working around the clock so sacrificially to make sure we preserve these children's lives and we end this ballot measure.

Please be in prayer for Apologia Church. Be in prayer, if you would, for End Abortion Now and the work that we have to do continuing throughout the year, especially even now with this responsibility to be able to teach other churches, pastors, organizations, and other states how to defeat the ballot measure.

We've got some stuff in place to do that. And so if you would, please, please, please, please, please give at endabortionnow .com.

We're not only training churches to go save lives at the abortion mill, we're not only getting bills of abolition put in across the union, but now we're actually working on being able to defeat these ballot measures, which is the newest tactic of the left.

And it's already been successful in one state, the state of Ohio, and you better believe that if they keep this up, it's going to be successful in other states as well.

And so we need you to stand with us. We are just a church. EndAbortionNow is a ministry of Apologia Church.

We're not a major, major organization with millions and millions and millions of dollars of funding. We are fighting these battles with peanuts on the dollar compared to what the pro -life industry has in their pocket.

And God is allowing us to have a lot of success with those peanuts. But we need a lot of help financially.

We need your prayers. We need financial help. And so if you believe at all in this ministry and you want to be a part of it, what you can do right now is pray and give financially, because believe you me, we need it.

We didn't see the ballot measure coming and the costs associated with defeating it. We didn't have that budget at the beginning of the year, but we have to fight this fight.

We got to do it for the benefit of the children of Arizona and across our union. And so we've already been giving towards this effort to kill the ballot measure.

It's a budget we had not been prepared for, because again, we didn't know all this was going on like this and we were going to be a part of it, that the

Lord was going to have us be a part of it. And so we need you to help us, stand with us financially, give all that you can give to help us with this fight, because so much is hanging.

So many lives are hanging in the balance with this. Also, I wanted to announce something. Let's see if I can make sure

I give you all the details correctly here. I'm going to be in Cincinnati, Ohio next month in August, August the 20th,

August the 20th. I'm going to be in Cincinnati, Ohio, and let's see here.

I'll make sure I give you the right time. Right now, I think we're looking at about a 6 p .m. start time, and let's see here.

I'm going to be at Christ the King Church. It's at 333 Warner Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45219,

August the 20th, Cincinnati, Ohio. Right now, preliminarily 6 p .m. We're going to have a landing page up soon.

I'm going to put it across my social media platform, Apologia Studios platform, so pastors and leaders in Ohio, across the state of Ohio, can come and join me in Ohio, Cincinnati.

I can make sure I tell you what's going on there. We have brothers and sisters on the ground that have been working very, very hard.

We have a representative in Ohio that is going to be putting a bill of equal protection and abolition into the state of Ohio, and so we need to get all the pastors and churches in Ohio together, unified together, all of us, to make sure that we provide the support that we need to this representative in the state of Ohio.

So that's next on the list, August the 20th, Cincinnati, Ohio, Christ the

King Church, 333 Warner Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45219. Again, right now, preliminarily about 6 p .m.

start time, and I hope to see you there. If you're a pastor or a leader in the state of Ohio, we need you there, because we're going to join together as a group, as a community and a network to make sure we're working together to make sure that we can abolish abortion in the state of Ohio.

That is Zachary Conover. Later, guys. Director of End Abortion, Director of Communications, End Abortion Now. I'm the