Are we seeing the revitalization of conservative civilization, all over the world has been a massive backlash against globalization, its leftist leadership, and its anti-cultural liberal values, and it's just the beginning.

I'm Dr. Steve Turley. I believe the liberal globalist world is at its brink and a new conservative age is rising.

Join me every day as we examine these worldwide trends, discover answers to today's toughest challenges, and together learn to live in the present in light of even better things to come.

This is Turley Talks.

Hey gang, it's me, Dr. Steve, and I came across a fascinating piece in the Washington Post entitled Why the Trump J6 indictment will fail. It was written by Hugh Hewitt, the conservative commentator and radio host.

Hughitt unfortunately faithfully represents the pathetic post-World War II conservatism that ultimately gave us rhinos and neocons.

It's basically a secular liberal version of conservatism. There's certainly far more rational and of sound mind than what passes as leftism today.

But there are always just a few years behind the left. Whatever the political left advocates today, particularly in terms of the culture wars, post-World War II conservatives like Hughitt will advocate in 10 years.

So they're just behind the times. Hughitt has a pretty good article nevertheless here on why he believes the J6 indictment will ultimately fail.

And he's putting forward an argument that others like my namesake Jonathan Turley are advocating as well that in the end Jack Smith really just doesn't have a case here.

And that's because when all is said and done Smith is trying to indict Trump for knowingly lying.

Now again, even the ultra-leftists of the Washington Post are admitting this that this case comes down to whether President Trump knowingly lied about election fraud, that he knowingly and intentionally misled the public about what he knew was not true.

And the question is how do you even remotely prove this? Well, according to Jack Smith's indictment, there are a couple of ways of proving this.

First, the indictment claims that Trump knew that what he was saying about election fraud was a lie because I kid you not, this is in the indictment because he was told that there was no widespread fraud by the Department of Homeland Security's cyber security and infrastructure security agency.

Now the reason why that's so ridiculous and the reason why it's such a horrible cell phone is that we now know that thanks to the Twitter files that that very agency, the cyber security and infrastructure agency, that agency directly interfered in the 2020 election by censoring Americans.

I mean, you can't make this stuff up, this nut of a prosecutor cited as his evidence that Trump knew there were no shenanigans, a department that the Twitter files revealed to be engaged in the very shenanigans Trump talked about.

But secondly, Smith said he tried to use Trump's own words against him that Trump knew he was lying.

The indictment mentions Trump telling General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others back on January 3rd, so this is after the election, of course, right before J6, that Trump would leave the decision regarding a particular national security issue to the next president, the new president, the incoming president.

So Jack Smith, I kid you not, is making the obviously forced argument that Trump there was admitting that he knew he lost the election.

And thus the supposed admission supposedly proves his knowingly false claims about it were attempted to defraud the citizenry.

I can't believe anyone is taking such fallacious, non-sequitur argumentation seriously and again, it tells me that these are the people who are actually actively defrauding the country.

Hewitt himself recognizes that such a conversation is utterly, totally, completely irrelevant to the questions to whether there was election fraud.

...