John Iadarola EXPOSES MAGA’s Jan 6 Lies — The Question Nobody’s Asking

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]Um, it's not actually a settlement, it's not actually for 1.8 billion dollars.

[00:00:04]There's going to be effectively no oversight whatsoever. Even if there is an audit, then uh Todd Blanche can He appoints the person who does the audit.

[00:00:11]He can uh veto the audit if he wants to.

[00:00:13]This is one of the most transparent and corrupt acts that I've seen. And in this presidency, that's actually a difficult standard. You're shaking your head.

[00:00:19]Well, that that's I that's not correct.

[00:00:22]>> John Iadarola was a guest on Kaitlan Collins' CNN show with Alex Michelson filling in. He went head-to-head with far-right commentator Katie Zaxarias.

[00:00:33]Let's dive into the highlights of their debate and what it reveals.

[00:00:36]>> I'm bringing my political sources, Conservative legal and political strategist Katie Zaxarias on the right and host of The Damage Report on The Young Turks Network, John Iadarola on the left. Great to see both of you.

[00:00:46]Welcome. Um, John, is this good way uh good strategy for Democrats the idea of impeachment?

[00:00:51]>> I agree with Josh that it should be aired out in public. Uh and it is possible that this is the sort of thing, especially involving the J6ers, that could potentially break through. Uh and and I think it's wildly unconstitutional legal. As a patriotic American, it makes me sick that they would do this. That said, there's an opportunity cost to focusing on this over some issues that are already proven to be dragging on Donald Trump's numbers, the war in Iran, gas prices, the Epstein scandal. Like, if you are focusing on this, you're not focusing on those things. There's a chance that this could break through or it could be one of those things that to us is super relevant, but could be a little bit abstract to regular people.

[00:01:20]Your thoughts? Well, I take first issue with the GOP senators and Senator Cruz.

[00:01:24]I I would have loved to see that outrage to Merrick Garland during the Biden era when MAGA's go-to defense? Yeah, but what about Biden?

[00:01:33]No level of corruption or wrongdoing by Trump ever seems to matter. Katie Zaxarias consistently deflects, protecting Trump at all costs.

[00:01:43]>> Um, and I I I saw none of that outrage or or or pulling >> Well, they weren't big fans of Merrick Garland, were they?

[00:01:48]>> But but they [laughter] weren't you know, torching him like they said they were to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Look, there is precedent.

[00:01:54]Obama had a precedent. It's called Keep Six. It was a $760 million fund and it was people who had grievances against the federal government. President Trump and his family are not receiving any money from this. They are they have put their hands up. This is for other people >> Who honestly believes Trump and his family won't profit personally from these deals? Outside MAGA, it's clear there's minimal oversight, leaving the system open to abuse and self-interest.

[00:02:19]>> and there are many already that have stepped up to the plate. This isn't a payout to his family as as he said this is a payout to people who have been wet that their justice system has been weaponized against them.

[00:02:30]>> that folks involved with January 6th deserve a payout from the federal government?

[00:02:34]>> were targeted and I think there was a delineation on violent offenders and people that were targeted just for being at the Capitol. There are people that were there that were not violent, that were targeted, their businesses were targeted and then they either were imprisoned or fined and I think they had a hard time getting out from under that.

[00:02:48]They should be able to receive compensation if there wasn't due process on were you violent, how did you participate in this? Now, if you were violent and you you know, did something at the Capitol that needs evaluation, sure, but this is a huge difference and they're taking one small group of people and casting a big net around everyone and I think that really undermines the fact that there was a weaponized judicial system under Biden and it needs to be addressed.

[00:03:09]>> a good use of $2 billion of taxpayer money? It's better than more ballrooms, I suppose, but no, no, it's a terrible use. And people keep throwing the $2 billion around. There's nothing in the document that says it's limited to $1.8 billion. It could be whatever they want it to be and they could change their mind over time. There's a lot that's being colloquially thrown around that is doesn't actually bear out in the document. Um, it's not actually a settlement, it's not actually for $1.8 billion. There's going to be effectively no oversight whatsoever. Even if there is an audit, then uh, Todd Blanche can he appoints the person who does the audit, he can veto the audit if he wants to. This is one of the most transparent and corrupt acts that I've seen and in this presidency that's actually a difficult standard. You're shaking your head.

[00:03:43]>> Well, that's that's not correct. There are five people that review the cases. The president can yes, that he can fire them, but they have to be hired the same way.

[00:03:51]>> Will people of integrity run these boards? Unlikely.

[00:03:55]With Trump loyalists and possibly family at the helm, corruption compounds.

[00:04:02]This isn't politics as usual. It's systemic self-dealing.

[00:04:07]>> And there's a lot of oversight going on in this and it's not 2 billion, it's not 1.8 billion. It is a restricted fund, it's 1.776 billion.

[00:04:14]>> isn't an actual document. That's just a thing they've said.

[00:04:17]>> and any funds after 2028 that are not used will be reverted back to the federal government, unlike Biden's term where 300 million went to NGOs that didn't even apply for their grievances.

[00:04:27]So, this is there is a big difference and there will be oversight and I think acting attorney John General Todd Blanched will make sure of that.

[00:04:34]>> Another big story that seems to be breaking tonight is the war with Iran and this debate that seems to be happening within the president's cabinet of whether to move forward with more military action. We have seen that this military action has been deeply unpopular for the American public. Do you think it potentially is worth it to start up the war with Iran again? Well, I look, we have no visibility on the documents and the see you know that that he's able to see to make these types of decisions. If you're reading the tea leaves, he's spoken with all of the world, you know, the leaders in the surrounding region and Saudi, UAE, uh Qatar. What I what I'm really noticing is this restriction on the Taiwan weapon deal and what kind of pressure China's going to put on Iran here. Now, what that says to me is he's looking for avenues to put pressure on Iran rather than engage in further war. And and if you have these surrounding countries that are able to help do that and leverage this, I think we can arrive somewhere. Now, is it a good idea? I I can't definitively answer that because the president has >> think the war is going well? Uh look, the president is is dealing with a regime that wants to build a nuclear weapon and I think we can all agree the world will not be safer if Iran has a nuclear weapon. Is it unpopular? Yes, but sometimes doing the hard thing is very unpopular. John. Yeah, I think it's wildly unpopular. I think both of the way that it's been persecuted, the way that it was messaged around and also that it directly contradicts basically everything that Donald Trump was saying when he campaigned. I think that's why not just people are frustrated, but particularly independents who crossed over to Trump in 2024 and plenty of Republicans, especially younger Republicans, that absolutely despise this war. I think that Donald Trump should find some way to wind it down. I think that if blowing Iran up was going to solve the problem, it would have solved the problem the last times that we decimated them and sent all their ships to the bottom of the sea. We've done this before. It didn't get them to fold. And then maybe he'll make a case for how this is going to be different, but I haven't heard anything. I don't expect it.

[00:06:13]>> you think this is going to be different?

[00:06:14]>> Well, I want to highlight that President Trump in his first term had sanctioned Iran and he pulled out of the nuclear deal and and he was able to really pull back and Hezbollah was defeated, Hamas was running out of money and we didn't have and then October 7th happens when Biden resends all of these programs, all of the sanctions that President Trump had. So, here we are four, five years later having to fix problems that President Trump was on the path to fixing. So, yes, ex post facto, it's not fun to have to go in and say, "Look, you can't build a nuclear weapon." We were on the way to doing that. Biden didn't continue that. So, I think it's absolutely necessary for President Trump to continue to say what he did say, which is you may not have a nuclear weapon.

[00:06:48]>> Last sentence to you, is this Biden's fault? Uh, why not? [laughter] Sure. I wasn't a huge fan of Biden, put that on him. Okay, there we go. I guess we found something you guys agreed on. John, Katie, great to see both of you. Have a great weekend. We appreciate it. Up next, I sat John Eedula smartly flipped the what about Biden line while highlighting the need for real accountability.

[00:07:07]His insights stress the importance of investigations over childish spin and propaganda.