Speaker 1: I want to begin with where people have seen you most recently. In your latest statement today, you talked about what happened. You don't like what happened, especially to police officers. But you called the prosecution, for yourself and so many others, a miscarriage. Do you see what you have done as anything wrong? Yes.

Speaker 2: I don't see as what I have done anything wrong. I was improperly indicted. I do see it as a miscarriage of justice. And I think, like I said before, I can't condone assaults on a police officer. But I think President Trump said it right. He was going to go case by case. And he did. And it wasn't the actions that he pardoned. It was the miscarriage of justice that he pardoned, why he pardoned.

Speaker 1: Isn't that one and the same in the end, though?

Speaker 2: No, it's not. Because the process has to be fair, right? If the process isn't fair, then the process is corrupt. If the process is corrupt, therefore, the only solution to this is a pardon.

Speaker 1: What part of the process do you feel was unfair to you?

Speaker 2: I think starting with the biggest one, because I don't think we have enough time on this show for me to talk about all those things. But I think the biggest problem that we had is the jury pool. It wasn't fair not only to the J6ers, but it's also unfair to those jurors to be seated. An example in my case, the judge asked, it was simple, a simple question, how do you feel about the Proud Boys and Enrique Tarrio? And they said a whole array of things. They said white supremacists, Nazis, all sorts of things.

Speaker 1: But Enrique, assuming it is as it's supposed to be when you have a jury, when you have the voir dire process, and they are instructed to follow the evidence, part of the evidence that was presented included text messages from you, correspondence as well. Do you think that those same pieces of evidence where you seem to condone and encourage, do you think, and by the way, part of those messages include things like, you're proud of my boys and my country, don't effing leave, make no mistake, we did this, how would that have been different in any other part of the country or a juror?

Speaker 2: Those statements, those statements were made publicly on my public parlor. They weren't made privately, and they were made after the fact. Did I celebrate the situation that was happening at the Capitol as I saw it at that very moment when I posted it? Absolutely. I think a lot of America celebrated what happened at the Capitol. Whether they like it, whether some people like those statements or not, I mean, that's just reality and it's a fact.

Speaker 1: A lot of people condemned it as well.

Speaker 2: I wholeheartedly agree, and they have the rights to their opinion, and I'll defend their rights to say that just as I defend the rights of anybody's opinion on what happened on January 6th. And I don't think it was a revision of history. I'm sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 1: No, I want you to finish your point, but I just remember your sentencing. You called it a national embarrassment. You spoke about how you felt about, you apologized to police officers and lawmakers who fled in fear that day. One of the things you said was, I am extremely ashamed and disappointed that they were caused grief and suffering, and I will have to live with that shame and disappointment for the rest of my life. I thought of myself morally above others, and this trial has humbled me and showed me how wrong I truly was to believe that. So sitting here today, do you no longer believe those statements?

Speaker 2: I want to be clear. When I say I am sorry or I apologize to those officers that were assaulted and those members of Congress that were scared, I want to be clear. I said I'm sorry for it, but then I said, but it wasn't because of me. It wasn't because of my actions that that occurred. It's just me being sorry for what happened that day, and I truly was. So I do stand by those statements.

Speaker 1: You know, I am curious why you celebrated the actions that day. What did you believe was happening? And did you believe that members of your organization were involved in the violence?

Speaker 2: As of right now that I can think of, no Proud Boys were convicted of, like, direct assault on a police officer. They walked in and they walked out.

Speaker 1: Well, you know, you say they walked in and walked out. Dominic Pozzola, who's a member of your group, as I understand it, smashed open a window. He allowed riders to enter the Capitol, quote, robbed a Capitol Police officer of his riot shield. That's not just walking in and out. And the reason I understand that you are saying that you were innocent of the charges that you were indicted of, it's being very dismissive of what has been alleged and what we've seen, don't you think?

Speaker 2: Well, here's another thing in my case with Dominic Pozzola. And Dominic Pozzola could probably talk to you about his actions that day, but they brought, they superseded the indictment and they brought Dominic Pozzola in because they didn't have enough on Ethan Nordin, myself, Joe Biggs, and Zachary Real. He was actually, what the DOJ did with him is they paraded him from different indictments as time progressed in order to muddy the waters for the situation of other defendants also.

Speaker 1: But he was violent that day, whether he was part of it, superseding the indictment. I wonder, you have been known as the leader of the Proud Boys. I know in recent statements you have said that the media should no longer refer to you as the ex-leader and that you're not providing, as of four years ago, information on the structure of the Proud Boys. But assuming you are viewed as the leader of the Proud Boys, do you take any responsibility for how members of the organization conducted themselves?

Speaker 2: I can't take responsibility for something that I didn't do.

Speaker 1: So you take issue with the prosecutors even presenting evidence that you encouraged those members, that you weren't hands-off?

Speaker 2: I didn't really know what was going on, but I did see. And to me, what I really thought was, you know, some Trump supporters took a Capitol tour and went wild. I didn't know that somebody had broken into the building.

Speaker 1: You really didn't think that that had happened, Enrique? I mean, it strains credulity for me. I mean, given that you had this, I think it was called the Ministry of Self-Defense, people looked at you and the trial proceeded. And again, I understand that you have been pardoned, and the case has been prosecuted and has been convicted. But I want to stay on this point. You really didn't know that there was an extent of the violence that took place as you were celebrating or watching it? You had no part in the plan?

Speaker 2: At the very moment, the scenes that you're showing right now, at that very moment, that's not what I tuned into.

Speaker 1: But at the very least, you knew it wasn't a tour of some Trump supporters in the Capitol, right? Honest about that.

Speaker 2: I would wholeheartedly agree that it definitely wasn't a tour.

Speaker 1: I was really curious, Enrique, when I heard you talk about, after getting out of prison, that you wanted retribution. Against who? How would you get it?

Speaker 2: So let's talk about what retribution is, because I did, in most interviews, I did clear up what I meant by retribution. I meant investigations. So they need to be investigated. And if they did everything correct and they did everything by the book, there shouldn't be anything for them to worry about.

Speaker 1: Who is the they?

Speaker 2: There shouldn't be—and here I want to be unequivocally clear that by no means am I asking for violent retribution to anybody. I don't condone any violence towards any elected official. Actually, I don't condone violence to any human being. But I do think that it needs to be—the process needs to be investigated.

Speaker 1: And so who would you be investigating, the prosecutors, the attorney general? What does that look like?

Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not in the legal field, but I think we should start from the top to the bottom. I think we should start with Merrick Garland, move our way down to Matthew Graves, and specifically in most of these J6 cases, some of the lead prosecutors in this case.

Speaker 1: Do you believe that given the platform that you have, Enrique, and frankly the clout you have for those who follow you, that you have invited an investigation that may not be above board or that might result in people who are not officially in the law enforcement community or investigative capacity, that they might take it upon themselves to kind of have a vigilante approach, even if nonviolent?

Speaker 2: I don't think that anybody should be vigilantes and do it themselves. But to talk about the investigations themselves, it speaks to a broader issue, the broader issue of how many laws we have in this country. So the criminal justice reform is something big, and it's something that needs to be talked about more.

Speaker 1: Would you be willing to—or are you seeking an invitation from the White House to discuss those very ideas that you have about reform? Have you been invited or had any correspondence with President Trump or any member of his administration about that?

Speaker 2: I wish I had Trump on speed dial, but unfortunately I don't. But no, I have not been contacted by the administration. But I would love a chance to speak with the president about criminal justice reform.

Speaker 1: We'll see if he does invite that conversation.