Since he spent an hour on C-Span citing sources, just saying he has written for World Net Daily doesn't immediately disqualify Jack Cashill as being wrong in what he cites detailing what actually happened on January 6th at the Capiol.
It is on you guys to cite what he said that is PROVEN to be factually wrong.
And he wasn't.
I've cited and linked articles and sources for the last 4 years that corroborate what he said from other sources.

There's also the fact that C-Span felt Jack Cashill was serious enough an author to devote an hour of their air-time to covering his book about events on January 6th.


I haven't looked at WorldNetDaily for about 15 or so years, but they were 100% right on this one, back then :

"Obama's plan: Jeopardize U.S. Batlefield Superiority"
https://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1071416#Post1071416



But since you made me aware of WND again, here's a well-sourced recent article on why Kamala Harris is infinitely unqualified to be president:
https://www.wnd.com/2024/08/democrats-secret-strategy-for-winning-novembers-election-no-matter-what/


And by the way, it seems to me that "conspiracy theorist" is a label the Democrat/Left hurls at anyone who cites verified FACTS they don't like.
You should save your scorn for these flat-out liars and conspiracy theorists exposed as wrong, usually deliberately wrong, in the oh-so-respectable mainstream liberal media.
Slanted Journalism and the 2020 Election | Sharyl Attkisson

That persuasively (among many other sources I could cite and link) makes the case for which side are reporting facts, and which side the willing propagandist conspiracy theorists are.