TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @ColumbiaBugle
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m tracking the Ray Epps/J6 thread: questioning why Epps faced no charges, noting Revolver News’ claims of FBI protection and scrubbed lists, and citing Tucker Carlson, Darren Beattie, and Rep. Massie pressing Garland. I reference new FBI informant chatter, unindicted co-conspirators, and calls for answers on federal agents’ presence and possible foreknowledge.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
.@joerogan Discussing The Curious Case Of Ray Epps & January 6th "He did it pre-January 6th, he did it during the January 6th thing, and that this guy has faced no legal charges whatsoever, and people are like well wtf is going on here?" https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
Video Transcript AI Summary
Discussion centers on alleged agent provocateur involvement in January 6. Speakers describe a theory that "federal agents ... instigating the violence, instigating the entering into the capital," and point to "this one guy" who is isolated on video yet faced no legal consequences. They discuss "Ray Epps, the Fed protected provocateur who appears to have led the very first one six attack January 6 attack on The US capital," and contrast him with others prosecuted. They debate whether the provocateur acted under government direction, was radicalized, or acted independently as a psycho, noting "this guy's doing this, like, over and over again." They reference the World Trade Organization in Seattle as a precedent for provocateurs, and note "100,000 different cameras" enabled scrutiny. A concern is raised about "an autocratic government that controls all aspects of society so none of this ever happens."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you aware of the agent provocateur aspect of January 6?
Speaker 1: Say more.
Speaker 0: I don't exactly know what the reality is, but the what people insinuating is that there was federal agents that were involved in instigating the violence, instigating the entering into the capital, and that there's this one guy in specific that they've got him isolated on video. They've shown him over and over again. He's faced no legal consequences. They know this guy's name. They know exactly who he is.
All these other guys are in jail. All these other guys who got into the capital, I mean, so many of them are facing, like, these massive federal charges and four years plus in jail. This one guy is like, we have to go in there. We have to take back. We have to get inside there.
And people start calling him a thud in in one one of these videos, and I think he, like, takes off and runs away. But this is what it seems like. It seems like and this is something that governments have done forever. Mhmm. Right?
You take a peaceful protest. What's the best way to break up a peaceful protest? You bring in agent provocateurs to turn it into a non peaceful, a violent protest, smash windows, light things on fire, then you can send in the troops and you can clean up the mess, and then you don't have any protest anymore. This was the World Trade Organization in where was it? In Seattle in '99 or whatever it was.
That's what they did. And it's been documented that that is what happened. I mean, like, literal government agents went in wearing antifa outfits and starts this is pre antifa. Right? Smashing windows, lighting things on fire, and they were all eventually released conveniently.
Well, this guy do you know about this, Jamie? You know what? See if you can find it. Because it's a curious case of this one particular individual who's, like, yelling in these various groups that we have to get in there where and it like, he did it pre January 6. They did it during the January 6 thing, and then these guys faced no legal charges whatsoever.
And people are like, well, what the fuck is going on here? Because when you see some kind of organized debacle like that and then you see people insisting that we have to take this further and we have to go inside. And then if you find out that those people are actually federal agents Mhmm. That are doing that, you're like, well, what is happening here? And how is that possible?
And how is this legal? That's a problem.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean
Speaker 2: I haven't seen this one. I remember the umbrella man who was breaking windows at the George Floyd riots.
Speaker 0: I think they found out that that guy was a cop and that I think that was like a rogue human, but no. I'm not sure if that's true.
Speaker 2: But So this is where it's interesting with in this case, I don't know the case at all, but is it that somebody in government actually initiated him doing it as an agent provocateur to shut down the protest, or was he someone who happened to be in government who was himself radicalized who acting on his own because of radicalization did the thing?
Speaker 0: Or is he an agent provocateur but he's doing so independently just because he's a fucking psycho? You know, some firemen start fires.
Speaker 1: Right. But notice that's, like, whichever view you have, you probably had a motivated interest to see it that way. Right?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I didn't have any view on it. Right. That's the thing. I'm looking at it like this.
Like, what is it? What is this video? Yeah. I'm watching this guy eat like, this one big beefy looking federal agent guy telling them they gotta go inside, and I think he was wearing a MAGA hat. And, you know, it was like a guy in his fifties then and he's like, I'll you what we gotta do.
We gotta get inside there. We gotta go inside the Capitol.
Speaker 1: And these people are like, inside? Like, isn't that illegal? Like, what the fuck?
Speaker 0: This guy's taking it to the next level. But he's doing it, like, multiple times. That's the the the there's a there is a real problem with intelligence agencies doing that kind of shit. Totally. Because they do do it.
And I think they do it thinking that this is like these group of fucking psychos, like, we gotta stop this from escalating, so here's the way. We get them to do something really stupid, then we can put fences up and create a green zone, and then we lock this down. Meet Ray Epps. Fucking ad clicks. Meet Ray Epps, the Fed protected provocateur who appears to have led the very first one six attack January 6 attack on The US capital.
So let's watch some of this because it's fucking crazy. It's really weird. This guy is doing this, like, over and over and over again.
Speaker 3: Yeah. This was there's a video of it, but this is an article about
Speaker 0: probably So this is an article that's in Revolver.
Speaker 3: Hold on. I'll get the video.
Speaker 0: We'll find the video because the video is fucking strange. Ray Epps' video.
Speaker 3: Here it is.
Speaker 4: Like this. Well, that's twenty minutes long.
Speaker 0: Well, just watch we'll see some of it. Oh, these are guys that are watching it. What about that one?
Speaker 3: That's goes to a website. These are on Twitter.
Speaker 0: Arrest rave apps. So so people are some people are hip to it. But most people, like, including you guys, have no idea that this is a a person. Right? You've never heard of this before.
What terrifies me is a solution of this is an autocratic government that controls all aspects of society so none of this ever happens. That scares the shit out of me because that seems to be where there's that fuck. Let's play this.
Speaker 1: The capital. What? Tomorrow?
Speaker 0: Wait. Do it from the beginning.
Speaker 1: I don't even like to say Tomorrow. I'm not We need to go into the capital. Jesus. Hang on. Into the capital.
What? Tomorrow?
Speaker 0: Either what?
Speaker 1: I don't even like to say it because I'll be arrested. Well, let's not say it. We need we need to go I'll say it. Alright. We need to go in
Speaker 0: Shut the fuck up, boomer.
Speaker 1: To the Capitol. Alright. No, Dave. But one more thing. Yeah.
So can we go up there? No? When we go in? Are we gonna get arrested if go out there? Yeah.
You don't need to get shot. You're gonna arrest us all?
Speaker 0: Okay. I think we see enough. There's a lot of instances. It goes on for quite a while. There's a lot of videos of this guy, is really fascinating because I think these methods that they've used forever are kinda subverted by social media because you have a 100,000 different cameras pointed at this guy from all these and when someone starts screaming loudly, people start filming it, and then you get a conglomeration or or collection of these rather.
Mhmm. And you can go, oh, what is happening here? Like like, I don't think they've realized that people would be so cynical that they would go over all these various videos and find this one guy who's not being prosecuted or arrested.
Speaker 1: He's not being prosecuted or arrested.
Speaker 0: Ting. Congratulations.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Know. No. He's not.
Speaker 0: Look at that guy. Yeah. I mean, if you had a guess, if you had, like, $50, what are you gonna put your your chips on? Red or black?
Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the US Capitol - Revolver News
In order to protect the country from fictional right-wing "patriot" groups, did the FBI become an insurrectionist "patriot" movement?
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Revolver News: Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
Video Transcript AI Summary
Meet Ray Epps. Fucking yeah. At close. Meet Ray Epps, the Fed protected provocateur who appears to have led the very first one six attack January 6 attack on The US capital. So let's watch some of this because it's fucking crazy. It's really weird. This guy is doing this, like, over and over and over again. Yeah. This was there's a video of it. This is an article about Oh. So this is an article that's in revolver. Hold on. I'll get the video. We'll find the video because the the video is fucking strange. Ray Epps' video. Here it is. Like this. Well, that's twenty minutes long. Well, just watch. We'll see some of it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Meet Ray Epps. Fucking yeah. At close. Meet Ray Epps, the Fed protected provocateur who appears to have led the very first one six attack January 6 attack on The US capital. So let's watch some of this because it's fucking crazy.
It's really weird. This guy is doing this, like, over and over and over again. Yeah. This was there's a video of it. This is an article about Oh.
So this is an article that's in revolver. Hold on. I'll get the video. We'll find the video because the the video is fucking strange. Ray Epps' video.
Here it is. Like this. Well, that's twenty minutes long. Well, just watch. We'll see some of it.
Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the US Capitol - Revolver News
In order to protect the country from fictional right-wing "patriot" groups, did the FBI become an insurrectionist "patriot" movement?
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Must Watch! @DarrenJBeattie Joins Tucker Carlson To Discuss Today’s Bombshell Revolver News Investigative Piece On 1/6 Who Is Ray Epps? https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the US Capitol - Revolver News
In order to protect the country from fictional right-wing "patriot" groups, did the FBI become an insurrectionist "patriot" movement?
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
.@DarrenJBeattie: "The FBI scrubbed Epps' face from their public database just a day after Revolver ran a report on fellow Oathkeeper Stewart Rhodes. Who is also unindicted." Revolver News On Epps: https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/ Revolver News On Rhodes: https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-missing-link-fbi-unindicted-co-conspirator/
Video Transcript AI Summary
"He is calling for going into the capital the evening before January 6." "And this isn't just a one off, someone some crazy who comes and goes. No." "He goes repeatedly to group after group, redirecting them saying, we need to go into the capital." "on January 6, it's a veritable, where's Waldo? He's everywhere." "twenty seconds before the very first breach of the capital, this individual Ray Epps whispers into someone's ear," "So he's everywhere." "But what it did do is said that Ray Epps was acting alone." "the FBI scrubbed Epps's face from their database, from their public database, just a day after Revolver ran a report on his fellow oath keeper, Stuart Rhodes, who is also unindicted."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here are some of the key points about Ray Epps in the revolver.news article that you mentioned. First, and we got some of an idea from this from the clips you presented. He is calling for going into the capital the evening before January 6. And this isn't just a one off, someone some crazy who comes and goes. No.
He goes repeatedly to group after group, redirecting them saying, we need to go into the capital. And sure enough, on January 6, it's a veritable, where's Waldo? He's everywhere. He's all around the capital shepherding people to go to the capital where quote, our problems are. And then, twenty seconds before the very first breach of the capital, this individual Ray Epps whispers into someone's ear, then twenty second later we have the very first breach.
So he's everywhere. And as you pointed out, very curiously, Ray Epps is not indicted. It doesn't seem like the feds want him or have any interest in him. Although they did. They had him for a while on their most wanted page until revolver.news did a report.
Now what's the significance of this timing? Well, there there are two things. For one, there is a New York Times piece that had come out that essentially ran cover for the feds but did it in a way that was counterproductive. It amplified the name of Epps, which wasn't convenient for the feds after Revolver had reported that the feds were likely involved in one six. But what it did do is said that Ray Epps was acting alone.
And as you can see in this revolver. News piece, Ray Epps seemed to be coordinating with a number of people in this initial breach, and many of those people also remained curiously unindicted. But perhaps the most damning thing, the FBI scrubbed Epps's face from their database, from their public database, just a day after Revolver ran a report on his fellow oath keeper, Stuart Rhodes, who is also unindicted. So there's just a cast of curious characters unindicted.
Speaker 1: It's it's a really provocative and very detailed, very well reported piece that, again, I would recommend to everyone watching tonight. Terren Biedith, we will talk to you again.
Speaker 0: Thank
Speaker 1: you so much.
Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the US Capitol - Revolver News
In order to protect the country from fictional right-wing "patriot" groups, did the FBI become an insurrectionist "patriot" movement?
revolver.news
Federal Protection of “Oath Keepers” Kingpin Stewart Rhodes Breaks The Entire Capitol “Insurrection” Lie Wide Open - Revolver News
Is the FBI protecting “Oath Keeper” kingpin Stewart Rhodes from federal charges because he's one of theirs? Did Rhodes entrap his people?
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Must Watch! @DarrenJBeattie Joins Tucker Carlson To Discuss Today’s Bombshell Revolver News Investigative Piece On 1/6 Who Is Ray Epps? https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
Video Transcript AI Summary
Democrats say we need to find out exactly what happened on January 6, and actually we strongly agree with that. Thomas Massey of Kentucky confronted Merrick Garland with footage of a man called Ray Epps, who apparently lives in Arizona. Epps was in Washington the night before, January 5, encouraging Trump supporters to enter the Capitol Building illegally. "Here's a guy telling Trump supporters they need to break the law and go into the capital. That's real video." "And then they accuse him of being an undercover federal agent. That's pretty interesting." Massey asked, "Has he been indicted? Who or where is he exactly?" Garland refused to answer, saying he would not comment on an ongoing investigation or "how many federal operatives were there in the crowd that day." We don't know whether this Epps guy was working with the federal government. A Revolver News piece notes the FBI removed a photo of Epps from its most wanted page after their reporting; it says "Ray Epps is everywhere" on Jan 6, and "twenty seconds before the very first breach" he whispers. The FBI scrubbed Epps' face a day after Revolver reported on Rhodes; the host calls it "awfully weird" and invites Epps to appear.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you keep hearing democrats say we need to find out exactly what happened on January 6, and actually we strongly agree with that. At a recent hearing in congress, Thomas Massey of Kentucky confronted our highly partisan attorney general Merrick Garland with this footage. It's of a man called Ray Epps, who apparently lives in Arizona. Epps was in Washington the night before, January 5. He was encouraging Trump supporters to enter the Capitol Building illegally.
He said it numerous times. Now, in this clip, some people in the crowd immediately decided this guy must be working for the federal government. Watch this.
Speaker 1: We need to go in to the Capitol. Let's go. I'm gonna put it out there.
Speaker 0: So here's a guy telling Trump supporters they need to break the law and go into the capital. That's real video. And they say no. And then they accuse him of being an undercover federal agent. That's pretty interesting.
That guy was on tape encouraging people to break the law, organizing what happened that day. Has he been indicted? Who or where is he exactly? Well, Congressman Massey asked the attorney general about that, and the attorney general refused to answer. He also pointedly refused to say how many federal operatives were there in the crowd that day on January 6.
Speaker 2: As far as we can find, this individual has not been charged with anything. You said this is one of the most sweeping investigations in history. Have you seen that video, or those frames from that video?
Speaker 3: So, as I said at the outset, one of the norms of the justice department is to not comment on impending investigations, and particularly not to comment about, particular scenes or particular individuals.
Speaker 2: Can you tell us without talking about particular incidents or particular videos how many agents or assets of the federal government were present on January 6, whether they agitated to go into the capital and if any of them did.
Speaker 3: And so I'm not gonna violate this norm of, of of, the rule of law. I'm not gonna comment on an investigation that's ongoing.
Speaker 2: Oh, I just wanna violate the rule
Speaker 0: of law, says the guy who just called the angry parents terrorists. And of course, the DOJ leaks all the time the details of tons of different investigations that are politically useful to them. Now just to be totally clear, we don't know whether this Epps guy was working with the federal government. We don't know anything about him. We haven't talked to him.
We can only show you video from that day. But we do know it doesn't seem like he's been punished for this. If you're looking for the people who organized that day, maybe you should talk to him. Has he been indicted? Not that we know of.
Maybe he has been. We don't know it. But we haven't seen any evidence that he has been. A new piece in Revolver News notes that the FBI removed a photo of Ray Epps from its most wanted page this summer right after Revolver News reported on the story. Darren Beatty is with Revolver News.
He runs it. He joins us tonight. Darren, thanks so much for coming on. So I would recommend you you have an enormously detailed piece today up on your site really doing the reporting that legacy news organizations ought to be doing and absolutely aren't. And I recommend it to to to our viewers.
But tell us specifically, we don't know the truth, but I what have you found out about this man encouraging others to break the law in Washington?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So here are some of the key points about Ray Epps in the revolver.news article that you mentioned. First, and we got some of an idea from this from the clips you presented. He is calling for going into the capital the evening before January 6. And this isn't just a one off, someone some crazy who comes and goes.
No. He goes repeatedly to group after group, redirecting them saying, we need to go into the capital. And sure enough, on January 6, it's a veritable, where's Waldo? He's everywhere. He's all around the capital shepherding people to go to the capital where, quote, our problems are.
And then, twenty seconds before the very first breach of the capital, this individual Ray Epps whispers into someone's ear, then twenty second later we have the very first breach. So he's everywhere. And as you pointed out, very curiously, Ray Epps is not indicted. It doesn't seem like the feds want him or have any interest in him. Although they did.
They had him for a while on their most wanted page until revolver.news did a report. Now what's the significance of this timing? Well, there there are two things. For one, there is a New York Times piece that had come out that essentially ran cover for the feds, but
Speaker 1: did it in a way that was counterproductive. It amplified the name of Epps, which wasn't convenient for the feds after Revolver had reported that the Feds were likely involved in one six. But what it did do is said that Ray Epps was acting alone. And as you can see in this revolver. News piece, Ray Epps seemed to be coordinating with a number of people in this initial breach, and many of those people also remained curiously unindicted.
But perhaps the most damning thing, the FBI scrubbed Epps' face from their database, from their public database, just a day after Revolver ran a report on his fellow oath keeper, Stuart Rhodes, who is also unindicted. So there's just a cast of curious characters unindicted. It's it's a really provocative and very detailed, very well reported piece that, again, I would recommend to everyone watching tonight. Terri Benite, we will talk to you again. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And by the way, just to restate, we don't know the truth of this at all. It's awfully weird, though. I think any reasonable person would agree. Ray Epps is always welcome on this show. We always want to hear directly from people.
So if you are Ray Epps and you're watching, please call us because we'd love to have you as soon as you want.
Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the US Capitol - Revolver News
In order to protect the country from fictional right-wing "patriot" groups, did the FBI become an insurrectionist "patriot" movement?
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson & @DarrenJBeattie Discuss The Recent NYT Piece Vindicating Tucker Carlson & Revolver News' Reporting On The Presence Of FBI Informants On January 6th Tucker: "So we called this, and we called it because https://www.revolver.news/ originally broke it."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The New York Times published a report vindicating what we said months ago: FBI operatives were deeply involved in the events of January 6, the white supremacist QAnon insurrection. Citing, "confidential records," the newspaper reported that "the records suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the capital even as it was taking place than was previously known," and that an FBI handler was texting a member of the so called Proud Boys, they're America's greatest threat, at the Capitol Complex.
Darren Beatty of Revolver. News says the extent is far more than the feds and the media were willing to admit. The NYT piece acknowledges two informants, and if the NYT is covering this, it's because the situation is far worse and there'll be many more informants coming to light. This creates a strategic dilemma for the feds and regime media: if informants existed, why didn't you stop it? The shift away from foreplanning undermines the conspiracy narrative behind one six and its prosecutions and commission. Either way, they're lying, and the effect is to strip law abiding patriotic Americans of their civil liberties. Darren Beatty of Revolver. News, which got this story right months before anybody else.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, speaking of the FBI, the New York Times had just published a report vindicating what we said months ago. FBI operatives were deeply involved in the events of January 6, the white supremacist QAnon insurrection. Remember? Citing, quote, confidential records, the newspaper reported that, quote, the records suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the capital even as it was taking place than was previously known. The paper reported that an FBI handler was texting a member of the so called Proud Boys, they're America's greatest threat, at the Capitol Complex.
So we called this, and we called it because Revolver. News originally broke it. Darren Beatty runs revolver.news. He broke the story. He joins us now.
Darren, thanks so much for coming on. So before we get to the question of why the New York Times is finally verifying what you reported months ago, and I think they denounced you as a conspiracy theorist for doing so. Tell us what you think, since you have credibility on this, what the scope of the federal involvement in January 6 was?
Speaker 1: Well, it's a very good question. And the extent is far more than the feds and the media were willing to admit. The New York Times piece that you mentioned acknowledges two informants. And look, The New York Times is not out to do revolver. News any favors or to do you any favors.
If The New York Times is covering this, it's because the situation is far worse and there'll be many more informants coming to light in the near future. And I think it's very important to point out that this poses a pretty severe strategic dilemma for the feds and their apparatchiks in the regime media, because you'll recall that Senator Klobuchar, when she posed the question about informants to FBI Director Wray, she did him the courtesy of assuming that there was no visibility into the protest because they had no informants. You see, if they had informants, that would have meant they were informed as to what would transpire. And then the question is, why didn't you do anything to stop it? Now that we know they have informed us, the question re presents itself.
Why didn't they do anything to stop it? And I think this explains an interesting amount of sort of mixed messaging that we're seeing recently from the regime media coverage of this. You'll see that the basically, the feds are using their sources in the media to present this new narrative that, you know what? Actually, there wasn't foreplanning. Actually, it wasn't this conspiracy in advance.
It was more of a spontaneous outburst. The reason you're seeing this transition in the narrative is that if there was no foreplanning on the part of the so called insurrectionists, that means there could have been no foreknowledge on the part of the feds, and they're absolved from suspicion as to why if they knew about it, they didn't do anything to stop it. But the real beauty part about this is that even as this narrative shift protects the downside for the feds from that type of exposure, it completely blows up another foundational pillar of the official narrative one six, which is that it was a conspiracy, which it was this preplanned attack that was set up in advance, and that's why it's like nine eleven. It's the basis of the prosecution of all of the militia groups essentially associated with one six. And furthermore, it's the basis of the entire one six commission.
So they're really stuck in a bind. Either the FBI has to address new questions of why if they had a bunch of informants and they were presumably informed, they didn't stop it, or why this whole narrative that they've been telling us about a conspiracy that was preplanned that serves as the basis of multiple high level prosecutions and the commission itself, why that was false. It's either one or the other.
Speaker 0: That's right. And either way, are lying, and the effect is to strip law abiding patriotic Americans of their civil liberties, and that is happening. And I appreciate your coming on. Darren Beatty of Revolver. News, which got this story right months before anybody else.
Thank
Speaker 1: you. Thank you.
Revolver News
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@DarrenJBeattie - Darren J. Beattie 🌐
The firebrand @mattgaetz poses a question that AG Garland shouldn't be able to weasel out of so easily Thanks to @mtgreenee @RepThomasMassie and @RepGosar, among several others, for joining Let's make them squirm America deserves the truth about 1/6 https://www.revolver.news/2021/11/firebrand-congressman-matt-gaetz-demands-answers-from-merrick-garland-in-wake-of-revolvers-bombshell-1-6-reporting/
Firebrand Congressman Matt Gaetz Demands Answers from Merrick Garland In Wake of Revolver's Bombshell 1/6 Reporting - Revolver News
Revolver Exclusive: Matt Gaetz and eight other Republicans send letter demanding Merrick Garland spill the beans on federal informants on 1/6.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@mtgreenee - Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸
I’m proud to stand with @mattgaetz and my colleagues to demand answers from @AttyGenGarland. The American people deserve to know if federal agents or informants incited the events of January 6th. https://www.revolver.news/2021/11/firebrand-congressman-matt-gaetz-demands-answers-from-merrick-garland-in-wake-of-revolvers-bombshell-1-6-reporting/
Firebrand Congressman Matt Gaetz Demands Answers from Merrick Garland In Wake of Revolver's Bombshell 1/6 Reporting - Revolver News
Revolver Exclusive: Matt Gaetz and eight other Republicans send letter demanding Merrick Garland spill the beans on federal informants on 1/6.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@DarrenJBeattie - Darren J. Beattie 🌐
Revolver News chronicles the epic meltdown over Tuckers 1/6 documentary See if you can find the hidden gems https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/tucker-carlson-patriot-purge-meltdown-liz-cheney-adam-kinzinger/
Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger Incite Liberal Meltdown Over Tucker Carlson Doc Exposing Dark Truth Behind 1/6 - Revolver News
Erstwhile Regime toadies Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger just gleefully joined the liberal media crusade to deplatform Tucker Carlson.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@RepMTG - Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸
Were federal agents involved in the planning and execution of J6? Watch my interview with @DarrenJBeattie as we break down http://Revolver.news reporting on what exactly happened before, on, and after January 6th. FULL INTERVIEW HERE: https://rumble.com/vq2dd9-rep.-mtg-interviews-darren-j.-beattie-of-revolver-news.html
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two things are highlighted: a serious look at charging documents for militia groups, and the Michigan infiltration episode, described as the 'kidnapping plot' and a 'plot to storm the Michigan state capitol'—seen as a dry run for a later action by the same groups. It says no one else mentioned this Michigan event in understanding what may have happened on January 6 until Revolver News, and that this was the thrust of the initial report that opened up the entire Pandora's box. The other speaker adds that this was not covered by the press, calling it potential clickbait about 'a conspiracy plot by our federal government to be involved in a kidnapping operation of a governor,' noting that 'the head of that operation is now in that position here in Washington, D. C. overseeing this January 6 investigation.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So those two things combined, a serious look at the charging documents for the militia groups combined with what just happened involving the same militia group that was infiltrated to an astonishing degree, and which, by the way, people call the kidnapping plot, but it also involved a so called plot to storm the Michigan state capital. People forget. So it seems very much like a dry run for something that would happen just a couple months later involving the same people, the same militia groups, and so forth. And nobody until Revolver News talked about it mentioned this Michigan, event in the context of understanding what may have really happened on January 6. So that's really the thrust of our initial report, the thing that sort of opened up the entire Pandora's box and
Speaker 1: Right. A lot of let me stop you there. Yeah. Now that is very interesting. That caught that just caught my attention completely when I when I learned that you were reporting about this because no one else was reporting about it, Darren.
I mean, you didn't see it anywhere in in this great country of ours where we have freedom of the press And the press should be telling these stories, right? Because wouldn't that be great clickbait if we revealed this conspiracy plot by our federal government to be involved in a kidnapping operation of a governor in one of our states. I mean, you would think that would be all over the news, but it was And it was easy for it to ride fly under the radar. Like you said, it's incredible that the head of that operation is now in that position here in Washington, D. C.
Overseeing this January 6 investigation.
Revolver News
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@DarrenJBeattie - Darren J. Beattie 🌐
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web Of Unindicted Operators At The Heart Of January 6 https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
#Thread On Part 2 Of The Revolver News Investigation Into Ray Epps & January 6th Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web Of Unindicted Operators At The Heart Of January 6 https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tomorrow, we need to go into the capital. Hang on. Into the capital. What? No.
Peacefully. Fed. Fed. Fed. Fed.
Fed. Tomorrow, I don't even like to say it because I'll be arrested. Well, let's not say it. We need we need to go I'll say it. Alright.
We need to go in Shut the fuck up, boomer. To the capital. Base fed posting? We need to go into the capital. I didn't see that coming in.
Okay. Condiment Hill. Is good speaking. We are going to the capital where our problems are. It's that direction.
Please spread the word.
Alright. No, Dave. But one more thing.
Yeah. Can we go up there?
No? When we go in
Are we gonna get arrested?
We go
up there?
Yeah. We don't need to get chucked.
Can we arrest us all?
Let's go.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tomorrow, we need to go into the capital. Hang on. Into the capital. What? No.
Peacefully. Fed. Fed. Fed. Fed.
Fed. Tomorrow, I don't even like to say it because I'll be arrested. Well, let's not say it. We need we need to go I'll say it. Alright.
We need to go in Shut the fuck up, boomer. To the capital. Base fed posting? We need to go into the capital. I didn't see that coming in.
Okay. Condiment Hill. Is good speaking. We are going to the capital where our problems are. It's that direction.
Please spread the word. Alright. No, Dave. But one more thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Can we go up there?
Speaker 0: No? When we go in
Speaker 1: Are we gonna get arrested?
Speaker 0: We go
Speaker 1: up there?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We don't need to get chucked.
Speaker 1: Can we arrest us all?
Speaker 0: Let's go.
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie
Turn your gaze away from the weapons of mass distraction and read this article by @DarrenJBeattie. Don’t let this get memory-holed by the DOJ, the FBI, the main stream media, and social media censors working on their behalf. https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@realLizUSA - Liz Harrington
"Wow, much being learned about the January 6th protest. Remember, the insurrection took place on November 3rd!" - President Donald J. Trump https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently watched Tucker Carlson's monologue where he criticizes the New Way Forward Act, supported by figures like Ilhan Omar and AOC. He argues that this bill could transform America into a country where resistance is suppressed. Tucker highlights a faction within the Democratic Party that sees America as illegitimate, aiming to dismantle our laws and values. He points out a particularly outrageous provision in the bill that mandates government-funded transportation for certain migrants and notes the ACLU's endorsement of the legislation, which he views as promoting open borders.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Must Watch Tucker Carlson Monologue Tucker Exposing America Last Immigration Bill (New Way Forward Act) Supported By Ilhan Omar & AOC Maybe The Most Insane Immigration Bill Ever Tucker: "An entirely new country, in which resistance is crushed, & they’re in charge forever."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker critiques the New Way Forward Act, a House bill sponsored by 44 Democrats including Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; at about 4,400 words, “almost exactly as long as The US constitution.” It would “entirely remake our immigration system with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move to The United States and settle here permanently with immunity.” The promoting document states: “Convictions should not lead to deportation.” The bill aims to “break the, quote, prison to deportation pipeline,” eliminating “crimes of moral turpitude” and the category of aggravated felony as deportation triggers. Under the bill, there would no longer be any crime that automatically requires deportation, and “falsifying a passport would be made immune from deportation no matter what.” It also “decriminalizes illegal entry” and calls criminalizing illegal entry “white supremacist.” It creates a pathway for those previously deported to return—“the right to come home”—with DHS paying for flights; tickets could cost about a billion dollars, and “free health care” for those criminals. The speaker claims it would invert every assumption.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: At this moment, there's a bill pending in the congress called the New Way Forward Act. It's received almost no publicity, and that's unfortunate as well as revealing. The legislation is sponsored by 44 house democrats, including Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. It's roughly 4,400 words long. That means it's almost exactly as long as The US constitution.
Like the constitution, it's designed to create a whole new country. The bill would entirely remake our immigration system with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move to The United States and settle here permanently with immunity. Now you may think we're exaggerating for effect, but we're not exaggerating, not even a little bit. The New Way Forward Act is the single most radical piece of legislation we have ever seen proposed in this country ever. It makes the Green New Deal look like the status quo.
The document produced by Democrats to promote the bill says this, and we're quoting it verbatim. Convictions should not lead to deportation, end quote. Now keep in mind, we're not talking about convictions for double parking or even for DUI. The bill targets felony convictions, serious crimes that could send you to prison for years and should. A press release from congressman Jesus Garcia of Illinois is explicit about this.
Garcia brags that the bill will break the, quote, prison to deportation pipeline, something most of us were for. So how does the bill do that? Well, under current US law, legal US immigrants can be deported if they commit a, quote, aggravated felony or a crime of moral turpitude. That is a vile depraved act like molesting children. Under the new way forward act, crimes of moral turpitude are eliminated entirely as justification for deportation, and the category of aggravated felony gets eliminated too.
So what does that mean? Consider this. Under current law, immigrants who commit serious crimes, robbery to fraud to child sexual abuse must be deported regardless of the sentences they receive. Other crimes, less severe ones like racketeering, require deportation if the perpetrator receives at least a one year sentence. Under this bill, there would no longer be any crime that automatically requires deportation.
None. And one crime falsifying a passport would be made immune from deportation no matter what because apparently nine eleven never even happened, and we no longer care about fake government documents. By the way, if you just renewed your driver's license to comply with the REAL ID Act, you must feel like an idiot because immigrants are getting a pass. You're not. Under the proposed legislation, for crimes that would still allow deportation, the required prison sentence would rise from one year to five years.
We checked the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to federal data, crimes like car theft, fraud, and weapons offenses all carry average prison sentences of fewer than five years. And that's just looking at averages. There are people who commit rape, child abuse, even manslaughter, and get sentences with fewer than five years. Lots of them, actually.
If the new way forward act passes, immigrants who commit those crimes and receive those sentences would remain in this country. And, of course, they will be eligible for citizenship day one too, of course. But even that is understating the law's effect. Even a five year prison sentence wouldn't necessarily be enough to trigger deportation. The bill would grant sweeping new powers to immigration judges, allowing them to nullify a deportation order.
The only requirement for that is, quote, the immigration judge finds such an exercise of discretion appropriate in pursuant of humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest. Talk about open ended. In other words, anti American immigration judges, and there are a lot of those in this country, would have a blank check to open the borders. You would not be voting on this. It would happen anyway.
Is this shocking you yet? Because we're just getting started. We read this proposed legislation. Here's another point. Current US law makes drug addiction grounds for deportation because why wouldn't it?
This bill would eliminate that statute. Current law also states that those who've committed drug crimes abroad or, quote, any crimes involving involving moral turpitude are ineligible to immigrate here. The new way forward act abolishes that statute. So a Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison, then freely come to America immediately. And if he wants, he could come here illegally, and it still wouldn't be a crime because and you were waiting for this part.
The bill also decriminalizes illegal entry into America even by those we've previously deported. In other words, you break our law, we send you out. You come back, you break it again, you can stay. According to a document promoting this bill, criminalizing illegal entry into America is, quote, white supremacist. That's a quote, white supremacist.
Now by this point, you're beginning to wonder, are we making this up? We're not making it up. In fact, we're barely halfway through the bill. The legislation doesn't just make it harder to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes. It doesn't just make it easier for criminals to move here illegally, though it does both.
The bill would also effectively abolish all existing enforcement against illegal immigration. To detain illegal immigrants, ICE would have to prove in court that they are dangerous or a flight risk. But, of course, ICE wouldn't be allowed to use a detainee's prior criminal behavior as proof of danger. That's banned. ICE would have to overcome even more hurdles if the detainee claims to be gay or transgendered.
If they're 21 or if they can't speak English and an interpreter isn't immediately available, they get a pass. In other words, it would be much harder to arrest an illegal alien in this country than it is to arrest you. They're the protected class here. You're just some loser who's paying for it all. But believe it or not, we save the nuttiest part of this legislation for last, and here's what it is.
What could be more destructive than changing US laws specifically to allow rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers to stay in America? How about this? Using taxpayer money to bring deported criminals back into America. That's right. This bill would not only abolish your right to control who lives in your country, but it invents a brand new right, quote, the right to come home.
It orders the government to create a, quote, pathway for those previously deported to apply to return to their homes and families in The United States as long as they would have been eligible to stay under the new law. It's retroactive, in other words. DHS must spend taxpayer dollars transporting convicted criminal illegal aliens back into The United States. Not making this up. So who would be eligible for these flights?
Tens of thousands of people we kicked out of this country for all kinds of crimes, sexual abuse, robbery, assault, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human trafficking. From 2002 to 02/2018, 480,000 people were deported for illegal entry or reentry into America. And under this bill, you'd have to buy each of them a plane ticket to come home. Those tickets alone would cost about a billion dollars, and that's before Democrats make you start paying for these criminals free health care too, which they plan to do and have said so. The New Way Forward Act fundamentally inverts every assumption you have about this country.
Under this legislation, the criminals are now the victims. Law enforcement is illegitimate. It's racist just like the country you live in, just like you are. And the only solution is to get rid of both. America would be better off as a borderless rest stop for the world's predators and parasites.
That's the point of this. And we're not overstate. Go read it. This is a big deal. This is not a small thing.
This is not renaming a post office. It's hard to believe any American would put these ideas on paper, much less try to pass them into law. And yet remarkably, that's happening. And even more remarkably, the press has ignored it. This isn't happening in secret.
It's happening in the house of representatives. Scores of Democrats have backed this bill, but the legislation has not been mentioned in the New York Times, has been mentioned on CNN, a news channel, or even in self described conservative outlets like National Review. No mention. Consider if this were working the other way. If a lone, I don't know, Republican state legislator from Minot, North Dakota had proposed to build this extreme that would remake America completely, the president himself would be expected to answer for it.
CNN would demand that he disavow it even if he'd never heard of it before. But when one fifth of the entire Democratic caucus backs a bill demanding that you import illegal alien felons and then pay for it, it's a nonevent in the American media. They don't think you should know about it. And that's dangerous, if we're being honest. Whether the press cares or not, these are the stakes of the twenty twenty election, and you have a right to know what they are.
A growing wing of the Democratic party views America itself as essentially illegitimate, a rogue state in which everything must be destroyed and remade. Our laws, our institutions, our customs, our freedoms, our history, our values. And, of course, that's the point of all of this. An entirely new country in which resistance is crushed, and they're in charge forever.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Nails It "A growing wing of the Democratic party views America itself as essentially illegitimate, a rogue state in which everything must be destroyed & remade: our laws, our institutions, our customs, our freedoms, our history, our values." America First vs America Last
Video Transcript AI Summary
" This is a big deal. This is not a small thing. This is not renaming a post office." "It's hard to believe any American would put these ideas on paper, much less try to pass them into law." "And yet remarkably, that's happening." "And even more remarkably, the press has ignored it." "This isn't happening in secret. It's happening in the house of representatives." "Scores of democrats have backed this bill, but the legislation has not been mentioned in the New York Times, has been mentioned on CNN, a news channel, or even in self described conservative outlets like National Review. No mention." "No mention." "But when one fifth of the entire Democratic caucus backs a bill demanding that you import illegal alien felons and then pay for it, it's a nonevent in the American media." "They don't think you should know about it, and that's dangerous if we're being honest." "Whether the press cares or not, these are the stakes of the twenty twenty election, and you have a right to know what they are." "A growing wing of the Democratic party views America itself as essentially illegitimate, a rogue state in which everything must be destroyed and remade." "An entirely new country in which resistance is crushed, and they're in charge forever."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a big deal. This is not a small thing. This is not renaming a post office. It's hard to believe any American would put these ideas on paper, much less try to pass them into law. And yet remarkably, that's happening.
And even more remarkably, the press has ignored it. This isn't happening in secret. It's happening in the house of representatives. Scores of democrats have backed this bill, but the legislation has not been mentioned in the New York Times, has been mentioned on CNN, a news channel, or even in self described conservative outlets like National Review. No mention.
Consider if this were working the other way. If a lone, I don't know, Republican state legislator from Minot, North Dakota had proposed to build this extreme that would remake America completely, the president himself would be expected to answer for it. CNN would demand that he disavow it even if he'd never heard of it before. But when one fifth of the entire Democratic caucus backs a bill demanding that you import illegal alien felons and then pay for it, it's a nonevent in the American media. They don't think you should know about it, and that's dangerous if we're being honest.
Whether the press cares or not, these are the stakes of the twenty twenty election, and you have a right to know what they are. A growing wing of the Democratic party views America itself as essentially illegitimate, a rogue state in which everything must be destroyed and remade. Our laws, our institutions, our customs, our freedoms, our history, our values. And, of course, that's the point of all of this. An entirely new country in which resistance is crushed, and they're in charge forever.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
By far the most insane part of the "The New Way Forward Act": Title VII-Right to Come Home "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide transportation for aliens eligible for reopening or reconsideration of their proceedings under this section, AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE"
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
The ACLU endorsed this garbage bill earlier this year. "This legislation also decriminalizes migration by ending federal criminal prosecutions for improper entry and reentry to the U.S." That's Open F*cking Borders https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/it-is-time-for-a-new-way-forward/
It Is Time for a New Way Forward | ACLU
It is past time for Congress to pave a new way forward in our U.S. immigration system.
aclu.org
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson's Interview w/ Retired Army Colonel & Former Foreign Policy Advisor To President Trump Douglas Macgregor About Claims In Bob Woodward's New Book About General Milley's Secret Conversations w/ Chinese Government & Dems Macgregor: "Unfortunately, I'm not shocked." https://t.co/fLauCeYiRG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Following reports that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley secretly contacted a Chinese general to warn them of potential US action, Doug McGregor stated that he is not shocked, but wants to hear Milley's side of the story. McGregor emphasizes that the chairman of the joint chiefs has no authority over operational forces and should coordinate with the President, National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State before making foreign policy statements.
If the claims are true, Milley violated the law and should be questioned under oath by Congress. McGregor notes that the President cannot independently launch a nuclear weapon; there is a consultative process. If Milley strongly disagreed with President Trump, he should have resigned. McGregor also points out Milley's previous communications with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, reassuring them he was in control at the Pentagon. McGregor believes the American people are not represented in Washington, and President Trump was not inclined to launch a nuclear strike.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So now that we know all this, what happens next? Doug McGregor is in some ways at the center of the story. He's retired army colonel who last year advised the Trump administration on foreign policy. In that capacity, he coauthored a memo calling for American troops to leave Afghanistan finally after twenty years. According to Woodward and Costa's account, that memo, MacGregor's memo, is one of the reasons that Mark Milley decided to organize a coup.
Doug MacGregor joins us in studio tonight. Doug, thanks so much for coming on. Sure. We were talking before air, and you upsettingly did not seem shocked by this. It does seem to people who don't know the system as well as you do stunning that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff would be secretly calling a Chinese general and saying, we'll warn you if we're gonna move against you.
But knowing what you know, this does not shock you.
Speaker 1: No. Unfortunately, I'm not shocked. Keep in mind, we have yet to hear from general Milley. Yes. We're accepting what Bob Woodward wrote in the book as effectively gospel truth.
And I'm not doubting Woodward's integrity, but we know from experience that from time to time he's somewhat flexible, and the interpretation may put a spin on it that that may or may not be accurate.
Speaker 0: And I hope this is one of those cases, but the Milley has not responded
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: As of 08:07 Eastern. So the fact is that the claim is that he made this phone call to his counterpart in the Chinese military and did not tell the president. The former president has issued a statement suggesting that he did not know. So that alone, tell us, is this with inbounds, or is it as far out of bounds as it seems?
Speaker 1: No. There are certain things that we know. These are the facts. First of all, the chairman of the joint chiefs has no statutory authority over operational forces of any kind. That means that he is not in a position to order anyone in the armed forces to say or do anything.
He can't do it. He is preeminently the senior military adviser to the president. That's what he is. So in theory, before he would make such a phone call, he would discuss the subject of the phone call with the president, the commander in chief. He certainly would not do something without coordinating with the national security adviser and the secretary of state because this is beyond defense.
This is a foreign policy statement that he's making. These are important things to understand. The third thing, and this is
Speaker 0: So if that is true, if this account is correct, I mean, this is from a layman's perspective, it looks it sounds like a grave offense.
Speaker 1: Yes. He's violated the law if this turns out to be true. We really need to hear from him. Congress needs to bring him over. He needs to be placed under oath, and he needs to answer questions in front of the Senate about this entire affair.
It needs to be very straightforward. They then will have to determine whether or not the law has been broken. But from our standpoint, knowing what we do about who has the authority to do what and where he fits in within the broad scheme of things, this is wrong. Remember, the president is not able to act independently and launch a nuclear weapon. He has a consultative process.
People who are members of a standing committee with whom this is this is discussed. This chain of command then runs through the secretary of defense and from the secretary of defense to strategic command, STRATCOM. Has nothing to do with General Milley. Now General Milley, as an adviser, can speak up and suggest what they should or shouldn't do. But I think there's something else here that people need to understand.
If General Milley feels as strongly as he apparently does according to this description about President Trump, he has at any time the right to resign his position as chairman of the joint chiefs and simply say, I cannot be part of this without prejudice. That doesn't mean he has to leave the armed forces. It just means he leaves this position, and someone else can be brought in to fill it. That's what you do if you feel strongly that you're dealing with someone you cannot support.
Speaker 0: Well, Millie, I I I'll just make this call because it's very obvious. He's a dishonorable man. We know that from his testimony before Congress. I think it's very clear. On the other hand, you know, we we know for a fact that he was speaking, in his capacity, I guess, as a part political partisan to the leaders of the other party.
Speaker 1: Yes. That is true.
Speaker 0: Colluding against Trump on a political and a partisan level.
Speaker 1: He made it very clear on numerous occasions that he was talking directly to, the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, and senator Chuck Schumer, reassuring them that he, quote, unquote, was in control of things in the Pentagon. There are plenty of people that saw that, including the acting secretary of defense. That's unfortunate. That seems so corrupt. Well, it seems corrupt.
And again, this sort of suggests to me this is another wind sock. This man blows with the wind. Clearly, the wind was moving left, and he was cultivating his bosses. That much I could accept without hesitation. It's just the entire narrative.
I would like to have that examined and explored under oath in the right setting.
Speaker 0: I gotta say, maybe the the most profound casualty here is the faith that people have that our system works and that their views are represented in the way the country is run. That's the most basic promise of democracy, and it seems time and again that we are learning in these details that the opinions of the people who live here and pay for it all have no bearing on anything.
Speaker 1: Look, I think it's very clear that the American people are not represented widely in Washington, DC. It's occupied territory. Ralph Nader used to call Washington occupied territory. It was occupied by corporations. It's occupied and controlled by donors.
So the American people aren't asked very much of anything about anything, whether it's immigration, going to war, intervening somewhere militarily. None of those things are done. So we know that that's already a huge problem. I just wanna make one point very clear, though. Yeah.
President Trump is not someone who is prepared to launch a nuclear strike out of the blue against anyone.
Speaker 0: Right. Trying not see nonsense. It's the whole thing is BS. Yes. Actually, Trump was the first president since Jimmy Carter who didn't launch a war.
So right. Yeah. The whole thing is a lie. A lot of things are lies. We're learning.
Doug McGregor, thank you. Yes, sir.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
#BREAKING Steve Bannon Joins Tucker Carlson For His First Interview Since Guilty Verdict Steve: "I'm not going to back down one inch, at all." https://t.co/X6AtKhfYJP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Steve Bannon believes Democrats are lawless and that the January 6th Committee was not a traditional hearing. He calls for a new congressional committee, with Republicans in charge, to investigate intelligence failures, FBI and DHS involvement, and the Pentagon's and National Guard's actions on January 6th, as well as the death of Ashley Babbitt.
Bannon believes the elites are taking on aspects of an authoritarian state. He claims his trial was unfair, with defenses removed, and sees his conviction as part of a larger ideological war. He urges the defeat of Liz Cheney and other committee members.
Bannon says he will never back off supporting Trump and the Constitution, and is prepared to go to jail. He believes the law is on his side and will fight the conviction through appeals. He calls the Biden administration illegitimate, citing the Saudis' and Chinese Communist Party's lack of respect. He wants every House committee to be an oversight committee and to launch a real January 6th committee to investigate staff lies and misrepresentations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Steve Bannon, thanks so much for coming on. I you know, you you can't kinda help but notice that you were convicted of a crime, which is not actually a crime most of the time in Washington or ever, within the same twenty four hour period as a guy who tried to murder a gubernatorial candidate in New York was released with no bail. What are we to make of these two events occurring the same day?
Speaker 1: Well, as you can tell, the Democrats are completely lawless, and look how they've run this committee. There's no ranking member. There's no minority council. It's not like the traditional hearings that have galvanized the nation in the past. And, Tucker, I think it's one of the reasons that it hasn't really had that big an impact.
You know, when they they interviewed the people on the trial, I think almost all the working class people didn't even know what was going on. Your show with people like Darren Beatty and Revolver and Raheemka, you've done actually more original reporting on what we've gotta get to the bottom to. Look. We need a commission or committee on January 6. It's gotta be with the new congress, with Republicans in charge, and we've gotta get to the bottom of the intelligence failures, FBI involvement, DHS involvement, the intelligence services, what happened to the Pentagon and and the National Guard, all of this.
Ashley Babbitt, all of this we have to get to the bottom of it. And people are gonna get to the bottom of it, even to the fact of some of the testimony that was given by staffers in in mild trial. You know, we wanted decision makers to come over and actually go on record under oath and say exactly what happened here, and they wouldn't. They they hid behind a privilege of which they wouldn't allow which they wouldn't allow me to they they they the judge the time Nara cast us on the executive privilege issue.
Speaker 0: I I mean, I've spent my whole life in Washington. I see a lot of acrimonious debates, but the idea you would send someone to prison because you don't like his political views. There's no allegation that you organized January 6 that we're there, storming the capitol. Mean, it's, like, fully insane. They don't like your politics.
They hate your attitude, and they're trying to send you to jail. Did you think this I didn't think this could happen. We'll start there. Did you think this could happen?
Speaker 1: A 100%, I think it happened. This is the remember, these guys all thought they were gonna change China and and the Chinese Communist Party. They're taking on aspects of the authoritarian state and state capitalism combined. This is the the elites that run this country. This is exactly what how they wanna run it.
Remember, Tucker, I'm not new to this. I I have spent more than any Trump official in intense, you know, being a witness in the Mueller commission for, I think, thirty hours, in the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee. I had Bill Burke. I had Alex Spiro. Here, I had David Sean.
I had top lawyers. Wouldn't even let my they wouldn't even let it be that could rely on the, on the opinion of my lawyer. Here, they took away every possible defense so somebody can have a defensive law. Okay? That's why I didn't we didn't even put on a defense.
We just had a closing had an opening argument and a closing argument. Tucker, this is where they're going. I mean, you documented better than anybody, but no. People have to understand. This is just one fight in an entire process, and that's why it's absolutely incumbent that Liz Cheney's defeated in a couple of weeks in Wyoming by the Republican party and by conservatives and by MAGA.
And then later, we've already got Kinsinger out. We got another member of the committee, I think, who's already retired. We gotta defeat Lauria. But we must have a sweeping victory in the house. And then Republicans have to have the stones to put on a real hearing.
And by the way, let the Democrats have them on a ranking member, let them have a council, and just get to it. If you look at what Darren Beatty's done on your show alone, it's outrageous what the public doesn't know about We for the good of the system, this has to happen.
Speaker 0: But in the meantime, you've just been convicted. I I mean, if the how do you feel about going to jail? Are you confident you would be safe there, for example?
Speaker 1: I I look look look first off, if I go to jail, I go to jail. I will never back off a second. Look. I spent eight years as a naval officer. I've committed my life to this pro to this program to get this done.
I will never back off. I support Trump and the constitution, and I'm not backing off one inch. If I go to jail, so be it. But look, we've got a long appeals process. Annie McCarthy did a great hit on Fox earlier today.
We got a long appeals process. I think the law is with us on a number of of situations. I think some of this is really gonna be adjudicated, maybe even higher than the appellate courts. I I'm very confident that we're a 100% right on the law, but I'm gonna fight this all the way. And this is not the only battle we're fighting.
They're coming at us on every aspect. Look. They're trying to shut you down. They're trying to throw off Fox anchors. They're coming for everybody.
And people have to understand right now, this is an ideological war, we cannot lose. The the the the fate of the country is over the next couple of years. And if people just wanna go on vacation and say, hey. I'll just let it get sorted out. That's fine.
But there are just thousands and thousands and thousands of fighters out there to say, we're not gonna back down one inch, and I'm not gonna back down one inch at all.
Speaker 0: Did you think during the course of this trial, maybe you should call Eric Holder and Lois Lerner, both of whom live in Washington, and just say, like, how how did you beat this? Like, what what's the secret sauce here? The
Speaker 1: secret sauce is they're they're in power. And, also, let's be honest. The Republicans have been controlled opposition. That's what has to change.
Speaker 0: That's for sure.
Speaker 1: This November, now we do have to we have to deliver a crushing blow to this Democratic party apparatus, but then we have to really govern it. And I mean, govern on offense. Every committee in the house has to be an oversight committee. We have to go after the Biden administration, which is illegitimate. You can tell they're illegitimate.
Look how the Saudis mock us to our face. Look how the Chinese Communist Party have absolutely no respect. They understand he's illegitimate. We have to get in there in January. Every committee's gotta be an oversight committee, and we have to have a real January 6 committee, including to get to the staffers now and see about the lies and misrepresentations they put on national television to defame people.
You were gonna I would tell the January 6 staff right now, preserve your documents because there's gonna be a real committee, and this is gonna be backed by Republican grassroots voters and Magna to say, we wanna get to the bottom of this for the good of the nation. We have to know everything that went on, all the intelligence reports, exactly what went on, what was Ray's involvement, what was FBI asset involvement. I mean, just stuff look. Just just go to Revolver and see Darren Beatty on your specials and when he's on your when he's on, your the Tucker Carlson show. Right there alone leads you to all types of inquiry we have to get to the bottom two.
Speaker 0: Yeah. If, you know, Republicans win and Mitch McConnell's still running the senate, you gotta wonder, like, is it is it even worth it? But I'll let you and the political guys, fight that battle. Steve Bannon, I appreciate your coming on tonight of All Nights. Thanks very much.
Good luck.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Tucker. Appreciate it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I've been reflecting on Tucker Carlson's recent discussions regarding foreign policy and the Nordstream pipeline incident, suggesting possible sabotage and accountability. He criticized the Senate's approval of another Ukraine spending bill, calling Congress members complicit. Carlson warned about escalating U.S.-Russia tensions, hinting at dire consequences. In a conversation with Tulsi Gabbard, they lamented the leadership's disregard for American interests amid the Ukraine conflict. He also questioned the Biden administration's credibility on climate change if they were involved in the pipeline's destruction.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson's Monologue On The Foreign Policy Consequences Of The Breaching Of The Nordstream Pipelines, The Likelihood That They Were Sabotaged And Who May Be Responsible https://t.co/92b2Z92khj
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Nord Stream pipelines, which carry natural gas from Russia to Western Europe, have been breached, resulting in a massive release of methane into the Baltic Sea. Swedish officials recorded two undersea explosions equivalent to hundreds of pounds of TNT near the leaks, leading to accusations of industrial terrorism.
The prime suspect would be Vladimir Putin, but it would be self-destructive for Putin to destroy his own pipelines, which are a source of power, wealth, and leverage over Europe.
Joe Biden had suggested in early February that "there will be no longer a Nord Stream two. We we will bring an end to it." Victoria Newland at the State Department made similar statements. A Polish politician, Radek Sikorski, posted "Thank you, USA" after the explosions.
A new pipeline, the Baltic pipe, was inaugurated in Poland, carrying non-Russian natural gas. The White House press secretary noted the destruction highlights the importance of transitioning to clean energy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening, and welcome to Tucker Carlson. Tonight, you hate to start a Tuesday evening on a grim note, but one of the environmental catastrophes, one of the great environmental catastrophes of our time is unfolding tonight off the coast of Denmark. The Nord Stream pipelines, are enormous Russian owned conduits that carry natural gas from Russia to Western Europe, have been breached. As we speak, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 are pouring millions of cubic meters of natural gas into the Baltic Sea. Pictures from the air, which you can now see on your screen, show a toxic bubble field more than half a mile wide.
You can only guess at how many marine mammals are being killed right now. Countless. But the lasting damage may be to the atmosphere. Natural gas is comprised of up to 90% methane. Methane, as Joe Biden has often told you, is the key driver of global warming, which is, of course, an existential threat to humanity and the planet.
So if you're worried about climate change, what just happened to the Nord Stream pipelines is as close to the apocalypse as we have ever come. So the question is, how did this happen? And it turns out it was not an accident. At the very same time that leaks in these pipelines were detected, Swedish officials recorded two powerful undersea explosions, each one of which was equivalent to hundreds of pounds of TNT. Nothing in nature can account for that.
Almost immediately, the pipelines began leaking in three separate places. So there's only one explanation for what happened. This was an act of industrial terrorism. That was very obvious to the prime minister of Poland, and he wasted no time in saying so. Watch.
Speaker 1: Today, we are also dealing with an act of sabotage. We do not know the details of what happened yet, but we can clearly see that it is an act of sabotage. An act that probably marks the next stage in the escalation of the situation we are dealing with in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: We can clearly see, he said, this was an act of sabotage, an act of terrorism. Well, yes, we can see that. So the question is who did it? And, of course, the prime suspect is obvious. It would be the same man who caused domestic inflation here in The US and stole the twenty sixteen election from Hillary Clinton.
That'd be Vladimir v Putin. The Washington Post got right to it. Putin, they declared, is now weaponizing the Nord Stream pipelines. According to the Canadian ambassador to the UN, Vladimir Putin has decided to use, quote, pollution as an act of war. Progressive Twitter strongly endorsed this conclusion.
Putin did it. And that makes sense until you thought about it for just a moment. Vladimir Putin may be evil. They tell us that he is evil. But is he stupid?
Probably isn't stupid. And yet, and here's the strange part, if you are Vladimir Putin, you would have to be a suicidal moron to blow up your own energy pipelines. That's the one thing you would never do. Natural gas pipelines are the main source of your power and your wealth and most critically your leverage over other countries. Europe needs your energy now more than ever with winter approaching.
If you can't deliver that energy, then countries like Germany have no need to pay attention to what you want. You're in the middle of a war, an all hands on deck war, so you need all the leverage you can get. Under these circumstances, there is no chance you would blow up Nord Stream one or two. Not now, obviously. In fact, it's so obvious that even as our famously dim secretary of state, Tony Blinken, seemed to acknowledge it.
Sabotaging Nord Stream, he said today, is, quote, clearly in no one's interest. Right. But really only half right. It is true that blowing up Nord Stream does not help Vladimir Putin. He would not do that.
Why would he? But that doesn't mean that other countries wouldn't consider doing it. They would consider it, and we know they have considered it because at least one of them has said so in public. In early February, less than three weeks before the war in Ukraine began, Joe Biden suggested on camera that he might take out these pipelines. Watch.
Speaker 2: If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the the the border of Ukraine again, then there will be we there will be no longer a Nord Stream two. We we will bring an end to it.
Speaker 3: Would you but how will you how will you do that exactly since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control.
Speaker 2: We will, I promise you we'll be able to do it.
Speaker 0: Notice how he phrased that. And he's the president. Doesn't phrase things by accident, particularly when he's reading off cards. He didn't say, I will pause the delivery of gas from Russia to Germany. He said, there won't be a Nord Stream two.
We'll put an end to it. We'll take it out. We'll blow it up. How will you do this? He was asked.
I promise you we will be able to do it. They thought this through. And yet those watching, very much including us, didn't take Biden seriously when he said it. This is the president who has declared climate change the most pressing emergency in the history of the world. This is the man who lectures you about using a wood stove or driving an SUV because of its emissions.
This is the guy who spent billions trying to mitigate cow flatulence because methane. Would that guy really blow up a methane pipeline in the middle of the Baltic Sea? It was hard to imagine. That would be an unimaginably reckless act. That'd be the kind of thing you would do if you wanted to start a nuclear war.
It would be insane. And yet, in retrospect, it's obvious they were thinking about this because Joe Biden wasn't the only person to suggest it. Toria Newland at the State Department said pretty much the very same thing. Newland is a lifelong war cheerleader. She worked to bring about the Iraq invasion, never apologized, kept going.
She helped engineer the coup that overthrew the Ukrainian government some years back. So capable. Clearly, she's capable of anything. But environmental terrorism, even for Toria Newland, that seemed too much, too extreme. And yet here she is in January.
Speaker 4: With regard to Nord Stream two, we continue to have, very strong and clear conversations, with our German allies, and I wanna be clear with you today. If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream two will not move forward.
Speaker 0: One way or the other, we'll stop Nord Stream. Now looking back, those words seem chilling eight months later as natural gas pours into the Baltic Sea and into the atmosphere. So you have to ask, could the Biden administration really do something like this? We can't say for sure. We don't know for sure.
We can tell you that close allies of the Biden White House believe they certainly did do it. Radix Sikorsky is a Polish politician. He's chairman of the EU USA delegation in the European Parliament. He's connected. He's also the husband of regime stenographer Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic magazine.
Sikorsky is so close to Joe Biden that he's got a picture of the two of them together in his Twitter profile. So when the pipelines blew up, Sikorsky responded immediately, here's what he wrote. Thank you, USA. So once again, did the Biden administration really do this? It's hard to believe.
Given that it's an atrocity, it's effectively an act of terrorism, we don't wanna make that accusation. But we should tell you that maybe not coincidentally, today, a brand new pipeline was unveiled. A pipeline that carries non Russian natural gas in roughly the same area as Nord Streams 1 And 2. This is called the Baltic pipe. It was inaugurated in Poland.
It will carry natural gas from Norway through Denmark to Poland and other countries nearby. And it's likely to do very well since now it has less competition. Making sense? What does the White House say about this? How are they accounting for what happened today?
Well, they're not exactly enthusiastically denying responsibility for it. Instead, they're looking at the upside. Here's the president's publicist noting that the destruction of yet another energy pipeline is yet another opportunity for you to buy an electric car.
Speaker 3: As you all know, these pipelines weren't pumping gas into Europe at this time. NS 2 was never operational, as you guys know. NS 1 has not been operational for weeks because Putin has weaponized energy, and we have said this many times before. This just drives home the importance of our efforts to work together to get alternative gas supplies to Europe and to support efforts to reduce gas, consumption and accelerate true energy independence by moving to clean energy, economy.
Speaker 0: Oh, moving to clean energy, say the people who very may well be responsible for letting methane into the Baltic Sea and into the atmosphere at a scale that most people can't imagine, the people lecturing you about your SUV may have blown up a natural gas pipeline and created one of the great catastrophes of our time and its effect on the environment. If they did this, this will be one of the craziest, most destructive things any American administration has ever done. But it would also be totally consistent with what they do. What do they do? They destroy.
These people build nothing, not one thing. Instead, they tear down and they desecrate from historic statues to the constitution to energy infrastructure. And no one in congress is trying to stop any of it. They're just preparing for the inevitable fallout.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Reacting To The Senate Advancing Yet Another Ukraine Spending Bill "And Congress is expected to fully pass the bill later this week with Republicans nodding along like the zombies they are." https://t.co/UqxZOLwqig
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Senate advanced a spending bill that allocates $35 million to the Department of Energy for preparing for and responding to potential nuclear and radiological incidents in Ukraine. This bill brings the total US expenditure on Ukraine, including war-related aid, government funding, and energy assistance, to $67 billion. This $67 billion is more than Russia's entire military budget from last year. Congress is expected to fully pass the bill later this week.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tonight, the senate just advanced a spending bill with 35,000,000 for the Department of Energy to, quote, prepare for and respond to potential nuclear and radiological incidents in Ukraine. What? The spending bill also brings the total US expenditure on Ukraine, the war, but also funding its government and energy for Ukraine, to $67,000,000,000 on the eve of what could be a massive economic disruption. Here, to our economy, $67,000,000,000. How much is that?
Well, it's more than Russia's entire military budget last year. And congress is expected to fully pass the bill later this week with republicans nodding along like the zombies they are.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson On Escalating Tensions Between The U.S. & Russia "We could wind up very quickly in 3rd world conditions. Those are the stakes. Have the people behind this, the geniuses like Victoria Nuland, considered the effects? Maybe the have. Maybe that was the point." https://t.co/yyFAFhuk8M
Video Transcript AI Summary
Blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines means the U.S. is directly at war with the largest nuclear power, which could have consequences. Russia could sever undersea internet cables, preventing banks in London from communicating with banks in New York. This could cause economic collapse and lead to world crisis conditions. It is unknown if those responsible, like Torian Nuland, have considered these effects, or if that was the intention.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What would be the effect of this? Every action has a reaction, equal and opposite. Blow up the Nord Stream pipelines? Okay. We've entered a new phase, one in which The United States is directly at war with the largest nuclear power in the world.
Doesn't mean it'll go nuclear immediately, but it does suggest there could be consequences. If we actually blew up the Nord Stream pipelines, why wouldn't Russia sever undersea Internet cables? What would happen if they did that? What would happen if banks in London couldn't communicate with banks in New York? Just that one piece of it, leaving aside its potential effects on our power grid.
But let's just say the banks couldn't communicate with each other for one day. What would the economic effect of that be? Oh, we would cascade downward into your house. We could have an actual collapse. We could wind up very quickly in world conditions.
Those are the stakes. Have the people behind this, the geniuses like Torian Nuland considered the effects? Maybe they have. Maybe that was the point.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson & Douglas Macgregor Discuss How Someone Like John Bolton Got So Much Power Tucker: "There are so many people in this city who've made fortunes pushing these wars, and I really hope that we take time to expose them because they deserve to be exposed." #AmericaFirst https://t.co/Q706aUQ1jB
Video Transcript AI Summary
John Bolton's potential testimony is considered a "stupid sideshow" that won't change Trump's acquittal. Bolton, despite disagreeing with Trump's policies, held a position of power. He is described as a strong advocate for American military power, despite avoiding service in Vietnam.
Bolton was allegedly fired for suggesting Libya as a model for North Korea while Trump was trying to diffuse conflict there. It's claimed Bolton would have been happier with Hillary Clinton or George Bush. Despite his known views, he got the job and allegedly filled the National Security Council with "anti-Trumpers" to support his confrontational policies.
It's asserted that Bolton was working to undermine the president and is aligned with those who tried to control Trump's foreign policy. He allegedly actively subverted Trump's policies, and his presence in the White House is considered a tragedy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Will John Bolton testify? Who knows? Either way, it won't change the outcome. Trump will be acquitted. This is a totally stupid side sideshow.
We'll be embarrassed about it later. But it's worth taking this moment to pause and think about John Bolton himself for a moment anyway. How did a guy who disagrees so completely with everything that Donald Trump ran on and won on, how did that guy wind up in a position of power in the White House? Good question because he's not the only one. Doug McGregor is a retired US army colonel, author of the book margin of victory, our first choice for foreign policy analysis.
We're glad to see you tonight. Colonel McGregor, what do you make of John
Speaker 1: Bolton's turn? Well, first of all, I'm I'm impressed with Washington DC. There's no other place on the planet where a man who could not be confirmed for the job as ambassador to the UN suddenly overnight is transformed into the minister of truth and the paragon of virtue that everyone should listen to. So, no, this couldn't happen anywhere else but Washington DC. The the second thing is what's really disturbing is something that you mentioned earlier.
This is someone who probably is the most strident advocate for the use of American military power everywhere that we've ever had in the White House, certainly in the job as national security adviser. And this from a man who announced very glibly to the American public in numerous publications that, you know, gosh, I didn't see any point to serving in Vietnam because by the time I might have been over there, gosh, the war was probably over anyway. So I saw no point and found a place in the National Guard.
Speaker 0: So this is The irony coming from someone who is espoused keeping troops in places Yes. Long beyond the possibility of victory.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And and clearly, he was fired principally, not not just for the the broader issues of Iran and Venezuela and Syria and so forth, but because specifically he spoke publicly and said that Libya could be a good model for North Korea. At a point in time when the president of The United States was building a policy to diffuse the conflict, the crisis, the war, end the war on the Korean Peninsula. That's the great tragedy. And finally, president Trump said that's enough.
Speaker 0: I wonder would any sane person say Libya that went from a dictatorship, for sure, to a place of total chaos where there are slave markets in the capital? Would anyone look at Libya today and say, we need more of those?
Speaker 1: Well, probably Hillary Clinton since she was the principal force behind it, but I'm sure that John Bolton would have been much happier with Hillary Clinton. Certainly more more satisfied with George Bush that he served than with Donald Trump. And and here's the final tragedy. Everyone knows Donald excuse me. Everyone knows that mister Bolton has strong views.
No one questions that. Everyone knows his advocacy for wars in many places, And yet, somehow, magically, he got the job and then managed to keep large numbers of people in the National Security Council staff who were all committed anti Trumpers and to bring in new anti Trumpers like Elliot Abrams, Jeffries, and others in support of his policies of confrontation and hostility. He thought he was president, and that's ultimately what Diddy meant.
Speaker 0: It it seems by his behavior that he was working to undermine the president while he was there. I mean, this doesn't seem a departure from what he's been doing for the last couple of years.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. No. No. Absolutely. And remember, he's very much in line with those four stars that brought the president over to the Pentagon, sat him down in the tank and said, we'll straighten him out.
We'll explain to him why none of these wars can end, why we have to have troops everywhere. That's John Bolton. This town is full of people like John Bolton. The only difference is that Bolton didn't even bother to disguise it. He walked in, actively subverted, tried to replace Donald Trump's policies with his own.
The tragedy is he was there so long and did so much damage.
Speaker 0: There are so many people in this city who've made fortunes pushing these wars, and I I really hope that we take time on this show to expose them because they deserve to be exposed. Absolutely. You've made that point many times. Colonel, thanks so much for coming.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
#Thread Tucker Carlson's Monologue Calling Out The Fake News Media's Lies And Propaganda About The Colorado Springs Shooting Especially NBC News' Top Fake News Propagandists Brandy Zadrozny And Ben Collins "They are liars. Cold-blooded liars." https://t.co/hfybgkhZqB
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims news outlets falsely reported the Colorado shooter was a right-wing, anti-trans extremist radicalized by right-wing media, including Fox News and Libs of TikTok, to hate transgender people. NBC News reporters Ben Collins and Brandi Zadrosny are called out for allegedly claiming criticism of genital mutilation of children, drag shows for children, or teachers discussing oral sex with children is hateful rhetoric that incites violence.
The speaker states the accused shooter, Anderson Lee Aldrich, is non-binary and uses they/them pronouns. Therefore, the speaker argues, NBC's reporting is false political propaganda. The speaker accuses Ben Collins of falsely claiming the victims were all gay and that the town is at fault because Christians make gay people feel unsafe. The White House and Pete Buttigieg are criticized for using the shooting to advocate for an assault weapons ban and attack political opponents. The speaker accuses NBC News, Collins, and Zadrosny of not apologizing and continuing to accuse right-wing media of stoking hatred toward LGBTQ people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening, and welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight. So if you've been watching the news recently, the one thing you know for certain about the accused gunman and the massacre in Colorado over the weekend is that he was a crazed right wing anti trans extremist. This is a man who was radicalized by this show and by the Twitter account libs of TikTok to hate transgendered people. And that's why this man walks into a bar, a gay bar with a gun and started murdering people. He did that because he was taught by right wing media outlets to despise and fear the non binary community.
And that's why this show, Animals of TikTok, must be hauled into court and bankrupted for what we've done so that we can never provoke this kind of horrifying violence ever again. That's the real lesson of this mass shooting. So that is what they've been telling you again and again and again on various news channels for the past three days. And we're not overstating that, by the way. Here's a selection of it.
Speaker 1: It's a campaign being driven by members of congress and conservative influencers on social media, as well as the rights most favorite TV network, Fox News.
Speaker 2: Those incidents at drag events I mentioned a few moments ago, they happened within the context of conservative media personalities fear mongering against queer folks.
Speaker 3: Respected messengers from TV networks saying that these people are wrong, and they're trying to damage your children.
Speaker 1: We have a long history of the LGBTQ community being victimized, demonized by especially right wing media and Republicans. You have anti LGBTQ rhetoric spewed on the most watched hours on Fox News at a regular clip against the US military, against gay men and women, against gay teachers, against their right to exist.
Speaker 0: So Fox News, in its most watched hours, is attacking even the US military, and of course, gay men and women and teachers too. They're advocating, quote, against their right to exist. In other words, they've been calling for genocide. That would be us. Now, that's a stout claim, but no one has made it more often than NBC News.
In particular, it's two self described disinformation reporters, Ben Collins and Brandi Zadrosny. These two are outraged that anyone would dare criticize the genital mutilation of children or drag shows for fifth graders or creepy weirdo teachers explaining the mechanics of oral sex to nine year olds. Pointing out that any of that is happening is hate, and it gets people killed. Here's a highly emotional Ben Collins of NBC News making that very point yesterday morning.
Speaker 2: Am I doing something wrong here? Here are some headlines that I wrote for the last six months. Fueled by Internet's far right machine, anti LGBTQ threats shut down trans rights and drag events. Remember, there was a drag event happening in Colorado.
Speaker 4: What do what do we do about public officials at local level, state level, federal level, who try to inject the fear of the very word transgender into school issues?
Speaker 2: Get more clicks for it, they end up on Tucker Carlson. End up on the highest rated show on cable news. And last night, by the way, Tucker attacked my colleague, Brandy Zidrozzi, who was co bi on almost all of these stories. Not me. He attacked Brandy, of course.
But he he attacked Brandy. And he he went right back into this idea that some they is trying to groom your kids, trying to sexualize your children. Right? Yeah. Who's the they, first of
Speaker 4: all? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And second of all, all of her reporting was right. All of it was right.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's all about me, of course, says Ben Collins. But more to the point, how dare anyone criticize the August disinformation reporter and former college librarian Brandi Zedrosny because as Ben Collins pointed out, her reporting was right. Well, since you brought it up, Ben Collins, was her reporting right? Well, not entirely. Do you remember when Brandy Zed Drosny told you several hundred times that the accused shooter Anderson Lee Aldrich was inspired by hatred for the non binary community that he learned on this show?
Do you remember that? Well, actually, it turns out we discovered last night that Anderson Lee Aldrich is, drum roll please, part of the non binary community. He doesn't hate them. He is one. In a court filing, Aldrich's lawyers wrote this quote, Anderson Aldrich is non binary.
They use they, them pronouns and for the purposes of all former filings will be addressed as mix Aldrich. Mix Aldrich. That's the shooter, the non binary shooter. Let that sink in. First, get your chuckling under control and ponder what this means.
What it means is that virtually everything that NBC News has told you about this shooting in Colorado is not only wrong, it is the opposite of the truth. It is all a grotesque and filthy lie. It wasn't news reporting. It turns out to have been the most transparent sort of political propaganda. And for once, they have been busted flat out in public trying to sell political propaganda to an unsuspecting public under the guise of news.
It's not the first time they've done it. They won't stop doing it. Oh, but they did it a lot in this case. Here's another clip. Another instance of Ben Collins trying to once again pass off political slogans as news.
Speaker 2: There are five dead people in a strip mall because that was the only place they felt safe as gay or trans people in this town in Colorado Springs.
Speaker 0: He's emotional telling you that. There are five dead people in a strip mall because that was the only place they felt safe as gay or trans people in this town of Colorado Springs. So it turns out it's the town's fault too because there are a lot of Christians, everybody knows, in Colorado Springs. So gay people feel terrified there because Christians are dangerous. And all these terrified gay people were huddled together for safety when this Fox News addled anti trans bigot walked in and started shooting them for being trans folk.
That was Ben Collins' quote reporting. Well, the only problem is not all the victims were gay. One of them, at least one of them was at the club with his girlfriend. Oh, details. Details.
Ben Collins doesn't let details get in the way of an effective political attack. And it would have been an effective political attack had not reality interceded. But he doesn't care. Now there's the White House. Here's the White House telling you that because a non binary person shut up a gay bar, you can't own a gun.
Speaker 3: This attack also comes amidst a rise in violent rhetoric and threats against the LGBTQI plus people across the country. While we don't know yet for certain the motive of this attack, hate has no place in this country and neither do military style assault rifles, which is why we will continue to push for an assault weapons ban.
Speaker 0: Oh, that makes sense. You find the reasoning? So when the trans community opens fire on itself, we need an assault weapons ban because why? Because you're a hater. Pete Buttigieg, of course, couldn't pass pass up a moment like this.
It's not like Pete Buttigieg wants to talk about how things are going over at the transportation department, which he supposedly runs. Short answer, not well. No. Pete Buttigieg wants to talk about identity. He always wants to talk about identity.
And the funny ironic thing is, in the tale just a few years ago, Buttigieg wouldn't even admit that he was gay. He hid that and then lied about it for reasons he has never been asked to explain. Why not? But whatever. Now, he is happy to use his sexual orientation as a cudgel to bash you repeatedly in the face into submission.
Quote, here's the latest. If you're a politician or media figure who sets up the LGBTQ community to be hated and feared, not because any of us have ever harmed you, but because you find it useful, then don't you dare act surprised when this kind of violence follows. Don't you dare act surprised. Don't you dare. Alright.
Fair enough. We won't dare. But honestly, we were a little surprised to learn that the anti trans shooter is himself trans. Were you surprised by that, Pete Buttigieg? Now that you're admitting you're gay after lying about it?
Since we're talking about identity? What do have to say about that? Well, nothing, weirdly. People to judge hasn't said anything. Nor has he apologized for attacking other people on false pretenses.
Guess who else hasn't apologized? Ben Collins or Brandy Zed Drosny. Yesterday, they were accusing us of getting five people murdered. Now that the story they were telling has turned out to be a lie, the opposite of what they said it was, they're pretending that nothing has changed at all. Oh, they are liars.
Cold blooded liars. It's amazing to watch. And so is the company they work for. NBC News just ran this article after we know that the shooter was himself trans. They ran this headline with a straight face.
Quote, right wing influencers and media doubled down on anti LGBTQ rhetoric in the wake of the Colorado shooting. Can you imagine writing that knowing what we know? They had no problem with it. Then an editor at NBC called Benjamin Goggin added this quote, if the shooter is non binary, it doesn't change the fact the right wing media is continuing to stoke hatred towards LGBTQ people after five people were killed at a gay bar. Right.
So it's hatred. So if you're against general mutilation of children or bringing toddlers to drag shows, you're against the LGBTQ community. Well, course, that's insane. There's nothing anti gay about that. Most gay people aren't in favor of general mutilation or bringing toddlers to drag shows.
There's nothing wrong with those opinions. They're the right opinions and all decent people understand that. What is indecent, what is wrong is lying about a mass shooting, which NBC did.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Calling Out Republicans For Doing Nothing On Big Tech Censorship "Unfortunately, most of them are very mediocre and dumb and afraid, but they have to step up because there's nobody else to step up." https://t.co/TTRHGrIono
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson discusses a New Zealand professor whose Twitter account was temporarily restricted after she mocked Chinese President Xi Jinping. Carlson believes this reveals that tech companies ultimately care most about the Chinese government, even at the expense of free speech. He says Jack Dorsey has a lot of control over speech and cares more about what the Chinese government thinks than the rights of normal people.
Carlson asserts that Republicans in Congress are the only ones who can stand up for free speech in the West, but most are afraid. He questions why they are allowing this to happen. The speaker notes the CCP surveils its citizens and cites Tucker Carlson being spied on by the NSA as similar situations. She asks why more journalists aren't calling out this hypocrisy, suggesting they are prioritizing financial gain by aligning with the CCP. Carlson says people tend to suck up to power and that journalists are hurting those below them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome back. I'm back with Tucker Carlson who has been spied on by the NSA. They do not deny spying. They will not admit to it either, but he has had the courage to call out hypocrisy. And, Tucker, now we're seeing this partnership with big tech and big government as these agencies are obviously getting politicized.
I wanna get your take on this New Zealand University Professor. He says Twitter temporarily restricted her account after she mocked Chinese president Xi Jinping. This professor was making fun of the CCP's one hundredth anniversary celebrations, and two of her tweets were marked unavailable. Your take on why Twitter would make her tweets unavailable because she said something that Xi Jinping did not like.
Speaker 1: Well, because they finally pulled off the mask. I mean, it's you know, if you wanna know who's in charge, you know, who can't you criticize? And, of course, the Chinese are ultimately who the tech companies care about. And it kind of it's kind of I mean, Jack Dorsey doesn't need any more money. He's the the kind of nose ringed ayahuasca enthusiast who runs Twitter.
But he's a he's actually a very powerful person in American life. A lot of our most important conversations unfold on Twitter, unfortunately, but that's true. So he has a lot of control over speech in this country, and he cares much more about what the Chinese government thinks. And I think it's a business consideration than he cares about the ability of normal people to exercise their right of free speech. But it's shocking.
And you kind of wonder, like, where is the Congress in this? So most of us I mean, you and I have platforms, thank heaven. So we have some recourse. If we're wronged, we can say so on TV, and lots of people can hear about it. But in the end, we don't have real power.
We can't change laws. We can't command troops. The only people who can stand up for free speech in the Western world right now are Republicans in the US Congress. I mean, that that's really it's kind of left to them. And, most of them are very mediocre and dumb and afraid, but they have to step up because there's nobody else to step up.
There's no one else to protect, again, not just the right of Americans, but of the entire West to say what is true and to push back against entrenched power. Like, where are they? Why are they allowing this? Seriously.
Speaker 0: But but is isn't it isn't it really a sorry state of affairs when journalists are not even sticking up for free speech? No. I mean, look at this. The CCP is surveilling its citizens every day. Now we see little pockets of situations similar like Tucker Carlson getting spied on by the NSA.
Are there no journalists left to actually call out this hypocrisy aside from us? I mean, we have been spotlighting and calling out the CCP for so many years now, but it has gotten dangerous. Do they not recognize who they are in bed with just because they've got dollar signs in their eyes to sell to 1,400,000,000 people. And big tech is just the beginning of it. Don't even get me started about the financials.
Speaker 1: That's right. Because people's lowest instinct, this is an ugly feature of human nature, is to suck up to power, to, you know, to to kiss us kiss up and spit down. Unfortunately, and part of what it means to be a dignified adult is to fight back against those instincts, protect the weak, fight the powerful when appropriate. I mean, that's that's kind of our job. And journalists, ultimately, it's not even a left right question.
They suck up to those in charge, and they hurt those below them. And I think it's really ignorable. I think it's disgusting, honestly.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson's Interview With 70 Year Old Disabled Veteran Lt Commander Thomas Caldwell On Being Charged Today With "Conspiracy To Commit Sedition" Lt. Caldwell: "Everything that they've said about me and everything that they say today about me is untrue and we can prove it." https://t.co/4pm8ieuOyr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thomas Caldwell, a retired Navy lieutenant commander indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit sedition, claims he never entered the Capitol. Federal authorities claim to have pictures and texts proving otherwise, but Caldwell says the charges are "total claptrap" and he is "absolutely outraged" because they have no proof. He states that the government has backed off the idea that he went inside the Capitol because of exculpatory video evidence.
Caldwell denies planning to bring heavy weapons by boat across the Potomac, stating he doesn't know anything about it. He claims he doesn't own heavy weapons and hasn't seen evidence that any weapons were seized. He believes he was targeted because someone referred to him by his military rank. Caldwell says the charges have crushed him and his wife emotionally and financially, but they have faith in God. He categorically denies being inside the Capitol.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, we've told you a lot and interviewed a couple of times retired navy lieutenant commander Thomas Caldwell. He was indicted tonight on the charge of conspiracy to commit sedition. He's the person we previously referred to. Now, he has been on this show before. Told us he'd never entered the capital.
Federal authorities claim they have pictures and text to prove otherwise. Mister Caldwell is about to join us to respond. But first, to set the stage, here is part of our conversation earlier with Thomas Caldwell.
Speaker 1: They made me the poster boy. I was defendant number one in a conspiracy. They said I conspired, and I actually put together a military style attack on the capital that I stormed into the capital and did all these terrible things. They even claimed I threatened our lawfully elected representatives in congress. Total claptrap.
Speaker 0: Thomas Caldwell joins us tonight. Miss Caldwell, thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate it. So this indictment so you're pushing 70 or 100% military disabled. You spent a career in the Navy.
This indictment paints you as the leader of a crack commando unit trying to stage a sort of D Day invasion on the banks of the Potomac with what they describe as heavy weapons. And then they go on to say that, in fact, they can prove you were within the capital. Respond to these allegations. If you would. Can they prove you were there?
Were you there?
Speaker 1: Well, Tucker, I did not go into the capital and they know it. And interestingly enough, in the the new charges, look at this, a long awaited sedition charge paperwork. They've actually backed off on the idea that I went in. Why? Because all of these thousands and thousands of hours of film that they have body worn cameras and stuff like that are exculpatory.
That's one of the reasons why I think we haven't gotten them so far. But they have backed off on the idea that I went in. One of the things that I learned in prison after they threw me into solitary confinement for a couple of months is that when they don't know what to charge you with, they charge you with conspiracy. And now sedition, I have to tell you, I'm I'm absolutely outraged. They don't have any proof, and I'm innocent.
And we can prove my innocence. So all the stuff that they said before has all been false. All the stuff that they say here is also false. And and I'm just I'm absolutely outraged and and angered. And I will tell you, and you know this is true, Tucker, I have consistently taken the high road about this.
My wife and I are Christians. We understood that there was a rush to judgment. I got arrested because somebody referred to me by my military rank, commander Tom, and it's all they needed to put guns in my wife's face and take me off our farm in chains. But everything that they said about me and everything that they say today about me is untrue, and we can prove it.
Speaker 0: So they they claim that you plan to bring, quote, heavy weapons by boat across the Potomac River. Were you planning what kind of heavy weapons do you think that refers to? Were you planning to do that?
Speaker 1: I have no idea and no, I was not, Tucker. Look, I was a navy guy. Okay? Now Right. Navy guys do know about water, but it's like aircraft carriers, you know, we're talking about blue water navy here.
So this other stuff, I don't know anything about. Didn't have any role in planning any of it. It's just more hooey.
Speaker 0: Were those were those heavy weapons that they say you texted about, have they been located? What do you have any idea? I mean, that just sort of jumped out jumped out of the indictment.
Speaker 1: No. None.
Speaker 0: Do you have heavy weapons? No. Do you have howitzers or anything like that?
Speaker 1: No, sir. I don't. And I don't know anybody who does. And so I I do not I've never seen anything in the limited discovery that they have given us to show that they have seized any kind of weapons. And I can tell you, I never saw any weapons nor did I talk to anybody who who talked about bringing in heavy weapons and and overthrowing the government, which is what sedition is all about.
It's just it's just plain nuts. And this kind of thing really should worry every single American citizen. I listened to your previous guests, and they were absolutely right. There's no there's no there's no innocence anymore. If you are charged, they just figure that you're guilty.
And the the real worry here now is that for anybody that's watching our program, think about this. If you are perceived by people who may not even be elected in our country to not think the right way or to say something in a private email conversation that Yeah. They don't like, you could end up being a target just as I'm a target.
Speaker 0: So you're facing the rest of your life in prison, I think, on the basis of these charges. Apparently, the indictment suggests that these were pulled off of Signal, which is supposed to be an encrypted and secure messaging app for your phone. Is that true? And if it is, how would the feds have access to your text messages from signal? Do you have any idea?
Speaker 1: Well, I'll tell you what, it's very interesting. What has happened is is the government has spoken long and hard about these management or leadership chats, various types of software, and and all these things that were going on. I appear in none of those leadership chats. I don't know what the heck they're talking about. But because I know someone who may have allegedly gone inside the capital and because someone referred to me by my former military rank, I was scooped up.
And the problem is is that in the government, when you make a mistake, there's really no need to say mea culpa. They just doubled down. They just doubled down. And it should be very worrisome. I'll share just a quick story with you if you'll indulge me.
And, you know, this whole thing has just crushed my wife and I emotionally and financially. We we have all the faith in the world in God. We believe that this is good versus evil. And we are Christians, and I keep talking about that. But was in prison in solitary confinement, but still, people learn how to communicate.
It was interesting because so many people who were career criminals who were locked away in solitary just like myself knew who I was. And one of them told me this story, and I'll make it tight. I've never told this story on television, radio, anything. Here we go. This gentleman who, by his own admission, has spent most of his adult life in prison system told me, he said, you know what?
He said, I was born black in the inner city, and they had me in their crosshairs early on. But you, Caldwell, you're a gimpy white country boy, a veteran who loves Jesus, you got no chance against these people when they get ready to take you down. Well, that's pretty scary. I've had a lot of time to think about that, but I do believe in God. I believe he has us in our in the palm of his hands, And we've had a tremendous outpouring from people like your viewership who have helped us with our legal fees.
And this is gonna go on for a long time. We're gonna
Speaker 0: need a lot help. I bet it will. So one one final question, just to be totally clear on this, and we should just state the obvious, which is just because the DOJ has alleged something doesn't mean it's true. I think our viewers understand that. The indictment suggests they have proof, They have video proof that you were inside the capital.
I just wanna be clear. You're categorically denying that. You say you were not inside the capital, period.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, completely, categorically denying it. And you know what? I think they know it too. But it doesn't seem to matter to them.
Speaker 0: Amazing. Mr. Caldwell, I appreciate you coming on tonight. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Tucker, for having me.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Lou Dobbs Slamming Graham/Tillis Amnesty & Lee's H-1B Visa Bill "This is directly antithetical to what @POTUS has said 'Hire American, Buy American." "You've got one thing to do & that's to win Nov. 3rd election, & you won't do it if you start sponsoring these kinds of bills." https://t.co/GH1AITysNm
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on proposed immigration legislation, including a worker modernization bill led by Tom Tillis that could grant amnesty to as many as 2,000,000 people, and Mike Lee's bill to double H1B workers. The administration opposes these bills, instead supporting its own merit-based legal immigration reform plan.
The administration believes there are potentially 6,000,000 more American workers who could enter the labor force, citing a strong prosperity cycle driven by pro-growth policies. They highlight a "blue collar boom," where middle and lower wage earners are outperforming top earners, and consumers below the bottom 50% are doing better than the top 1%. The administration claims that under President Obama's policies, the country would only grow by 2%. The speaker urges focus on winning the upcoming election and avoiding support for the proposed bills.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let let's turn to something we're not crowing about, and that's a number of pieces of legislation that would, in one instance, be effectively an amnesty led by Tom Tillis and his folks who were trying to move forward a a worker modernization bill. It would amount to, we're told, something like 2,000,000, as many as 2,000,000 people would have amnesty. We're looking at Mike Lee's three eighty six over in the senate where they want to double in effect the h one b workers. And this looks directly antithetical to what the president has said, that the American worker, hire American, buy American, and suddenly we're looking at immigration, legislation that is being moved by, the Republican conference, in both the Senate and the House. What's going on?
Speaker 1: Well, in brief, look, administration has its own merit based legal immigration reform plan, and I'd like to go back to that if I if I could. I don't know whether any legislation will get through or not, but it's a very strong plan.
Speaker 0: The point is you don't want it. Right?
Speaker 1: The what the point is You're
Speaker 0: not supporting any of the legislation right now that some elements of the Republican party are trying to move in the Senate and the House. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: That is correct. We are supporting our own. It's a very comprehensive legal immigration plan based on merit. So that's point number one. Point number two, on the issue of workers and available workers, you know, this is a very strong prosperity cycle led by pro growth policies on low taxes and regulations and energy independence and better trade deals.
And if you look carefully
Speaker 0: deals. Fair trade deals.
Speaker 1: Alright. Fair trade deals. They're gonna open markets. So let me just suggest the following. The employment population ratio suggests there could be 6,000,000 more American workers who can come out of the woodwork and into the labor force.
We've already had three and a half million. The Obama administration saw a decline. So there are still Americans that will be, able to work. The second point I wanna make is we're growing faster than anybody thought with the middle and lower wage earners way outperforming the top people. In other words, the production workers are beating the managers by a lot.
In the stock market boom, it's the consumers below the bottom 50%. They're doing the best, better than the people, in the so called top 1%. So what you got here is a blue collar boom. Okay? A durable prosperity cycle.
We've already surprised people, 3.6% unemployment with no inflation. So I don't know why the Fed raised rates here a couple years ago. And by the by, just to round this out a little bit, the congressional budget office using president Obama's policies
Speaker 0: Oh, boy.
Speaker 1: Said that we would grow by only 2%. The fact of the matter is even despite tight
Speaker 0: money You start that though. You start that and you're going to have people are saying, but you said you were going to be at 3%, and then we'll have that argument. This this nonsense goes on forever. You got one thing to do, and that's to win the November. And you won't do it if you start, sponsoring these kinds of bills that we're seeing Mike Lee and Tom Tellis try to advance.
I'm pleased to hear you're not.
Speaker 1: No. Look. We we're gonna sponsor our own merit based plan,
Speaker 0: but you might see it.
Speaker 1: There's probably, Lou, or could be as many as 6,000,000 American workers, American workers who could come out of the woodworkers.
Speaker 0: I wanna see those wages move up stronger
Speaker 1: That's correct.
Speaker 0: And stronger and stronger.
Speaker 1: That's right. Then That's right.
Speaker 0: Then we can talk about, 6,000,000 workers.
Speaker 1: By and by the way
Speaker 0: And, boom, what are you gonna do about automation and the loss of all the jobs? You're gonna you know, we're talk about that. We're gonna have a national dialogue. I hate these electioneer ambitions. You know?
It it bothers me no matter which, administration, embarks on them. But, Larry Kudlow Well, I like your participation in this administration makes me feel a lot better about the whole thing.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Lou.
Speaker 0: Great to have you with
Speaker 1: By the way, it's a blue collar boom. A blue collar boom.
Speaker 0: I know what's great? It's a boom for everybody. Thanks so much.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson & Attorney For Several 1/6 Defendants @McBrideLawNYC Discuss His Court Filing Claiming That There Were "Agent Provocateurs" At The U.S. Capitol On January 6th & The Unreleased Footage From That Day Joseph: "The truth is going to come out, they cannot stop it." https://t.co/9sXcoRKrKn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Joseph McBride, an attorney for January 6 defendants, claims there are at least four uncharged agent provocateurs who encouraged illegal actions during the Capitol riot. He highlights one individual, identified as "red face forty five," who, despite appearing to be a law enforcement officer, distributed weapons to protesters. McBride questions why these individuals have not been charged, urging Congress to investigate for the sake of democracy. He also discusses unreleased videos showing police brutality on January 6, asserting that the government is withholding this information to obscure the truth. McBride has filed a motion for these videos to be unsealed, emphasizing the public's right to know what happened that day. He encourages support for the Patriot Freedom Project, which assists families affected by the events.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Joseph McBride has been on this really since the very beginning. He's 1 of the rare competent attorneys representing the Jan. 6 defendant. It's a bunch of them. In a court filing last week, McBride alleges there are at least 4 agent provocateurs, people who are in contact with the justice department on Jan.
6. These people have never been charged. You've seen some of these videos. They're unbelievable. People encouraging the crowd to break the law, and those people have never been charged.
He has seen unreleased videos, mister McBride has, that reveal extreme police brutality inside the Capitol. DOJ has kept those videos under seal, of course. McBride wants them released publicly. There's so much going on tonight. Joseph McBride joins us now.
Mister McBride, thanks so much for coming on. So first, we'll break this in half. The the first part of the story is the the people who are on tape encouraging illegality, which is itself a crime, who have not been charged. What is tonight the status on that as of tonight?
Speaker 1: After months of investigation, Tucker, these people still not have have not been charged. We have multiple people on the ground, 4 in particular that we have identified. Let me just call 1 of these people out. Somebody who was tagged on the Internet by sedition hunters and capital hunters as red face forty five. This is a person who was dressed in Trump gear, in MAGA gear.
He's covered in red from the head to toe. His face paint his face is painted, is painted MAGA red. He's got a Trump hat on, keep America great again hat on, yet he is clearly a law enforcement officer. He interacts with uniformed personnel. He interacts with agents in the crowd.
He passes out weapons, sledgehammers, poles, mace. Some of those things come into contact with other protesters who have subsequently been charged with possessing dangerous weapons and or using dangerous weapons at the Capitol. That is clearly that is clearly entrapment. That is clearly the government creating conditions of dangerousness and entrapping members of the crowd to possess weapons and possibly use them for reasons that we cannot comprehend.
Speaker 0: Wait, may I interrupt you right there? Why is it so difficult? Let's put his picture back on the screen. Why is it so difficult in an age of facial recognition? This is the largest dragnet in the history of American justice for 1 Republican member of Congress to force an answer.
Who is this person? Why hasn't he been charged? That's a very simple ask. Why hasn't it been delivered?
Speaker 1: That is a a great question. And, you know, if you're a republican congressman or a democrat congressman or an independent congressperson listening tonight, I implore you, I encourage you to dig into this and to help us because our democracy and our way of life is at stake. It is on the chopping block right now. And unless you fulfill your oath to your constituents and to your country to step up and to do the right thing here, then our democracy will be lost. There is no doubt about it.
You have to help us.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We have an absolute right to know exactly who this person is. At least the other 3 who are encouraging violence and haven't been charged. Very quickly, you've seen video tape the rest of us have not seen that indicates there was quite a bit of violence that they've highlighted a lot of violence. They've hidden other forms of violence.
When are we gonna get to see these tapes and on what grounds are they being withheld from the public?
Speaker 1: They're being withheld from the public because like the Kennedy assassination, the government does not want us to see the truth about what happened on Jan. 6. I filed a motion this week asking for the unmasking of this of these videos. That motion was joined by the New York Times in a in a 16, sixteen point press conglomerate. They they signed on.
They said, you know what? We wanna see the truth about what happened as well. The police brutality that took place inside of that tunnel is objectionable. There was 1 woman in particular who was wearing a a red MAGA hat, who was beaten within an inch of her life. Guess what?
She lived, and she is likely, at some point, gonna tell that tale. Roseanne Boylan died at the foot of those steps. Ashley Babbitt was murdered on national TV, and nobody has had nothing. The other side has labeled her an insurrectionist when she was nothing of the sort, nothing of the kind. The truth is going to come out.
They cannot stop it. That is why we are asking for the government and for the judge, quite frankly, to release these tapes and let the chips fall where they may. Let the public and let the media objectively look at the evidence here and make a decision about what really happened that day. The truth is on our side. We are not hiding anything, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Well, exactly. If you believe in democracy, then you understand the public has a right to know what happens in its name, in its capital building, especially if you're gonna change America on the basis of that day. Let's find out what happened that day. It's very, very simple. And I appreciate all your efforts to make that come true.
Joe Joseph McBride.
Speaker 1: Thank thank you so much, Tucker. And if I if I if I may, Patriot Freedom Project, go there if you wanna help us. It's a great it's a great place where Patriot Freedom Project is helping, the families who have been affected by this and raising Yeah. Legal funds as well. Thank you, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson & @julie_kelly2 Discuss What We Sill Don’t Know About January 6th Including Who Killed Ashli Babbitt & The Mainstream Media Calling Anyone Who Asks Questions About That Day A "Russian Agent" https://t.co/BuUzv2RlQq
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's been over six months since January 6, and we still don't know who shot Ashley Babbitt. There's growing frustration over the lack of transparency from the government regarding this incident and the events of that day. Key questions remain unanswered, such as the identity of the officer involved and why Capitol Police allowed protesters inside. Jacob Chansley, known as the "QAnon Shaman," has been held in solitary confinement despite not committing a violent crime. There are concerns about the treatment of peaceful protesters and the lack of accountability for law enforcement actions. The discussion raises issues about political prisoners and the need for Republican leaders to address these concerns.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So it's been more than six months since January '6, since the nine eleven of our time, the Pearl Harbor, and we still don't know with certainty who shot Ashley Bev. Because in America in 2021 under Joe Biden, you can just kill people, unarmed women, and you don't have to admit who did it. Now we're hearing reports that that officer has been identified. We can't confirm them, so we're not gonna give the person's name. What's so interesting is that no one is interested in finding out.
In fact, anyone who asked the question, who shot an unarmed American citizen, a veteran, a woman, really shooting unarmed women now? If you ask that question out loud, you must be a Russian agent. Well,
Speaker 1: you mentioned Vladimir Putin. I mean, 1 of the more outrageous things he said during president Biden's, European summit ahead of that, by law with Putin was this accusation about Ashley Babbitt being assassinated. It's a claim that Tucker Carlson picked up and said, you know, Vladimir Putin has a point. Today at 02:06, in the same hour in which his company was criminally charged, the twice impeached disgraced ex president sent out a statement with 1 line, who killed Ashley Babbitt? The circle is complete from Putin to Carlson to Trump.
Speaker 0: Let's put dumb middle aged sad people on TV. Not a good idea, but no none of these people kind of get the irony at the core of all of this, which is if Vladimir Putin had his security forces execute unarmed women who are protesting his regime, we would correctly call that a terrible abuse of human rights. Who did it? We would say it's a fair question to ask. But ask of the Biden administration and you're a Putin lackey.
So why don't we know basic facts about Jan. 6? Well, Julie Kelly, as we told you repeatedly, is 1 of the very few reporters who has pressed the government to answer those questions. She's with American Greatness, and we're happy she's with us tonight. So, Julie, just go through go you've done this before, but I I I can't get enough of it.
What don't we know about Jan. 6 that the government knows? What are they hiding from us in this moment when they're telling us we need to know more? What should we know now?
Speaker 2: Well, the identity of the federal officer let's keep in mind that the US Capitol Police Department is a federal agency. We don't know the name of the officer who shot and killed an American in the US Capitol. We also are not privy to fourteen thousand hours of surveillance video that the US Capitol Police, you see a common thread here, refuses to make public to, the American people. Maybe Liz Cheney or Nancy Pelosi can ask that in their, you know, truth truth task, commission that they're trying to find out, what happened on Jan. 6.
So those are just a few of the key questions.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Also, why did US Capitol Police let people in the door? Why did they talk to someone like Jacob Chansley, who now has languished in solitary confinement in jail for six months, denied release again, this week? Also, why
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. May I my apologies. Jacob Chans is the guy who was dressed in, like, Chewbacca, the Chewbacca guy with the horns. Wait. Is he charged with violence?
Did he commit a violent crime? Does Vladimir Putin keep hundreds of unarmed nonviolent protesters in solitary confinement for six months when they protest his regime? If he does, I'm against it. I just wanna say that. Does does he do that?
Do you know?
Speaker 2: You just completed the circle again, like Nicole Wallace said. I mean, now it's Putin down to Jacob Chansley. I mean, it all makes so much sense, doesn't it? Right. Yeah.
No. He has not committed, any violent crime. The judges, so this is DC Judges, DC Prosecutors are torturing this man who committed no violent, no violent crime. But we also, Tucker, need to know why police officers were attacking peaceful protesters outside the capitol, provoking them with things like flash bangs filled with rubber pellets, sting balls, dousing them with tear gas. So these are just a few of the questions out of dozens, that we need to ask.
And again, maybe Liz Cheney, our friend, who, pretends to be on our side can pose those questions as part of Nancy Pelosi's commission.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, if you're holding people in solitary confinement in the DC Jail for nonviolent crimes, at some point, they become political prisoners. I try not to use that phrase, you know, you don't wanna hype anything or sensationalize. But at what point does it become like a political prosecution? And and why aren't Republican leaders asking that?
You know, what I know Mitch McConnell's pretty busy.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 0: Maybe you could ask that question. Julie Kelly, thank you.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Tucker.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson And @mirandadevine Discuss The New Footage Tucker Released Showing Capitol Police Escorting The QAnon Shaman (Jacob Chansley) Around On January 6th Miranda: "Why on earth was that footage not used as exculpatory evidence in his trial?" https://t.co/OtOz8YKe36
Video Transcript AI Summary
The New York Post's Miranda Devine discusses the troubling case of Jacob Chansley, who is imprisoned despite appearing harmless in surveillance footage from the Capitol. Chansley, a naval veteran, was seen being escorted by police officers, raising questions about why he was indicted while they were not. The officers seemed to regard him as non-threatening, even helping him enter the Senate chamber. Devine argues that this footage should have been used as exculpatory evidence in his trial. She criticizes the Capitol Police for not recognizing the situation's severity and highlights the failure of leadership in not providing necessary backup on January 6. An upcoming interview with a Capitol Police officer promises to shed more light on the events of that day.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're gonna pause and bring in the New York Post Miranda Devine who's been on top of the story from the very beginning. By the way, this will be the front page of tomorrow's New York Post. Miranda Devine joins us now. Miranda, thanks so much for coming on. So the disconnect between what they told us happened inside and what we now know happened inside, thanks to the surveillance video, is vast.
But in the case of Jacob Chansley, it's very troubling since his life has been destroyed and he's in prison as we speak. I simple question. How, given that Jacob Chansley was wandering around with armed police officers who appeared from the footage to be helping him, could he be indicted and convicted and they not? Like, how does that work?
Speaker 1: Well, it you know, it's very sad because, obviously, from you can see from the demeanor of the police officers and from his own demeanor that he was harmless, that they regarded him as harmless. You saw him walk past about 9 other police officers. They didn't even give him, you know, a a look, even though he was dressed so garishly. He's obviously a performance artist and, was not posing any threat to anybody. You can see where they help him open a door to go into the senate chamber.
And so why on earth was that footage not used as exculpatory evidence in his trial. This man is spending almost 4 years in jail, a naval veteran, aged 33 years old. And he's just puzzled about it. You can see in that jailhouse interview that you played that he, is is sort of he says his regret is that he thought because the police officers were showing him around that it was okay, that what he was doing was appropriate. And you can see the way those people were walking through the capital.
As you see, you know, they are walking meekly, politely, queuing, very peaceable, that they don't mean any harm. They are treating the capital with reverence. That doesn't excuse the others, the minority of the protesters who did break windows and fight police and injure police and and cause mayhem. But the people who are now being picked up and some of them have been jailed without trial for months, even years on end, did not commit violence. They walked through open doors.
They were escorted by police. They felt that this was okay. And I think Jacob Chansley is a classic example of that.
Speaker 0: If I go to the door of a liquor store and a uniformed police officer opens it for me, I walk in, I take the money out of the till and then leave this quarter by the police officer. He's an accessory to the crime I just committed. I'm not attacking the Capitol Police. We're grateful for their help in getting this video out. But that doesn't make any sense at all.
And the federal judge who oversaw this case doesn't seem to have noticed. This seems insane to me and I don't know why no one is willing to explain it.
Speaker 1: Well, clearly, the Capitol Police, none of them. You you have 9 or 10 officers there. Do not think that there is anything unusual about this guy with the fur hat and the viking horns and the face paint wandering around the corridors and walking into the then, you know, senate chamber that had been evacuated. What we hear from the Capitol Police, they tell us, is that they were trying to deescalate, the crowd, deescalate any unrest. And so perhaps that's what they were doing.
They were completely outnumbered. I don't really blame the Capitol Police. All they were trying to do was keep people calm and happy. They were betrayed by Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell, who refused the the repeated requests by the Capitol Police Chief Stephen Sund in the days before and several times on the day of January 6 for backup for National Guard. That is the most inexplicable part of this story.
Speaker 0: It is. And in fact, tomorrow, we're going to have an interview with a Capitol Police officer in charge of the sector where this took place inside the Capitol explaining what happened, and it's shocking. I appreciate, Rana Devine, you coming on tonight. Thank
Speaker 1: you. Thank you, Tucker.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Opens His Show Tonight Calling Out The MSM For Suppressing The Biden Scandal "This is Soviet-style suppression of information of a legitimate news story days before an election." "No one believes the media anymore and no one should." https://t.co/YJzBZv9QrZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Good evening. Recently, Tony Bobolinski, a former business partner of the Biden family, revealed serious claims about Joe Biden's involvement in business dealings with China. Bobolinski met with Biden twice and provided substantial evidence, including recordings and documents, to support his account. A Senate committee confirmed the authenticity of Bobolinski's evidence, debunking claims of Russian disinformation. Despite the gravity of these allegations, mainstream media largely ignored Bobolinski's testimony, raising concerns about information suppression ahead of the election. Voters deserve to know the truth about Biden's potential involvement in his family's international business dealings, which have spanned multiple countries. This situation highlights a significant challenge to democratic transparency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening, and welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight. For many weeks, we've been hearing the outlines of a story about Joe Biden. Hard to know what to believe in the late stages of a presidential campaign, but now we know. We have now heard at length on camera from one of the Biden family's former business partners. He's a successful businessman, very successful businessman, and a navy veteran.
His name is Tony Bobolinski. Bobolinski spoke for a full hour last night on this show. He told us, and this is the crux of what he said, how he met 2 separate times with Joe Biden himself, not just with his son or his brother, but with Joe Biden, the former vice president, the man now running for president, to discuss business deals with the communist government of China. That's a very serious claim. And whatever your political views, it's hard to dismiss it when Tony Bobolinski makes it because Bobolinski is an unusually credible witness.
He is not a partisan. He's not seeking money. He's not seeking publicity. Just the opposite. He did not wanna come on our show.
But when Adam Schiff and the Joe Biden for president campaign accused Tony Bobolinski of participating in a Russian disinformation effort, he felt he had no choice. That was a slander against him and against his family. So Bobolinski came. He arrived with heaps of evidence to bolster the story he was telling. He brought contemporaneous audio recordings, text messages, emails, many financial documents.
By the end of the hour, it was very clear to us that Tony Bobolinski was telling the truth and that Joe Biden was lying. We believe that any honest person who watched the entire hour would come to the same conclusion. Well, today, a senate committee confirmed it. The senate reported this afternoon that all of Tony Bobolinski's documents are in fact real. They're authentic.
They're not forgeries. This is not Russian disinformation. It is real. Tonight, we have another recording for you from Tony Bobolinski, and we'll add that to the evidence file. We'll play it for you in just a minute.
But we can help noticing that in a normal country, you probably already would have heard it. Bobolinski told a remarkable story. Joe Biden, who once again could be president of the United States next week, was planning business deals with America's most formidable global opponent. And when he was caught doing it, Joe Biden lied. And then he went further.
He slandered an innocent man as a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that. That's not a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that. That's not a partisan talking point uttered in bad faith on behalf of another presidential campaign.
It's true. So the question is, what is Joe Biden's excuse for doing that? What is his version of the story? Everyone has a version, and we'd like to hear it. But we don't know what Joe Biden's version of the story is because no one in America's vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden to answer the question.
Instead, reporters at all levels and their editors and their publishers have openly collaborated with Joe Biden's political campaign. That is unprecedented. It has never happened in American history. This morning, the big papers completely ignored what Tony Bobolinski had to say, so did the other television networks. Not a single word about Bobolinski appeared on CNN or anywhere else.
Newsweek decided to cover it but came to the conclusion that the real story was about QAnon somehow. This is Soviet style suppression of information of a legitimate news story days before an election. The ramifications of it are impossible to imagine, but we do know the media cannot continue in the way that it has. No one believes the media anymore, and no one should. You should be offended by this, not because the media are liberal, but because this is an attack on our democracy.
You've heard that phrase again and again. This is what it actually looks like. In a self governing country, voters have a right to know, an obligation to know who they're voting for. In this case, they have the right to know that the Democratic nominee for president was a willing partner in his family's lucrative influencing peddling operation, an operation that went on for decades and stretched from China and Ukraine all the way to Oman, Romania, Luxembourg, and many other countries. This is not speculation once again, and it's not a partisan attack.
It's true, and Tony Bobolinski confirmed it.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Here is the Full Clip from @TuckerCarlson's show last night. Everything Tucker said was right, which is precisely why the mob is going after him this morning. #StandWithTucker "Tell the truth, if you show weakness of any kind they will crush you." https://t.co/eL4TGDtRae https://t.co/shFvFVJudl
Video Transcript AI Summary
What’s happening now has little to do with black lives. If leaders truly cared, they would address the violence in cities, improve public schools, and support families. Instead, they ignore these issues and promote chaos, which won't help anyone. In times of mob pressure, it’s crucial to remain calm and speak the truth. Weakness invites further attacks, as seen with Drew Brees, who faced backlash for defending the flag. Cowardice only empowers those who oppose you. America, despite its flaws, is a good country that many immigrants recognize. They come here not because it’s racist, but because it’s not. This moment will pass, and those who remain honest will retain their dignity, which is essential for a meaningful life.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is going on? What is this about? Even the owl lines are blurry at this point, but we know this. No matter what they tell you, it has very little to do with black lives, if only it did. If democratic leaders cared about saving the lives of black people, and they should, they wouldn't ignore the murder of thousands of young black men in their cities every year.
They wouldn't put abortion clinics in black neighborhoods. They would instead do their very best to improve the public schools and to encourage intact families, which we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is central to life prospects of children. They try to make black neighborhoods as safe as their own neighborhoods. They would close the payday lenders that add so much misery to the lives of poor people of all colors, but they don't even consider doing any of this. They don't even try.
Instead, they encourage theft and mayhem as if that will help. It will not help. This may be a lot of things, this moment we're living through, but it is definitely not about black lives. And remember that when they come for you and at this rate, they will. Anyone who's ever been subjected to the rage of the mob knows the feeling.
It's like being swarmed by hornets. You cannot think clearly. And the temptation is to panic, but you can't panic. You've gotta keep your head and tell the truth. Tell the truth.
If you show weakness of any kind, they will crush you. Ask Drew Brees. By some accounts, poor Drew Brees is on his 4th apology for the crime of defending the American flag. He decided to apologize, and now they're using him as a propaganda work in hostage tape after hostage tape. At a moment like this, there is no advantage in cowardice, in being Mitt Romney.
You think you're saving yourself, you're just empowering the worst people, people who hate you. Before you know it, you're confessing to crimes you didn't commit. Don't start. Tell the truth. And the truth is, this is a good country, better than any other.
Of course, we are flawed, but we are trying, unlike most places, and we have nothing to be ashamed of. None of us. Immigrants know that best of all. That's why they come here. A 1000000 new Americans every year.
They're not coming because America is a racist country. They're coming because it's not. That's all true. And in our clear moments, we know it's true. Even the people claiming it's not.
Truth is a defense. No matter what they're telling you at this moment, this moment will pass. Remember that. All moments do. When it does, we will look back at what we just saw in a horror and disbelief.
But if you're honest now, you will keep your dignity, and ultimately, you will be very glad about that. Life is not worth living without it.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson On Cardi B's New Song "WAP" "People are getting rich pushing that crap on the country and they should be ashamed of themselves." "What is this doing to our kids? The people pushing it clearly are trying to hurt your children. Why is nobody pushing back?" https://t.co/SWxR69Mnr6
Video Transcript AI Summary
We typically avoid pop culture, but we need to discuss Cardi B's new song "WAP." We can't share its meaning or lyrics, but it's one of the most popular songs in the country. Cardi B's message seems to encourage women to embrace a certain sexual image, which raises concerns about its impact on young girls.
Recently, Joe Biden interviewed Cardi B, where he referred to himself as "Joey B" and discussed issues like free college education and healthcare. This raises questions about the appropriateness of his engagement with someone promoting such explicit content. We need to consider the implications of this song on children and why there isn't more pushback against it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We don't cover a lot of pop culture on this show, not because it doesn't matter. It definitely matters, but we try and stick with do with what you know. We don't know a ton about that. We're gonna make an exception tonight for a new song by a singer called Cardi b. The song is called WAP WAP.
We can't tell you what that stands for. We literally can't tell you what the name of the song is, much less its lyrics. It was released earlier this month by Atlantic Records. The chairman of that is a man called Craig Coleman. To give you a sense of what this song is about and again, we should tell you this is one of the most popular songs in the country, and you need to go online and look up its lyrics.
Here's the woman who sings it, Cardi b, explaining to women how they can become more useful sex objects. Watch.
Speaker 1: I like you under that dry ass because your pH balance is off. And you wanna know why? It's not because you're born with it. It's because y'all keep these dirty ass You gotta tell, babe, yo. Your more like mustard, my gonna throw my pH balance off.
Yeah. Little dirty ass and Yeah. Brush your teeth before you ate in barbecue ribs the whole day. Bacon, egg, and cheese. Then you right after, he directly put it inside your Now you got bacon, egg, and cheese grease inside your You know what I'm saying?
Speaker 0: That's garbage. You don't need to be a Puritan to think so. It is. It's garbage. It's aimed at young American girls, maybe your girls, your granddaughters.
And what is it doing to them? Can you even imagine what it's doing to them? People are getting rich pushing that crap on the country, and they should be ashamed of themselves. But they're not ashamed of themselves. Joe Biden just did an interview with Cardi b.
Doesn't do a lot of interviews. He just did one with her. He sucked up to her. He called himself Joey b.
Speaker 2: Call me Joey b. So we may be related to something. Tell me what your fans most say to you when they communicate with you online. What what are they most concerned about?
Speaker 1: Obviously, free free college education, free Medicare. I, of course, want free Medicare. I, of course, think that we need a free college education. For middle school, they give you a free MetroCard so you could travel for you to be able to go to your school. And, of course, they gave me they gave me free lunch.
Speaker 2: By the way, we're gonna have, if I get elected president, free college education for 4 years of college. Flat out. Everybody gets free education for for for, community college. Everybody wants to go on and become an become an apprentice free.
Speaker 0: Again, we're not being prudish here. This is not James Brown being sexually suggestive on stage. Go online right now and look up the lyrics to this song. And then ask yourself, if you were Joe Biden, would you suck up to the person who sang it? And ask yourself above all and ask it more than once, what is this doing to our kids?
The people pushing it clearly are trying to hurt your children. Why is nobody pushing back?
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Interviews Author & Former Navy Seal @JackCarrUSA About The TV Show "The Terminal List" Based Off His Bestselling Book https://t.co/MdKsuKMe7L
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Terminal List has garnered mixed reviews, with a 40% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes but an impressive 95% audience score. The show stars Chris Pratt and is based on Jack Carr's bestselling book. Carr, a former Navy SEAL and executive producer, expresses satisfaction with the audience's reception, noting that the show resonates with military personnel. Critics have labeled it a "right-wing revenge fantasy," despite the absence of overt political themes. Carr highlights that the show was made for those who have served, aiming to reflect their experiences. He appreciates Amazon for taking risks in producing the series and acknowledges the positive viewer response as validation of their efforts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: May have heard about, maybe have seen the show, the terminal list and all the critics love it. The viewers definitely do. The Rotten Tomatoes critics score is 40%. The audience score is 95%, and that's always the best possible sign. It's like having lower grades and high SAT scores.
It means you're impressive. Here's a clip. It stars Chris Pratt.
Speaker 1: Can you outline the details of your mission?
Speaker 0: They knew we were coming.
Speaker 1: According to audio logs, you went dark on comms roughly 4 mics in. Why?
Speaker 0: That's not how it went down. Answers
Speaker 1: or blood.
Speaker 0: Blood. Where's James Reese?
Speaker 1: Does it trigger fugitive is a Navy SEAL?
Speaker 0: There's a bunch of people tracking you right now, so just lay low. I'm not gonna tell you again. Stay off my list. Whatever you think of Amazon, pretty cool that they made it. Terminal List is based, of course, on the best selling book by Jack Carr.
He's one of the executive producers. He's a former Navy Seal, one of the best selling novelists in America. One of the good guys. Jack Carr, thanks so much for coming on. So it must it must plea first of all, congratulations on the book, the many books, this, show.
But it must please you in a way not all viewers hate it. Not all critics hate it, but viewers like it much more than critics. How do you feel about that?
Speaker 1: Oh, it it falls right in line with everything, that I understand about the current culture and climate in America right now. And it seems to have triggered quite a few of these critics, and I have a couple examples here. Daily Beast titled their review, The Terminal List is an unhinged right wing revenge fantasy, which is odd because right, left, conservative, liberal are not even mentioned in the show, but, I think it may be because the protagonist is competent with, weapons and tactics. He's strong. He holds those in power accountable, and that can be accountable, and that could be unsettling for some, particularly some maybe senior members of the military who have failed upwards over the last 20 years.
They go on to write, there is some serious danger to the terminalist pandering to red state viewers with routine references to beer, guns, country music, and hunting. The Daily Beast does not like those things. It does not sound like it is much fun over there, but the, the 95% viewer rating, audience rating makes it all worth it. We didn't make it for the critics. We made it for those in the arena.
We made it for the soldier, sailor, airmen, and marine that went down range to Iraq and Afghanistan so they could sit on the couch and say, hey, these guys put in the work. They put in the effort to make something special and make a show that speaks, speaks to them. And that 95% rating lets me know that we at least got close. And then, one more line here. It's from TVLine.
It says, the fugitive meets SEAL Team meets a don't tread on me truck decal. We're served up huge helpings of red meat masculinity and lots and lots of American flags. They don't like American flags over there. Game rant even cites revolutionary war era don't tread on meat flags as a negative. So it's odd that both Game Rants and TVLine had to go back to the 1700 to take the side of the British in their reviews.
I found that, quite telling. But, someone wrote a a horrible review of one of my latest novel, In the Blood, and they said, something along the lines of, what what do you even call a book like this? And, you call it a a number one New York Times bestselling novel. And someone wrote the same thing about this show and, you call that the number one series on prime video. And I do wanna thank Amazon because they took a lot of risks with this show and they took those risks with us and so my hat is is off to them and I'm sincerely humbled and and grateful.
Speaker 0: Jack Car who not that long ago is wearing government issued clothing carrying a rifle in weird countries. It is just amazing how successful you have been and and wonderful wonderful to watch for real. Jack Car, thank you for joining us.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently previewed my interview with Pedro Gonzalez, where we tackled significant issues within the conservative movement. Pedro emphasized that Republicans must hold their elected officials accountable for harmful policies. He believes that Republican voters should stop seeing the party as an ally and instead view it as a tool to be shaped to our needs, as there's no existing plan beyond what we create ourselves. For more insights, check out Pedro's Substack.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Previews His Interview With @emeriticus On Tucker Carlson Today Discussing Some Of The Major Issues With The Conservative Movement Tucker: "Pedro Gonzalez, remember the name. Smart."
Video Transcript AI Summary
In a recent conversation, Pedro Gonzalez discussed the need for conservatives to rethink their beliefs and the Republican Party's role. He emphasized that many views held by both sides can be contradictory and detrimental to their interests. Gonzalez criticized the Republican Party for gaslighting voters and argued that liberal compassion often leads to harmful outcomes, particularly in immigration. He expressed concern over a growing sense of humiliation in society, noting that both liberals and conservatives seem to lack dignity. He pointed out that some conservative figures appear to embrace shame, likening it to a form of self-flagellation. The discussion highlighted the need for a more honest dialogue about America's history and identity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For the latest episode of Tucker Carlson today, we sat down for a very long conversation with Pedro Gonzalez who writes for Chronicles. He's a senior writer for American Greatness as well. And he's one of the people thinking about how conservatives or anybody who's not on board with whatever the hell is going on in the rest of the country should respond to the dramatic changes. And more than anything, what should Republican voters ask of their party? He's a very clear thinker on that.
Here's part of our conversation.
Speaker 1: People on both sides to try to disillusion them of of the things that, like, I used to do. I used to just repeat unthinkingly. Right? Like, I'm a conservative, so I have to think this. I'm a liberal, I have to think this.
I'm a republican, so on. Just trying to show them, like, it it doesn't have to be this way. And, actually, a a lot of the views that either side clings to so fervently are just contradictory or harmful to your own interests. And I I think that's especially true for Republican voters. Like, the the the it seems to me that the purpose of the Republican party and conservative and libertarian think tanks is to gaslight to convince voters to to vote against their interests.
And it's it's it's it's been effective. Like, we have really convinced people that, like, everything the GOP doesn't like is socialism, and therefore bad. And so for me, I'm just trying to to help people, look beyond that. And for Liberals, I would I hope that, that my writing on immigration specifically has shown that, like, what you think is compassion is not actually compassion. It's actually brutalizing And and the point about culture and, like, Latinx, it's like you say you love diversity, but can't you see that every generation, 6 of 6, following generation of immigrants is is actually more and more homogeneous.
Like they're just assimilating into the affluent white liberal over class culture. Like can't you see that you're actually stripping these people the things that you claim to love? Like culture. So that's that's the concern.
Speaker 0: What concerns me is that the humiliation levels have risen to just really unprecedented place. Yeah. You know? So people who have thoughts that diverge from those of Tim Cook or Susan Rice really are under attack for real, get fired, whatever. And people seem to put up with it, and that makes me wonder about people's dignity.
I mean, if you have dignity, if you have if you're a man
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Why would you allow yourself to be treated like that?
Speaker 1: There is a real kind of spiritual rot in the country, and it it's not relegated to left. I think it's also on the right. You have people like David French, Frank Luntz, people that just have no sense of dignity and I characterized characterized it as a kind of psychosexual ethnomasochism where it's like it's not just that you don't have any dignity, it's it seems to me that you actually kind of enjoy the shame. It makes you feel good to flog yourself. And I think you saw this really come out during the the rioting last year, where you had not just Liberals, but also Republican politicians and and conservative pundits just kowtowing to Black Lives Matter.
America's bad. I'm I'm sorry. Like, America was born in original sin. We need to make it better. Marco Rubio talking about systemic inequality and Tim Scott referring to America's history as original sin.
I think her name is Linda Thomas Green, the ambassador to the UN.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: She said the same thing. America's history as original sin. What is the fundamental difference between the way conservative men and and, like, liberals, or I should I should say pundits and and Republican lawmakers, what is the fundamental difference between them? Between conservatives and liberals? I don't see it, but to the point about men, it really does seem to be the case that they enjoy it.
They enjoy the self flagellation.
Speaker 0: Psychosexual ethnomasicism. That would If there's any phrase I would like to credit you for introducing into the common lexicon is that Pedro Gonzalez. Remember the name? Smart. Conversation went on in all kinds of interesting directions.
You can stream it at foxnation.com.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@foxnation - Fox Nation
Writer Pedro Gonzalez (@emeriticus) tells @TuckerCarlson that Republicans can and should be holding their elected politicians accountable for the policies they back and the policies that are hurting America. #TuckerCarlsonToday https://fxn.ws/3eSutO4
Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Video
Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from FOXNews.com. Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports.
foxnews.com
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
.@emeriticus’s Substack https://contra.substack.com/people/1004724-pedro-l-gonzalez
Pedro L. Gonzalez | Substack
I am a writer based in Ohio.
substack.com
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson's Monologue Providing An Update On The Trial Of The Governor Whitmer Kidnapping Plot Hoax, The FBI's Involvement And Questions That Remain About January 6th "What country is this?" https://t.co/5WI6V6usz4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case from fall 2020 revealed a troubling narrative. Initially presented as a plot by right-wing extremists, evidence showed it was largely orchestrated by the FBI. An informant, Dan Chappell, was paid over $60,000 to recruit individuals for a fabricated conspiracy. Despite attempts to incite violence, those targeted, including Adam Fox, consistently rejected plans to harm Whitmer. The FBI even facilitated militia meetings and introduced undercover agents to escalate the situation. When the alleged plot failed, another agent was tasked with building a case against the defendants, despite questionable conduct and policy violations among FBI personnel. This case raises serious concerns about the role of federal agents in creating domestic threats rather than simply investigating them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Consider the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case. You may remember that story. It's from the fall of 2020. You may even have followed it a little bit and heard how it ended. So it seemed like a terrorism plot was in fact a setup by the government to make a group of ordinary people in Michigan look like terrifying right wing extremists, those violent white nationalists Joe Biden is always mumbling about.
Well, it turns out there aren't enough of those people in real life. They're pretty rare, actually. It's not a very racist country despite what they tell you. So the justice department had to go create some, and they did. And that's not just our opinion.
That was the finding of a federal jury in Michigan. So it's a shocking story, really. But the details of that story are even worse than that. They are beyond belief, and we'll tell you what they are in just a minute. But first, to set the scene, here is Gretchen Whitmer herself, governor of Michigan, announcing that she was the intended target of a terrorism plot.
This is from October 8, 2020.
Speaker 1: Earlier today, attorney general Dana Nessel was joined by officials from the Department of Justice and the FBI to announce state and federal charges against 13 members of 2 militia groups who are preparing to kidnap and possibly kill me. If you break the law or conspire to commit heinous acts of violence against anyone, we will find you. We will hold you accountable, and we will bring you to justice.
Speaker 0: Oh, we'll bring you to justice. I'm so important that militia groups have organized to take me out. What a self description. But the last thing she said, we'll bring you to justice. Well, they actually tried to do that.
That a trial and then a retrial. And thanks to that, we have testimony and cross examination that reveals what actually happened. How the FBI engineered this plot. Now most of the media were paying zero attention to this. Julie Kelly of American Greatness has actually covered it.
We're grateful to her for what she's found. So here's the outline. In early 2020, a 35 year old army veteran called Dan Chappell, nicknamed Big Dan, was working as a contractor for the US postal service. He drove delivery trucks. He was scrolling Facebook one night, and Chappell says he found a pro second amendment group called Wolverine Watchmen.
He says he just happened upon it. So Chappell testified that he was concerned by the group's criticism of law enforcement. So he went to a police officer, a friend of his, and asked for advice. None of the messages within the group violated any law. But somehow, within a week, Chappell wound up connected to the FBI, to several FBI agents, including a special agent called Jason Chambers.
Now we learned through testimony in the trial this week why Chambers was interested in the case. It turns out that Chambers, in violation of FBI policy, was running a side hustle. He just incorporated a security firm called EXC Intel. And he saw his work on the Whitmer case as a way to promote his own business. We know that because throughout 2020, someone affiliated with his business, their Twitter account, repeatedly tweeted non public information about the kidnapping case that Dan Chappell was building for the FBI.
So it's not surprising given the built in incentives here, which were against policy once again, that Chambers appeared to do everything he could to make sure the investigation went according to plan. Now, no investigation can go according to plan because there shouldn't be a plan. An investigation is the process of finding out what happened. An investigation is not the process of orchestrating things to happen. But that's exactly what this became.
In all, the FBI with Chambers as the handler paid Chapel, Big Dan, more than $60,000 in the course of just a few months. Today, Chapel testified that he made more money working for the FBI in 7 months than he did working for the United States Postal Service over the course of an entire year. So there's a lot of money moving from the FBI, the federal treasury to this informant. So the FBI told Chappell that in exchange for all of that money, he need to start assembling a group of right wing extremists for the FBI to prosecute. They made the whole thing up.
And he did that with the FBI's help. Within a few weeks, the FBI created a new Facebook group called Patriot 3 Percenters. This is why you should be careful of Facebook. Oh, it's just this group. It looks interesting.
Yeah. Okay. So Chapel and several members of that group then attended a protest at the Michigan State Capitol. Look at you bringing people together, the FBI handler texted Chapel. Now, throughout that protest, which didn't look a whole lot different from the January 6th protest, Chapel kept in touch, close touch with federal agents.
He informed the feds that a 37 year old man called Adam Fox was at the state capitol during the protest. Now, Adam Fox was gotta be one of the least powerful people in our society. He lived alone with his 2 dogs in the basement of a vacuum repair shop. Why? Because he had no money whatsoever.
In fact, he had so little money that in order to get running water to brush his teeth or use the bathroom, he had to go to a nearby Mexican restaurant and use their men's room. So chapel began texting this diabolical mastermind, Fox, 100 of times. But Fox seemed inherently moderate actually. He wrote things like this, quote, our goal is to restore the constitutional republic. Fox also said, quote, in our hearts and minds, we are not domestic terrorists.
Oh, sounds very dangerous. So based on those text messages, the FBI gave Chapel more instructions. They provided Chapel with several $5,000 limit credit cards and they told him to give those credit cards to Fox and tell him to spend it on guns and ammunition. So Fox, despite the fact he had no money at all, had used the men's room in a Mexican restaurant to brush his teeth, Refused. On 5 separate occasions, he refused to take the credit cards to buy guns and ammunition.
Then, what a terrorist. Then in July of 2020, Chapel suggested that Fox and others fire rounds into the governor's mansion, as well as at her cottage. But the alleged plotters, including Adam Fox, again refused. They didn't want to hurt the governor. Ultimately, in August of 2020, the group started to splinter.
Chapel and other informants were instructed to keep the group together. No. Keep it together. Keep the threat real. So they introduced another undercover agent who pretended to be an explosives expert.
He showed the group a video of a bomb that blew up a vehicle to prove he knew what he was doing. Where'd that video come from? Oh, it was made by the FBI. Is this shaking your confidence a little bit? These details are real, by the way.
They came out at trial. Then the bureau recruited a convicted felon and a longtime FBI informant called Stephen Robson to introduce a new idea to Fox as well as to Barry Croft. This time, the idea was to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. Robson, with the FBI's money, organized several events, including a national militia conference in Ohio, training in Wisconsin, and a meeting in Delaware. FBI orchestrating all of this.
On July 18, 2020, it won such militia meeting, again, organized by the FBI. When they tell you, oh, right wing extremists. In this case, they created them. So with this militia meeting, an alleged plotter called Ty Garban rejected out of hand the idea of kidnapping Gretchen Whitmer. Didn't wanna do it.
No, I don't think so. Kidnap the governor? No, we're not crazy. We just want a constitutional republic. Okay.
Then the topic came up again in August. And then another defendant called Daniel Harris was equally adamant. No snatch and grab, he said. I swear to effing God. So clearly, they said emphatically, out loud, explicitly, these are people who are not interested in kidnapping Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan.
But the FBI kept pushing. The FBI informants drove the defendants to Gretchen Whitmer's home. Then they suggested killing the governor of Virginia, also a democrat. On September 5th, 2020, FBI special agent Jason Chambers texted chapel quote, mission is to kill the governor specifically. What country is this?
To pressure one of the defendants, a man called Barry Cross, Croft into doing that, one FBI agent admitted this week that a female informant slept in the same hotel room as Croft. Was a honey trap. FBI agents also testified this week that they regularly got high with Adam Fox. They smoked weed with Adam Fox. They said he was so high.
In fact, he was high in all of his meetings with them. Again, that's against FBI policy. You can't just give drugs to people and hope they do something bad. Well, after all of this failed to produce a kidnapping plot, it fell on yet another FBI agent called Richard Trask to build the criminal case against the defendants. Now that same year Trask, who has now been convicted of beating his wife, called Donald Trump a piece of excrement on social media.
Really? Yeah. Just nonpartisan federal bureaucrats, public servants doing their job.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Calling Out NBC News For Pulling Paul Pelosi Story "NBC News has Jeffrey Epstein'ed the entire thing." "They are obedient little throne-sniffing servants to the party in power." https://t.co/vyS8V4Hr3z
Video Transcript AI Summary
This morning on the Today Show, Miguel Almaguer reported new details about the Paul Pelosi assault, revealing he opened the door for police and was with the intruder, David de Pape, for at least half an hour before they arrived. Despite the situation, Pelosi did not declare an emergency and walked away from the police toward de Pape. This contradicts earlier narratives that painted de Pape as a right-wing extremist. Following the report, NBC deleted Almaguer's story, suggesting it was true but politically inconvenient. NBC refused to explain the censorship, while another article blaming the GOP for the incident remains available.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you tuned in to the Today Show this morning looking for the usual funny cat videos and trans friendly salad recipes, you may have been surprised to find actual news being committed on your screen. In place of the segment you expected to see fit and sexy over 70, there was NBC news correspondent Miguel Almaguer letting you know that actually that assault on Paul Pelosi in San Francisco that you read about last week that story was a whole lot stranger than you ever imagined. According to Almaguer, citing several law enforcement sources with direct knowledge, it was Paul Pelosi who opened the door for police when they arrived. Now, you'll remember that authorities had previously told us that the intruder, David Dapate, had broken into Paul Pelosi's bedroom on the 3rd floor of the house and woken him up. Yet somehow, both Pelosi and de Pape were on the ground floor by the time police got there.
Moreover, according to Almaguer, Pelosi and de Pape had been together in the house for at least half an hour. And yet strangely, they both seemed fine. With police present, Almaguer reported, Paul Pelosi quote, did not immediately declare an emergency or leave his home. Instead, he quote, walked back several feet toward the assailant and away from police. What?
Paul Pelosi walked away from the police and toward David de Pape? What could possibly explain behavior like that? And what were the 2 doing for the 30 minutes before police arrived? Under normal circumstances, we wouldn't wanna know. Paul Pelosi's personal life is his business.
It's not our business. We've got nothing against the guy. We believe in privacy. But unfortunately for Paul Pelosi, there's an election coming next week, and his wife's allies immediately politicized the assault against him. They tried to tell us that David depape, a homeless illegal alien nudist drug addict, who had a BLM flag hanging near the broken school bus that he lives in, was actually a right wing hit man inspired by q, determined to act out the violence of January 6th in Nancy Pelosi's own home.
They told us that, like we believe it. Then the president of the United States went on television and said it again. It's laughably absurd. Russia bombed its own pipeline. Okay.
But they said it and they're still saying it. Then out of nowhere comes the Today Show. The head baton twirler in the democratic party's media pep squad and completely, probably unintentionally blows up their lie. After watching Al Maguire story in the Today show this morning, you could only conclude as Elon Musk put it, there's a tiny possibility there might be more to the story than meets the eye. Like you think?
And now we know for a fact that there is more of the story because NBC News has Jeffrey Epstein the entire thing. NBC deleted Alma Geer story both from its website and from Twitter. Why'd they do that? Well, obviously, they did it because the report was true. There's no question.
When was the last time you saw someone punished for lying? No one's ever punished for lying. You can lie all you want. What you can't do is tell the truth about something important. That's dangerous.
You will be punished if you do that and many are punished in case you haven't noticed. So just for fun, we called over to NBC News today. We wanna get their explanation for why they censored their own story. But mostly for being honest, we just wanted to rub their noses in the fact that they're not journalists at all. They're obedient little throne sniffing servants to the party in power.
Predictably, NBC News refused to tell us what was wrong with their own story, but of course, we already knew what was wrong with it. Nancy Pelosi didn't like it. That was the problem. Nancy Pelosi did appreciate the story that NBC news ran entitled, the GOP has Paul Pelosi's blood on its hands. That story remains on the NBC website tonight.
It meets their quote standards.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson's Full Monologue On A Whistleblower Informing His Show That The Biden Admin Is Using The U.S. Military To Fly Illegal Immigrants Around U.S. "What you are watching is demographic transformation in our country without our consent and in violation of our laws." https://t.co/lmPS6AwORN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Good evening. Since Joe Biden's inauguration, nearly a million foreign nationals have crossed the border illegally, more than the populations of major U.S. cities. This influx, which has not been approved by Congress, is highly unpopular among voters. The Biden administration is reportedly using the military to secretly transport undocumented immigrants, as revealed in an email from Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Burrows instructing personnel to keep this operation hidden. The Pentagon confirmed these flights are part of ICE's mission. Migrants are being relocated across the U.S., including states like Florida, New Jersey, and Texas. This demographic change is occurring without public consent and violates democratic principles, as citizens should have the right to know and control government actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight. It's not a partisan talking point or really any kind of exaggeration at all to say that Joe Biden has opened this country's borders to the world. Since Biden's inauguration in January, the border patrol is apprehended close to a million foreign nationals coming into this country overland through Mexico. How many people is that? Well, it's more people than live in the entire cities of San Francisco or Denver or Seattle or Indianapolis or Boston or Charlotte.
We could keep going. And that's all in just 6 months. Charlotte. We could keep going and that's all in just 6 months. That is enough people to change this country forever.
You may argue that's a good thing America will benefit from this mass influx of new people from foreign countries. If so, we'd love to hear that argument in detail. No one so far has explained how that works. But what you can't argue is that opening the borders was legal or that anyone in this country voted for it. The current mass movement of 4 nationals in the United States was never approved by Congress.
No one passed a law demanding it. The Biden administration just did it unilaterally without asking Americans what they thought of it. They probably already knew. Every poll we've ever seen shows clearly that voters of all backgrounds oppose open borders. That policy is highly backgrounds oppose open borders.
That policy is highly unpopular. So the administration couldn't say out loud what they were doing, instead they operated in secrecy. They hid it. They're hiding it right now. So what exactly are they doing?
Today, we have new information for you that answers that question at least in part. This show has confirmed that the Biden administration has enlisted the US military to move illegal immigrants secretly around our country that is happening at Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas. We know it's happening there because a man called Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Burrows sent his subordinates an email spelling it out very clearly. Over the next few days weeks or months, the note began, you may see passenger aircraft on our ramp transporting undocumented non citizens. Please review the attached public affairs guidance on the issue.
Barroza's email then instructed uniformed military personnel to hide what was happening on the base from the country they're sworn to serve. Quote, do not take photographs and refrain from posting anything on social media. Now, Lieutenant Colonel Burrows offered no security justification for keeping any of this secret because there is no national security justification for keeping it from the rest of us. He has told the people who work for him not to talk. Now, we got his email from a whistleblower and at first we doubted it could be real.
During the last administration, you'll remember the Pentagon firmly refused to protect America's southern border. That's not our job, they said. It's too political. Send us to Syria. And yet according to this document, here was the very same US military leadership at the Pentagon helping the Biden administration with maximum enforced stealth with secrecy to subvert this country's core immigration laws.
It was hard to believe that could be happening, but it is happening. The Pentagon has confirmed it to us. Spokesman Chris Mitchell described the flights from Laughlin as non citizen movement part of what he called the US Immigration and Custom Enforcement's mission. He told us then to direct any further questions to ICE. So we did.
We called ICE multiple times. ICE did not deny they were using Laughlin Air Force Base to relocate large numbers of foreign nationals into the interior of our country and do it secretly. We do know, thanks to the Center For Immigration Studies, that the administration, the Biden administration, has been sending illegal migrants all over the United States for some time now. Watch this.
Speaker 1: What's happening most of the time is that they are boarding buses and heading into America's heartland. A conveyor belt of commercial and charter buses just like this one in Del Rio, Texas are carrying tens of 1,000 sight unseen from Texas, Arizona, and California borderlands northward, and they are dropping their Haitian, Venezuelan, Cuban, and Central American family units in Florida and New Jersey, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and to large cities in Texas such as Dallas and Houston.
Speaker 0: Oh, changing the electoral map, are we? Serving the businesses that paid for you to get elected, are we? Yes, we are. Now those are buses you just saw. Now the administration is using aircraft and Air Force bases and that ought to give you some sense of the scale involved here.
What you're watching is demographic transformation in our country without our consent and in violation of our laws that is happening. Now our job is to shut up and accept it. We know that they will call us names if we don't accept it, but no thanks. What's happening, what they're doing is wrong. It is moreover a violation of the most basic promise of democracy, which is that citizens get to control who runs the government.
We as citizens, have an absolute right to know what exactly they are doing, and we're gonna try to learn.
reSee.it AI Summary
In my recent posts, I addressed the significant demographic changes impacting California and the broader U.S. I highlighted how these shifts have altered political dynamics and contributed to rising poverty in California. I criticized the left's celebration of these changes and their implications for democracy, particularly regarding mass immigration and amnesty. I emphasized that the push for these policies is less about improving the country and more about securing political power for the Democratic Party. I concluded by asserting that those in power show little regard for the consequences of their actions.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
#Thread Tucker Carlson's Full Monologue Responding To The Left's Attempts To Cancel Him & Exposing Mass Immigration, Amnesty & The ADL "Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party's political ambitions." 1/ https://t.co/NbvCZhGAuT
Video Transcript AI Summary
Recently, a discussion arose regarding how federal authorities allow illegal aliens to fly without ID, while American citizens face restrictions. This raises a critical voting rights issue: as new voters are imported, the political power of existing citizens is diluted. The focus should not be on race but on the impact of demographic changes on democracy.
Democrats support mass immigration to gain electoral advantage, not out of compassion. Historical examples, like California's shift from Republican to Democratic dominance post-1986 immigration reforms, illustrate this trend. The influx of immigrants with differing political views has transformed states, undermining the political power of long-term residents. Ultimately, this strategy threatens the democratic principle of one person, one vote.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last week, we said something on television that the usual chorus of hyperaggressive liars is now pretending was somehow highly controversial. Ordinarily, we'd ignore all of this. Once you've been denounced as a white supremacist for quoting Martin Luther King, you realize none of it's real. It's all another form of social control. Honestly, who cares what they think?
But in this one case, we thought it might be worth pausing to restate the original point, both because it was true and therefore worth saying, and also because America badly needs a national conversation about it. On Thursday, our friend Mark Stein guest hosted the 7 PM hour here on Fox. He did a segment on how federal authorities are allowing illegal aliens to fly without ID, something that in case you haven't noticed, you are not permitted to do. The following exchange took place in response to that story. We're gonna play the entire clip so you can be certain we're not leaving out context.
Here it is. I'm laughing because this is one of about 10 stories that I know you've covered, where the government shows preference to people who have shown absolute contempt for our customs, our laws, our system itself, and they're being treated better than American citizens. Now I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term replacement. If you suggest the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the 3rd world. But they become hysterical because that's that's what's happening actually.
Let's just say it. That's true. Mhmm. If if look. If this was happening in your house, if you were in 6th grade, for example, and without telling you, your kid your parents adopted a bunch of new siblings and gave them brand new bikes and let them stay up later and help them with their homework and gave them twice the allowance that they gave you, you would say to your siblings, you know, I think we're being replaced by by kids that our parents love more.
And it'd be kinda hard to argue against you because look at the evidence. So this matters on a bunch of different levels, but on the most basic level, it's a voting rights question. In a democracy, one person equals one vote. If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. So every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter.
So I don't understand why we don't understand this. I mean, everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement there. No. No.
No. This is a voting rights question. I have less political power because they're importing a brand new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that? The power that I have as an American guaranteed at birth is 1 man, 1 vote, and they're diluting it.
No. They're not allowed to do that. Why are we putting up with this? So it's a political question, obviously. At least one prediction came true right away.
All those little gatekeepers on Twitter did become hysterical. They spent the last 4 days jumping up and down, furiously trying once again to pull the show off the air. Once again, they will fail, though it is amusing to see them keep at it. They get so enraged. It's a riot.
But why all the anger? If someone says something you think is wrong, is your first instinct to hurt them? Probably not. Normal people don't respond that way. If you hear something you think is incorrect, you try to correct it.
But getting the facts right is hardly the point of this exercise. The point is to prevent unauthorized conversations from starting in the first place. Shut up, racist. No more questions. You've heard that before.
You wonder how much longer they imagine Americans are gonna go along with this. An entire country forced to lie about everything all the time. It can't go on forever, but you can see why they're trying it. Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party's political ambitions. Let's say that again for emphasis because it is the secret to the entire immigration debate.
Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party's political ambitions. In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country. They're no longer trying to win you over with their program. They're obviously not trying to improve your life. They don't even really care about your vote anymore.
Their goal is to make you irrelevant. That is provably true. And because it's true, it drives them absolutely crazy when you say it out loud. A hurt dog barks. They scream about how noting the obvious is immoral.
You're a racist if you dare to repeat things that they themselves proudly say. Most people go along with this absurd standard. They dutifully shut up. They don't think they have a choice. But no matter what they're allowed to say in public, everyone understands the truth.
When you change who votes, you change who wins. That fact has nothing inherently to do with race or nationality. It's the nature of democracy. It is always true. You can watch it happen.
You probably have. All across the country, we have seen huge changes in election outcomes caused by demographic change. New people move in, and they vote differently. As a practical matter, it doesn't matter what they look like or where they're from even. All that matters is is that they have different political views.
This is every bit as true when the migrants come from Brookline as when they come from Oaxaca. In Vermont, white liberals fleeing the mess they made in New York turned the state blue. As recently as 1992, Vermont was reliably Republican, hard to believe as that is. Vermont is now a parody of lifestyle liberalism. That's demographic change at work.
You see the same thing happening in the state of New Hampshire as refugees from Massachusetts flood north and bring their bad habits with them. Montana, Idaho, Nevada all face similar problems. The affluent liberals who wrecked California aren't sticking around to see how that ends. They're running to the pallid hideaways of Boise and Bozeman, distorting local culture and real estate markets as they do it. Pretty soon, people who were born in the mountain west won't be able to live there.
They'll be, yes, replaced by private equity barons, yoga instructors, and senior vice presidents from Google. Beautiful places are always in danger of being overrun by the worst people. Ask anyone who grew up in Aspen. But in most of this country, it is immigration from other nations more than anything else that has driven political transformation. And this is different from what we've seen in Vermont.
Americans have every right to move to new states if they want, even if they have silly political opinions. But our leaders have no right to encourage foreigners to move to this country in order to change election results. Doing that is an attack on our democracy. Yet for decades, our leaders have done just that, and they keep doing it, and they keep doing it because it works. Consider Virginia.
The counties across the river from Washington DC now contain one of the largest immigrant communities in the United States. Most of these immigrants are hardworking and decent people. Many have been very successful in business. Good for them. But they also have very different politics from the people who used to live there.
Their votes have allowed Democrats to seize control of the entire state and change it into something unrecognizable. Governor Blackface Klan Robes in Richmond owes his job to immigrants in Arlington and Falls Church. Similar trends are now underway in Georgia, North Carolina, and many other states. Mass immigration increases the power of the Democratic Party, period. That's the reason Democrats support it.
It's the only reason. If 200,000 immigrants from Poland showed up at our southern border tomorrow, Kamala Harris wouldn't promise them health care. Why? Simple. Polls tend to vote Republican.
That's the difference. Democrats would deport those migrants immediately. No more hand wringing about how we're a nation of immigrants. 100 of thousands of likely Republicans massing in Tijuana, that would qualify as a national crisis. We'd have a border wall by Wednesday.
For Democrats, the point of immigration is not to show compassion to refugees, much less to improve our country. It's definitely not about racial justice. Mass immigration hurts African Americans maybe more than anyone else. Immigration is a means to electoral advantage. It is about power.
More Democratic voters mean more power for Democratic politicians. That's the signature lesson of the state of California. Between 1948 and 1992, the state of California voted for exactly 1 Democratic presidential candidate. 1. Alone among America's big population centers in vivid contrast to Chicago and New York, California was reliably proudly Republican.
For 8 years, no less a figure than Ronald Reagan ran the state. California had the country's best schools, the best infrastructure, the best economy, not to mention the prettiest natural environment on the planet. California is a model for the world. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, its former governor, became president of the United States. In retrospect, it never got any better for California.
Midway through his second term, Reagan signed something called the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Though we didn't likely realize it at the time, that law made future Ronald Reagans impossible. The Immigration Reform and Control Act brought about an amnesty and a path to citizenship for nearly 3,000,000 foreign nationals living in the US illegally. The next year by executive order, Reagan added to that number. He halted the deportation of another 100,000 illegal minors, the dreamers of his day.
The rest of the world watched carefully as this happened. Would be migrants everywhere concluded that there was no real penalty for breaking America's laws. In fact, there was a reward. Reagan also signed a law that required hospitals to provide free medical care regardless of immigration status. The Supreme Court had already guaranteed free education to anyone who showed up without a visa.
So free hospitals, free schools, amnesty if you get caught. Why wouldn't the rest of the world come? They soon did.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson: Demographic Shift Changed California Forever "California changed because the population changed." "As your state swelled with foreign voters your views became irrelevant." 2/ https://t.co/wPw4JptAIG
Video Transcript AI Summary
The 1986 Immigration Control Act promised to secure the border but led to a surge in illegal immigration, transforming California into a Democratic stronghold. Since George H.W. Bush's narrow win in 1988, no Republican has succeeded in the state, which now has twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans. The counties with the highest Republican percentages also have the lowest immigrant populations. As California's demographics changed, long-time residents found their political influence diminished, rendering their votes less significant. This shift is likened to unfair practices in sports, where one team gains an advantage by adding players mid-game. The Democratic Party's approach in California is seen as a manipulation of the electoral process, undermining the fundamental democratic principle of equal representation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you're ever bored, go back and read the coverage of the 1986 amnesty bill the day it passed. Everyone at the time in both parties in the media assured Americans that the new law would control our border. It was called the Immigration Control Act after all. The opposite happened. Huge new waves of migrants arrived immediately.
Many of them illegal. California was transformed virtually overnight. It became a democratic state. In 1988, George H W Bush narrowly won California in the presidential election. No Republican has won that state since.
No Republican ever will win in California, not in our lifetimes. There are now about twice as many registered Democrats in California as there are Republicans. How'd that happen? There's not much debate about it. The counties in California with the highest percentage of republicans are not coincidentally, those with the lowest percentage of immigrants and vice versa.
California changed because the population changed. Analysis, for example, the 2012 presidential election showed that if you were actually from there, if you'd lived in the state of California in 1980, you probably still voted republican. Your views hadn't really changed. But as your state swelled with foreign voters, your views became irrelevant. Your political power, the power to control your own life, disappeared with the arrival of new people who diluted your vote.
And that was the whole point. That's not democracy. It's cheating. Imagine watching a football game where one team decides to start the Q3 with an extra 40 players on the field. Would you consider that fair play?
The Democratic Party did something very much like that in the state of California. They rigged the game with more people. They packed the electorate. As a result, Americans who grew up in California lost their most basic right in a democracy, which is the right to have their votes count.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson: CA Grows Poorer As Millions More Call It Home "In 1986 California was the richest landmass of its size in the world. California now has more poor people than any state in the country." 3/ https://t.co/9QczMsz81L
Video Transcript AI Summary
Los Angeles has seen a significant demographic shift, with the white population dropping below 30% from over 90% in 1960. The African American population has also declined, with a 50% reduction in Los Angeles over the past 30 years and just 5% in San Francisco, down from 13% in 1980. Many African Americans express a desire to leave California, a trend exacerbated by mass immigration. Since 1990, California's population has increased by 10 million, primarily from poorer regions, while the state's wealth has diminished. California now has the highest poverty rate in the nation, surpassing Mississippi, despite once being the richest land mass of its size.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This was true for all native born Americans, by the way, not just Republicans. Los Angeles now is the largest Latin American population outside Mexico City. Whites are less than 30% of the population. They're down for more than 90% in 1960. But a less notice decline has occurred among African Americans.
According to demographer, Jewel Kotkin, in the last 30 years, the proportion of black residents in Los Angeles has dropped by half. The city of San Francisco is now just 5% black. In 1980, it was 13%. Now you've heard a lot lately about the necessity of black political power. In California, that power is evaporating due to mass immigration.
Democratic leaders never mentioned this trend, but it's obvious to the people who live there. One poll found that almost 60% of black people in California would very much like to leave. Many already have. The exodus of American born Californians of every color began shortly after the 1980 6 amnesty. It has grown to a panic rush, as you know.
It can now cost you 5 times as much to drive a U Haul out of California than to drive a U Haul in. That's supply and demand at work. Not many Americans are moving to Los Angeles. Yet for every Californian who abandons the state, several other people arrive from foreign countries. And that's why since 1990, the total population of California has grown by 10,000,000 people.
That's the equivalent of an entirely new Michigan, a North Carolina in just 30 years. It's an awful lot of people in a very short period of time. Most of these new arrivals come from poor places. Their standard of living rises once they get to California. The state, however, has become much poorer.
In 1986, California was the richest land mass of its size in the world. California now has more poor people than any state in the country. As of this year, according to the best measurements available from the federal government, California has a higher poverty rate than Mississippi. It's at the highest in the nation. How did this happen?
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Calling Out The Left For Bragging About Demographic Change, Including A New York Times Piece Titled "We Can Replace Them" 4/ https://t.co/3hnL3GQzxN
Video Transcript AI Summary
In a healthy society, we would urgently question how a place like California became so unlivable that many residents chose to leave. This concern should extend to the entire United States to prevent similar situations elsewhere. The Democratic Party appears to be promoting this demographic shift, openly discussing the replacement of American voters with loyalists from other countries. They frequently express this idea, even in racial terms, without shame. A New York Times columnist explicitly stated that demographic changes would lead to Democratic control in states like Georgia, highlighting that this concept is not a right-wing conspiracy but rather a central focus of the modern Democratic Party, as it represents their strategy for gaining power.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In a healthy country, one that prized honesty and free inquiry and legitimate social science, we would be asking that question urgently. How did a place as idyllic as California become so miserable that huge numbers of people who were born there decided to abandon their homes and flee? If you cared about the United States, you would want to know the answer. You'd want to make absolutely certain it didn't happen anywhere else. Yet, the Democratic Party is working to make certain it happens everywhere else.
That's not a slur. It's not a guess. We know it because they brag about it constantly. The left becomes unhinged if you point out that American voters are being replaced by Democratic Party loyalists from other countries. You're actually not allowed to say that.
But they're allowed to say that and they do. They say it all the time. They've done studies on it. Written long books about it. Talked about it endlessly on television.
Often in the ugliest racial terms. They're not ashamed at all. They don't think they have to be ashamed. In the fall of 2018, a columnist in the New York Times wrote a piece that was literally entitled, we can replace them. In case you wondered who the them was, the column told you explicitly.
Thanks to demographic change, the author noted with hearty approval, The state of Georgia will soon be controlled by democrats, quote, the potential is there. Georgia is less than 53% non Hispanic white, end quote. Again, that's a New York Times columnist. It's not some qanon blogger. They tell you that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right.
No. It's not. They say it's some horrifying right wing conspiracy theory. The right is obsessed with it. No.
The left is obsessed with it. In fact, it's the central idea of the modern democratic party. Democratic replacement is their obsession because it's their path to power.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Showing Julian Castro & Kamala Harris Openly Admitting Why They Support Mass Immigration 5/ https://t.co/p6JqKYKH7I
Video Transcript AI Summary
Julian Castro predicted that Texas would become a Democratic state due to demographic changes and population growth from outside the state. This statement went unchallenged, reflecting a broader acceptance of such views. In 2019, Donald Trump falsely claimed he would deport many illegal immigrants. Kamala Harris responded, emphasizing that this was an attempt to alter the country's demographics. However, illegal immigrants cannot vote and should not factor into demographic considerations. Harris's stance implies that these individuals are seen as potential Democratic voters, raising questions about the implications of her beliefs. This perspective is presented as morally superior, discouraging dissent and framing opposition as immoral.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Several years ago, future Obama cabinet secretary Julian Castro went on CBS to explain why Texas will soon be a democratic state.
Speaker 1: In a couple of presidential cycles, you'll be on election night. You'll be announcing that we're calling the 38 electoral votes of Texas for the Democratic nominee for president. It's changing. It's gonna become a purple state and then a blue state because of the demographics, because of the population growth of folks from outside of Texas.
Speaker 0: No one attacked Julian Castro for saying that. No one asked who these, quote, folks from outside Texas might be or why they had a right to control the future of people who already lived in Texas. Nobody said a word about it. It seemed normal. It was normal.
It still is normal. In Washington, what qualifies as shocking is any real attempt to protect democracy. In the summer of 2019, then president Donald Trump promised, falsely as it turned out, that he was going to deport huge numbers of foreign nationals living here illegally. Kamala Harris's response to this was revealing. Harris could have argued, as Democrats often do argue, that deportation is cruel and it's un American.
But she didn't say that. Instead, she told the truth about it. Quote, let's call this what it is, Harris wrote on Twitter. It's an attempt to remake the demographics of our country by cracking down on immigrants. That this threat is coming from the president of the United States is deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values.
We will fight this. But wait a second. Donald Trump has now had announced he was deporting illegal aliens. Illegal aliens aren't allowed to vote in our elections. They're not even allowed to live here.
How is sending them home to their own countries, quote, an attempt to remake the demographics of our country? Illegal aliens shouldn't even count in the demographics of our country. They're not Americans. Kamala Harris's response only makes sense if you believe that the millions of foreigners breaking our laws to live here are future democratic voters. And that's exactly what Kamala Harris does believe.
It's shocking if you think about it. And that's why you're not allowed to think about it. Thinking about what Kamala Harris is planning, Kamala Harris herself would like you to know, is deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values. In other words, submit to our scheme or you're immoral.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Exposing The ADL's Different Views On Immigration When It Comes To Israel 6/ https://t.co/xCQADhqiQF
Video Transcript AI Summary
A nation's leadership expressing a desire to replace its own citizens is troubling, especially for those who believe in democracy. Protecting every citizen's vote is essential. In contrast, countries like Israel prioritize their national identity, as seen in the Anti-Defamation League's stance against granting voting rights to more Arabs, fearing a loss of Jewish representation. This raises the question of why any democratic nation would weaken its own citizens' power. Many Americans feel sidelined as their democracy is undermined by those claiming to defend it, while their votes become increasingly devalued.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you heard prominent people talk like this in any other country, you'd be confused. A nation's leadership class admitting they hope to replace their own citizens? It seems grotesque. If you believed in democracy, you would work to protect the potency of every citizen's vote, obviously. You wonder if people even debate questions like this in countries that don't hate themselves.
Countries like Japan or South Korea or Israel. Go to the Anti Defamation League's website sometime if you'd like a glimpse of what an unvarnished conversation about a country's national interest might look like. In a short essay posted to the site, the ADL explains why the state of Israel should not allow more Arabs to become citizens with voting rights. Quote, with historically high birth rates among the Palestinians and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, the ADL explains, Jews would quickly become a minority within a binational state, Thus, likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically and potentially physically vulnerable.
It is unrealistic and unacceptable, the ADL continues, to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory, end quote. Now from Israel's perspective, this makes perfect sense. Why would any democratic nation make its own citizens less powerful? Isn't that the deepest betrayal of all? In the words of the ADL, why would a government subvert its own sovereign existence?
Good question. Maybe ADL president Jonathan Greenblatt will join us sometime to explain and tell us whether that same principle applies to the United States. Most Americans believe it does. Unfortunately, most Americans don't have a say in the matter. Most Americans aren't even allowed to have the conversation.
So they watch from the sidelines as their democracy is murdered by people who claim to be its defenders. Democracy. Democracy. Democracy. Screams the Twitter mob.
Even as the votes of the people who were born here decline steadily in value, diluted and increasingly worthless like the US dollar.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Powerful Ending "The leaders making these changes have no sympathy for their victims. They blame the country for its own suffering. You always hate the people you hurt...Every honest person knows that it's true. As long as we're here we're going to keep saying it out loud." 7/ https://t.co/bvmTPKibKn
Video Transcript AI Summary
An entire native population, regardless of race, is being systematically disenfranchised. Middle-class Americans are losing both economic and political power, exacerbated by mass immigration. The leaders responsible for these changes show no empathy for those affected, often blaming the country for its struggles. This cycle of harm leads to resentment towards the very people they hurt. Acknowledging this reality is essential, and it will continue to be voiced openly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is what it looks like when an entire native population, black and white, but every one of them an American, is systematically disenfranchised. Middle class Americans become less powerful every year. They have less economic power. And thanks to mass immigration, they now have less political power. The leaders making these changes have no sympathy for their victims.
They blame the country for its own suffering. You always hate the people you hurt. That's all true. Every honest person knows that it's true. As long as we're here, we're going to keep saying it out loud.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
#Thread Tucker Carlson's Monologue On The MSM & The White House Calling For @joerogan To Be Censored "Rogan just asks questions & he notes the obvious. It's this last quality that makes the people in charge hate & fear Joe Rogan." https://t.co/veSFwoCBPP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Joe Rogan is currently one of the most popular broadcasters, with his podcast reaching around 11 million listeners per episode. Unlike traditional media, Rogan covers a wide range of topics and engages with guests from various backgrounds, often allowing them to speak freely. This genuine curiosity and willingness to question authority have made him a target for criticism, particularly from political figures like Jen Psaki, who called for censorship of his content. Despite pressure, Spotify has not removed Rogan but has deleted thousands of other COVID-related episodes. Critics argue that Rogan spreads misinformation, while he maintains a focus on safety and curiosity. In contrast, mainstream media struggles to connect with audiences, often resorting to sensationalism. Rogan's approach highlights the importance of open dialogue and genuine interest in diverse perspectives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening. Welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight. Joe Rogan may be the most popular broadcaster in the English speaking world right now. Every episode of his podcast called The Joe Rogan Experiences reaches about 11,000,000 people, and some of the episodes get an audience many times that. How many people is that?
It's a lot. For perspective, last night, CNN's highest rated show had a little over 700,000 viewers total. So Joe Rogan is big. And unlike CNN, he's not especially political. His show covers pretty much everything.
Comedy, science, nutrition, the paranormal, recreational drug use, exercise, mixed martial arts, music, Hollywood, and a huge range of other topics often with guests you've never heard of. Rogen is not a reactionary unlike most people in the media. He doesn't think he already knows everything. He's genuinely curious. And so he lets his guests speak.
His longest interview lasted for more than 5 hours. It was with a stand up comedian. When Rogen does talk about politics, it's pretty clear he's not an ideologue. He interviews everybody. Liberals and conservatives as well as a lot of people like Mike Tyson who could be either one.
And he does it most of the time with respect and self deprecation. He's not an expert on politics. He's not pretending to be one. Rogen just asked questions, and he notes the obvious. It's this last quality that makes the people in charge hate and fear Joe Rogen.
If you're trying to sell an absurd, obviously untrue idea, it is possible that Joe Rogen's gonna call you on it. Not because he's a partisan, he's not, but because he just can't help but notice. That's his secret. A few months ago, Rogan watched the White House press secretary lie about the FDA's approval process for Pfizer's COVID vaccine. So he said something about it.
Watch.
Speaker 1: Jen Psaki is talking about misinformation online and combating misinformation. She distributed misinformation.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: Because she said that it's approved by the FDA in their gold standard.
Speaker 0: Yeah. What he said was true. Rogan's pretty literal, actually. It's one of the reasons people trust him. And he was right in this case.
Jen Psaki was lying to the country, and it wasn't even an especially clever lie. Anyone with Internet access could have verified that what Jen Psaki said was a total crock from the podium too. But when Joe Rogan points this out, it really stings. A lot of the people listening to him believe him, and the White House took notice. So what happened next?
Well, here's Jen Psaki from yesterday calling on Joe Rogan's employer to censor him. Watch.
Speaker 2: This disclaimer, it's a positive step, but we want every platform to continue doing more to call out mis and mis and disinformation while also uplifting accurate information. But ultimately, you know, our view is it's a it's a it's a good step. It's a positive step, but there's more that can be done.
Speaker 0: There's more that can be done. Hey, you little fascists. That's a threat. It's exactly what it is. Politicians and their spokeschicks didn't use to talk this way.
They were not allowed to talk this way because the first amendment explicitly prohibits it. You're not allowed to use government power to shut down broadcasters who criticize you. Period. And now that's exactly what they're trying to do. So far, Joe Rogan's employer, Spotify, hasn't caved to the pressure.
Rogan still has a job, but the company is bending. It's deleted more than 20,000 COVID related podcast episodes made by other Spotify hosts. Spotify claims they, quote, cause harm. How exactly can a podcast cause harm? Spotify didn't explain because, of course, they couldn't explain.
Podcasts don't cause harm. Weapons cause harm. Anyone who knows anything about American business right now understood what's actually going on. In a moment like this, it is virtually impossible to run a public company. No matter how hard you try, it's not just in podcasting.
It's not just Spotify. It's any company with shareholders. From breakfast cereal manufacturers to tennis shoe retailers. The political pressure is coming at these companies from all sides, from activist investors, from the media, from their own employees. Every day is a brand new crisis.
Imagine the emails between the CEO and the PR department. They never stop. And under those circumstances, it's impossible to think clearly, to stand on principle, or even to consider your own best interest long term. That's what's going on with Spotify. They probably don't wanna censor anybody.
They're being pushed to. In their case, pressure to censor Joe Rogan over his views is coming from other content providers on the site. And most of them are d listers, you should know. The other day, that annoying fake duchess from LA and her brain dead husband threatened to walk if Spotify refused to muzzle Joe Rogan. Quote, 100 of millions of people are affected by the serious harms of rampant miss and disinformation every day, they yelped through a publicist.
But of course, they don't mean it. They're not going anywhere. These 2 grifters have a $25,000,000 podcast deal with Spotify for essentially no work. So far, we believe they produced just over 30 minutes of content. That means these 2 have been paid about $1,000,000 for each minute of talking they've done.
That's a good gig. It's too good to leave. But their performance does raise the question, what exactly about Joe Rogan's podcast has caused, quote, serious harm? We're literal too, so we scoured his archives to find out. And it turns out, as usual, the opposite is true.
Joe Rogan is actually a force for safety in this world. Watch this clip in which he warns the public about the dangers of approaching gorillas in the wild. It turns out sneaking up on a gorilla, as Joe Rogan pointed out, could lead to actual serious harm.
Speaker 1: We're so soft. We think it's okay to look at a wild animal in its eyes. That's how stupid we are. Hi.
Speaker 0: It's a
Speaker 1: pain challenge. We're cool, man. We're from National Geographic Society. We're just gonna make sure your baby's okay. That's a crazy 800 pound silverback that's bursting through the trees.
Speaker 0: Gets right in your face.
Speaker 1: He's got fangs and only eats vegetables. I know. And the fangs are only designed to you up. Ugh. And you can even imagine what an 800 pound gorilla's strength is like because you would think of it as like an 800 pound man, but it would really be more like a £3,000 media.
Speaker 0: He's interested in animals, by the way. Again, he's curious. That that's part of the allure. People in the media are paid to be curious, to ask questions, to wonder about other people. None of them do.
They just wanna lecture you. This guy actually is interested. But no one is criticizing him seems to know that. Doesn't seem like they've actually listened to his show. Neil Young probably never has.
Neil Young is an elderly folk singer from the nation of Canada. Young has already pulled his music from Spotify in protest of Rogan's open mindedness. Does Neil Young actually own his own music? We don't know. But we know that the gesture received widespread applause from the usual morons who then revealed themselves to be even dumber than you thought they were.
Variety Magazine, for example, which still exists, informed us that Neil Young stands against Joe Rogan makes him quote, a hero to the younger generations. Right. Because if there's one person kids of today revere, worship like a god, it's 76 year old Neil Young. They take Neil Young over Joe Rogan any day because young people everywhere are anxious to side with the Biden administration and demand the firing of any podcaster who interviews people Kamala Harris disagrees with. It's hilarious.
They're more out of touch than Neil Young is. But at CNN, they've convinced themselves it's all totally true because Joe Rogan is peddling misinformation. Therefore, he must be stopped.
Speaker 3: You think about major newsrooms like CNN that have health departments and deaths and operations that work hard on verifying information on COVID 19. And then you have talk show stars like Joe Rogan who just wing it, who make it up as they go along. And because figures like Rogan are trusted by people that don't trust real newsrooms, we have attention, a problem that's much bigger than Spotify, much bigger than any single platform.
Speaker 0: People are trusting Joe Rogan over UNIX. Can you imagine? Damn the people. They should be watching CNN. CNN has departments and desks and entire operations designed to verify information and filter out misinformation.
And that's why they described Ivermectin, which in Joe Rogan's case was prescribed by a human doctor as, quote, horse dewormer and did it on, like, 9 different shows. And those same standards led them to suggest, famously, that a passenger's jet must have been sucked into a black hole.
Speaker 4: What if it was hijacking or terrorism or mechanical failure or pilot error? But what if it was something fully that we don't really understand? A lot of people have been asking about that, about black holes and on and on and on. They're also referencing the Twilight Zone, which is a very similar plot. That's what people are saying.
I know it's preposterous, but it is it preposterous you think?
Speaker 0: We can't get enough. Yes. That clip was from 8 years ago, but we watch it every single morning along with our Pilates and saunas to get ready for the day. And if you wanna watch a lot more like that, CNN has just announced, you can subscribe to CNN plus and Don Lamont will be on there constantly for a small extra fee. So that's their answer to Joe Rogan, more nonsense by the lowest rated dummies in the entire TV business.
Joe Rogan, meanwhile, consistently turns out interesting informative programming just by being curious, just by asking obvious questions. That's all it takes. Care about what other people are saying. Watch the world around you. Take an interest in something beyond yourself.
And when he does that, they don't like it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the recent conviction of Steve Bannon, viewing it as a troubling escalation in the treatment of Trump supporters. I criticized the January 6th Committee for its lack of transparency and cross-examination, calling it pure propaganda. I expressed disappointment that other media outlets didn't challenge the narrative more vigorously. I also highlighted the committee's failure to address key issues, like the killing of Ashli Babbitt and unreleased surveillance footage. Lastly, I called out Adam Kinzinger, suggesting he remains a deeply unhappy individual despite the hearings.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
#Thread Tucker Carlson On The Sham 1/6 Committee, The Persecution Of Trump Supporters And America's Two-Tiered Justice System "Offend the people in charge, get punished. Support the people in charge, do whatever you want." "Today's conviction of Steve Bannon is an escalation." https://t.co/CDSuxjNGTU
Video Transcript AI Summary
Authoritarian regimes often use politicized justice to suppress dissent, where opponents face severe penalties while supporters evade consequences. Recent events illustrate this in the U.S. For instance, a man attempted to stab Congressman Lee Zeldin but was released without bail, while Steve Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress, a charge not applied to others like Eric Holder or Lois Lerner, who evaded accountability. This reflects a double standard in the justice system, where political affiliations dictate outcomes. Bannon's trial lacked fairness, as he couldn't present a defense or confront his accusers from the January 6th committee, highlighting a troubling trend of selective prosecution under the current administration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The hallmark of any authoritarian regime is politicized justice. Under that system, your opponents go to jail, your supporters can do whatever they want, and this reveals that the state exists not to serve the people who live in it, but to preserve itself and to crush all dissent. I hate to think we've reached a point anywhere near that here in the United States because there's nothing worse than that or scarier or harder to fix, but in fact, we have reached that point. That's where we are. Yesterday, for example, a man leaped on stage at a campaign event and tried to stab Lee Zeldin.
Zeldin's a sitting member of congress. He's challenging the unelected incumbent Kathy Hochul in the governor's race in New York. So ordinarily, attempting to assassinate a federal office holder would be considered a big deal. But Lee Zeldin's Republicans was not a big deal anymore. The man who tried to murder Lee Zeldin was released immediately with no bail.
Less than 24 hours later, by contrast, former Trump advisor Steve Bannon was convicted of crimes that until recently were not crimes at all, for which he now faces a prison term of 2 years. Bannon has been declared guilty of something called contempt of Congress. That may strike you as an unintentionally hilarious term since most of the time Congress invites our contempt. But the point is, this is a crime the Democrats are not convicted of, ever. Attorney General Eric Holder and IRS executive Lois Lerner were once found to be in contempt of Congress, both of them, and for real crimes.
In Holder's case, it was gun running in Mexico. In Lerner's case, it was targeting conservatives for audits. But neither one went to trial. Holder claimed executive privilege, which was enough even after a judge ruled that executive privilege did not apply in Eric Holder's case, but didn't matter. He walked.
Lois Lerner cited the 5th amendment. It was as simple as that. Both of them today, Lerner and Holder are free and richer than ever. But these standards do not apply to Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon was subpoenaed by the January 6th committee despite the fact he had literally nothing to do with January 6th.
And we know that because he left the White House 3 years before it happened, but it didn't matter. He annoyed the wrong people, so he's going to jail. Now, this shouldn't surprise you really because we've been building toward this moment for some time. You might recall Greg Craig, that would be Barack Obama's former White House counsel. He was acquitted of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act, FARA, back in 2019.
He'd been working for Ukraine. Now, at almost exactly the same moment, Paul Manafort, who hired Greg Craig to work on Ukraine, was convicted of violating the same law, FARA, on the same account for Ukraine. How does that work exactly? It seems like a double standard. And indeed, it is a double standard, but it's a consistent standard.
We've seen it again and again and again. Former Clinton attorney Michael Sussman was just acquitted by a DC jury of lying to the FBI. That happened in May. The theory was that really, who knows what Michael Sussmann told the FBI about non existent Russian servers in Trump Tower? Okay.
As long as we're using that theory, does it work for everyone? Well, it didn't work for George Papadopoulos. Didn't work for Michael Flynn. On the other hand, neither one of those guys had a key card to FBI headquarters like Michael Sussman did. And that came in handy, that relationship.
But Mike Flynn didn't have that relationship. His life was destroyed. Why? Because of handwritten notes by Peter Strzok, who you can now see on MSNBC, about their conversation in the White House about Russian sanctions. Get him to lie, the head of counterintelligence the FBI wrote to Strzok, speaking of Flynn.
So on the basis of that, the setup, they hounded Mike Flynn into poverty. The same thing happened to George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos' crime not being as forthcoming as possible about his job status with the Trump campaign. Unpaid. That's literally what the DOJ told the court in a filing quote, the defendant did not provide substantial assistance.
Oh, that's the standard. So Papadopoulos went to prison. So did the 69 year old grandmother recently called Pam Hemphill. She's currently serving a 2 month sentence in federal prison. Why?
Because she quote, paraded in the capitol on January 6th. Didn't hurt anyone. She's got breast cancer. She's going to prison. A judge in Washington had no problem issuing that sentence.
At exactly the same moment, the US attorney for DC dropped all charges against Stephen Colbert's production crew for doing the same thing, but worse. So Stephen Colbert's team may have lied to federal authorities when they said they'd stayed at restricted areas, but they didn't lie to federal authorities in quite the same way apparently. And of course, they had the right politics. Unlike Roger Stone, Roger Stone got a 3 year prison sentence. HADSWAT team show up at his house at dawn with the CNN crew in tow, tipped off by the justice department for maximum humiliation.
What was this crime no one can remember because there wasn't one. So if you've been paying any attention at all to our justice system, particularly under Merrick Garland, you had some sense of where this was going. It was moving toward the authoritarian system we now have where justice is an illusion. Offend the people in charge, get punished. Support the people in charge, do whatever you want.
Still, even knowing that, today's conviction of Steve Bannon is an escalation. There was not even a pretense in his trial that the prosecution of Steve Bannon was lawful. So the constitution requires equal protection. Heard that phrase? That means that selective prosecution is not allowed.
It's unconstitutional. If you don't try one person for a crime, you don't get to charge another person for the same crime because that's selective. It's political. But under Merrick Garland, that's the new rule. Offend us, go to jail.
At his trial, Steve Bannon was not permitted to say that his attorneys had counseled him against bending the need of the January 6th committee. He couldn't even say that. Nor was he allowed to argue that his subpoena was legally invalid. Why couldn't he argue that? All Steve Bannon was allowed to do was shut up.
He had to remain silent and await his conviction, and that's what he did. Outside of federal court today, Steve Bannon pointed out that he subpoenaed members of the January 6th committee to testify at his trial. Why can't you face your accusers? Isn't that guaranteed under our system? Not in this case.
Because having the January 6th committee members show up would expose them to the one thing they cannot tolerate, which is cross examination. So they refused. Watch.
Speaker 1: I wanna thank the jury for the whatever they did. The judge, particularly the court administration here, everybody. I only have one disappointment, and that is the gutless members of that show trial committee. The j six committee didn't have the guts to come down here and testify and open for it.
Speaker 0: Did you expect Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to show up? They don't have to testify. They don't have to do anything they don't wanna do. They can just send their enemies to jail.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson On Why The January 6th Committee Doesn't Allow Cross Examination "It's pure propaganda." https://t.co/UHwJ1WsMi7
Video Transcript AI Summary
The January 6th committee's hearings resemble a show trial, lacking cross-examination and anonymity for witnesses. For instance, Cassidy Hutchinson made sensational claims about Donald Trump attempting to commandeer his limo, which were not cross-examined, despite Secret Service agents denying her account. The committee did not contact the Secret Service before her testimony, raising questions about their commitment to uncovering the truth. If Republicans had been allowed to cross-examine, more context might have emerged, such as Hutchinson's reported job-seeking at Mar-a-Lago afterward. Instead, the hearings have been characterized as propaganda, with mainstream media promoting the narrative without presenting opposing viewpoints.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So their behavior is really not that surprising because the January 6th committee itself does not allow cross examination during its hearings. You may have noticed this. It doesn't even allow the identification of many witnesses. They do it anonymously. How do you define show trial?
That's how you define show trial. So these are not hearings in any recognizable sense. This is a show trial. That is exactly what it is. That's not overstatement.
The committee did not allow the cross examination of former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, for example, even after she made claims that were insane. They made no sense. She claimed that Donald Trump tried to carjack his own presidential limo and drive it to the capital. So if she'd been cross examined, which in any hearing, hearing is permitted under the Western system of justice, not the woke system of justice that Liz Cheney has brought us, but the conventional system that all of us grew up with, you would have a cross examination, and someone might have pointed out that the secret service agents in that limo denied her account. But if you were watching on MSNBC or CNN, which have taken this propaganda live and then bragged about it, we're doing the bidding of the state.
We're so proud. We're calling it journalism. We've refused to do that because we have dignity, and we're not liars unlike them. But if you're watching this on those channels, you have no idea that the Secret Service denied this account. The Secret Service was never contacted by Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger before the testimony, and that's bizarre.
Because if the committee wanted to get to the truth of the Trump grabbed the wheel of the limo allegation, they would have talked to people who were there, but they didn't. Republicans, if they'd been allowed to cross examine if they demanded to cross examine, we're not defending Republicans, they've fallen down on the job. That's an understatement. But if someone had been allowed to ask adult questions of the witness, we might have learned what CNN viewers will never know, and that's that Hutchinson reportedly tried to get a job at Mar a Lago afterward. But none of that was allowed because it's pure propaganda.
It's been going on for months now.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson: "It's just absolutely shameful, absolutely shameful that the other channels played this crap without pushing back in even the mildest way." https://t.co/SZUMXuuvdG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Last night, the January 6th committee featured testimony from an anonymous official claiming that Secret Service agents protecting Mike Pence feared for their lives. They reportedly used their radios to say goodbye to family members, believing they might die during the Capitol riot. The situation was described as disturbing, with agents feeling that things were about to escalate dangerously.
It’s shameful that other news channels aired this without challenge, failing to hold those in power accountable. Journalism should not simply broadcast unedited accounts of fear; it should critically assess and report responsibly, unlike what was done by most networks, except Fox News.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last night, the January 6th committee put on testimony from an anonymous official. Can you imagine an anonymous official claiming that secret service agents assigned to Mike Pence were using their radios to tell their families goodbye, like they're on the deck of the Titanic. Because they assume they would die in the capital because some guy in viking horns on mushrooms was spinning and round in circles and talking about peace. They were so afraid. Watch this nonsense.
Speaker 1: The members of the BP detail at this time were starting to fear for their own lives. There were a lot of there was a lot of yelling, a lot of a lot of very personal calls, over the radio. So it was disturbing. I don't like talking about it, but, but there were calls to, say goodbye to family members, so on and so forth. It was getting for for whatever the reason was on the ground, the BP detail thought that this was about to get very young.
Speaker 0: It's just absolutely shameful, absolutely shameful that the other channels played this crap without pushing back in even the mildest way. Oh, it's news. It's not news. And your job in journalism is to hold the powerful accountable. It's not to do their bidding or put their lives on TV unedited in prime time, which is what every other channel has done except Fox News, and we are proud of that.
Well, you should be ashamed. Yeah. You should be ashamed.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson On The January 6th Committee Ignoring Questions About The Killing Of Ashli Babbitt And The Thousands Of Hours Of Unreleased Surveillance Footage https://t.co/zjQBbAwJzN
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's no cross-examination allowed in this committee, so important questions remain unaddressed. For instance, why did a Capitol Hill police officer with a history of mishandling firearms shoot an unarmed Air Force veteran in the neck? We're also not allowed to inquire about the thousands of hours of surveillance footage or why police were seen letting people into the Capitol on January 6th. These critical issues are off-limits for questioning.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But there's no cross examination allowed in any of this because this committee would not allow it. No rebuttal of any kind. So of course, there was no inquiry as to why a Capitol Hill police officer with a documented history of recklessly mishandling firearms shot an unarmed woman in the neck, an air force veteran. He shot her in the neck. Why?
You're not allowed to ask. What happened to those thousands of hours of surveillance footage? Why can't we see those? Nah. You're not allowed even to ask why we're not allowed to see them.
We can't know why police are on video letting people into the capital complex on January 6th. Why is that? Not allowed to ask.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson Calling Out Adam Kinzinger "No matter how long these hearings go on, they could go on forever, and Adam Kinzinger will still be a sad, tormented, tiny man with a miserable personal life." https://t.co/D43cefSz57
Video Transcript AI Summary
This charade will continue until the midterms, as Adam Kinzinger openly admits this is a political exercise. The investigation is ongoing, with more hearings possible, but it seems to prevent legitimate questions from being asked. No matter how long these hearings last, Kinzinger will remain a troubled individual. The prosecutors, aligned with Kinzinger and Cheney, are working with the justice department to target political opponents, posing a significant threat to the rule of law in the United States.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And this is gonna continue. As Adam Kinzinger said, this charade, which really does corrode the heart of our system, this will continue all the way till the midterms because as Kinsinger, who's dumb enough to say the quiet part out loud, admitted this is a political exercise. Watch.
Speaker 1: This investigation is not winding down. We may be towards the end of this tranche of hearings. We may have more hearings in the future and the investigation is still ongoing. So we're we're we're we're getting to the bottom of what we need to know.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. We're getting to the bottom. Actually, you're preventing legitimate obvious questions from being asked And and just in point of fact, no matter how long these hearings go on, they could go on forever, and Adam Kinzinger will still be a sad, tormented, tiny man with a miserable personal life. So, you know, that's some comfort.
But the prosecutors here, working for Kinzinger and Cheney and the rest of this committee, just like the school boards and the teachers' unions last year, worked in tandem with the justice department to punish the enemies of the Democratic party. What is that? Well, it's the single greatest threat to the rule of law in the history of the United States. That's true.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Meet The Head Of Biden's Ministry Of Truth: Nina Jankowicz https://t.co/g8lsAReMz6
Video Transcript AI Summary
Information laundering involves hiding lies by making them seem less atrocious. This happens when lies are shared by figures outside mainstream sources. Examples include Rudy Giuliani sharing terms on Ukraine and TikTok influencers claiming COVID causes pain. This launders dissent, and people should not support these lies. The academic credentialing machine that sustains America's ruling class is a joke.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Information laundering is really quite ferocious. It's when a hawkster takes some lies and makes some sound precocious by saying none in congress or a mainstream alphabet. So this information's origins are slightly less atrocious. It's how you hide a little hide a lie. It's how you hide a little hide a lie.
It's how you hide a little hide a lie when Rudy Giuliani shared that in terms on Ukraine. Or when TikTok and fluencers say COVID can cause pain. They're laundering dissent for when we really should take note and not support their lies with our wallet voice mail.
Speaker 1: Since the point of the show, we're gonna say we're kidding, we're making all of this up. It's not really happening in the country you're born in, but it is happening. That's now a law enforcement official. It's also the person you just saw an individual who brags about getting a master's degree from Georgetown University. In case you're wondering if the entire academic credentialing machine that sustates America's ruling class is in fact a joke spoiler alert.
Yes, it is a joke.
reSee.it AI Summary
Former Secret Service Agent @dbongino reveals on @DonaldJTrumpJr's show that the Secret Service Director has been instructed by the Administration and the DHS Secretary to stay silent if they want to keep their job.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Whoa Former Secret Service Agent @dbongino On @DonaldJTrumpJr's Show Today With @TuckerCarlson And @DavidSacks "I was also told that the Secret Service Director has been given instructions from the Administration and the DHS Secretary that if you want to keep your job, you'll keep your mouth shut about this."
Video Transcript AI Summary
I showed Tucker evidence from a reliable source about a missing police post. The media's story about the roof being the issue is false. The Secret Service director was told to stay quiet by the administration. If the missing post led to harm, it could have been disastrous.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I was just showing Tucker some material from a a ace an unimpeachable source, let's just say, on the matter. That post, according to my source, that roof was supposed to be a police post. It it was so was supposed to be someone there. They're now making up excuses saying the pitch or the roof. My source said to me they no one knows why the post didn't show up.
But so that's a nonsense story they're putting out in the media. And I was also told that the Secret Service director has been given instructions from the administration and the DHS secretary. You wanna keep your job, you'll keep your mouth shut about this. They're not putting that out there, but if you get those side post logs and those police instructions, and there was a post on there and they didn't show up and no one checked, Someone could've got your dad killed within millimeters.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Peter Strzok the FBI Agent who texted with his lover that they needed to stop President Trump: "There is simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions." What a clown world we live in... #StrzokHearing https://t.co/rnkQOIMJXK
Video Transcript AI Summary
I express regret for my texts causing confusion and pain. My political opinions were shared during the election, but they never influenced my work at the FBI. I criticize various politicians, including Clinton and Trump, but my actions were always unbiased. I was involved in the Russian interference investigation and take pride in the FBI's integrity. I believe the hearing is a victory for Putin and a threat to our democracy. I am ready to answer any questions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Chairman Goodlatte and Gowdy, ranking members Nadler and Cummings, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committees again, this time in an open hearing. I testify today with significant regret, recognizing that my texts have created confusion and caused pain for people I love. Certain private messages of mine have provided ammunition from misguided attacks against the FBI, an institution that I love deeply and have served proudly for over 20 years. I'm eager to answer your questions, but let me first address those much much discussed texts. Like many people, I had and expressed personal political opinions during an extraordinary presidential election.
Many contained expressions of concern for the security of our country, opinions that were not always expressed in terms I'm proud of. But having worked in national security for 2 decades and proudly served in the US Army, those opinions were expressed out of deep patriotism and an unyielding belief in our great American democracy. At times, my criticism was blunt, but despite how it's been characterized, it was not limited to one person or to one party. I criticized various countries and politicians, including Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders, then candidate Trump, and others. But let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took.
This is true for the Clinton email investigation, for the investigation into Russian interference, and for every other investigation I've worked on. It is not who I am and it is not something I would ever do. Period. I understand that my sworn testimony will not be enough for some people. After all, Americans are skeptical of anything coming out of Washington.
But the fact is, after months of investigations, there's simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions. There is, however, one extraordinarily important piece of evidence supporting my integrity, the integrity of the FBI, and our lack of bias. In the summer of 2016, I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian in elect Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail and quite possibly defeat mister Trump, but the thought of expressing that or exposing that information never crossed my mind. That's what FBI agents do every single day, and that's why I'm so proud of the Bureau.
And I'm particularly proud of the work that I and many others did on the Clinton email investigation. Our charge was investigated competently, honestly, and independently, and that's exactly what happened. I'm also proud of our work on the Russian interference investigation. This is an investigation into a direct attack by a foreign adversary, and it is no less so simply because it was launched against our democratic process rather than against the military base. This is something that all Americans of all political persuasions should be alarmed by.
In the summer of 2016, we had an urgent need to protect the integrity of an American presidential election from a hostile foreign power determined to weaken and divide the United States of America. This investigation is not politically motivated. It is not a witch hunt. It is not a hoax. I expect that during this hearing, I'll be asked about that ongoing investigation.
Where the FBI has directed me not to answer, I will abide by the FBI's instructions. But let me be clear, this is not because I don't want to answer your questions. If I were permitted to answer, I would, and the answers would doubtless be disappointing to the questioners and undermine the conspiracy narrative being told about the Russian investigation. I understand we're living in a political era in which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity. But the honest truth is that Russian interference in our elections constitutes a grave attack on our democracy.
Most disturbingly, it has been wildly successful, sowing discord in our nation and shaking faith in our institutions. I have the utmost respect for congress's oversight role, but I strongly believe today's hearing is just another victory notch in Putin's belt and another milestone in our enemy's campaign to tear America apart. As someone who loves this country and cherishes its ideals, is profoundly painful to watch and even worse to play a part in. Mr. Chairman, I welcome your questions.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a speech at @Heritage, Tucker Carlson sheds light on understanding those who are undermining our nation. Their actions defy political norms, driven by a destructive agenda. This isn't politics; it's pure evil.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Tucker Carlson During Speech At @Heritage Explains How To Understand What The People Wrecking Our Country Are Doing "None of this makes sense in conventional political terms." "When people. . .decide that the goal is to destroy things, destruction for its own sake, 'hey let's tear it down,' what you’re watching is not a political movement, it’s evil."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker suggests that the terms used to describe current debates need to be reassessed. They argue that the debates are not rational discussions about achieving mutually agreed-upon outcomes, but rather a manifestation of evil. They give examples such as the transgender movement and abortion, stating that these issues cannot be assessed through conventional political terms. The speaker believes that destruction and chaos are the goals of these movements, and that advocating for such outcomes is advocating for evil. They propose acknowledging this reality and taking time to pray for the future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It it might be time to start to reassess the terms we use to to describe what we're watching. So when I started at Heritage, the presumption was, and this is a very Anglo American assumption, that the debates we're having are kind of rational debates about the way to get to mutually agreed upon outcomes. Right? So, like, we all want the country to be more prosperous and free and people to be less oppressed or whatever. And so we're gonna argue about tax rates, and I think higher tax gets gets us there.
I'm, like, Keynesian, and you disagree, you're an Austrian, whatever, but the objective is the same. And so we write our papers, and they write their papers, and may the best papers win. I I I don't think that's what we're watching now at all. I don't think we're watching a debate over how to get to the best outcome. I think that's completely wrong.
And I've come to this conclusion, not and I should say at the outset, I'm an Episcopalian, so don't take any theological advice from me because I don't have any. I grew up in the shallowest faith tradition that's ever been invented. It's not even a Christian religion at this point. I say with shame. But I'm just saying this is an observer of what's going on.
There is no way to assess, say, the transgenders movement with that mindset. Policy papers don't account for it at all. If you have people who are saying, I have an idea. Let's castrate the next generation. Let's sexually mutilate children.
Sorry, that's not a political debate. What? It has nothing to do with politics. What's the outcome we're desiring here? An androgynous population?
Is that really what we are we arguing for that? Nope. I don't think anyone could, like, defend that as a positive outcome. But the weight of the government and, you know, a lot of corporate interests are behind that. Well, what is that?
Well, it's irrational. If you say, well, you know, I think abortion is always bad. Well, I think sometimes it's necessary. That's a debate I'm familiar with. But if you're telling me that abortion is a positive good, what are you saying?
Well, you're arguing for child sacrifice, obviously. It's not about, like, oh, a teen, you know, a teen girl gets pregnant and what do we do about that and victims of rape? I you know, I get it. I of course, I understand that, and I have compassion for everyone involved. When the treasury secretary stands up and says, you know what you can do to help the economy get an abortion?
Well, you that's like an Aztec principle, actually. There's not a society in history that didn't practice human sacrifice. Not one. I checked. Even the Scandinavians, I'm ashamed to say, it wasn't just the Mesoamericans, it was everybody.
So, like, that's what that is. What's the point of child sacrifice? Well, there's no policy goal entwined with that, no. That's a theological phenomenon. And that's kind of the point I'm making.
None of this makes sense in conventional political terms, when people or crowds of people or the largest crowd of people at all, which is the federal government, the largest human organization in human history, decide that the goal is to destroy things. Destruction for its own sake. Hey. Let's tear it down. What you're watching is not a political movement, it's evil.
So if you want to assess, and I'll put it in non and I'll stop with this. I'll put it in non I'll put it in non political, or non rather non specific theological terms and just say, if you wanna know what's evil and what's good, what are the characteristics of those? And by the way, you know, I I think the Athenians would have agreed with this. This is not necessarily just a Christian notion. This is kind of a, let's say, widely agreed upon understanding of good and evil, what are its products?
What are these 2 conditions produce? Well, I mean, good is characterized by order, calmness, tranquility, peace, whatever you wanna call it, lack of conflict, cleanliness. Cleanliness is next to godliness. It's true. It is.
And evil is characterized by their opposites. Violence, hate, disorder, division, disorganization and filth. So if you are all in on the things that produce the latter basket of outcomes, what you're really advocating for is evil. That's just true. I'm not calling for religious war.
Far from it. I'm merely calling for an acknowledgement of what we're watching, which is not what and I'm not certainly not backing the Republican Party. I mean, ugh. I'm not making a partisan point at all. I'm I'm just noting what's super obvious.
Like, those of us who are in our mid fifties are caught in the past in the way that we think about this. One side's like, no. No. You know, I've got this idea, and we've got this idea, let's have a debate about our ideas. They don't want a debate.
Those ideas won't produce outcomes that any rational person would want under any circumstances, those are manifestations of some larger force acting upon us. It's just so obvious. It's completely obvious. And I think 2 things. 1, we should say that and stop engaging in these totally fraudulent debates where we are using the terms that we used in 1991 when I started at Heritage as if maybe, you know, I could just win the debate if I marshaled more facts.
I've tried that. Doesn't work. And 2, maybe we should all take just, like, 10 minutes a day to say a prayer about it. I'm serious. Like, why not?
And I'm saying that to you not as some kind of evangelist. I'm literally saying that to you as an Episcopalian. The Samaritans of our time. I'm coming to you from the most humble and lowly theological position you can. Man, I'm literally an Episcopalian.
Okay? And even I have concluded, it might be worth taking just 10 minutes out of your busy schedule, to say a prayer for the future, and I hope you will.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a comprehensive investigation into the events of January 6th, new details have emerged about Ray Epps and a network of unindicted operators. The first breach at the Capitol was strategically located, allowing easy access for Trump supporters. A mystery man, known as ScaffoldCommander, played a significant role in directing the crowd to "move forward" and "fill up the Capitol." Ray Epps and ScaffoldCommander appeared to work together throughout the afternoon. Despite their involvement, neither has been prosecuted or pursued by the FBI. Additionally, there are unanswered questions surrounding the presence of BlackSkiMask and the "Hippies for Trump" bus. The article calls for further investigation into these individuals and their connections to the federal government. It concludes with a plea for Ray Epps to come forward and reveal the truth about what happened on January 6th.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
#Thread On Part 2 Of The Revolver News Investigation Into Ray Epps & January 6th Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web Of Unindicted Operators At The Heart Of January 6 https://revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tomorrow, we need to go into the capital. I don't even want to say it out loud because I could get arrested. But we need to go. Shut up, Uber. No, bad idea. Okay, fine. Let's go. But wait, will we get arrested? Will we get shot? Do we all need to be arrested?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tomorrow, we need to go into the capital. The capital. Into the capital. What? No.
No. Tomorrow, I don't even like I'll say it because I'll be arrested. Well, let's not say it. We need we need to go I'll say it. Alright.
We need to go in Shut the fuck up, Uber. To the capital. Face No. No. No.
Bad posting? Yeah. We need to go into the capital. I didn't see that coming. Okay.
Alright. No, Dave. But one more thing. Josh, can we go up there? No.
When we go in Are we gonna get arrested? Are we gonna get arrested? Yeah. We don't need to get shot. Arrest us all?
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Timeline Of FBI's Handling Of Ray Epps Story https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Ray Epps Moments Before The First Breach "The 'Big Bang' moment that kicked off the riot was when a small 'breach team' of just a few dozen people violently knocked over the first set of metal barricades between 12:50-12:53 p.m." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if they can go out and expresses concern about getting arrested or shot.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. No, Dave. But one more thing. Yes. So can we go out there?
No? When we go in Are we gonna get arrested when we go out there? Yeah. We don't need to get shot. Arrest us all?
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Location Of The First Breach "The tactical importance of this breached location is that it was the very first walkway entrance into the Capitol grounds that every Trump supporter would arrive at first as they walked from the Trump rally to the Capitol." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"The Ray Epps Breach Team had the amazing foresight to pry open the one walkway entrance that no one could avoid." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"Without police present or 'do not enter' signs prominently visible, people leaving Trump’s speech and arriving at the Capitol entrance would have no idea it was illegal to walk through the gate, or onto the lawn, or up to the Capitol steps." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"As we described in more detail in our October 10 report, the Ray Epps Breach Team thus set up what may amount to the largest legal booby-trap in American history." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Mystery Man Cutting Down And Then Rolling Up “Restricted Area” Fencing Around The Capitol lawn https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Mystery Man "This man remains unindicted. In fact, the FBI does not even appear to even be looking for him." "FenceCutterBulwark was waiting right next to the Ray Epps Breach Site at 12:31 p.m. That’s a full 20 minutes before the breach kicked off." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"If it were just FenceCutterBulwark hanging out near the breach site before the Proud Boys’ arrival, we might chalk it up to coincidence. But the presence of multiple key breach figures waiting here seems too much to be coincidental." Link To Video: https://rumble.com/vr06ax-ray-epps-continuous-shot-before-proud-boys-arrival-handbrake.html
Ray Epps - Continuous Shot Before Proud Boys' Arrival (Handbrake)
Archive
rumble.com
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Another Mystery Man Present During First Breach On January 6th
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
This Mystery Man On Top Of The “Media Tower” That Overlooked The Capitol’s Back Terrace On January 6 https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Mystery Scaffold Man Barking Orders To The Crowd On January 6th "For nearly 90 minutes straight, he bombards the otherwise leaderless crowd below him with endless variations on a single instruction: 'Don’t just stand there. Keep moving forward!'" https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Mystery Scaffold Man Urging People To "Fill Up the Capitol" https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"Rallygoers could hear his confident and constant commands with total clarity all the way back at the entrance to the Capitol lawn." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"One attendee described this unnatural pressure in a vividly detailed Twitter thread (https://t.co/OKARvs2jH3) a few days after January 6. She fingered ScaffoldCommander as 'the ringleader' (https://t.co/G6t09EVZXr) of the operation." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"Another attendee who was later arrested said he was just following the instructions of the man with the bullhorn yelling 'Patriots move forward.' That would be ScaffoldCommander." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@MacFarlaneNews - Scott MacFarlane
ARRAIGNMENT set for June 14 for Capitol breach defendant Stacy Hager of Texas Hager is accused of scaling wall & carrying Texas flag on the grounds Jan 6. Per feds, Hager said he felt invincible" & was following instruction of person w/bullhorn yelling "Patriots move forward"
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"But the FBI affidavit refuses to mention the tower commander with a giant bullhorn shouting at tens of thousands of people to 'Fill up the Capitol' for 90 minutes straight because, according to the FBI, he doesn’t exist." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Another Mystery Man (Also Unindicted) Reads A Prepared, Hand-Printed Speech Out Loud To The Crowd Mystery Scaffold Man Then Interrupts Him And Says:“Tell them to move forward! That’s all they need to know right now! Tell ’em to move forward!”https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Video Transcript AI Summary
They aim to harm us for disagreeing with them. Our justice system no longer prioritizes truth, but winning at all costs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They seek to ruin our lives for disagreeing with them. Indeed, as has happened with our justice system, no longer do they seek the truth, but only to win by any means
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Ray Epps Giving People Very Similar Instructions As Mystery Scaffold Man On January 5th Ray Epps: "Our Enemy is the Capitol!" Link: https://rumble.com/vql5tg-ray-epps-keep-the-focus.html
Ray Epps - Keep The Focus
Archive
rumble.com
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"Whether wittingly or unwittingly, Epps and ScaffoldCommander formed a two-man team the entire afternoon." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Ray Epps Located Right Next to The Tower Where The Mystery Scaffold Man Is https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Video Transcript AI Summary
Gas is present, causing some discomfort. The promotion is happening with patriotic individuals. They are seen moving towards the national mall and Washington Monument, using towers intended for the inauguration. The American people are exhausted and feel deceived. We will determine if their grievances are valid. It is satisfying to be on the correct side of history.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Gas here right now, so we're choking up a little bit. But that wasn't enough. The promotion being here with all these patriots, the real story, you can see them coming through the direction of the national mon of national mall, the Washington Monument full of people coming down constitution, coming down Pennsylvania, scaling the towers that were meant for the inauguration. The The American people are tired, fed up. They feel they've been cheated, and we're gonna find out if they're right.
Good to be on the right side of history. Fuck Yes.
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"Epps variously coordinating with a man in an orange ski mask, looking and pointing up at the media tower, retaking his spot by the tower, getting maced by police, then bellowing 'Ahhh, I love it!' as he temporarily retreats from the officers’ gas attack." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Ray Epps Is Seen Speaking With Police And Then Turning To The Crowd And Saying: “Guys: Listen Up. Up to the steps and stay there. We’re gonna stay there for a while.” Mystery Scaffold Man Can Be Heard At The End Telling The Crowd To "Move Forward" https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"So we have ScaffoldCommander directing the body of the crowd from the tower above, and Ray Epps directing the vanguard front-liners at the police line below. Yet neither one of them has been prosecuted, nor is either presently 'Wanted' by the FBI." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Mystery Scaffold Man Yelling At Police Before The First Breach https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're on our way. We noticed you pacing. Are you considering something?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's nothing you wanna get ahead of us. Yeah. I got I got We're coming. I see you pacing around. Are you thinking about it?
We're coming. We see you pacing. Are you thinking about it?
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Mystery Scaffold Man Tearing Down Fencing And Signs Alerting People That The Area Is Closed https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"About 30 feet south of Ray Epps, right around the time the breach occurred at 12:50 p.m., a smaller squad of men were beginning the process of fence and barricade removal, out of sight of the walkway police." Crowd Tells Man In Black Ski Mask To Stop https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"This clean removal process will create the impression to the 15,000 people already walking from the Trump speech that no police barricades were ever there in the first place." Link To Video Mentioned: https://rumble.com/vpzgy1-blackskimask-barricade-removal-after-ray-epps-and-co-clear-the-path.html https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
BlackSkiMask - Barricade Removal After Ray Epps & Co Clear The Path
Archive
rumble.com
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"But there’s just one problem with this situation: the FBI knows exactly who BlackSkiMask is already. And for some reason, they’re still not prosecuting him." The "Hippies For Trump" Situation On 1/5 Link To Video Mentioned: https://rumble.com/vr02of-blackskimask-bus-interview-and-identification.html https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
BlackSkiMask - Bus Interview and Identification
rumble.com
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Video Of Police Investigating "Hippies For Trump" Bus On 1/5 "A man from this bus is one of the very first 'insurrectionists' on the scene in the Capitol, and is removing barricades before the official story says the illegal activities started." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"And yet, today, the search engine results for BlackSkiMask’s terror scare are effectively nonexistent—you have to read local North Carolina papers to eek out scant details." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"How could there be a total media blackout on January 5 about a guns-and-explosives cache discovery in a bus parked in front of the US Justice Department, just one day before the major Trump rally and all-important Senate certification vote?" https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"Be Civil Guy" -First guy who broke upfield toward the second police line, way past the “Restricted Area” fencing. -Pats down and tells man to stop breaking windows but assures him: “We’re getting in. We’re getting in.” Link To Video: https://rumble.com/vq7r7a-becivilguy-were-getting-in.html -Both Unindicted
BeCivilGuy - "We're Getting In"
Archive
rumble.com
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Ray Epps' Reaction To The Crowd On January 5th After They Booed Him, Called Him A "Fed" And Said "You’re Not Gonna Do Sh*t" When He Advocated Going Into The Capitol https://rumble.com/vqmv1x-ray-epps-reaction-to-being-told-youre-not-gonna-storm-the-capitol.html
Ray Epps - Reaction To Being Told "You're Not Gonna Storm The Capitol"
Archive
rumble.com
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Ray Epps Recruiting People To Go To The Capitol On January 6th "It's that direction. Please spread the word!" https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers express their excitement about the large crowd gathered at the Washington Monument Hill. They mention their intention to head towards the Capitol after President Trump's speech, as they believe that is where the real politics happen. They emphasize the direction towards the Capitol and encourage others to spread the word.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wow. It's full all the way to the Washington Monument Hill.
Speaker 1: We are going to the capitol where our problems are. It's that direction. As soon as president Trump is finished speaking, we are going to the capital in that direction. That's where our true politics lies. President Trump is done As soon as president Trump's come speaking, we are going to the capital.
The capital is in that direction. Let people know. Spread the
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Interesting Interview Ray Epps Did With AZ Central (https://archive.fo/CuMA4) https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Forbes: FBI And Other Agencies Paid Informants $548 Million In Recent Years With Many Committing Authorized Crimes https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/11/18/fbi-and-other-agencies-paid-informants-548-million-in-recent-years-with-many-committing-authorized-crimes/?sh=1c102eb5f4dd
FBI And Other Agencies Paid Informants $548 Million In Recent Years With Many Committing Authorized Crimes
The FBI spent an average of $42 million a year on confidential human sources between fiscal years 2012 and 2018.
forbes.com
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"The sham January 6 House Select Committee has now subpoenaed over 100 civilian cell phone records. But you know the fix is in because they have stayed away from subpoenaing the cell phone records of Ray Epps." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"Congressional Republications must now demand the phone records and full and complete account of Ray Epps’s relationship with the federal government." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"January 6 defense lawyers: you must seek court-ordered subpoenas for discovery production related to the federal government’s records on such individuals as Ray Epps and ScaffoldCommander." https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"Finally, Ray Epps, if you’re reading this: We know that you are conflicted, and that you want to the truth to come out. You can still be a hero. Simply come forward, and tell the world your story. What really happened on January 6?" https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6 - Revolver News
Revolver blows open a network of still-unindicted operators who appear to have been intimately involved in the initial Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Bookmark https://revolver.news & https://amgreatness.com Follow @DarrenJBeattie & @julie_kelly2 Watch @TuckerCarlson's Documentary Series "Patriot Purge" End Of Thread
Revolver News
revolver.news
American Greatness › Next Generation Conservatism
American Greatness is the leading voice of the next generation of American Conservatism.
amgreatness.com
reSee.it AI Summary
During a Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Ted Cruz questioned FBI Deputy Director Abbate about a whistleblower's report alleging a $5 million bribery scheme involving President Biden and his family. Abbate refused to comment on the report, leading Cruz to accuse the FBI of stonewalling and covering up evidence of corruption. Cruz also criticized Senate Democrats and the media for not showing concern about the allegations. Abbate also refused to answer whether the FBI had investigated the allegations.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Heated Exchange During Judiciary Committee Hearing Between Senator Ted Cruz And FBI Deputy Director Abbate Over The Biden 1023 Senator @tedcruz: “Last month, a whistleblower brought to light the existence in the FBI of a report, an FD-1023 in which the informant alleges that President Biden and his family members engaged in a $5 Million bribery scheme during his time as VP. Deputy Director Abbate, is it true that the FBI has a report making those allegations?" Deputy Director Abbate: "I'm not going to comment on that, Senator." Cruz: "And why is that?" Abbate: "I'm just not going to comment on information we've received investigations or other matters." Cruz: "You don't owe the American people an obligation to be candid about evidence of corruption by the President of the United States?" Abbate: "This is an area that I'm not going to get into with you, Senator." Cruz: "Well I understand you don't want to, and that's why people are mad at the FBI. Because you are stonewalling and covering up serious allegations of evidence of corruption from the President."
Video Transcript AI Summary
A senator questions Deputy Director Abadi about allegations of a $5 million bribery scheme involving President Biden and his family. Abadi refuses to comment on the existence of a report or 17 voice recordings related to the allegations. The senator accuses the FBI of stonewalling and damaging its reputation. Abadi maintains that they operate within established parameters and will work with the committee to provide information. The senator criticizes the FBI for not being accountable and demands the release of the report and recordings. Abadi avoids directly answering questions about the investigation and the informant's reliability. The senator expresses concern that the evidence is being covered up by Democrats and the media. The exchange becomes heated and ends with the senator calling Abadi's behavior disgraceful.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last month, a whistleblower brought to life the existence in the FBI of a report in FD 1023, in which the informant alleges that President Biden and his family members engaged in a $5,000,000 bribery scheme during his time as vice president. Deputy Director Abadi, is it true that the FBI has a report making those allegations?
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna comment on that, senator. And why is that? I'm just not gonna comment on, information we received, investigations Do
Speaker 0: you owe an obligation to the American people to be candid about evidence of corruption by the president of the United States?
Speaker 1: This is, an area that I'm not gonna get into with you, senator.
Speaker 0: Well, I understand you don't want to. And that's why people are mad at the FBI, because you're stonewalling and covering up serious allegations of evidence of corruption from the president. Yesterday, Senator Chuck Grassley stood on the senate floor and alleged that there are 17 recordings of this informant from Burisma, Ukrainian natural gas company. 15 of them are recordings, voice recordings of him talking to Hunter Biden. 2 of them are voice recordings of him talking to Joe Biden, deputy director of Abate?
Does the FBI have 17 voice recordings laying out evidence of a bribery scheme?
Speaker 1: Senator, I'd add I would add also that, we've worked with the house oversight committee.
Speaker 0: Yeah. This is the senate. We're the other side of the capitol. This is the senate. Do you have those 17 recordings?
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna comment on any investigative matters, senator.
Speaker 0: See, that's the problem. The FBI and I've had this conversation with Chris Wray to. This is why you are damaging the institution. The American people have a right to know whether there is serious credible evidence that the president of the United States took a $5,000,000 bribe. And by the way, if it's false, Chairman Durbin just rolled his eyes.
If Chairman Durbin were interested in the rule of law, we would have a hearing on these allegations. But of course, the Democrats don't want a hearing on these allegations. And to be clear, if the allegations are false, you know who could disprove them? Joe Biden. He could call for this to be released publicly, but the FBI is stonewalling.
Speaker 1: Would you agree thing, senator. No one's stonewalling the 10/23 You just
Speaker 0: said you refused to answer the question.
Speaker 1: In response to a subpoena. And then why did
Speaker 0: you refuse to answer
Speaker 1: my question? The pertinent information is there. And I reject your assertion that the FBI
Speaker 0: is the size. Why did you refuse to answer my question?
Speaker 1: I just answered your question.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, yes, you have a 10/23. Do you have the 17 recordings? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna get further into that.
Speaker 0: So you're stonewalling. You can't say I'm not refusing to answer your question, but I won't answer your question.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna answer within the parameters that we operate in.
Speaker 0: That's the problem. The FBI has right now an unlimited hubris that you believe you are unaccountable. You don't believe you're accountable to the United States Congress, and you don't believe you're accountable to the American people. And you are doing damage. The FBI is a great institution.
When I go home to Texas, people ask me, should we abolish the FBI? Now, I tell them no, because you have heroes and patriots working for you, that are catching child predators, that are catching terrorists, but you're sitting there happily erecting a wall to protect Joe Biden. Will you provide to this committee, not the House, the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will you provide the FD 1023 and will you provide the 17 recordings so we can assess what is the evidence, the specific credible evidence that Joe Biden personally took a $5,000,000 bribe from a foreign national?
Speaker 1: Senator, we will work with this committee, you and other members, to provide, the information within the parameters of the process.
Speaker 0: Will you provide the FD 10/23? Or no?
Speaker 1: I will take that back, and we will work with our
Speaker 0: So you're not answering that. Will you provide the 17 recordings?
Speaker 1: We will take that back, and we'll work with you.
Speaker 0: So you're not answering that Did you investigate in any way, shape, or form these allegations?
Speaker 1: Senator, once again, I'm not gonna comment.
Speaker 0: So you're not gonna say whether you did your job?
Speaker 1: We do our job to the very best of our ability.
Speaker 0: Well, not here. You're not answering a Single question to the American people, and you may think this is esoteric. I promise you, millions of Americans are concerned. You know who isn't concerned? Not a single Senate Democrat.
We're gonna go through this whole hearing. Not 1 Democrat will ask a question about this. You know who else isn't concerned? The corporate media who is joining with the Democrats in covering up this evidence. If Joe Biden is innocent, the evidence should be made public and demonstrate that he's innocent.
But if he is not, is it true this informant who alleged that he personally took a bribe was an informant the FBI had relied upon previously in other investigations? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: In each and every investigation that we have, all the work that we do, the expectation is that every
Speaker 0: I asked you a yes or no question.
Speaker 1: Are you going to answer it? I'm answering your question.
Speaker 0: Was the informant one you had relied on previously in other investigations? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: Senator, we run down every piece of information. You're not answering it, you're refusing to answer the question. To the fullest extent possible. You're refusing to answer the question. That's practically in all instances.
Speaker 0: Senator, you're talking to him. It's disgraceful, deputy director Abate. Disgraceful.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
"The FBI is stonewalling!" FBI Deputy Director Refuses To Answer Whether There Are 17 Recording Of Joe & Hunter Biden Sen. Cruz: "If the allegations are false, you know who could disprove them? Joe Biden. He could call for this to be released publicly." https://t.co/e7Nd0xDo9i
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Chuck Grassley alleged on the Senate floor that there are 17 recordings of an informant from Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company. He claimed that 15 of these recordings are of the informant talking to Hunter Biden, while 2 are of him talking to Joe Biden. When questioned, the FBI representative refused to comment on the recordings. Senator Grassley accused the FBI of damaging the institution by not disclosing whether there is credible evidence of the president taking a $5,000,000 bribe. He also criticized the lack of hearings on these allegations and accused the FBI of stonewalling. The FBI representative maintained that they are operating within their parameters and denied stonewalling. Senator Grassley concluded by stating that the FBI believes it is unaccountable to Congress and the American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yesterday, senator Chuck Grassley stood on the senate floor and alleged that there are 17 recordings of this informant from Burisma, Ukrainian natural gas company. 15 of them are recordings, voice recordings of him talking to Hunter Biden, 2 of them are voice recordings of him talking to Joe Biden, Deputy Director Abate. Does the FBI have 17 voice recordings laying out evidence of a bribery scheme.
Speaker 1: Senator, I would add also that, we've worked with the house oversight committee.
Speaker 0: This is the Senate. We're the other side of the Capitol. This is the Senate. Do you have those 17 recordings?
Speaker 1: I'm not going to comment on any investigative matters, senator.
Speaker 0: See, that's the problem. The FBI, and I've had this conversation with Chris Wray too, this is why you are damaging the institution. The American people have a right to know whether there is serious credible evidence that the president of the United States took a $5,000,000 bribe, and by the way, if it's false, Chairman Durbin just rolled his eyes. If Chairman Durbin were interested in the rule of law, We would have a hearing on these allegations, but of course the Democrats don't want a hearing on these allegations. And to be clear, if the allegations are false, you know who could disprove them?
Joe Biden, he could call for this to be released publicly, but the FBI is stonewalling. Would you agree? Thing, senator.
Speaker 1: No one's stonewalling the 10/23 You
Speaker 0: just said you refused to answer the question.
Speaker 1: In response to a subpoena. That the pertinent information is there. And I reject your assertion that the Why did you refuse to answer
Speaker 0: my question?
Speaker 1: I just answered your question.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, yes, you have a 10/23. Do you have the 17 recordings? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna get further into that.
Speaker 0: So you're stonewalling. You can't say I'm not refusing to answer your question, but I won't answer your question.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna answer within the parameters that we operate in.
Speaker 0: That's the problem. The FBI has right now an unlimited hubris that you believe you are unaccountable. You don't believe you're accountable to the United States Congress, and you don't believe you're accountable to the American people.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Senator @tedcruz: "You are sitting there happily erecting a wall to protect Joe Biden!"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if the FD 1023 and the 17 recordings will be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee to assess the evidence of Joe Biden taking a $5,000,000 bribe. Speaker 1 responds that they will work with the committee and provide the information within the process. Speaker 0 insists on a direct answer, but Speaker 1 repeats that they will take it back and work with them. Speaker 0 concludes that Speaker 1 is not answering the question.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're sitting there happily erecting a wall to protect Joe Biden. Will you provide to this committee, not the House, the Senate Judiciary Committee, will you provide the FD 1023? And will you provide the 17 recordings so we can assess what is the evidence, the specific credible evidence that Joe Biden personally took a $5,000,000 bribe from a foreign national?
Speaker 1: Senator, we will work with this committee, you, and other members to provide, -Uh, the information within the parameters of the process.
Speaker 0: -Will you provide the FD 10/23?
Speaker 1: Yes or no? -I will take that back, and we will work with 30%.
Speaker 0: You're not answering that. Will you provide the 17 recordings?
Speaker 1: We will take that back, and we'll work with you.
Speaker 0: So you're not answering that either.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Senator @tedcruz: "Did you investigate in any way shape or form these allegations?" FBI Deputy Director Abbate refuses to answer. Cruz: "So you're not going to say whether you did your job?" Abbate: "We do our job to the very best of our ability." Cruz: "Well not here! You're not answering a single question to the American people. And you may think this is esoteric, I promise you millions of Americans are concerned. You know who isn't concerned? Not a single Senate Democrat. We're going to go through this whole hearing, not one Democrat will ask a question about this. You know who else isn't concerned? The corporate media who is joining with the Democrats in covering up this evidence!"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about investigating allegations, but Speaker 1 avoids commenting. Speaker 0 expresses concern on behalf of millions of Americans and criticizes Senate Democrats and the media for not addressing the evidence. Speaker 0 asks if the informant who accused Joe Biden of taking a bribe was previously relied upon by the FBI, but Speaker 1 evades a direct answer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of refusing to answer and calls it disgraceful.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did you investigate in any way, shape, or form these allegations?
Speaker 1: Senator, once again, I'm not gonna comment
Speaker 0: So you're not gonna say whether you did your job?
Speaker 1: We do our job to the very best of our ability.
Speaker 0: Well, not here. You're not answering a single question to the American people. You may think this is esoteric. I promise you, millions of Americans are concerned. You know who isn't concerned?
Not a single senate Democrat we're gonna go through this whole hearing. Not 1 Democrat will ask a question about this. You know who else isn't concerned? The corporate media who is joining with the Democrats In covering up this evidence, if Joe Biden is innocent, the evidence should be made public and demonstrate that he's innocent. But if he is not, is it true this informant who alleged that he personally took a bribe was an informant the FBI had relied upon previously In other investigations?
Yes or no?
Speaker 1: In each and every investigation that we have, all the work that we do, the expectation is that every Logical avenue investigation people I ask
Speaker 0: you a yes or no question.
Speaker 1: Are you going to answer it? I'm answering your question.
Speaker 0: Was the informant one you had relied on previously in other investigations? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: Senator, we run down every piece of information. You're not
Speaker 0: answering it you're refusing to answer
Speaker 1: the question.
Speaker 0: So you're refusing to answer the question.
Speaker 1: To the fullest extent possible.
Speaker 0: You're refusing to answer
Speaker 1: the question. That's practically in all instances.
Speaker 0: Senator, you're talking Disgraceful. It's disgraceful, deputy director Abate. Disgraceful.
reSee.it AI Summary
The Color Revolution is a specific type of coup unfolding before our eyes, with those who specialize in regime change overseas trying to oust President Trump. George Kent and Norm Eisen are central operatives in this movement. Revolver News is a great alternative to Drudge Report for updates on this story. Michael Anton's The Coming Coup is another great read.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Must Watch Tucker Carlson Segment! @DarrenJBeattie: Those Who Specialize In Regime Change Overseas Are The Same People Trying To Oust President @realDonaldTrump Darren: "What's unfolding before our eyes is a very specific type of coup called the 'Color Revolution.'"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Darren Beatty, a former speechwriter for President Trump, explains that what is happening in the current election is a specific type of coup called a color revolution. This regime change model, favored by US national security apparatus, involves engineered contested elections and massive mobilized protests. The same strategies and tactics used against Trump are also used against Eastern European dictators. One key figure in this operation is Norm Eisen, a Democrat operative and former Obama ethics czar. Eisen is the author of a Color Revolution Playbook and has been involved in numerous efforts to censor, sue, impeach, and overthrow the president. He plans to use lawfare to overturn the 2020 election.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Someone who's been watching all of this is Darren Beatty. He's a former speechwriter for president Trump. He works now with Revolver News, the website. He says this is part of a familiar plan. In a in a recent piece, Revolver argued that Democratic operatives, including some who testified during the impeachment proceedings, are adopting the same tactics that US intel agencies used to start so called color revolutions in places like Ukraine.
Darren Beatty joins us tonight to explain. Darren, thanks so much for coming on. So for our viewers who are not Familiar with the color revolutions in Eastern Europe. State as clearly as you can what you think is going on right now in this election. What's the end game for Democrats?
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you for having me. Many have described the actions taken against Trump as a coup. And this is certainly correct, but it's a little bit general and vague. What's unfolding before our eyes is a very specific Type of coup called the color revolution.
It's a regime change model favored by many in our national security apparatus, Particularly against Eastern European countries to overthrow target regimes that they don't like. One model, which is not the color revolution model, Is purely sending a bunch of troops into a country and removing by military force a leader you don't like. That's like the Iraq model.
Speaker 0: Right?
Speaker 1: The Color Revolution model is a little bit more delicate and subtle, has several characteristics, but the chief characteristics of it Is a combination of an engineered contested elections scenario combined with massive mobilized Protests, which they call as a term of art, peaceful protests and acts of civil disobedience. If that sounds familiar, It gets even better. It's not only the same strategies and tactics used against Trump That is used against Eastern European dictators that our national security apparatus doesn't like. It's literally the same people Who are color revolution professionals, who have a long history of using these same tactics against foreign leaders they don't like To use against democratically elected president Donald Trump. It's the same people using the very same playbook.
Now, I'd like to talk about one of the key figures in this operation. A nexus point not only between color revolutions overseas and the color revolution against Trump, But a nexus point between law fair and mass mobilization, and so called peaceful protests. This is a man by the name of Norm Eisen. Norm Eisen is a key Legal hatchet man, Democrat operative, former Obama ethics czar, believe it or not. And He is also a key architect of nearly every effort to censor, sue, impeach, and overthrow the president.
He is the author of in fact, A Color Revolution Playbook literally called the Playbook. And one of the items he calls for In his playbook to overthrow regimes overseas he doesn't like is engineering election fraud Scenarios using election fraud to engineer mass protests to question the legitimacy of the target Leader, Norm Eisen has a long and checkered history going all the bet way back to his days at CREW, which is a law fair arm. He's been behind over 180 lawsuits against Trump. He authored 10 articles Of impeachment before the President's phone call was even made, he was special counsel to the Democrats for the impeachment process. He was literally involved in every aspect of this color revolution against Trump.
His latest act and perhaps his greatest act coming up is to use law fair In order to overturn the 2020 election using various legal theories, principally his theory about
Speaker 0: Norm Eisen. Remember the name. I'm sorry, Darren. We're out of time. I appreciate that.
We'll be right back.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
EXCLUSIVE — The Curious Case of George Kent: State Department’s Belarus “Color Revolution” Expert And “Never Trump” Impeachment Witness https://www.revolver.news/2020/08/george-kent-never-trump-state-department/
The Curious Case of George Kent: State Department's Belarus "Color Revolution" Expert and "Never Trump" Impeachment Witness - Revolver News
Did State Department "color revolution" expert George Kent foment a color revolution of his own against President Trump here in the US?
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Revolver Exclusive — Meet Norm Eisen: Legal Hatchet Man and Central Operative in the “Color Revolution” Against President Trump https://www.revolver.news/2020/09/meet-norm-eisen-legal-hatchet-man-and-central-operative-in-the-color-revolution-against-president-trump/
Meet Norm Eisen: Legal Hatchet Man and Central Operative in the "Color Revolution" Against President Trump - Revolver News
Meet Norm Eisen, the liberal left's ideological hatchet man fomenting color revolutions and lawfare against freedom-loving Americans.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Norm Eisen discussing “The Playbook”
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Norm Eisen wrote a Color Revolution regime change manual called “The Playbook.” Here is Norm acknowledging his book “The Playbook” is an update to Gene Sharp’s (originator & Godfather of the Color Revolution model) “Dictatorship to Democracy.” https://www.revolver.news/2020/09/meet-norm-eisen-legal-hatchet-man-and-central-operative-in-the-color-revolution-against-president-trump/
Video Transcript AI Summary
We were inspired by Gene Sharp's book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" and other similar works while creating this project.
Full Transcript
A work of this kind and we were inspired by other work that's out there, including Gene Sharp's from dictatorship to democracy
Meet Norm Eisen: Legal Hatchet Man and Central Operative in the "Color Revolution" Against President Trump - Revolver News
Meet Norm Eisen, the liberal left's ideological hatchet man fomenting color revolutions and lawfare against freedom-loving Americans.
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Bookmark Revolver News for updates on this story. Revolver is a great new alternative to the Drudge Report! https://www.revolver.news/
Revolver News
revolver.news
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Another great read is Michael Anton's "The Coming Coup" in @theammind. https://americanmind.org/essays/the-coming-coup/
Page not found - The American Mind
americanmind.org
reSee.it AI Summary
Senator Chuck Grassley announced on the Senate floor that a foreign national who allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter Biden has 17 audio recordings of his conversations with them. The foreign national allegedly kept these recordings as an insurance policy. The 1023 indicates that then VP Joe Biden may have been involved in Burisma employing Hunter Biden. Senator Grassley is fighting for transparency in this matter and to make the document public without unnecessary redactions. President Trump has also reacted to this news. The FBI has redacted references to recordings in the Biden allegation shared with Congress.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Senator Chuck Grassley Announces On The Senate Floor That The Foreign National Who Allegedly Bribed Joe And Hunter Biden Allegedly Has Audio Recordings Of His Conversations With Them "17 such recordings." "According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses 15 audio recordings of phone calls between him and Hunter Biden." "According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses 2 audio recordings of phone calls between him and then VP Joe Biden." "These recordings were allegedly kept as a sort of insurance policy for the foreign national in case that he got into a tight spot." "The 1023 also indicates that then VP Joe Biden may have been involved in Burisma employing Hunter Biden." "Getting a full and complete 1023 is critical for the American people to know and understand the true nature of the document and to hold the DOJ and the FBI accountable." "Congress owes it to the American people and the brave and heroic whistleblowers to continue to fight for transparency in this matter and make this document public without unnecessary redactions."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Last week, I spoke about the FBI hiding an unclassified document, known as the 10/23, from Congress and the American people. The FBI eventually agreed to show the document to Congress, but it was heavily redacted. The 10/23 allegedly involves a bribery scheme between Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and a foreign national. The Justice Department then announced charges against former President Trump for mishandling classified records. This senator is committed to fighting political corruption in the Department of Justice and the FBI by promoting transparency. The 10/23 contains references to audio recordings of conversations between the foreign national and the Bidens. It is crucial for the American people to have access to the unredacted document to understand the truth and hold the FBI and Justice Department accountable. Congress must continue to fight for transparency and release the document without unnecessary redactions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last week, I came here to speak to my colleagues about the Biden administration and the FBI playing games with the American people by hiding the FBI generated 10/23 document from Congress and the American people. Director Wray was, going to be held in contempt for refusing to produce the 10/23 that I told chairman Comer about. And I think I had that First conversation with chairman Comer about 3 weeks ago. Then instead of contempt, the The FBI committed to showing the 10/23 and related documents to the whole Congress. By the way, I thank, chairman Comer for his cooperation with me and how he's pursued this issue because we know a heck of a lot more now than if he hadn't been involved in this whole effort.
So the FBI showed after the FBI committed to showing this document, They showed, but it didn't provide possession of the 10/23 to the House Oversight Committee last week, and by the way, 10/23 is unclassified. So why shouldn't the entire country know about what's in this 10/23? As the public knows, that 23 10/23 involves an alleged bribery scheme between then vice president Biden, Hunter Biden, and a foreign national. The same allegations that chairman Comer and I made public on May 3rd this year. And on the very same day that the FBI provided a redacted conversion of the 10/23 to the House Oversight Committee.
The justice department then announced that former president Trump had been indicted and charged with 37 crimes related to his alleged mishandling of classified records. Attorney general Garland signed off on prosecuting Trump for conduct similar to what Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton engaged in. Two standards of justice in this country will turn our constitutional republic upside down. Thanks to the political infections within the Biden justice department and the FBI. We were well along the road for that to happen.
This senator will do all that he can to fight political infection in the Department of Justice and the FBI. And you fight it then by bringing transparency to what this government does. The public's business ought to be public. Transparency brings accountability. With respect to the 10/23 shown to that House Oversight Committee, from what I've been told by folks who've reviewed it, it's filled with redactions.
Now, the document that, Comer and I read had maybe 2 or 3 half inch redactions, not all sentences redacted as I'm told the document in the skiff is. So director Wray placed redactions on a document that's already unclassified, as I've said before, unclassified. More than that, the FBI made congress review a redacted unclassified document in a classified facility. That goes to show you the disrespect that the FBI has for Congress. On a previous time on the senate floor.
I think I told my fellow senators that What's so unusual about an unclassified document being given to the public? When? I think it was May 18th this year. There was leaked to the New York Times, a classified document, and even the name of a confidential human source. So we're kind of in a strange situation here.
Classified document can be leaked to the New York Times, but a non classified document can't be made public to 300,000,000 Americans if they're interested in reading it. Now, accordingly, Congress still lacks a full and complete picture with respect to what that document really says. That's why it's important that the document be made public without unnecessary redactions for the American people to see. Can you believe redacting an unclassified document? So now let me assist for the purposes of more transparency on this subject.
The 10/23 produced to the house committee's redacted reference that the foreign national who allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter Biden allegedly has audio recordings of his conversation with them. 17 such recordings. According to the 10/23, the foreign national possesses 15 audio recordings of phone calls between him and Hunter Biden. According to the 10/23, The foreign national possesses 2 audio recordings of phone calls between him and then vice president Joe Biden. These recordings were allegedly kept as a sort of insurance policy for the foreign national in case that he got into a tight spot.
The 10/23 also indicates that then vice president Joe Biden may have been involved in employing Hunter Biden. Based on the facts known to the congress and the public, it's clear that the justice department, the FBI haven't nearly had the same laser focus on the Biden family. Special counsel Jack Smith has used a recording against former president Trump. Well, what is US attorney Weiss doing with respect to these alleged Joe and Hunter Biden recordings that are apparently relevant to the high stakes bribery scheme. Getting a full and complete 10/23 is critical for the American people to know and understand the true nature of the document and to hold the justice department and the FBI accountable.
It's also important for asserting congressional constitutional and congressional oversight powers against an out of control executive branch, obviously drunk with political infection. Remember, Congress has received 10/23s in the past, and they've been made public. So asking for this 10/23, to be turned over to the American people to read is not an unusual thing that goes on with 10/20 threes. Congress owes owes it to the American people and the brave and heroic whistle blowers to continue to fight for transparency in this matter and make this document public without unnecessary redactions. And I want everybody to remember that I have read the unredacted version, except for a couple or 3 half half inch redactions, I'd say.
Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Senator Grassley: FBI Redacted References To Recordings In Biden Allegation Shared With Congress https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/remarks/grassley-fbi-redacted-references-to-recordings-in-biden-allegation-shared-with-congress
Grassley: FBI Redacted References to Recordings in Biden Allegation Shared with Congress | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Prepared Floor Remarks by Senator Chuck Grassley of IowaThe Biden Justice Department and FBI...
grassley.senate.gov
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Bingo https://t.co/SoZ1FWDDYX
@DC_Draino - DC_Draino
People are missing something big in this Senator Grassley bombshell The reference to the 17 audio recordings was *redacted* when shown to House members Some people in the FBI are about to be in big trouble w/House Republicans They just got caught hiding evidence
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
President Trump's Reaction https://t.co/VxftnsPABx
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
.@julie_kelly2 Joined @IngrahamAngle To Discuss New @Rasmussen_Poll Polling Showing That The Majority Of Americans Not Only Want The Footage From January 6th Released, But Suspect The Federal Government Helped Incite It Julie: "People are starting to wake up to the fact that…
Video Transcript AI Summary
Julie Kelly, senior writer at American Greatness, discusses the discovery of new evidence in the January 6th cases. Defense attorneys have recently received a large amount of previously withheld discovery from the Department of Justice, including tens of thousands of hours of surveillance video. The January 6th committee, however, has failed to make all of this evidence public, leaving the American people wanting more information. There is growing suspicion that federal agents were involved in the events of that day, supported by evidence presented in trials and testimonies from government witnesses. The concealment of important exculpatory evidence by the government, Capitol Police, House Democrats, and the media is raising more questions among the public. It is crucial for journalists to fulfill their role and advocate for the release of this information.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Joining us now is Julie Kelly, senior writer at American Greatness and author of January 6th, How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on terror against the political right. Julie, let's start with these boxes of records. Now you say There's been a massive uptick in the discovery for the defendant's cases. What what are you talking about there?
Speaker 1: So there was a motion filed by Joe McBride, one of the the defense attorneys representing a January 6th defendant just this week. And he said that there was a huge trove of discovery that was just uploaded in the past month or so That the Department of Justice has withheld from defense attorneys now for 2 years, Laura. This is in addition to what we're finding out About, tens of thousands of hours of surveillance video that we didn't know existed, that the department and Capitol Police have withheld from the public and also from defense attorneys. And now you'll remember, Laura, the promise of the January 6th committee, that they were gonna produce all of this evidence about what Happened. They were gonna make it public.
And here you have over a 100 boxes with materials inside abandoned by this committee, not made public. So this is why you see the one thing that the American people seem to agree on right now is they want more They want more evidence about what happened on January 6th. They want all the videos made public. They suspect very strongly, rightfully so, that federal agents were deeply involved in the events of that afternoon. And that's not suspicion.
It's not a conspiracy theory. We know this because it's coming out in trials. It's coming out in evidence. And government witnesses who've testified about numerous informants run into the so called militia groups months Before January 6th. Laura, people are starting to wake up to the fact that what they think they saw happen that day is not A full story.
And the more that the government, Department of Justice, Capitol Police, and House Democrats, and the media, by the way, continue to conceal Important exculpatory evidence about the true events of January 6th, the more that the American people are starting, to ask more questions. And you will see, Laura, from Christopher Wray's, answers to Brett Baer this week and Merrick Garland, yesterday. They are not prone to telling people the truth about anything.
Speaker 0: Well, Julie, this is such an important issue because it's gonna be used in 2024 against Republicans that it all needs to come out. And we actually need real journalists to start being journalists again.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And not not actually arguing against the release of this information. I I've never seen anything like it. Journalists saying no. Don't give us any information. Julie, thank you.
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
New @Rasmussen_Poll Shows That Most Americans Want To See All The Footage From January 6th Tucker Carlson Reacts To This And The Mainstream Media Screaming That It's "Dangerous To Democracy" To Release The Tapes "So you're defending democracy, but you're denying people…
Video Transcript AI Summary
The defenders of democracy argue that it is crucial for the public to have access to the hidden surveillance footage from January 6th. They believe that in a democratic society, people should be able to see what their government is doing and gather evidence. Recent polling by Rasmussen indicates that 80% of American voters, including 86% of Republicans, 78% of Democrats, and 75% of independents, agree that it is important for the public to view these videos. By withholding this information, it appears that those in power are obstructing the truth from being exposed. The speaker promises to share interesting details from the tape in the upcoming week.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the defenders of democracy are out defending democracy again. They're telling you it's really, really dangerous that anyone would get to see the thousands of hours of surveillance footage from January 6th which has been hidden from the public for 2 years as a tiny group of people gets to make up stories about what happened that day and change the country on the basis of those stories. And we respectfully disagree. We think people should, in a democracy, be allowed to see what their government is doing and get as much evidence as they can. And it turns out the public agrees.
Rasmussen, the polling firm, just found that 80% of American voters believe it's important the the public should be allowed to see the videos from January 6th that would include 86% of republicans okay but it would also include 78% of Democrats 78% and 75% of independents. Wow! So, you're spending democracy but you're denying people information on the basis of which they can make their own decisions how does that work exactly? Well, it's not democracy, of course. It's building a a bull work against your lies being revealed and they are lying and we know that because we've been looking at the tape.
We're going to bring you information on the tape and some of it next week and we think it's going to be really, really interesting.