TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @DGrayTexas45
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
MSNBC tells their viewers “EVERYONE NEEDS TO PICK UP A WEAPON AND GET INVOLVED”. Notice Jasmine Crockett nods in agreement. https://t.co/FezKldy6RP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 frames the situation as a war, not a battle, and insists we absolutely will win this war: "But this is a a war." "This isn't a battle, and we absolutely will win this war." "It is a war." "It is indeed a war." Acknowledging that "they have won some battles, Jasmine," the speaker says we must "keep our eye on the war" and that "and and everybody needs to pick up a weapon and and get involved" because "this is for the the safety and and lasting of the country." The message ends with a reiteration: "And everybody needs to pick up a weapon."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But this is a a war. This isn't a battle, and we absolutely will win this war. It is a war. It is indeed a war. And I have to say they have won some battles, Jasmine, but we we have to keep our eye on the war, and and everybody needs to pick up a weapon and and get involved because this is for the the the safety and and lasting of the country.
And everybody needs to pick up a weapon.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
Why did the Obama/Biden administration withhold lethal aid from Ukraine in 2014 & 2015 when Russia invaded Ukraine and just let Putin retake Crimea? Trump gave Ukraine javelins. Obama gave Ukraine googles & blankets. https://t.co/rrJMiht30W
Video Transcript AI Summary
US officials reaffirm support for Ukraine amid growing fighting. The administration says Obama has approved additional nonlethal military assistance for health, welfare items, and other supplies, while Kyiv’s government reports pro-Russian rebels have captured three bases in Eastern Ukraine. In response, Obama pledged €41 million in nonlethal aid, and lawmakers note Ukrainians need more military equipment—not just blankets or night-vision gear. Congress has cleared a bill authorizing roughly $350 million in military and related support, enabling potential provision of anti-tank weapons, radars, surveillance drones, and other systems, though the White House has not yet decided on lethal aid. A bipartisan push, led by Dick Durbin, urges lethal assistance. The Ukraine Freedom Act, passed last December, allows but does not require lethal and nonlethal aid; the House has urged Obama to send lethal weapons. The president’s decision is expected soon.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My last election, please. Yeah. After my election, I am more flexible.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I understand. I trust you. This information.
Vladimir, I understand.
Speaker 2: United States continues to stand with Ukraine. And earlier this morning, I called Ukraine's acting defense minister to tell him that president Obama has approved additional nonlethal military assistance for health and welfare items and other supplies.
Speaker 3: Pro Russian rebels have taken control of three government bases in Eastern Ukraine That, as president Obama promises, nonmilitary aid to Ukraine's new president.
Speaker 4: Pressure is mounting on US president Barack Obama to provide lethal aid to Ukraine's military. Senior lawmakers have long pushed for The US to provide ammunition, small arms, and training to Ukraine's troops in the wake of the Kremlin's military intervention. Poroshenko's speech came after president Obama pledged €41,000,000 in nonlethal aid. During his speech, the Ukrainian president compared his country to Israel, saying both had the right to defend themselves.
Speaker 5: They need more military equipment. Please understand me correctly. Blankets, night vision, googles are also important, but one cannot win the war with a blanket.
Speaker 6: The US is one step away from providing Ukraine with $350,000,000 worth of support after congress unanimously passed a bill late on Thursday. But what does this exactly mean for Ukraine? Firstly, the bill means Washington could provide a wide range of military equipment and training to Ukrainian soldiers, fighting militants in the country's eastern regions. Anti tank weapons, ammunition, radars, surveillance drones, as well as optical guidance and communications systems could all potentially be provided.
Speaker 7: US state department says the White House has not made a decision on whether to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine. State department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said The US is weighing options on how to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian backed militants.
Speaker 8: A bipartisan group of US senators led by Dick Durbin is calling on US president Barack Obama to send lethal aid to Ukraine so the country can better defend itself against the Russian backed insurgency.
Speaker 9: We want The United States right now to not only provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine, but also start providing serious weapons. Right?
Speaker 10: I do, and I think, it's overdue.
Speaker 9: And you're specifically talking about what? Armored vehicles, anti tank missiles, maybe anti aircraft missiles, stuff like that. Is that right?
Speaker 10: Ant anti tank missiles, radar systems so that they can identify where the artillery is coming from that is killing so many civilians.
Speaker 11: It is past time due that we allow defensive weapons to the Ukrainian people so that they can defend themselves against this blatant Russian aggression and invasion of their country. President Obama said he'll continue to explore all options if diplomacy fails,
Speaker 12: but has not yet made a decision on whether to provide lethal aid to Ukraine against Russian backed separatists.
Speaker 6: Both the house and senate passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act in late December, paving the way for March worth in lethal and nonlethal military assistance, a rare agreement in the usually divided congress.
Speaker 13: You have the congress on a bipartisan basis calling for military assistance. You have Ukrainians calling for military assistance, and you have our NATO allies who will not provide the assistance as long as The United States is opposed to it. This is a decision the president of The United States needs to make, and he needs to make it. He should have made it months ago, but he needs to make it today.
Speaker 14: The US is to send more nonlethal aid to Ukraine, including unarmed drones and military vehicles, according to Washington officials quoted anonymously.
Speaker 15: Last December, the US Congress passed the Ukraine Freedom Act, which allows but does not require The US to send lethal and nonlethal military aid to Ukraine. Nonlethal assistance has already landed on Ukraine shores, but anything more powerful has yet to appear.
Speaker 8: The US House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a resolution urging president Barack Obama to send lethal weapons to Ukraine.
Speaker 16: The president will make his decision, I'm confident, soon, but not before he's had a chance to hear back from, myself, from others who are having conversations, in Europe.
Speaker 12: As rockets are launched into the skies over Eastern Ukraine and shells hit apartment buildings in Donetsk, the human toll of the conflict is inescapable. President Obama said he'll continue to explore all options if diplomacy fails, but has not yet made a decision on whether to provide lethal aid to Ukraine against Russian backed separatists.
Speaker 0: My last two months, please. Yeah. And After my election, I have more flexibility.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I understand. I transmit this
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
@mazemoore Obama gave Ukraine blankets & googles. Trump gave Ukraine Javelins.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
Kamala Harris has lost the support of her “mentor” Willie Brown. Willie, who knows her “best” & does NOT believe she’s a good Executive& said he doesn’t believe she can win Governor of the State of California. Kamala Harris will now spend her days with BETO pretending to be relevant.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"if he comes to you for VP, tell him you want to be the attorney general."
"And you could easily end up being Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with your real talent."
"your observation, knowing her over a period of time, is that her talent was to stay in her lane as an attorney general, potentially of The United States, not as an executive or on the executive track."
"The vice presidential job is a good one."
"I do think people running for public office really ought to fit eventually where they are trying to land."
"She may not want to run for governor of the state of California. That may not be where she should be going. I think it's gonna be difficult for her to win."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I gave her the advice that when she was under consideration, one of the final five, to be the person that President Biden, then candidate Biden, would take as his running mate, I urged her, said, if he comes to you for VP, tell him you want to be the attorney general. Because from the attorney generalship, you may land where you, I suspect, are most talented, and that's the Supreme Court. And you could easily end up being Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with your real talent. I think she stopped speaking to me as a result of Mr. Merrill, let me
Speaker 1: stop you there. That's very interesting. So your observation, knowing her over a period of time, is that her talent was to stay in her lane as an attorney general, potentially of The United States, not as an executive or on the executive track. Correct.
Speaker 0: Interesting. Now And particularly, where you are second tier. Mhmm. Yes, the vice presidential job is a good one. You don't pass that up if you're a politician usually because it could lead to your next step if that's where you're really headed and that's where your talent seems to fit.
I do think people running for public office really ought to fit eventually where they are trying to land. And I really do, hope, frankly, that she comes to that reality. She may not want to run for governor of the state of California. That may not be where she should be going. I think it's gonna be difficult for her to win,
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
John Brennan is asked about the meeting in Trump tower in January 2017 where Comey, Clapper, Rodgers & Brennan briefed Trump on what the Russian capabilities were. “WE PROVIDED TO HIM THE BRIEFING THAT AS PRESIDENT ELECT HE DESERVED TO GET” - John Brennan
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses a meeting at Trump Tower with the president-elect. The purpose was to convey evidence and assessments regarding Russian objectives and capabilities. The speaker states they are not going to get into the details of that meeting. The speaker confirms they provided the briefing that the president-elect deserved to get. The speaker says Trump should have come away with a clear understanding of where James Clapper, Jim Comey, Mike Rogers, and John Brennan stood on these issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have to talk about the Trump Tower meeting, where you guys go and talk to the president-elect, show him the evidence. Can you take me there, talk about at least what you were trying to KIRK convey and how that went?
Speaker 1: We had a meeting with Mr. Trump at Trump Tower, and it was several hours long. We talked to him about what it is that we knew and assessed. We talked about what the Russian objectives were, what the capabilities are, and it was a back and forth. But I'm not going to get into details of that meeting.
Speaker 0: MICHAEL Did you give him the full Monty? Was it everything? Was it the hard stuff?
Speaker 1: We provided to him the briefing that, as president-elect, he deserved to get.
Speaker 0: Yeah. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: He should have come away with a very clear understanding of just where James Clapper, Jim Comey, Mike Rogers and John Brennan came out on these issues.
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation highlights concerns about accountability in the Department of Justice regarding the acquisition of FISA warrants. It references Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's past warnings about consequences for presenting false information. The speaker argues that, over seven years later, individuals like Peter Strzok, who allegedly provided false evidence, have faced no repercussions. Strzok's testimony under oath is described as misleading, and he reportedly received $1.2 million from the Department of Justice related to the Russia investigation.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
It was over SEVEN YEARS ago when Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was telling us if anyone presents false information to acquire a FISA warrant they would face consequences & potentially prosecution. “That’s the way we operate at the Department of Justice”. https://t.co/Mi5LM8N7j7
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Department of Justice requires admissible evidence and credible witnesses to accuse someone of wrongdoing, preparing to prove the case in court with a signed charging document. A FISA application is a warrant requiring an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer, attesting to the truth and correctness of the information to the best of their knowledge. Incorrect information in the affidavit can lead to consequences, ranging from discipline to potential prosecution, depending on whether the errors are innocent or not.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we can accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses. We need to prepare to prove our case in court, and we have to affix our signature to the charging document. That's something that not everybody appreciates. There's lot of talk about FISA applications and many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application is. A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. And that's the way we operate. And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences. Sometimes there are innocent errors, but if not, you can face discipline or potentially even prosecution. And so, that's the way we operate.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
7+ years later and this guy who presented false evidence to get a FISA Warrant has faced ZERO consequences from the (D)OJ https://t.co/357J3bJDbS
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
At the very least when Peter Strozk testified under oath that “EVERY THING WAS DONE BY THE BOOK” he was LYING TO CONGRESS. https://t.co/o22lZyaISh
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserts that the investigation was conducted properly and according to protocol. They claim that regardless of high-level decisions regarding public statements, the investigative work itself was done correctly by the men and women involved. The speaker encourages listeners to be assured that both investigations followed proper procedure.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sir, I can tell you when you when you look at what happened in the investigation, everything was done by the book. And you can assure yourself and your constituents and everybody you're talking to when you look at both investigations. Every notwithstanding what decisions are made at a high level to say something, not say something, when you look at the investigation, what those men and women did, everything was done right and by the book.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
Not only has Peter Strozk faced ZERO consequences….he was paid $1.2 MILLION dollars from the (D)OJ for his efforts in the Russia HOAX https://t.co/dFVTrtTlWT
Video Transcript AI Summary
A senator questioned a witness about whether the FBI signed off on settlements for Peter Strzok ($1,200,000) and Lisa Page ($800,000). The senator referenced Page's statement to Strzok that Trump would not become president, and Strzok's alleged reply, "No. He won't. We will stop it." The witness said the Department of Justice was involved, not the FBI, but would confirm if the FBI had to sign off. The witness stated they did not sign off and didn't believe Chris Wray did either. The senator requested to know who at the FBI signed off on the settlement and suggested Merrick Garland agreed to it. Another speaker asserted the investigation was done by the book, regardless of high-level decisions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't wanna get off the subject here. Did the FBI just settle two lawsuits, one wholly, one in part, in which the FBI agreed to give Peter Strzok $1,200,000 and miss Lisa Page $800,000.
Speaker 1: It's my understanding, senator, that the Department of Justice was involved in that, not the FBI.
Speaker 0: The FBI had nothing to do with it?
Speaker 1: There may have been consultation with our general counsel's office, but
Speaker 0: Did does the FBI have to sign off on it?
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to that. I don't believe so, but I would wanna confirm that.
Speaker 0: I I would like you to this would be the, the same Lisa Page who said to mister, Strzok, quote, Trump's not ever going to become president. Right? Right? To which mister Strzok said, quote, no. No.
He won't. We will stop it. As as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page I'm talking about. I need to know if the FBI signed off on this lawsuit.
Speaker 1: We will get that answer for you, senator.
Speaker 0: And then I need to know who signed off on it. Did you sign off on it?
Speaker 1: I absolutely did not and would never sign off on something.
Speaker 0: Did Chris Wray sign off on it, the settlement?
Speaker 1: I don't believe he did.
Speaker 0: Okay. Did any you don't know what
Speaker 1: didn't do I think he would have.
Speaker 0: You you need to let me know who signed off on this, if anyone, at the FBI. So it was Merrick Merrick Garland who agreed to do this. Is that right?
Speaker 1: I don't centered. I do not know
Speaker 0: Well, hell, somebody had to agree to it. I've settled a lawsuit before. The client's gotta agree to it. You're the client.
Speaker 2: Sir, I can tell you when you when you look at what happened in the investigation, everything was done by the book. And you can assure yourself and your constituents and everybody you're talking to when you look at both investigations. Not withstanding what decisions are made at a high level to say something, not say something. When you look at the investigation, what those men and women did, everything was done right and by the book.
reSee.it AI Summary
Catherine Herridge highlighted the impact of newly declassified records on a December 2018 Capitol Hill news conference featuring James Comey. She quoted Comey’s assurance of total confidence in the FISA process used to secure a surveillance warrant and its renewals. In response, D. Gray Texas referenced a report by Herridge, prompting a discussion about the implications of Comey's statements in light of the new information.
@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge
With the newly declassified records @DNIGabbard This December 2018 Capitol Hill news conference with @Comey lands a lot differently. HERRIDGE: “Did you have total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant + in the subsequent renewals? COMEY: “I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed and the entire case was handled in a thoughtful and responsible way.” https://t.co/i4oNuQfG2z
@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge
BREAKING Newly declassified documents via @DNIGabbard challenge January 2017 intelligence community asssesment (ICA) that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." KEY PAGES: 16-17 Declassified GOP House Intel Report found Putin had more damaging information about candidate Clinton that could have been used against her in the final days of the 2016 campaign but the information was held back. "The ICA's generic description of material Putin held back makes the reader unaware of significant information available to Moscow to denigrate Secretary Clinton." "This violated ICD 203 directives that analysis ‘be informed by all relevant information available' given that documents leaked during the election were far less damaging to Secretary Clinton than those Putin chose not to leak." •Among the allegations that Clinton's health was "extraordinarily alarming" to President Obama and party leaders leaders •Russian intelligence had "details of secret meetings" by State Department reps FULL DECLASSIFICATION 👇 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
@C__Herridge @DNIGabbard @Comey Catherine…remember this report you did?
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
@TiffMoodNukes Remember when Whoopi Goldberg said she hoped Joe Biden would appoint Dr Jill to the Surgeon General? “She’s a helluva good doctor” 🤪 https://t.co/VY7b8sksRa
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses hope that Jill Biden will become Surgeon General. The speaker refers to Jill Biden as a doctor and emphasizes that she is an amazing doctor. The speaker acknowledges the possibility of being wrong about Jill Biden's profession. The speaker also states that she is a teacher.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm hoping Doctor. Jill becomes a Surgeon General. Wife. Yeah. Jill Biden's wife because she would never do But she's a hell of a doctor.
She's an amazing doctor. I could be wrong. She's a teacher, She's a hell of a doctor. She's an amazing doctor.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
@LangmanVince Is this pic from when she was nearly kidnapped by the FBI before the FBI saved her? https://t.co/FMPTv39eyo
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FBI stopped an alleged terror plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Thirteen suspects were arrested, including alleged members of a right-wing militia.
The FBI infiltrated and wiretapped the group after a tip that they were plotting against police and planning to attack the state capital to overthrow the government. An informant heard the suspects call Whitmer a tyrant and discuss taking her to a secret location in Wisconsin for a trial ending in execution.
In the trial, two defendants were acquitted, and two received mistrials; none were convicted. The defense argued entrapment, claiming paid FBI informants incited the conduct. A senator questioned whether any FBI agents were disciplined after the case. The special agent in charge of the Whitmer case was promoted to the Washington DC office and now leads the January 6 investigation. The lead investigator in the Whitmer case was allegedly fired for beating his wife and making derogatory political posts about President Trump.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're gonna begin tonight with that alleged terror plot and the chilling plan. The FBI says it stopped before it could be carried out. A plan to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer and then what they were planning to do to her. 13 suspects arrested, including seven alleged members of a right wing militia group.
Speaker 1: The FBI infiltrated and wiretapped one of the groups after getting a tip that the men were allegedly plotting against police and planning to attack the state capital in an attempt to overthrow the government. With an informant listening in, they call Whitmer a tyrant. One of the suspects saying snatch and grab the governor. Just grab the expletive. They allegedly wanted to take her to a secret location in Wisconsin for a trial, a trial that would end in execution.
Recently,
Speaker 2: there was the case against individuals charged with kidnapping and murdering governor Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan. That case ended up an absolute debacle where the four people who went to trial, two of them were acquitted, two received mistrials, none of them were convicted on even a single charge and the basis of the defense was entrapment that the FBI that paid enforcements for the FBI had suggested and had incited the conduct. Let me ask you, how many FBI agents were disciplined or reprimanded after that disastrous case and the misconduct that led to every defendant being acquitted or having a mistrial on every charge?
Speaker 3: Senator, I can't comment on a personal matter. I can tell you that that case, as I understand it, is now pending a a retrial as I understand it.
Speaker 2: Well, the special agent in charge of that case has now been sent to DC, to the Washington DC office, and now leads the investigation regarding January 6. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: That doesn't sound right to me.
Speaker 2: That does not sound right. The the the name of the individual is Steven D'Antuno. He was he was run out of the FBI Detroit field office. And by the way, I will point out that the lead investigator, special agent Trac, are you aware that he was apparently fired for allegedly beating his wife after coming home from a swingers party and he'd made multiple derogatory political posts about president Trump showing political bias? Are you aware of that?
Speaker 3: I am aware of, I think, the incident you're describing, an action that was taken about it. To clarify on the first part of your question, mister Dantuano was the special agent in charge of the office, the Detroit field office, and is now the assistant director in charge of the Washington field office. I thought you were asking about the agent who was responsible
Speaker 2: for the So the guy in charge got promoted and is now in charge of the January 6 investigation.
Speaker 3: The guy in charge of the whole Detroit field office is now in charge of the whole Washington field office. That is astonishing.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
@DrNeilStone Anti Vaxxers are just the WORST! https://t.co/sHkyOnOOVH
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump has stated a COVID-19 vaccine could be available by the end of the year, possibly in October. Kamala Harris expressed skepticism about trusting the President's information regarding vaccine safety, stating she would need credible sources to confirm its safety before taking it.
One individual stated they would not take President Trump's word on the vaccine, referencing his previous comments about injecting bleach. Another individual expressed trust in vaccines and scientists, but not in Donald Trump, and suggested the American people shouldn't either.
When asked if they would take a vaccine approved by the Trump administration, one individual stated they would take it if public health professionals like Dr. Fauci recommended it, but not if Donald Trump alone recommended it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump has said we can expect a COVID nineteen vaccine before the end of the year or, quote, sometime during the month of October. Vice presidential candidate senator Kamala Harris said she's not sure so sure when it comes to trusting what the president said. Senator Harris said for her to take the vaccine, the information about its safety would have to come from a credible source.
Speaker 1: I will not take his word for it. He wants us to inject bleach. I no. I will not take his word.
Speaker 2: I trust vaccines. I trust scientists, but I don't trust Donald Trump. At this moment, the American people can't either. So the first question is, the vaccine's safe? Frankly, I'm not gonna trust the federal government's opinion, And I wouldn't recommend to New Yorkers based on the federal government's opinion.
If the Trump administration approves a vaccine before or after the election, should Americans take it, and would you take it?
Speaker 1: If the public health professionals, if doctor Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us I should that we should take it, I'm not taking it.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
The Democrat Super Majority and their INSANE policies have turned California into a third World failed State. Why do people in California continue to vote blue. As much as you’d like to believe it, this is NOT normal! Downtown Los Angeles. 😬 https://t.co/e1gWUISH1P
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
The Democrat Party is filled with vile, hateful, alarmists that all have severe cases of T.D.S. James Carville is still trotted out for his “expert” opinions. The guy is batshit CRAZY! I am sorry this is so long. I cut out 12 minutes of next level crazy to get to 5 min. https://t.co/JZLKqCPZTZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes Trump will likely not show up to a debate. They express strong negative feelings towards Trump, calling him a "grotesque, immoral man" who "smells like shit" and "can't stop farting." They claim there is a "pee tape" involving Trump that will eventually surface.
The speaker accuses Trump of planning to use the military to suppress political opponents, suspend the Constitution, and end free speech. They assert that Harris will win the presidency and that the Democratic Party is currently strong. They criticize "professional truth tellers" and argue that not all opinions are equal.
They state that Democrats currently have no power and challenge others to present a different approach. They emphasize the importance of winning elections at all costs. The speaker believes the current political situation is a catastrophe and that Trump hates the country and doesn't respect American institutions. They claim Putin has compromising information on Trump, possibly a "pee tape" equivalent.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, if I was a gambler, actually, I am a gambler. Yeah. I'd take even money if Trump doesn't show up.
Speaker 1: Okay? I just think I You don't think Trump's coming next week? I I no. I mean, I don't know. Let let him show up.
I wouldn't be shocked, but I certainly would not be surprised. If you gave me even money, I'd say he's a no show. We're on track to lose an election to a major criminal, so we ought to act like it. Trump will not debate her. What we got here is some really, really trashy people.
I think he is a grotesque, immoral man, and I'll just be very honest. I cannot stand the son of a bitch. What the fuck are y'all doing in the Harris campaign? Get her out there now. Now.
What the fuck are you people doing? Get off your ass. There is a pee tape. Okay. It just is.
Do I know it? Can I prove it? Not yet, but it's gonna come out, and I hope I'm still alive when it when when the p tape comes out. Because I think it's there. I gotta tell you.
I'll I'll say this, and I really mean this. Just doesn't feel like an election that Harris is gonna lose. Donald John Trump, smells like shit, and he can't stop farting. We think it's very critical knowledge that people should have before they go vote and consider whether or not they're gonna vote for this fat tubelard sack of fucking shit. He is telling you, right to your stupid fucking face, that he is going to use the military to arrest and suppress his political opponents.
I think that Harris is going to win the presidency next Tuesday. He's gonna suspend the constitution. He's gonna outsource foreign policy. He's gonna destroy the Western alliance. He's gonna end civil service.
He's gonna end free speech. He's going to end political dissent. Each and every assertation that I've made in this presentation is 100% verifiable by facts. We're gonna win. Okay?
This is not the country I live in. This is just I refuse to believe that. We have every kind of surrogate you can think of. Entertainment surrogates, cultural surrogates, political surrogates, athletic surrogates, because we're gonna win, baby. We're just gonna win this thing.
If this country doesn't make it, it will be done in by these professional truth tellers, the kind of people that have to be fair. These people are so fucking stupid. Everything is not fucking equal in this country, and everybody's opinion is not fucking equal. Some people have better, more informed, more just, more humane opinions than other people do. And why the hell don't you go out and fucking report that?
We have no power. You understand that? None. None. We have no legislative power.
We have no executive power. We have no judicial power. Tell us what you're going to do different because what you've done ain't worth a shit. Would you slap your mama to win an election? Of course, I would.
You do anything you can to win. Understand that. Understand that. There's nothing, nothing, nothing more important than win elections. Joe Biden stands over this catastrophe like a colossus.
By the way, the 2028 nomination is gonna be worth a lot. If there's a country in 2028, I'm not I don't want I don't wanna get in the predicting business here. I think the Democratic Party has never been stronger than it is right now. If but I went out and lied to people. I would get shit fired.
People say, James, you can't say that shit. That's just a out and out lie. Yeah. Okay. They pay no.
They their people actually wanna be lied to. The the this thing is gonna flame out so spectacularly. The the if for all of the agony that we see and all of the angst we have and the getting up in the middle of the night and, you know, all of the can you believe this shit phone calls, to to watch that thing flame out is gonna be something to see and flame out it will. I love to mock and make fun of these fucking idiots. Deterioration has started.
The collapse is coming. Let it collapse. We have a guy in the Oval Office that at best, he's anti American. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that he actually hates the country. Actually, somebody said, I got a new idea.
Pass something. Hey. I don't know how to tell late night hosts this. We can't pass gas. Just remember, Carville's First commandment of politics, thou shall not make an ass out of thyself.
Just gotta let these people continue to talk. They are fools, and don't get in a way of letting them make fools of themselves. We have a president that does not respect our institutions, does not respect the limited powers, the separation of powers that we have in our constitution. I can think of no bigger crisis this country has been in in my lifetime. There is a PTA or an equivalent of a p tape.
Putin specifically has something on Trump. Absolutely. It's the only explanation that fits every action. There is a p tape or the equivalent of a p tape.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
In 2014 Scott Pelley with 60 Minutes interviewed @elonmusk. “TAXPAYERS ESSENTIALLY LOANED YOU, TESLA, ALMOST $500 MILLION DOLLARS. HOW MUCH OF THAT DO YOU STILL OWE”?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tesla received a loan of almost $500,000,000 from taxpayers. Tesla paid back the whole loan with interest and a prepayment penalty last year, even though it wasn't due for another ten years. The loan was paid off early because Tesla felt they ought to repay taxpayers as soon as they could. Tesla had the ability to do it, and the stock markets were good, so they paid it back with interest and a thank you note.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Taxpayers essentially loaned you, Tesla, almost $500,000,000. How much of that do you still owe? Oh, we so
Speaker 1: we we paid the the whole loan back with interest and a prepayment penalty last year.
Speaker 0: Did you have to do that? It wasn't due, was it? No.
Speaker 1: It was it was not due for, I think, another ten years or something.
Speaker 0: Why did you pay it off
Speaker 1: early? The taxpayers supported Tesla. We ought to repay them as soon as we can. And since we had the ability to do it and the stock markets were good, we thought, let's let's let's pay pay it back with with it with interest. And and and and a thank you note, the way, which I I said, you know, I really really appreciate it.
Thank you.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
@mazemoore @elonmusk This is pretty wild. Not only was NOTHING done to address CHILDREN developing myocarditis after receiving the vaccine they STOPPED reporting on it!
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
@stillgray Pretty crazy to see how they went from this to that. https://t.co/taimEKOhPN
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses frustration with the government but acknowledges the importance of supporting the president. Jack Black joins the fight for democracy by declaring that the government sucks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The government totally sucks you motherfucker. The government totally sucks. But my president needs me. The government totally sucks. And when the president wins in November Government totally sucks.
When democracy is at stake, Jack Black answers the call. Government totally sucks. The government totally sucks, you motherfucker.
reSee.it AI Summary
The Government, media, and Hollywood made significant efforts to promote vaccination, while also labeling and criticizing "antivaxers." The posts highlight concerns about the information shared and not shared regarding vaccines. #CRINGE #VaccineAdverseEffects
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
Never forget the extent to which the Government in coordination with the media and Hollywood went to get people to get vaccinated. Never forget what they called and called to do to “antivaxers”. Never forget the lies they told us & what they didn’t tell us about the vaccines! #CRINGE #Vaccines #VaccineAdverseEffects
Video Transcript AI Summary
Moderna and Pfizer discuss vaccine effectiveness. Various incentives for vaccination are mentioned. The importance of vaccination is emphasized to prevent overcrowding in hospitals. Calls for shaming those who refuse vaccines are made. Boosters are encouraged. Vaccinated individuals do not spread the virus. Vaccination is seen as crucial for ending the pandemic. Refusal to vaccinate is criticized for impacting everyone.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's up, Moderna? Hey, Pfizer. What are you doing here? I'm here for the vaccine job. Really?
Do you even have a vaccine? Of course I do, and it's 92% effect. That's cute. My vaccine is 94% effective, but who's counting?
Speaker 1: A $100 savings bond in West Virginia, a $10,000 scholarship in Lancaster, California, free beer in New Jersey, donuts from Krispy Kreme, Shake Shack Fries in New York City.
Speaker 2: Just think of this
Speaker 3: when you think of vaccination.
Speaker 4: The buyer the the the various shots that people are getting now cover that. They're they're you're okay. You're not gonna you're not gonna get COVID if you have these vaccinations.
Speaker 2: Was alpha then delta then omicron next, but this latest variant might be the best.
Speaker 5: Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person.
Speaker 4: This is not about freedom or personal choice.
Speaker 6: Vaccine, vaccine, vaccine, vaccine. I'm begging of you. Please don't hesitate. Vaccine, vaccine, vaccine, vaccine. Because once you're dead, then that's a bit too late.
Speaker 2: Said that if hospitals get any more overcrowded, they're gonna have to make some very tough choices about who gets an ICU bed. I don't know. That choice doesn't seem so tough to me. Vaccinated person having a heart attack, yes. Come right on in.
We'll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo, rest in peace, Wheezy.
Speaker 7: You're
Speaker 8: I hope I'd ask that as as much as I want people all to go to the theater, I I really only want people who are vaccinated and safe to themselves and each other to go. And and it will stream, but most of the people who aren't vaccinated probably aren't interested in my movies.
Speaker 4: Well, my freedom is being kind of disturbed here. No. Screw your freedom.
Speaker 9: Y'all know what time it is. It's time to get those boosters.
Speaker 7: Do
Speaker 3: Think we have to stop coddling people when it comes to this and the vaccine saying, oh, you can't shame them. You can't call them stupid. You can't call them silly. Yes. They are.
The people who aided and abetted Trump are stupid because they believed his big lie. The people who are not getting vaccines, who are believing the lies on the Internet instead of science, it's time to start shaming them. What else? Or leave them behind.
Speaker 7: When are we gonna stop putting up with the idiots in this country and just say, you now it's mandatory to get vaccinated. So
Speaker 10: their freedom. I want my freedom to live.
Speaker 5: A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people. That means the vaccines will get us to the end of this.
Speaker 11: The data from
Speaker 9: the CDC today suggest, you
Speaker 12: know, that that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and
Speaker 11: and that it's not just in the clinical trials, but it's also in real world data. It doesn't
Speaker 7: matter, but dota or Pfizer. Won't just get one
Speaker 4: We've been patient but our patience is wearing thin and your refusal has cost all of us.
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
David Priess is one of the 50 that signed the letter saying Hunter Biden’s Laptop was “Russian Disinformation”. Listen to his answer as to why he signed the letter & why he STILL doesn’t regret signing it. BTW…David Priess is also an Author. “How To Remove A President” 👀🤔🎯 https://t.co/xDYOl5O8g9
Video Transcript AI Summary
In October before the 2020 election, I signed an open letter saying emails about Hunter Biden had Russian info operation signs. We didn't confirm it was Russian. Media amplified it. Biden used it in the debate. I don't regret the letter. Nuance was lost, affecting the dynamic. Media should show nuance instead of sound bites. We wanted to point out Russian info campaign signs, not confirm it was Russian disinformation. It's not my fault if people don't look up definitions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In October, days before the 2020 election, you signed on to this open letter that was published by Politico. It said, we right to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails reportedly belonging to vice president Biden's son, Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. Right. Why did you sign on to that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because of what it says. It has all the classic earmarks of one of these operations. You'll note elsewhere in the letter if you read it that it also says, we don't know if this is a Russian operation. But the letter is merely pointing out that this is the kind of thing that time after time after time, people who study Russian disinformation Yeah.
Intelligence officers who look at Russian tactics over the long period of time, This is the kind of thing they like to amplify to sow discord. But the fact is, the tactic is an old one, a tried and true one, and it's been successful in
Speaker 0: the past 2 years. Not true. It was not true. In fact, the New York Times found that, these are authenticated. The Washington Post writes thousands of emails reportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies.
And then in the debate right before the election, now president Biden used it. Take a listen.
Speaker 1: Very clear.
Speaker 2: There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this he's accusing me of is a Russian
Speaker 0: plant. You mean the laptop is now another Russia Russia Russia hoax? That's exactly what Is this where you go? Exactly what This is let president Biden speak for himself. He's capable of doing that.
What I'll do is
Speaker 1: say that, let President Biden speak for himself. He's capable of doing that. What I'll do is say that it has all the classic earmarks of a Russian campaign in the way it was disseminated and propagated through media.
Speaker 0: Do you regret signing on to the letter?
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely not. Because those words are still true.
Speaker 3: No. It
Speaker 0: had the classic earmarks, but it wasn't true. What
Speaker 1: is not true?
Speaker 0: That it was Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1: That's not what we said in the letter. Read the actual letter, and we said, we do not know if this is Russian disinformation.
Speaker 0: It has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.
Speaker 1: Exactly. The difference between an information campaign and a disinformation campaign not
Speaker 0: get to candidate and
Speaker 1: a misinformation campaign. It's not my fault if people don't look up definitions.
Speaker 0: I know, but you the purpose of the letter is to have an effect. And the nuance that you're talking about here never made it to candidate Biden because he said it plainly.
Speaker 2: There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this he's accusing me of is a Russian plant.
Speaker 0: That obviously affected the dynamic. Don't you think?
Speaker 1: I would absolutely love for all news media to show nuance on all these issues instead of racing to sound bites. And in this case, some news media race to sound bites. That's not helpful for the American people. And I really wish that people
Speaker 0: helpful for the American people.
Speaker 1: Well, instead of quoting one sentence from it, people actually read maybe an entire paragraph. It shows that we don't know if it's Russian.
Speaker 0: Affected anything? I don't
Speaker 1: know if it affected anything. You
Speaker 0: were trying to.
Speaker 1: What we're trying to do is point out that this has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information campaign. Not to say it's Russian disinformation, but to say that the propagation through American media and international media has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information campaign because we've seen it over and over and over again. They love to sew these kind of divisions and exacerbate them. That's not American. That's Russian.
Speaker 3: Got a got a got a nice little nice little story you're working on there. A little bigger novel you've been working on for 3 years. Yeah? Got a got a compelling protagonist. Yeah?
Got a got a obstacle for him to overcome. Yeah? Little story brewing there working on? Working on that for quite some time? Yeah.
Talking about that 3 years ago.
Speaker 1: It's not my fault if people don't look up definition.
reSee.it AI Summary
The United States is a republic, not a democracy, according to the Constitution's writers. They aimed to protect the country from democracy, as they were more concerned about safeguarding liberty against dictatorship. #TheMoreYouKnow #IPledgeAllegiance #ToTheRepublic #Liberty #Freedom
@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper
For the endless Democrats that continually claim “DEMOCRACY” is at risk or “DEMOCRACY” is on the ballot or whatever other bullSCHIFF y’all love to say… The United States is a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY. “The writers of the Constitution to were anxious to safeguard liberty against dictatorship, Monarchy they called it. But their chief anxiety was to protect the Country against DEMOCRACY”. #TheMoreYouKnow #Democracy #Republic #IPledgeAllegiance #ToTheRepublic #Liberty #Freedom
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speakers discuss the distinction between democracy and a constitutional republic in America. They highlight the importance of safeguarding liberty against the dangers of democracy and emphasize the need to protect the country's democratic principles. The conversation touches on the founding fathers' concerns about direct democracy and the current threats to America's democratic system. The speakers stress the need to defend democracy and preserve the nation's constitutional republic. They also mention the risks posed by undermining democratic values. Ultimately, the message is clear: America's sacred cause remains the preservation of its constitutional republic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In this century, great strides have been made toward the goal of subverting our republic and transforming it into a democracy. The foremost tactic of the subverters is subversion of language. By calling America a democracy until people thoughtlessly accept and use the term, totalitarians have obscured the real meaning of American principles of government.
Speaker 1: Nothing has been guaranteed about democracy in America. Every generation has had to defend it, protect it, preserve it, choose it.
Speaker 0: The writers of the constitution were anxious to safeguard liberty against dictatorship, monarchy they called it. But their chief anxiety was to protect the country against democracy.
Speaker 1: Recent polls have shown that overwhelming majority of Americans believe our democracy at is at risk, that our democracy is under threat. They too see that democracy is on the ballot this year.
Speaker 0: Alexander Hamilton, delegate from New York said, we are now forming a Republican government. Real liberty is not found in democracy. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.
Speaker 1: An assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an assault on who we are.
Speaker 0: The constitution requires a republican form of government for all states, but does not mention democracy and neither does the declaration of independence or the bill of rights.
Speaker 1: Today, we're here to answer the most important of questions. Is democracy still America's sacred cause?
Speaker 0: Madison, known as the father of the constitution, knew and said that enlightened men will not always be at the helm of government to serve as proper guardians of the public wheel. He knew that unlimited political power cannot safely be entrusted to the nation's elected representatives to use as a majority of them see fit because he said, a majority of a group of men is far more likely to be tyrannical than one man is.
Speaker 1: Democracy is on the ballot this year. Democracy is on life support. Our democracy is at risk. This is extremely dangerous for our democracy.
Speaker 0: As Benjamin Franklin left the state house in Philadelphia on the closing day of the constitutional convention, a woman asked him what kind of government the convention had given America. And Franklin replied, a republic if you can keep it.
Speaker 2: There's a senator, Mike Lee, says this is his quote this week. We're not a democracy. Democracy isn't the objective. Liberty, peace, and prosperity are. That's I mean, I kinda know what he means.
He went on to say rank democracy can thwart that. The founding fathers were afraid of direct democracy. That is true. But for a senator to say we're not a democracy, it's not the objective, it's pretty dangerous talk.
Speaker 0: Very old and very wise, Franklin saw through the mists of time to the day when Americans might trade their freedom in a constitutional republic for the promise of government guaranteed equality and security in a democracy.
Speaker 3: So to have Republican senators say, yeah, you know, ranked democracy isn't such a good thing. That's music to Putin's ears, I'm sure. Those kind of comments are just dangerous.
Speaker 0: By calling America a democracy until people thoughtlessly accept and use the term, the totalitarians have obscured the real meaning of our principles of government.
Speaker 1: This is what democracy looks like.
Speaker 0: In short, America was founded not as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic.
Speaker 4: Democracy is at stake, folks. Our democracy is under attack, and we gotta fight for it. I taught at the University of Pennsylvania for 4 years, and I used to teach political theory.
Speaker 0: America was founded as a constitutional republic to safeguard the liberties of the people against the tyranny of democracy or of 1 man dictatorship.
Speaker 1: We hold these truths to be self evident. All men and women created by the go you know the you know the thing.
Speaker 4: I've taught us the University of Pennsylvania for 4 years.
@DGrayTexas45 - David Gray
@JackPosobiec DID YOU KNOW. Victoria Nuland was working with Christopher Steele during this?!? 🤔
@DGrayTexas45 - David Gray
@LeadingReport @lynda62560 Election Commissioner Bennie Smith shows how easy it is to manipulate the software in the voting machines to determine who wins and what percent of the vote they will get. https://t.co/X2NquMEmlJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses a governor's race and the use of a program called "fraction magic" to manipulate the results. They mention a candidate named Basil who initially had only 219 votes, but they plan to manipulate the allocation rules to make him the winner. The speaker demonstrates how the program works by injecting new allocation rules into 80,000 votes. They emphasize that they are not a thief but are demonstrating an ethical swap. At the end, they reveal that the new winner of the race is Basil.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the 1st race is a governor's race. It's if you guys look at the total, 212 votes. And this is the representation of the real totals. This is actually what actually happened in Shelby County. Well, what what was reported in Shelby County.
This is basically what people in Shelby County see and anybody across that universe. So we're gonna we're gonna work for the governor's race. Who would you like the winner to be? I really think the name Basil is interesting, so we're gonna go with Basil. Well, he's he's only got 219 votes.
You think we can pull that off? Time. Basil is like a season in or something like, we will season his votes to make him the winner. Okay. So, I'm gonna open fraction magic.
It is largely unnoticeable. It is running. It's in the top right corner, and you can't see it. I mean, you can try to see if you see it. So the way I designed the program is to kind of hide in plain sight.
So So just watch my cursor though. If you follow my cursor. You see a change? Can you see it went from a from a you see it went from time. So I'm gonna type this, code in that brings up now everything you're gonna see, they're gonna be in black boxes.
I did this collaboration with Black Box Voting .org. So I made everything in black boxes so you know what is not in the application and what is the application that I designed. So to I'll open it up. It's basically reading the voting database to tell me, everybody's running. So these are these are the options.
Team. Again, this is what, Appel was was was was was explaining that once a person get in, they can just just hijack the system and take over. So I thing. You said Basil? Okay.
So let's take, we'll make Joe Kirkpatrick come in 2nd place. And you said Basil is gonna be the winner. So Joe Kirkpatrick is always got a low vote total too. So he's gonna he's gonna do have have a good night too. So So basically these are the allocation rules that I I preloaded these allocation rules.
So each precinct, each polling location, he is going to win 37 tent. And Joe Kirkpatrick is gonna get 46% of everything that remains, and this one has some complexity in there where you can see it, where I'm I'm changing the allocation rules. Because this is it's gotta mimic realistic results. Right? And it's it's it's pretty realistic.
So team. We're gonna come out of this. And I'll open the program again, because now I'm gonna run it. And I'm gonna I'm gonna inject those allocation rules into 80,000 votes. 77,000 votes.
Alright. So I'll run it again. This time I'm gonna type a different code. And if you guys want to look at this thumb drive is gonna I always use the thumb drive, because everybody says, well, it's a thumb drive. We checked it.
No. Time. That sound good, but everybody's gotta use some type of media to do something. So this thing is gonna for about maybe 10 seconds, but it's gonna go through it's team. It's gonna go through the whole thing like a peanut butter sandwich.
So I'm a I'm a type the code in. 1 1,000, 2 1,000, 3 1,000, 4 1,000, 5 1,000, 6 1,000, 7 1,000, 8. So 8 seconds didn't make me look bad, and this is an ethical swap, so I know y'all, I'm, I'm not a thief. I'm representing 1, but I'm not a thief. Alright.
So everything is still still up. So now we gotta see what the new totals are. Right? So tilts. Alright?
So we now have a new winner. And our winner is going to be