TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @JamesOKeefeIII
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m reporting from downtown Minneapolis, where my team and I—undercover reporters—are amid a mob threatening to kill O’Keefe. Ice bottles were thrown, my bulletproof vest ripped, and they followed us back to our hotel. I was at this morning’s shooting and barely escaped alive. We’ve received death threats via text. Pray for our team on the ground; we’re reaching a boiling point in this country.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
🚨 BREAKING: MINNEAPOLIS MOB THREATENS TO KILL O’KEEFE — ICE BOTTLES THROWN, FOLLOWED, AND OMG TEAM UNDER ATTACK. My team and I are in downtown Minneapolis right now. We still have undercover reporters inside the mob. I was at the scene of the shooting this morning and barely made it out alive. Hundreds surrounded us. They were throwing ice bottles, ripping off my bulletproof vest. They even followed us all the way back to our hotel. As all of this was happening, we received death threats via text. Pray for our team out in the field. We are reaching a boiling point in this country.
Video Transcript AI Summary
James O'Keefe reports from Downtown Minneapolis that his team of undercover reporters is still inside the mob scene after covering a shooting this morning. He says they barely escaped alive as several hundred people surrounded them, threw ice bottles at their vehicle, and attempted to rip off his bulletproof vest. They were followed and tailed, and they received a message stating: “we know that you're in Minneapolis. You're with O'Keefe and his crew of Nazis. You're in a white Ford license plate. They actually wrote the license plate down from Florida. You have one hour to leave or you're dead.” They plan to produce their footage from the weekend along with hidden camera footage, while undercover teammates remain in the field. O'Keefe asks for prayers for his team's safety and mentions they have security with them—a former Marine—who said the situation was worse than overseas and worse than anything seen at the cartel border. He states they will contact law enforcement, DHS, and the FBI to try to exit safely and bring the news to viewers. He promises a report coming Tuesday at 01:00.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe in Downtown Minneapolis. We have a team of undercover reporters still inside the mob. I was at the scene of the shooting covering it this morning, and basically, we barely got out of there alive. There were a few 100 that surrounded us, started throwing ice bottles at us. One a few hit us, hit our vehicle.
They were starting to rip off my bulletproof vest, so we got out of there. We were followed. We were tailed, and here we are, right now. We just got this message, and it says, we know that you're in Minneapolis. You're with O'Keefe and his crew of Nazis.
You're in a white Ford license plate. They actually wrote the license plate down from Florida. You have one hour to leave or you're dead. You have one hour to leave or you're dead. We are going to produce our footage gathering everything we've got from this weekend.
We're gonna put our report together along with the hidden camera footage that we that we have. We still have undercover people in the field. Please pray for my team's safety. This is worse than anything I could have possibly imagined. I have security with me, former marine.
He's a marine, and he said that it was worse than overseas, and it was certainly anything worse than I've seen in the cartel at the border. We're gonna contact law enforcement, DHS, and the FBI, and we're gonna try to get out of here safely so we can bring the news to you. Stay tuned for our report coming Tuesday, 01:00.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that O’Keefe infiltrates Davos, climate executives spill secrets on carbon taxes, weather modification, and chemtrails. A WEF climate elite tied to three-letter agencies and DARPA discusses artificial rain, declaring “Black Rock is behind us.”
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
O’KEEFE INFILTRATES DAVOS WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM: Climate executives spill SECRETS about “Carbon Taxes,” weather modification, and chemtrails. A WEF climate elite who works with three-letter agencies and @DARPA discusses hidden plans about “artificial rain.” “Black Rock is behind us!” @globalcompact @Davos @SaraLemniei
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video follows a group operating undercover at Davos, Switzerland, as they pose as the Climate Systems Engineering Group and attempt to infiltrate high-level climate finance and policy discussions. They begin by approaching the Coast Hotel nearby and noting security and attention sparked by their disguise and wig. They express support for the work of Davos participants and mention claims that BlackRock is behind climate initiatives.
Their plan centers on entering climate-related events under false pretenses. They travel from Badragas to Davos and describe intense security, including armed guards and checkpoints, as they head toward a climate-scale-up event at the Post Hotel. Inside, they interview a woman named Sarah Lemnier who discusses her role implementing carbon taxes and climate credits globally, and she claims to be “one of the largest climate tax innovators in The United Kingdom,” emphasizing profit-making from carbon emissions reductions. She explains that CBAM (carbon border adjustments) is a European Union scheme imposing additional carbon fees on imported and exported goods such as steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity, and hydrogen.
The team moves to another event on the promenade, the Clean Tech Forum, and aims to access the Global Clean Tech Forum via a gondola ride to the Schlossnath Hotel high on the Davos mountain. There, Balbir Singh introduces the scene with a claim that BlackRock is behind the events. The narrator notes pavilions for Palantir, Accenture, Deloitte, and BlackRock, and they engage with BlackRock security while the team member compliments BlackRock’s work. Despite expectations of being dismissed as an absurd prank, many attendees treat the disguise seriously and share experiences related to weather modification, geoengineering, and investment interests.
A Swedish participant discusses investment in technologies to “assist with the warming climate” and mentions the concept of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere as a cooling measure. The group explains a preference for not using terms like “climate engineering” or “chemtrails,” instead using “aerosol injection” for droplets that could cool the planet for about a year. They discuss sulfur dioxide emissions as a cheap method and the potential for aircraft to emit such materials. Kennedy Ritchie, who runs Floor Air, speaks about decarbonizing aviation and eliminating contrails, adding cloud seeding ideas. Other participants discuss the military origins of many weather-modification efforts and reference the Airborne Snow Observatory for monitoring snowpack data as a commercial offshoot of NASA JPL technology.
The conversation touches on sulfur dioxide injections as a geoengineering option and the possibility of government-led weather modification within different territories. A Danish contact discusses collaboration with three-letter agencies and DARPA, suggesting involvement with artificial rain and ground-breaking atmospheric projects, while another participant from the UAE space agency and European partners expresses interest in space and weather-related work.
As suspicion rises—an individual is warned that they are being watched—the team retreats from Davos. The footage closes with the team recounting their interactions with United Nations representatives, discussions about climate risk and private-sector involvement, and a final reminder of the potential reach of geopolitically connected actors in climate policy and geoengineering discussions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So right behind me is the Coast Hotel. I'm gonna go in there. Working with them. They also like Comms and Dark Panel. Someone noticed
Speaker 1: the wig, so we have
Speaker 2: to get the hell out of here.
Speaker 0: How you doing, sir? And I support the work you guys are doing. I support what you guys are doing because they said that Black Rock was behind all the all the climate stuffs. Someone noticed
Speaker 1: a wig, so we have to get the hell out of here.
Speaker 3: We are here in Switzerland in Davos, and we are on top of a mountain eating truffled potato terrine in a vegetable coat with curly endive salad and forest berry dressing. So we decided to pack our bags, get a bunch of undercover people, hitting cameras, and infiltrate the world economic form, or some of the Swiss people call it, Weff. Weff, we've heard it being referred to. Some of these people actually looked like James Bond villains, come together to discuss ways to make themselves richer. So what really goes on?
What do they really say? We're gonna take you there. We also built a fake website and a company called Climate Systems Engineering Group. We had a bunch of business cards on our website. We talked about this climate work that we do on behalf of governments.
We have investor money. We wanna give money to people to do what we're doing and see what they might say. So we're leaving Badragas, Switzerland. We're headed to Davos as the Swiss call it.
Speaker 0: As you can see,
Speaker 3: what a beautiful what beautiful scenery. We gotta get
Speaker 0: through the security checkpoint. We're gonna
Speaker 3: tell them that we're skiing, which we were in Piso, and hopefully that gets us into town without any issues.
Speaker 0: And we're posing as climate systems engineering group, trying to get that sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to prevent the sun from coming through. That'll help cool down the environment. That's our cover in Davos.
Speaker 3: So first of all, there was an insane amount of security at Davos, men with with guns everywhere, even a security checkpoint on the way to the location. So for our first stop, we snuck into the post hotel where they were having a climate scale up event, and we were able to just walk right in. There you see me, just walking into the event with my colleague, my sister, as part of this climate systems engineering group. Now there inside that hotel, we met a woman named Sarah Lemnier, who talks about her job implementing carbon taxes and climate credits on governments, businesses, and civilians around the world. There was a very loud guitarist playing some operatic version of John Lennon right behind us as we spoke.
We apologize for the sound distortion on that. Now, Sarah even boast that she's in one of the largest climate tax innovators in The United Kingdom, meaning they develop new ways to tax people and governments for the use of carbon. So their idea of reducing carbon emissions is to profit off of it. CBAM, or carbon border adjustments, is a new scheme in the European Union that involves charging additional carbon fees on every item that is imported or exported. This includes steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity, and hydrogen.
Speaker 4: A portion of the taxation or helping
Speaker 5: them implement this in their countries.
Speaker 6: Do you get that? We also work with companies to give them, like, a new revenue
Speaker 4: them so that we can bring in and mobilize more capital.
Speaker 3: The next day, through networking at this event, we were led to another event on the promenade with our fictitious climate engineering group. We were invited to something called the clean tech forum.
Speaker 0: So you see this sign right here? So we're gonna take that to the top of the hill, and we're gonna try to get into this event.
Speaker 3: The event is called global clean tech Forum.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna take the gondola top of the hill so we're gonna have the car now.
Speaker 6: Ready? As
Speaker 3: we navigated our way towards the gondola to the top of the hill looking for something called the Schnazlap Hotel.
Speaker 0: Follow me as we go inside this climate thing of Davos. Davos is absolutely packed right now. There's people everywhere. It takes about two and half to three hours just to get into the town, coming from the outside. To get into the place, have to
Speaker 3: take a gondola all the way
Speaker 0: to the top. So we're gonna take the gondola.
Speaker 3: Now in something called the Schlossnath Hotel, high on the top of the mountain in Davos, Switzerland, there were dozens of entrepreneurs on a stage led by this guy, Balbir Singh, who kind of looks like a James Bond villain with a cane. Balbir yells how BlackRock is behind all of it.
Speaker 7: This is a very, very special moment in Davos' history. And I mean this, and I mean it sincerely. You've got black rock behind us.
Speaker 3: Now I had seen these pavilions on the promenade earlier where each company had a place where they were located. There was Palantir, Accenture, Deloitte, and BlackRock. I actually walked up to the BlackRock Pavilion, made small talk with the security guard, and thanked them for the great work that Black Rock is doing.
Speaker 0: How are doing, sir?
Speaker 3: When when do you guys open tomorrow? When
Speaker 8: do
Speaker 3: you guys open tomorrow?
Speaker 0: You need an appointment, you can go book an appointment over the roadway. Okay. Not possible to go here by opening. Yeah. I was just at the one of the events, and I support the work you guys are doing.
I support what you guys are doing, because they said that BlackRock was behind all of the, all the climate stuff, so I really appreciate that.
Speaker 7: You've got BlackRock behind us.
Speaker 3: Now we were expected to be laughed right out of Davos, Switzerland with this absurd slash ridiculous thing with my wig and my absurd little skinny female European cigarettes, but surprisingly, pretty much everybody took this seriously and offered their own experiences with weather modification, SAI, motivations, interests, and told us that they were actually interested in working with us, having them invest in us, or having us invest in them. We talked to this one Swedish guy who said absolutely fantastic.
Speaker 0: So we invest in these technologies to assist with the the the warming climate Yep. And the effect of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere will help block some some of the warming, and the particle stay in the air for one year. Yep. So and actually, we're speaking to some of the airplane manufacturers and to see if they can emit some of our technology into the atmosphere to help with global warming. That's right.
Fantastic. Yeah. Climate. I mean, we don't like to use the term climate engineering. It scares people, so we prefer
Speaker 9: Of course. But it's but for me, being an engineer, I think that's actually what you do.
Speaker 6: It's Oh,
Speaker 9: yes. You can have financial engineering, you can have, I'm sure, climate engineering, it involves something that's more scientific. Yes. Exactly. You're an engineer,
Speaker 0: you understand. It's from Sweden. Right? Yeah. So we don't like to call them chemtrails.
We don't we don't like to use this.
Speaker 9: So what do you call it instead? Well, we
Speaker 0: call it aerosol injection. Aerosol, it's kind of like little droplets.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 0: And they and the droplets form in the air. Okay. And they stay there for a year.
Speaker 6: Yeah. It's
Speaker 0: modeled like kind of a mini volcanic eruption, actually.
Speaker 6: I mean, aviation fuels have some sulfur in them, so it creates some sulfur dioxide emissions naturally, and that does have a cooling effect.
Speaker 3: Now this guy, Kennedy Ritchie, who runs a company called Floor Air, spoke on stage, and he says on his website that he wants to, quote, decarbonize the aviation industry. He actually told me he was trying to eliminate contrails entirely, but then brought up cloud seating.
Speaker 6: A lot of the work actually came out of the military, so they do this all the time.
Speaker 0: Have you worked with them at all?
Speaker 6: No. Guess they're a little more closed door about their procedures.
Speaker 0: You ever heard of sulfur dioxide? Mhmm. Yeah. You've heard
Speaker 8: of that?
Speaker 6: Yeah. It's actually pretty cheap to do it. The ability to put sulfur dioxide there is actually pretty cheap way to cool down the earth. Oh, yeah. So the opportunity for, you know, one or two people just to do it is, you know, impressive.
He went a little further. He's like, if we're seeing if the government started doing this over each other's territories on purpose, like, if we start getting the weather modification as a
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 6: You know, government, either good or bad. Yeah. The the closest one I'm aware of is something called the Airborne Snow Observatory. They do some more, like, weather I think I wanna say modification, but more, like, upper atmosphere weather monitoring is probably a better term. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Now according to the website, Airborne, this is what this guy Richie brings up, measures snow depth, snow water equivalents, provides highly accurate snowpack data, is a commercial spin off of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory snow monitoring technology used to help water managers and scientists.
Speaker 0: Earlier today in this room, Al Gore was in this room, Larry Fink was in this room, and now we're in the room talking to people about geoengineering, weather modification, and the trails that come behind airplanes. What's going on? So far, the disguise is working. Nobody recognizes me. If anything, people are very helpful giving me their cards.
Our our our camera operator, he got kicked out. We have the cameras, so stay tuned.
Speaker 3: A lot of these people at Davos, definitely not a fan of Donald Trump. I actually refer to him as orange man bad quite a few times with different officials from the United Nations. Nobody seemed to be a fan of Donald Trump who will who will be here in Davos Wednesday of this week.
Speaker 0: When is the orange man getting here?
Speaker 8: His team is already here. He's speaking on Wednesday at 02:00.
Speaker 0: Really? I will not be there for that.
Speaker 3: His name wasn't Lipton Iced Tea. It was just High Tea. We suspected he might have low tea, but he worked at the United Nations for over sixteen years.
Speaker 0: Hi there. Nice to see you. He works where?
Speaker 5: United Nations. Oh, that's awesome. Yeah. I've been with the for,
Speaker 6: like, sixteen years.
Speaker 0: You do you do any education with climate climate change,
Speaker 8: and and you do anything like that? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the UN does everything else. I mean, I we sit in the private sector division of the UN, and we work with over 54,000 companies.
So one of them has to be more than omen thing. In our role, we're not allowed to omen per se.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And one of the most shocking and interesting interactions I had here in Davos, I met a man from Denmark who works alongside DARPA.
That's the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, and he brings up the people around him would have an inclination to create what he calls artificial rain. He also says that he works with three letter agencies.
Speaker 0: Platform. How? We've working with laser light comms and dark panel. Oh, I've heard of I've heard of this. Nice.
Significant serious stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Do you do any climate risk work? Climate risk mitigation.
Yeah. A little bit. You do all that? Yeah. Do you do it?
What do you do? No. So Legally? The factories, the factories. I mean, you don't need, like, a climate weather weather modification, geoengineering?
Not very at all. Indirectly? Or No. No. But are you in the that company you do have that company in your portfolio that does artificial rain?
Yes. We invest in that. Yes. Yes. Yes.
And do you do you familiar with this? How about SAI, stratospheric aerosol injections? Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah.
And and sulfur dioxide. Mhmm. Yep. Yep. Yep.
Yeah, artificial rain, we we work in that space. Yes. Wonderful. Out of The US? Correct.
Florida. Yeah. Have done any indirect work with the artificial rain? Or or No. No.
No? Not yet. Not not yet? Do you intend to? There might be people around me that we've been in the media.
I got do you have an inclination to do that? United States? Yeah. I've And you. Central Europe.
Well, good. I I'd like to. Even Africa. I know ministers of foreign affairs and the public African nations legitimately. This
Speaker 3: man seemed to be inferencing plausible deniability, not something they would ever talk about publicly, but says he was very interested with working with us.
Speaker 0: Deliver a friend on behalf of the UAE space agency to work doing ground station at the Air Force Station. Wow. And we're working with the European of Malaysia to set up a space city. You sound like you're a good man to know. Maybe.
Depends on your intel. Depends on your ethos and your aptitude. I understand that. Now
Speaker 3: DARPA, out of the Department of War, Department of Defense, and the Pentagon, researches atmospheric phenomena like energy propagation, controlling ice. They focus on sensing, understanding, and mitigating cold weather effects. DARPA, to our knowledge, has not publicly announced a project to create artificial rain. It's actually incredibly rare that you ever even meet an official who would discuss anything like this. Now at that moment, someone became suspicious and started pointing at me, so I got the hell out of there.
Speaker 6: I think I noticed your way so I think we should be able to. Someone
Speaker 1: noticed the wig, so we have to
Speaker 2: get the hell out of here.
Speaker 0: Well, we just got back from Davos. I'm in a secure location. I can't say where I am right now, but, yeah, we we spoke to a lot of people. Remarkably, the wig, it was like a conversation starter. I mean, I spoke to two guys from the United Nations.
I spoke to a number of these entrepreneurs with, like, clean jet fuel, SAF it was called. And I spoke to this one guy from Denmark, and it was remarkable because he actually said that they were they would think about doing artificial rain, and he works with DARPA, which is defense agency
Speaker 3: out of
Speaker 0: the Pentagon, the Department of War, and works with some letter people, three letter people.
Speaker 3: And as I was recording this, this guy comes up to me, a farmer from this region, and he says he wants to shoot Trump.
Speaker 7: You are American?
Speaker 3: American.
Speaker 7: Oh. The big cloud. The Trump is the cloud.
Speaker 3: Do you do you not like Americans? This is the best point to shoot Can we just take a photo of it? Shoot the president. I was gonna say shoot the the photograph of the mountain and this guy says shoot the president. That's a Ture.
He's gonna blow, blow, blow, blow, blow, Yeah.
Speaker 7: Yeah. It's This is
Speaker 3: another edition of The Price Is My Life with James O'Keefe, where every Tuesday at 01:00 eastern time in The United States. We take you inside a major institution. Tune in next week, Tuesday at 01:00. You will not wanna miss it. Taking you places no journalist will go undercover.
We're watching. We're waiting. We gotta be careful of these Swiss people because they might shoot the president with that turret
Speaker 0: over there.
Speaker 3: See you next time. Alright. Let's talk health care because the system is a total mess. Do you really trust your insurance company? You're paying outrageous premiums, and months later, the bills still keep coming.
Confusing networks, denied claims, surprise fees. Now rates they're saying might go up 20% or more. And did you know that medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy? Those are some of the many reasons why I suggest switching from traditional health insurance to Impact HealthSharing. Impact HealthSharing is a powerful health sharing community that takes the middleman and the corporate profit driven bureaucracies out of your health care and puts the power back in your hands.
You can save up to 50% and get clear costs, real savings, and no nonsense. You can pick any doctor, no surprise bills, 247 telehealth, maternity support, take control of your health care before the system decides for you. Go to impactomg.com to learn more and get your free quote in seconds or call (855) 378-6777 now. That's impactomg.com, impactomg.com. Impact health sharing, built differently.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that a Secret Service agent on VP JD Vance’s detail leaked sensitive security info to an undercover journalist, sharing formations, schedules, travel plans, and real-time locations. He sent Air Force Two images and ignored a no-disclosure pledge. He’s on administrative leave with clearance suspended. The Deputy Director sent a force memo condemning the breach, ordering retraining, and apologizing to the Vance family. Text messages surfaced.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
BREAKING: U.S. Secret Service Agent Assigned to VP JD Vance Leaks Sensitive Security Information to Undercover Reporter. Escotto is a holdover from the Biden administration and stated that he voted for Joe Biden, while expressing opposition to ICE & the Trump administration’s immigration policies. “I hate that [ICE] sh*t.” Tomas Escotto, a current U.S. Secret Service agent on Vice President JD Vance’s protective detail, was recorded on hidden camera providing an undercover journalist with sensitive security information, including protective formations, shift schedules, travel plans, & real-time locations. The Secret Service agent detailed how the Vice President is physically surrounded, described multiple daily shift changes, & disclosed advance security procedures. In addition to past movements, the agent revealed future travel plans, sometimes days in advance. Escotto even sent images from Air Force Two while onboard with the Vice President. Despite acknowledging that he signed paperwork prohibiting the disclosure of sensitive information, the Secret Service agent repeatedly shared details with someone he believed was a casual romantic interest. While the safety of the Vice President and his family was always our top priority, what OMG uncovered raises serious questions about operational security, protocol compliance, and oversight within the U.S. Secret Service. Our team coordinated with the U.S. Secret Service ahead of publication, redacted sensitive operational details at their request. We were just informed Tomas Escotto has been placed on administrative leave with his clearance suspended and access to agency facilities and systems revoked. @SecretService
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Paid Sponsorships: American Independence Gold - Free Extra Gold & Silver with Qualifying Purchases - Complimentary Secure Safe for Qualified Cash - A Portion of Every Sale Is Donated To The Tunnels to Towers Foundation https://americanindependencegold.com/okeefe-gold/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=okeefecampaign&utm_content=main_cta Paid Sponsorships: Impact Health — Cut your health insurance costs up to 50% — Rate stability you can count on — No middlemen, no red tape — No network restrictions http://www.ImpactOMG.com
Okeefe Gold - American Independence Gold
We Served America. Now Let Us Protect Your Legacy. Simple, Secure, and Veteran-led Guidance for your Retirement Savings. Get Your Free Wealth Protection Kit Claim up to $10,000 in FREE Silver and a FREE Gold Bar Talk To a Gold Specialist Today:(844) 714-4653 Get Your Free Wealth Protection Kit Supporting Our HeroesA portion of every
americanindependencegold.com
What is Impact Health Sharing?
Impact Health Sharing, a not-for-profit organization, facilitates the sharing of members' medical bills. This means lower costs for you. See how much you can save.
www1.impacthealthsharing.com
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Prior to our publication, Secret Service Deputy Director Matthew Quinn sent out a work force memo to all staff regarding our story which states; “To the Men and Women of the Secret Service, Over the past several months, an agency employee was deliberately targeted and manipulated by a citizen-journalism media organization that misrepresented itself in an effort to get close to the employee and expose sensitive information. This is the second time in less than a year that our personnel have been subjected to this same deceptive tactic. Sadly in this instance, the employee failed to meet the standards demanded of this agency and engaged in conduct that runs counter to our values, our policies, and the training we provide to prevent exactly this type of compromise. I recognize that situations like this can involve real personal pressures, and I do not dismiss the gravity of that. Still, I am disappointed in how this was handled and in the impact it will have on others. When one person falls short, it places an added burden on colleagues who are left to rebuild trust that each of us works hard every day to earn and protect. The truth is, the overwhelming majority of you get this right. You show up with professionalism, humility, and a deep respect for the privacy of those we protect. You embody service over self, and you honor the discretion that our protectees deserve. That discretion is not negotiable. Discretion and respect for privacy are fundamental to this work and to the trust placed in us. If someone cannot meet that expectation consistently, then this may not be the right type of profession for them. I would ask those individuals to take a moment to reevaluate why they are here and why we do this job. Our mission demands a higher standard, and we owe it to each other and to those we protect to uphold it. To the overwhelming majority - the quiet professionals exceeding the standard everyday - thank you for your support, service and sacrifice.” Deputy Director Matthew Quinn also provided the following statement to OMG directly: “The U.S. Secret Service has no tolerance for any behavior that could potentially compromise the safety, privacy or trust of our protectees. This incident is under investigation and the employee involved has been placed on administrative leave with his clearance suspended and access to agency facilities and systems revoked. The U.S. Secret Service has also issued an order for all personnel to retake the agency’s required anti-espionage training in order to ensure employees are aware of the threats posed by individuals aiming to exploit agency employees for information about our protective operations. The U.S. Secret Service has a 160-year-old tradition of discretion that sets this agency apart, and we have no tolerance for employees who fail to meet this standard. The U.S. Secret Service deeply apologizes to the Vance family for this violation of their trust and privacy. The faith our protectees place in this agency is not something the U.S. Secret Service takes lightly, and we are committed to taking the necessary actions to ensure that a similar breach of standards does not occur again.”
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
A glimpse at some of the text messages the Secret Service Agent sent our undercover journalist. https://t.co/LjlkSVdOsk
reSee.it AI Summary
I went to Georgetown after a professor was caught on hidden camera using racial slurs. I confronted the dean about Jonathan Franklin’s remarks, calling Black conservatives “coons” and saying he “works with stupid white people.” The dean walked away, campus police were called, and I was removed from campus. Follow @OKeefeMedia for updates.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
COPS CALLED: James O'Keefe Kicked Off Georgetown Campus After Confronting Dean Over Professor’s Racist Remarks Following our investigation, I went to @Georgetown University for a follow-up after their professor was caught on hidden camera using racial slurs. I approached the dean for comment about Professor Jonathan Franklin’s remarks, calling Black conservatives “coons” & saying he “works with stupid white people”. The dean immediately walked away upon recognizing me & moments later, campus police were called & removed me from campus. Follow @OKeefeMedia for updates to this story.
Video Transcript AI Summary
James O’Keefe and crew from Project Veritas visit Georgetown University in Washington, DC, aiming to report on an adjunct professor named Jonathan Franklin who teaches a journalism course called “sourcing and interview tech” at Georgetown. In undercover footage, Franklin is recorded discussing black conservatives such as Lawrence Jones at Fox and Candace Owens, and using racial epithets, including calling them “coons.” Specifically, he is heard saying regarding black conservatives: “home to two” and labeling Clarence Thomas as “the biggest coon of them all.” The reporters ask for Franklin’s comment and discuss how the university should respond to the video.
In the field, the team asks passersby what they think about the use of the term “coons” and whether Georgetown should respond. A respondent expresses that the remark is “interesting for Georgetown,” and others indicate they wouldn’t use that term and question whether it represents Georgetown. The crew indicates they intend to reach out to Georgetown’s Dean’s Office and the communications/public affairs offices to obtain a comment from the university about how to handle professors who behave this way. They also plan to contact Candace Owens, Lawrence Jones at Fox News, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for comment.
Staff in the Dean’s Office provide guidance on who to contact, directing the team to Georgetown’s media relations office (media@Georgetown.edu). They indicate there is no physical media office on site. The team continues to chase comments and attempts to locate the appropriate spokesperson.
The crew moves to the President’s Office, where an employee reiterates to contact the media relations office for official comment. A member of the team attempts to obtain the best contact for comment, and staff explain that the media relations office does not have a physical on-site office. The team is told to reach out to media relations, emphasizing that the university’s response would come from that office.
The footage then shows the team at the graduate building at 111 Massachusetts Avenue NW, where Franklin teaches a graduate-level course on “sourcing and interview technology.” The segment frames Georgetown’s Downtown DC satellite campus as the site of this teaching, noting the class will explore how to find sources and how to interview them effectively. The video closes with James O’Keefe introducing himself as the founder of Project Veritas and OMG Media, and referring to ongoing investigative reporting to hold elites accountable.
Note: The promotional financial-ad content present in the latter portion of the transcript has been omitted per guidelines.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're in the Dean's Office. With a hidden camera, we can hear the dean of Georgetown University using my name on the telephone about the professor that we've exposed. What do you think of Candace Owens? Another coon. Clarence Thomas?
The biggest coon of them all.
Speaker 1: Now we're gonna head over to the Dean's Office in that building over there.
Speaker 2: We're with the press here. Maybe he said a comment about a professor, Jonathan Franklin, adjunct professor at Georgetown. Thank you. Okay. I called the police.
Yeah. We're with the press. We just showed up to ask question.
Speaker 1: James O'Keefe here outside Georgetown University in Washington DC. Recently, I went undercover myself and met with an adjunct professor named Jonathan Franklin here who teaches a journalism communications course called sourcing and interview tech here at the university. This time, I dyed my hair, put on a pair of glasses, and met with this adjunct professor at Georgetown who was caught on this camera talking about black conservatives like Lawrence Jones at Fox and Candace Owens and calling them quote,
Speaker 0: home to two.
Speaker 1: Hello. Hello. Hey. How are you? You?
No. You we can you wanna talk?
Speaker 3: Yeah. We we were just curious. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. We're doing a story about we're doing a story about an adjunct professor here. But who is it? Jonathan Franklin. Have you heard of this guy?
Speaker 0: Marshall Walker. Like, oh, my name is Clarence Thomas. The biggest coon of them all.
Speaker 1: Calling these black people coons, you know, racial epithets. What do you think about that?
Speaker 3: That's really interesting for Georgetown. That's all I wanna say.
Speaker 1: Interesting for Georgetown. Interesting for Georgetown.
Speaker 3: I personally would not be doing that. You would
Speaker 1: not you would not do that? You don't call black people quote coons?
Speaker 2: No. I
Speaker 1: don't think that does that represent Georgetown?
Speaker 3: Do that. Would not.
Speaker 1: Do you think the university should do in response to this video?
Speaker 3: Well, don't wanna say anything wrong. I don't know. Yeah. Say anything You know, maybe he has his reasons for saying it till, you know, there's always two sides of the story.
Speaker 1: Yeah. What would be the side of the story that would justify him saying that?
Speaker 3: I don't know. I'm not him. I don't agree with it, but everyone has a right to their opinion. Maybe you can ask him. Don't
Speaker 1: know. We intend to. Do you guys know where the like, where I would go to get a comment from, like, a dean's office or public affairs?
Speaker 3: White graduates over there. Right?
Speaker 1: Now we're gonna head over to the Dean's office in that building over there, as well as the communications office, try to get a comment from the university as to what they're going to do about professors who behave this way. We're also gonna reach out to Candace Owens, Lawrence Jones at Fox News, as well as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to get his comment on this situation. Now is that the president's office? Hey.
Speaker 3: How are you? Hey. Happy to give you contact info for the best person in
Speaker 2: our Thank you. Relations office. Surely.
Speaker 3: So it's just simply media@Georgetown.edu. You're you're who are you?
Speaker 2: Were you the president's office?
Speaker 0: Or Yeah.
Speaker 3: I'm just I'm a staff person.
Speaker 1: This is the the the guy is is calling
Speaker 3: The best thing to do is to contact our media relations office. So
Speaker 1: Where is the office located?
Speaker 3: I they don't have a physical office here.
Speaker 2: You don't have a physical office?
Speaker 3: They're they're as far as I know.
Speaker 1: Like, is that one? Like, in outer space? Dunno.
Speaker 3: I I don't. Yeah. Dunno. Alright. Well, thanks.
But the best thing to do
Speaker 1: is reach out to the media or savvy. So we're here in the President's Office, and, apparently, they don't have a media building. I did get these Georgetown Hoya M and M's. They're colored black and gray, like the colors of the school. So now we're gonna go to the Dean's Office and see if we can find who is in charge of the media here at Georgetown.
Let's see what happens.
Speaker 2: A comment about a professor, Jonathan Franklin, an adjunct professor at Georgetown. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay.
You there? Yeah.
Speaker 0: We're in the Dean's Office. With a hidden camera, we can hear the dean of Georgetown University using my name on the telephone about the professor that we've exposed. Okay.
Speaker 2: I called the police. Yeah. Well. How are you? How are doing?
I get was
Speaker 3: was
Speaker 2: just
Speaker 3: gonna grab my chicken.
Speaker 2: Yeah. We're with the press. We just showed up to ask a question.
Speaker 3: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Why or was the police called on us?
Speaker 3: The exchanges show up anywhere.
Speaker 2: Really? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. We were at the Pentagon this morning for the press briefing.
Speaker 3: Sure. I'm sure there's something. Set the police. Everybody came up. You can't go to the Pentagon.
Yes. James.
Speaker 1: Hi. James O'Keefe.
Speaker 3: So what company are you from?
Speaker 1: I'm the founder of Project Veritas, and I run OMG Media.
Speaker 3: Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: So we do we do like investigative reporting, and this is a professor at Georgetown who he I'm not gonna say what he said because it's
Speaker 3: so offensive,
Speaker 1: but it was like a racial epithet against African Americans and we thought people should know about it. So we we always get the police called
Speaker 3: on us. I don't like that.
Speaker 1: I know you're just doing your job. Alright
Speaker 2: guys, let's go. He
Speaker 3: is still even though he said you can't do it, he's still he's still filming.
Speaker 1: We're getting the police called on us
Speaker 2: here, so we're gonna leave. Okay.
Speaker 1: It's sad, you know? We're just trying to help.
Speaker 3: I understand.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, we just got kicked off campus. We were in the dean's Office, saw the dean of the university. Very nice guy at the front desk. Dean comes and sees me, gives me a look, says yes or okay, walks in. We sit in his office for about twenty
Speaker 3: minutes and
Speaker 1: then he calls the police on us. We're just asking him if we can talk to him. So here's the graduate building Georgetown University where where adjunct professor Franklin teaches his students in sourcing and interview technology. There's the building in there. They won't let me in, but in this building, he's teaching students starting in January, sourcing an interview technology quote.
This class will explore both how to find sources and how to interview them effectively. So this guy is teaching a graduate level class here in Washington DC on the satellite campus, Downtown DC on Massachusetts Avenue different from the main campus. James O'Keefe on the grind like prime time Alex Stein here in the Nation's Capital. See the Capital Building over there. It'll be interesting to see if Georgetown actually continues this course.
There you have it. 111 Massachusetts Avenue. This is what students spend $70,000 a year on. This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the corrupt elite accountable.
But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, your retirement. Now gold is soaring above 4,200 an ounce right now and climbing towards $5,000. That's up over 45% this year alone, with silver closing in on $60 an ounce. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and major banks are now forecasting gold between 5,000 and $6,000 within the next six to twelve months. And that's why I've partnered with American Independence Gold, a veteran owned company where proceeds from every sale help support the Tumble to Towers Foundation.
And right now, my followers get a free gold bar with every purchase of $10,000 or more. Go to okeepmediagold.com. That's okeepmediagold.com, or call (833) 324-4653. That's 833324 gold. This is James O'Keefe, where freedom isn't given, it's secured.
This is not financial advice. Consult a professional before making investment decisions.
reSee.it AI Summary
In 16 years, I’ve never seen the government move this fast. In the last 72 hours: SBA opened an ATI investigation and suspended all contracts; DOJ Antitrust launched an ATI probe; Sec. Bessent halted $253 million in ATI contracts; GSA expressed support. People said nothing would be done, yet this admin is acting swiftly. The contractor fraud runs deeper; corruption awaits exposure. The American people deserve justice, and I’ll work with this admin to enforce accountability.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
In my 16-year career, I have NEVER witnessed the government respond as quickly to an investigation as it has to our recent story on federal contractor fraud. In the last 72 hours, ⁃ SBA launches investigation into ATI & suspends all contracts. ⁃ Anti-Trust division of the DOJ announces investigation into ATI. ⁃ Treasury Secretary Bessent announced immediate suspension of $253 million worth of contracts to ATI. - GSA announces support. People often tell me nothing will be done to the subjects of our undercover investigations - but we are seeing swift action taken by this admin. This contractor fraud goes so much deeper than ATI & there’s a lot corruption waiting to be to exposed. The American people deserve justice & we will work with this administration to bring accountability. @SBA_Kelly @SBAgov @gailaslater @TheJusticeDept @SecScottBessent @USTreasury @USGSA
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
A Professor at @Georgetown University just sent me a legal letter begging me not to publish the video of my undercover date with him. Should I back down & not publish the video because I’m scared of getting sued? Or should @OKeefeMedia run the story of what we uncovered tomorrow?
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
CONFRONTING @RepRobertGarcia’s office after @OversightDems claimed to release “never before seen” Epstein photos OMG released in May. Robert Edmonson, Staff Director for the House Oversight Committee, resorted to ad hominem attacks & claims they redacted photos to “protect victims.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
James O’Keefe confronts Garcia’s office over Epstein photos. O’Keefe says, “You guys said that you you had Epstein photos that you you broke, and we actually broke it already. You redacted some of the stuff on the chalkboard. We we broke the story in May.” Garcia staff counters, “We stand by our story. We put out information that is not included in your photo, so we did include photos that were not. But thank you so much for coming.”
O’Keefe asks why the words on the chalkboard were redacted; staff replies they “go above and beyond to make sure that we protect any victims or potential victims.” O’Keefe notes they “broke the exact same photo.” The staff asserts they have many photos O’Keefe did not, and they “included photos that did not have” what O’Keefe released.
O’Keefe presses for credit; staff says, “Absolutely not,” and claims, “we put out photos that were never before seen.” The source allegedly is the US Virgin Islands, “with response to a request from Congress.” O’Keefe says he has his own sources and asks for attribution. The staff accuses O’Keefe of “selectively editing videos” and of a broader reputation for filming people without their permission, stating, “That’s your reputation, and that’s why people don’t trust you.”
O’Keefe challenges with, “Can you give me an example of how I’ve edited a video selectively?” The staff responds that Project Veritas’ reputation preceded him and declines to provide an example, saying they don’t want to speak to his audience and that he has a “reputation for filming people without consent selectively editing.” The exchange grows heated; O’Keefe asserts he is here as a member of Congress in Garcia’s office and asks for fair treatment. The staff reiterates, “Photos that you haven't put out. We said we were putting out photos that are never before seen. We did that. We did not lie at all.”
O’Keefe highlights that he and Garcia’s office have “kicked out here” and describes the interaction as elitist and condescending. He references a quote idea about perception versus reality, then notes they “broke” an image where Democrats in House Oversight claim they broke it, and mentions that one word redacted was “dank or dark brain,” questioning which victim that protects. He promises to seek a retraction and signs off: “This is James O’Keeffe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the corrupt elite responsible and accountable.”
The interaction ends with the two sides firm in their positions, and O’Keefe walks away after being asked to leave, with Garcia’s staff maintaining their reporting and accuracy, while O’Keefe frames the encounter as a confrontation over credibility and transparency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi there. Hi. Hi. I'm I'm James O'Keefe. I'm here to ask about the, the, Epstein photos that Garcia released.
You guys said that you you had Epstein photos that you you broke, and we actually broke it already. You redacted some of the stuff on the chalkboard. We we broke the story in May. Well, I will
Speaker 1: just say that we stand by our story. We put out information that is not included in your photo, so we did include photos that were not. But thank you so much for coming.
Speaker 0: Why did you redact the words on the chalkboard? We released almost
Speaker 1: go above and beyond to make sure that we protect any victims or potential victims. So we
Speaker 0: But we broke the exact same photo.
Speaker 1: Well, have many photos that you did not have, so we included photos
Speaker 0: that did
Speaker 1: not have.
Speaker 0: Correct your reporting and and
Speaker 1: Our reporting is correct. We put out photos that were never before seen.
Speaker 0: Yeah. A lot of the photos you put out, we already put out.
Speaker 1: Some of the photos were already out. Many of the photos were never before seen.
Speaker 0: Credit us?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not.
Speaker 0: But we're the ones who uncovered most of the photos that you
Speaker 1: I know you're trying to make a splash.
Speaker 0: No. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to I'm edit videos very selectively.
Speaker 0: Can you give me an example of how I've edited a video selectively? Can you give me one example? That's a very That's Project Veritas. I take that
Speaker 1: widely known that you would selectively
Speaker 0: be It's self fulfilling prophecy to cite something that's widely known. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: You have a wonderful day.
Speaker 0: So I'm trying to be accurate here. No, I'm not having a wonderful day. Because I care about accuracy. That's my raison d'etre.
Speaker 1: Well, you're known for reputation for filming people without their permission. I am asking you not to film me.
Speaker 0: So please stop me.
Speaker 1: Thank you
Speaker 0: so much. It's called the First Amendment. This is a one party consent jurisdiction. I have a right to be here.
Speaker 1: You do.
Speaker 0: So so my question so my I've
Speaker 1: I've answered your questions.
Speaker 0: Wish you a very good question. My my question is, can you please give us credit for the video that you wrote?
Speaker 1: Credit. We put out videos that photos that have never before been seen. The source they gave it to us
Speaker 0: is
Speaker 1: The US Virgin Islands. Yes. And they were with response to a request from Congress.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I don't know what source you may have gotten things from. I know that you often go out and take things from who knows where because often you're known for being
Speaker 0: Known by that Known by whom?
Speaker 1: Known by the public for selectively editing videos, phoning people without their consent. That's your reputation, and that's why people don't trust you.
Speaker 0: Can you give me an example of how I've selectively edited anything?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's probably why Project Veritas fell under, and you're now in this new group, because you were not known as being a reputable person.
Speaker 0: Is that the reason why that happened?
Speaker 1: I have no idea why you Okay.
Speaker 0: If you have no idea if you have no idea do mean failed? Give the audience an example of how I failed.
Speaker 1: Sir, I don't want to speak to your audience. I don't want to speak to you. You don't have a good reputation. You're not seen as a reputable
Speaker 0: I would see. Who? Congress? By you? By who thinks I'm disreputable?
Give me a source on that information.
Speaker 1: I'm not you. Wish you a very day.
Speaker 0: Now you you haven't argued. You lied. It's not about arguing. It's it's about deception.
Speaker 1: Photos that you haven't put out. We said we were putting out photos that are never before seen. We did that. We did not lie at all.
Speaker 0: I'm here in Garcia's office, a member of congress, and I'm talking to the staff director, and he's saying that we're disreputable and that we shouldn't I'm trust I'm disreputable.
Speaker 1: A reputation for filming people without consent selectively
Speaker 0: editing So did those minutes. So did CBS News. So does Diane Sourd. Does does Sarah
Speaker 1: Sir, that's your opinion. I wish you well. Thank you. Have a good day.
Speaker 0: Alright. Nice to see you all. I wish you'd be accurate.
Speaker 1: Sir, we're accurate. We stand by the fact that we put out the the before.
Speaker 0: They're they're kicking us out here. Last wonderful day. We just got kicked out of Robert Garcia's office, and you kinda got a a feel for the the the elitism, the hubris there, the condescending attitude, the the outrageous high. I don't know what to call it. It's self fulfilling prophecy.
You're known for being this. It reminds me of a quote from Daniel Borson's The Image. The hotel is distinguished because we say it is. Couldn't give you an example. Actually, he said that I got kicked out of Project Veritas because I'm disreputable.
Wow. This image right here, we already broke it. The house oversight Democrats, that's Robert Garcia of California, said they broke it. They redacted images. One of the things they redacted was dank or dark brain.
I wonder what victim is being protected by redacting that word. But more to come. We're gonna seek a retraction. Stay tuned. This is James O'Keeffe.
You know me for exposing the truth and holding the corrupt elite responsible and accountable. However, today I wanna tell you about protecting your own freedom, your finances. Before you buy any gold or silver, hear this. We're going through one of the biggest financial shifts of our lifetime. De dollarization.
Nations like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are pulling away from US dollars, and that threatens your savings and retirement security. Legendary investor Ray Dalio warns skyrocketing debt, relentless money printing, and a weakening dollar are all part of a dangerous cycle that could impact you. That's why more Americans are turning to real assets like physical gold and silver. Gold just surged past $3,700 per ounce, and momentum is building. I've partnered with veteran owned American Independence Gold to help you take action.
Open a qualifying account today and get up to $10,000 in bonus gold and our free gold protection guide. And here's the best part. A portion of every sale supports tunnel to towers and wounded warriors. Freedom isn't given. It's secured.
This is James O'Keefe. As always, this is not financial advice. Always check with your licensed financial adviser before you invest.
@OversightDems - Oversight Dems
🚨 BREAKING: Oversight Dems have received never-before-seen photos and videos of Jeffrey Epstein's private island that are a harrowing look behind Epstein’s closed doors. See for yourself. We won’t stop fighting until we end this cover-up and deliver justice for the survivors. https://t.co/qXmxFISZLS
reSee.it AI Summary
I share how I see DC corruption, exposing hypocrisy, money, honeypot operations, and blackmail in Washington. I tackle the Epstein question and CIA links, discuss leftist asymmetric warfare, and reflect on saying no to Congressional leadership—and paying the price. I cover smear campaigns, the jet ski moment, life after Congress in Florida, lawfare as a weapon, the Veritas schism, and whether I want children. @OKeefeMedia @realcawthorn
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Madison Cawthorn | My Price Is My Life with James O'Keefe Ep #17 (0:00) - Intro (2:20) - “Cocaine and congressional orgies” / How DC Corruption really works (9:00) - The Hypocrisy of Lawmakers. (13:41) - Money, Honeypot Operations, & Blackmail in Washington (21:15) - The Epstein question & CIA connections. (29:36) - The Left & Asymmetric Civil Warfare (33:00) - Saying “no” to Congressional Leadership & Paying the Price. (44:21) - The Infamous Smear Campaign (52:00) – The Jet Ski Moment (58:00) – Life after Congress: moving to Florida and rediscovering purpose (1:25:03) – Lawfare as a Weapon (1:35:26) – The Veritas Schism (1:49:15) – Does Madison Want Children??? @OKeefeMedia @realcawthorn Support our sponsors & donate below👇
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve never felt evil like that anywhere in the world like I felt in the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. I, Jeff Evely, describe my daughter’s indoctrination and CHEO contacting her at 16, the age of consent for gender transition in Canada. Trans Health Ottawa says counseling for trans youth aged 12-14.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
“I’ve never felt evil like that anywhere in the world like I felt in the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario” Canadian veteran Jeff Evely describes the indoctrination of his daughter & how CHEO began contacting her at 16 - the age of consent for gender transition in Canada. According to Trans Health Ottawa, counseling services for "trans" & "gender diverse youth" is available to children ages 12-14. @JeffEvely @OKeefeMedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes a personal crisis surrounding his daughter’s gender transition. He says his daughter, who is 22, was indoctrinated in Ottawa schools when he was posted there, and recently had her breasts removed. She no longer speaks to him because he does not support the transition. He asserts he has stood on his principles throughout, resisting “the social pressure and Marxist tactics” she allegedly uses against him, and emphasizes that he loves her but the situation is “a pretty heavy price.” He notes he has two children, and this struggle centers on his daughter.
He explains that it was Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party, who was his member of parliament during the time this occurred in Ottawa. He says he called Poilievre and told him about having to sneak out of Iraq to return to Canada to deal with what he describes as “absolute maniacal monsters” at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) when they began calling his daughter directly. He states his daughter had turned 16, which he notes is the legal age of consent for medical treatment in Canada, and that she could receive a sex change “without your daddy’s permission anymore,” which led him to go to the hospital.
He recounts feeling an extraordinary sense of evil at the CHEO, claiming he had “never felt evil like that anywhere in the world” while there. He frames these experiences as part of the broader conflict surrounding his daughter’s transition and the actions of the hospital staff, describing the hospital as a place where they confronted these demands directly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's the greatest price that you've paid? You know, I'm kind of going through some stuff right now, actually, because my daughter got swept up in all the gender ideology. She was indoctrinated in Ottawa schools when I got posted there. She's 22 now and just had her breasts removed the week before last. She doesn't talk to me anymore because I don't support this transition.
But I've stood on my principles the entire time. And I won't give in to the kind of social pressure and Marxist tactics that she frankly deploys against me. I love her more than anything in the world, but this is a pretty heavy price to That's have going to be hard, man. It's probably the hardest thing that I've ever had. How many kids do you have?
I have two. Two? Yeah. And this is your daughter. Yeah.
So that's of the reasons why you're fighting. 2: Absolutely. And it was Pierre Pauliev, the leader of our so called Conservative Party, who was my member of parliament while this was happening to us in Ottawa. And I called him and told him all about how I had to sneak out of Iraq to come back to Canada to deal with those absolute maniacal monsters at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario when they started calling her phone directly because she turned 16, which is the legal age of consent for medical treatment in Canada, said, You don't need your daddy's permission anymore. You can just come on in here for your sex change.
And I don't know what I've never felt evil like that anywhere in the world like I felt in the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.
reSee.it AI Summary
I reveal a network of “Super 8(a)” entities tied to ATI CEO Firmadge Crutchfield, connected via the Susanville Indian Rancheria Corporation (SIRCO). SIRCO, a Section 17 federally chartered tribal corporation, owns several 8(a)-certified entities run by the same leadership, using tribal/minority contracting across companies linked to Crutchfield under SIRCO. Whistleblowers: provide evidence of 8a SBA fraud—signal contact in bio. @SBA_Kelly
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
WATCH: Whistleblower describes network of “Super 8(a)” entities associated with ATI CEO Firmadge Crutchfield, connected through the Susanville Indian Rancheria Corporation (SIRCO). SIRCO is a Section 17 federally chartered tribal corporation that owns several 8(a)-certified entities managed by the same executive leadership. This structure allows the use of tribal and minority contracting advantages across multiple companies, all linked to Firmadge Crutchfield, creating a unified network of federal contractors operating under SIRCO’s authority. We are calling on any & all whistleblowers to come forward with evidence of 8a SBA fraud - signal contact in bio. @SBA_Kelly
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tell me who you are, sir. Walk me through, you overheard or you witnessed some of these people talk about pass-throughs. We have a check here, SIRC0, federal services, the Susanville Indian Rancheria that's dated last week, signed by Furmage Crutchfield, $2,000,000 to the tribe. So with this check for $2,000,000, where does the money go? Because how many—how many was it, $700,000,000 when I spoke with you—how much money has Sirco or Susanville Indian Rancheria taken in from these federal no-bid contracts?
The people of the Susanville Rancheria are an impoverished community for the most part. So where is the $700,000,000 actually going? The tribe was taking 50% of the money. How was that happening? You mentioned a few people.
Robert Kennedy was the guy that you had interacted with. Also Doyle Lowry. So Robert Kennedy is the CEO of Serco and now is the head of something called Bold Concepts in Maryland. Doyle Lowry, the CEO of Four Tribes Construction. Can you just walk through some of these players and who they were and how they participate in the scheme?
Doyle Lowry was the CEO of Four Tribes Construction, and this is a lot for people to understand. How does Four Tribes relate to ATI and Serco? Is Four Tribes a different company? So why did you decide to come forward to me after the story we showed we saw with Anish and Malayne talking about pass-throughs, eight contracting systems? At what point did you realize something wasn't right?
Why are you talking to me? And what do you want to happen? What do people need to know about this whole racket?
Alright. Well, thank you for your time. And we will certainly be in touch and hopefully more people come forward.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tell me who you are, sir. Walk me through, you overheard or you witnessed some of these people talk about pass throughs. And we have a check here, s I r c o, federal services, the Susanville Indian Rancheria that's dated last week, signed by Furmage Crutchfield, $2,000,000 to the tribe. So with this check for $2,000,000, where does the money go? Because how many how many was it $700,000,000 when I when you and I spoke, how much money has Sirco or Susanville Indian Rancheria taken in from these federal no bid contracts?
The people of the Susanville Rancheria are are are isn't it poor and impoverished community for the most part? So where is the $700,000,000 actually going? The tribe was taking 50% of the money. How was that happening? You mentioned a few people.
Robert Kennedy was a guy that you had interacted with. Also Doyle Lowry. So Robert Kennedy is the was the CEO of Serco and now is the head of something called Bold Concepts in Maryland. Doyle Lowry, the CEO of Four Tribes Construction. Can you just walk through some of these players and who they were and and how they participate in the scheme?
Doyle Lowry was the CEO of Four Tribes Construction, and this is a lot for people to understand. How does Four Tribes relate to ATI and Serco? Is Four Tribes a different company? So why did you decide to come forward to me after the story we show we saw with Anish and Malayne talking about pass throughs, eight contracting systems? At what point did you realize something wasn't right?
Why are you talking to me? And what do you want to happen? What do you think will happen? What do people need to know about this whole racket? Alright.
Well, thank you for your time. And we will certainly be in touch and hopefully more people come forward.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
UPDATE: A source inside SIRCO sent O’Keefe Media Group this check - $2 million from Firmadge Crutchfield to the Susanville Indian Rancheria, dated Oct 17, 2025 - just days before our ATI exposé dropped. That same day, the tribe’s meeting agenda shows Crutchfield presenting on SIRCO Federal Services, Inc. - a Section 17 federally chartered corporation owned by the tribe. The insider from Susanville Indian Rancheria described SIRCO's structure that uses tribal & minority contracting advantages across multiple companies - all tied to Firmadge Crutchfield, forming a network of “Super 8(a)” federal contractors. SIRCO uses its tribal 8(a) status to win government contracts, 51% tribe-owned on paper, paying the tribe a cut like you see here, to use its name and claim “Native-owned” 8a status. ATI received HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of $ in government contracts - but they are just ONE example of this SBA 8a fraud. How many other government contractors are engaging in the same scheme & how many taxpayer dollars have been wasted? This 8a fraud goes much deeper than ATI & we will get to the bottom of it. The American taxpayer deserve justice. @OKeefeMedia @SBA_Kelly @DOGE @TheJusticeDept @SecScottBessent
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that ATI Government Solutions’ Anish Abraham describes a pass-through fraud on a near-$100M IRS contract, taking 65% and outsourcing 35% to Accenture, with 8a Native-Owned status shielding accountability; DOJ probe is mentioned. Update: Accenture locked its X account after OMG exposed the fraud; Accenture has over $1.5B in federal obligations. Post 2 notes legal costs and asks support for sponsor American Independence Gold.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
BREAKING: ANOTHER Federal Contractor Admits to $100M Fraud. ATI Government Solutions Senior Director Anish Abraham Exposes Pass-Through Scam, Pocketing 65% of $100M IRS Contract While Outsourcing Work to Accenture. OMG undercover footage shows ATI Senior Director Anish Abraham detailing federal Government contracting fraud & how their 8a “Native-Owned” status acts as a shield against accountability. “So the new contract is basically close to $100M” “65% for us…and 35% (for subcontractor).” “I don’t think they will dare to touch the Native Americans." O'Keefe Media Group has been informed that the DOJ is launching an investigation.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
This work isn't cheap & comes with alot of legal costs. You can help our undercover journalism by supporting our sponsor, American Independence Gold. https://americanindependencegold.com/okeefe-gold/?utm_source=banner&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=okeefecampaign&utm_content=main_cta
Okeefe Gold - American Independence Gold
(844) 714-4653 James O'Keefe Founder of Project Veritas Experience the Power of Physical Gold & Silver A Gold IRA provides unmatched stability during financial crises. Fortify your retirement with a gold IRA. Free Extra Gold and Silver with Qualifying Purchases Complimentary Secure Safe for Qualified Cash Purchases, Or Covered Secure Storage fees at a Depository
americanindependencegold.com
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
UPDATE: Accenture, the Global Services Company, has locked their X account following OMG investigation exposing $100M federal contracting fraud involving ATI Government Solutions. Currently, Accenture has over $1.5BILLION in obligations from federal contracts. @Accenture https://t.co/xZY2zYgZMM
reSee.it AI Summary
I reveal a $100B federal contracting scam: an 8(a) firm used minority status as a front for no-bid contracts, outsourcing 80% of work. I, Melayne Cromwell, admit exploiting the SBA 8(a) program via pass-throughs, breaking federal law: “pass-throughs are a great thing,” “no competition.”
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
$100 Billion Federal Contracting Scam Exposed: 8(a) Firm Admits to Violating Federal Law, Using Minority-Owned Status as a Front to Obtain $100M+ No-Bid Government Contracts While Outsourcing 80% of the Work. ATI Government Solutions Contract Manager, Melayne Cromwell Admits to Exploiting 8(a) SBA Program Through Pass-Through Scheme & Breaking Federal Law. “I tell you pass throughs are a great thing!” “We only do 20%… The rest goes to subs..." “And remember, there's no competition…”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video presents an undercover investigative report into what the presenters describe as “eight a pass-through” schemes linked to minority-owned small business programs, centering on ATI Government Solutions. The speakers claim that ATI leverages Native American status to win large federal contracts with little competitive bidding, then passes most of the work to subcontractors while keeping the majority of the profits.
Key claims and dynamics described:
- ATI would do 20% of the work while subcontractors do 80%, enabling ATI to collect a large share of the contract money. A participant states, “So we we do about 20% of the work,” and another confirms, “Correct. Yeah. They’re doing most of work.”
- Pass-through arrangements are highlighted as a mechanism where Native American status guarantees automatic wins, with subcontractors bidding in their industry but not being American, thus enabling ATI to win via the Native status. A responder says, “with pass throughs, because you’re Native American, right, if you have… all they do is partner with you. They use their people. They subcontract to them. They became our sub, and it’s an automatic win because of your native American status.”
- The program is framed as already well-known in Washington as a “best kept secret,” with claims that “There’s no competition because you’re Native American” and that this system is designed to enrich the prime contractor at the expense of taxpayers.
- The investigation identifies ATI as a technology services company obtaining federal contracts for next-generation computing solutions, and asserts ATI benefits from eight(a) tribal status, which is described as heavily favored by federal contracts.
- Malayne Cromwell, ATI’s director of contracts, purportedly explains that the company’s native American ownership is what enables the contracts, and discusses pass-throughs as a strategic advantage. A journalist notes that Cromwell told them about pass-throughs and indicated that “pass throughs are a great thing as well.”
- The footage asserts ATI’s claimed ownership structure on paper shows 51% Native American ownership, enabling access to set-aside contracts. The video questions whether the Susanville Indian Rancheria actually owns ATI and investigates the role of tribal ownership in practice. A participant explains that “ATI is abiding by this 51% tribal ownership on paper.”
- The investigation reveals that ATI’s leadership includes non-Native executives—Furmidge Crutchfield (CEO), his fiancée Marina Mogalyeva (CFO), and Scott Deutschman (CDO)—while the Rancheria appears to have limited involvement in operations. An interviewee claims the tribe is the owner of ATI on paper, but the executives run the company and perform the work.
- The reporter notes that the tribal arrangement would facilitate similar schemes for others who seek government contracts, suggesting a model where 51% ownership is held by a tribe “on paper,” while the actual work is done by others.
- The discussion cites the 51% rule codified in the Federal Acquisition Regulations as FAR 52.219-14, stating that the prime contractor must do at least 51% of the work. The video alleges ATI may be violating this rule by directing most work to subcontractors.
- The investigation references usaspending.gov data showing ATI’s profits rising from about $2 million in 2019 to about $100 million in the current year, and discusses SBA small-business thresholds (net worth, AGI, assets) that prompt Crutchfield to create new entities to stay within “small business” criteria.
- The segment mentions a related Pennsylvania case (Cusisis v. US) in which a contractor was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy for fraudulent inducement related to disadvantaged business enterprise schemes, highlighting the legal risk of deception in these arrangements.
- The report concludes with a staged reveal of the reporters’ identities and promises forthcoming parts, urging viewers to donate to the Citizen Journalism Foundation and signaling ongoing journalistic accountability efforts.
Note: The transcript contains specific names and quotes attributed to individuals involved in ATI and allied entities, as well as investigative claims about ownership structures and regulatory interpretations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So ATI would do 20%, and the subcontractor would
Speaker 1: do, like, 80% of I don't
Speaker 2: the share that they do all the work. No. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So we we do about 20% of the work.
Speaker 0: 20%?
Speaker 3: These government contractors like ATI taking advantage of their special minority owned status.
Speaker 1: And and I tell you, pass throughs are a great thing as well. So a lot of our subcontractors bid on contracts that were perfect in their industry, but because they weren't American, they wouldn't win it. So we've been on it for them. They became our sub, and it's an automatic win because of your Native American status. Isn't that exciting?
Right? Because a lot of people don't know that. I don't think anybody knows that. Right? And I'm talking Well, I keep it that way.
That's right.
Speaker 3: That's a thing.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Secret. Yeah. You know what I mean? Exactly.
Speaker 3: Taking the money in, subcontracting much of the work out.
Speaker 4: I sit back, collect my percentage, and they do the work.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yeah. They're doing most of work.
Speaker 3: They get the contracts, get the money, act as a pass through, and it's the taxpayer who gets screwed over.
Speaker 0: Is there some rules or something that you were telling me that you have to report 5151%.
Speaker 1: 51%. On paper. Correct. Right. As long as it's on paper.
As long as it's on paper. 51%, we're good to go. And remember, there's no competition because you're Native American.
Speaker 4: Ding ding. That's a that's a best
Speaker 0: kept secret.
Speaker 1: It is indeed. It is. It is.
Speaker 4: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: And here's to here's to pastors.
Speaker 2: There you go. I love that. Yeah. Exactly.
Speaker 3: Exactly. In in Vino in Vino Veritas. My name is James O'Keefe. I'm sure. Party like a Jim Keith party.
What you're about to see is a microcosm of one of the biggest scams in American history, a scheme that could be costing taxpayers up to $100,000,000,000 every year. It's a system long described as an open secret in Washington, one that dwarfs the USAID fraud scandals in both scale and scope. At its center lies a government program created to empower minority owned small businesses. But behind the facade, our investigation uncovers a network of so called eight a pass through schemes, shell companies exploiting those very programs for profit. According to the SBA, the Biden Harris administration awarded more than $630,000,000,000 in federal contracts to these companies with over $183,000,000,000 in 2024 alone.
Our undercover investigation reveals how these firms secured no bid federal contracts
Speaker 1: No bidding because of your native status.
Speaker 3: Skim over half of the money off the top 65% of the money. And subcontract nearly all the work
Speaker 1: So we we do about 20% of the work.
Speaker 3: Defrauding taxpayers like you and betraying the very communities these programs were meant to uplift. ATI Government Solutions is a technology services company that acquires contracts to provide federal departments with next generation computing solutions. ATI acquires hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for these contracts and have been particularly successful in this due to their supposed native American eight a tribal status, meaning they're a native American owned small business which is heavily favored by federal contracts.
Speaker 1: That's that's very fair. Try the other one.
Speaker 3: We went undercover and arranged meetings with multiple employees to dig deeper into the truth behind ownership, their small business status, and their excessive use of subcontractors.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh my gosh. Yes. That's better. Yes.
Speaker 3: And what we found was more damning which was attempting to procure government contracts through minority owned status similar to ATI. The ploy was to approach the employee for ATI not for a meeting about contracts, but about obtaining catering for a corporate event. You see, Malayne Cromwell at ATI, also on the side, runs a catering business called Ragin Cajun Catering.
Speaker 1: So I got into government contracting. I love what I did. I helped large and small companies win win contracts with the government. I wanted you to talk
Speaker 0: about gumbo.
Speaker 1: Yes. I wanna get to the good stuff.
Speaker 0: I mean, this is interesting.
Speaker 1: No way. It's it's a little bit boring
Speaker 3: for me.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. So I'm excited to
Speaker 1: talk to you about the occasion for your Absolutely.
Speaker 3: We were shocked that almost immediately in the meeting, less than two minutes in, Milaam Cromwell at ATI told us all about her position as the director of contracts for ATI.
Speaker 5: And what was your in that job? What was your title or your role there? I'm the director of contracts.
Speaker 3: You're the director? Uh-huh. The director? The director. So there's no
Speaker 0: one above you in the contracts?
Speaker 1: There's no one above me.
Speaker 3: Elaine Cromwell goes on to explain that because ATI is supposedly native American owned, they are heavily favored by government contracts and often acquire $100,000,000 contracts with no bidding war. This enables them to, quote, pass through the majority of the work to companies that wouldn't usually be eligible while keeping the majority of the compensation for themselves.
Speaker 1: And and I tell you, pass throughs are a great thing as well. Tell me about those. Well, so with pass throughs, because you're Native American, right, if you have, there's a big bid out and there's a company that wants to bid on it that's not Native American, all they do is partner with you. They use their people. They you subcontract to them.
Right? They're your subs. So a lot of our subcontractors bid on contracts that were perfect in their industry. But because they weren't Native American, they wouldn't win it. We bid on it for them.
They became our sub, and it's an automatic win because of the government set aside. You automatically will win that contract because of your native American status. There's no bidding. There's no bidding war. No bidding war.
No Because of your native status. You get it. You get it. A
Speaker 3: pass through scheme is when an eight a small business acts as a front to win government contracts meant for disadvantaged firms. Instead of actually doing the work, it passes the contract to a larger ineligible company, violating SBA rules and defrauding the government and defrauding you, the taxpayers.
Speaker 1: Isn't that exciting? Right? A lot of people don't know that. I don't think anybody knows that. Yeah.
And I'm I'm gonna keep it that way.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: That's I wanna keep
Speaker 1: it a That's secret. Yeah. Exactly.
Speaker 3: Subcontracting out some of the development work isn't necessarily a crime. It's actually quite common. However, things appear to take a criminal turn. When Malayne Cromwell confesses to us that ATI, the prime contractor here, will often do as little as 20% of the actual software development work and offload 80% of the work to their subcontractors.
Speaker 4: I sit back, collect my percent, and they do the work.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yeah. They're doing most of work. The the people you're subbing to do the majority of the work. So we we do about 20% of the work.
Speaker 0: So ATI would do 20%,
Speaker 1: and the subcontractor would do 80% of the 80% of
Speaker 2: the work. Alright. Share that they do all the work. No. Yeah.
No. No. I don't wanna share. So
Speaker 3: we're here outside ATI Government Solutions. This is the building in Frederick, Maryland where I'm standing that ATI Government Solutions is housed out of. Now according to the federal acquisition regulations, specifically the limitations of subcontracting clause FAR five two dot two one nine fourteen, The prime contractor in a government contract must do at least 51% of the work. This is more broadly referred to as the 51% rule, and this is what ATI Government Solutions appears to be violating. ATI has a special classification from the SBA that gives the company access to government contracts without competitive bidding.
It's called an eight a, a small business that is at least 51% owned by, quote, US citizens that are socially and economically disadvantaged. On paper, ATI is owned by the Susanville Indian Rancheria, a federally recognized native American tribal entity in Northern California. So does the Susanville Indian Rancheria actually own ATI? And what role, if any, do they actually hold besides appearing as 51% owners on paper?
Speaker 6: This is the web page for SFSI ATI.
Speaker 4: Oh, ATI. I think I've heard of that.
Speaker 6: Yeah. That's our technology department.
Speaker 3: Well, order to answer that question, we went undercover to meet with the head of the Susanville Indian Rancheria, Arien Hart, and discussed exactly how the business arrangement would work if we wanted them to appear to be the owners of our imaginary company to help us gain government contracts, much like ATI does.
Speaker 4: We just wanna get government contracts. So we need the Native Americans ownership to be able to obtain that.
Speaker 6: It makes it easier to get into the eight contracting for sure.
Speaker 3: Yes. Arian confirms that if they were to appear as the owners of our company, it would make it easier to obtain government contracts. Arian goes on to claim that we may need to relinquish 51% of the ownership to them.
Speaker 4: So really, it's really just coming up with a number that you would want in order to appear to be the owner of my art company.
Speaker 6: Right. And there and some of that will be determined by the eight a corporation. So we may have to be, like, 51% owners. Right?
Speaker 3: Melaine Cromwell confirms that ATI is abiding by this 51% tribal ownership on paper.
Speaker 0: Is there some rules or something that people were telling me about, like, that you have to report 5151%.
Speaker 1: 51% on paper. Correct. Right. Yeah. But in reality, you know.
Right. Exactly. Exactly. Yep. As long as it's on paper.
As long as it's on paper, 51%, we're good to go.
Speaker 3: ATI may be 51% tribally owned on paper, but Belane revealed to us that ATI was founded in collaboration with the Rancheria by two Caucasian DC executives, Furmidge Crutchfield and Scott Deutschman, and that they manage all of ATI's operations. According to a 2024 article featured on Washington Technology, Furmidge openly states, quote, we met with Susanville Indian Rancheria and formed ATI under their eight a umbrella, and we've never looked back. Furmage also states, quote, we have been around tribal organizations most of our careers, and they are very strong government contractors. So you're for the CEO? I did.
What is his name?
Speaker 1: Firm. It's Crutchfield. He's the head. He is the CEO. Of?
Of ATI. Have you met him? I have. Yeah. He's my boss.
Speaker 3: Now is he is he a Native American gentleman? Or
Speaker 1: He's not. No. Look at my he was born and raised in Unique? Washington DC. Yeah.
Very So yeah. What's the name again? Thermage. Thermage is his fiance. She looks super young.
Oh my gosh. She's so look. But, of course, of course, during my interview, I'm talking to both of them. That's the Of both of is mentioning that to me, of course.
Speaker 2: Or in some instances.
Speaker 1: Awesome. On my first day at work, and she's, you don't know this, but Burmese and I are engaged. And I was like like, oh, congratulations. Right? But Oh,
Speaker 2: you see it now. Right?
Speaker 1: CFO and CEO.
Speaker 0: That's that's
Speaker 3: nice work if you can get it.
Speaker 1: I get it. Nice work.
Speaker 2: This is juicy. I said, I love it.
Speaker 1: No. This is fact.
Speaker 2: This is
Speaker 1: not gossiping.
Speaker 3: With Furmich Crutchfield as CEO, his fiancee, Olympic swimmer Marina Mogalyeva as CFO, and his business partner Scott Deutschman as CDO, it becomes clear the Susanville Indian Rancheria has almost no involvement in the actual operations of ATI. Arian Hart then confirms to us that in the case of ATI, they are sole proprietors and that anyone working for ATI works for the tribe, acknowledging that, quote, we are the owner. They do the work.
Speaker 6: Furbage Crutchfield, he's our, CEO for that company.
Speaker 4: And so what what is your role with them?
Speaker 6: The tribe itself? So we are the owner of that company. Right? We're the owner of all those eight companies. We are the sole proprietor, I guess.
Right? So the company does you know, they go out and get their contracts, do their business, develop that company, go out and get jobs, and
Speaker 3: work for the tribe.
Speaker 4: But you don't do any of the work. They do
Speaker 6: it. They do the work.
Speaker 3: Yes. The undercover journalist then proposes that we would like to make a similar arrangement with the tribe, and Arian reaffirms the tribe itself will not be doing any of the work. They would literally be taking 51% of the company for the sole purpose of allowing us to pose as Native American owned because it puts you to the front of the line for acquiring those government contracts.
Speaker 4: We would do the work, and then you get a percentage of the profits.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. K.
Speaker 6: We have the ability to get the contracts, and that's probably the most important thing.
Speaker 3: On the surface, this sounds like a well meaning endeavor by the federal government to bolster minority involvement in profitable industries like construction and software development. However, as you see here, it incentivizes a system which companies have to seek out a native American tribe, deposes 51% owners in order to obtain a sufficient amount of government contracts, surrendering 51% of the profits to a native American tribe that does 0% of the work, effectively doubling the cost of the contract for the American taxpayer and halving the financial compensation for the person doing the actual labor. Just this past May, in the case of Cusisis versus US, Stamatios Cusisis, an alpha painting and construction company secured Pennsylvania Department of Transportation contracts despite a satisfactory contract performance. They had deceived the government and their compliance with the disadvantaged business enterprise and were therefore convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy for fraudulent inducement. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by justice Amy Coney Barrett, clarified that the wire fraud statute focuses on a scheme to obtain money or property through deception.
Justice Sotomayor's concurrence likened it to a fan deceived into buying Mets tickets when promised Yankees tickets, emphasizing deception over loss. As unsettling as all this sounds, there's actually another layer. According to usaspending.gov, ATI has exponentially grown their profits over the last six years from about $2,000,000 in 2019 to 100,000,000 this year. According to the SBA or Small Business Administration regulations, if an eight a company exceeds a personal net worth of 850,000, an adjusted gross income of 400,000 or assets totaling 6,500,000.0, then the SBA no longer considers it a small business. Blaine explained that that's when Crutchfield found a new, quote, small business and starts the process all over again.
Speaker 1: Furman has just been very smart on my he never exceeds the small business threshold. Right? So once he gets gets closer to the threshold, he starts another company.
Speaker 6: They give you so many years to make so much money to do so good. And then once you get to that point, they stop. Then you just have to develop another corporation to get that one going. Right? So you kinda always before one end, you start another one to get keep on going.
So you just change the name, start a new company, and then you're back into the system.
Speaker 3: We met up with Malayne a second and third time, and eventually revealed that we were undercover journalists doing a story on the potential corruption throughout ATI's operations. So we have some news for you here. Okay? We're actually investigative reporters. My name is James O'Keefe.
I'm an invest
Speaker 1: I don't wanna be
Speaker 3: I'm an investigative reporter, and you you're on about Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. We can Yeah. Can but but just asking.
Speaker 3: And it's important to note that Melaine Cromwell, director of contracts, repeatedly stated that everything we secretly recorded her saying was just her opinion. She reiterated that many times after I took off my wig and identified myself as an investigative reporter. We'll be releasing that interaction with Malayne along with part two of this story featuring another employee at ATI later this week. Stay tuned for that.
Speaker 0: And here's to here's to pass throughs.
Speaker 2: There you go. How about that? Exactly. Exactly. In
Speaker 3: Vino in Vino Veritas. I'm calling you like a Jim Keith party. Oh my gosh. I can't believe that. I can't believe that.
This is this is unbelievable. She said 20%. They only do 20% of
Speaker 1: the I heard that part. I was like, boom. Got it.
Speaker 3: She said, don't tell anybody. Yeah. Yes. They come only on paper. She said, only on paper.
Speaker 1: Only on amazing.
Speaker 3: Only on She said pass throughs Yes. Except but we don't want that to leave this. She says loopholes, pass throughs, we only do 20% of the work. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think this is unbelievable.
Speaker 3: This is unbelievable.
Speaker 6: We got the story, man.
Speaker 3: I'm very proud of my team. This story took us about six months to do, and I hear your comments that nothing ever happened to these people, that nothing will come of this, nobody will be arrested. I hear you loud and clear, and let me say that I am on your side, but this is kind of unprecedented here. This is a lot of bureaucracy. These fact patterns about eight As and super eight As and government subcontractors and 51% rules, it gets complicated real fast and people lose interest real fast.
But what isn't complicated is this individual encouraging people to stay quiet about breaking the law, saying she does not want the public to know that they're taking advantage of you and fleecing the taxpayer. So we have now done our job. We have caught people on tape with indisputable, incontrovertible, videotaped evidence of fraud and corruption within the federal government, the sort of stuff that Doge talks about. And if this reporting, if this truth, if this videotape doesn't actually lead to our Department of Justice arresting people or holding anybody to account, then it's gotten to the point where we now have to investigate the Department of Justice itself. So we're calling on the people inside the Department of Justice to do the right thing.
We actually have confidence and optimism that this report will actually lead to the results and the accountability that all of you so desperately seek. And stay tuned for part two because we are just getting started. If you've enjoyed this type of reporting, one of a kind, fearless, impartial, independent, nonprofit journalism which doesn't favor a commercial imperative over the pursuit of truth that takes six months to do, and an army of investigators, fact checkers, researchers, costume designers, attorneys. Well, if you support this and you want to continue to support this, please consider a donation to Citizen Journalism Foundation, Citizen Journalism Foundation, okeifmediagroup.com slash donate, where you'll find tax deductible giving instructions to our five one c three, and we look forward to seeing with the Citizen Journalism Awards November 13 at Mar A Lago. Tickets available at citizenjournalistgala.com.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Prince Andrew renounced his Royal titles after O'Keefe Media Group's exposé on adviser John Bryan, who allegedly said "he was f*cking underage girls." This marks the Royal Palace's first response since our investigation—huge progress for undercover journalism and citizen journalists.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
O'KEEFE MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY: Prince Andrew strips himself of Royal Family titles after O'Keefe Media Group exposé on Prince Andrew advisor John Bryan. Bryan is quoted as saying, "He [Prince Andrew] was f*cking underage girls." This marks the first response from the Royal Palace & Prince Andrew since our investigative report. Huge progress for our undercover journalism and the pressure citizen journalists put on the British Royal Family! @OKeefeMedia
reSee.it AI Summary
I reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with President Trump's approval, has fired Foreign Service Officer Daniel Choi for concealing a secret relationship with a Chinese Communist Party affiliate. This dismissal is historic, being the first of its kind, and enforces Executive Order 14211 under the President's Article II authority. Choi admitted to hiding his relationship during an OMG hidden camera investigation.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
BREAKING: Secretary of State Marco Rubio - with President Trump’s approval - FIRES Foreign Service Officer Caught Concealing a Secret Relationship with a CCP Affiliate. The State Department confirms this marks the first time in history such a dismissal has occurred - a direct enforcement of Executive Order 14211 under the President’s Article II authority. U.S. State Department Foreign Service Officer Daniel Choi admitted, on OMG hidden camera, to hiding his relationship with the daughter of a senior Chinese Communist Party official. @SecRubio @StateDept @WhiteHouse @OKeefeMedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Huge breaking news within the state department. Secretary Marco Rubio, with the approval of the president of The United States, Donald Trump, has just fired the foreign service officer, Daniel Choi, who we at OMG caught on hidden camera revealing his romantic relationship with a CCP affiliate, possible Chinese spy." "today, after presidential review and approval, the secretary of state has terminated a foreign service officer, also known as FSO, who concealed a romantic relationship with a Chinese national with ties to the Chinese Communist Party." "Executive order one four two one one states that all officers or employees charged with implementing the foreign policy of The United States must under article two do so under the direction and authority of the president." "Failure to faithfully implement the president's policy is grounds for professional discipline, including separation."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Huge breaking news within the state department. Secretary Marco Rubio, with the approval of the president of The United States, Donald Trump, has just fired the foreign service officer, Daniel Choi, who we at OMG caught on hidden camera revealing his romantic relationship with a CCP affiliate, possible Chinese spy. I defied my government for love. Now according to a new statement from the State Department, quote, today, after presidential review and approval, the secretary of state has terminated a foreign service officer, also known as FSO, who concealed a romantic relationship with a Chinese national with ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Executive order one four two one one states that all officers or employees charged with implementing the foreign policy of The United States must under article two do so under the direction and authority of the president.
Failure to faithfully implement the president's policy is grounds for professional discipline, including separation. Accordingly, the secretary recommended that the FSO be separated for failing to faithfully implement the president's foreign policy, closed quote. Now a state department spokesperson told OMG that marks the first time in American history such an action has been taken, and they want the American people to know that decisive measures are now being enforced. Choi admitted to knowingly violating diplomatic security protocols by concealing a romantic relationship with Joy Zhao, the daughter of a senior Chinese Communist Party leader apparently. Her dad was, like, either a presidential or a federal minister of education.
Yeah. I think Yeah. But he's, like, straight up Communist Now Choi confessed that he never filed the required disclosure even acknowledging that Zhao, quote, could have been a spy. I don't know. She could have been a spy even.
I don't really know. Now thanks to our undercover journalist and the Trump State Department. Well, he's finally facing that accountability thing that all you guys out there are clamoring for. Stay tuned for more. Coming very soon, O'Keefe Media Group and Citizen Journalism Foundation are gonna be breaking our biggest stories of the year in the nation's capital, exposing corruption at the highest level.
And if they do not arrest the people that we're about to bust, well, then we're probably gonna have to launch investigations into the people responsible for making the arrests.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Truth, Intelligence, and the Price of Dissent - General Michael Flynn | My Price Is My Life https://t.co/B9ZtyJFKsA
reSee.it AI Summary
I just learned that Senator Ed Markey's Special Assistant admitted to using an autopen without his knowledge. The assistant described blaming staff for this as a “Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card,” highlighting how officials often dodge accountability for E-Sign Act violations.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
BREAKING: Senator Ed Markey (MA) Special Assistant Admits Using Autopen Without Markey's Knowledge. Assistant Describes Blaming Staff for Autopen Abuse as a “Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card,” Says Markey and Other Officials Use the Tactic to Dodge E-Sign Act Violations. “‘Oh, I didn’t know about this. My staff did it’… Lie!’” “I mean, it's easy to blame your staff, because nobody knows who they are.” "I've never heard anybody ask, ‘Can I use the AutoPen?’”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Auto pens are described as widely used on Capitol Hill. “I do it because I respect your signature. Mhmm.” Staffers push a button to pass off documents as authentic, not the elected official signing. “They’d be like, oh, I didn’t know. Lock. Get out of jail free card.” The esign Act, signed 06/30/2000, “it is legal for senators to use an auto pen for their signature. However, the esign Act also states that all parties must consent to the use of their signature and must be aware of what they're actually signing.” The gray area: whether staffers used it “without the direction and authorization of the senator.” Senator Ed Markey: “staff uses an auto machine that replicates the senator's signature all the time” for “everything from Veterans Affairs cases to visa issues.” In 2025, “Biden issued 14 executive orders. Every single one was auto pinned.” “staff quietly added violent criminals to the list and then ran them through the AutoPen without telling him.” Hidden Camera shows Markey’s aide bragging “fucked up” while driving, mocking Markey's wife as a Karen, and claiming that white people are afraid of him because he's a black n word. Markey also “takes an aggressive stance against Tesla's autopilot feature.” “This is ironic considering the senator often doesn't even sign his own name without his pen on autopilot.” Tips: o'keefmediagold.com; 0keefemediagold.com or 833324gold. This is James O'Keefe.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Going for a senator. For my senator, we do auto fill.
Speaker 1: Do you have to, like, tell him exactly what's on it?
Speaker 0: I do it because I respect your signature. Mhmm. But nobody else some people don't do, like, ask them. I
Speaker 2: I've never heard anybody ask, can I
Speaker 0: use the auto? I mean, it's easy to blame your staff
Speaker 3: because, like, nobody else would have.
Speaker 4: Even if you did sign it,
Speaker 5: they're like, oh, I didn't know. Lock.
Speaker 6: Get out. Get out of jail free card.
Speaker 0: Like, when I picked them up, when
Speaker 7: I got home yesterday Uh-huh. Dude.
Speaker 8: Recently, former president Joe Biden came under major scrutiny for allegedly entrusting his staff with the use of an auto pen for excessive pardons while in the White House. It's Donald Trump. Who's next? Not Joe Biden. It's an auto pen.
In 2025, Biden issued 14 executive orders. Every single one was auto pinned. Many critics claimed that Biden administration likely slipped many of the pardons without Biden's awareness.
Speaker 0: His staff quietly added violent criminals to the list and then ran them through the AutoPen without telling him.
Speaker 9: For the third time during this house Republican investigation, a member of former president Joe Biden's inner circle has pleaded the fifth.
Speaker 8: While many may assume that AutoPen is simply a click to sign digital signature, it is actually a mechanical device that literally puts pen to paper using real ink flow. It creates the look and feel of the signature done by the person. This dates all the way back to eighteen o three, first used by Thomas Jefferson, and in the modern era, it is becoming much more common practice in Washington DC.
Speaker 10: Autopen is used prolifically on Capitol Hill, and it's a shame. And it really speaks to the deterioration of the legislative branch over time.
Speaker 8: It has also become highly controversial with some claiming that it increases efficiency and allows more documents to be signed faster. The critics claiming that the more automated a signature becomes, the less time you spend reviewing what it is you're signing. And in Washington DC, one unchecked signature can affect millions of Americans. So in DC, it was only fitting for our undercover journalist to meet with one Jordan Jefferson, not Thomas Jefferson, that's Jordan Jefferson, the special assistant to senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who served in the House of Representatives for over forty years and has been in the Senate since 2013. Jefferson boasts that he, quote, does all of Markey's operations.
Speaker 0: I for went
Speaker 1: senator. Yeah. Which senator?
Speaker 0: In Markey in Markey.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Yeah. I think I've heard of him. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So my granddad, like, he hypnotized. Yeah. I do all his operations.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Jordan Jefferson expressed that senator Ed Markey's staff uses an auto machine that replicates the senator's signature all the time. Jefferson states it's not the elected official signing, but staffers pushing a button to pass off documents as authentic.
Speaker 1: So what's up with the whole, like, auto pen stuff like Biden?
Speaker 0: You get a staffer to use your signature. So who was doing
Speaker 1: it for him?
Speaker 0: Like a staffer. Like like for my senator, we do auto pen. Oh, you do? Yeah. All the time.
Speaker 1: Do you do it for him?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh. I'm like, do I have your approval to do this? He's like, yeah.
Speaker 8: Okay. Now according to the esign Act or Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act signed into law on 06/30/2000, it is legal for senators to use an auto pen for their signature. However, the eSign Act also states that all parties must consent to the use of their signature and must be aware of what they're actually signing.
Speaker 10: Where this case will turn on potential criminal, you know, activity is whether the staffers were utilizing the auto pen without the direction and authorization of the senator.
Speaker 8: This is where Jordan Jefferson's claims cross into a very gray area.
Speaker 0: Like Everybody does auto pen. You don't have time to sign everything.
Speaker 1: Do you have to, like Tell him. Tell him exactly what's on it?
Speaker 0: I do it because I respect your signature. Mhmm. But nobody else. I'm saying I'm I'm giving you the quiet part out loud. Yeah.
Some people don't do. Like, ask them.
Speaker 8: Senator Ed Markey relies on the auto pen used by his staff for everything from Veterans Affairs cases to visa issues.
Speaker 1: It's just gotta get that stuff done.
Speaker 0: A visa issue, veteran affair, like, not for an individual case.
Speaker 1: Is that, a company policy?
Speaker 0: A senator is not gonna be, like, yeah. Let me know. So there's no time to, like, make sure you let me know you use my opinion.
Speaker 8: Got it. On Capitol Hill, mistakes don't fall on US senators. They fall on the staff. If the wrong document gets signed, Jefferson says senator Markey has an easy out. Just blame the staff.
Throw the blame on aids the public has never heard of.
Speaker 1: Are you guys allowed to use
Speaker 7: it? Yeah. You can go up to it.
Speaker 0: Signature is really, like
Speaker 1: Not that big a deal? Do you guys have to get approval to use that every time from him?
Speaker 2: I I've never heard anybody ask, can I use the auto?
Speaker 1: Do they just try and keep it a secret?
Speaker 0: Well, no. It's just out. It's out there. They'd be like, oh, I didn't know about this.
Speaker 5: My staff didn't. But, yeah, oh, I didn't know about this.
Speaker 0: I mean, it's easy to blame your staff
Speaker 3: because, like, nobody else would be out.
Speaker 0: And then the staff is like, this
Speaker 6: is easy. Get out. Get out of the jail free card.
Speaker 4: Even if you did sign
Speaker 5: it, they're like, oh, I didn't know. Step down. Lie.
Speaker 8: Lie. Lie. Senator Ed Markey's own special assistant bragged on Hidden Camera about being, quote, fucked up, unquote, while driving the senator home, mocked Markey's wife as a Karen, and even claimed that white people are afraid of him because he's a black n word.
Speaker 0: I feel like he had
Speaker 7: a brunch or something.
Speaker 0: I was torn. Like, when I picked him up,
Speaker 7: when I dropped my mom at home yesterday Uh-huh. Dude.
Speaker 0: He didn't know though. He was playing like James Brown in the fucking back seat. I was like, bro.
Speaker 1: Is that ever like mean?
Speaker 0: Other people not
Speaker 1: mean. Not you. Me? Yeah. There you go.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Not telling me like that. I'm black. Even white people scared of black people. It's like, when his wife is she's kinda I'm a tell you this person.
Hold on. She's kinda like Karen. Karen's scared of black people. No way.
Speaker 1: I'm a I'm a nigga. Okay.
Speaker 0: I'm a black Karen. Okay.
Speaker 8: I can do this. While looking into senator Ed Markey, we also found he takes an aggressive stance against Tesla's autopilot feature. This is ironic considering the senator often doesn't even sign his own name without his pen on autopilot. Markey claims Tesla's autopilot is making the roads more dangerous. That's also ironic considering the senator appears to have his assistant drive him around while under the influence according to Ed Markey's assistant who says he was, quote, fucked up, implying that he was drunk or high.
We're not sure which. And he says his boss, the US senator, didn't even know. If you're on the inside of the government and you see corruption, please email us tips at o'keefe media group dot com or text (914) 491-9395, and one of our journalists will get back to you. Stay tuned for next week. This is James O'Keefe.
You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination.
It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account.
That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 833324gold.
Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 8333 24Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
“When I Picked (Ed Markey) Up, When I Dropped him Off At Home Yesterday, I Was F*cked Up.” Ed Markey’s Staffer Jordan Jefferson Admits on Hidden Camera to Driving the Senator Around While Under the Influence Without his Knowledge. “He Didn't Know Though.” @SenMarkey @EdMarkey @PlanetJordanTv
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hidden Camera footage shows Ed Markey's special assistant bragging, 'fucked up,' while driving the senator home, and mocking Markey's wife as a Karen. He claimed that white people are afraid of him because he's a black n word, saying, 'Dude.' He added, 'I feel like he had a brunch or something. I was torn.' 'He didn't know though. I'm black. Even white people scared of black people.' He further stated, 'Karen's scared of black. No way. I'm a I'm a nigga. Okay. I'm a black Karen. Okay. I can do this.' The probe notes Markey's aggressive stance against Tesla autopilot—'the senator often doesn't even sign his own name without his autopilot'—and that 'Markey claims Tesla's autopilot is making the roads more dangerous.' The assistant alleges the senator was 'fucked up' while driven, and that his boss 'didn't even know.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Senator Ed Markey's own special assistant bragged on Hidden Camera about being, quote, fucked up, unquote, while driving the senator home, mocked Markey's wife as a Karen, and even claimed that white people are afraid of him because he's a black n word. I feel like he had a brunch or something. I was torn. Like, when I picked him up, when I dropped him off at home yesterday Uh-huh. Dude.
He didn't know though. I'm black. Even white people scared of black people. It's like, when his wife is she's kinda I'm a tell you this first. She's kinda like Karen.
Karen's scared of black. No way. I'm a I'm a nigga. Okay. I'm a black Karen.
Okay. I can do this. While looking into senator Ed Markey, we also found he takes an aggressive stance against Tesla's autopilot feature. This is ironic considering the senator often doesn't even sign his own name without his autopilot. Markey claims Tesla's autopilot is making the roads more dangerous.
That's also ironic considering the senator appears to have his assistant drive him around while under the influence according to Ed Markey's assistant who says he was, quote, fucked up, implying that he was drunk or high. We're not sure which. And he says his boss, the US senator, didn't even know.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared my thoughts on the DOJ Epstein investigator's shocking revelations and the agency's attempts to cover it up. Glenn Prager carries the weight of the truth, and my focus is on promoting transparency and accountability in society. I also disclosed Charlie Kirk’s last words to me.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
My comment on the DOJ Epstein investigator’s shocking revelations & the DOJ’s multiple attempts to cover it all up in the last 24 hours. Glenn Prager lives with the guilt of knowing the truth but it isn’t about him. This is not a political mission and I am not a political person, it is my mission to clean up society with transparency, accountability and the truth. I also reveal Charlie Kirk’s last words to me.
Video Transcript AI Summary
- and say that she forgives the assassin who killed her husband, Charlie Kirk.
- The people standing next to me also wept.
- the only solution is exposure, journalism, sunlight as the best disinfectant.
- Please note, this isn't about him or Glenn Prager.
- There are many more out there like Glenn Prager.
- Be a hero and do the right thing.
- But these reports are going to continue coming out and they will not be partisan or political.
- They're gonna cut across the political divide because this is not a political mission, and I am not a political person.
- It is my mission to clean up society through transparency, accountability, and the truth.
- Charlie Kirk's last words to me were, James, you should be a journalist first.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On the heels of releasing this story, I wanted to emphasize just how touching it was for me to see Erika Kirk stand on stage in front of those 74,000 people in a stadium and say that she forgives the assassin who killed her husband, Charlie Kirk. I actually took this photo standing right in front of her when she did that and I wept. The people standing next to me also wept. In the couple days that followed since that Sunday, it dawned upon me that equally as important as forgiving those who trespass against us is for those of us, the living, to achieve justice and accountability for the bad actors behind the scenes corrupting this country. We must have a department of justice that is actually about justice.
If we do not have any accountability for bad actors, good people, even God fearing people, are going to resort not to forgiveness but vengeance. We cannot allow that to happen and the only solution is exposure, journalism, sunlight as the best disinfectant. When the leadership in our government is not forthcoming and transparent about matters they should be, you will see men on the front lines, men on the inside like this Glenn Prager guy who are familiar with the files, familiar with Epstein, familiar with who's on the airplanes. Indeed, he's the guy who actually interviewed all the victims in Palm Beach. Well, you'll see people like this be forthcoming and honest when their leadership isn't.
I recognize Prager's life has now changed forever. You might be tempted to focus on that and focus on him personally. We have no doubt that no matter how much proof is provided by me, the powers that be will deny, deflect, personalize, and cover all of this up. You may wonder how it is these guys in our government so brazenly open up to total strangers in airports about national security secrets. Please note, this isn't about him or Glenn Prager.
It's about opening the floodgates of honesty from other men who are just like Glenn Prager, but who never wanted to be involved, were just following orders. Prager lived with these secrets and the whore of what he knows lives on his conscience. The weight on his shoulders, he lives with a guilt for knowing the truth. That is why he was so forthcoming in public in the airport. That is why others with national security secrets will continue to be so forthcoming to our army of citizen exposures.
And there are many more out there like Glenn Prager. And now, right now, you who are watching must come forward and tell the truth and be transparent. Be a hero and do the right thing. In the last few weeks, I've reached out to top officials of the Department of Justice repeatedly ahead of these reports. Our attorneys even sent a letter to the FBI director Cash Patel.
There seems to be more of an interest, generally speaking, in covering their ass instead of telling the truth. While we expect that of the previous administrations, we expect better of the Trump administration and those who campaigned on the promise of transparency. Now, I was advised that reaching out far ahead of time would lead to this story being suppressed, Something that my team, and I dare say all of the people who actually voted for this administration, can't comprehend. But these reports are going to continue coming out and they will not be partisan or political. They're gonna cut across the political divide because this is not a political mission, and I am not a political person.
It is my mission to clean up society through transparency, accountability, and the truth. I wrote last week the legacy of Charlie Kirk is to do the right thing for the right reasons. And reflecting on his legacy, I saw a remarkable change within him in the last couple years, but especially the last couple months of observing him from afar and also knowing him personally. I reached out to Charlie to solicit his advice ahead of this story. I was expecting Charlie Kirk to express the same reluctance as the top DOJ officials relayed to me.
The same officials that Charlie no doubt in some part or in some way matter shape or form helped to get their jobs in the first place. I told Charlie I was conflicted about what to do and Charlie Kirk's last words to me were, James, you should be a journalist first.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Read the full story here: https://okeefemediagroup.com/doj-investigator-epstein-cia-clinton-trump/
DOJ Epstein Investigator: 'Epstein Was a CIA Asset' — Says Trump Never Present During Assaults but Protecting Others; Clinton Present “While Rapes Occurred” - O'Keefe Media Group
Leaked audio: DOJ investigator Glenn Prager says Epstein was a CIA asset, Clinton was present during rapes, and Trump is protecting others—not himself.
okeefemediagroup.com
reSee.it AI Summary
The DOJ's statement about Glenn Prager raises more questions than it clarifies. They claim he hasn't worked there in 15 years while accusing him of fabricating stories for personal gain. This raises the question of what benefit he could be getting. The emphasis on the 15-year gap is particularly striking, as it coincides with the timing of the alleged events. This issue transcends political divides; it’s fundamentally about transparency and accountability. The public deserves clear answers.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
The DOJ's Statement Raises More Questions Than It Answers When the Department of Justice says Glenn Prager hasn’t worked there in 15 years — but also accuses him of “fabricating stories for personal benefit” it feels like a tell. What “personal benefit” is he getting? Why emphasize the 15-year gap — when that’s exactly when the alleged events occurred? This isn’t about left vs. right. It’s about transparency and accountability. The public deserves answers. Watch the full breakdown.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We get this text message from Glenn Prager to my phone personally, and then we get a statement from the Department of Justice. This individual worked at the Department of Justice as a program analyst over fifteen years ago. He has no understanding of our access to the underlying facts of this investigation. His statement should not be considered accurate. It is disgusting that someone would further exploit victims of sexual abuse by fabricating stories for their personal benefit. The DOJ's reaction is super revealing here because it actually almost validates his claims, particularly when they say fabricating stories for their benefit. "Personal benefit? How does Prager stand to benefit?" "How does Glenn Prager stand to benefit?" "We've come to learn that this man actually was a W two employee, or officially employed by the Department of Justice in 02/2009, and has been a contractor. That's how they cover tracks."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We get this text message from Glenn Prager to my phone personally, and then we get a statement from the Department of Justice. Let's look at the statement, please. This individual worked at the Department of Justice as a program analyst over fifteen years ago. He has no understanding of our access to the underlying facts of this investigation. His statement should not be considered accurate.
It is disgusting that someone would further exploit victims of sexual abuse by fabricating stories for their personal benefit. The DOJ's reaction is super revealing here because it actually almost validates his claims, particularly when they say fabricating stories for their benefit. Personal benefit? How does Prager stand to benefit? It's like the Pfizer guy who said, I'm just trying to impress my gay date by lying about mutating vaccines because nothing makes a guy hornier than hearing about people talking about fabricating and stories about children on Palm Beach Island and mutating vaccines to make money about COVID.
How does Glenn Prager stand to benefit? Now this has been about fifteen years ago, well, yeah, that's when that's when the things actually occurred. It makes him more credible that he did this stuff fifteen years ago, or 02/2009. We've come to learn that this man actually was a W two employee, or officially employed by the Department of Justice in 02/2009, and has been a contractor. That's how they cover tracks.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a shocking revelation from a senior DOJ investigator who claims Epstein was linked to the CIA and that r-pes occurred involving Bill Clinton, but not Trump. The investigator suggested that Epstein was protected due to his connections with the U.S. and Israel. In response, another DOJ investigator clarified that their previous comments were misrepresented during a casual interaction and emphasized that those remarks do not reflect their professional views or work. They requested to stop the harassment and noted that any related stories are misleading.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
WORLD EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL: Senior DOJ Epstein Investigator Reveals ‘Epstein Was CIA’ — Confirms ‘R-pes Occurred While Bill Clinton Was on the Plane’ — Says of President Trump, "He’s Protecting a Lot of Other People… He’s Not Protecting Himself, Because There’s Nothing There" "I’ve interviewed all the victims, There's never been an instance where Trump was on a plane with these kids and the r-pes occurred. But that can't be said for Clinton. And it can't be said for others." “They [DOJ] didn't want to go after him [Epstein] because he's an asset for the United States and Israel” "It's not talked about yet but, it's soon to come out that he [Epstein] was a CIA informant." @TheJusticeDept @AGPamBondi
Video Transcript AI Summary
Glenn Prager, a Department of Justice investigator who worked on the Epstein case, says 'the DOJ did not want to go after Epstein because he's a CIA asset' and that 'Epstein worked for the CIA and is a foreign asset.' He states that 'evidence from his investigation confirms that Bill Clinton was present for alleged rapes on the Lolita Express' and that 'Trump was not present for the rapes that Glenn Prager investigated, but that he is protecting a lot of other people that were.' He notes 'there were rapes that occurred' and 'the Clintons were on the plane' while 'Epstein would just pay them off, ... anywhere from a 150 to $500,000.' He adds, 'they killed the Epstein list to protect the Clintons.' The report also mentions 'On his backpack in the airport, we spotted an embroidered FBI patch.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's not talked about yet, but it soon come out Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: That he was a CIA.
Speaker 2: He was a CIA.
Speaker 3: He wasn't a CIA.
Speaker 0: I think he's protecting a lot of other people. It's not he's not protecting himself because there's nothing there, but he's protecting a lot of people. Because Trump's now saying it's a hoax of the case, like, a hoax or something. Mean, I know it's not a hoax.
Speaker 4: He's been on the plane,
Speaker 0: you know, many times. It's just he was never on the plane with kids. I've seen the itineraries, and and I've interviewed all the victims. There's never been an
Speaker 5: instance where Trump was on a
Speaker 0: plane with these kids Mhmm. And a rape occurred. But that can't
Speaker 6: be said for Clinton, and it can't
Speaker 0: be said for others. While the Clintons were on the plane while
Speaker 7: the Trump Clinton was on the plane, there
Speaker 0: were rapes that occurred.
Speaker 8: Overheard at Phoenix Airport on 09/08/2025, a senior justice department investigator who personally worked on the Epstein case tells all. Glenn Prager, who has reviewed Epstein itineraries and has interviewed Epstein's victims, drops a bombshell. He says that the DOJ did not want to go after Epstein because he's a CIA asset, that the evidence from his investigation confirms that Bill Clinton was present for alleged rapes on the Lolita Express and that president Trump was not present for the rapes that Glenn Prager investigated, but that he is protecting a lot of other people that were.
Speaker 2: How about this whole, this whole Epstein thing that's like
Speaker 0: I worked on that case. I used to interview all the victims. And then my picture was 20 to 30 victims
Speaker 6: Uh-huh. You know,
Speaker 0: in Palm Beach that I was interviewing and dealing with and stuff like that. And then we would go would flip. Epstein would just pay them off, and they were just, like, kids. They would pay off their fam. They're all broke kids and poor families and all.
So you pay them off, like, like, anywhere from a 150 to $500,000, nothing in that guy's fault.
Speaker 8: Prager there describes how the victims that he interviewed were paid off by Epstein right before going to trial. Prager has worked as an investigator inside the Department of Justice for over twenty years. According to Prager's LinkedIn about page, it says that during the tenure at DOJ, Prager served as an inspector overseeing sensitive investigations involving major DOJ components, including the FBI, DEA, Bureau of Prisons, US Marshals Service, ATF, and the US Attorney's Offices. This seems to corroborate what Prager told us. He was tasked with interviewing Epstein's rape victims and investigating flight logs.
On his backpack in the airport, we spotted an embroidered FBI patch, which caught the attention of our citizen journalist.
Speaker 0: I'll tell you this because no no it's not talked about yet, but it soon come
Speaker 6: out Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: That he was a CIA.
Speaker 2: He was a CIA.
Speaker 3: He wasn't a CIA.
Speaker 8: Although many have suspected it to be the case, this is the first time a Department of Justice official has confirmed that Epstein worked for the CIA and is a foreign asset.
Speaker 0: So DOJ was settling the case and they were just letting him, you know, do arrest and do they minimize his arrest. Part of that is because all the victims kept on flipping, and they didn't have anyone to go to trial with. More importantly, part is they didn't wanna go after him. He's a, you know, he was a asset for United States and Israel for the CIA. I just know that's that's what he was.
And that's why he was prepared for so long for this. And people turn a blind eye about all this garbage that he's doing in The United States. Mhmm.
Speaker 6: He'd get
Speaker 0: a lot of secrets. You know, with you know, more about Israeli stuff than anything else. I mean, he was doing stuff for Israel and The United States. He was, you know, he's working for both.
Speaker 8: Glenn Prager, the Department of Justice investigator on the Epstein case, then talks about whether president Trump was involved. Many are trying to tie Trump to Epstein, but what Glenn Prager says is that Trump wasn't present during the inappropriate sexual behavior that he was investigating. But Prager does say that Bill Clinton was. Backed up by his experience interviewing the victims and reviewing the Epstein Lolita Express itineraries, quote, they killed the Epstein list to protect the Clintons.
Speaker 0: They they claim that, you know, that Trump's, you know, involved in the rapes and all that stuff, and he he wasn't. I mean, I've seen the agendas. I've I've seen the itineraries, and I've interviewed all of the victims. There's never been
Speaker 5: an instance where Trump was on
Speaker 0: a plane with these kids Mhmm. And the rape occurred. But that can't
Speaker 6: be said for Clinton, and it can't
Speaker 0: be said for others. I remember that it was being killed because I know Clinton's were on there.
Speaker 2: The Clinton's were on there?
Speaker 0: A 100%. And while the Clintons were on
Speaker 7: the plane while the Clintons on the plane,
Speaker 0: there were briefs that occurred. And that's what I'm saying. Although as many flights as there were and all that kind of stuff and are on the island and all stuff, there's he was never there during a single alleged raid. But Clinton, for sure, and that's where the big cover was.
Speaker 8: The Department of Justice investigator inside the Trump Justice Department says that while Trump may not have been present during the crimes that Prager investigated, it is clear that Trump is, quote, protecting a lot of people.
Speaker 0: I don't know what's new that I have never seen that that he's, so hesitant to now show what's going on, you know, and releasing all his files. Think he's protecting a lot of other people. It's not he's not protecting himself because there's nothing there, but he's protecting a lot of people.
Speaker 8: The citizen journalist boarded American Airlines flight sixteen thirty four and landed in DC Monday at 08:00 at night and proceeded to go to dinner with this man, this DOJ investigator at a restaurant called Blue Duck Tavern. Glenn Prager dislikes the fact Trump said the Epstein scandal is a hoax, but he also says, according to the evidence from his investigation, that Trump is not covering up for himself.
Speaker 0: Because Trump's now saying it's a hoax. It's a the case is like a hoax or something. Mean, you know it's not a hoax. He does a lot of says lots of good stuff.
Speaker 4: He's been on the plane,
Speaker 0: you know, many times. It's just he was never on the plane with kids. People wanna tie it to him and say he's covering up for himself, but he's not.
Speaker 8: Now, is a very good thing for president Trump and seemingly exonerates him for many people who claim that he was doing something inappropriate himself. This dinner went on for an hour and forty five minutes as this Department of Justice investigator revealed things to a stranger that the leadership of the FBI and the Department of Justice has not. Prager revealed more information about Trump's hesitation to be fully transparent with the Epstein case, gave us some details about internal gripes against FBI director Cash Patel from within the FBI, and he detailed a developing feud between Cash Patel and attorney general Pam Bondi. If you'd like to see more of that conversation in the restaurant, you may subscribe to OMG and find it on our website.
Speaker 2: Who is like the one name where you're like, oh my god.
Speaker 8: Here he is. Hey there. Is this Glenn? You're you work for the Department of Justice. Correct?
No. You you don't work for the Department of Justice? You had a patch in your backpack that said FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation in the airport? Yeah. And you you talked about how you interviewed the Epstein people, all the Epstein victims.
Do you recall that conversation?
Speaker 0: I didn't no. I don't know. How can I help you?
Speaker 8: I wanted to confirm that you, in fact, do work for did work for the department. Hang on to the phone. Let's try calling him again.
Speaker 0: Glenn? I'm not talking
Speaker 1: to you.
Speaker 0: Well, if I don't know who you are, I'm not talking to
Speaker 8: You you you already did speak to my my friend.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now stop off. I don't know who you are.
Speaker 8: I'm I'm a I'm a journalist. I need your I need your help,
Speaker 0: I'm not talking to you or any journalist about anything.
Speaker 8: You need to interview the Epstein victims.
Speaker 0: I'm not here. I can't talk to you.
Speaker 8: On the heels of releasing this story, I wanted to emphasize just how touching it was for me to see Erika Kirk stand on stage in front of those 74,000 people in a stadium and say that she forgives the assassin who killed her husband, Charlie Kirk. I actually took this photo standing right in front of her when she did that and I wept. The people standing next to me also wept. In the couple days that followed since that Sunday, it dawned upon me that equally as important as forgiving those who trespass against us is for those of us, the living, to achieve justice and accountability for the bad actors behind the scenes corrupting this country. We must have a department of justice that is actually about justice.
If we do not have any accountability for bad actors, good people, even God fearing people, are going to resort not to forgiveness but vengeance. We cannot allow that to happen, and the only solution is exposure, journalism, sunlight as the best disinfectant. When the leadership in our government is not forthcoming and transparent about matters they should be, you will see men on the front lines, men on the inside like this Glenn Prager guy who are familiar with the files, familiar with Epstein, familiar with who's on the airplanes. Indeed, he's the guy who actually interviewed all the victims in Palm Beach. Well, you'll see people like this be forthcoming and honest when their leadership isn't.
I recognize Prager's life has now changed forever. You might be tempted to focus on that and focus on him personally. We have no doubt that no matter how much proof is provided by me, the powers that be will deny, deflect, personalize, and cover all of this up. You may wonder how it is these guys in our government so brazenly open up to total strangers in airports about national security secrets. Please note, this isn't about him or Glenn Prager.
It's about opening the floodgates of honesty from other men who are just like Glenn Prager, but who never wanted to be involved, were just following orders. Prager lived with these secrets and the whore of what he knows lives on his conscience, the weight on his shoulders. He lives with a guilt for knowing the truth. That is why he was so forthcoming in public in the airport. That is why others with national security secrets will continue to be so forthcoming to our army of citizen exposures.
And there are many more out there like Glenn Prager. And now, right now, you who are watching must come forward and tell the truth and be transparent. Be a hero and do the right thing. In the last few weeks, I've reached out to top officials of the Department of Justice repeatedly ahead of these reports. Our attorneys even sent a letter to the FBI director Cash Patel.
There seems to be more of an interest, generally speaking, in covering their ass instead of telling the truth. While we expect that of the previous administrations, we expect better of the Trump administration and those who campaigned on the promise of transparency. Now, I was advised that reaching out far ahead of time would lead to this story being suppressed, something that my team and I dare say all of the people who actually voted for this administration can't comprehend. But these reports are going to continue coming out and they will not be partisan or political. They're gonna cut across the political divide because this is not a political mission and I am not a political person.
It is my mission to clean up society through transparency, accountability, and the truth. I wrote last week the legacy of Charlie Kirk is to do the right thing for the right reasons. And reflecting on his legacy, I saw a remarkable change within him in the last couple years, but especially the last couple months of observing him from afar and also knowing him personally. I reached out to Charlie to solicit his advice ahead of this story. I was expecting Charlie Kirk to express the same reluctance as the top DOJ officials relayed to me.
The same officials that Charlie no doubt in some part or in some way matter shape or form helped to get their jobs in the first place. I told Charlie I was conflicted about what to do and Charlie Kirk's last words to me were, James, you should be a journalist first. This kind of journalism is dangerous, legally taxing, and certainly not profitable. If we are continue to uncover these dark truths, we need your help now. Please donate to our five zero one c three nonprofit Citizen Journalism Foundation to continue funding these types of investigative reports.
The nonprofit again is called Citizen Journalism Foundation. The donations are fully tax deductible, and information can be found at okeithmediagroup.com/donate.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
DOJ Investigator Prager reached out offering a response to our report: “I was approached in what I believed was a casual, non-professional context, and I later learned the individual was misrepresenting themselves. Thinking it was simply personal banter, I responded in kind. Any remarks from that exchange should not be interpreted as accurate statements or reflective of my actual work, conduct, or opinions. I want to ensure there is no confusion caused by that misleading interaction. Please stop calling and texting. It’s approaching harassment. Printing any story related to my opinion is misleading and/ or is completely inaccurate. To make it perfectly clear I was not involved in anyway and any opinions are based on public information.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
JUST IN: “University has been made aware and has launched an investigation”
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Norwegian foreign journalist asks O’Keefe leading questions about the Charlie Kirk assassination during the AZ memorial for Charlie. When asked by O’Keefe if she believes in God or the Devil the journalist says “No”. https://t.co/n9JnGlE7dD
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Exists at all? I believe in that. But what were you pointing at? When you said there's gonna be more evil for the baby company. Well, like, thanks." "The the guy who did this did an evil thing. Yeah. Evil." "I think we're gonna see evil become more pronounced, but you're gonna Hopefully, hopefully, all of this inspires you, what you're seeing here today because this is going to be there is gonna be more Christian discussion in this place than in, I think, than any other or any any other public spectacle. It's like a cymbal." "So I hope you I hope reality. There's not multiple truths. So I don't really agree with this whole divisive premise. You just gotta find the truth and report it."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Exists at all? I believe in that. But what were you pointing at? When you said there's gonna be more evil for the baby company. Well, like, thanks.
Speaker 1: The the guy who did this did an evil thing. Yeah. Evil. I think we're gonna see evil become more pronounced, but you're gonna Hopefully, hopefully, all of this inspires you, what you're seeing here today because this is going to be there is gonna be more Christian discussion in this place than in, I think, than any other or any any other event, any other public spectacle. It's like a cymbal.
So I hope you I hope reality. There's not multiple truths. So I don't really agree with this whole divisive premise. You just gotta find the truth and report it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a recording of a University of Tampa professor expressing strong disdain for Americans who pray for President Trump. The professor dismissed the idea, saying, "Get the F* Out of Here, People!" and criticized Trump supporters, even rejecting their pastors. They also commented on the Republican party's choice of Trump as a representative, referring to him in a derogatory manner. This incident highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding political beliefs in academic settings.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
CLASSROOM LEAKED AUDIO: University of Tampa Professor Caught on Tape Slamming Americans Who Pray For President Trump as @OKeefeMedia Actively Begins Recruiting Students to Record Inside Classrooms "There Are Some People That Have Apparently Decided That Trump Is Worth Praying For… Get the F* Out of Here, People!” “Even if their [Trump Supporter’s] pastor on Sunday. They're like, eh, no, sorry, f*ck you. Sorry, father, f*ck you, Trump!” “The Republican party in this country has decided that their standard bearer to represent their views and everyone that's affiliated with that party is someone with a f*cking mugshot.” @UofTampa
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are some people that have apparently decided that Trump is worth praying for. We've established over the last eight years that Trump is a liar. This is a poll that was conducted in August. Religious leaders, 42% of people trust what religious leaders are telling. Their friends and family, 63%. But apparently, among Trump voters, they believe what Trump is telling them 71%. If anything that we've established over the last eight years is that Trump is a life. What is your price? Is it 10,000,000? Is it 20,000,000? We are going to be doing a training at the Dream City Church in Phoenix, Arizona. Monday, the twenty second, the day after the funeral. The truth will set you free. The truth shall set you free.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There are some people that have apparently decided that Trump is worth praying for. Get the out of here, people. This is wild times. The Republican Party in this country has decided that their standard there to represent their views is someone function. We've established over the last eight years that Trump is a liar.
I'm not quite sure why we would think the Lord Jesus Christ for any politician, but there are some people that have that have apparently decided that that Trump is worth praying for, thanking God for Trump's existence. This is a poll that was conducted in August. Religious leaders, 42% of people trust what religious leaders are telling. Their friends and family, 63%. But apparently, among Trump voters, they believe what Trump is telling them 71%.
So your family and friends, not really sure, but Trump, he's definitely telling the truth. Get the out of here, people. This is wild times. If anything that we've established over the last eight years is that Trump is a life. The dude just constantly lies.
I mean, that is every personality cult history. Because that means whatever he tells people, people are gonna believe. Even if their friends and family are like, that's not true. Don't believe him. They're like, sorry.
Right? Even if, like, their pastor on Sunday. Right? And then they're like, no. Sorry.
You. Sorry, father. You, Trump. The Republican party in this country has decided that they're standard there to represent their views, and everyone that's affiliated with that party is someone with a. And when we tell people that when our presidents lose elections, that it's permissible for them to try to overthrow the government so they can stay in charge and there are no consequences for them, then that sends a message.
You know, it's all about making money, isn't it?
Speaker 1: What is your price?
Speaker 0: But you are invited to our training on Monday.
Speaker 1: Is it 10,000,000?
Speaker 0: We are going to be doing a training at the Dream City Church in Phoenix, Arizona.
Speaker 1: Is it 20,000,000?
Speaker 0: Monday, the twenty second, the day after the funeral. That's Christianity. Absolutely. The truth will set you free. That's right.
The truth shall set you free.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Today it was brought up in congress that EVERY WORD of the probable cause on the search warrant to raid my home was redacted.. The current DOJ should do the right thing. When you break the law and raid journalists homes, you must be transparent. Not redact every word.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
San Diego, Sept. 2023 — Turning Point Faith conference. In front of 1,200 pastors at the 2023 TPUSA Faith Conference, Charlie Kirk invited me on stage to receive prayer from pastor Rob McCoy. This was unplanned. It was one of the most touching moments of my life. https://t.co/WlwikeoX6Z
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is a truth teller. He has exposed every major demonic power center in the country. Pfizer, he's DHS, you name it. It's James O'Keefe. And I want us to pray for James O'Keefe. Mark chapter nine, a man with a demon possessed child. if you believe, you can do all things. And he said to the Lord, Lord, help my unbelief. God's gonna resolve that true that too. God who began a good work is faithful to complete it. You are the way, the truth, and the life. the power of truth living inside us to accomplish great and mighty things we know not of. you're not done with him yet. So do that for our brother right now, we pray, in the mighty name of Jesus Amen. Who is the truth. Amen.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a truth teller. He has exposed every major demonic power center in the country. Pfizer, he's DHS, you name it. It's James O'Keefe. Many of you know him.
And I want I want us to pray for James O'Keefe
Speaker 1: Cool.
Speaker 0: And show him some encouragement. Come on up here. Give us give some support for James O'Keefe.
Speaker 1: Amen. I just told James he's among folks who love him. Amen? Yeah. Would you all stand as we come into the presence of the Lord?
Yes. James, as I was preparing to pray for you, God gave me Mark chapter nine, a man with a demon possessed child. And he would throw himself in the fire, and he just said, Lord, help him. He said he said, if you believe, you can do all things. And he said to the Lord, Lord, help my unbelief.
And I know you're at a place where you're struggling with that. It'll be it'll be resolved. I know you lost in a sense a child because this is a thing you started when you were 25 years old. God's gonna resolve that true that too. And, we're gonna pray for for you and for strength because God who began a good work is faithful to complete it.
Alright. Join with me. Lord, we're so grateful for James. We're we're grateful that he he loves truth. And as he's been rowing in the streams of truth, he's coming to the source, and that's you.
You are the way, the truth, and the life. And, Lord, he understands that this is a spiritual battle because he's seen evil face to face. He has experienced the pains of of demonic spears just being thrust at him and all the the hurt and the lies and the deceit. But, Lord, he also knows that he's he's not a a perfect man, and he recognizes And in in humility and there's humility before honor, but in humility, he comes before a room full of pastors and and their spouses and those who love the lord. And he says, would you pray for me?
Yes. And so, god, we're gonna pray for him. We're gonna ask right now, Lord, that you would do what none of us in this room can do. Would you give him your joy and your peace? Would you bring him to a place where he would come to know the power of the truth, not just being exercised by men and women, but the power of truth living inside us to accomplish great and mighty things we know not of.
Lord, I pray that you would give him an overflowing of your spirit, that you would help his unbelief, and that you would strengthen him for the battle ahead because, Lord, you're not done with him yet. He is stronger now than he's ever been in the simple sense that in in weakness, God's strength is made perfect. And, Lord, you reduce us to a minimum that you might pour in your maximum. So do that for our brother right now, we pray, in the mighty name of Jesus Amen. Who is the truth.
Amen.
reSee.it AI Summary
A FEMA official was recorded laughing about the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, referring to him as “a lunatic” who “kind of deserves it.” The official mentioned that staff were amused by the news and lacked empathy, even admitting to sharing memes related to the attack. This incident raises significant concerns regarding political bias and professionalism within FEMA.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
FEMA SECTION CHIEF: Charlie Kirk "Kind of Deserved It" — O'Keefe Media Records Top Official at Federal Agency Laughing About Assassination of Conservative Commentator An official with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was caught on hidden camera laughing about the murder of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, calling him “a lunatic” who “kind of deserves it,” and saying agency staff were “laughing” at the news and showed “not a ton of empathy.” The official admitted to sharing memes about the attack, raising serious concerns about political bias and professionalism within the nation’s emergency response agency. @fema
Video Transcript AI Summary
Discussion about the Charlie Kirk assassination includes, "he's a lunatic and, like, awful and kinda deserves it in his own way" and, "it's tough not to laugh at this stuff." It is reported that "FEMA has put an official on leave from their department who stated online that Charlie Kirk was a racist, homophobic, misogynist." O'Keefe Media Group says there is "a new expose on another FEMA official and what he says about Charlie Kirk shocks the conscience." On the night of Kirk's death, a journalist met FEMA section chief Sean C. Kelly for dinner in DC; Kelly works in USERA. The section chief "started to indulge immediately about the murder of Kirk" and said into the hidden camera that "Charlie... deserves it in his own way" and it's, "tough not to laugh at this stuff." He allegedly sent pro assassination memes and "anonymously signed" an opposition letter against the Trump administration; the subject was "one of those anonymously listed employees." A buddy "got put on admin leave" for signing an anonymous letter to The New York Times about "the lack of preparedness" and "getting rid of DEI."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Have you spoken to anybody about the the great Charlie Kirk assassination?
Speaker 1: It's also, like, it's tough not to laugh at this stuff.
Speaker 2: You know
Speaker 0: what I mean? Like, he's a lunatic and, like, awful and kinda deserves it in his own way.
Speaker 3: So how does FEMA feel about feel about Charlie
Speaker 0: getting shot? Everybody's kinda laugh. I don't know. It's I mean, the people that are in charge of this place are like dip now.
Speaker 4: Fox News reported that FEMA has put an official on leave from their department who stated online that Charlie Kirk was a racist, homophobic, misogynist. Now O'Keefe Media has a new expose on another FEMA official and what he says about Charlie Kirk shocks the conscience.
Speaker 0: I mean, listen, Charlie Kirk getting shot is crazy. Did you know who that was beforehand? The Charlie Kirk guy
Speaker 2: that did good? Yeah.
Speaker 3: He's a
Speaker 0: a nut. He's awful.
Speaker 4: On the night of Charlie Kirk's death, one of our journalists met with a section chief with Infema named Sean C. Kelly for dinner in DC. Sean Kelly works in USERA. There's a lot of acronyms in the federal government. That's the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act section of FEMA.
We didn't know that existed. In that section, they protect military reserve personnel to make sure they're taken care of during deployment for FEMA. In the first couple minutes of that meeting, the FEMA section chief started to indulge immediately about the murder of Kirk and said into the hidden camera that Charlie, quote, deserves it in his own way. And it's, quote, tough not to laugh at this stuff.
Speaker 0: Have you spoken to anybody about the the great Charlie Kirk assassination?
Speaker 3: No. They're just my friends.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just it's tough not to laugh at this stuff.
Speaker 2: You know
Speaker 0: what I mean? Like, not it's political violence is not fun. Don't get me wrong. But, like, just, like, how fucking, like, what he's a
Speaker 4: about Charlie Kirk, and he stated in his own words, quote, everybody's kind of laughing.
Speaker 3: So how does FEMA feel about feel about Charlie Kirk
Speaker 0: getting shot? Everybody's kinda laugh. I don't know. It's I mean, the people that are in charge of this place are, like, Now I don't know how, like, the actual, like, leadership feels that the rank and file are I don't know. Not concerned.
It was I don't know. It's very strange. I don't know. There's not, a ton of I don't think there's, like, a ton of
Speaker 1: empathy for the guy.
Speaker 4: When the meeting was over, mister Kelly from FEMA didn't stop. He was continuing to send pro assassination memes of Kirk to our journalists on text messages that you can see here. During the ending of this meeting, we also learned the section chief anonymously signed an opposition letter against the Trump administration. You may remember this letter from last month where FEMA employees signed a letter opposing the current admin. In this letter, you see there are named FEMA employees and anonymous FEMA messages.
Our subject happened to be one of those anonymously listed employees.
Speaker 3: So they're trying to get away with FEMA. Is there, like, any way to stop them
Speaker 0: or just From getting rid of FEMA? Yeah. To resist
Speaker 3: to resist,
Speaker 0: like, Trump administration. Yeah. We're trying. I don't know. My buddy actually just got put on admin leave because there was an open letter that I signed, but I did it anonymously that went to, like, The New York Times about the lack of preparedness, getting rid of any sort of, like, all the the normal run of the mill shit about, like, getting rid of DEI, which is not a solution in and of itself, but it's still, like, critical, getting rid of resilience programs.
And he got put on admin leave because he signed it publicly.
Speaker 3: Wait. You send the letter,
Speaker 0: but I signed the letter, but I signed it like anonymous.
Speaker 3: Anonymous. One of
Speaker 0: the yeah.
Speaker 3: Because But he signed it publicly.
Speaker 0: He signed it publicly. Yeah. Hello?
Speaker 2: Hey there. This is Rader, journalist with O'Keefe Media Group. I have you on hidden camera talking about the death of Charlie Kirk. You're saying it's tough not to laugh at this stuff. You're also saying everyone's kind of laughing at FEMA about the murder of Charlie Kirk.
I wanted to get your comment on your quotes.
Speaker 0: I'm unfamiliar with this, but, have a good day.
Speaker 2: Oh, well, video will be coming.
Speaker 4: Our tip lines are open, our signal lines, our DMs are open. We understand this is an extraordinarily difficult time for all of us here at OMG and all of you out there. We are absolutely devastated and heartbroken and we're trying to keep it together and we intend to continue our journalism and I intend to keep being on the front lines of this battle between good and evil. Contact us at SIGNAL at (914) 491-9395. That's (914) 491-9395.
DM us or send us an email tips at o'keefe media group dot com. We are going to expose evil. Stay tuned.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Charlie Kirk is dead because the people who ought to be in prison, roam free. Without accountability we live under the illusion of freedom. More of us need to be on the front lines. Time to fear God, not man. https://t.co/7PXuVOPh29
Video Transcript AI Summary
Charlie Kirk's death is a dark moment for America and a turning point—a call to action. He founded Turning Point USA and was "the greatest man I've ever personally known" and "the least hypocritical man" who "practiced what he preached." I met him in a Chicago diner in 2012; he slept on couches while building the movement, and Rush Limbaugh said, "everywhere I go, I run into Charlie Kirk." He coached me through my darkest days, helped with payroll, and on stage urged pastors to pray for me. "The price for his message was his life." "Justice just isn't there for those who deserve it." Without accountability, we live under the illusion of freedom. "God was using Charlie to wake up this generation," and "A million more Charlie Kirks are gonna be born." The future of this nation will be determined by the choice you make.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Charlie Kirk's death is a dark moment for America per president Trump. It's also a turning point for you and me, a call to action and a time for choosing. But first, let me tell you about my relationship with Charlie. Charlie was the greatest man I've ever personally known. He was a moral, kind, generous, and irreplaceable man.
Charlie was Turning Point USA, the organization he founded. We are sad today because he represented the best of America and what we as men aspire to be. What set him apart was that he was the least hypocritical man I've ever known. He practiced what he preached in his professional and personal life like no other. Now as for what he built, I would often watch him work and utter to myself, he's a force of nature.
He was a modern day William f Buckley junior meets Rush Limbaugh meets community organizer. And it hurts to see him gone from this earth after all that was seemingly planned for him. Many of us know he would have one day been president. As Kierkegaard once said, the most painful state of being is remembering the future, particularly the one that you'll never have. For those of you who have never met Charlie Kirk, this feels like a death in the family.
For those of us who did know him, and thousands of us were his friends, that says a lot about his character by the way, we're heartbroken and grieving with a depth we've never before experienced in our lives. Let me tell you about my relationship with I first met him in a Chicago diner in 2012 when he was 18 and then I was 27. He was persistent in reaching out to me, looking to obtain a meeting to receive guidance and advice on what he set out to build. He spoke confidently at this diner about his plans to build a mass movement of young people. I remember thinking at the time just how ambitious, grandiose, and seemingly improbable all these plans seemed even for this precocious kid, but it was a world changing idea.
But there was also thousands of DMs of people sending these things to me with ideas about how they wanted to change the political landscape on a massive scale. Yet, few people actually had the x factor that Charlie Kirk had. That was actually something that one of my previous board members, Jim Young, said. Many people recognize that in him. And sitting across from me was this teenager with a half eaten sandwich speaking with the quiet conviction of Martin Luther.
Here I stand. I can do no other. I saw him shortly thereafter living on a couch at Lee Hanley's house on Palm Beach Island. Lee was a donor I was soliciting for money on that day. Charlie was running around the country, sleeping on couches, starting this organization out of his parents' place in Chicago.
He was indefatigable, relentless, executing his vision. I vividly recall Rush Limbaugh saying, everywhere I go, I run into Charlie Kirk. He said that at the time while at Mar A Lago. A decade later, Charlie built his mass movement. But the irony was it was now me, ten years his senior, now asking him for advice.
I had to start all over. I was in the rebuilding phase and he was on the phone with me coaching me through my darkest days. I remember pulling over to the side of the road on the highway pacing through the grass next to the overpass as we had profound conversations about the difference between knowledge and wisdom as he tried to help me find God in the face of unimaginable evil and betrayal. And I'll never forget the question he asked me on the phone that day. He said, do you love yourself, James?
He made me be a better person. Then shortly after that, in San Diego in September 2023 at the Turning Point Faith Conference, he summoned me on stage, this was not planned, on stage with pastor Rob McCoy and asked the entire convention center of 1,200 pastors to pray for me. Charlie put his hands on my shoulder and said, I want us to pray for James O'Keefe and show him some encouragement during the difficult time he's going through. But it wasn't just spiritual advice. Charlie prayed as if it depended on God.
He acted as if it depended on him. For example, he helped me make payroll one month that year, 2023, when I was rebuilding the company. That was an act that moved even the nonbelievers on our staff. Many others who knew him have many similar stories like this. I looked up to him and deeply admired him.
He was a role model of what a man ought to be, a better man than we, a model of civility and heroism in an age where those things have been under constant attack. When asked by a podcaster about how he wanted to be remembered, Charlie responded, courage from my faith. Charlie did not point left or right but up. And that's where he is now. And as for now, our country at this pivotal moment in our history is facing a generational equivalent to the assassination of Martin Luther King or John F.
Kennedy. As pastor Signorelli wrote today, the devil overplayed his hand once again, and this will be the impetus for a mass awakening. Charlie's murder has brought out a premonition that we are headed down a very dark path indeed unless something immediately changes within us. It is not a coincidence that an assassin, a mere 200 yards away, targeted him in the throat to send a message that they're coming to take your voice. Charlie's show, by the way, was distributed through Real America's Voice.
Visual images of this horrifying moment of blood spurting out bombarded our social media feeds, and it was a shock against our conscience, our humanity. It was, as another patriot once wrote, a time that tried our souls. This was a symbol that I thought would scare us, and honestly, it did. It scared me. But now Charlie has ascended.
He has left us with this warning and a call to action. The price for his message was his life. You see, in our country, there is a lack of accountability for those who do evil. People who commit crimes don't fear accountability. Ask anybody at the events Charlie leads, and they will all say the same thing.
You might even be saying it to yourself. Those who do wrong face no consequences. Evil goes unpunished in our government. Nothing ever happens to these people. Nobody is held accountable for anything.
Whether you wanna call it the deep state, the fourth estate, or the powers that be, call it bad people and corporations and government acting in confluence, the reality is all the same. Justice just isn't there for those who deserve it. Corruption flourishes, and the light shines not on the problems, but on those trying to expose the problems. Make no mistake. Charlie Kirk is dead because the people who ought to be in prison are currently roaming free.
This is the principle we must understand. Without accountability, we live under the illusion of freedom. Unless this changes soon and people are held to account, more people you love are going to die, and it will be worse than what we saw this week. So the question we must ask ourselves is this, How many more people have to die because we're not doing our part exposing wrongdoing? Allowing or standing by watching those conspire to undermine this country.
But in order for us to change directions, Charlie Kirk's assassination must light a fire under people who are afraid to act, as my friend Laura Logan poetically put it just last night. All the things that Charlie Cook stood for need to come to fruition, or we're just posturing, lying about the legacy he left us, which we claim to admire. I often get asked by people in politics, O'Keefe, what outcome do you want? What are you trying to accomplish? I find that to be a bizarre question asked by those who claim to have a duty to public service.
Lost in our politics is any semblance of right and wrong. Ideally, the motive here should not be the pursuit of power but to better society, to shame the devil, to fight knavery, to knock the bleeding crap out of the people destroying this country. What matters is your relationship with the truth. Charlie said that. He said, quote, what matters is your relationship with the truth.
And the legacy of Charlie Kirk is therefore this, good people must fight for the right things for the right reasons. To do this, we must dig and fight for what we love. And to do that, we must fight a battle within ourselves. Friend of mine, Roseanne Barr, once said to me very poignantly, the battle is within us. We must choose to love others as we love ourselves.
Greater love hath no more than this, than a man lay down his life for his friends. That's what Christ did for us, and that's what Charlie did for us this week. Charlie enters the gates of heaven with shouts of, well done, Charlie. Charlie taught me to expose evil and to hold it to account for no other purpose than because the truth is essential and it's the right thing to do. That's it.
Of course, this is the dream of the ridiculous man. Dostoevsky writes in that book, and yet this is merely an old truth repeated and read a billion times, but it has never taken root. Well, I believe Charlie Kirk's death is the seed that will finally allow this concept to take root. There will be people who want to stand up and want to stand down. Jesse Waters pleaded on Fox News last night that you can either take that message and crawl into a corner and shut up, or you can do what Charlie wanted you to do and is asking you now to do and speak louder.
The future of this nation will be determined by the choice you make. Yes. There's gonna be those who deny the reality of the evil itself, but doesn't really matter. What is a fact is that Charlie Kirk now belongs in the hearts of Americans fighting against those who are undermining this country. The future of this nation and our own survival will depend upon the choices that you make.
God was using Charlie to wake up this generation, and despite the assassin's bullet to his throat, God is going to continue to use his voice. A million more Charlie Kirks are gonna be born. So we look forward to working together with all of you here at O'Keeffe Media Group to fight the evil that exists in the world and to expose it for precisely what it is and to send a message that the politics of fear will not prevail in The United States Of America. This man is a good man. I didn't know you incredibly well, but when this happened to me, which is the darkest moment of my life, Charlie would call me every day.
He didn't have to do that. And text me, how are you doing? And and send me prayers. I I I got to know you better, and I and I'm very grateful for your friendship and support during that time. Well Thank you.
Speaker 1: We we continue
Speaker 2: to have your back, James, and because you're an American treasure, truly.
Speaker 0: You you can never really know someone until you go through hell. And you can kinda see the line that separates good and evil runs through every human heart.
Speaker 1: And Lord, he understands that this is a spiritual battle because he's seen evil face to face.
Speaker 2: This is a truth teller. He has exposed every major demonic power center in the country.
Speaker 1: The bad guys didn't win. The censors Well the smear artists. Please, James.
Speaker 0: The enemy is I've said this to you. The enemy sometimes it
Speaker 1: can be within. It's often within us.
Speaker 0: The evil is all around us, especially when you are a targeted man. You have to surround yourself with people whose prices is is very great, and maybe this price is your life.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
BREAKING NEWS: FBI Senior Official Mitchell Rosas TERMINATED & ESCORTED out of FBI Headquarters—Rosas Attempted to Stop OMG From Releasing the Tape O'Keefe Media has more DOJ Tapes to come. Stay Tuned. @FBI @FBIDirectorKash @TheJusticeDept https://t.co/Dyb0igFFPQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mitchell Rosas, a senior FBI official, has been escorted out of the FBI building and terminated. A senior FBI spokesperson told OMG: "you are free to report the individual Mitchell Rosas has been dismissed, fired as of today. He was escorted from the building earlier." Rosas also sent OMG a message attempting to stop publication of the Epstein audio: "formal objection to publication... Do not publish, direct any further communication to official.correspondenceinbox@outlook.com." "Let's put that email address on the video." The speaker notes that he claims the words did not come out of his mouth and says he's not a government official, though he was escorted out; only one can be true. We are reporting on the FBI, DOJ, and firings. The host asks whether Donald Trump has a right to know these happenings inside the DOJ, and notes unprofessional statements. More videos are coming; the DOJ will be contacted. Stay tuned.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Breaking news. Mitchell Rosas, the senior official from the FBI that we just released a video about today, has been escorted out of the FBI building and terminated. O'Keeffe Media Group just received this statement from a senior FBI spokesperson. You are free to report the individual Mitchell Rosas has been dismissed, fired as of today. He was escorted from the building earlier.
Now the FBI official also sent OMG a message trying to stop the publication of this damning audio on Epstein. This is from Rosas, the guy on the audio recording you heard, quote, formal objection to publication he sent this Friday at 04:00. I am not a government official and was not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself. I was not informed the conversation was on the record. The transcript you reference is a fabrication and does not reflect what I said.
I do not consent to publication. Any portrayal otherwise would be false, misleading, and damaging. I reserve all legal rights and remedies including defamation, false light, and intrusion upon seclusion. Do not publish, direct any further communication to official.correspondenceinbox@outlook.com. Let's put that email address on the video.
We encourage all of you to email that individual. Sounds like something a lawyer wrote. What's interesting about this message is that he's claiming the words that came out of his mouth didn't happen, that he's not a government official even though he's been escorted out of the FBI building. Only one of those two things can be true. Very confusing message.
We are reporting on the FBI, the Department of Justice, people being fired now. For those of you who may be opposed to what we're doing because you support Donald Trump, the question I have for you is, does Donald Trump have a right to know that these things are happening inside the Department of Justice? And people are talking like this, many of them out of turn to complete strangers, not very professional behavior within our government, people making statements. We have more videos to come, and we'll be reaching out to Department of Justice about those videos. Stay tuned.
reSee.it AI Summary
Without accountability, we deceive ourselves about freedom. We must act quickly to prevent losing more loved ones. Charlie has ascended, leaving behind a powerful call to action, paying the ultimate price for his message. In memoriam: Charlie Kirk 1993-2025.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Without accountability we live under the illusion of freedom. Unless we change this soon, more people that we love are going to die. Charlie has ascended he has left us with a call to action and the price for his message was his life. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends In memoriam: Charlie Kirk 1993-2025
Video Transcript AI Summary
Charlie Kirk's death is a moment for America. It's also a turning point for you and me, a call to action. Charlie was Turning Point USA. He was the least hypocritical man I've ever known and he practiced what he preached. He was a Buckley-Limbaugh figure. Kierkegaard said, 'the most painful state of being is remembering the future, particularly the one that you'll never have.' I met him in a Chicago diner in 2012; he spoke about building a movement of young people. At the Turning Point Faith Conference, he summoned me on stage to pray for me, 'as if it depended on God.' He helped me make payroll. Charlie answered, 'courage from my faith.' He did not point left or right but up. The price for his message was his life. Without accountability, we live under the illusion of freedom. A million more Charlie Kirks are gonna be born.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Charlie Kirk's death is a dark moment for America per president Trump. It's also a turning point for you and me, a call to action and a time for choosing. But first, let me tell you about my relationship with Charlie. Charlie was the greatest man I've ever personally known. He was a moral, kind, generous, and irreplaceable man.
Charlie was Turning Point USA, the organization he founded. We are sad today because he represented the best of America and what we as men aspire to be. What set him apart was that he was the least hypocritical man I've ever known. He practiced what he preached in his professional and personal life like no other. Now as for what he built, I would often watch him work and utter to myself, he's a force of nature.
He was a modern day William f Buckley junior meets Rush Limbaugh meets community organizer. And it hurts to see him gone from this earth after all that was seemingly planned for him. Many of us know he would have one day been president. As Kierkegaard once said, the most painful state of being is remembering the future, particularly the one that you'll never have. For those of you who have never met Charlie Kirk, this feels like a death in the family.
For those of us who did know him, and thousands of us were his friends, that says a lot about his character by the way, we're heartbroken and grieving with a depth we've never before experienced in our lives. Let me tell you about my relationship with I first met him in a Chicago diner in 2012 when he was 18 and then I was 27. He was persistent in reaching out to me, looking to obtain a meeting to receive guidance and advice on what he set out to build. He spoke confidently at this diner about his plans to build a mass movement of young people. I remember thinking at the time just how ambitious, grandiose, and seemingly improbable all these plans seemed even for this precocious kid, but it was a world changing idea.
But there was also thousands of DMs of people sending these things to me with ideas about how they wanted to change the political landscape on a massive scale. Yet, few people actually had the x factor that Charlie Kirk had. That was actually something that one of my previous board members, Jim Young, said. Many people recognize that in him. And sitting across from me was this teenager with a half eaten sandwich speaking with the quiet conviction of Martin Luther.
Here I stand. I can do no other. I saw him shortly thereafter living on a couch at Lee Hanley's house on Palm Beach Island. Lee was a donor I was soliciting for money on that day. Charlie was running around the country, sleeping on couches, starting this organization out of his parents' place in Chicago.
He was indefatigable, relentless, executing his vision. I vividly recall Rush Limbaugh saying, everywhere I go, I run into Charlie Kirk. He said that at the time while at Mar A Lago. A decade later, Charlie built his mass movement. But the irony was it was now me, ten years his senior, now asking him for advice.
I had to start all over. I was in the rebuilding phase and he was on the phone with me coaching me through my darkest days. I remember pulling over to the side of the road on the highway pacing through the grass next to the overpass as we had profound conversations about the difference between knowledge and wisdom as he tried to help me find God in the face of unimaginable evil and betrayal. And I'll never forget the question he asked me on the phone that day. He said, do you love yourself, James?
He made me be a better person. Then shortly after that, in San Diego in September 2023 at the Turning Point Faith Conference, he summoned me on stage, this was not planned, on stage with pastor Rob McCoy and asked the entire convention center of 1,200 pastors to pray for me. Charlie put his hands on my shoulder and said, I want us to pray for James O'Keefe and show him some encouragement during the difficult time he's going through. But it wasn't just spiritual advice. Charlie prayed as if it depended on God.
He acted as if it depended on him. For example, he helped me make payroll one month that year, 2023, when I was rebuilding the company. That was an act that moved even the nonbelievers on our staff. Many others who knew him have many similar stories like this. I looked up to him and deeply admired him.
He was a role model of what a man ought to be, a better man than we, a model of civility and heroism in an age where those things have been under constant attack. When asked by a podcaster about how he wanted to be remembered, Charlie responded, courage from my faith. Charlie did not point left or right but up. And that's where he is now. And as for now, our country at this pivotal moment in our history is facing a generational equivalent to the assassination of Martin Luther King or John F.
Kennedy. As pastor Signorelli wrote today, the devil overplayed his hand once again, and this will be the impetus for a mass awakening. Charlie's murder has brought out a premonition that we are headed down a very dark path indeed unless something immediately changes within us. It is not a coincidence that an assassin, a mere 200 yards away, targeted him in the throat to send a message that they're coming to take your voice. Charlie's show, by the way, was distributed through Real America's Voice.
Visual images of this horrifying moment of blood spurting out bombarded our social media feeds, and it was a shock against our conscience, our humanity. It was, as another patriot once wrote, a time that tried our souls. This was a symbol that I thought would scare us, and honestly, it did. It scared me. But now Charlie has ascended.
He has left us with this warning and a call to action. The price for his message was his life. You see, in our country, there is a lack of accountability for those who do evil. People who commit crimes don't fear accountability. Ask anybody at the events Charlie leads, and they will all say the same thing.
You might even be saying it to yourself. Those who do wrong face no consequences. Evil goes unpunished in our government. Nothing ever happens to these people. Nobody is held accountable for anything.
Whether you wanna call it the deep state, the fourth estate, or the powers that be, call it bad people and corporations and government acting in confluence, the reality is all the same. Justice just isn't there for those who deserve it. Corruption flourishes, and the light shines not on the problems, but on those trying to expose the problems. Make no mistake. Charlie Kirk is dead because the people who ought to be in prison are currently roaming free.
This is the principle we must understand. Without accountability, we live under the illusion of freedom. Unless this changes soon and people are held to account, more people you love are going to die, and it will be worse than what we saw this week. So the question we must ask ourselves is this, How many more people have to die because we're not doing our part exposing wrongdoing? Allowing or standing by watching those conspire to undermine this country.
But in order for us to change directions, Charlie Kirk's assassination must light a fire under people who are afraid to act, as my friend Laura Logan poetically put it just last night. All the things that Charlie Cook stood for need to come to fruition, or we're just posturing, lying about the legacy he left us, which we claim to admire. I often get asked by people in politics, O'Keefe, what outcome do you want? What are you trying to accomplish? I find that to be a bizarre question asked by those who claim to have a duty to public service.
Lost in our politics is any semblance of right and wrong. Ideally, the motive here should not be the pursuit of power but to better society, to shame the devil, to fight knavery, to knock the bleeding crap out of the people destroying this country. What matters is your relationship with the truth. Charlie said that. He said, quote, what matters is your relationship with the truth.
And the legacy of Charlie Kirk is therefore this, good people must fight for the right things for the right reasons. To do this, we must dig and fight for what we love. And to do that, we must fight a battle within ourselves. Friend of mine, Roseanne Barr, once said to me very poignantly, the battle is within us. We must choose to love others as we love ourselves.
Greater love hath no more than this, than a man lay down his life for his friends. That's what Christ did for us, and that's what Charlie did for us this week. Charlie enters the gates of heaven with shouts of, well done, Charlie. Charlie taught me to expose evil and to hold it to account for no other purpose than because the truth is essential and it's the right thing to do. That's it.
Of course, this is the dream of the ridiculous man. Dostoevsky writes in that book, and yet this is merely an old truth repeated and read a billion times, but it has never taken root. Well, I believe Charlie Kirk's death is the seed that will finally allow this concept to take root. There will be people who want to stand up and want to stand down. Jesse Waters pleaded on Fox News last night that you can either take that message and crawl into a corner and shut up, or you can do what Charlie wanted you to do and is asking you now to do and speak louder.
The future of this nation will be determined by the choice you make. Yes. There's gonna be those who deny the reality of the evil itself, but doesn't really matter. What is a fact is that Charlie Kirk now belongs in the hearts of Americans fighting against those who are undermining this country. The future of this nation and our own survival will depend upon the choices that you make.
God was using Charlie to wake up this generation, and despite the assassin's bullet to his throat, God is going to continue to use his voice. A million more Charlie Kirks are gonna be born. So we look forward to working together with all of you here at O'Keeffe Media Group to fight the evil that exists in the world and to expose it for precisely what it is and to send a message that the politics of fear will not prevail in The United States Of America. This man is a good man. I didn't know you incredibly well, but when this happened to me, which is the darkest moment of my life, Charlie would call me every day.
He didn't have to do that. And text me, how are you doing? And and send me prayers. I I I got to know you better, and I and I'm very grateful for your friendship and support during that time. Well Thank you.
Speaker 1: We we continue
Speaker 2: to have your back, James, and because you're an American treasure, truly.
Speaker 0: You you can never really know someone until you go through hell. And you can kinda see the line that separates good and evil runs through every human heart.
Speaker 1: And Lord, he understands that this is a spiritual battle because he's seen evil face to face.
Speaker 2: This is a truth teller. He has exposed every major demonic power center in the country.
Speaker 1: The bad guys didn't win. The censors Well the smear artists. Please, James.
Speaker 0: The enemy is I've said this to you. The enemy sometimes it
Speaker 1: can be within. It's often within us.
Speaker 0: The evil is all around us, especially when you are a targeted man. You have to surround yourself with people whose prices is is very great, and maybe this price is your life.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
O'Keefe team at HQ is all standing unified and lifting Charlie Kirk up in prayer right now. And he needs your prayers. https://t.co/kSIc7f8pj8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Our brother Charlie is as he has been shot, Lord. We ask, Father, that your angels be around him. Restore, Lord, what the enemy is trying to take away. We just ask that you look over our brother and his family, Lord, comfort them and protect them. We also pray for your righteousness and protection over our brother and comfort for all of us involved on that campus; go before them and protect them. We ask for your favor upon him and his family and those involved. Heal him, In your name we pray, Jesus. Amen. Right now, there’s a lot of uncertainty, Father, I pray that your Holy Spirit overwhelms the whole place. Let you be known in that space. Continued protection for Charlie and healing power for his injuries, and safety for everyone around there. We thank you, Lord. In Jesus' mighty name, Amen.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our brother Charlie is as he has been shot in this moment, Lord. We ask, Father, that your angels be around him. Restore, Lord, what the enemy is trying to take away. And, right now we just ask that you look over our brother and his family. Lord, comfort them and protect them.
And Lord God, I just pray that this would not go without your perfect, as was said earlier, indignation, your righteous judgment, father. We just ask, Lord, for your protection over our brother and comfort. And the same, Father, for all of us involved in that situation, on that campus, Lord, that you would just go before them and protect them and keep them, Lord. We ask for your favor upon him and his family and those involved. So please be with our brother and heal him, In your name we pray, Jesus.
Amen. Steven, you want to add anything? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right now, there's a lot of uncertainty, I imagine, that's happening right there on the ground. Father, I just pray, Lord, that your Holy Spirit just overwhelms the whole entire place. Let you be known in that space. Father, pray continued protection for Charlie. I pray, Lord, that your healing power, that he experiences your healing power, however he is dealing with the injuries that are plaguing him right now, Father, I just pray for your Holy Spirit to just overwhelm him, Lord, and just for your favor, Lord, to be with his loved ones and as well for the safety of everyone around there.
We thank you, Lord. We love you. We appreciate that you are sovereign over every situation. In Jesus' mighty
Speaker 0: name. Amen.
reSee.it AI Summary
I might be risking my next election, but I believe it's important to be okay with that. Many colleagues struggle with the idea of losing for a cause. In my latest podcast episode with Rep. Thomas Massie, we discuss the Epstein files, survivors, Trump, and the political implications.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
"I might be losing my next election over this. You have to get in a head space where you're ok with that, and too many of my colleagues are not ok with losing their next election if that is what it costs." In this clip from the My Price is My Life podcast, Rep. Thomas Massie and I talk about the Epstein files, the survivors, Donald Trump, and the politics surrounding it all. Watch the full episode at https://okeefemediagroup.com/
Video Transcript AI Summary
This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about people who are actually richer than Donald Trump and have a lot of influence because they give money. Do people go up to you privately and like I said, you say like, I agree with you, like in this building, I keep doing what you're doing, but I can't talk about it. Does that ever happen to you? it happens every week. You have to protect their confidence. You have to protect their anonymity because they're confiding in you that they secretly support you, but they don't want to say so publicly, for example, right? Yeah, mean, if I were to say that, then they would never confide in me again. And those are my closest friends. Your enemies up here don't come and say, I think what you're doing is right, but I just can't be with you. I can't die on this hill. But your friends do. For some of them, the political reality is they would probably lose their reelection if Donald Trump came against them. Some of them are here because they were in a seven way primary and they got Donald Trump's endorsement and that was their major redeeming factor in an election where there was no incumbent. And now they're incumbents, but they haven't been here very long and so they haven't built trust with their constituents yet. And by the way, I might be losing my next election over this. You have to get in a headspace where you're okay with that. Price is My Life. Look, it's not even our life, right? The price is my reelection, I would say. And at the press conference yesterday with the survivors, the price is their life. And here we've got members of Congress who won't even take a risk in their next election to do the right thing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about people who are actually richer than Donald Trump and have a lot of influence because they give money.
Speaker 1: Do people go up to you privately and like I said, you say like, I agree with you, like in this building, I keep doing what you're doing, but I can't talk about it. Does that ever happen
Speaker 0: to you? It happens every week. Happens every week. Yeah. People are like And you
Speaker 1: have to protect their confidence. You have to protect their anonymity because they're confiding in you that they secretly support you, but they don't want to say so publicly, for example, right?
Speaker 0: Yeah, mean, if I were to say that, then they would never confide in me again. And those are my closest friends. Your enemies up here don't come and say, I think what you're doing is right, but I just can't be with you. I can't die on this hill. But your friends do.
Speaker 1: Do you think that those people, without naming any names, do you think that they should be more brave and say it publicly or it's just the nature of politics or the nature of human nature that you can't be public with that?
Speaker 0: I mean, I would like for them to join me. For some of them, the political reality is they would probably lose their reelection if Donald Trump came against them. Some of them are here because they were in a seven way primary and they got Donald Trump's endorsement and that was their major redeeming factor in an election where there was no incumbent, so people went with the Trump candidate. And now they're incumbents, but they haven't been here very long and so they haven't built trust with their constituents yet. And by the way, I might be losing my next election over this.
You have to get in a headspace where you're okay with that. And too many of my colleagues are not okay with losing their next election if that's what it costs. You said, what's the name of your podcast? Price is My Life. The Price is My Life.
Look, it's not even our life, right? The price is my reelection, I would say.
Speaker 1: So, you are resolved or you are okay with that possibility? Yeah. Psychologically. Yeah, and then, you know, when I
Speaker 0: was at this press conference yesterday with the survivors, I got to thinking, for these survivors, the price is their life. Like, this could ruin their lives by speaking out yesterday. And here we've got members of Congress who won't even take a risk in their next election to do the right thing.
Home - O'Keefe Media Group
Sign Up to Become a Citizen Journalist
okeefemediagroup.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across an audio leak where an FBI Senior Paralegal Specialist expresses concerns about the Jeffrey Epstein case. They claim there's a cover-up and that the FBI won't release all files until the current administration ends. The specialist speculates that many powerful Democrats may be on Epstein's client list. They emphasize that those who could answer questions are not willing to do so, suggesting a deliberate effort to protect certain individuals.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
FBI LEAKED AUDIO: FBI Senior Paralegal Specialist Confesses “There's Something Being Covered Up” in Jeffrey Epstein Case, Claims FBI Won’t Release All Epstein Files Until “This Administration Is Over,” Speculates "A Lot of Powerful Democrats" Are on Epstein Client List “None of the people that are in a position to answer the questions are willing to do it because it's clear that they're covering something and protecting someone or some people.” @FBIDirectorKash @AGPamBondi @FBIDDBongino @JusticeDept
Video Transcript AI Summary
OMG reports exclusive audio: FBI analyst Mitchell Rosas says the bureau and the administration is covering up the Epstein files, and "there is definitely something being held back" with "a lot of powerful Democrats on that list." The speakers argue "it's clear they're covering something and protecting someone or some people," and question promises to release information on JFK and MLK while Epstein details remain withheld. They insist the American people deserve "the full, unvarnished, unredacted truth regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case." They cite DOJ "redacted every single word of the probable cause used to obtain the search warrant, the raid of my newsroom." They urge contact with OMG at signal (914) 491-9395 or tips at okeith media group dot com, and promote the podcast "Price is my life" with "The Price is My Reelection, I would say." They reference a conversation with congressman Thomas Massey about Epstein.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's clear that they're covering something and protecting someone or some people. There are a lot of powerful Democrats that are also on that list. There's definitely something being held back. I don't think it's gonna come out until this administration's progress.
Speaker 1: A recent story on the office of enforcement operations official Joseph Schnitt inside the Department of Justice has already prompted additional insiders to come forward. Thanks to an insider from within the FBI, OMG has obtained new exclusive audio. This time, FBI analyst Mitchell Rosas admitting that the bureau and the administration is covering up the Epstein files.
Speaker 0: People may not get what they're looking for out of this whole, like, Epstein stuff. I think the problem is that none of the people that are in a position to answer the questions are willing to do it because it's clear that they're covering something and protecting someone or some people. Especially because it's like, we're gonna release everything on JFK. We're gonna release everything on MLK. We're gonna release everything on Epstein.
Yeah. Next thing you know, it's like, oh, never mind. We found some or it's like, oh, no. It turns out there is no list even though we've been claiming this entire time with her.
Speaker 1: On this hidden recording, Rosas confessed there is definitely something being held back. When pressed on why, Rosas admitted, quote, a lot of powerful Democrats are on that list.
Speaker 0: The whole thing is just so disjointed that it makes it super obvious that there's something being covered up, and it's making it blatantly obvious in the minds of, I think, any rational non fanatic that what other reason would there be for not releasing it? If you think about it, sort of you follow, like, logical progression, like, basic sort of, like, Socratic method, there's definitely something being held back. And frankly, I don't think it's gonna come out until this administration's all over. Do you think the FBI is doing everything that they possibly can, or do you think they're just, like, kind of protecting each other internally? I mean, I think they're doing everything that they're being told that they are supposed to do.
There are a lot of powerful Democrats that are also on that list. Like who? I mean, like, the first one that I've heard named is Bill Clinton. He still, like, carries a lot of, like, influence in the party. And so because of that, I don't think that the party would be willing to expose him in that way.
Speaker 1: Now why should the American people wait for the truth? The American people deserve to know and see the full, unvarnished, unfiltered, unredacted truth regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. And even in my case, the Department of Justice redacted every single word of the probable cause used to obtain the search warrant, the raid of my newsroom. If they can't even give us that unredacted, we're not sure how they're going to give you the unredacted, unvarnished truth regarding Epstein. The truth only comes out because brave people on the inside choose courage over silence.
Why should you come to OMG? Because our price is our life. We tell the truth without fear and without favor. You can reach out to us on our signal line at (914) 491-9395 or email us tips at okeith media group dot com and then OMG journalist will be in touch with you. Also, check out our conversation with congressman Thomas Massey about Epstein and much more.
What's the name of your podcast? Price is my life. The Price is My Reelection, I would say. You can find that on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, and more. Please subscribe and stay tuned.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
DOJ RESPONSE:
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
My reaction to NBC National and MSM outlets covering our story of the DOJ Acting Deputy Chief saying they are offering something to Maxwell to keep her mouth shut. What is an “Ultra-right winger,” exactly? How Does that compare to right winger? How is this story left or right? https://t.co/0AxBwV201G
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video was posted by the founder of Project Veritas. That is a contra far. The video was released Wednesday by the O'Keefe Media Group founded by James O'Keefe. It's important to note, O'Keefe is the same person behind the group Project Veritas and has a history of publishing deceptively edited videos. The Department of Justice is now directly responding to a video posted on social media of the deputy chief of the DOJ appearing to admit to potential redactions to the Epstein list. The In video posted by journalist James H. Keith. Not only do those files exist, but all Republican names will be scrubbed, leaving a link. Democrats. Ghislain Maxwell, Epstein's associate, was transferred to a easier prison in exchange for her cooperation and silence. There had been real hopes in the White House that this story would go away.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The video was posted by the founder of Project Veritas. That is a contra far
Speaker 1: Controversial. Controversial. Controversial.
Speaker 2: Yes. So this is a group that calls themselves journalists. That's really overstating it. They really just do pathetic tactics, trying to get information out.
Speaker 1: I mean, who is this guy? He looks like he's 12. Like, when I started my newspaper, like, he was in diapers.
Speaker 2: Another thing that he said was, quote, they'll redact every Republican or conservative person. We have no evidence that that is the case.
Speaker 1: Okay. So so so why don't you find some evidence? Like, do your job, the the investigative journalism thingy. You're going on television to talk about the shit that I'm doing. What are you doing?
He looks like a little child. Okay. He let's say he's 12.
Speaker 2: So he perhaps is just watching and reading the news just like we are and does not actually have any information insight into actually what is going on behind the scenes at the DOJ or perhaps he does have that information. I think we will end up having to see once some of these files continue to be drift, drift, drift out of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 0: Gary Grumbach, think you need a podcast. I'll take all my DC news from you straight no chaser.
Speaker 1: Why not have the guys who actually did the story on? You're having him on to talk about the story that we did while he says there's no evidence for the thing that you're saying that whatever.
Speaker 3: That video was released Wednesday by the O'Keefe Media Group founded by James O'Keefe. It's important to note, O'Keefe is the same person behind the group Project Veritas and has a history of publishing deceptively edited videos.
Speaker 1: Well, it literally was the words that came out of the guy's mouth. You literally just you arrange words into sentences every day. You edit words together into sentences that are often deceptive. We literally show him talking. We see his lips moving.
Speaker 3: In this one Schmitt this also says he will leave all the, quote, liberal Democratic people on the esteemed list. Schmitt said he had no idea he was being recorded on video and that he met the O'Keeffe reporter,
Speaker 4: who he said was planning
Speaker 3: to be an affair on the dating app Hinge. He also said on this video that Ghislain Maxwell, Epstein's associate, was transferred to a easier prison in exchange for her cooperation and silence. You there had been real hopes in the White House that this story would go away, that we have speaker Johnson sent congress home early. That is not quite the case, and not just because of this video, but perhaps far more importantly.
Speaker 4: Yes. Jonathan, that video is proof that the right wing is tired of the excuses
Speaker 1: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
What do you mean right wing? What what about me is right wing? Like, what is ideological about reporting on what people say? It's literally an inanimate video recording of the guy and what he's saying. So I don't understand that ideological comparison, Mr.
Man, whoever you are. I don't know who these people are. I don't know who watches MSNBC. I've never even heard of this man. Hit it.
Speaker 4: Wanthos Epstein files released. This is O'Keefe who is an ultra right winger. He usually goes after
Speaker 1: What what is ultra right wing compared to right wing? I've never heard of ultra. I've heard I mean, what what is the difference between ultra and right? What is even right wing about me? I don't understand.
What is right what is what does that even mean anymore?
Speaker 4: This time, he's going after the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Also Not going after the Trump administration. The guy was ostensibly a democrat working for the department of justice. We smoke out a lot of the people in the deep state who don't like the Trump administration.
Speaker 4: The world just called them a hoax. So that led to this press conference, and this is all bad news for Trump because the controversy, as you said, is not going away.
Speaker 1: Even Sounds like you're a ultra left winger. You look at things through a political lens. I don't, actually. I look at things through the lens of accuracy and truth reporting what's happening, that you look at things through a power lens, a partisan lens, and you project who you are onto me, mister Mann, Palm Beach, I'm in Palm Beach right now, so let's go meet up. Maybe we should talk to each other face to face.
Maybe I should confront this man and ask him about what he meant by that. Hit it.
Speaker 0: The Department of Justice is now directly responding to a video posted on social media of the deputy chief of the DOJ appearing to admit to potential redactions to the Epstein list. The In video posted by journalist James H. Keith
Speaker 1: Nicole's a journalist?
Speaker 0: Not only do those files exist, but all Republican names will be scrubbed, leaving a link. Democrats
Speaker 1: My job is done.
Speaker 0: On to talk about Epstein's partner and convicted child sex abuse.
reSee.it AI Summary
I joined Congressman Thomas Massie and Jeffrey Epstein survivors at a press conference on Capitol Hill, where we called for the full release of the Epstein Files. Massie criticized Speaker Mike Johnson's ineffective resolution and highlighted the financial pressure from billionaires against him. I shared insights from our DOJ investigation that align with Massie's concerns about transparency. He remains resolute, stating that the truth will emerge, forcing D.C. to choose between the powerful and the survivors.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Congressman Thomas Massie stood with Jeffrey Epstein survivors at a historic press conference on Capitol Hill, demanding the full release of the Epstein Files. Those demands were echoed by allies from both parties. According to Massie, Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing a placebo resolution, billionaires are spending millions to crush him, and congress members whisper support in private but stay silent in public. I showed Massie a preview of our DOJ investigation that confirmed the pattern of obfuscation that he has been seeing happen around the full Epstein files release. But Massie isn’t backing down. He says the truth will come out, and when it does, D.C. will have to choose between protecting the powerful or standing with the survivors. Epstein Files Transparency Bill Press Conference (1:50) Why Trump Calls the Bill a “Hostile Act” (4:07) Rep. Massie Reacts to OMG’s DOJ Epstein Tapes (6:40) Why the Epstein Client List Remains Hidden (9:06) ‘Private Support, Public Silence’ (11:10) The Outlook for the Transparency Bill (14:28) The Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause (15:45) The Price of Telling the Truth (16:37) Is Trump in the Epstein Files? (20:36) Should More Reps Go Public? (21:15) “My Price Is My Life” (23:00) Inside the SCIF (23:55) Redactions and Concealed Truths (29:31) The Evil Reality of Epstein’s Crimes (31:08) When the Government Lets Criminals Walk Free (33:11) @RepThomasMassie @MassieforKY Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Website: https://okeefemediagroup.com/rep-thomas-massie-my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe-11/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Massey says Republicans fear Trump privately but are terrified of his political machine, which he says leads to covering up for pedophiles. He notes survivors were asked if they support Massey's legislation and all raised their hands. He calls the press conference the biggest on Capitol Hill. He cites female co-sponsors: Greene, Boebert, and Mace. His aim is to obtain two eighteen signatures to force a vote; the Speaker's placebo resolution would provide political cover, while Massey's bill remains. He alleges the DOJ released thousands of pages but redact names, and Epstein had ties to government intelligence with Maxwell getting a light sentence. He recalls a SCIF tour revealing Project Phoenix and Nest Egg. He says three billionaires have spent $2,000,000 in negative ads against him. What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is it that the Republicans fear Trump so much, but they agree with you privately? How do just talk about that for a minute? Yeah. Is that it? That's it.
That's it
Speaker 1: in a nutshell. They I don't think, my colleagues are happy about covering up for pedophiles, but that's what's happening. And the and it's so sick and twisted. The reason they're doing it is because they're terrified of president Trump's political machine. He's also gone as far as to say, oh, this could endanger the survivors.
But that's false. Every survivor was asked, do you support the legislations Massey's legislation? And they all raised their hand.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back to the Price Is My Life podcast. Today, we are off location live in Washington, DC, and I'm with Congressman Massey. Thomas Massey, an MIT trained engineer, inventor, farmer, and one of the most independent voices in Washington coming fresh off the heels of his press conference yesterday with Jeffrey Epstein, survivors representing Kentucky's Fourth District since 2012.
He's known as mister no. Is it doctor no or mister no?
Speaker 1: Mister no.
Speaker 0: Mister no. For his willingness to stand alone against trillion dollar spending bills, government overreach, and even presidents from his own party, own political party, from building a solar powered off grid farm to leading the bipartisan push to release the Epstein files, Massey has lived his life by principle regardless of what you think about him. Liberty isn't negotiable to him even when it comes at a cost. Congressman, thank you for the Price Is My Life podcast. We have, like, thirty minutes.
Usually, it's three hours, so we're gonna do lightning round. How do you think it went yesterday?
Speaker 1: I was told it's the biggest press conference on Capitol Hill in the last five years. So we had several major networks carry it. Most importantly, the survivors had a platform, and nobody can call this a hoax anymore. I was shocked myself. I was hoping the survivors would compel my colleagues to co sponsor my effort to release these files, but what I found out is it emboldened me to redouble my efforts because I was driven to tears really listening to their stories.
Speaker 0: And, you know, I watched the press conference, I was physically there, I was walking around, did know Were
Speaker 1: you wearing a disguise? Were you the blonde?
Speaker 0: Actually, I did have a wig.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: I did have a wig. I was not physically in the gaggle with you. I was off to the side, and I released a video about it yesterday. There was a lot of left wing agitator types there, believe all women, and talking about Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, and I just noticed a lot of what I would characterize as like liberal activists, maybe perhaps using that to their advantage. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: Well, had the bicycle barricades set up. I'm only responsible for what happened inside of the bicycle barricades. Like, there are people claiming that other people at our press conference and they even spoke from the microphone. All we had speaking there were three of us, three members of Congress, myself, my colleague Ro Khanna, and my colleague Marjorie Taylor Green, the 10 survivors and two of their attorneys.
Speaker 0: And what do you think is going to happen? Are people going to sign on to this?
Speaker 1: I'm almost certain we're going get to two eighteen signatures. That's the threshold we need to force a vote on this. And at that point, they're going to hate me for breathing air up here because Republican members of Congress are going to have to choose which version of Donald Trump they want. Do they want the Donald Trump who ran for office and his vice president who said they would release the files and his attorney general who said they would release the files? Or do they want the Donald Trump who says now it's a hostile act if anybody co sponsors my resolution?
Speaker 0: In short, why is the president taking that approach?
Speaker 1: I think he has rich and powerful friends who maybe they're not gonna be indicted when this is released, but they'll be embarrassed. And I also think there's a person in his administration who's gonna be embarrassed, Acosta, who was part of the first plea deal.
Speaker 0: That was the US attorney?
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was the US attorney when Epstein got off easy, and then recommitted all these crimes. Like there are hundreds of victims because Epstein basically went back to his predatory ways after he got that light sentence. So I think that's part of it. And finally, there's government intelligence. Epstein had ties to that, and I don't think the American people are ready to, they're not gonna accept lightly the fact that this guy who was a pedophile was working with our own intelligence agencies and those of foreign countries.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money.
Interest rates and inflation remain high. And everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 833324gold. Again, that's okeifmediagold.com or 833324 Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keith.
Don't just watch history, own a piece of it. We released a tape. We are about to release a tape. As of the time of this filming, it hasn't been released yet, and I just wanna get your reaction. This is a guy named Joseph Schnitt, acting deputy chief inside the DOJ, and I'm just gonna play a clip here.
Speaker 2: They'll redact every Republican or conservative person in those files, leave all the liberal Democratic people in those files.
Speaker 0: I mean, they visited that Maxwell person
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Who's been also involved?
Speaker 2: Got transferred to a minimum security person too recently, which is against BOP policy because she's she's a convicted sex offender. They're offering her something to keep it by yourself.
Speaker 0: That was the acting Okay. So that was someone high up in the DOJ saying they're offering Ghislaine Maxwell something to keep her mouth shut, saying the Epstein files do exist, saying there's thousands of files and they'll redact every Republican person. This guy is pretty credible because he works in the office of enforcement operations. He's kind of an intel guy in the DOJ working with the Bureau of Prisons. What's your reaction to that?
Speaker 1: When was that filmed roughly? About a month ago. Yeah, well, he's right, I think. I mean, why would he be lying, first of all, if he didn't know he was being taped? But it's turned out he's right because the DOJ has released some files.
First, the attorney general said there's nothing left but child porn in their possession, you know, after she released the phase one binders, Pam Bondi. Well, since then, just recently in the last week, the DOJ has released thousands of pages, but what they've done is to heavily redact all of those pages. So they're taking out the names, as it seems like he predicts there. And also yesterday we heard from survivors who said basically the same thing about Maxwell, that she was getting a light sentence and that you couldn't trust anything that she says because of that, I think she is getting a light sentence. It's almost as suspect as is Jeffrey Epstein killing himself in his cell.
This is even more suspect because it's not a conspiracy theory, we know it's happening, and you've got somebody there inside of the DOJ who's admitting that it's highly unusual and unprecedented.
Speaker 0: One of the criticisms I was watching the reaction to what you did yesterday, and a lot of the people say, We have our own list. Some of the victims said that, right? We have a and we're going release it ourselves. One of the questions people have is why wouldn't they just release that right away or even at your press conference?
Speaker 1: Yeah, they addressed that at the press conference, somebody asked them. And their first answer is why do we have to release the list? Why won't the government release it?
Speaker 0: On principle, they're saying the government should do it on principle.
Speaker 1: The government should do it because they're responsible for enforcing the law. The victims aren't responsible for enforcing the law. But the biggest reason, they're not releasing the list, and I think I have a solution to this that came up at the press conference yesterday, but the biggest reason they're not releasing it is they could be sued into homelessness, like for defamation. So let's say they accuse somebody of something and then the government doesn't prosecute it and they can't get all of this materials and discovery and whatnot, so then they get the counter suits happen, which has happened to these victims, and then they get blamed, and they get defamed, and it's not worth their time. They also get threatened, they get followed by cars, around their neighborhoods, they get intimidated.
So when they said they're going to compile their own list, said, we don't have plans to release it. My colleague Marjorie Taylor Green stepped up to the microphone and reminded America that members of Congress have something constitution called speech or debate immunity that's been rarely used, but it's always enforced, which is to say, we can't be sued for anything we say on the floor of the house. So Marjorie Taylor Greene came up with the idea of if the victims have a list, we'll go to the floor and read the list and we can't be sued or prosecuted for it. And I talked to Marjorie about that after the press conference and we've got some ideas for doing that.
Speaker 0: Do you think that a lot I mean, just speak for a moment about the dynamic here, because this is a weird dynamic. You're not anti Trump, or I suppose No.
Speaker 1: I endorsed him for president.
Speaker 0: So but is is it that Republicans fear Trump so much, but they agree with you privately? I'll just talk about Yeah. That for a Is that it? That's it. That's it
Speaker 1: in a nutshell. I don't think my colleagues are happy about covering up for pedophiles, but that's what's happening. And it's so sick and twisted. The reason they're doing it is because they're terrified of President Trump's political machine. His not just his legislative affairs folks are reaching out from the White House to every Republican member of Congress who might think about cosponsoring this.
They're getting calls from the political machine that Donald Trump runs. We've got members of Congress who have aspirations of running for statewide office, and they can't run they can't win a statewide office in a Republican primary with Donald Trump on the other side, so they're they're terrified of him, With three big exceptions, three women have co sponsored this resolution. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace.
Speaker 0: Why aren't they terrified of President I
Speaker 1: think, number one, because they're women, they feel obligated to take up for the women who've been abused. And number two, I think it's harder for the president to go after a woman who's taking up for women. He's been able to intimidate the men into not taking up for the survivors. There's something else going on here too, which is the Speaker of the House is offering political cover for everybody to be part of this ruse. Yesterday, we voted on a resolution that's meaningless, that does nothing, but it supports basically what's already happening in the oversight committee, and he told all the Republicans in a private meeting yesterday, this will give you political cover back home.
When you don't support Massey's resolution, which is the real one, by the way, you could I've got this placebo one. Now he didn't call it a placebo, but I've got this other one that you can vote for and you'll have cover. So that is going on, plus you have the Speaker of the House trained to use his bully pulpit to convince members of Congress that there's something defective about my legislation. Here's what's ironic about that. When the speaker created his fake version, he copied three pages directly from my legislation that we wrote right here in this office.
So at the same time, he's poo pooing the way my legislation was drafted, he's copied it and taken the teeth out of it. So that's giving a fig leaf for the other members of Congress and a reason. They're saying, oh, it's defective legislation. He's also gone as far as to say, oh, this could endanger the survivors. But that's false because yesterday at my press conference, every survivor was asked, do you support the Massey's legislation?
And they all raised their hand. Why would they support my legislation if it's not good for them? They even had their lawyers present who's looked at our legislation.
Speaker 0: So, what's the next thing that needs to happen here? What happens next? I need to
Speaker 1: get two eighteen signatures. How many have right now? I have two fourteen. I'll probably get two in the next week, and I think I'll get two more in the next two weeks. We'll get to two eighteen.
At that point, there's seven days, legislative days that have to pass, and then on the seventh day, Speaker Johnson has a two day window. He can either bring it up then or he can wait two days, but he's got to have a vote on this. There's one trick he can do. He can try to change the rules of the house. See, I'm using the rules as they are written, which says if you can get two eighteen signatures on something, you can bypass the speaker.
He could get the rules committee to change the rules mid Congress, but if he does that, he's gotta get two eighteen votes for that trickery, that becomes the vote of record of hiding the Epstein files. So he's kind of boxed in here. Now another thing could happen is the Senate could just refuse to pass this when it goes to the Senate. Because to make this binding legislation, to make it legally a law that the DOJ has to comply with, it has to go through both chambers.
Speaker 0: So the women can be sued, but you can't be sued. You were citing, what were
Speaker 1: you citing earlier? The speech or debate clause that's in the constitution, and the reason the founders put that in there, it sounds kinda not very populist, right? That there's a special super first amendment for congressmen, but the founders put that in the constitution because the king would always punish members of parliament, like he would convict them for things they said. If they said anything bad about the king, he could arrest them for their words, or people would sue them into oblivion. It might not sound like a good thing at first that you let congressmen lie if they want to.
I'm not proposing to lie, by the way. But somebody could use the speech or debate clause to do that.
Speaker 0: But how could like, you're gonna have to you're paying a price for this, and you're gonna continue to, I assume. What is the price you're gonna pay? Is it coming after your reelection and the billionaires are are funding your opponents? Like, what is the price you think that you're really gonna have to pay for this?
Speaker 1: $20,000,000 of negative ads in my congressional district.
Speaker 0: Does that matter to your voters there?
Speaker 1: It could. I mean, it's gonna leave a mark. Here's the so there's three billionaires right now. You know, you said what's the price you're going to pay? Let me tell you the price I've already paid.
There's three billionaires, two of them are hedge fund managers, and one of them is a casino mogul. One of them is in Epstein's Black Book, John Paulson. They've spent over $2,000,000 running negative ads about me. Not about the Epstein issue, Things like flag burning, they say, oh, Massey is a bad dude because he says flag burning's protected by the First Amendment, and they try to make a negative ad out of that. I'm just siding with Antonin Scalia, like the best person who's ever been in the Supreme Court, you know, in modern day.
But those are the kind of ads they run to try to diminish my reputation in my district and get me defeated.
Speaker 0: Is that
Speaker 1: working? It has some effect on low information voters. I don't think it's affecting the base of support that I have back home. But that's the price
Speaker 0: you pay. Like you said, it's not the whole country, it's just a very tiny fraction of people in a very specific place. Right. There's a big difference in
Speaker 1: those dynamics. And then the other price I pay is my consultants that you need to win an election, they're leaving me because they're being intimidated by Trump's political machine. You know the old line, you'll never do business in this town if you support this dude. That's literally being told to consultants that I would otherwise hire to help me win this election.
Speaker 0: My assumption is that if a congressman here had worn a hidden camera over the last ten, fifteen years, the things that I would see and hear would shock the conscience.
Speaker 1: There's one other thing that's going on, where we talk about all the ways you can be punished for speaking out. My fundraising in DC has dried up so much that my fundraiser gave up. You're fundraising in DC? Yeah. So, you know, if you if there's a PAC money, which almost every member gets PAC money up here, my fundraiser says, your prospects of getting PAC money are so dismal, you should just quit raising money in DC.
Speaker 0: Do you ever find just being you that once in a while you're just like, this is really, really hard. I can't do this anymore. This is just too tough. Do you ever feel that way?
Speaker 1: I think it's the opposite. If they ever quit attacking me, I might say, well this is kind of boring. When they attack me, I feel obligated to win because I know I'm over the target. Dogs don't bark at parked cars, we say back in Kentucky. They wouldn't be spending $20,000,000.
You can't hold two thoughts in your head simultaneously. You can't say Massey is ineffective in Washington DC and then also observe that they're spending $20,000,000 against me to get me out of DC. It's the reason they're doing that is I am effective. The press conference we had yesterday was the biggest one up here in five years.
Speaker 0: Biggest press conference in Washington. Yeah, Is that because 100 of all the number of press people there or how does that measure?
Speaker 1: The number of cameras, the number that were there, the number of networks that carried it live.
Speaker 0: And a lot of them are just trying to get a political, you know, cudgel against Trump probably, right? Or is Some of some of the democrats are,
Speaker 1: but that's a distraction. I don't think the president himself is implicated in any of these files. If he were, Joe Biden probably would have released these files.
Speaker 0: That's why I asked these protesters, they didn't have a good answer for that, by the way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, this isn't about Donald Trump, it's about people who are actually richer than Donald Trump, and have a lot of influence because they give Do
Speaker 0: people go up to you privately, and like I said, just say like, I agree with you, like in this building, to say, hey, I keep doing what you're doing, but I can't talk about it. Does that ever happen to you?
Speaker 1: It happens every week. Happens every week. Yeah. People are like And you
Speaker 0: have to protect their confidence. You have to protect their anonymity because they're confiding in you that they secretly support you, they don't wanna say so publicly, for example, right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if I were to say that, then they would never confide in me again. And those are my closest friends.
Speaker 0: Your closest friends.
Speaker 1: Your enemies up here don't come and say, I think what you're doing is right, but I just can't be with you, I can't die on this hill, but your friends do.
Speaker 0: Do you think that those people, without naming any names, do you think that they should be more brave and say it publicly, or it's just the nature of politics or the nature of human nature that you can't be public with that?
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously, I would like for them to join me. For some of them, the political reality is they would probably lose their reelection if Donald Trump came against them. Some of them are here because they were in a seven way primary and they got Donald Trump's endorsement and that was their major redeeming factor in an election where there was no incumbent, so people went with the Trump candidate. And now they're incumbents, but they haven't been here very long and so they haven't built trust with their constituents yet. And by the way, I might be losing my next election over this.
You have to get in a headspace where you're okay with that. And too many of my colleagues are not okay with losing their next election if that's what it costs. You said, what's the name of your podcast? Price is My Life. The Price is My Life.
Look, it's not even our life, right? The price is my reelection, I would say.
Speaker 0: So you are resolved, or you are okay with that possibility? Yeah. Psychologically?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then, you know, when I was at this press conference yesterday with the survivors, I got to thinking, for these survivors, the price is their life. Like, this could ruin their lives by speaking out yesterday. And here I've got members of Congress who won't even take a risk in their next election to do the right thing.
Speaker 0: We have five minutes before you have to go vote. Again, this is a lightning round of Price is My Life. We could talk for three hours.
Speaker 1: Sorry if my answers are too long.
Speaker 0: No, no. Maybe we'll have you back in studio at some point. But you and I spoke recently, and you told me a story. If you could just recount it briefly to the extent you can share, because that was so fascinating, of going inside the SCIF, that's a secure compartmentalized information facility, and I think you were approving budgets, some of it was classified. Yeah.
You told me a story about bureaucrats. Can you just recount that story briefly?
Speaker 1: So there's a classified annex to the budget. And a lot of my colleagues don't even know this. Like when they're voting for the classified annex, they don't even know that's what they're voting for. But if you're paying attention, you realize, oh, I've got a week to one week, I can go read the classified annex in a skiff. They don't allow you to bring pen and paper in, they don't allow you to take pen and paper out, you can't bring your phone in, you gotta lock it in a locker.
Speaker 0: And you
Speaker 1: can't bring your staff in. You can't bring your staff in. Imagine, when you get in there, have no smartphone and you have no smart staff, so it's only your own wits. And you can't even bring a pencil and paper or a calculator, and they go in, they let you have a sneak peek at this budget, at the classified annex, and it's basically all the clandestine things that the US government does. And it's, I can say this, it's tens of billions of dollars, I can't give you the exact number, and it's mostly code words.
By the way, there's maybe only a dozen out of the 435 people who ever go down and look at this thing. Code words? Code words for each of the projects.
Speaker 0: Like military Yeah, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, project Phoenix.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So, I'm sitting there reading this thing with three, I'll call them members of the committee staff, the intel committee staff watching me read this. But they're ostensibly they are there to help me understand it. So I'm reading this and I'm like, what is this Phoenix project that has $5,000,000,000? And the three of them look at each other, the three who are responsible for supervising my observation of the budget, and two of them look at one dude and he looks at them and he gets up and leaves the room. And now there's two left.
And he said, well, why did he have to leave the room? Well, Project Phoenix is above his level of classification. So they bring out, he leaves the room, they bring out another binder that I'm sure most congressmen don't get to this other binder. Probably 12 you said go in on a 400 or something? Yeah.
So then they open the other binder and they're like, well, here's Project Phoenix. And then, well, within Project Phoenix there's Project, let's call it Nest Egg. I'm like, well what's Project Nest Egg? And why is there a billion for it? And the two who are left in the room look at each other, and one of them leaves, and like, let me guess, that the other person couldn't know about Project Nest Egg.
Yep. So then I, they tell me about Project Nest Egg. You, now, the only thing I have in there, reference, is a clock, and before I walked in, I had to remember what my next meeting was, and I'm looking at the clock, and I've played 20 questions just to get down into Project Phoenix, and there's probably more binders if I knew the right words to say, you know, abracadabra, then I could get those binders. But this is how hard it is to know what's actually going on in our government.
Speaker 0: Wow, how much time were you in that room for?
Speaker 1: Like an hour, and just trying to drill down in one little thing to understand it. Now there was another, when I was doing that, there was another congressman in there with me, and he was like, how'd you know to ask for that? I'm like, well, I don't know, I just
Speaker 0: thought we should ask about Went to MIT. Yeah. This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances.
Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 833324 Again, that's okeithmediagold.com or 833324. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keith.
Don't just watch history. Own a piece of speaking of redactions, I sent you the FBI raid affidavit in in my case, where they literally redacted every single word of the probable cause. That's the justification for the search warrant. In a case where they admitted there was no indictment, there was no crime, they redacted every single word. And it stands to reason that if they can't even be transparent about why they why they raided a newsroom, why the Department of Justice raided a journalism organization, they can't even tell you why they did that.
It stands to reason they're not gonna tell you, you know, what really happened with Jeff Epstein here. Not voluntarily. Well, not voluntarily.
Speaker 1: And so, what's happening right now is they are curating the release of material to the oversight committee, and I showed the chairman of the oversight committee yesterday the documents he was getting. I'm like, here's the flight log. It's completely redacted. Like, not all of the people on that plane were victims. I said somebody had to fly the plane.
Like, can we at least know who the pilot was? Like, it was crazy.
Speaker 0: Is it all just to protect sources and methods? That's my hypothesis.
Speaker 1: I think it's to avoid embarrassment for some very rich and powerful people and I think it is, to some degree, to protect sources and methods, methods of which American people might not approve of if they knew their tax dollars were using those methods.
Speaker 0: Very last question, very quickly. What was your favorite moment from your press conference yesterday?
Speaker 1: Oh, my favorite moment, I won't call it my favorite moment, I'll tell you what kept me up last night, like sick to my stomach, was when one of the women recanted her story, actually two women, one was in Florida and one was in New York, they basically told the same story. When they were 14, somebody in their high school said, hey, you wanna go give a rich guy a massage and get $200? He's got a really nice house and all this. And she says, sure. She goes, The door closes with Jeffrey Epstein.
He sexually assaults her. He tells her, Whenever I call you, you need to come over here and I'll pay you $200 again. And the thing that makes me sick to my stomach is eventually he said, you gotta go back to your high school and bring me another 14 year old. And the girl admitted that she did it because, and she got $200 for doing it, but she didn't have to get sexually abused if she would bring him to somebody else. So, not only was there evil being perpetrated on her, she was convinced to do evil, or forced to do evil.
I think that's disgusting. And then what else we learned, this is very close to that same thing is that once they got to be like 16 or 17 or 18, they were too old for Jeffrey Epstein. And he would farm them out to friends, not all of them, but some of them. He would facilitate other people to have sex with, sexually abuse them. This gets to the heart of this matter.
Okay, there are two things that went really bad in the Epstein case. Number one, he got off with a very light sentence and then committed these heinous acts to hundreds of kids. Like, before this press conference, I wondered, should I be calling him a pedophile or were these, like, older, you know, girls? No. He was a pedophile.
He didn't even want them once they got to the legal age of consent. So two things went really bad. For some reason, Anacosta himself who works in the Trump administration now said back when he was the prosecutor that it was, that Epstein was tied to government intelligence, okay, but for some reason they let him go back out and recommit these things. And then the other thing that's really bad about this situation, which is what I want to get to, is he had, it wasn't just Maxwell and Epstein who committed these crimes. There were other people involved.
There were people that facilitated it, there were people who participated in it, and none of them have seen one day in jail. And a lot of those are still out there, and the DOJ wants you to believe they don't know who they are. That's preposterous. That's like, if you're an American and you're saying, and I have some colleagues who say this, they say, man, I just hear all that, and I just, my mind goes blank because I hear it so much, I'm tired of it, let's move on. But if that's your mindset, you need to understand that the US government has let criminals go free, Epstein at first, and then others still now, because, and argument right now is for why they can't release these files, is there are people in there who were associated with Jeffrey Epstein who shouldn't have to be embarrassed by being in a release of information.
The problem is, within that list of people that they think shouldn't be embarrassed are actual criminals who should be prosecuted. And so one of the objections to releasing all this material, once you get past the fact that we are gonna protect the victims, one of the objections is this embarrassment thing, but we gotta get over that. We gotta get all this out there and let people sort through, okay, this guy knew Jeffrey Epstein because he funded the scholarship that Epstein gave, right? Whereas this guy was a sexual predator. And I think that we can get to the bottom of that.
Speaker 0: Thank you Congressman for your time today. Thank Thank James. What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Rep. Thomas Massie | My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe #11 - O'Keefe Media Group
Congressman Thomas Massie stood with Jeffrey Epstein survivors at a historic press conference on Capitol Hill, demanding the full release of the Epstein Files. Those demands were echoed by allies from both parties. According to Massie, Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing a placebo resolution, billionaires are spending millions to crush him, and congress members whisper […]
okeefemediagroup.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
The DOJ investigation is just the start, and we have another tape coming soon. We're in the process of verifying the footage and our sources. An FBI official was reportedly escorted out after our revelations. We've formally requested interviews with top DOJ officials, who are cooperating with us to arrange this. I encourage anyone from the DOJ to join me on My Price Is My Life. The American people deserve answers, and this story is ongoing.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Our DOJ investigation is just the beginning. Another tape is about to drop. We are currently verifying the footage and confirming our sources. We’ve just been told an FBI official was escorted out of the building after what we exposed. We have formally requested an interview with top officials at the DOJ, who, along with the FBI, are actively working with us to arrange one. I invite anyone from the DOJ to sit down with me on My Price Is My Life. The American people deserve answers, and this story is far from over. @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino @AGPamBondi @VP @TheJusticeDept
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Then why is the Acting Deputy Chief saying this. Is he still employed?
reSee.it AI Summary
I work for the Department of Justice as an analyst and have been in this role for 23 years. Starting next week, I’ll be the acting deputy chief of our office for a few months. My job involves close collaboration with various federal law enforcement agencies, including the Marshals Service, FBI, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, which makes it quite interesting.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Here is Joseph Schnitt ON VIDEO, spelling out his title, where he works, and how long he’s been doing it. TRANSCRIPT: I work for the Department of Justice. I've been there like 23 years. I'm an analyst. I'll be acting deputy chief of our office for a few months, starting next week. I work closely with all the federal law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Attorney's Offices, the prosecutors and stuff. The thing is, it's interesting, because I do deal with so many of the agencies. I think we're a prisons, the Marshals Service, FBI, U.S. Attorney's Offices.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Work for the department of justice. Been there, like, twenty three years. I'm an analyst. I'll be acting deputy chief of our office for a few months starting next week. I work closely with all the federal law enforcement agencies and the US attorney's offices As a gospel. The prosecutors and stuff. The thing is it's what you're saying because I do deal with so many of the agencies, like the Bureau of Brisons, the Marshal Service, the FBI, US attorney's offices. It's like
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And what do you what do you do for work here? Work for the department of justice. Okay. Been there, like, twenty three years. I'm an analyst.
I'll be acting deputy chief of our office for a few months starting next week. I work closely with, like, all the the federal law enforcement agencies and the US attorney's offices As a gospel. The prosecutors and stuff. The thing is it's what you're saying because I do deal with so many of the agencies, like the Bureau of Brisons, the Marshal Service, the FBI, US attorney's offices. It's like
reSee.it AI Summary
I learned that a DOJ Deputy Chief revealed the government plans to redact all Republicans from the Epstein client list while leaving Democrats unredacted. Additionally, Ghislaine Maxwell was moved to a lower-security prison, which seems to contradict BOP policy for convicted sex offenders.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
BREAKING: DOJ Deputy Chief Admits Government Will “Redact Every Republican” While “Leav[ing] All the Liberal, Democratic People” on the Epstein Client List; Says Ghislaine Maxwell Was Moved to a Lower-Security Prison As “A Benefit… to Keep Her Mouth Shut” “She [Maxwell] got transferred to a minimum security prison… It’s against BOP policy because she's a convicted sex offender.” @TheJusticeDept @FBI @AGPamBondi @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Thousands and thousands of page 55. They'll redact every republican or conservative person in those files. Leave all the liberal democratic people in those files." "There will be no cover ups, no missing documents, and no stone left unturned." "Epstein was acting alone and that the only video evidence they had was of Epstein's personal child porn collection." "We're not gonna revictimize women. We're not gonna put that shit back out there." "If it does, it'll be heavily redacted, and his name won't be here." "What we're looking for is people on the inside of the government to step forward for your private actions to match your public actions." "tips@o'keefemediagroup.com or text us at (914) 491-9395, and we will tell your story without fear and without favor."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But those files do exist.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thousands and thousands of page 55. They'll redact every republican or conservative person in those files. Leave all the liberal democratic people in those files.
Speaker 2: And then they visited that Maxwell person
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Who's been also involved?
Speaker 1: I got transferred to a minimum security person too recently, which is against b o p policy because she's she's, like, convicted sex offender.
Speaker 3: They're offering her something to keep in mind.
Speaker 4: Was the acting deputy chief of the office of enforcement operations, Joseph Schnitt, telling a stranger about the FBI and DOJ's handling of the Epstein files. Schnid, who works at a high level inside the Department of Justice, goes on to comment on the inconsistent statements, special treatment of Ghislain Maxwell, and the blatant backtracking on promises of transparency. For work here? I work
Speaker 1: for the department of justice.
Speaker 2: Okay. I've been
Speaker 1: there, like, twenty three years. I'm an analyst. I'll be acting deputy chief of our office for a few months starting next week. I work closely with, like, all the the federal law enforcement agencies, the US attorney's offices, the prosecutors and stuff. The thing is it's what you're saying because I do deal with so many of the agencies, like the Bureau of Brisons, the Marshals Service,
Speaker 0: the
Speaker 1: FBI, US attorney's offices.
Speaker 4: Recently, the FBI and DOJ have come under fire for promising transparency then refusing to release footage and unredacted documents, going directly against the public's expectations and the promises made by attorney general Pam Bondi and FBI director Cash Patel. In a DOJ press release, attorney general Pam Bondi stated, quote, this department of justice is following through on president Trump's commitment to transparency and lifting the veil on the disgusting actions of Jeffrey Epstein and his co conspirators, unquote, and also claimed they were shedding light on Epstein's extensive network only to later claim that Epstein was acting alone and that the only video evidence they had was of Epstein's personal child porn collection.
Speaker 5: Also to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn is what they were.
Speaker 4: In the same press release, Cash Patel claimed, quote, there will be no cover ups, no missing documents, and no stone left unturned.
Speaker 1: So on the Epstein matter or any other matters, we are diligently working on that. I'm not going to withhold information from the American public ever.
Speaker 4: Only to later claim on Joe Rogan's podcast that releasing any videos would revictimize those impacted.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna revictimize women. We're not gonna put that shit back out there. It's not happening because then he wins. Not doing it. You wanna hate me for it?
Fine. You know, internally, there's a lot of even within the administration, there's internal conflict.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: Like, the the FBI really wants it. Second in command at FBI has been, like, causing problems because he's like, no. These have to be released.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So the FBI wants them out?
Speaker 1: Yep. The top two guys that do.
Speaker 2: And Bonnie does it?
Speaker 1: I don't know what Bonnie does. Bonnie wants whatever it's all.
Speaker 0: Sure. She's super I'll get some side.
Speaker 4: Why is there suddenly this internal conflict within the same administration that aggressively campaigned in 2024 to fully release the Epstein files to the American public? What new revelations did the DOJ and FBI make to now say that an incriminating client list does not exist? DOJ analyst Joseph Schmidt comments on these inconsistencies and informs our undercover journalists that even if anything was to be released, it would be heavily redacted in favor of the Republican party indicating that this DOJ official, Joseph Schnitt, probably leans Democrat.
Speaker 2: Do you think, like, the stuff with Epstein will actually get released or not at all?
Speaker 1: If it does, it'll be heavily redacted, and his name won't be here.
Speaker 0: Are those files do you exist?
Speaker 1: There's files
Speaker 2: Yeah. For
Speaker 1: sure. There's, yeah, thousands and thousands of pages of file. But, again, if they're released in any way, it's gonna be very redact they'll redact every republican or conservative person in those files, leave all the liberal democratic people in those files, and have a very slanted version of it come out where it's like, look at what he's doing without really seeing any of their bad behavior.
Speaker 4: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324 gold. Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
The conversation then turned towards Jelaine Maxwell and her highly publicized and unprecedented prison transfer.
Speaker 2: You think visited that Maxwell person
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's been also involved?
Speaker 1: I got transferred to a minimum security person too recently, which is against b o p policy because she's she's a convicted sex minor. And they're not supposed to be in a security business, which is an interesting detail because she's getting a benefit,
Speaker 3: which means they're offering her something to keep in mind.
Speaker 4: Difference between a low security prison and a minimum security prison is that minimum security prisons are designed for nonviolent offenders with short sentences. They often have no perimeter fencing, and inmates are housed in dormitory style rooms. We looked into the Bureau of Prisons policies, and Schnitt's claim is in fact correct. Convicted sex offenders are historically ineligible for minimum security facilities. Schnitt is also very credible by virtue of where he works inside the Department of Justice.
This raises significant questions about why Ghislain Maxwell was provided such special treatment at a time where the DOJ and the FBI are under heavy scrutiny for their handling of the Epstein files. The DOJ and FBI have continually promised transparency to the country. Why was the case's most significant witness transferred to a more comfortable prison life, all while Epstein's victims were still not receiving the justice they deserved? Why does it take a random girl in Washington DC for someone like Joseph to open up. Why are top DOJ officials spilling all these secrets in restaurants while the American people are not necessarily afforded the same transparency that they're promised?
It doesn't make any sense. What we're looking for is people on the inside of the government to step forward for your private actions to match your public actions, to stand by the truth. And if you know more about this, please email us at tips@o'keefemediagroup.com or text us at (914) 491-9395, and we will tell your story without fear and without favor.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
O’KEEFE AT EPSTEIN PRESSER: Flare USA Leader Caught Coaching Protesters; American Opposition Founder Calls O’Keefe and Sexual Abuse Survivor “D**chebags" OMG to Launch DOJ Tapes on Epstein Tomorrow https://t.co/OhO7d6uCGp
Video Transcript AI Summary
On the street outside the Built Capital Building, a reporter questions protesters and bystanders about Trump, transparency, and the handling of files. They discuss why the Biden administration didn’t release the files: "January 6. Why didn't the Biden administration release the files if Trump was implicated in the files?" One responds, "From what I understand, he didn't have the ability to do that." Another adds, "they were, sequestered and unavailable to be released." The conversation touches access: "Obviously" the Trump administration has access. A new claim is raised: "There’s a tape coming out tomorrow about a DOJ official saying there's a cover up." The segment also asserts, "We believe the women." and "We believe all women." The host wraps: "That’s a wrap in front of the Built Capital Building." and "Trump equals traitor."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If Trump were on these files, wouldn't the Biden administration have released them?
Speaker 1: No. Why not? They were, there were reasons that they were they were being held back, that they didn't have access to get them released.
Speaker 0: Why? What do you think those reasons were just out of curiosity?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We're done here. Like, we're done.
Speaker 0: Got it. What about us. Okay. No what about us. I'm Like,
Speaker 2: it was sealed for a number of times.
Speaker 0: That's lame, man. I just who do you work for?
Speaker 3: No comment. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Speaker 0: I noticed that you were telling you were making a gesture to cut off the interview when when I was talking to the protesters. You were you were coaching them.
Speaker 3: You're a piece of shit.
Speaker 0: Why am I
Speaker 3: anything to do with anything. Carlos, don't do it. We're just a piece of shit. And we don't wanna talk.
Speaker 0: Carlos, you're coaching him right now. He's coaching him right in front of us. So why am I a piece of shit?
Speaker 3: I don't I gotta run. Yeah. I go.
Speaker 0: He's funny. You ran this way. You ran that way. You were coaching the people with the sign with your neck. Why were you doing that?
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna engage. It's okay.
Speaker 0: I believe in transparency. It's okay. Do you believe in transparency?
Speaker 2: I'm okay.
Speaker 3: You're okay. Just
Speaker 0: I'm not gonna engage. Do you believe in transparency?
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna continue to repeat myself. I'm just gonna stop if that's okay. Okay. Alright. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You can't tell me who you work for.
Speaker 3: Well, it's okay.
Speaker 0: Is this there's nothing okay. We're pretty far from okay in this country. Okay. Bye bye.
Speaker 3: I'm pretty fucking far from okay.
Speaker 0: What did I do that makes me a piece of shit?
Speaker 3: You tried to under you tried to undermine the truth, brother.
Speaker 0: How so?
Speaker 3: By doing fraudulent investigations and calling yourself a journalist.
Speaker 0: Give me an example of a fraudulent investigate.
Speaker 3: Answer that, dude. I'm not gonna get into your life, and I'm not gonna make it about you because you are a piece of shit.
Speaker 0: Well, you just did make it about me.
Speaker 3: No. You are asking about yourself.
Speaker 0: So
Speaker 3: so You wake up. Because, again, being a douchebag is okay. It's your right. And if that's what you wanna be, that's cool. And if you wanna dress this way, that's fine.
Speaker 0: What's wrong with how I'm dressed?
Speaker 3: I mean, look at it's ridiculous. Why are you screaming? Because you're you're you're keep fucking you keep fucking talking. Why are cursing? Because you keep fucking talking.
I'm asking questions. How real people talk. Not in fucking DC, douchebag. That's how fucking people talk. There it is.
Speaker 0: You seem very
Speaker 3: fucking douchebag. Okay. Everybody, this is what a douchebag looks like. This is what a loser looks like. This oh, he's not he's a then you're a douchebag too.
Speaker 0: So Are calling this nice young lady a douchebag? I thought you supported women. I'm No. Why are you attacking she's
Speaker 4: a she's a survivor of sexual abuse.
Speaker 0: Oh, please? Oh, Oh, please. Please. You scratch them and they become anti woman.
Speaker 2: Do you
Speaker 0: know who this individual is?
Speaker 3: No. But she thinks you're cool.
Speaker 0: She is a survivor of sexual abuse.
Speaker 3: That's not the point. Oh, you're trying to. Dude, I don't give a shit. Dude, every What is going on here? Go fuck yourself.
Okay. Fuck yourself.
Speaker 0: There you have it.
Speaker 3: I'm a survivor. Oh, that doesn't mean you can't be a douchebag. You're a fucking douchebag.
Speaker 0: You can't. Can't scream You're douchebag. You can't screaming at women. I mean
Speaker 3: Hey. Go fuck. You're
Speaker 0: He's attacking her personally. Man. What do you mean? What do you mean by karma's a bitch?
Speaker 2: When you when when you go out in public and act like an ass,
Speaker 0: it bites the
Speaker 2: ass. Guy. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Did you hear what he was saying?
Speaker 1: Yes. I did.
Speaker 0: He he was attacking the lady for being a douchebag. I don't know what she's a douchebag about. She's a victim of sexual abuse.
Speaker 2: Right. Exactly. He's a douchebag.
Speaker 0: We believe the women.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: We believe the women. Yes.
Speaker 2: I'm so sure you do. I'm wondering.
Speaker 0: What makes you say that?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know who who independent freelance
Speaker 0: What what difference would it make if I'm the New York Times, NBC News, or just a random YouTube guy?
Speaker 2: Because I've seen what things can get twisted, so I don't know you. So You know, I I think that I I I'm cautious.
Speaker 3: I've learned
Speaker 0: My my trying to be independent here, I think that there are sometimes, maybe one in a thousand, where perhaps a woman isn't truthful. Do you agree with that? Or are they a 100% of the time always telling the truth in every single situation?
Speaker 2: We believe the women.
Speaker 0: What does that mean?
Speaker 2: It means I believe a woman who's going to go ahead, they're not going to lie about that.
Speaker 0: So a woman We're
Speaker 2: not gonna have any more discussion.
Speaker 0: A woman never has lied?
Speaker 2: See see this is where you wanna go and that isn't where
Speaker 0: I It's wanna not where I wanna go. It's it's the it's the natural logical question that
Speaker 2: Our conversation has ended. Thank
Speaker 0: you Alright. Very
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Alright. So we believe all women. I mean, I understand the perspective of just asking some questions and been told the conversation's over. So the conversation's over. Trump equals traitor.
How is, Trump a traitor? Well, January 6. Why didn't the Biden administration release the files if Trump was implicated in the files? What's your opinion on that?
Speaker 5: From what I understand, he didn't have the ability to do that.
Speaker 0: Why not?
Speaker 5: For they they were, sequestered and unavailable to to be released.
Speaker 0: Alright. Thanks for your time today. I don't
Speaker 5: still ask me that silly question. That was a trick question. No. Not not that question. Was a trick question.
Speaker 0: How is it a trick
Speaker 5: question? Because you knew that he wasn't able to release the files when he was president.
Speaker 0: I don't know that.
Speaker 5: Well, then now you know.
Speaker 0: How do what's the source on that?
Speaker 5: I cannot pick out that instant piece of information for you, but I'm sure you can find it if you if you were motivated enough.
Speaker 0: Does the Trump administration have access to it?
Speaker 5: Obviously.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the Biden administration didn't, but the Trump administration does.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: I don't know how that works. I don't understand.
Speaker 5: Well, then you can go find out.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll I'll try to do that.
Speaker 5: You're a smart guy and you know how to how to research things.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: You can you can find the this information out yourself.
Speaker 0: Well, we have a tape coming out tomorrow about a DOJ official saying there's a cover up. So we're doing our we're trying to do our part. You know? We're we're trying. Talked to Massey.
Have you met him?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Briefly. He stopped me before they got started.
Speaker 0: Seems like a good guy.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. I I asked him how he was doing. He's like, horrible. I'm here.
Every day here is horrible.
Speaker 0: Heck yeah.
Speaker 3: They're all still fucking kids, and we're all still paying taxes.
Speaker 0: That is a wrap in front of the Built Capital Building. For those of you just tuning in, you missed a lot of action. We gotta go.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Ian @IanCarrollShow makes a cameo at the end of this video….
reSee.it AI Summary
When Seraphin was with the FBI, I chose not to hire him due to red flags. In retaliation, he leaked private messages between me and my girlfriend, claiming it was justified because she wore a Christian cross. This breach of the Stored Communications Act is central to my lawsuit against Project Veritas. Seraphin is a key witness but won’t disclose his source. However, I have obtained deposition footage of that source admitting everything. I want to send a clear message to any FBI agents abusing their power: I will expose you, and I fear no evil.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
When Seraphin was with the FBI, he wanted a job at Project Veritas. I saw red flags and did not hire him. Out of revenge, he published intimate messages between myself and my girlfriend obtained from a server. The justification? She “wore a Christian Cross around her neck.”
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
This violation of the Stored Communications Act is central to my lawsuit in the Project Veritas case. @KyleSeraphin is a key witness and refuses to name his source. But I’ve obtained under oath, videotaped deposition footage of his source admitting everything. Stay tuned.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
@KyleSeraphin Let this be a message to ANY FBI agents who abuse their power. I will expose you, If you are abusing your power and taking advantage of honest Americans I will make expose you. Also, I do not fear you. I fear no evil. I will expose you for precisely who you are.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
FBI AGENT SERAPHIN DEPO VIDEO PART 1: O'Keefe Deposes Ex-FBI Agent Kyle Seraphin Who Was Sued by Kash Patel's Girlfriend for Calling Her a “Mossad Honeypot" Seraphin Testifies He Published O’Keefe’s Private intimate Messages With Ex Because She “Wore a Christian Cross Around Her Neck"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Deposition excerpts claim: "James O'Keefe is of low character." "That justifies you releasing his private messages with his then girlfriend." "She appeared on television shows, again, outwardly portraying a Christian cross on her neck." Alexis Wilkins has "sued a former FBI agent named Kyle Seraphin for defamation." Wilkins is "the girlfriend of the director of the FBI, Cash Patel," and the complaint alleges Kyle "defamed Wilkins by posting that she is a Mossad agent and honeypot." The private messages between "myself and my then girlfriend" were published from a third party server. The deposition shows Kyle Seraphin under oath explaining "why he chose to attack a woman personally and published her personal intimate private text messages without redacting her name despite her tearful requests." He invokes "operational morality" and that "the ends justify the means." He states, "My wife found out about that post after I made it, and she doesn't have a problem with it because she's my wife." He refuses to reveal sources: "I’m not revealing my sources." "Stay tuned."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You ever talk dirty to your wife?
Speaker 1: No. Object form.
Speaker 2: Object to But the answer is no. James O'Keefe is of low character.
Speaker 0: That justifies you releasing his private messages with his then girlfriend.
Speaker 2: She appeared on television shows, again, outwardly portraying a Christian cross on her neck.
Speaker 0: Do you have previous sexual partners before your wife?
Speaker 1: We're we're gonna object to that question and and don't answer that question.
Speaker 0: You ever talked dirty to your previous sexual partners?
Speaker 1: Again, objection to the question and don't answer it.
Speaker 0: This is your chance to make sure that you're not incongruous in your personal life. Are you gonna hide behind your counsel's objection?
Speaker 3: You may have seen the news recently that a woman named Alexis Wilkins has sued a former FBI agent named Kyle Seraphin for defamation. Wilkins is the girlfriend of the director of the FBI, Cash Patel. The complaint by Alexis Wilkins alleges former FBI agent Kyle Sarifen defamed Wilkins by posting that she is a Mossad agent and honeypot. That's the same Kyle Sarifen that is at the center of a dispute of a lawsuit between myself organization I founded. This former FBI agent published intimate text messages between myself and my then girlfriend that the FBI agent somehow obtained off of a third party server when I was at Project Veritas.
What you're about to see is never before seen deposition footage just weeks ago where Kyle Sarifen was under oath in federal court explaining why he chose to attack a woman personally and published her personal intimate private text messages without redacting her name despite her tearful requests for him not to do so. Again, none of this had any public interest. What seems to be a running theme here with Kyle Sarifen is his vicious attacks against women.
Speaker 2: James O'Keefe is of low character.
Speaker 0: That justifies you releasing his private messages with his then girlfriend?
Speaker 1: Object to form.
Speaker 0: What about where is your morality when you release her private messages?
Speaker 2: As I understand it, she appeared on television shows, again, outwardly portraying a Christian cross on her neck and then living a very different sort of strange life, I would say.
Speaker 0: Are Christians not allowed to talk dirty in the bedroom?
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna have Objection to form. Yeah. No theological debate from me.
Speaker 0: Well, you you specifically decided that she wore a cross, and so that was the reason that was okay to release her text messages.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 3: Kyle takes issue with a man talking dirty or being sexual with a woman. So the attorney asks if Kyle Seraphin has ever done it himself.
Speaker 0: You ever talk dirty to your wife?
Speaker 1: To the form.
Speaker 0: Object to form.
Speaker 2: But the answer is no.
Speaker 0: Never have.
Speaker 1: Object to the form.
Speaker 3: The attorney then asks if Kyle Sarifen had any previous sexual relations before he was married, and Kyle Sarifen refuses to answer that question.
Speaker 0: Do you have previous sexual partners before your wife?
Speaker 1: We're gonna object to that question and don't answer that question.
Speaker 0: You ever talked dirty to your previous sexual partners?
Speaker 1: Again, objection to the question and don't answer it. Mhmm.
Speaker 0: You ever texted previous sexual partners dirty things, sexual things?
Speaker 1: Objection to the question and don't answer it.
Speaker 3: Since Seraphin brings up morality, he is asked about his sexual relationship before marriage.
Speaker 0: Is it your belief that having sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin?
Speaker 2: It's not just my belief. That's actually the Christian position.
Speaker 0: Did you ever have sexual relations outside of your marriage?
Speaker 1: So I've objected to this once. I'm gonna object to it again and don't answer the question.
Speaker 0: This is your chance to make sure that you're not incongruous in your personal life.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna object to your speaking statement.
Speaker 0: Are you gonna hide behind your counsel's objection?
Speaker 1: I'm gonna object to that and instruct him not to answer.
Speaker 3: The then girlfriend of this reporter tearfully called Seraphin asking him to take down the personal messages.
Speaker 0: She contacted you and made you aware that she objected to you sharing her private messages. Right?
Speaker 2: I got a tearful phone call, stated something to the effect of what he said.
Speaker 0: Calling you in tears, you didn't think to take down the messages, reverse course?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: As a Christian man, you thought it was still appropriate even though she was objecting?
Speaker 1: Object to form.
Speaker 2: Objection. I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. My actual words is the way that she looks. She looks like a used up porn star.
Speaker 0: What moral authority do you have to attack and call her a used up porn star?
Speaker 2: Morality doesn't come into this. It's just somebody posting words, and I did, of which I have a right to do in America.
Speaker 0: Morality doesn't come into this?
Speaker 2: I don't make any moral claims.
Speaker 0: You criticized her for being a Christian outwardly, but having a private sexual life that you disagreed with. Is that not a moral claim?
Speaker 2: No. I don't think that's a moral claim.
Speaker 3: Then shockingly, Kyle compares his act of publishing private intimate text messages to that of OMG reporting on John Bryan saying Prince Andrew had sex with underage girls.
Speaker 0: Can you give me an example of James O'Keefe releasing a story where one of his as you just characterized it, one of his reporters goes on a date and then he releases sort of bedroom talk.
Speaker 2: Yeah. A couple of days ago, OMG Media put out a story about a friend or fixer for Prince Andrew and then shared information about Prince Andrew's life habits and hearsay.
Speaker 0: So you analogize what you did here to the Epstein scandal. Which of Prince Andrew's alleged victims or sexual partners did James O'Keefe out during that story?
Speaker 2: I'm only aware you asked for an example and I gave you one.
Speaker 0: No. I'm looking for an example of him outing a victim or a sexual partner of any of the people that you're discussing that he releases stories on.
Speaker 2: Got it. I don't have that example for you.
Speaker 3: Seraphin reaffirms his ends justify the means mentality and that he wanted me to quote, f off and die.
Speaker 2: Operational morality is a concept or an operational principle that says the ends justify the means. It's the short version of it, but it's a philosophical way of approaching bad behavior with outcomes that are preferable.
Speaker 0: Like, for example, publishing private sexual conversations because you have a vendetta against James O'Keefe. Objection to form. What's this? James can f o a d.
Speaker 2: It's commonly understood to f off and die.
Speaker 0: So you didn't get a job and James had messages with his girlfriend that you judged to be hypocritical to his outward persona, therefore he can die?
Speaker 1: Object to form.
Speaker 0: Does your wife support this behavior?
Speaker 1: Object to form.
Speaker 2: The short answer is yes.
Speaker 0: But your wife, you you said earlier, is not only aware, supportive of the way that you've handled this situation. Right?
Speaker 2: The entirety of the situation, yes. My wife found out about that post after I made it, and she doesn't have a problem with it because she's my wife.
Speaker 0: What does that mean? That your wife has to support every decision that you make?
Speaker 1: Object to the form.
Speaker 2: It means that there's not daylight between my wife and I when it comes to things that are important.
Speaker 0: Alright. So here we are at 04/26/2024 and people are responding to your release of these messages in the last few days. And you write that they were sent to me. Who sent them to you?
Speaker 2: I just told you that I'm not revealing my sources, so that would obviously mean that I'm not revealing sources, publicly or to you.
Speaker 3: Now, even though Kyle says he will not disclose his source, we actually found out who his source was on the board of directors at Project Veritas, and that will be coming up soon. Stay tuned.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just got sued in Cook County, Illinois, and I'm fed up with this lawfare aimed at shutting us down. The lawsuit stems from a recording of a State Farm Insurance executive making controversial comments about building in certain areas. They claim it violates Illinois recording law. The Glenview Police Department is investigating, and a detective has questioned our undercover journalist, who is also being sued. This was recorded in a public space, so there was no expectation of privacy. No charges have been filed yet, and the case may go to the state’s attorney for review.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
OMG SUED AGAIN! I just got sued in Cook County, Illinois. This is LAWFARE designed to SHUT US DOWN. I am sick and tired of this bs. This was over State Farm Insurance exec who said “People want to build in areas… for their ego. But it’s also a [expletive] desert,” Kirkpatrick said in the recording.” They sued over the Illinois recording law. The Glenview Police Department opened an investigation. They sent a detective to question our undercover journalist involved, who has also been sued. No arrests have been made. This was recorded in a public place, no expectation of privacy. The detective has never charged this statute before. The case may go to the state’s attorney for review… https://www.liveinsurancenews.com/former-state-farm-executive-sues/8565457/
Former State Farm Executive Sues Activists Over Secret Recording
Haden Kirkpatrick, a former State Farm vice president, filed a lawsuit on August 27, 2025, in Cook County Circuit Court. The defendants include
liveinsurancenews.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I recount my experience as a political strategist, highlighting the dramatic FBI raid on my home in January 2019. Facing pressure to testify against Donald Trump, I chose to resist, enduring what I describe as a “show trial” that cost me dearly. I discuss various aspects of my ordeal, including jury corruption, the role of Andrew Weissman, and the financial toll of legal battles. I also reflect on my friendship with Trump, the impact of the Obama presidency, and share insights on significant historical events and figures.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn on January 25th, 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone refused, endured what he calls a “show trial,” and lost nearly everything. Now, he reveals how the justice system was weaponized against him. Surprise FBI Raid (1:24) Why Was Roger Stone Arrested? (7:20) The Booking Process/Arrest (11:50) Jury Corruption (14:00) Andrew Weissman’s Role (19:47) Advice for People Who Are Raided (24:28) Disproving the Charges & Resisting Trump Betrayal (25:30) Losing Everything to Pay Attorneys (28:30) Accusations Vs. Tangible Proof (30:20) Prosecuting the Prosecutors (32:00) Finding Faith (35:00) Commuted by Trump/Given Pardon (39:00) Obama Presidency Changed Everything (44:31) Virginia Gieuffre’s Testimony on Jeffrey Epstein (45:15) The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein (46:40) Who Really Killed JFK? (52:59) Richard Nixon on Israel (1:08:10) Stone and Trump Friendship (1:14:32) “The Apprentice” and Seeing Trump’s Potential (1:15:54) Nixon’s Run for President (1:18:50) On Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (1:26:30) @RogerJStoneJr Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Website: https://okeefemediagroup.com/roger-stone-my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe-10/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Stone describes the morning raid: “17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen” and “I opened the door looking down the barrel of three M4 assault weapons.” He says “they found nothing,” and recalls a July offer: “we can hit you with some superseding charges and you’ll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump,” which he refused: “you can take this and you shove it up your ass.” He recounts CNN leaking his sealed indictment, noting the indictment bore the initials of “Andrew Weissman” and that “the leaking of a search or arrest warrant prior to it being executed is actually a felony.” He discusses the gag order, asserts “no evidence of Russian collusion,” and notes “Stone did nothing wrong” shirts funded his defense. Trump “commuted his sentence” and later granted a pardon. He also touches on Epstein, Acosta, and Kennedy/Johnson theories.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you knew they were gonna raid you that morning?
Speaker 1: Definitely. I That morning. I sensed it. It was coming that morning. We're talking about 17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen.
But I opened the door looking down the barrel of three m four assault weapons aimed at my head. Do know what they found? Nothing. That's what they found. Nothing.
I had no idea that the whole thing would be rigged. I was arrested in January. In July was when they said to me, we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump. Those are your choices. And I said, you can take this and you shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that.
I interviewed Virginia Roberts Dufres for six hours. The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous out of the question.
Speaker 0: She's now deceased.
Speaker 1: She she they tell us that she commits. I don't I don't buy it.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back. I'm here today with Roger Stone. Roger, thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: James, great to be with you. We we have a lot in common. We're both survivors. We both know how intrusive it is to have the feds smash and attack your place at 06:00 in the morning Yes. We do.
And be rested in your underwear. It's it's great to be with you.
Speaker 0: Great to have you here. I'm wearing a a tailored suit today. Alan Fluser.
Speaker 1: Very good. He's a
Speaker 0: New York tailor, so I'm I'm wearing a suit in honor of you. I know how much you appreciate fashion.
Speaker 1: He was my tailor till I got arrested and then suddenly he decided to give a bunch of interviews saying that I was a criminal.
Speaker 0: I didn't know.
Speaker 1: This is after I paid him, I don't know, $350,000 over many years. So he's no longer my tailor.
Speaker 0: Is he still alive?
Speaker 1: He is still alive, but he's not doing all that great. I now use a guy named Adam DeAngelo, who's a excellent tailor. He comes to you.
Speaker 0: Well, I the the guy that tailored is not Alan. Apparently, it's a new person that works for him.
Speaker 1: Looks great.
Speaker 0: But here we are. So speaking of the FBI team, let's pull up the clip regarding Roger in Florida. What was this? 2020? What year?
Speaker 1: 2019.
Speaker 0: 2019. And recently CEO. Oh, there this is CNN. Somehow somehow CNN knew that you were being raided. Yeah.
Let's play this clip, then we'll talk about it.
Speaker 2: Both this morning, a raid video this morning, a really stunning turn of events. So many people who have been charged and, in this Mueller investigation have been allowed to turn themselves in to surrender. Not so this morning. This was, by all accounts, a surprise raid on Stone's house. The reason
Speaker 0: A surprise raid. I know you've talked about this before, but I'm gonna talk about my raid. How did they know that you were being raided? How did CNN know that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's very simple. I was arrested at 06:16 in the morning. At 06:11, someone at CNN texted my lawyer and said, your client's just been arrested. And he, of course, said arrested for what? Because, of course, we knew there was no Russian collusion nor WikiLeaks collaboration.
So she sent him a copy of my sealed indictment, which wasn't unsealed until 10:30 that morning by a federal magistrate in DC. But if you looked at the metadata tags on that document, you find the initials of the man who wrote it, Andrew Weissman. Therefore, the man who leaked it in violation of federal law because the leaking of a search or arrest warrant prior to it being executed is actually a felony. Of course, the judge in my case could care less. But the idea that was a surprise is also false because I figured it out.
Meaning, the previous day around 04:30, the same producer at CNN called me and said, I I wanna mail you something. Can you give me your address? And I said, well, you can find my address online. It's easy to find. Well, there's two different home addresses for you online.
I'm not sure which one is the right one. So I gave it to her on the theory that she could find it anyway. And I said to my wife, they're coming to arrest me tomorrow morning. And she said, well, you've been saying that every weekend for the last six months because of the constant drumbeat of stories. It's part of their strategy of trying to pressure you.
Constant I never went to the grand jury. I never got a target letter. But every two or three days, you'd have a new story pop up saying, I was the focus of Mueller's probe, the noose titans on stone, the the stone under the microscope.
Speaker 0: Were you afraid? Were you scared?
Speaker 1: I was afraid. Was angry because, you know, I knew that there was no Russian collusion. I knew that their entire narrative was false. But every time one of the people who worked for me and some people who didn't work for me. Some people I hadn't been in touch with for fifteen years.
All these people being dragged in front of the grand jury, and, of course, their names are immediately leaked. So four stone three more stone associates go to the grand jury. And I'm scratching my head as are my lawyers because I can't think of any crime that I'm actually guilty of or that I could be charged with. So I would say at about 05:00 in the morning, set my alarm. I got up, I took a shower, I put on my Roger Stone did nothing wrong t shirt because I see a product placement opportunity coming.
Speaker 0: Those are your shirts that you
Speaker 1: I was selling to pay for my legal defense. I was saying them, if if you bought your t shirt for whatever it was, $25.
Speaker 0: So you knew they were gonna raid you that morning?
Speaker 1: Definitely. I I sensed it. It was coming that morning. And then I would say about 05:00, I got a call on my cell phone from a Fort Lauderdale police officer who happens to be a friend of mine. And he said, are you at home?
And I said, yeah, why? He said, well, I'm down at Starbucks and I bet there's, I don't know, 20, maybe 30 FBI agents here lined up getting coffee. Get the distinct impression that they're headed to your house after they leave here. And I said, yes, I'm expecting them. So I was sitting in the upstairs window, you know, which is the only, it's in the bathroom, it was the only window of the house upstairs where you could see the entire front yard.
And sure enough, first you saw the red lights. I mean, they came very very loud, very heavy. You saw the red lights, you heard their sirens, like I'm dangerous. Right. I saw them pull a battering ram out.
But first, before all of that, James, I saw the CNN crew set up 25 feet from my front door. And I later got an affidavit from a Fort Lauderdale police officer who was called in to do backup. They I live on a dead end street, so they roped off the end of the street. All the media was on the other side of the rope about a half a block away, except for CNN. They were allowed to be right at the, you know, at the right next to my house.
And the police officer says in his affidavit, when he told CNN they had to move, he got chewed out by an FBI agent who said, no. CNN had special permission to be, you know, inches away from where I was permission. I I presume the c the FBI did or the the prosecutors. The prosecutors in my case were actually there for my arrest. You realize this was one of the greatest missteps in American political and public relations history.
Helped get Trump elected perhaps. Well, it certainly allowed me to finance my legal defense because if I quietly turned myself in, and the day before my attorneys had talked to the special counsel's office, we handed over 30 pages of text messages, copies of text messages that proved that I was telling the truth and the witness against me were lying. So they could have said at that point, by the way, we're charging your client tomorrow, just bring him in to the federal courthouse. And I would have, of course, done that. But instead, they planned this over the top raid.
Speaker 0: What do you attribute that overreach to? Overzealous prosecutors, the attorney general's office? Why why did they do it that way?
Speaker 1: Well, think, first of all, they went and misrepresented the facts to two federal judges. So they told two different federal judges, we have probable cause to charge Stone with treason, conspiracy against The United States, counterfeiting, I love that one, money laundering, unauthorized access to a government computer, aiding and abetting a conspiracy before and after the fact. So they got into all my emails, all my text messages, all my phone calls. You know what they found? Nothing.
That's what they found. Nothing. So I actually think when they arrested me, they were they had high hopes that their investigation would turn up something useful. How did
Speaker 0: they get into your phone? The
Speaker 1: secret warrant? They they they take your phone. They took all
Speaker 0: my took the phone in
Speaker 1: the phone. All my electronic devices. So they took my computer. They took, my laptop.
Speaker 0: Did they have the password or did you
Speaker 1: They asked my wife the the passcode of my phone. She laughed at them and said, are you kidding me? Does your wife have the passcode to your phone? Right. No.
So, I mean, ultimately, figured it out. And once again, they found no evidence of Russian collusion, no evidence of WikiLeaks collaboration. They found nothing useful.
Speaker 0: The clip of the FBI pounding on the door, Andrew, and then also the clip of the FBI pounding on my door, because it's the pounding sound that I I when they did this to me here it is. The FBI pounding on the door, bang, bang, bang.
Speaker 3: FBI, open the door.
Speaker 0: So at this point, pause. So at this point, you what happened?
Speaker 1: So I come downstairs to let them in, obviously. And they say, are you Roger Stone? I say, yes. They say, put your hands behind your back. You're under arrest.
I put my hands behind my back. They say, is there anybody else in the house? I said, yes. My wife's in the house. They said, where is she?
I said, she's upstairs in the Second Floor. There's nobody else in the house. I said, no. There are no firearms in the house. I said, you already know the answer to that, because they did.
And they said, alright. Well, I I said, I'd like to know the charges against me, which I'm entitled by the constitution to know. Well, we'll tell you when we're ready. I said, no. I'd to know now.
I'd also like to see my lawyer. You can see your lawyer when we take you to the booking center in Miramar. Your lawyer will meet us there. So they're running up the stairs and I realized that they don't know that my wife is virtually deaf. So immediately, remember, I opened the door looking down the barrel of three m four assault weapons aimed at my head, aimed at my face.
And it immediately occurs to me that because my wife is deaf and without her hearing aids, she literally can hear nothing, she hasn't heard any she's none of this is going on. She's still sleeping. She sleeps through my entire arrest. My fear is that they're going to to wake her. She's not going to hear a command from Armen, and they're going to shoot her.
She doesn't know if this is
Speaker 0: That was going through your head in this moment. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't she's not they're all in plain clothes. So
Speaker 0: Did they have vests on?
Speaker 1: They had vests on. They but and most of them had night goggles. This was very, very dramatic.
Speaker 0: This is a joke.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it ended up backfiring, I think, very badly for them. Hey, look, I'm not the most sympathetic figure in the world. Okay? I'm a hardboiled political operative, but they made me into a sympathetic figure. Today, even today, this was four years ago, people come up to me and say, what they did to you, I saw it on TV, it was awful.
Speaker 0: That's what they say to
Speaker 1: me. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They always bring you up to me Yeah. And what they did to you. And so did did you open the door for these agents? Of course. Okay.
Because they would have banged it down.
Speaker 1: They were bashed they brought a battering ram up there. They would have smashed the door in. For what for what purpose? I mean, the whole thing was ludicrous. So then they hand they handcuffed me, I'm made to walk out and stand in the middle of the street in front of my house.
Now they bring my wife out, they perp walk her out in the middle of the street, although she's not allowed to talk to me.
Speaker 0: How did they find your wife eventually? Did she walk out
Speaker 1: of the She she she is accompanied out by a woman FBI agent. Fortunately for us, she didn't handcuff her, but
Speaker 0: Did she wake up from the
Speaker 1: She she woke up and then she realized what was going on. Now, remember, told her the night before this was gonna happen, she just didn't believe me. So they'd taken my phone at that point, they also took her phone. Since the whole world is watching this live on CNN, my grandchildren are calling, my children are calling, of course
Speaker 0: You can't answer
Speaker 1: the you can't answer the phone. Then after we left for the fingerprinting and the and the the mugshot at the booking center in Miramar, which at that hour in the morning is
Speaker 0: But what is Miramar for people who don't know what
Speaker 1: that is? Miramar, Florida is an hour and a half south of Fort Lauderdale where I live. And we're at peak traffic time now, so I'm handcuffed behind my back. So I say to the FBI agents, hey. Is there any chance we could move the handcuffs to the front?
No. Okay. Whatever. So we get we get there. I'm here.
I'm fingerprinted. I'm handcuffed.
Speaker 0: This is first time you've ever been arrested?
Speaker 1: For I I don't even have a parking ticket. I mean, it's ridiculous. So they say, okay. Your lawyers are in that conference room. So we go in the conference room.
I look around, and I go because I know they're listening. You know they're listening. So they say, okay. Well, they're going to what's gonna happen here? They said, well, we're gonna go back to the Federal Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale where you'll be arraigned.
We've already told them you're gonna plead not guilty, and they're gonna release you without bail. I said, wait a minute. Why did they arrest me in this over the top manner if if I'm not a flight risk? Their explanation already was, well, we had to do it this way because Stone was a flight risk. James, I didn't I had no valid passport.
I'm extremely recognizable, and I can't swim because I lived on a canal. We're talking about 17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen pulling up to the back of the dock at the back of my home. Frogmen. Frogmen. They jump out.
They're all I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I'm laughing, but it's
Speaker 1: They're also armed. I mean, this is they sent more people to take down El Chapo than they sent you do.
Speaker 0: In this moment in space and time, you mentioned you were angry. There was no part of you that was fearful or scared or in danger? You didn't have any of those emotions?
Speaker 1: I immediately recognized that this was a huge tactical error on their part.
Speaker 0: Almost like an advantage for you.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it I think it turns out to be an advantage for me because I was able to to bring attention to the outrageousness of
Speaker 0: publicity for you.
Speaker 1: And and the outrageousness of the case against me. And then so we go to the courthouse, and they that's another drive north now. They put me in a cell with the three African American gentlemen who were just coming around from a bend in the night before. So I patiently explained the 1994 crime bill to them, and why Joe Biden and and Bill and Bill Clinton are responsible for the mass incarceration of so many black people. At that point, it's now 10:00 in the morning.
I've been arrested at six. I still haven't eaten anything. So I say to one of the guards, hey, could I get like something to eat anything? And they say, no. So was already past mealtime.
So one of these guys gives me half of his peanut butter sandwich, the other guy gives me half of his, so I have an entire peanut butter sandwich to eat. And by the time I left the holding cell to go upstairs and be arraigned, these guys were chanting, Roger Stone did nothing wrong. Roger Stone did nothing wrong. It was not what they expected, I think.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 833324gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
How did this because you've been a political strategist a very long time, and you have a lot to say about political strategy. But how did this experience change your approach to political strategy, if at all?
Speaker 1: Well, I see I had no idea that what would happen next would be the complete and total unconstitutional gag that I would no longer be able to defend myself in any forum or on any platform whatsoever. See, in the early rulings in my case, the FBI was forced to admit that they never inspected the computer servers at the DNC, that they relied entirely on the third party report of a company called CrowdStrike. Now, in my trial, my defense attorneys wanted the CrowdStrike memo, but the judge would not allow it. And Mark Elias showed up in court to argue that that I shouldn't be given it because it would hide the secrets of the Democrat National Committee or reveal them. Well, the only thing they were proving was that there was no Russian hack.
Sean Henry, who just happened to be deputy Robert Mueller at the FBI, then the head of CrowdStrike, admits to the House Intelligence Committee under oath about the same time that I testify that in fact he has no proof of a Democrat hack of a, pardon me, a Russian hack of the DNC. That's because there was none. As soon as I started talking about this, then it became absolutely necessary to gag me. Judge put a gag on me as he had done with Paul Manafort, and I could not discuss any aspect of the case. Who was the judge?
Amy Berman Jackson, the most corrupt judge in American history. Later, James, we would learn that the jury for woman, who said in jury selection she had never heard of me, she knew nothing about me or my case, had been attacking me and Donald Trump by name on both Twitter and Facebook for nineteen months prior to her being selected as a juror. But she had all that locked down on a on a private setting, so it didn't turn up in due diligence. And when after I was convicted, but this was learned, it was Mike Cernovich who discovered it, the judge refused to to throw out my conviction to give me a new trial, saying that this woman's attacks on me were not evidence of her bias against me.
Speaker 0: What happened to Andrew Weissman? Where is he now?
Speaker 1: Andrew Weissman is in New York. He's just bought the condominium next to his to keep his wine collection. I imagine that he's lawyered up because he most definitely will be charged in the upcoming prosecutions of those who orchestrated this entire Russian collusion oaks.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna play for you. I'm sure you've seen it, but we'll talk about some of the things in this clip from Westchester County, New York. Go ahead and So it goes on, but this was recorded on a on a on a hidden camera that was oddly enough people say, did you obtain this? The special was the special master appointed in your case? I don't recall.
No. Special master was appointed in my case because we're journalists. And we got the footage because the special master took all the stuff and then we were allowed to see some of the stuff that was filtered.
Speaker 1: In in my case, it was somewhat different. I had security cameras all around my house. When the FBI left, they grabbed the wrong file. They grabbed the wrong tape. So they left me all of the video What whether is it
Speaker 0: a door camera, a door ring camera?
Speaker 1: All the way around. I had a door camera, the backyard. I mean, my eye house was completely wired for security on all sides, so I could see the frogmen jumping out of the boat onto the dock. I could I could see the 17 cars pulled
Speaker 0: rifles did you say with
Speaker 1: There were 29 FBI agents, all carrying Yes.
Speaker 0: What were they expecting you to have? Like a scarface
Speaker 1: I think I think this was about intimidation because you see, I was arrested in January 2019. By July, they'd gone through all my email and stuff, they realized they had nothing. So Andrew Eisman comes up with this very clever case.
Speaker 0: So this is his This is
Speaker 1: totally it. Totally him. And a miscreant
Speaker 0: And he's a US attorney? What's his title?
Speaker 1: Was the deputy director of the Mueller probe. Oh. This guy has a long history. He gets to start covering up mob murders in Brooklyn. Then he destroyed the Enron Corporation and Arthur Andersen.
His his criminal convictions in those cases are reversed nine to zero by the US Supreme Court. Yet to this day, he still points to them as the gold standard of federal prosecutions. Then he destroyed all the evidence of the of the illegal actions by the Mueller investigators. So after special counsel John Durham puts out a subpoena for the cell phones of the mother investigators, Andrew Weissman is the one who wipes all the memory of them. You see, there are two sets of rules.
They can do whatever they want. Now they would later accuse me of destroying evidence. I destroyed nothing. I I turned over 1,000,000 emails to them. I never I never deleted anything.
There's no evidence of Russian collusion. Here's the most amazing thing. My my lawyers asked for Robert Mueller's final report because the sections about me are completely redacted in the copy they gave us. We wanted an unredacted report. The judge said, no.
You can't have it. I'll review the report in my chambers and I'll give you the sections relevant to you. James, she seems to have forgotten page one seventy eight. It's the page in which he says that there the barriers to prosecuting Stone are factual, meaning they found no evidence of Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration, or any other crime. Somehow, the judge forgot to give us that section.
That's withholding of exculpatory evidence. I suspect when the House Republicans very shortly file articles of impeachment against this judge, which are definitely coming, that that will be one of the items delineated in those articles. Now, can you impeach a federal judge? Takes two thirds vote in the senate. It's difficult, but we should have a trial.
Speaker 0: Weisman was probably in charge because he reported to mule Mueller. Yes. And Mueller wasn't all there.
Speaker 1: Weisman was the de facto head of this witch hunt. This is a guy just to be clear, in the Enron case, he took the CFO of Enron. He locked him in a casket style metal box with just a slot for his eyes and left him out in the sun until he agreed to testify and say what what what Weisman wanted him to say. There was a bar complaint filed in New York on this matter because that's cruel and unusual. Go look for that bar complaint, James.
It's missing. It's gone. It's no longer there.
Speaker 0: This is a sick person. You know, a lot of people have been by the way, we have the clip, Andrew, of Stone walking back into the house with a shirt that says Roger Stone did nothing wrong. I'd like to see that. This is Sinclair Broadcast Group. I guess they published this.
You walking back into the house. Is it 01/25/2019? Is that yep. Mhmm. Roger Stone did nothing wrong walking back in.
Speaker 1: Now, that's part that's product placement. I sold 15,000 of those shirts in the next twenty four hours. All of it dedicated to my But legal defense fund.
Speaker 0: I I mean, seriously, a lot of people have been through this in some way, matter, shape, or form and relate to it in some local or federal form. What advice would you have for people who go through
Speaker 1: it? Well Who are scared?
Speaker 0: Who are afraid?
Speaker 1: Well, in that in that moment, of course, it's very, very intimidating. I admit to you that I my initial reaction was this is ridiculous. There's no crime here. I'll clearly be found innocent. I had no idea that I was gonna be subjected to a Soviet style show trial in which all avenues or arguments in defense were denied.
You can't so I wanted to bring in Bill Binney, the the the CIA's most famous IT guy who could approve there was no online hack of the DNC. The judge would not allow him to test testify. One of the charges against me was I said that a friend of mine in New York who was a a radio personality had told me that he knew a woman lawyer who worked for WikiLeaks and that she had told him that Julian Assange had this huge catch of information on Hillary Clinton and he would release it in October. James, I have the text message in which he told me that. The judge would not allow us to enter it as evidence because it disproved one of the specific charges against me.
So I had no idea that the whole thing would be rigged, but I realized ultimately why it was. I was arrested in January. In July was when they said to me, through my lawyers, look, we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump. Those are your choices. And the guy pushes this piece of paper across.
He says, all you gotta do is sign this. I look at it. I realize every word of it is false. And I said, you can take this and you can shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that. Now I'd already passed two polygraph tests that proved that everything they wanted me to say was false.
So they wanted me to be the ham in their ham sandwich. I refused to do it. I was not going to be Michael Cohen. I was not going to lie. I was not going to say things that weren't true.
Speaker 0: You're not going to I remember you saying, I will not bear false witness.
Speaker 1: I witnessed what they wanted me to do.
Speaker 0: Stuck with me because a lot of people do that. Sure.
Speaker 1: It was the easy way out. They're giving me the easy way out. Look, we we can we'll tell the judge to give you no jail time. All you gotta do is sign this.
Speaker 0: Say, plead guilty to something you didn't do.
Speaker 1: Right. I I wouldn't even have to plead guilty. At that point, they I they would have just theoretically told the judge not to give me jail time. Now, they double crossed Cohen. They would have double crossed me too, and I agreed to testify against Trump, but I was never gonna do that.
First of all, how would you look yourself in the mirror? I wanted Donald Trump to be president since 1988. I tried to get him run-in February. I tried to get him to run-in 2012. I finally succeeded in getting him to run-in 2016.
Not me me and other people. So I was gonna turn on this guy who I'd known at that point for forty years, who I always dreamed about being a great president. There's never any chance that I was gonna do that. And then everything I would have said would have been a lie. I would have to make it up.
In other words, you have Hakim Jeffries who has his famous tweet that claims that I traded my pardon for silence regarding the crimes of Donald Trump. Now if Hakim will just waive his congressional immunity, I'll sue him, but we both know he's not gonna do that.
Speaker 0: I think a lot of people may plead guilty to things they don't do because they can't afford to pay attorneys. Seems to be a stressing point. Did you how much did it cost you, this whole thing cost you, personally Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, recognize that we lost our home. We lost our savings. We lost our insurance. I lost my car. I had to sell my electric guitar.
That was very painful. I sold everything I had essentially, but then I still ran out of money.
Speaker 0: To pay attorneys.
Speaker 1: To pay attorneys and to live. Because remember, if you're gagged, you can't speak, you can't write, that's how I make a living. So I had no ability to make a living. And of course, no one wants to hire you for strategic consulting because you're under criminal indictment. So I raised roughly 3 and a half million dollars for my legal defense.
I worked very, very hard to do it. I went literally from speaking to the prestigious Oxford political union in London to speaking at a gentleman's club in Kentucky, signing women's asses for $50 for my legal defense fund.
Speaker 0: I mean and what I in endure and experience in my life is just the constant litigation, constant defense cost, dealing with lawyers. Do you have any advice on that?
Speaker 1: It's it's endless. First of all, I had 13 civil cases filed against me. All of them baseless, all of them On
Speaker 0: the same cause of action?
Speaker 1: Same cause of action. Well, first of all, some some Obama front group democracy now, some BS group, sued me in a civil case, claiming that I had been involved with WikiLeaks. Their proof, a clipping from the Huffington Post. That's not proof. That's an accusation.
Some kinda like the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian collusion. This is a complete crock of shit. All they did was cut and paste out of the Huffington Post or the Daily Beast some accusation. That's not proof. That's just an accusation, and they call it a report as if it's proof.
It's proof of nothing whatsoever. There is no Russian collusion. There is no collaboration on my part with WikiLeaks, and there is no Russian hack of the DNC. And as you may now know, Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents just this past week that shows that there was no hack of the DNC. And when Admiral Mike Rogers tried to say that, Clapper said, no, no, we all gotta stick to the same story.
It was a lie. It's still a lie.
Speaker 0: Same Clapper that sit under oath while he was rubbing his face that they we don't spy on Americans.
Speaker 1: Right. There is no data collection metadata collection program in Americans. And then Edward Snowden proved that that was a lie. But where did Clapper go after he left the government? He was teaching ethics at Vermont College.
Speaker 0: You can't make that up. You can't make that.
Speaker 1: Do you
Speaker 0: think these people are gonna be prosecuted or
Speaker 1: held I do. Accountable at some point? I think relatively soon. I think the American people demand it. I think the president's base demands it.
Something general Flynn and I and Rudy Giuliani have talked about very extensively. I don't know that it'll be as broad as it needs to be, but certainly, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, I think Hillary herself, frankly, should be prosecuted. I'll be surprised if that happens. Obama may have immunity. I agree with those who say that he could still be impeached even though he's no longer president, and then he would lose that immunity.
On the other hand, I don't think two thirds of the senate would vote to impeach him, even though I think he's on the facts, he's impeachable. But Joe Biden should certainly be charged because he has no immunity for the crimes he committed as vice president. He has no immunity for the financial crimes he committed as vice president, but he has no immunity for the crimes he he committed in the furtherance of the seditious conspiracy that is Russiagate. Here's the important thing. This conspiracy doesn't stop in 2017.
It starts in 2016. It continues in 2017. It continues in 2020, and it continues in 2024. So the raid on Mar a Lago is yet another step in the same seditious conspiracy, which is why the trials can be held in South Florida, where these people will be indicted and stand trial in South Florida, not in Washington DC where you cannot get a fair minded judge and you cannot get a reasonable jury. The jury is the concern in DC.
Well, it's also the judges. Every one of these judges the the the main judge is now retired, but she's epically corrupt. The judge in my case, the judge in general Flynn's case. It's interesting. After my after my conviction, three different jurors while being interviewed all say and the judge never never visited the jury room.
Why would they say that?
Speaker 0: The judge never visited the
Speaker 1: jury room. Right. A jury by law, the judge cannot visit the jury room during deliberations. Why would you just volunteer that she never did that? Interesting.
Speaker 0: Did did you sit through voir dire jury selection in your case?
Speaker 1: Yeah. But it was a joke because the judge ruled that working for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or previous service in the Clinton or Obama administrations was not or being a critic of Roger Stone's, none of those things were barriers to be on this jury.
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. And they they have preemptory strikes and I was in DC for my jury trial and jurors seemed to lie under oath, but there was nothing I could do about it.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: Nothing we could do about it. And so
Speaker 1: Well, they would say, I hate Donald Trump. I think he should be prosecuted, but I can put my personal feelings aside and and release your judgment in this case. Sure.
Speaker 0: Wow. And as you're you you sat in the trial, did the jurors stare at you? Did you look at them?
Speaker 1: Most of them didn't have the courage to stare at me. I gave them the Sicilian death stare, you know. So I would look at them and they would just they would they would avert my glade.
Speaker 0: They wouldn't look at they look away.
Speaker 1: Well, the judge and the the judge did a fifty five minute harangue at sentencing where she looked at me and she said, you have been convicted of lying to cover up for Donald Trump. Well, first of all, I wasn't even charged with that nor was I convicted of that. But even she could not hold my gaze. So The same judge, by the way, who ruled against those the families of the four men killed in Benghazi in a wrongful death suit. The same judge who incarcerated Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for a year and a half prior to his being convicted of anything.
Speaker 0: How long was your trial? How many days?
Speaker 1: It was about ten days, I think. Ten days. I mean, since they wouldn't allow me to offer any defense, it was it went pretty quickly.
Speaker 0: It's like a sensory deprivation chamber and sit in court for for ten days.
Speaker 1: In essence. Of Because I brought a bible with me every day, I was mocked. I was
Speaker 0: relentlessly mocked. Mocked by the the media?
Speaker 1: By the media. Sure. We're not look. I there's no question. A very young pastor who was had become a friend of mine who'd attended one of my book signings, who I kept in in touch with, just was relentless, just pounding on me about restoring my faith and being, you know, and, being redeemed in the blood of the cross.
And he said, look. This is too heavy a burden for any one man. You gotta turn to Christ. You gotta turn back to the church. You're a Catholic.
You believe in God, don't you? And I said, of course, I do. So, well, then now is the time for you to turn this burden over to Christ. So he arranged for me to meet with Franklin Graham, who was doing a revival in Boca Raton. And Franklin Graham was very generous with his time.
He spoke to me for a while, and I told him that, look. I'm angry. I'm frustrated. I'm drinking too much. I'm worried about what's gonna happen to my wife if I'm unfairly incarcerated.
I don't know where she's gonna live, how she's gonna survive. And he said I said, maybe you could talk to the president for me about clemency. I remember I'm thinking like a politico. Mhmm. And he's saying, well, I'll see what I can do about that.
But let me give you a better piece of advice. You need to confess your sins. You need to get right with God. And if you do that, I think that he that he will lift you up. I think he'll protect you from your persecutors.
And in the end, I think I escaped the deadly snare that Robert Mueller and Adam Schiff and Andrew Weissman set out for me only because I I returned to the church.
Speaker 0: In while you're in in this court case, while you're in trial.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I I I I realized at a certain point that I was gonna be lynched. There was no chance of a fair trial. So I really did restore my faith, started going back to church.
I started praying very fervently for a just result. All I wanted Trump to do is realize I was being persecuted because I refused to lie. They had nothing on me. There is no Russian collusion. They kept saying, you were you communicated with Guccifer two point o, who is a Russian intelligence asset.
James, my 28 word communications with the persona of Guccifer two point o on Twitter direct messages took place three weeks pardon me, three months after WikiLeaks had already published all the material. So chronologically, this communications is meaningless. It proves nothing whatsoever.
Speaker 0: Did you talk to any reporters? They usually sit in the back benches of the courtroom. Did you engage in conversation during the trial with them?
Speaker 1: Well, I think they were mostly enjoying themselves. Know, there it's hard to rank them, but the Washington Post is probably the worst newspaper in the country, followed pretty closely by the New York Times. And, of course, the CNN folks who by the way, they got an award for being outside my house. The White House Correspondents Association gave them an award for their incisive investigative reporting. Investigative reporting, they got a tip from Andrew Weissman.
It's right there in black and white.
Speaker 0: We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth.
You, we, are the media now. On 07/10/2020, president Trump commuted your prison sentence before you were scheduled to report to prison. Correct? Yeah. It was very interesting.
Tell me about that.
Speaker 1: First of all, they wanted to send me to a prison in Georgia, which made no sense because generally speaking, the the Bureau of Prisons send you to prison that's relatively close to where you live so your family can visit you. But they picked a specific prison in Georgia where they insisted that there were no COVID cases. Now I was 20 I was 68 years old at the time, have a lifetime history of asthma. And, they were sending me to this prison because they said there were no COVID cases. An African American woman who was the head of the prison guards union either saw this on TV or she read about it.
Somehow, she contacted one of my lawyers and said, this is a lie. There's two hundred COVID cases here. There's many more tests that we don't have results from. It was very clear the idea was to send me there to die, I probably would have died had I gone. But forty eight hours before I had to turn myself in, the president commuted my sentence.
And here's the interesting part. Then that Christmas, days before Christmas, the twenty third, I believe it was, of December, he gave me a full and unconditional pardon. Try to find that on the Internet. If all the stories will say Stone's sentence was commuted, almost none of them will cite the pardon like it never actually happened. But if you want a copy of my pardon, you can go to stonezone.com and go to the store and I will send you sell you an autographed copy.
Speaker 0: Stonezone.com autographed pardon autographed copy of the pardon. Why? Or your t shirt. Or your t shirt. Or your t shirt.
Why is is that not on the Internet?
Speaker 1: I suspect it's it's because it's it's exonerating in a way. It's vindicating in a way. So you find many stories. I have to keep correcting reporters who say Stone's sentence was commuted. Now, a pardon, you have to accept the pardon, and it is technically correct that when you accept a pardon, you're admitting guilt.
But the alternative was to die in a COVID invested prison in Georgia, which I had no real interest in. Had that had a kind of finality to it that I didn't really like.
Speaker 0: Did you you know, one of the things that happens to me, think, sometimes, this process kind of hardens you. The process is the punishment. So when you got this pardon, did you feel justice? Did you feel vindication? Did you feel relief?
Speaker 1: I certainly felt relief. I felt great gratitude both because I had prayed fervently for this and I really did believe. I really had become convinced that God would deliver. I knew that I would be that I would be saved. I knew it.
I knew Trump would do the right thing. People seem to think I had some deal with Trump or assurance from Trump. I hadn't talked to Trump at that point in two years. So I went from talking to him virtually every day to talking to him not at all. My lawyers also had no communications from the president's lawyer, so there was never any guarantee that I would be pardoned.
I had friends out there who were beating the drum like Tucker Carlson, like Laura Loomer, a handful, Larry Kudlow, people out there saying, this case is ridiculous. Stone's done nothing wrong. The president should pardon him. Remember, I was still gagged. Now the judge gagged me, this is interesting, because she said that my defense of myself might taint the jury pool.
Okay. Then why did she leave the gag in place after I was convicted, before I was sentenced, after I was incensed, and right up The jury pool? Right. That was the argument. She she produced no evidence
Speaker 0: that more true in your case than any other case?
Speaker 1: That's How's the Washington Post and CNN, the dominant news organizations in Washington DC, how did that not how did that not taint the jury pool? But, no, this was her argument that I couldn't defend myself because it would taint the jury pool. Even if you believe that, then why did she leave the gag in place after I was convicted, but before I was sentenced, and after I was sentenced, and just before I was supposed to report to prison? So she was violating my first amendment rights throughout because she didn't want her conduct of the trial to be criticized. The fact that she should have thrown out my conviction based on the on the actions of the illegal actions of the jury for a woman, who, by the way, had run for congress as a democrat in Tennessee, and who was a protege of Donna Brazile.
But we're supposed to believe that she can render a totally unbiased nonpolitical judgment on Roger Stone.
Speaker 0: Is it gonna always be like this? Is it gonna get continue to get worse, just the weaponization of the justice system? Is it gonna get better? What is your prediction of the the future?
Speaker 1: That's a very difficult question. I I anybody who says that the people who pulled off the greatest single dirty trick in American political history, The greatest single abuse of power in which the full authority of the US government and the capabilities of our intelligence agencies were used to try to undo an election. There are some who said, well, if we if we maybe we should let that go because if they come back into power, they're going to be brutal against us. No. They're they're already weaponized against us.
The Steele dossier was a fraud. The fact that they claim the DNC was hacked by Russian intelligence is a fraud. I think that you either dismantle them now or, yes, they will come back, and they'll do the same thing all over again. By the way, it didn't used to be this way. I mean, politics was always partisan.
But when I lived in Washington, when I was an active political consultant, I had friends who were Democrats. I had friends in the business who were Democrats. We ate together. We drank together. We teased each other.
Sometimes we beat them. Sometimes we beat them. They sometimes they beat us. When they beat us, it was like, okay, I'll get you next time. This idea of destroying people, destroying their lives, destroying their families, throwing you in jail, this is it was never like this.
This is a new thing. This is I think comes directly out of the presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama.
Speaker 0: That's what changed the Barack Obama. I think it changed everything. Was it the Obamacare? What what what what moment was the when things really changed?
Speaker 1: I I think as soon as Obama becomes president, they decide that they want to fundamentally change the way the country is run, and therefore, they need to not just beat the opposition, that would be us. They have to destroy us. So the fact that I had written a book on the Clintons, the Clintons war on women, and the longest chapter on that book is on Jeffrey Epstein, because I read every word of the testimony, in the cases of the women who didn't settle, who went on to sue Epstein. I interviewed Virginia Roberts Jafre for six hours in two three hour sessions. The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous, out of the question.
And she's now deceased. She she they tell us that she committed suicide. Don't don't buy it. But I do know how many times Bill Clinton was on the island from her testimony. I do know how many times he was on the plane because I had the FAA manifest records back in 2015.
I do know that when Epstein's butler sold his phone book, his little black book, not everybody in the book obviously is guilty of some illegality, but the butler helpfully circled the names and numbers of all those he said were involved in sex trafficking or were material witnesses. In some cases, he would just write witness, other cases he would just circle those he said they were guilty. Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, senate majority leader George Mitchell, Bill Gates, others.
Speaker 0: Now, you were at the turning point. I was there with you on stage, and every person talked about Epstein there.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I
Speaker 0: wanted to ask you about this because at the time, it seemed like and I I asked every person in the audience, do you think the department justice is lying? And almost every hand went up when they said there's nothing to see here. So there there does seem the base is very upset, and I don't know if the issue is gonna go away. And the way the president's been talking, what is your reaction to the current state of affairs with Epstein and the administration?
Speaker 1: Well, I can tell you definitively only because, first of all, I was physically there in the in those days. I was working for Trump. I was living in New York. I never met Epstein, but I saw him from across to the way in a ballroom at a charitable event full of people. And this is a time when when the president was dating Melania before they were engaged.
Engaged. And they had some social interaction, but it is benign. Everything about their relationship is known. When the president says it's a hoax, he's not saying that Epstein was not a child sex trafficker. It was the Trump Justice Department that charged Epstein in 2019 with child sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in child sex trafficking.
What he was saying is all of these records have been in the custody of the Southern District Of New York and in the New York office of the FBI. These are two hotbeds of Trump hate. These people hate Donald Trump. And therefore, there was a high probability, which we saw almost immediately, that the records had been salted with, quote, unquote, evidence against Donald Trump. That's when the Wall Street Journal produced the famous birthday card.
James, who types a birthday card? Who types a birthday card and then signs it? Answer, nobody. It's a Fugazi. It's kinda obvious.
So I think that's what he was saying. And I love to see these Democrats jumping up and down saying, I want full disclosure on Epstein. So do I. You know what's gonna prove? Bill Clinton was on the island at least four times.
Epstein imported two 16 year olds for his amusement. That's in Virginia, Jeffreys testimony, and he was on the plane 26 times, many times ditching his social secure his secret service detail.
Speaker 0: There are Republicans on that list?
Speaker 1: Not that I know of. I couldn't find any of them on the FAA manifest, and I couldn't find any of them in Epstein's phone book. Donald Trump's in the phone book, but he's not among those whose names are certain.
Speaker 0: About compromising material used as blackmail. Do you think that exists?
Speaker 1: See, here's what I think happened. I think there and I think we know this. There's no question that when they raided Epstein's home in New York and they raided the island, and they raided his ranch in New Mexico, and they raided his apartment in Paris, we can see them taking out DVDs and hard drives. Those are in the those are in the custody of of mister Ray's FBI. I think they were switched out.
So when Kash Patel, who I know very well and who I have a very, very high regard for in terms of his integrity and his knowledge, when he says we don't have any video evidence of Epstein or anyone identifiable abusing children, he's telling the truth because that material was destroyed and it was replaced, I think, with just commercial illegal Chinese child pornography.
Speaker 0: Was the evidence that was destroyed, did that implicate third parties?
Speaker 1: That'd be my guess. Sure. I think I think Jeffrey Epstein I had a source for my book, Steve Hoffenberg, who turned everything he told me turned out to be true. Hoffenberg had been the head of one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history, Tower Financial. The number two man in that operation was Jeffrey Epstein.
So he trained Epstein. He went to prison. When he came out, he contacted me and he said, Epstein is running a child sex trafficking ring, and he's going to be arrested for it. Now I knew that he had already been charged in Florida, but the police chief in here in Palm Beach did a six months undercover investigation and handed the state's attorney a case that involved the the trafficking of 33 underage girls. Also handed him a case for statutory rape of 21 underage girls.
So police chief, Michael Reiter, who's an honest man, was shocked when the state's attorney came back with one charge of solicitation. James, that's like walking into a bar and trying to pick up a hooker. It's ridiculous. So that at that point, Ryder, the police chief, goes to Alexander Acosta, the US attorney in Miami who has responsibility for Palm Beach. He conducts his own investigation, and then he rubber stamps the state charge, and he seals the entire case.
Now a lawyer I know was involved when Acosta was appointed secretary of the labor of labor under Trump's first term. First of all, no one ever told Donald Trump that Alex Acosta was the prosecutor who gave Epstein a pass. I have no idea why Reich's previous What
Speaker 0: year did what year did Acosta?
Speaker 1: That would have been 2017 or
Speaker 0: During the first term.
Speaker 1: During the first term. So why no one told the president that, I don't know. But they said this guy's a Hispanic. Given the possibilities of the Republican Party to expand in the Hispanic community, he'd be a great Cabinet. No one ever tells him, oh, by the way, this is the prosecutor who gave Epstein a pass.
I'm sure the president was unhappy when he learned that. And then during the confirmation preparation sessions, a friend of mine who's a lawyer, whose name you would recognize, a guy who's in the federal society, They're doing a motor board. They're practicing confirmation, they say. So, Alex, what are you gonna say when they ask you why you handled the Epstein case the way you did? Why you gave him a pass?
Anacostia says, it's very simple. I'm gonna tell the truth. The CIA came to me and said he was an asset, and I was to seal the case. Here it is. I think that's what happened.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We have the stone cold truth. Trump and Epstein, the recycled smear. Recent weeks have seen this vicious assault on president Trump distorting the facts about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. I wanna switch gears a little bit and talk.
I read audio listened to much of this book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ. I was I just wanna read one quote from this book and then ask you a question about this, and then I ask you a question about Nixon. Sure. This is from Lyndon Johnson, the man chapter one. Learned a lot about I didn't know a lot about Lyndon B.
Johnson.
Speaker 1: Quite a colorful character.
Speaker 0: Quite a character. Have very descriptive language about him when he started to smoke again, his hair got long, and he was unkempt, but this is something that you write. Linden, quote, nothing could obscure the picture. Lyndon Johnson was an overbearing, coarse, ruthless, sociopathic, lowlife, power mad monster. He was a consummate politician, therefore could charm people when he had to, but the mask could easily slip and often did.
Is that but is that not true of many politicians, or was he worse?
Speaker 1: No. He was worse. I I attribute in this book at least 18 murders to him before he got to JFK. Murders to cover up corruption, murders to cover up voter fraud in his forty eight election. He was very definitely a sociopath, a functioning lunatic.
By the way, in this in the oral histories of his of his aides, Bill Moyers, George Reedy as press secretary, even they refer to him as a lunatic. So for example, the the plastic bubble top on Kennedy's limousine is removed on 11/26/1963, not on the orders of Secret Service, not on the orders of JFK, on the orders of Bill Moyers, who's working as an aide to vice president Lyndon Johnson. And Moyers, who's a ordained Baptist minister, says to the Secret Service agent who I interviewed, get that goddamn bubble top off the off of the limousine. Now the bubble top's not bulletproof, but it's opaque. So you couldn't get a clear headshot if the if the bubble top was in place, and it had just rained.
Speaker 0: What what got you motivated to focus on this issue?
Speaker 1: I've been a Goldwater zealot, so I knew Johnson was a crook. The Bobby Baker scandal, the Billy Salesta scandal. Those are his motives. In other words, by 11/26/1963, he's on the verge of being charged in two massive scandals, two corruption scandals. Billy Bobby Baker is the secretary of senate.
He's a bag man. Billy Salestis is a flamboyant Texas Wheeler dealer who has these huge federal agricultural contracts, and he's kicking back to LBJ. So Johnson knows he's on the verge of being dumped from the 64 ticket, and he's probably gonna face federal charges and go to prison. That is his motive motive. Now the means, he convinces Kennedy to go to Texas to bind up the wounds between the Bourbon, more conservative wing of the Democrat party and the progressive wing of the party.
Then it is his henchman, John Connolly, then the governor of Texas, who says, well, the motorcade has to drive through Dealey Plaza. Now Kennedy is going from the fort Dallas Fort Worth Airport to the merchandise mart, neither one of which is in the city of Dallas. So why is the motorcade going in and out of the city of Dallas? Well, to take Kennedy through Dealey Plaza, where they violate the secret service manual. The car comes to a full stop, creating the opportunity for John Kennedy to be shot from both the front and the back, as we now know, by multiple shooters in an elaborately orchestrated plan to destroy his presidency, and so Lyndon Johnson can avoid prison.
Speaker 0: Avoiding prison. That was the primary motivation.
Speaker 1: Well, Drew Pearson, is the, without any question, the most influential columnist at time, syndicated columnist, has a column for publication on November 23, a Sunday, that says that Johnson took a massive bribe to deliver a defense contract for General Dynamics. That's the end of LBJ. That column gets spiked because LBJ is president by the close of business on 11/22/1963. So his motive is to avoid prison and complete political ruin. Now I'm I'm not alleging in my book that Johnson's acting alone.
This the Central Intelligence Agency is deeply involved in Kennedy's murder. We now know that from the hearings that my friend, Annapalina Luna, has conducted in the congress. Organized crime is definitely involved. The house select committee on assassinations, declares that in their final report in 1987. Big Texas oil is deeply involved in this plot.
So many people had their own individual motives for Kennedy's murder, but one man is the common spoke between all of them, Lyndon Johnson. And I use fingerprint evidence just to prove that at least one of the shooters is Malcolm Mack Wallace. That's who's shooting from the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He leaves his fingerprints there. We know they're his prints because he was convicted of murder in Texas in 1951.
He killed a man who was trying to blackmail Lyndon Johnson. He went to trial. He was represented at trial by John Cofer, who's Johnson's personal attorney. He's convicted of first degree murder, and he gets probation in Texas for murder. He's the shooter from the Sixth Floor.
There's six eyewitnesses who identify a man who meets the physical description of Malcolm Wallace, a medium build, balding, glasses, expert marksman in the Marine Corps. He is the shooter from the Sixth Floor. But there are, as we now know from the new documentary put out by Paramount, there are shooters, both in front and back of Kennedy. He shot from both the front and the back, and that is concealed. The doctors now, some sixty years later, all admit, yes, we saw wounds consistent with these being shot from the front and the back.
The wound in his throat, which we're told is an exit wound, is an entry wound. They perform a tracheotomy immediately so you can't tell. All the doctors see a blowout wound in the back of Kennedy's head that would indicate that he was shot from the front, but by the time his body gets to the Bethesda Medical Center, that has been patched. In Texas, by state law, you have to have an autopsy when there's a murder. Kennedy's body is removed at gunpoint by secret service agents in a face down with the Texas Rangers, so they can remove his body.
The autopsy is not done in Texas, it's done in Bethesda, Maryland.
Speaker 0: Johnson also driven by power a lot. You write about that in the book. I took that from the book.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think he takes the vice presidency with a plan to kill Kennedy almost immediately. He steals the secret service manual and gives it to his lawyer to begin laying this plot. On inauguration day, Bobby Baker, who's Johnson's right hand man, secretary of the senate, his bag man, is standing next to Ted Sorensen, who really wrote Profiles in Courage. John Kennedy neither wrote nor read Profiles in Courage.
It was written by Sorenson.
Speaker 0: I I read that book recently, like, I don't think Kennedy wrote this.
Speaker 1: He didn't even read it. Sorenson Sorenson read it and his father It's a well
Speaker 0: written book.
Speaker 1: Yes. But but ambassador Joseph b Kennedy, the partner with Frank Costello and all the bootlegging going on in in the Northeastern United States, pays for the Pulitzer Prize. But Sorensen is standing next to Baker. And now Johnson and Kennedy have a bitter rivalry, and Johnson is responsible for breaking into Kennedy's offices doctor's office in New York City and releasing, just ahead of the Democrat convention, the fact that Kennedy has Addison's disease. Robert Dallek, who's calls himself a historian, has blamed that on Richard Nixon.
Nixon had nothing to do with that. That was Johnson's doing. So there's very deep hatred between the Kennedy camps and the Johnson camp. But Sorensen, who's the chief speech writer for JFK, turns to Baker and says, well, congratulate after Johnson's sworn in as vice president, he says, well, congratulations, Bobby. And Baker says, John Kennedy will die a violent and premature death, and he storms off.
There it is, right there.
Speaker 0: Imagine if that was on camera. And this is another quote from the book. Taken we have it on the screen behind you. Taken seriously, this opposition that Johnson was was behind the plot to kill Kennedy is the key that unlocks the gate to the greatest of Johnson's crimes, the knowing of a feud feudal war, that's the Vietnam War, that would eventually claim more than 58,000 American lives. So the other thing that struck me about reading about this was just the philandering of of Kennedy and Johnson.
I didn't know about Johnson's philandering.
Speaker 1: Johnson was a notorious womanizer. As he famously said, I get more in a week than John Kennedy gets in a year. That's a direct quote.
Speaker 0: Was it true?
Speaker 1: Well, Kennedy, as I make the case in the book, Kennedy is a genuine war hero. I mean, he's very badly injured when his PT boat was cut in half by a Japanese craft. He swims for hours with a rope in his teeth dragging a wounded comrade to safety. He's a true hero. But he's in horrific pain for the rest of his life.
He gets addicted to methamphetamine because he is seeing doctor methamphetamine.
Speaker 0: With steroids and methamphetamine he was injected. Right. Steroids meaning testosterone or steroids meaning
Speaker 1: Steroids meaning crystal meth. Crystal meth. Early prior early proprietary blend of crystal meth, which at that point is doctor a doctor in Manhattan, doctor Max Jacobson, somebody like doctor the beautiful people. He's attending Marilyn Monroe, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Sinatra, Leonard Bernstein, Pablo Casal, Maria Calais, all Nelson Rockefeller. All these people think that they're getting a proprietary blend of vitamins and enzymes that make them feel good.
No. They're being shot up with meth, which is why why JFK is so randy, why he's, you know, in horrible pain, but he's still chasing 18 year old interns in the White that
Speaker 0: start happening with Kennedy?
Speaker 1: I think it's certainly during his presidency because Robert Kennedy finds out about it, has, the FBI lab do an analysis of what this substance that Kennedy's being shot up with, goes to his brother and says, this stuff is gonna kill you. You can't do this. And he says, I don't care if it's horse piss. It makes me feel good. Right.
So and I think that this is how the deep state, rationalizes the murder of Kennedy. My god. The man's a drug addict. He could give away the store Mhmm. To Nikita Khrushchev.
If you look at the manifest, which is in the National Archives of those who flew to the summit with Kennedy at Vienna, you'll find the name of doctor Max Jacobson on the manifest. He's with Kennedy. There's a terrific book on this called doctor Feelgood. You can still find it.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: It's very heavily documented. So I think, Kennedy is, is, probably addicted at that point. The Secret Service has certainly been has certainly told the intelligence services. But it's also important to recognize it's not just about Vietnam. It's also about, it's about the Bay Of Pigs.
Because the Bay Of Pigs Invasion was a horrific failure. But it's also about the Cuban Missile Crisis because everything you've been told, brave Jack and Bobby faced down Nikita Khrushchev before, none of that's true. As we learned fifty years later when they declassified the documents, we agreed to secretly remove our missiles from Turkey and Italy, NATO missiles, in return from a pledge from from Khrushchev to remove the Russian missiles from Cuba, which we don't really know whether that happened or not because there's no on signs inspections built into this agreement. So the Central Intelligence Agency's motive is very clear. They think Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion.
The original invasion plan called for 29 Panamanian flagged bombers flying out of Panama to provide air cover for the men storming the beaches. That is canceled by the CIA the day before the invasion. Nobody tells Kennedy. Then Curtis LeMay, the head of the air force, goes to Kennedy and says, our men are being destroyed on the beach, mister president. There's only one way to save the day.
That's to send in the US air force. And Kennedy said, wait a minute. I approved the invasion so it looked like an indigenous uprising of Cubans, not a US invasion. So he won't approve the use of the of the US Air Force, and this is where he gets the deep enmity of the CIA and the Pentagon.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. Continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 833324Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
Kind of transitioning to Nixon here. We got about twenty minutes left. I another thing that's happening, and this is admittedly not an area that I know a lot about Middle East in regards to Israel. There does seem to be a I don't know if it's a schism, but just some disagreements about how to approach the state of Israel Yes. These days in the Republican Party.
And I wanted to play a clip, team, if you could pull up of Richard Nixon talking about Israel. My team thought it was an interesting clip to play and then maybe play two minutes of this and get your reaction to this as well as your thoughts on the current state of play with the Republican Party in Israel. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: It isn't a question whether I felt it. The fact is that American Jews support Israel and I understood that. And the fact is that every Jewish prime minister that I have known has enlisted American Jews to bring as much pressure as possible in the political process on American presidents, that's understandable, I don't object to it. Now a president must not go along with it on occasion because some let let me let me explain something about what is called the Jewish lobby in this country. In the first place, Jews understandably in The United States, because of what happened in World War two, because of the Holocaust, are going to be put first priority on the survival of Israel.
Now as good Americans as they are, they believe that America's survival and security is directly related to Israel's. In other words, their belief is that being for Israel first means that that does not mean you're putting America second because they think it goes together. An American president, however, has to approach it in a different way in my opinion. He's got always to think first of what is best for America and that's true whether it has to do with the Israelis or whether it has to do with the Irish or Germans or what have you or the Poles, etcetera. Usually, what is best for America is also best for Israel and vice versa.
But on occasions, for example, an American president must make a decision that does not in effect give the Israelis a blank check and one example of that is a decision that I made. I decided early on in our administration that we were going to see good relations with Egypt and other others of Israel's neighbors. Many of my Israeli friends didn't like that because they want a special relationship with Israel of Israel only. But I have always said that Israel's interests are better served to have The United States a friend of Israel's neighbors and potential enemies and to leave a vacuum which the Soviet Union would fill. I still believe that, I think.
Speaker 0: Alright. So your reaction to that and then your state of on the current
Speaker 1: There's there's several pieces here. There is no question that John f Kennedy is opposed to Israel having nuclear weapons. That is absolute and that he wants a PAC to register as foreign agents. And this is very contagious. Lyndon Johnson gives them the right to have nukes twenty four hours after he's sworn in as president.
Is Israel directly involved in the assassination? Something I'm researching right now. And if I find enough to make that case, I'll do another chapter for the book that you have. It's too early for me to say in my research. I've collected a lot of material.
Still working my way through it. They certainly have the motive. That's not proof. That's just a motive. It is Richard Nixon, of course, who saves Israel from unilateral dis destruction in 1973 over the objections of Kissinger, over the objections of the national security apparatus, over the objections of the Pentagon, over the objections of every aspect of his own administration.
In the nineteen seventy three Yom Kippur war, there's a failure in Israeli intelligence. The Israel he finds himself under attack by the Syrians and the Egyptians. They're running out of ammunition. Their backs are against the sea. Golda Meir asks Nixon urgently for help, and Nixon makes a unilateral decision to airdrop $39,000,000 worth of lethal aid to the Israelis, which saves Israel.
Now you can listen to the White House tapes, and he says a number of disparaging things about Jews. But as Golda Meir herself said, what matters more, deeds or words? Mhmm. Another $60,000,000 in lethal aid comes by boat. So Nixon unilaterally, over the objections of Kissinger, a Jew, who is his national security adviser, saves Israel.
I think that what he says is exactly right, and you've seen Trump, I think, exercise this. The Israelis were not all that happy about the Abraham Accords, where we essentially, the Syrians, the Lebanese, the Saudis, get a special relationship with The United States. And then secondarily, I think the president was very judicious, in the way he approached the question of nuclear weapon developments in Iran. We don't have boots on the ground. We don't have a long term commitment to war.
Not a single American service person lost their lives in this surgical effort to try to destroy nuclear weapons, which the Obama administration, for some reason, believed would improve the situation in The Middle East. So in the end and look, I'm more of a of a Ron Paul Republican when it comes to foreign policy. I'm a I'm not an isolationist, but I am a non interventionist. I don't like war, the endless foreign war that the Bushes kept pushing us into. I think in the end, the president made the right decision.
It was a balanced decision. It was not a decision to do nothing, but it was also not a decision to commit us to an endless war and war.
Speaker 0: What do you just make of just the cultural conflicts right now towards Israel? Like, the Nick Fuentes thing, the the Tucker I mean, just all of it. Just the people. The base seems to just have such disagreement about how to approach Israel. What you what do you
Speaker 1: make of that politically for the Republican Party? I think it's politically, it's interesting. We still don't get a very large percentage of Jewish voters no matter what our position is.
Speaker 0: Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Republican Party. Trump, I think, probably hits a high watermark.
Speaker 0: What is that roughly? Rough numbers.
Speaker 1: It's hard to say, but I think we ended up somewhere around 23, 25%.
Speaker 3: Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And they're the most conservative Jews, of course. The more casual Jews continue to vote for Democrats, and I think continue to vote against the interests of Israel. I think it is yet to play out.
Speaker 0: Alright. We got about fifteen minutes left, and I think we have we have a picture of Roger Stone and Donald Trump. Your longtime friends, is it since 1979, is that correct? Yeah. That's a good photo by the way.
That is When when was that?
Speaker 1: That was after I was pardoned. My wife was diagnosed with stage four cancer, very aggressive stage four cancer, which she has survived. And once she got, the doctor said she was all clear, the president who had attended our wedding in Washington DC at the Willard Hotel, president Trump and his then fiance, Marla Maples, had been at our wedding. They famously had a fight in the lobby of the hotel where she threw her engagement ring at the Who
Speaker 0: threw the engagement?
Speaker 1: Marla Maples threw it, who's a good friend of mine.
Speaker 0: Marla is the second guest of the show.
Speaker 1: Oh, she Yes, indeed. She's great.
Speaker 0: She's a great person.
Speaker 1: She's a great person and a real fighter for health freedom, someone I like very much.
Speaker 0: Is another picture throw the picture of I don't what year this is from.
Speaker 1: There's there's just before the wedding.
Speaker 0: That's the wedding.
Speaker 1: Yep. This is a famous picture of Donald Trump after my father. He was the first one to dance with my wife. So after he learned that my wife had been cured of cancer, he invited us to Mar A Lago, which is where that picture was taken.
Speaker 0: Have you seen that I think you and I talked about that movie that came out. I forgot the name of it. Apprentice. The apprentice. And you were portrayed in that movie and you had a comment to me about that, and now I
Speaker 1: A couple things. I mean, first of all, I'm much better looking than the actor they had playing me. Secondarily, I've never worn a Speedo in my life, nor would I ever wear a Speedo.
Speaker 0: This is a scene in the movie where you're in a swimming pool and you come out
Speaker 1: with a Which is ridiculous because anyone knows me, I would never wear a Speedo. I'm much better dressed than they than they depicted me in the movie. But they correctly say that I may be the first or second person in the country who comes up with the idea that Donald Trump has the the stature and the courage and the stamina, and the independence to be not just a great presidential candidate, but be a great president. I realized this in 1988, and I began pushing the idea then. The only person who sees this before me, ironically, is Richard Nixon.
Nixon and, Trump meet in George Steinbrenner, the owner of the Yankees, box, when the season opens. And I'm working for Trump at that point, but I have I'm friendly with the former president. I'm doing some political chores for him as well. And Nixon calls me the next day, he says, well, I met your man, Trump. I said, yes, What do you think?
He said, I'm just telling you. If this guy ever gets in politics, he could go all the way. I said, do you so you think he should, like, run for governor? He says, no. No.
No. I mean, all the way. And, of course, the New York Times has published this letter from Nixon to Trump in which he says, missus missus Nixon saw you on the Vera Douglas show, and she said that if you ever get in politics, you'll definitely go all the way. And I just want you to know that I completely agree with her. It's a very warm letter.
They had a very warm relationship. Today, president Trump says to me, because it's so antithetical to his character, he says, why did Nixon quit? I don't understand why he quit. I would never quit under fire.
Speaker 0: You mean quit? Resigned. Resigned the presidency. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I said, well, there was no alternative media then. There was no Internet. So you had three television networks. You had a handful of influential news magazines, Time, Newsweek, Life, and so on. They're monolithically against you.
You had no platform from which to mount a counter attack. And when Nixon tries, remember when he famously says, people have a right to know whether their president's a crook. Well, I am not a crook. They use that against him. They use it to mock him.
It's ineffective in his efforts to, defend himself.
Speaker 0: As college student, I read a book called The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom, and the first sentence of that book was student This is in the eighties, written in the eighties. I read it in 02/2003. Students are taught that two things are evil, Richard Nixon and Adolf Hitler.
Speaker 1: Yes. Why
Speaker 0: why existentially, why do people hate Nixon so much?
Speaker 1: I really think it has to do with his being correct about Alger Hiss. Alger Hiss was a high level state department figure in, the Roosevelt State Department. Nixon believed that there was evidence that Hiss was a communist spy. Hiss was Harvard educated. He was very erudite.
He was one of the elites. Nixon came from Whittier, California, his old man was a grocer.
Speaker 0: Up from dirt,
Speaker 1: Up as you from dirt, as he would say. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Or as
Speaker 1: he said. And the whole Washington establishment told Nixon to back off. Alan Dulles, John Foster Dulles, who was Eisenhower's secretary of state, Alan Dulles, who was his brother and the head of the CIA, they all tell Nixon to back off. But Nixon's instinct is that Whitaker Chambers, who had been a editor at Time Magazine, who had come forward and said, I was a communist. I was a member of the Communist Party.
Whitaker Alger Hiss was in my cell, and I passed him government documents. It was Nixon's belief that his was a spy. He pursued it. His ultimately would be convicted of perjury for lying. Forty plus years later, when the when the Soviet Union falls and we get the KGB records, guess what?
Alger Hiss was a Russian spy. But that anti communism, the fact that Nixon turned out to be right, brands Nixon for the rest of his career.
Speaker 0: It's almost like contempt towards Nixon for calling it out correctly.
Speaker 1: And and for being a hardliner anti communist. Yeah. And then secondarily, there is his campaign in 1950 against Helen Douglas, which I think is unfairly depicted as a as a particularly dirty race. It was, but on both sides. He called her the pink lady, because he took her voting record, and he compared it to the voting record of the only communist party member of congress, Vito Marcantonio, was elected in New York City.
And they voted the same about 80% of the time. Nixon pointed that out, in a very effective flyer. It was printed on pink paper. It was a very, very rough campaign, but politics ain't beanbag.
Speaker 0: Is that your quote? I've heard you say that before.
Speaker 1: Probably. Probably was me who said it. But this is where he gets the the nickname tricky dick, because he ran a very aggressive campaign. But let's be very clear about how meteoric his rise is. In 1945, he's released from the army.
He has no job. He has a law degree. He goes around to all of the blue chip, white shoe law firms in New York and Washington, and no one will hire him. He records that he's on Wall Street. He's looking out the window.
There's a ticker tape parade. He sees Dwight Eisenhower riding by. He's in this you know, the ticker tape is being dumped. It's a huge public event. Six years later, he is Dwight Eisenhower's running mate.
He goes from being unemployed to being the candidate for vice president of The United States in six years because he goes back to California. He runs for congress in 1946. He's elected. He serves two terms in the house, runs to the senate in 1950, wins an open seat. He's only senator for two years when he's selected for the ticket in 1952.
So to go from nobody to being nothing, to being vice president of The United States for two terms in six years is an incredibly meteoric rise. What do
Speaker 0: you attribute that to? What was his greatest strength
Speaker 1: there in that meteoric rise? Persistence, grit, determination. I think born of a hardscrabble background. I mean, he pulled himself up from his with his own bootstraps. He saw two of his brothers die of tuberculosis.
He was he was the survivor. Also, he was selected for the ticket because of his anti communist credentials. Mhmm. Remember, Eisenhower had defeated senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who was the favorite of good party conservatives. So they needed to balance the ticket with someone with anti communist credentials, and Nixon was the person they selected.
Then there was a smear against him by the New York Post, who was then a that was a liberal, owned journal, claiming that Nixon had a fund, financed by a bunch of California millionaires, and it was being used to supplement his lifestyle, which was false. But they tried to dump him from the ticket. He survives that by going on TV in the famous Checkers speech in which he says, you know, we've been by everything I have, I've earned honestly. I did take one thing, however. It was a little cocker spaniel dog that a man in Texas said to my daughters.
And I don't care what they say, we're not giving the dog back. It's a little schmaltzy, but it saves his career.
Speaker 0: Going back to the apprentice, Roy Roy Cohn, the attorney, the Stone's rules, and I don't have them in front of me, but one of the rules was it was it admit nothing, deny
Speaker 1: Everything. It's admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.
Speaker 0: And it was one of quite Roy Kwanzer, did you come up with that first? Did he come up with that?
Speaker 1: Did you guys I think that I actually, all of Stone's rules have been appropriated for by the script writer. So so Gabe Sherman wrote the screenplay.
Speaker 0: For this movie, the apprentice.
Speaker 1: Was it we have
Speaker 0: a clip, guys? Do we is this a clip?
Speaker 3: Attack. Attack. Attack. If somebody comes after you with a knife, you shoot him back with a bazooka. Okay?
Rule two. What is truth, Tommy? What is truth? You know what's truth?
Speaker 1: What you say is truth. What I say is truth. What he says is truth.
Speaker 3: What is the truth in life? Deny everything. Admit nothing.
Speaker 0: That's what you just said. What is true?
Speaker 3: What I say is true. And third of all, most important, no matter how fucked you are, never ever ever admit to defeat.
Speaker 0: Alright. Good. So how many of those are similar to your rules?
Speaker 1: I think they're all identical to my rules. Did I get did I get those ideas from Cohen? Yeah. I think that's fair to say. I'm not sure he verbalized in the exact same way I did.
So I saw them from observance rather than being told them or being taught them. But I think Trump and I both learned them from the same guy. Cohen was a force of nature. He was an ardent anticommunist himself. He was a warrior.
And I will say this, in the movie, the actor who plays him does a brilliant job, really captures his mannerisms, his idiosyncrasies, his his verbal and physical tics. The guy really did deserve a an Academy Award.
Speaker 0: I thought you did good job there.
Speaker 1: He did a great job. Yeah. The storyline is, of course, false. The idea that Roy Cohn and Donald Trump had to threaten the head of the of the tax abatement board in New York City with exposing his homosexual background is a complete fabrication and a lie. Typical It
Speaker 0: seemed a little far fetched when I when I watched it. It was entertaining movie, but doesn't mean it's non fiction. It's fiction. A couple quick last questions here, because we're just running out of time. Present day outlook for the current situation.
Well, actually, no, no. We have a a story you just broke on your substack. Can we pull that up, guys? And I just wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about this. This is a story that you've done on a a Republican representative and Cuba.
Let's pull that up. This is Bingo. Representative Mario Diaz. I've never I apologize for saying this, but I've never even heard of this man. What He's he's a republican.
Speaker 1: He's a repub well, he's kind of a republican. He was a registered democrat until the day he ran for congress and became a republican.
Speaker 0: He was a registered democrat before he ran for congress.
Speaker 1: Yes. So you have you have in Miami a cottage industry of these people who have made who've dined out on being anti Castro, but it's largely rhetoric. So for example, Carlos Jimenez, the former mayor, now a congressman, he's the head of the maritime subcommittee maritime security subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee. He has a hearing regarding a huge defense contractor called Crowley, which is Florida based, but he never questioned them about their activities, in Cuba. Crowley has ships going into the largest port in Cuba.
It's a major security risk, but he never criticizes Crowley, which I wrote in a column. He never questions whether, Cuban intelligence is using this access to learn about our trade routes or to get other defense information. And then more recently, in interviews, he pretends like he never heard of Crowley when he conducted a hearing with one of their executives. Mario Diaz Balart, he's at the same hearing. He doesn't have any questions about it.
And then you look in on the FEC records, you find out that Crowley's political action committee has given a substantial amount of money to Mario Diaz de Blar. So all I'm saying is you have these members of congress, virtually all of them Republicans, who hold themselves out as great critics of Castro because it's great for raising cash, but in terms of actually impacting the authoritarian regime and improving the lives of the people in Cuba, you know what they've done? Nothing.
Speaker 0: It's all rhetoric. So it's about money.
Speaker 1: It's all about money.
Speaker 0: Blah blah And and in politics, is it I've been told it's about money, power, and sex. Is that one of those three usually motivates people?
Speaker 1: Well, know what I say, never miss the opportunity to either be on television or have sex.
Speaker 0: Never to be on television or have sex.
Speaker 1: Yes. Actually, stole that from Gore Vidal, but it is Gore Vidal. It's it's in my rules book.
Speaker 0: And and money power and sex are kind of interrelated to a certain degree. So what's next for Roger Stone?
Speaker 1: I'm writing a book about the attempted assassination of president Ronald Reagan because the true story has never been told. But suffice it to say that John Hinkley junior, who's convicted of trying to kill Reagan, is crouching in front of Reagan, shooting from an upward trajectory. But Reagan was hit from above and behind. There's a second shooter. The CIA knows it.
This book is entitled Bushwacked, The True Story of the Attempted Assassination of Bushwacked. The Bushwacked.
Speaker 0: Is that
Speaker 1: You kinda get the You get the idea. You get idea.
Speaker 0: You get this is the other well, actually, don't have the the I have the Clinton's war on women. I have the only the Kindle version of the Bush book we didn't have time to get into. Are you an are you an optimist? Are you a hopeful person?
Speaker 1: I am. I think we're about to enter a golden age.
Speaker 0: A golden age.
Speaker 1: A golden age of peace, prosperity, security, justice, and law and order. In a very strange way, I think being cheated out of the twenty twenty election turns out to be a good thing because now Donald Trump is much wiser, much more battle hardened, has a much better understanding of how evil the system is in Washington and in the country. He has an all star cabinet. He doesn't have quizlings around him like HR McMaster or general John Kelly. These guys thought that their job was to stop Trumpism, to stop Trump from destroying the world.
They didn't understand their job was to implement Trump's vision. Now you've got people who fully understand, his vision and are set to implement his views. So whether it is Pete Hegseth, who I think is doing a great job, or Robert Kennedy junior, who I think is doing a great job, or Tulsi Gabbard, will be the first woman president of The United States, not necessarily in 2028, but someday, Or Scott Besson, who I think is a brilliant choice to be secretary of treasury, an outside the box thinker, a libertarian, a believer in cryptocurrency, a believer in gold. This is an all star cabinet.
Speaker 0: And loyal?
Speaker 1: Every every single one of them. And frankly, it's a it's an all star White House staff. You know, I'm tired of seeing people say, oh, Susie Wiles was a she was a lobbyist for Pfizer. No. She wasn't.
I've known her for thirty years. Throughout her entire political career, she has always been with the outsider. I worked with her for Ronald Reagan against George h w Bush. I worked with her with Jack for Jack Kemp against George h w Bush. I worked with her against the sitting attorney general for Rick Scott when he was elected governor.
In 2016, she could have been for Marco Rubio. She could have been for Jeb Bush. She chose to be for Donald Trump. So I I think she's the glue that allowed Trump to run the most effective presidential campaign in our history, and without any doubt, the greatest single comeback in history. Because on paper, he should not have been able to do what he did.
And he won every swing state. He ran a masterful, extremely well financed, but also well plotted out campaign. Meaning, who wins is not about who has the right the most money. Who wins is about who spends their money most effectively and can plan for the long term. This is one of the reasons why I think Susie Wiles has done a tremendous job for the president.
Speaker 0: Met Susie Wiles when we did the story on the CIA and they were withholding information from Trump and Susie Wiles told Trump he should comment on it, and he did. Last question. We have undercover reporters everywhere. We're doing investigative work every week. What do you think should be exposed?
What needs journalistic investigation on video? Do you think a priority there is?
Speaker 1: That's an excellent question. I mean, there's so much right here in Florida. I I'm very disturbed about the story about Ron DeSantis and his wife appropriating $10,000,000 from Medicare with the help of our appointed attorney general. Find that very disturbing. But even the Broward County Sheriff's Office, we have an appointed sheriff appointed by Ron DeSantis who turns out to be affiliated with the largest, most radical mosque in the county, turns out to be a big fan of big of Black Lives Matter.
I'd like to see somebody go undercover into the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 0: The Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 1: It's the largest sheriff's county in The United States with over 6,000 employees and a budget of just under a billion dollars.
Speaker 0: Who are not familiar with Florida, where's Broward County? It's Fort Lauderdale. Fort Lauderdale. Well, I'm a new resident of Florida, so that's not too far
Speaker 1: is local.
Speaker 0: All politics is local. And some of the best stories that we've done are local stories. Learned that from Andrew Breitbart. Roger, we're out of time. Thank you so much.
It's great to see
Speaker 1: you. Great to be with you, James. Thank you.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Roger Stone | My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe #10 - O'Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn one morning in 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone […]
okeefemediagroup.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Canada Bans Hiking With $25,000 Fine — O’Keefe Goes Hiking in Nova Scotia, Police Called Through ‘Snitch Line’ Canadian Department of Natural Resources Tells O’Keefe: “If You Want to Break the Law, Talk to Trump” https://t.co/MLgP43kXbx
Video Transcript AI Summary
James O'Keeffe with OMG walks into Nova Scotia, Canada, claiming "stay out of the woods. $25,000 fine." He notes a stay-out-of-the-woods sign with a "burn ban" and asks "We issued $25,000 fines for going in the woods." The reported amount appears as "$28,872.50." The duo encounters a "snitch line" and describes "a bunch of Karens walking along the boardwalk" and "snitches get stitches." They interact with local authorities; "The Aprilton Regional Police" respond, then "they left" with "cop just left." They state "there has been no fine, but there are some Department of Natural Resources people." They continue along the forest path, question the difference between trails, and mention "we're walking the line" while noting "peeing in the woods" at times. They promote a FOIA course via O'Keefe Media Group.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keeffe with OMG and this is walking into the Canada Woods on purpose for a $25,000 fine.
Speaker 1: There it is right there.
Speaker 0: Stay out of the woods. $25,000 fine. Oh, there's there's DSLR worker. There's a worker right there.
Speaker 1: What happens if you join that $3,000 fine? We don't have anything to start a fire though. Doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: He's on the right to law.
Speaker 0: So here in Nova Scotia, they've actually banned hiking due to a burn ban. They're gonna fine you $25,000 for going hiking in Canada. Let's see what happens. There's also a bunch of Karens walking along the boardwalk. A lot of snitches.
Snitches get stitches.
Speaker 3: I saw these two gentlemen.
Speaker 4: They're they're gone in the woods. They have backpacks. Okay.
Speaker 5: I'll send my officers out here shortly. Thanks for calling.
Speaker 6: Alright. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1: Bratton Raids on police. Let's arrive.
Speaker 0: So we've arrived in Nova Scotia, Canada, and we're driving down the highway, and it says stay out of the woods.
Speaker 1: And then it says it's
Speaker 0: a burn ban, $25,000 fine if you go into the woods. We are going into the woods. So the man Jeff actually did this and I thought about doing this but then I saw Jeff's story and I figured, hey, I should do that.
Speaker 1: We issued $25,000 fines for going in the woods. I'm just gonna make this as painless as I can for those guys. The fine is $28,872.50.
Speaker 0: We'll see what the local authorities enforce this absurd law, is a violation of human rights and human dignity. We have no fire starters on us. Nothing can start a fire. I do have my trekking poles, my backpacks, and my hidden cameras unless they arrest me, which we're in Canada, so it's certainly possible. But we're here in the woods.
It's a very overcast day. It's going to rain. So the question is, are they gonna give us a 25,000 ticket while it's raining? Okay. So we've been in the woods for about five minutes, and there's a good chance that someone's gonna snitch on us.
No. There's actually a snitch line where Canadians rat on other Canadians if they see hikers. Apparently, somebody snitched on us.
Speaker 4: I just have a little concern. Is this the number that you call if people are, like, hiking or, like, in the woods then they're not supposed to Yeah. Okay. I'm at Petersfield in Westmount,
Speaker 3: and I I saw these two gentlemen.
Speaker 4: They're they're gone in the woods. They have backpacks. They have these these poles, like, the trekking poles, I believe they're called.
Speaker 0: Feel like we're smuggling contraband into Canada.
Speaker 4: The one guy, he's he's tall, probably about six two. He's wearing like some bluish gray pants, navy blue long sleeve. It's just ridiculous. Like, clearly, they're not supposed to be in there. Like Yeah.
I know.
Speaker 5: I get it till I get that ring. Any of those or anything? Do you know?
Speaker 4: I I don't know. I just I, like, saw them walking in there, and they had, like, backpacks and stuff. So
Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. So okay. I'll send the officers out here shortly. Thanks for calling.
Speaker 6: Alright. Thank you. Whoo.
Speaker 1: The Aprilton Regional Police. That's a wrap. They
Speaker 0: apparently haven't banned birdhouses here. Like, are they a burn hazard? Oh, wait. We have we have an update.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Jeff.
Speaker 5: The the cop just left.
Speaker 0: He just left. The the cop the cop just left?
Speaker 5: Yes. They left. This is how much they care about our boys, James.
Speaker 0: This is how so so they've abandoned mission?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So they call cops. The cops come and apparently the cops walked in a little bit, kind of gave up and left ten minutes later. So we were expecting to get fined $25,000. There has been no fine, but there are some Department of Natural Resources people. We're gonna keep walking along this path and see what else happens.
What is the difference between this, these woods, and the woods back there? Don't know. Couldn't tell you. We're almost out of here, but we're not out of the woods yet.
Speaker 4: There's some the roots are blocked off. You'll see the tape across this?
Speaker 0: But we can be here on
Speaker 4: this be here on this trail.
Speaker 0: What's the difference between this trail and that trail?
Speaker 4: That's a good question.
Speaker 0: Do you know if they're snitching on people?
Speaker 4: Don't know that either.
Speaker 0: They're calling the police and stuff like that.
Speaker 4: Are they?
Speaker 1: I
Speaker 0: I I heard about that.
Speaker 4: Oh, I never heard that.
Speaker 0: Again, this is just as dense as the other oh, there's there's DSLR worker. There's a worker right there. There's a worker right there.
Speaker 1: Hey there. Do you know
Speaker 0: where the where the vans are for hiking?
Speaker 1: 25,000? That's a lot of money. What's the reason? Fires. Fires?
We don't have anything to start a fire, though. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: You wanna break the law?
Speaker 1: Talk to breaking the law?
Speaker 0: Yeah. He's he's a lawbreaker. Right?
Speaker 1: Alright. Have a good day. See
Speaker 5: you. Definitely
Speaker 0: not a fan of Donald Trump up here in Nova Scotia, Canada. Trump didn't shut down the forest. There's our car. We only have about 200 yards left to go. Let's get the fuck out of here.
James O'Keefe here in Canada. What do you do when the agencies sworn to protect you are doing bad things in secret? You expose it. You expose it often through a FOIA request, That's Freedom of Information Act. At O'Keefe Academy, o'keefemediagroup.com, we're offering a new course this coming month on how to file FOIA requests, how to get the footage off of the police officers' body cameras.
We've done that dozens of times, and we'll teach you how to do it. How do you get the course? Subscribe to O'Keefe Media Group. Subscribe to OMG at o'keefemediagroup.com. This is James O'Keefe in Canada exposing what's happening here.
Stay tuned. Assuming that peeing in the woods is also a $25,000 fine. We're not exactly sure where the perimeter of the woods is. So we are traipsing on that line like Johnny Cash. We're walking the line as they say.
Is that the woods? Is this the woods? We're not we're not sure the point of egress here. So I'm peeing very quickly so I don't get spotted on because we know they have a hotline to handle.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
LEAKED CALL: @washingtonpost Reaches Out to Trump Pageant Girl in Attempt to "Expose” President Trump, Pageant Girl Contacts O'Keefe & Records Bureau Chief Admitting “If All We Had Was People Saying Trump Was a Gentleman, We Wouldn’t Do That Story" @mviser
Video Transcript AI Summary
Washington Post coverage of Trump's ties to Epstein during pageant events is described as not a fluff piece and largely anonymous. A pageant winner says Washington Post reporter Matt Fischer contacted her to learn about Trump, and she recorded the phone call. In the call, Fischer says they won't publish anything that they hear from former pageant girls that Trump treated them well during the pageant, saying flat out, if we all we have with people saying Trump was a gentleman, we wouldn't do the story. The upcoming article is said to be mostly built on anonymous sources; “we've talked to a number of people” and “it's mostly anonymous”; “we're not sort of at the point of putting people's names on things.” The interviewee notes, “Here's what the story's gonna say” and, “We need to go back to everybody and figure out, like, what they're comfortable with.” Not gonna tell you what year this pageant winner is from.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If all we had was a bunch of people saying that Trump was a gentleman and he was very nice and, you know, everybody with respect, like, I I don't think we would do do that story. We just wouldn't do a story. It's definitely not a fluff piece. Mostly, and mostly, it's been anonymous. We're we're not sort of at the point of putting people's names on things.
Speaker 1: So I got a message the other day from an American dream calendar girl pageant winner from the nineteen nineties. Now she had gotten a message from a Washington Post reporter named Matt Pfizer who was contacting her trying to get dirt, trying to get information on the relationship between Epstein and Trump. Now Washington Post Pfizer alleges in his email to this pageant winner that he wanted to hear from her experiences with president Trump during her time as a pageant girl. Now she reached out to me wondering what she could do to expose this Washington Post reporter, so she called this Washington Post reporter and recorded the phone call.
Speaker 0: Thanks for getting back to me. Yeah. I know it's kinda random and out of the blue, but we've been trying to revisit that period when Trump was involved with the competition. So we we heard a little bit about Jeffrey Epstein being around at some competitions or parties and stuff like that and have just been trying to talk to as many people as we could, particularly since it was a long time ago.
Speaker 1: And in this phone call, Washington Post reporter Matt Fischer says that they won't publish anything that they hear from former pageant girls that Trump treated them well during the pageant, saying flat out, if we all we have with people saying Trump was a gentleman, we wouldn't do the story. It's definitely not a fluff piece.
Speaker 0: If all we had was a bunch of people saying that Trump was a gentleman and he was very nice and, you know, everybody with respect. Like, I I don't think we would do do that story. We just wouldn't do a story. So I I mean, I think we're approaching it in the sense that if we can find out something new that was happening that Trump was doing back then, you know, that we can kind of expose to people. I I think that's where we're that's where we're headed.
And if we can't get that, then I don't I don't know that we have a story, but it's definitely not a fluff piece of, like, I don't know, like, Trump Trump the businessman or Trump the, you know, the the guy who is nice to everybody. It's it's sort of not where we're heading.
Speaker 1: Now Matt Visor also says in his phone call with the pageant winner, the secretly record phone call, that the upcoming Washington Post article on the Trump relationship is mostly built on anonymous sources.
Speaker 0: So we we've talked to to a number of people. I I don't I don't think we're yet, like, in a position to say, like, here's here's the headline off of this because we're still kind of in the mode of trying to hear from people. You know, a lot of those have been mostly, it's been anonymous. We're we're not sort of at the point of putting people's names on things. Kind the point in the story phase where it's like, okay.
Here's what the story's gonna say. We need to go back to everybody and figure out, like, what they're comfortable with.
Speaker 1: We think it's great that people the Washington Post are trying to recruit are coming to us and recording the calls. Not gonna tell you what year this pageant winner is from. I'm sure Matt Fizer at the Washington Post is not
Speaker 0: very happy.
reSee.it AI Summary
I thought I had found my dream job as a pediatric nurse, but I soon witnessed troubling practices at a top children’s hospital, where healthy kids were pushed into gender transitions. When I raised concerns, FBI agents visited me, but I chose to speak out instead of backing down. I’m dedicated to protecting children and exposing unethical practices, including insurance fraud and the irreversible damage of sex changes. I believe safeguarding children transcends politics, and I offer advice to others considering whistleblowing. My fight continues for a better future.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Vanessa Sivadge thought she’d found her dream job as a pediatric nurse at the nation’s top children’s hospital. Instead, she says she watched doctors steer healthy kids into gender transitions, prescribing powerful drugs, billing taxpayers, and hiding it from the public. When she raised concerns, FBI agents came knocking at her door. Instead of backing down, she chose to speak out and dedicate her life to protecting children. FBI Agents Coming to Vanessa Sivadge’s Home (2:06) Ethics and Morals in Nursing (5:37) Dr. Ethan Haim Blowing the Whistle on Gender Ideology (11:56) “What Happened to ‘Do No Harm’?” (18:00) Protesting Administering Sex Change Care to Children (22:00) Texas Children’s Hospital Committing Insurance Fraud (31:16) The Irreversible Damage of Undergoing a Sex Change (33:52) Texas Legislation on Gender Affirming Care (35:00) Who Profits From Children’s Gender Reassignment? (40:30) Going Public on Texas Children’s Hospital Committing Fraud (43:15) Finding Strength After Blowing the Whistle (44:30) Trump Administration Launches an Investigation (47:15) Activism to Remove Explicit Content from Children’s Education (55:06) Obedience Over Courage (58:44) Retaliation and False Narratives (1:01:22) Safeguarding Children Is a Bi-Partisan Concern (1:14:30) What Does Victory Look Like? (1:22:07) Advice to Potential Whistleblowers (1:25:40) “My Price Is My Life” (1:29:50) @V_Sivadge @protect_txchild Listen & Subscribe – Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vanessa Savage, a pediatric nurse from Houston, revealed that Texas Children's Hospital was giving underage patients puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones and charging Medicaid for it, even though that is against the law.
“‘This is a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity,’ she recalls, noting that ‘the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly.’”
She describes intimidation: “They couldn't protect me unless I helped them and that my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.”
After an anonymous tip, she collaborated with Christopher Ruffo; “a few days later, my anonymous testimony came out.”
She later founded Protecting Texas Children (501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)); launched Behind the Shelves exposing pornographic books in Texas school libraries—“over 900 books”.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I went into the room and quickly saw that this was a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity. And I look and I see that the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly. I can't believe this. You know, I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen. I had turned down a job.
And as soon as I learned the entire role was gonna be centered around providing trans care to kids, I turned it down. And I just said, don't agree with this. I'm gonna I'm gonna pass. Fraudulent going on.
Speaker 1: With this.
Speaker 0: The unholy trinity, the hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies. The FBI showed up. They found this article that I had written, which was condemning the nursing and the medical profession as a whole for caring more about their paychecks than about the lives of children. Yeah. They were, like I said, very intimidating.
They couldn't protect me unless I helped them and that my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.
Speaker 1: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back to The Price Is My Life. Today, we are joined by Vanessa Savage, a pediatric nurse turned whistleblower from Houston, Texas, who courageously revealed that Texas Children's Hospital, also known as TCH, was giving underage patients puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones and charging Medicaid for it, even though that is against the law. After being visited by two agents of the FBI, we have that in common, although the 10 agents from the FBI visited my house.
That was a very strange video. We're gonna get into that. Ultimately fired, Vanessa founded Protecting Texas Children, five zero one c three and five zero one c four organization, to safeguard children's health and innocence. And she joins us as she shares her touching testimony of faith, integrity, and bold advocacy representing the principles behind My Price Is My Life. And I wanna start by going to this start with the FBI clip.
This is the video, and we're just gonna we're gonna go back to this, but these this was, like, December 2024. Right? And Libs of TikTok posted this?
Speaker 0: It was July 2023. July. And
Speaker 1: Was it posted in December?
Speaker 0: I'm sure it was reposted.
Speaker 1: Reposted. Okay. Yeah. And these are two agents with the FBI. Yes.
Let's just watch this clip.
Speaker 2: Hello? Hi. I'm looking for Vanessa Savage. Okay. Yeah.
Over here. I'll make some of the FBI agent. Okay. This is his summit. Right.
I am busy. Okay. Nice to meet you.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a pleasant interaction here.
Speaker 2: I need trouble. Yes. She can talk. Okay. Alright.
Hi. Hi. How are you? She snuck up on you there. You want you want a seat tip?
Are we interrupting dinner? I'm really sorry
Speaker 0: to interrupt. What's going on?
Speaker 2: Let me start at the beginning. So I'm sure you're aware of some of the things that have been going on at your work lately.
Speaker 0: With regards to
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I gotta can I you can we sit down for a minute? Let me do my song and dance.
Speaker 1: Very strange. Very these guys are actually FBI agents?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The FBI is not sending their best. It looks like a joke.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we were completely unprepared. I mean, we were in the middle of hosting friends. This was a Monday night at 7PM. Our friends were in the kitchen wondering what was going on.
We answered the door and we just didn't come back for a little while. And you can see my husband there is just completely bewildered and just shocked because we just, you know, people tell you this is what you should do when you have a federal agent show up at your door. You know, like, mentally what you should do, but in that moment, you never think that's gonna happen to you. You never think that the police state will be weaponized against someone who's done absolutely nothing wrong, which was me in my case. And
Speaker 1: Well, you asked, what is this regards to? And he he kind of was befuddled by that. And then can we just do our song and dance? It just seems so unprofessional.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's it's very manipulative. Right? They're they're putting on a front like they're your friend. Like, they want they're they're acting in your best interest, which is exactly what the conversation was about.
Speaker 1: He's he's trying to suggest, oh, you know, you know what this is about, you know, but they're just not they don't seem right.
Speaker 0: It's not it's not honest. It's it's very deceptive, and that's that was really the whole interaction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, thank God you recorded it. And was there any recording after that ended? Or
Speaker 0: No. Unfortunately not.
Speaker 1: The ring ring bell camera? Or
Speaker 0: We it recorded when they left, which was also posted, but that was They a much shorter came inside for about ten minutes, and both of us were just completely terrified.
Speaker 1: Did you record that they were in your house?
Speaker 0: No. No. I mean, again, this was we were completely unprepared. We were hosting friends. You know, it
Speaker 1: friends Were there?
Speaker 0: Oh, yes. They heard the whole thing. We have witnesses. Just it's just shocking. But unfortunately, like, this was unfortunately all too common during the Biden Harris administration.
This happened to a lot of I'm sure you you know, like a lot of conservative Christian Catholic pro life people, like, received these kind of intimidating visits. And so this was not a surprise, unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Well, we're gonna go back to that FBI clip, but let's rewind and see how things got there. That was August 2024?
Speaker 0: July.
Speaker 1: July of
Speaker 0: twenty Summer twenty
Speaker 1: of twenty three?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: '23.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You've spoken about the crisis of conscience you felt in your job at Texas Children's Hospital. Let's talk about that. What did you mean when you said this? You're a Christian, but you're also a nurse who made a commitment to do no harm through the Nightingale pledge. And I think we have a clip where you talk about the crisis of conscience that you felt.
Speaker 0: As a nurse and as someone working with not only Doctor. Roberts but with other providers as well in the clinic and really just had a crisis of conscience at one point. You know I think my faith played a huge role in that and I'm a Christian but aside from my faith I think as a nurse we go through nursing school and we learn about how to care for patients and upholding the highest standard of ethics in the in that care. And that was something that I I really felt very strongly about in my spirit that what we were doing wasn't providing long term benefit or help to these young boys and girls coming into the clinic but it was just harming them.
Speaker 1: So talk about what you mean by crisis of conscience.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Wow. Well, I graduated from nursing school in 2015. Been a nurse for ten years, and it's still, to this day, one of the most trusted professions ever. People place a great deal of confidence and trust in nurses.
And it's a profession that I cherish, and I went through a lot to get there. And, you know, in 2018, I accepted a job at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. At the time, I thought this was gonna be my dream job. Texas Children's is the number one children's hospital in The United States. It's highly prestigious.
It's consistently ranked top three in in just hospital institutions in in the country. And so anyone who works there will tell you that it is a tremendous honor to be a part of this team. And that's really how I felt for many years. You know, I worked for the first couple of years, I worked in the cardiology department. And so we were seeing the sickest patients, these babies born with congenital heart defects.
They literally their condition was incompatible with life. They were so sick. They were turning blue. They couldn't breathe. And we would take them from that state and we would do a series of surgeries and medications, we would save their life.
And so that was my background. And then a couple years later, I found myself in a clinic that was taking completely healthy patients and making them sick for life. So that's that's the contrast that I couldn't get out of my mind is that we they were the hospital was intentionally prescribing these hormones that and these cross sex hormones and puberty blockers that would have a devastating effect on these children mentally, psychologically, physically. And so that's exactly what I was seeing is in 2021 is really when this all kicked off. I was accepted a new position in a multi specialty clinic.
And this was a clinic where a number of different specialties were housed under one roof. And slowly, week after week, I started to see how healthy children were coming in through the gender clinic, once a week at least. And these these boys would slowly start to become more and more like girls, and these girls would start to develop masculine features week after week. And so there there's a my my crisis of conscience was twofold. Number one, it was a crisis of conscience intellectually because as a nurse who believes that biology matters, that following the science means something when we say that, My objection was from a biological perspective that men and women are created distinctly, beautifully, uniquely, and that those differences should be upheld, they should be affirmed, they should be defended in the nursing and in the medical profession as a whole.
But second of all, it was a spiritual objection. I'm a I'm a Christian, and so my faith informs my view that boys and girls, men and women are made in the image of God, that those differences are to be celebrated and upheld as well. And so everything that I believe stems from my my worldview and the Judeo Christian ethics. And so that was a very difficult time for me because I didn't know what to do. I was one person in this massive medical institution, a huge hospital with over 20,000 employees, endless resources.
And what was I going to do about it? I'm one person. Mhmm. And I think in that moment, God looked down from heaven. He just laughed, you know?
Because God's plans for us are often so much better than our plans for us, even though we may not recognize it or see it at the time. Right? His ways are higher. His ways are better. And so it was in May 2023 that I was sitting at work one day.
After going through months and months of trying to transfer out of the clinic, trying to find a different job elsewhere, I went through all of the different ways to try to kind of shift out of that role. And I would come home to my husband every day, almost every day, and just tell him that there was another girl I saw that was out, and parents were asking for testosterone refill. And it's this is just like debit. I mean, some people might think that that's like nothing. You just do your job and get on with it.
Right? Get on just get to get on with it and collect your paycheck at the end of the day. Right? But I had a real problem with that. Like, was I was one domino.
I was facilitating this process where children were were being harmed. And I had a real a real weight on me. And and so it was in May 2023, I was sitting at work, and I read an article by Christopher Ruffo. And he had collaborated with an anonymous whistleblower within Texas Children's Hospital. And this whistleblower had come forward and had revealed how the hospital was continuing to provide these cross sex hormones and sex change treatments to children in secret.
It was secret because the hospital had scrubbed the existence of this program from their website. There were no traces from the no evidence, no anything from the outside looking in. Someone who was on the hospital website could not see that there was a robust and very lucrative transgender program taking place within the hospital. But this whistleblower had the courage to come forward and to bring that to light.
Speaker 1: Do we know the name of the whistleblower?
Speaker 0: And Doctor. Eitan Haim, who's now gone public.
Speaker 1: So this person inspired
Speaker 0: you? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: So you would you Google this? How did you find this this Rufeld article?
Speaker 0: So it's actually someone at work sent me the article.
Speaker 1: Would that was that person at work having the same crisis of conscience you were?
Speaker 0: I would say this person was concerned about what was going on with children. And there were a few a few of them who shared some deep concerns about what was happening. But again, you you just know that if you were to speak out, if you were to say anything at all, that there would be severe consequences in retaliation.
Speaker 1: Losing your job, losing your paycheck. So you and this is we have it on the screen here. I'm an anonymous whistleblower who drew a story written by Christopher Ruffo exposed. So he actually came out publicly later on.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: He initially was
Speaker 0: He was anonymous. Anonymous.
Speaker 1: But was he retaliated against, to your knowledge, after he came out publicly?
Speaker 0: Yes. So the his story is absolutely insane. Right? The Biden Harris administration went after him, and he faced ten years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars of
Speaker 1: Under what?
Speaker 0: Right. So that's that's that's part of the story. Right? As we get into it. Right.
Speaker 1: So Let's go back to when you you saw this by Ethan Haim. Yes. And and then what happens?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So to give you some context about the state of Texas, when this whistleblower testimony came out in May 2023, s b 14 had still not been passed and signed into law.
Speaker 1: S b 14 is
Speaker 0: Which is the law that essentially made it illegal for minors under the age of 18 to receive hormones and purity blockers. It was it hadn't been passed yet. And so because of this this testimony that came out of Texas Children's, which was prompted by doctor Haim. He was the first one. There were many, Democrat members of the Texas House that flipped their votes upon reading what was going on inside the hospital.
So that prompted a legislative change, and our our governor signed that into law a few months later. And so a few a few days after he came forward anonymously with his testimony, I just said, you know what? I I need to corroborate his account because I knew that they were gonna go after him. Whoever he was, I had no idea. Right?
He was anonymous. But I knew that I needed to come forward as from the perspective of a nurse working in the clinic that was supposedly nonexistent. I knew that was going to be powerful. And I knew that what he had done was courageous and right and true. And so I wanted to add my voice to his.
And that's exactly what I did. I contacted Christopher Ruffo. And a few days later, my anonymous testimony came came out with him. And that was supposed to be the end of the story. Mhmm.
The legislature passed the law, it was signed, and I went back to work feeling very relieved that I was no longer going to be working in a clinic where children were being irreversibly harmed. But that's not the end of the story. And two months later is when is when the FBI showed up at my house in July.
Speaker 1: That's the first time
Speaker 0: of 2023.
Speaker 1: You you the FBI showed up at your house. Nothing happened in between? This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances.
Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. Continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeifmediagold.com or 833324gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured.
This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history. Own a piece of it. The FBI showed up to your house. Nothing happened in between?
Speaker 0: No. I went back to work thinking things were gonna be fine. And no one knew my identity, no one knew I had come forward. I was totally anonymous. And I was
Speaker 1: You were anonymous
Speaker 0: to To to from the article that he had written did not contain my name on it, even though it was my testimony.
Speaker 1: So how did the FBI find out?
Speaker 0: That's a great question.
Speaker 1: Did someone tip did you tell anybody?
Speaker 0: In August 2022, I wrote an op ed for the Washington Stand called What Happened to Do No Harm? A Nurse's Firsthand View of the Transgender Craze. It's still up.
Speaker 1: Here it is. Doctors would manipulate and convince parents that gender affirming care was life saving, an interview with Vanessa Savage. What was the name of the publication?
Speaker 0: It was called What Happened to Do No Harm? But it's the publication arm of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. And so I chose to use my name on that article.
Speaker 1: So they linked this with the Christopher?
Speaker 0: We'll never know. I Pull back up the
Speaker 1: Christopher Ruffo article that you anonymously spoke spoke with. And somehow the FBI got wind of this. This is the murky business of transgender medicine. Did Texas Children's Hospital commit fraud to pay for child sex procedures? And this says 06/18/2024.
And didn't the FBI come? Right.
Speaker 0: Right. They had come a year before.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we will never know how they
Speaker 1: What do you suspect happened?
Speaker 0: I suspect that they Googled my name, and they found this article that I had written, was condemning the nursing and the medical profession as a whole for caring more about their paychecks than about the lives of children. And I was very, very direct and very blunt in this article. The other thing that I think could have influenced this is I had turned down a job previously in which all of the the responsibilities were gonna be directly related to providing transgender services for children. And I did not know this when I applied. This was something that my manager had offered to me.
And as soon as I learned that my whole the entire role was gonna be centered around providing trans care to kids, I turned it down, and I just said, I don't agree with this. I'm gonna I'm gonna pass. And that was the extent of the conversation. But my manager knew at that point that I did not agree.
Speaker 1: Did anybody else do that at your job?
Speaker 0: Do what?
Speaker 1: Protest the way that you did or say, I'm not going to do this, what you Not just
Speaker 0: that I know of.
Speaker 1: Did your colleagues agree with you, any of them?
Speaker 0: I was very careful who I talked about this with. I you know, people talk. Things get up the chain real quick. And you just don't know who you can trust. Right?
So I was very careful. There were a few
Speaker 1: that Obviously, if the FBI is coming, someone's snitching.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Don't know who. Yeah. That's a valid theory. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know I don't know. How is the how does the FBI have jurisdiction on this? Would it be a state issue?
Speaker 0: So and that leads back into Doctor. Haim. So when they came to my house, they told me that they that I was a person of interest in an investigation targeting a leaker, not a whistleblower, but a leaker. And in their words, he had violated HIPAA. He had broken HIPAA confidentiality laws, and they were wondering if I knew anything about it.
Speaker 1: So you were a witness in their prosecution against somebody else?
Speaker 0: Potentially.
Speaker 1: And that would have been Chaim, potentially?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Of course, I didn't know any of this at the time. Now we can kind of piece the the puzzle together and kind of figure it out. But, they were, like I said, very intimidating. They said that he had broken the law and that they couldn't protect me unless I helped them, that I needed to co collaborating and cooperate with their investigation, and that my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.
Speaker 1: Your safety was at risk. This is the
Speaker 0: FBI told you.
Speaker 1: Yes. They said that in your living room?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Your safety is at risk. Yes. Going back to what you were asked to do, the things in your part of your job, like for example, you were asked to teach a patient how to administer an intramuscular injection that was estrogen to a young Yes. Would give us some more examples of the things that you were asked to do that were unconscionable to you.
Speaker 0: Yes. Absolutely. Well, nurses often I'll start with this example. Nurses often have to battle with insurance companies over the coverage of certain medications or treatments for patients. Right?
It's a very common thing. And so one of my jobs was whenever a medication bounced back as not being covered under their insurance plan, I would have to call the insurance and get a prior authorization, is what it's called. And this is just basically telling the insurance this is medically necessary, that the doctor ordered this, that this is essential for their health and well-being. And so I I was put in a in a position where I had as part of my job to do that. It wasn't all the time.
I again, I had lots of other responsibilities outside of the endocrine department. But this was one of them. And so the idea of me picking up the phone and convincing a health insurance plan that this sweet, vulnerable 15 year old girl needs testosterone is just it just
Speaker 1: You had to convince the insurance company that it
Speaker 0: would I had to get authorization for the medication.
Speaker 1: And how would you do that theoretically on the phone with the insurance company?
Speaker 0: So sometimes they requested a doctor's signature, sometimes they requested a letter from the doctor explaining why the medication is necessary. Sometimes all they need is just to talk to a human being, a nurse on the phone and just be like, Okay, we're gonna we're gonna move forward with this. We'll we'll sign off on it, you know, rubber stamp it. But that was just one example, right? Just the act of the the very small, but in my mind, significant task expectation, I should say, as a part of my job, that I had to advocate for these children to sterilize themselves.
Speaker 1: Like, how would that even work in practice? Like, what would you say to the insurance company?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say I would give them the reason it was it was it was prescribed. So the purpose for the medication, the reason for why it was prescribed, the length of time that the child needed to be on it. Just, you know, you're it's just a common thing. This is not just for nurses do this all the time. Right?
Speaker 1: But this was the thing that really pushed you over the edge.
Speaker 0: This, and I would say there was one other situation which you alluded to, where nurses do a lot of patient teaching in hospitals as well, and that's very common. And so this doctor providing transgender services approached me at the nurses' station and said, hey, I just finished seeing this patient. Would you mind going in there and teaching him how to administer an intramuscular injection so he can inject himself at home with the medication that I'm prescribing? I had no idea what he I mean, we do this all the time, and we don't really don't really ask or know in some case excuse me, in some cases. And so I went into the room and quickly saw that this was a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity.
And as I was kind of going through the motions of instructing him, I just thought to myself, I wonder what this is for. I wonder what this medication is for. I go back
Speaker 1: What medication is it, by the
Speaker 0: way? Estrogen.
Speaker 1: Estrogen.
Speaker 0: And so I go back to chart, as all nurses do.
Speaker 1: Chart.
Speaker 0: We just document. Right? We document what we've done just to there's a record. Mhmm. And I look and I see that the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly.
And I said, well, I I can't believe this. You know, I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen. So that was a real breaking point for me as well. And this just built over time and you just get so you get so angry and so and so devastated and so sad for these patients that are believing a lie about their identity, about who God's made them to be. Mhmm.
But you have no idea what to do about it. You're one person.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And you don't know the most effective way, the most the the way that would achieve justice, like true justice for them.
Speaker 1: And the thing that you did was do this anonymous whistleblowing through RUVO?
Speaker 0: Yes. So that was in May 2023. Like I said, it was completely anonymous, and I was perfectly content for it to stay that way. I had no intentions or aspirations to go public.
Speaker 1: But God had other plans.
Speaker 0: As he so often does.
Speaker 1: Yes. You wouldn't be sitting here had it stayed anonymous. Right. What would you have been doing though? You would have been kept going with your job or
Speaker 0: probably would still be a nerd yeah.
Speaker 1: I Doing stayed this.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: So tell us what happened next.
Speaker 0: So in July, like I said, the FBI showed up. And the weeks that followed were a real turning point for me for me and my husband. You know, obviously, I called Christopher Ruffo
Speaker 1: at Wait. Hold on. Before we go, let's go back to the FBI. Let's go back to July 2023, number five. Yep.
And this is this is your tweet. I'll never forget the day these two FBI agents came to my house in an attempt to intimidate me. I was a nurse working in. Now this tweet, you tweeted this out. Was it in July or was it later in December?
Sometime afterwards.
Speaker 0: It was sometime after.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I believe those will expose the hospital.
Speaker 0: I guess it was December. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The Legal Defense Fund. You were told that you were a person of interest because of what you believed, and the HIPAA the the violation that broke HIPAA and and confidentiality laws. And and I'm I'm some more information here. We can't keep you safe unless you cooperate. And it's pretty crazy that they lodged some veiled threats at you like that.
And you didn't cooperate, though. Right?
Speaker 0: No. No. Because I ultimately, I knew that this first whistleblower, whoever he was, had done the right thing. He had come forward with the same concerns that I had. And really, just became a national story overnight that the hospital the number one children's hospital in America had been secretly providing transgender services to children in secret.
And that was just a it was a huge story. And I was so grateful for his for his courage and the guts that it took to do that. And he I mean, they he went through hell. Doctor. Haim has been through hell with his wife.
Speaker 1: How is he doing right now?
Speaker 0: Much better since the Trump administration has since taken off they dropped the case. Yes. And so he's doing a lot better.
Speaker 1: Until the Trump administration what but this pendulum seems to swing depending upon who's in power. How did your family react to the federal agents targeting you?
Speaker 0: I think they couldn't believe it. It's it's it's so it's something it's one thing to read about police intimidation or political persecution that happens in foreign countries and third world countries. And you never imagine that it's going to happen in Texas, in one of the reddest states in America, that they'll come to your door. You never think that that's gonna happen to you until it happens to you. Right?
And then you're I mean, my life changed forever after their visit. My my life has never looked the same.
Speaker 1: And also, just your knowledge of human nature?
Speaker 0: Or Well, I think it it just emboldened me. It it made me very angry.
Speaker 1: Were you scared for a few days? Were you terrified?
Speaker 0: I was I was scared. But more than anything, I think I was was emboldened.
Speaker 1: Emboldened. What do you mean?
Speaker 0: I think their the visit from the FBI really catapulted me into my decision to go public with my knowledge that the hospital was fraudulently billing Medicaid for sex change treatments for children. And the the layers of deception that the hospital was engaged in that I had witnessed personally, that I don't think I would have ever gone public with that knowledge had the FBI not come to my house.
Speaker 1: You've described children coming in with deep mental health struggles, autism, suicide, walking out with irreversible drugs. Yeah. I mean, you you you talked about the insurance fraud. Correct?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So let's talk a little bit about how that how they were doing anything fraudulent.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So first of all, it's important to paint the picture here. These children, like you said, they're deeply vulnerable. We know now that almost fifty percent of children who adopt a false identity have had some form of sexual abuse in their past. Many of them that I personally saw are most of them are girls.
They're
Speaker 1: Trying to be guys?
Speaker 0: Yes. They're deeply they're depressed. They're anxious. They're autistic. They are some many of them are just bullied in school or bullied online.
And so there's some form of vulnerability that's present in their life, whether that's abuse, whether it's bullying, or whether it's just a difficult time navigating puberty. There are just so many heartbreaking stories of children just like that. And I believe you know, as a Christian, I believe that these boys and girls are an easy target for the enemy, to come in and paint them this picture, that their confusion will be solved if they adopt this false identity, if they start taking these cross sex hormones in an attempt to erase who God has made them to be. And, of course, they're welcomed with open arms into this community of affirmation.
Speaker 1: What's the incentive for this you you called it the enemy. What's the incentive for the enemy to do that? Why does the enemy want to do that to them?
Speaker 0: Well, I think you get spiritual really quick with this question. Right? Because, I mean, the Bible tells us that he comes to steal, kill, and destroy what God is called good. And his deception started in the Garden Of Eden with Eve when he presented a very tempting piece of fruit that and and and a promise that she would be like God and that she would know the difference between good and evil. Technically, there was some truth embedded into that lie because the best lies are presented with just a tiny bit of truth that makes it feasible and attractive.
That's how the enemy works best, is he cloaks a lie with just just enough truth to make it
Speaker 1: in this context, how does the enemy cloak this with just a nugget of truth?
Speaker 0: Well, think in this context, children are I believe they're manipulated and convinced into starting these medications. And they're presented this alternative life that they'll have. And at first, this alternative life, it's very it's great. It goes great. They love being you know, the freedom and the friends that they make through this transition.
Right? Like, it feels good. It it it they have all of this encouragement from all of these people. And at first, like, the physical changes that may they may have struggled with at first are suddenly not present anymore. And so for a time, they do feel that sense of enthusiasm at this this new life that they're creating for themselves.
But that doesn't last long. You know, that's very short lived. And they suddenly, with time, they start to realize the decisions and the choices that they've made that little by little become more irreversible. The longer you're on a cross sex hormone, the more irreversible the effects become. And so the enthusiasm doesn't last very long.
Speaker 1: We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth.
You, we, are the media now. So let's talk about the Texas Medicaid policy 2015 prohibiting coverage of cross sex hormones. So just tell me how this works. So it Yeah. Legal or it wasn't legal?
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I'm not an attorney, but I'll tell you what I know. In 2015, Texas passed a law that essentially it's really a statute. It's the Medicaid policy in the state of Texas. And it's very clear, if you read it, that no form of gender affirmation, if you will, hormones, puberty blockers, or procedures can in any way be covered by Texas taxpayers by Medicaid.
A lot of people don't know that, right? Like, that's not a common thing that it's not as common as, say, the law that was passed two years ago by our governor banning all of these irreversible treatments, right? This is a little bit more in the weeds. And so technically, can't hospitals can't receive reimbursement for these services if they're billed according to this Medicaid policy. And yet, after the FBI left my home and I was forced to grapple with, well, what what do I do now?
Like, how am I going to what what am I gonna do? Like, I've done nothing wrong. I've just acted in accordance with with what I believe. I started to kind of notice some red flags at my work, and some some billing things were a little bit off. And so ultimately, I just I saw that children who either had Medicaid, CHIP, or STAR.
Speaker 1: And what's CHIP or STAR? What's the
Speaker 0: It's just a federally funded insurance program, a health insurance program for underprivileged children, supposedly. And saw that the hospital, of course, on every patient's record, you see what insurance program that they're under. And so this was very easily visible to anyone working with these patients. And so not only that, but I think it's really important to like because, of course, anyone who hears this will immediately ask, well, how did the hospital get away with this? How is it that the largest children's hospital in America was committing fraud?
And you were the only one who came out and said something about it. And I think there there's there's some there's you have to kinda get into the weeds a little bit. So first first of all
Speaker 1: Let's put the bill back up on the screen, guys, the Medicaid bill from 2015. It says makes this bill makes private let's see. Was this twenty two thousand twenty three, was this? This bill makes private health benefit plans strictly liable for the lifetime care of the patient for consequences of gender modification. So yeah.
So was this was this legal, what they were doing? I mean, continue with your analysis.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this is this is kind of answering that question. The first thing that would happen is when a child is transgender, and they're wanting to identify with the sex opposite of what they were born with, the first thing the hospital would do is instead of listing the biological sex on the chart, they would list the preferred gender identity of the patient on the official medical record. So that's falsifying the record. That's the first thing.
That's already illegal. Like, that's didn't list sex,
Speaker 1: they listed the preferred gender.
Speaker 0: Yes. And you, as the provider, you know, one of the providers caring for these patients, you would have to dig a little bit to discover that Jane was actually not Jane. She was John. Right? And she was identifying with a different name.
And so that's falsifying the record. So that's the first level. That's the first layer of deceit. The second is any patient of the gender clinic, many of them had fraudulent diagnoses. What that means is if there's, like, let's say, a 15 year old female biological female in the clinic, the chart would read that she had a testosterone deficiency.
But see, now it's not a girl that has a testosterone deficiency, it's a boy that has a So testosterone that doesn't raise any red flags.
Speaker 1: What's the example of the sort of half truths where they're
Speaker 0: relying
Speaker 1: upon a strange they're talking about it being a man, not a woman.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Would that justify drug prescriptions then?
Speaker 0: Right. Of course. And so an insurance company that receives this claim sees a boy who has a testosterone deficiency on paper. So that makes it very difficult for them to distinguish that there's anything
Speaker 1: What's the
Speaker 0: fraudulent going on?
Speaker 1: This?
Speaker 0: The unholy trinity.
Speaker 1: What's that?
Speaker 0: The hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, you may not know the answer. We can look it up. But what what drug companies were what drugs specifically, and what were those companies to your knowledge?
Speaker 0: There so puberty blockers, for instance, was Lupron is the most common one. Of course
Speaker 1: off this.
Speaker 0: Yes. Many of these drugs are used to chemically castrate sex offenders, by the way. These are drugs that are very common and well used for those purposes. So Lupron and then testosterone, whether that's injection or a pill form, and estrogen. And there's, of course, different versions of
Speaker 2: I wonder how
Speaker 0: people both of use it.
Speaker 1: The people who make those products feel about this. I'm sure there are people who have a crisis of conscience just like you.
Speaker 0: Well, again, it's how you use the product, right? There are children with actual health issues that need these drugs, right, like legitimately. But it's how you use it. It's how you weaponize it for a purpose that's not meant to heal but to harm.
Speaker 1: And you also talked about lack of insurance verification safeguards. You learned something about that. Right? It's not the insurance. Medicaid and some other insurances don't have a system in place where they verify to make sure this is correct before they reimburse.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's again, that's another layer. I think there should be more oversight.
Speaker 1: Well, that's crazy. They actually put the sex they want to be, not the sex they are Right. To get the diagnosis. So you saw that. And then walk us through Yeah.
Any other fraud you witnessed.
Speaker 0: So that was so I decided to go public with that knowledge in June 2024. But several weeks prior, in May, I had submitted an official religious accommodation request to my supervisor. And I asked her to transfer out of the endocrine clinic and back towards my core competency in the cardiology clinic. This was a very reasonable request. I'm not asking for the moon.
I'm just asking to be moved from one clinic to the other. Happens all the time. And they stonewalled me. They didn't respond. They stalled.
And they did not grant my request. And a couple of weeks later, I went public with my knowledge of the fraud.
Speaker 1: While you were still employed?
Speaker 0: While I was still employed. And the the next day, the hospital called me and put me on leave. And, of course, you know, my life changed overnight at that point. At that point, everyone knew my name and knew my face and knew the story I had come out with.
Speaker 1: They put you on leave?
Speaker 0: They put me on leave.
Speaker 1: Did they send you a message or a phone call or how did it
Speaker 0: It was a phone call. Yep. We've recorded Paid all leave? Paid leave. We've recorded all of those phone calls.
And they just informed me that I was under investigation and that they would inform me next week of the following steps. And so this kind of I knew that something like this could happen, obviously. We had weighed this decision very prayerfully and very carefully. But your life just changes overnight. And this was not something that I had planned for or anticipated.
I had never spoken in public in my life. I had never given an interview. I mean, if you would have told me, I'd be sitting across from you, I would have laughed in your face.
Speaker 1: So how was that process for you? You go from being an working in a hospital to being a public figure overnight. What was that like?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was really terrifying. You know, it's I think I I really have to give credit to my husband because he was my is my rock and my greatest supporter. And he really made me just feel so empowered and encouraged to do this because we knew that this was the right thing. I couldn't do this without him.
I don't think that I would have had the inner fortitude to go through all of this if he wasn't by my side. But I had to learn very quickly how to deal with friendly media, hostile media, press. And this was all just overnight. I had to just roll with the punches. And this was just a brand it's a completely brand new world for me.
And so a couple of months later in August, I received a phone call from the hospital, and they decided to terminate my employment. So this was literally a year ago in August.
Speaker 1: August '4?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You're fired from the hospital. Yes. And then what happens?
Speaker 0: Well, we retained a really amazing group of attorneys, the Burke Law Group. We've set up a GiveSendGo where the public has been so generous in their support.
Speaker 1: How much has it raised so far?
Speaker 0: I think it's raised oh, I'd have to look. I think 70,000 or $80,000
Speaker 1: $78,000 with a goal of $500,000 And how will these resources be used?
Speaker 0: Well, this every cent that I use will be spent on mounting a legal defense because I believe I was illegally terminated in retaliation.
Speaker 1: So you're to sue the hospital?
Speaker 0: For blowing the whistle.
Speaker 1: Yes. And what's the cause of action? Wrongful termination?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I can't speak to any legal cases right now, what we're involved in, but there is a very concerted effort on I'm very confident that my attorneys will defend me, and so we're working on those options Just right
Speaker 1: to pay attorneys?
Speaker 0: Yes, to pay to pay my attorneys.
Speaker 1: It's always the money to go pay lawyers, isn't it?
Speaker 0: Well, they're they're they are worthy of every cent. Sure. Let me tell you. They are so ferocious, and I'm very confident in their abilities.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us who they are?
Speaker 0: The Burke Law Group.
Speaker 1: Burke Law. And they're in Texas?
Speaker 0: They're in Houston, Marcella Burke. She's also also represented Doctor. Heim, Doctor. Eitan Heim. We're very
Speaker 1: filed the lawsuit yet?
Speaker 0: I can't speak to what can't speak to it. We filed or not filed.
Speaker 1: It'll be a public document once it's filed, my assumption is.
Speaker 0: Yes. What I can tell you is that there is a very public investigation by the Trump administration into Texas Children's Hospital. The Office of Civil Rights under Health and Human Services in April announced a formal investigation into then, the
Speaker 1: MacDonald is the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 0: Yes. But this is health and human services under Robert Kev under Robert Kennedy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. Have you talked to Kennedy about about HHS? Directly. Not directly.
Speaker 0: Hopefully soon.
Speaker 1: So so you've you've come out, you came out publicly, and did you do media interviews? You said you did hostile, you did friendly. What were some examples of those?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'll I'll speak vaguely. But the night before I went public in June, a very the most popular conservative TV network, I would say, that we all know, they at they were at my house the night before I went public. And we did an interview with them. In my living room, they brought their TV crew and everything. And I was just, I mean, so green.
I did not know what I was doing. I was so scared. I was so intimidated.
Speaker 1: Make you more credible, though, if you if you're not a polished
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was not polished at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, polishing can can the polished thing can come across as a little fake, in my opinion.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But so you you can you tell us who
Speaker 0: this was? I I I think people can know. When I say the most popular popular conservative TV platform, I think we all know.
Speaker 1: TV show?
Speaker 0: TV, network, news organization, They came to my house. We did a full interview sit down. And at the end of the day, that interview never got published because
Speaker 1: Never made the air.
Speaker 0: Never made the air because they did not their legal counsel had advised them not to go forward with it because of my claims against Medicaid, that my claims were not credible, potentially not credible enough for them to air it on national TV. And that I was making a huge again, this was under this is a different era. Right? Biden was president.
Speaker 1: When was that interview conducted?
Speaker 0: June 2024.
Speaker 1: June 2024 Yes. A national news organization interviewed you
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And didn't run the story?
Speaker 0: Yes. Because of my claims against relating to Medicaid fraud that the hospital had engaged in.
Speaker 1: Is that what you said?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And
Speaker 0: That's what they said that they didn't run it. Why? And and I didn't want them to run the story without including that. That was the most pivotal part of the story, the most important part, and they didn't wanna talk about it. And so I said, well, that's fine.
Then don't air it.
Speaker 1: Well, sometimes it's like, it's not that what you're saying is false. It's that what you're saying is true. And the more true it gets, oftentimes, the worse it gets for the people in power. So that how did you feel after that happened, Or how much time passed before they told you they weren't gonna air the story?
Speaker 0: It was a few days later. We just got word through my attorneys who had, you know, heard from their legal counsel that they wanted to run the story, but they were going to do it without that portion where I talked about the Medicaid fraud. And I just said, I'd rather not air it at all if you're not going to talk about the most important part of this.
Speaker 1: And that that fraud claim was based upon what specific piece of evidence that you witnessed. You've talked about it today. But the Medicaid fraud, was it based upon they were misgendering the people, and it was that justification?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was it was everything. And I I can't get too deeply into this because this wades into legal waters, which I've been counseled very strictly to not to not dive into the specific evidence. But I just talk about yeah. I can talk about what I saw, right?
What I saw was they incorrectly labeling patients the incorrect They were misdiagnosing patients intentionally with the purpose of avoiding detection by insurance. And then they were prescribing these cross sex hormones and puberty blockers and billing it to Texas Medicaid, which is illegal and has been since 2015. So it layers of deceit and fraud that just compounded on each other. And I knew when I realized that this was being billed to the Texas taxpayer that I had to come forward.
Speaker 1: So they they you know, and and and in terms of your lawsuit, I mean, at some point, if you you don't have to get into it. But if you do sue them, that that that's gonna be quite a quite a battle. It's gonna be a public battle. It's gonna be in court. It's gonna go through discovery.
Are you prepared to go through all that?
Speaker 0: I have the best team of attorneys in the world.
Speaker 1: Understood. And also just fighting that fighting the the enemy. I mean, you're going after the the belly of the beast.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They're gonna deny everything.
Speaker 0: They're gonna
Speaker 1: attack you personally.
Speaker 0: Yep. They sure will.
Speaker 1: And the more it seems like the more successful you will be in your quest, the the more difficult it will be on you and your family. Have you thought about that?
Speaker 2: I
Speaker 0: I'm not doing any of this for, like, the applause of man or potential rewards that may or may not come in the future. I don't that's really not what drives me.
Speaker 1: What drives you?
Speaker 0: I am here for the applause of God. I live for the applause of God. And so if I can please him, then I would have fulfilled what I what I've set out to do.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it's it's it takes a toll on it. That does takes a toll, doesn't it? So far, is it taking a toll on you?
Speaker 0: I think I know that this is what I was born to do. I know that this is my purpose. And now I'm leading this amazing organization called Protecting Texas Children and focusing on safeguarding children's innocence, their health, their future. So that brings me a tremendous amount of fulfillment and purpose and satisfaction.
Speaker 1: When did you start this organization?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We are a brand new organization. We launched just this past year in January. And I am now kind of wading into Texas politics for the first How's time
Speaker 1: that going?
Speaker 0: Oh, it's going. I can tell you. I'm very green. So I'm very green to the to the Texas political space. And you're
Speaker 1: a c three and a c four, so
Speaker 0: you're
Speaker 2: trying
Speaker 1: to lobby to a certain extent the laws of Texas to change. Yeah. What is what is your goal this year with your nonprofit?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this past spring was our Texas legislative session, so I was there every week in Austin testifying in favor of bills that would protect children's mental, emotional, or physical health. There's a number of bills that fall under that category, but I really just focus on the bills that have to do with gender or identity or sex identity or making sure men are not invading women's spaces or sports or just anything related to biological sex or gender identity is kind of where we focus the most on. We're very biblically based. We just launched a new project called Behind the Shelves.
And this is a project just this past week that exposes the dirty and pornographic books found in Texas school libraries. And it teaches and empowers parents on how to get them removed from the shelves. And so part of safeguarding the innocence of children starts with safeguarding what they're reading, what they're exposed to at the library, which should be the safest place where they should learn and grow. But unfortunately, many times, it's not.
Speaker 1: So there's pornographic books in in library in school libraries?
Speaker 0: Yes. Really? Hundreds and hundreds of books, not just one or two books. We have on our Protecting Texas Children website, we have a list of over 900 books that contain some form of pornography. Some of them have QR codes that lead children straight to sex shops and orgies.
Some of them teach children how to commit suicide, how to kill their teacher, how to kill parents.
Speaker 1: Books and libraries.
Speaker 0: Yes. And you know, you think that in Texas, this should not be happening, right? A lot of people think, well, I live in a rural community. I live in a small town. Surely this isn't happening here.
Speaker 1: This is this is your bad book list? Yeah. You've you've got A Clockwork Orange. That's the book made into a movie by Stanley Kubrick, author Anthony Burgess on on your list. Game of Thrones.
I mean, mean, I mean, a critic would say, isn't this tantamount to censorship and
Speaker 0: Well, we're not trying to get anything censored. We want these books removed from the children's section. These books should not be accessible to children in the What children's age? These there's multiple varying ages starting from, like, three all the way to high school. Mhmm.
Different books fall into different categories.
Speaker 1: Is do kids even go into the library of school anymore? Is it all on the iPad and the Internet now?
Speaker 0: That's what I thought too until I went to a library with Bonnie Wallace, who we've partnered with. She has provided a lot of these resources to us. And we stood outside of the Allen Public Library in Texas, and we watched and and just stood out there and presented parents with this information, these books that children have access to check out. You would not believe the number of parents that defended this kind of material to us. They said that it's necessary reading, that it's their First Amendment rights to read this.
You would not believe the number of parents that defended the access to this kind of content. I was shocked because prior to this, I hadn't stepped into a library in years. And so this is just one thing that Protecting Texas Children is now embarking on.
Speaker 1: How many employees do you have?
Speaker 0: Just me.
Speaker 1: Just you?
Speaker 0: I have a team behind me that helps me with all the the back work, but I'm the face of it.
Speaker 1: After you did this, did people reach out to you? Did you get a lot of messages from people like you going through something like you went through, inspired by you?
Speaker 0: Yes. From all over the world, people people reached out. It's been and and really what going back to your question of how are you dealing with this, I think hearing from people all over the world who are encouraged or inspired by the steps I've taken, that's made so much that's made all the difference for me. And just feeling supported by people who have either walked through similar things or are just supporting financially or whatever they can do. You know, it's just such an honor.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, are afraid of retaliation, losing their jobs, losing their income, so they go along with it. And what did what was the thing that these people were telling you that they were most inspired by?
Speaker 0: I think it all had to do with just not being afraid. I think I think we're all afraid. But my fear of God is greater than my fear of man at the end of the day. That's just what it boils down to for me. And I and by the way, I was afraid.
Like, I don't want anyone to watch this and think that there weren't moments of actual fear and trepidation and, like, breaking down and crying. You know, absolutely, I had those moments, you know? But at the end of the day, like, I just know my why, and I know my my purpose for why I have done the things I've done. I my my motivation is is not to to please man. Like, I'm not here to make anyone happy.
You know, as much as I love making people happy, right, it's to please God.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's the that's the kind of litmus test for people who are gonna be successful as whistleblowers, their fear of God versus their fear of man? Is that what it's going to take?
Speaker 0: I think that's one piece of it. And, you know, the other thing for for me as I weighed this prior to to going public is, you know, so many people said, you're so courageous. You're so brave. Right? And I think that courage is there there is a small part of it that is courage.
But for me as a as a follower of Christ, as a Christian, it was more so about obedience than it was about courage. Was I going to be obedient to what God had asked me to do? To expose, as it says in Ephesians, which is like my life verse, take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness, but expose them, for everything exposed by the light becomes visible. That's a very strong language. There's no wiggle room in there.
And I took that very literally. And so the path that God placed in front of me demanded that I take no part in what was going on and expose it.
Speaker 1: So you viewed it more as obedience than courage. Yeah. I mean, some people say it's not so much that you are not afraid, it's that you act despite despite your fear.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: What were you most afraid of? Because you did say that you were scared, you experienced fear. What was the fear?
Speaker 0: I think I was I was afraid at first that the FBI would come back.
Speaker 1: You were afraid of the FBI coming back? Yeah. What about the FBI coming back made you afraid?
Speaker 0: Well, again, you have to remember I was watching Doctor. Haim's case in real time. I was watching what they were doing to him and how they were coming to his home at 05:00 in the morning armed and serving him with all kinds of threats and indictments. And you know, this was playing out nationally. And so I I was very aware that some something similar could be fabricated, concocted against me if I didn't play ball, if I didn't be quiet.
Speaker 1: Well, speak speaking for myself, I was afraid of for example, I don't like being in in in jail. And I and that sounds like, you know, we all are not afraid of being jail. But for me, I guess it's like, don't like being handcuffed. I don't like being confined. I don't like being in a cell.
Speaker 0: Right. Orange is not your color, James.
Speaker 1: Orange is not my color.
Speaker 0: It's not not mine either.
Speaker 1: Orange is the new black. I I was a federal federal jumpsuit. I've been there. But for me, the very I'm just asking a very specific question because I think it's I think it's enlightening to people to practice introspection and examine what exact I always say, like, what are we actually afraid of? Mhmm.
I was talking to an evangelical pastor about this, and the question he said, I've never been asked that question. So I'm asking you, and I'll go first. For me, what was the fear of being confined in a jail cell? And I say, why am I afraid of that? Like, what about that makes me afraid?
But I was just I don't like being you know, your hands are behind your back. You can't scratch your face.
Speaker 0: You're out of control. You're not in control.
Speaker 1: You know? And and and I had to wrestle with that fear.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I had to come to peace with that perhaps coming to fruition.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And learn to learn to temper whatever it was about me that led me to be afraid of that thing, like a fear of spiders or a fear of heights. You just have to confront it. Yeah. So what what I was afraid of Mhmm. The night after the FBI visited me Yeah.
And the fear lasted three days, was being in a holding cell in the Southern District Of New York with my hands behind my back for twenty four hours. I just had a fear of that specific thing. So for you and I asked for a specific reason because you're a Christian, you fear God, not man. By the way, Jody O'Malley said that exact same thing to me four years ago. Another whistleblower who blew a on HHS.
Said, I fear God, not man. For you, what was it about the FBI coming back or the indictments or what the other guy went through that made you feel fear?
Speaker 0: Man, that's a great question. I think them concocting a story that was false about me. I think them them driving an untrue narrative of the events that had happened to slander me, to slander my character, my motives, my intentions, that gave me pause. Because, you know, they can fabricate anything they want. Right?
Like, They usually do. Right. Right.
Speaker 1: So it was the was the the slandering of your of your reputation. And was that just to the public writ large or to in a in a case or both? Which were you more afraid of?
Speaker 0: I think at that point, it was the public at large since I had just gone public and was very new to this world. It's a different
Speaker 1: variable when you're a public figure. Yeah. Because you're playing this game of public perception.
Speaker 0: Right. The court of public opinion.
Speaker 1: Versus and and to a certain extent, the court of public opinion influences justice.
Speaker 0: Right. Right. Exactly.
Speaker 1: Which it shouldn't. Right. But it often does. So is that it was the defamation of your character publicly?
Speaker 0: I would say so. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Looking back, what is the greatest price you've paid? You are on the show called The Price
Speaker 0: of Yeah. Your I should have anticipated this question.
Speaker 2: You haven't given up your
Speaker 1: haven't given up your life, but but what price have you paid so far?
Speaker 0: You know, I I I don't part of me kind of cringes at this question because it makes me look like a victim. And I don't view myself as a victim. I view the children who've been exploited and manipulated and lied to as the victims. So they're the true victims in this story. Mhmm.
I I think when everything is said and done, like, I've maybe I've I've lost some friendships, some, you know, some family and friends very close to me. But that's such a I mean, again, that's such a small price to pay for friends? I think coming forward and and bringing something like this to light, even though it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with right or left. Just being a truth teller, like like you talk about, you know, it it has a way of dividing people.
Speaker 1: It sure does.
Speaker 0: And so you so you could argue, like, no, they weren't they weren't really my friends, but I you know, it's like I I I pray for them. Like, I'm not I don't have any kind of bitterness or
Speaker 1: wanna be hateful.
Speaker 0: No. And it's forgive
Speaker 1: them, but perhaps
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's a difference between forgiveness in the Christian sense, which is a 100% necessary. But you don't wanna forget because you don't want to become friends with someone like that from my perspective. Yeah. Like when I was fired from Project Veritas Yeah. People say, but weren't some of those people your friends?
And I said, evidently not. He said, I was once blind, but now I see. Yeah. So for me, there's difference in forgiveness and forgetting in the sense of
Speaker 0: Yeah. They're they're not the same thing.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: But I would just ask the question, were those people really your friends if something like this would would cause a rift between you and them?
Speaker 0: Probably not.
Speaker 1: Because a lot of people told me they fear losing their friends, and I would say, well, what? Why would a friend leave you as a friend just because you're telling the truth about about
Speaker 0: But, you know, the just just to kind of wrap this this kind of this good question you've asked, I think the friends that I've gained and the people I've met through this journey far outweigh anything that I could have ever, you know, imagined losing.
Speaker 1: And that's not a price. That's a blessing.
Speaker 0: Right. Right.
Speaker 1: That's an addition into your life.
Speaker 0: Right. Oh, it's been such a tremendous blessing. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you get a lot of DMs or or on on social media
Speaker 0: from
Speaker 1: from people?
Speaker 0: Do you check them all? I do. I do. I do read them. Yeah.
Some of them are not very nice. Is it? But most most of them are nice.
Speaker 1: You mean attacking you?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: What percentage of them attack you?
Speaker 0: It's a it's a it's a minor. It's it's not it's minor percentage. It's not a lot.
Speaker 1: A lot of people might say, you know, they might they're they're gonna be watching this, and and they listen to stories like Aaron Vecchi and and
Speaker 0: Yes. I watch that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Vecchi is a great guy. He he's his he had this thing called the religion of apathy, which I thought was very profound. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I've never heard it said like that. It's almost like you what you're doing, I think you make certain people feel deeply insecure about what they're not doing.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And there I mean, that's a good question. Is there are there nurses out there? Have you received any messages, or are you aware of any messages from people in the medical field who almost resent you because you're doing you're you're you're you're demonstrating a virtue that they're not. Maybe you make them feel insecure or inferior. I don't know if you've seen that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. There there hasn't been I think I think in a couple of years, those I I might start to see more of those messages or those that kind of sentiment come through. It's still very, very new. Like, it's kind of the story is still kind of fresh. I've only been public for a year.
And so, yeah, 99% of my coworkers, I've never seen them or spoken with them again. They did not reach out or anything after my story went public. And I think it's there there is that religion of apathy, but it's also, again, their fear of what could happen to them Mhmm. If they were to speak out. And I I lived in that space for I mean, I I have compassion towards those people who are kind of kind of living kind of working in an environment that is hostile to what they believe.
I have a tremendous amount of compassion for them. I I was very, very blessed and fortunate to have the support of Christopher Rufo, who then, of course, connected me with the people I'm not connected to. And so How
Speaker 1: did you reach out to Chris?
Speaker 0: I just I called him. I was terrified.
Speaker 1: You just called his cell phone or
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, we again, we had collaborated on the story. So
Speaker 1: But how did you initially meet him?
Speaker 0: When he when he published Doctor. Haim's anonymous testimony, I had reached out on his website and just said, I'm a nurse working in this clinic, that you've you know, this has just come to light. I would like to talk to you about it.
Speaker 2: I think
Speaker 1: well, the reason I asked the question is because we get, you know, a 100 over a 100 inquiries a day. Yeah. Sometimes even more than that. And what I always say is for people watching is your your reach out to Chris Rufo, you probably articulated it in a in a succinct
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Clear way.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And that's how you're gonna get through to one of these high profile people.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Is if if people out there have a story and you wanna reach out
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: To either of us, state your case, one paragraph or two.
Speaker 0: Give your elevator pitch.
Speaker 1: Here's here's what I've got. Here's my story. Here's my thing. Because sometimes people send these long 20 page things and they throw Yep. A thousand documents at me.
I don't think the if the whistleblower or the truth teller can't tell the
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Doesn't understand the truth themselves, how would they expect me to Yes. To unpack it all? That's why
Speaker 0: I asked the question. Was a writer. And so that was that was really helpful when I came forward is I had obviously written this article for the Washington Stand in which a lot of these sentiments and thoughts that I had already expressed them and was not afraid to do that. And so, no, but I mean, nothing but wonderful things to say about Christopher Rufo. He's
Speaker 1: amazing. I was at the in 2017, Rufo and I were part of the Claremont Institute Fellows Program. He was a very smart, quiet, eccentric, but brilliant man.
Speaker 0: I hope to meet him someday. I still haven't met him.
Speaker 1: Yeah. He's at the Manhattan Institute. Yes.
Speaker 0: Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere.
The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold.
They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis.
Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324 gold. Again, that's okeithmediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keith.
Don't just watch history. Own a piece of it. Well, you you mentioned it's not left or right, and I agree with you. I don't think this fight is Democrat or Republican, although people frame it that way. Yeah.
But it also is perhaps spiritual, God versus the godless, good versus evil. I mean, how is your faith or has your faith been tested at all through this process?
Speaker 0: Oh my goodness. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Tell me about that.
Speaker 0: Well, so several months ago in April, I was invited to testify before Congress. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, chaired by Chairman Chip Roy. I think that was probably the scariest, most intimidating thing I've ever done.
Speaker 1: Why is that?
Speaker 0: You know, you just you don't know what they're gonna ask you or throw at you. You're you know, especially the Democrats on this committee are very hostile and Attack you personally. Yeah. And and I had watched examples of this, you know, and knew exactly what it probably was going to be like. And so I, you know, I I was just, first of all, very honored to to be able to to do this with Doctor.
Hine. And I I thought for sure, in my very, very green and naive political mind, that some of the Democrats on this committee would come armed with, like, really difficult questions that would really just throw me for a loop and stump me. Like, I'd never thought about this angle or you know? And would you would you believe what what happened? They they just repeated the same Trump, anti Trump talking points over and over till they were blue in the face.
They had no original thoughts. They did not come armed with even remotely complex or complicated did. Mary Scanlon, who is a congresswoman, led me down a line of questioning in which she attempted to discredit my credentials as a registered nurse. She said she started by saying, are you a psychologist? Are you a psychiatrist?
Are you a doctor? And, of course, the answer to all of those is no. I'm a nurse, and I told her, and I have common sense, and I know the difference between right and wrong.
Speaker 1: This is in this is in Congress in DC?
Speaker 0: Yes. And of course, like
Speaker 1: I'd like to see that clip. You guys can pull it up while we're talking.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think I posted it on my Twitter at some point. But
Speaker 1: So Scanlan's cross examining you.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And and this is in the context of me asking you the question, how was your faith tested? So was was it just in the sense that you were being personally targeted?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I think, you know, like my credentials were called into question, which is, I think, a very common tactic that the left uses when they can't engage with you logically or reasonably.
Speaker 1: You a psychologist? Yeah. Or, you know, do you you know? But did she address the fraudulent you know, this this business of No. Misgendering?
Did they address that? Yeah.
Speaker 0: They just That's reflect not something that is beneficial politically beneficial for them to even engage with. Right?
Speaker 1: But this was one of the hardest things you had to go through was that moment in space and time with scandal.
Speaker 0: Well, I think leading up to this this event and this this opportunity, I think I was just very this is testifying before elected officials in Congress,
Speaker 2: which I
Speaker 1: under oath.
Speaker 0: And I'm under oath, and I've never done this before. And I feel very intimidated and just unsure of myself, I think. And so I think this is just one example of, I think I think after this, my my confidence was
Speaker 1: That's quite a Rubicon. I don't I only think I've done it once before a subcommittee, and there weren't any Democrats on the panel. But I know what you're talking about. I know what you mean because I've been through mean, the George Stephanopoulos interview I did in 2010 on live television in front of 10,000,000 people with Andrew Breitbart. I remember Stephanopoulos just cross examining me
Speaker 0: like a
Speaker 1: little weasel. Yeah. And I remember how it feels. You're putting yourself out there like a piece of meat to the wolves.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's exactly what it felt like.
Speaker 1: Just like they're gonna target me with this innuendo and this mendacity and I just have to be strong. It takes a lot to endure that. It's people that do that are professionals.
Speaker 0: It's more about the fear of the unknown. Right? This is something that you don't know what they're going to use to to use against you. And so it's more in that moment that you have to react and you have to do it well. And Most people fear shame,
Speaker 1: I think was it
Speaker 0: Or embarrassment. Just Yeah. Being
Speaker 1: Public
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: This Mel Gibson said, most people fear public embarrassment and public humiliation, public shame, which is if you're a good person, if you're a Christian, which you are, I mean, none of us all of us are sinners, though, and all of us make mistakes.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So they will hang us upon the cross of ourselves. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: So
Speaker 1: it's Saul Alinsky said in Rules for Radicals, make the Christians live up to their own book of rules.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Well, he's not wrong.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So they can try to do that to you. And how did it go with Scanlon?
Speaker 0: I think I made my point very clear, which was that you don't have to have credentials to know the difference between right and wrong to know the difference between male and female, that everyone who has a brain can identify that men and women are
Speaker 1: Oh, we have the clip. How long is the clip? Five minutes? Just five minutes long. Maybe we can go to go to the part where she's maybe
Speaker 0: At very end. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Fast forward like three minutes. This is you in the subcommittee. You must have your adrenaline must have been off the charts.
Speaker 0: Off the charts.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Check this out. Let's get some sound on here.
Speaker 0: I think this is probably my opening statement.
Speaker 1: Let's fast forward a little bit longer after the opening
Speaker 0: It's like the very last two minutes of the entire hearing is when I get a chance to respond.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We were only able to pull that five minutes.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 0: That's fine.
Speaker 1: Just the five minutes of the statement? Oh, that's alright. We don't have the cross examination. That's okay. Your adrenaline was off the charts.
And and then and then when you were done, so your your faith was a little tested there?
Speaker 0: I would say that's, yeah, I would say that's a good example. I'm trying to think of other examples to share.
Speaker 1: It might be good training for people to, you know, just to hear that and hear how you what would be the what would be the the best advice you'd give to someone in your position there?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I would say that when you're cross examined by the opposing side, don't let them lead you down a line of questioning that's meant to embarrass you. You have to stop the train. You can't you have to you have to change the narrative so that they can't make their point to to embarrass you, which is what they were trying to do. But that takes that takes some skill.
You have you have to think really quickly on your feet.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. Yes. What does victory look like to you in this fight? What is your goal?
Let's say your five year goal. What's victory look like?
Speaker 0: Wow. There's like tears of this. I would like the doctors that were harming patients in the transgender clinic at Texas Children's to lose their medical license. I would like for them to never practice medicine again. I would like for my story and this case to be a warning to all the other hospitals who are billing Medicaid falsely for sex change treatments for kids, which, by the way, the Trump administration last week just announced that they're proposing a guidance that would strip hospitals of Medicaid reimbursement should they provide these services.
So I think the Trump administration is already light years ahead of where we were.
Speaker 1: So you're looking for accountability?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You think it'll come?
Speaker 0: I think it will come eventually. I think we've made huge strides just in a few years.
Speaker 1: Do you think those FBI agents support this puberty blocking, sex change stuff? I know it's a weird question that you probably don't know the answer to, but I'm just asking the question aloud.
Speaker 0: Like Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Do the agents just doing their jobs, were they just following orders? They seem pretty just seem pretty nasty in their Or do they actually support puberty blockers and what was happening?
Speaker 0: I don't think we'll ever know that specifically. But what I can tell you is that the agent that was speaking to me in that video is the same agent who knocked on Doctor. Haim's door and served him with the indictment. We know that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: And so you can draw your own conclusions from from that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You could draw your conclusions, but I wonder I wonder if he has a a seared conscience. I wonder if he's a Christian. I don't know the answer to that question. It'd be interesting to do a where are they now series and find out because he's currently working for the Department of Justice as an FBI agent.
I wonder what Kesh Patel thinks.
Speaker 0: We'll see.
Speaker 1: You talked to Kash Patel?
Speaker 0: I have not.
Speaker 1: Everyone always asks me if I've spoken to
Speaker 2: Kash Patel.
Speaker 1: Do you know Kash Patel? Call Kash.
Speaker 0: Call Kash. It's so easy. 100 Kash.
Speaker 1: I say this every show. I'm gonna say it again. If the administration of justice depends upon us as individuals reaching out to the director of the FBI to solve each and every injustice in this country, we have a problem. We have a huge problem. Because the pendulum will flow, we'll go back.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: There won't be a permanent Republican majority in Right.
Speaker 0: Well, mean, what I mean by that is now we have almost half of the states have passed some form of laws prohibiting, you know, gender
Speaker 1: There does seem to be a
Speaker 0: So so that so what I'm what I'm trying to say is that we're a we're seeing a trend in the right direction.
Speaker 1: But we're seeing a trend in the wrong direction from what I've heard and read, when it comes to just testosterone in men generally. Oh, That's a separate matter.
Speaker 0: Separate issue.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But For But that does seem to be an issue within the genders. And what advice would you give to the American people, and there's a lot of this, who see the wrongdoing on the on the scale that you have seen it, perhaps not specifically in this particular topic, but just generally, but they're afraid to take action. What's your advice to them?
Speaker 0: Just someone who's contemplating coming forward and blowing the whistle? Is that what you Correct. Okay. Yes, two things. I would say before you blow the whistle, make sure that you've spoken with legal counsel.
There are and people will say, well, can't afford that. I can't do that. You know? No. Like, I think that now more than ever, there are organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom and organizations like that that are on your side.
Like, they want to help people who have legitimate concerns about whatever they're witnessing at their workplace. So I couldn't have done that without my counsel. I would not be in this situation or What did place you I'm
Speaker 1: reach out to in your case?
Speaker 0: I was connected with Marcella Burke.
Speaker 1: Through whom?
Speaker 0: Through a series of mutual connections.
Speaker 1: So one is contact legal counsel, the second?
Speaker 0: I would say utilize friendly media to your advantage. I would say I had a I don't think just average, everyday people know that there's journalists with integrity who are wanting to share good, you know, just wanting to share truth, honestly, is what it boils down to. That's something that as I just had no idea that that whole world when I was working as a nurse, just didn't know. And I think a lot of people don't know. And so I think you need to you need to, you know, get out of your comfort zone a little bit and reach out to those people because there are amazing and wonderful people out there.
So
Speaker 1: are some of the most admirable? You mentioned Christopher Beau. Name a few good ones.
Speaker 0: You want me to name drop people?
Speaker 1: Compliment people. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking you to name drop the
Speaker 2: bad
Speaker 1: That's what I do for a living.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll name drop two friends of mine because they'll appreciate this. Caroline Downey, National Review. She wrote a really great piece on the DEI culture at Texas Children's in addition to their training on gender fluidity and all of that in the days following my going public. She's a great ally and a great friend, and I appreciate her.
And Mary Margaret Ole Hahn, who is now the White House chief correspondent from the Daily Wire, has also written some really good articles that really were it was just great to have friends in media when I was going public.
Speaker 1: Well, our time is coming to a close here. Name your nonprofit organization again, how people can get in touch with you.
Speaker 0: Yes. It's Protecting Texas Children. Our website is protectingtexaschildren.com. And we're on Twitter and Facebook and would love for people to sign up and follow along. And people can just find me on Twitter.
Speaker 1: And your GiveSendGo page again?
Speaker 0: Yes. It's GiveSendGo, and it's nursewhistleblower.
Speaker 1: Nursewhistleblower. I understand that these proceeds will help your legal defense fund in order to file a wrongful discrimination lawsuit against the hospital and generally hold those who did this to you accountable. Correct?
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna borrow a Mike Malice line. What was your favorite part of our conversation today?
Speaker 0: I think you are such a kindred spirit. And ever since I watched that video of you, you were sitting across from Eric Metaxas in which you talk about how your price is your life and how you cannot afford to surround yourself with people whose price is also not their life. And literally tears streaming down my face watching this video of you. Never in a million years did I think I'd be sitting here with you, James. So honestly, just getting to know you and to meet you has been the greatest honor.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate that. I think what you said is so important that it's the people that you surround yourself with.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the challenge, isn't it? Because you can be strong, but if people around you are not strong, then it's a huge Yeah. That's certainly a lesson that I've learned.
Speaker 0: Personnel is policy.
Speaker 1: That's a line from my old boss Morton Blackwell, the Leadership Institute. You ever heard that group before?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: He has the laws of the public policy process and one is his personnel's policy.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: He has a number of other incredible sayings, but yeah, if your price is not your life, then you are for sale, and if you have people around you that have any challenges, the enemy is going to exploit those. Yeah. So in the business that you're in, which is taking on evil of the highest form, the enemy is gonna exploit the weaknesses of the people that you surround yourself with. Mhmm. And that's going to become and speaking for myself, that has become my greatest challenge.
You know? Because the FBI, mean, everyone's afraid of the FBI. Yeah. When FBI comes a rating, you will quickly know who on your team
Speaker 0: Well, in my case, in your case, you know that you're doing something right.
Speaker 1: The FBI raided me, I went to work the next let's see, it was on a Saturday morning. On Monday morning, I went to work and I walked into the conference room and everyone was just like, what do we do now? Mhmm. It was like in one of those war movies where, like like, the captain died and the next man was up and like, everyone's like, what do we do now, sir?
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Like, everyone was just completely in a state of shock. And I think there were a number of people who, let's just say, people will do anything to protect themselves.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I think hardship, you know, has a way of refining, you know, separating the wheat from the chaff, as they say.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I wouldn't be here with the team that I have if I hadn't gone through that.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: People left my life and the people came into my life. So it's but certainly I understand what that fear feels like. I was paralyzed with fear for three days. Yeah. And many other examples like it, but certainly being going through that and seeing how do you reconcile doing the right thing with self preservation is another challenging one.
Speaker 0: Well, I think there's a temptation for you and I who we faced fear, but we didn't allow it to dominate or control our lives. You know, we didn't stay in that place of fear. We didn't live make choices from a place of fear.
Speaker 1: No. Usually usually, it's if you're only human, it's going to affect you for a little while. But for me, was one of the things that you said that really struck me was all these good people that have come into your life. Yes. You have some bad actors, but you've got some really great people that would not be in your life, but not for this happening to you.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: So that's a really hopeful message to people, and I hope that they take take that message. Unfortunately, we're not gonna do any live callers today. That's for another day, but thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 0: Thank
Speaker 1: you I for having hope everyone supports, and thank you again for coming.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Sources reveal that millions were funneled through Universal Music Group, Fidelity, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs to alert undocumented individuals. An insider from the Progressive Caucus admits they secured injunctions to halt deportation flights. I believe in pressuring local governments to resist federal cooperation.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
On Vera: Sources Confirm Donors Funneled Millions of Dollars Through Universal Music Group, Fidelity, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs to ‘Tip Illegals Off’ While Progressive Caucus Insider Admits Caucus Secured “Injunctions” to “Stop Deportation Flights” “I think pressuring your local government to not cooperate at all with any of these federal agents.” @GoldmanSachs @Fidelity @BankofAmerica @UMG @KeaneBhatt @verainstitute @USProgressives
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured 'injunctions that literally halt deportation flights' while stating that people need to 'pressure their local governments to not cooperate with the feds.' They describe tracking ICE movements and pushes that information out so illegal immigrants can dodge enforcement. Donors include 'Goldman Sachs donated $5,000,000, Fidelity forking over $1,300,000 Bank of America, $250,000 and even Universal Music Group giving $50,000 all to the five one c three NGO, the Vera Institute.' The Vera Institute isn't just help illegal immigrants evade ICE. 'They funnel money into radical causes like Black Lives Matter.' Inside Congress, 'Kian Bahat' and 'the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the US Senate' discuss 'I think the cruelty is the point' and show an 'authoritarian' police force that breaks up immigrant communities. The footage shows a 'coordinated effort' to 'undermine federal law enforcement, slow down the deportation efforts.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've been able to, like, have, injunctions that, like, stop, you know, deportation flights and other types of things. You know? So
Speaker 1: Qian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured injunctions that literally halt deportation flights while also stating that people need to pressure their local governments to not cooperate with the feds.
Speaker 0: I think that pressuring your local government to not cooperate at all with any of these federal agents.
Speaker 1: Last month, their undercover cameras caught Santiago Mouquet, a director at the Vera Institute, admitting the group tracks ICE movements and pushes that information out so illegal immigrants can dodge enforcement. He also bragged about major donors, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and others.
Speaker 2: Who's your main donor?
Speaker 0: It's usually the foundations, like the Gates Foundation Mhmm. Or Jeff Bezos or, like, some of these, like, huge philanthropists who, like, have millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: After further investigation and conferring with multiple sources, OMG has found even more names on various donor lists. This money trail goes much deeper with names listed such as Goldman Sachs, donated $5,000,000, Fidelity forking over $1,300,000 Bank of America, $250,000 and even Universal Music Group giving $50,000 all to the five one c three NGO, the Vera Institute. We then turned our attention back to Vera's website just to see what exactly they're supporting with these funds that they're receiving from these massive foundations. The Vera Institute isn't just help illegal immigrants evade ICE. They funnel money into radical causes like Black Lives Matter.
Speaker 0: There was looting underway nearby.
Speaker 1: The nation erupted into scenes of chaos. Openly calling for police to be defunded and dismantled. It's not just outside groups like Vera working to undermine federal immigration enforcement. Even inside congress, members of the progressive caucus are actively working behind the scenes to stop deportations. That's where this man, Kian Bahat, a policy director for the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the US Senate comes in.
Speaker 2: Why is ICE and and the Department of Homeland Security doing this? Like, what what's the agenda?
Speaker 0: I think the cruelty is the point. I think they wanna show that they are this authoritarian, like, you know, police force that is just breaking up immigrant communities, and that alone is going to show his racist regiment base that they mean business. Like, they want to see these people suffer, and I think they enjoy, like, having all of these communities being here.
Speaker 2: Do you work with any organizations to help to help the illegals come back at least or to prevent We ICE and homeland security.
Speaker 0: It's a really tough situation right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I think, you know, in certain cases, we've been able to, like, win. So Really?
Speaker 2: How, like
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, some of the most egregious instances, we've been able to, like, have, injunctions that, like, stop, you know, deportation flights and other types of things. You know? So
Speaker 1: Kian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured injunctions that literally halt deportation flights while also stating that people need to pressure their local governments to not cooperate with the feds. I
Speaker 0: think, you know, pressuring your local government to not cooperate at all with any of these federal agents and getting your mayors and your local governments to, you know, enshrine the status of being sanctuary cities and, like, protecting the residents there. I think that's another big one.
Speaker 1: Pressuring people to not cooperate with the feds. If we did that, we'd probably be raided by the FBI. Wait. And
Speaker 0: they want to continue to prosecute this case because they see a lot of, like, political benefits for their manga movement in terms of, like, animating them and building their sport. So that's basically it. I think, like, it's it's really sick, and they also, I think, they want to test the limits of of our constitutional system. Mhmm. I think they want to see how far they can go in, like, violating our first amendment, our fourth amendment, our due process rights, all of these things, and test the courts and see as far as they can go.
A lot of our members are working on, like, know your rights campaigns. So in their communities, they kind of, like, walk through, like, what community members can do, how they they need to demand a warrant, how they shouldn't open their door.
Speaker 1: Okay. The footage you just saw is clear evidence of a coordinated effort between members of Congress, NGOs, and their funders, not only by powerful NGOs like the Vera Institute, bankrolled by billionaires and apparently Wall Street, Goldman Sachs. We didn't even know that Goldman Sachs had a nonprofit. But also from inside the Progressive Caucus in congress itself. A widespread coordinated effort is currently happening right now to undermine federal law enforcement, slow down the deportation efforts.
Regardless of what you think of those efforts, we think it's newsworthy that there are attempts and endeavors well funded to slow down federal law enforcement and run campaigns that teach illegal immigrants how to evade federal authorities. The American people deserve transparency regardless of what you think about these policies. We deserve transparency. These are backroom strategies funded with millions of dollars from some of most powerful institutions in the world. At O'Keeffe Media, we will con
reSee.it AI Summary
The State Department has placed Foreign Service Officer Daniel Choi on administrative leave and revoked his access to classified information while an internal investigation is underway. This action follows reports that Choi dated the daughter of a senior CCP official, acknowledged the possibility of her being a spy, and did not report her. A senior official stated that they will protect national security and hold accountable any employee who jeopardizes America's safety. Updates will follow as the situation develops.
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
JUST IN: The @StateDept confirms Foreign Service Officer Daniel Choi has been placed on administrative leave and stripped of access to classified information pending an internal investigation. This follows OMG’s reporting that Choi dated the daughter of a senior CCP official, admitted “She could have been a spy,” and refused to report her. A senior State Department official says they will “ensure our national security is protected” and hold accountable “any employee who puts America’s safety in jeopardy.” We will continue to update as the story unfolds. @SecRubio @DOGE_STATE
