TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @JohnMcCloy
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Give whomever wrote this SNL Skit a raise. “We did just last a law that allows people to saw whatever they want to say…maybe this whole GUNS thing will balance that out” https://t.co/CsYWC4mLY9
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation begins with the recitation of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The facilitator declares it well and moves on to what should come next as the “second most important principle of our nation.”
Speaker 1 prematurely proposes “Guns.” The facilitator, Speaker 0, and others react with disbelief; Speaker 2 (Matt) mutters “Guns,” which prompts a back-and-forth about whether the second right should be firearms. The debate touches the idea that while free speech was just established, allowing guns might balance or enable more extreme speech. Speaker 1 questions the logic, while Speaker 2 suggests it “would kind of balance that out.” The group contemplates whether possessing guns could embolden people to say outrageous things.
The discussion pivots to how to phrase the second amendment. The speakers consider the word choice, with humor about whether the amendment should simply be “Have guns.” The idea evolves toward a more nuanced concept: the right to bear arms. The dialogue expresses skepticism about a simplistic “guns” amendment but grows toward the notion of “bear arms” as the core concept. Speaker 3 approves, calling the phrasing “smart as hell.”
Speaker 0 remains open to discussing guns but asserts the need to move on to a more pressing concern, noting Matt’s intensity. The exchange includes brief, playful exchanges about Matt’s origin in America and in what state, and the group weighs whether the concept makes sense or seems absurd. Ultimately, the debate coalesces around the phrase “Commitment to the right to bear arms.”
In closing, Speaker 1 announces, “My work here is done,” and Speaker 2 remarks, “Wait. Matt, will we ever see you again?” to which Speaker 1 replies, “Depends on where you look.” The conversation thus ends with agreement that the second amendment should reflect a commitment to the right to bear arms, reframing the discussion from a literal “guns” proposal to a more precise emphasis on bearing arms as the core principle.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And so we are resolved. The first amendment to our constitution is as follows. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Well done, gentlemen. The First Amendment.
Alright. Alright. Now what shall we discuss next? What is the second most important principle of our nation?
Speaker 1: Guns.
Speaker 0: Excuse me.
Speaker 1: Guns.
Speaker 2: I don't hate that.
Speaker 0: Well, I do. It's ridiculous. Sir, what is your name?
Speaker 2: Matt. Matt what?
Speaker 1: Matt, don't you worry about it.
Speaker 0: Well, Matt, what will posterity say of us if the second right we enshrine in this document is simply guns?
Speaker 1: That we don't play.
Speaker 3: Damn. That's actually kinda sick. Yes.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. The idea is ludicrous.
Speaker 2: Wait. Now hold on. I mean, we did just make a law that said anyone can say whatever crazy stuff they want. Right? Maybe this gun thing would kind of balance that out.
Speaker 1: Bingo.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yes. But by the same token, wouldn't having a gun embolden people to say crazy stuff as well?
Speaker 1: Bro. What?
Speaker 0: Yeah. No.
Speaker 2: What? Make that
Speaker 3: make sense.
Speaker 1: Gentlemen, we cannot just have an
Speaker 0: amendment that says guns. But what about guns?
Speaker 1: Having them.
Speaker 2: But it's Smart.
Speaker 3: Like, who is this guy? Why isn't he running this?
Speaker 0: Matt, I am open to discussing guns for a later amendment, but I must insist we move on to a more pressing concern. You're screaming. I'm
Speaker 2: so angry.
Speaker 1: Where are
Speaker 0: you from exactly?
Speaker 2: America.
Speaker 0: Yes, but where in America? Which state?
Speaker 1: A united one.
Speaker 2: Oh, wow. Well said. So true. Can this
Speaker 3: guy like Beyond our money? Who is this guy?
Speaker 0: Have guns really, gentlemen?
Speaker 1: That's what we want the second amendment to be. Have guns. That sounds idiotic. Just chill. Not have guns.
Bear arms.
Speaker 3: Oh, that is so good. Yeah.
Speaker 2: That sounds smart as hell.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. I'm freaking sold. I'm writing it down.
Speaker 1: Commitment to the right to
Speaker 2: bear arms. I just got chills. Yeah.
Speaker 1: My work here is done.
Speaker 2: Wait. Matt, will we ever see you again?
Speaker 1: Depends on where you look.
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson claim whites of European descent are the real Native Americans because they built America, say whites are disappearing while others vanish, claim whites aren’t allowed to have indigenous land, and that Carlson calls it a very fast intentional population reduction. They present these points as the truth.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥 WOW…MUST WATCH. MATT WALSH SAYS WHITES OF EUROPEANS DESCENT ARE THE REAL NATIVE AMERICANS BECAUSE THEY BUILT THIS COUNTRY KNOWN AS “AMERICA”. @MattWalshBlog and Tucker discuss how all the Whites are disappearing and any other people or species for some reason people care about them vanishing BUT NOT WHITES. Matt also notes that for some reason only whites are NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE AN INDIGENOUS LAND. @TuckerCarlson says it was a “VERY FAST INTENTIONAL CHANGE TO REDUCE THE POPULATION.” Everything they both said here is the truth.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss a perceived rapid demographic shift in Middle America, noting a conspicuous decline in white people at familiar places like rest areas, Walmart, and the DMV, and describe this as part of a broader demographic change across the country. They argue that visiting places where “everybody goes” reveals that the country looks very different now, with fewer white people than in the past, and that this change feels intentional rather than accidental. They describe it as an emblematic problem and suggest that those who have never experienced such places are out of touch with what is actually happening in America.
They debate whether it is appropriate to notice these changes, with one saying there is overwhelming pressure not to notice obvious things, and the other acknowledging the change as fast and profound. They question why acknowledging the shift should be considered good if it involves reducing the white population, and they compare it to how people would react if a similar change happened to other races in their native countries.
The conversation then broadens to a comparison across demographics: if Nigerians were disappearing from Nigeria, or if Amazonian horned owls were disappearing, most people would deem that bad and question why those populations should vanish. They point out that, unlike other races or species, white people are told they are not native anywhere, and thus there is no recognized indigenous white population. They argue that this leads to the suggestion that white people should not be present in the United States or elsewhere, and they question where whites should be if not in the country that was formed by people of European descent.
A central claim is that the people who formed America—“almost exclusively white people of European descent”—were the natives of this country, while the current Native Americans are described as not native to America in a historical sense because America existed as a nation only after it was formed. They contend that the true natives of the country are those who established the nation, implying that those of European descent are the true natives of America. They emphasize that the concept of “native” is tied to the formation of the country, and argue that the natives of America are defined by the nation’s origins rather than by preexisting populations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They're like they're you drive into, like, Middle America. There are nowhere I don't know what happened to all the whites, but I will have to say that. I just noticed it. Like, we're all there's no whites at, like, a rest area on the highway anymore. Yeah.
And in Walmart, I go to buy, sporting clays. It's my only my only shopping trip of the year, usually. And it's like, where are the white people?
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's part of the thing. It's it's I mean, it's a small it's a small thing, but it's it's just it's emblematic of the problem. It's like Well, there's
Speaker 0: just been total demographic change
Speaker 1: in the country. But if you as a commentator, if you have never been in a Walmart or, you know, it's like, well, then that's America. I mean, that's that's the that's Middle America.
Speaker 0: Oh, I totally agree.
Speaker 1: So it's just there's there's a basic, I'm not saying you gotta go and walk around a Walmart like a safari trip just to understand America. I'm just saying that that, it's just like that's, yeah, that's what's going on in America, at a place like And if you're just never there at all, to your point about either you're out in the sticks or you're in the really wealthy areas, then you're you're not really in touch with what's actually happening in America. And one of those things is, yeah, when you go you you do notice this. When you go to the places where everybody goes, Walmart is one of those places. The DMV is one of those places.
Like, a place where everybody has to
Speaker 0: go. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Unless they're very, very, very rich. Right. Or very, very, very poor. When you go to those places, you do notice. You you start noticing things, and and one of those things is like, yeah.
It's like, it looks a lot different now. It it's it's, it's, yeah, not not nearly as many white people as there used to be. Start noticing those kinds of things.
Speaker 0: Like, yeah. Like, it, you know, I've never been a bigot. It's prohibited by my religion, but I also think there's overwhelming pressure not to notice obvious things, and I try to keep myself, you know, alert just to notice what my eyes tell me, and that's the biggest change. That's an incredibly fast change, incredibly fast change. It's not an accidental change, was an intentional change to reduce the white population in The United States, and I've kind of never seen anybody more passively accept it, and I wonder, like, are we getting to point where we can say that and notice it, and why is that good exactly?
Speaker 1: Well, for for every other it's it's funny, because certainly for every other race on the planet, if we were to look and see that in their native countries, they are dwindling and disappearing, everyone it would be nothing controversial about saying, well, this is bad. No one would say, well, why is it bad? You know, if if if I'm
Speaker 0: not even saying it's bad. I'm just saying it's so profound and abrupt.
Speaker 1: Well, and I I will will say, I think it's bad. Yeah. I think if you go to Nigeria, if I were to go to Nigeria and notice that, like, all the Nigerians are disappearing Yeah. I would say, what's going on here?
Speaker 0: I mean, like Everyone's Chinese all of a sudden.
Speaker 1: Right. That's like that's bad. And and if I said that, no one I don't think anyone would even ask, well, why is it bad? What do you mean why is bad? It's Nigeria.
Like, there should be Nigerians in Nigeria. And it's bad if some other group comes in and takes it over. And I think for any other race or demographic on the planet, you can say that, for white people, we're the one race, the one demographic where it's not even just that you can't notice that this replacement is happening, it's that, in fact, we're at the point now where you should notice it and celebrate it. It should be seen as a good thing.
Speaker 0: So now isn't that Isn't anyone who tells me that I'm not allowed to notice or scolds me for noticing, isn't that person my enemy? Isn't that I mean, how could you justify that? What does that say about your motives?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think I think so. And also, it's I said it's every other demographic on the planet. Any other species on the like, if I You know, it's so true. Yeah.
If if Where are all the condors? Right. Exactly. If I if we look we get these panics all the time. Oh, all the, Amazonian horned owls are disappearing or whatever, and they're going away.
We have to preserve them. No one even stops and asks like, why do we need Amazonian horned? Like, we've got a million other owls. Well, owls. Why do we need these owls?
And it's just seen as like, well, they're a species that existed. They should continue to exist. And so for every other demographic and species of living being, we can all agree that if those people disappear, that it's bad and white people only want, that what we can't say that, and part of the reason for that, I think, is well, there's a lot of anti white sentiment. But also, so I I use the example of Nigeria. Everyone recognizes that Nigerians or black, are the native inhabitants of Nigeria.
And so if the native inhabitants go away, we see that as a bad thing. The the Amazonian horned owl is a native inhabitant of the I don't think that exists. I'm just yeah, whatever. But they're a native inhabitant of the Amazon, and so they should be there. With white people, this really interesting thing where what we're told is that white people are not native anywhere.
We are not indigenous to anywhere, which is why and I'm not, like, making this up. There's nowhere in the world you can go where the people who are officially recognized as the indigenous habitants are white. Nowhere. White people do not
Speaker 0: How is that not genocidal intent?
Speaker 1: Well, that's my point. So it's like, okay. So we're not indigenous anywhere, so where are we supposed to be? Because the other part is
Speaker 0: We're supposed to be dead. Apparently.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because we're told that, okay, the here are the indigenous habitants, and the the what's implied every time we talk about indigenous people, or just outright said, is that, well, they this land is really theirs, and so you shouldn't be here. And so what we're saying to white people everywhere is that you shouldn't be here. Well, where should we be? Do you want us to go to Mars?
I mean, are we gonna like, we going to Jupiter? Where are we supposed to be? Or do we are you you just gonna throw us into the ocean? And I think the answer is that we really shouldn't be anywhere, which is why we should not be embarrassed or afraid to say that the native like, native Americans are white people of European descent. That is true.
The people that we call Native Americans now are not Native Americans. And the reason they're not Native Americans is because they did not form a country called America. They are not native. America is a country. It's not just a a place.
It's not just a plot of land. It is a country. And before America was formed as a nation, this place was not America, because America didn't exist. America existed when it was formed. And so if someone can trace their lineage back to the Comanche on the Great Plains, well, that that doesn't make you you weren't native to America.
You're a native native to Comancheria. You're you're native to to to this. You're not native to the country of America. The people who are native to the nation of America, the people who formed this nation were by and large, almost exclusively white people of European descent. They are the natives of this country.
They're the ones who formed this country.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the GOP aimed to install Flynn as VP to have their man inside, then push Pence as the insider. Flynn, as NSA, was sabotaged to purge the Deep State, and Obama warned Trump about him, which I find odd. The system toppled Flynn and installed Pence with media cover to curb populism. They targeted dissenters like Hegseth and Elon, and Flynn’s “Blue Collar Kennedy Democrats” line fits a repeating playbook from our first year.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥WOW. YOU CANT UNSEE IT. When it appeared Pres. Trump may select @GenFlynn as VP in the first term the GOP establishment encircled him and thrust Mike Pence upon him so they could HAVE THEIR MAN ON THE INSIDE. When General Flynn was made National Security Advisor with the intent of eradicating the rot of the Deep State …he was setup. Who was the ONLY American Pres. Obama warned Trump about before even taking office?? Gen. Flynn. Doesn’t that seem ODD at bare minimum to anyone?? It’s clear that the MACHINE had designs on how to fight back against populism & the will of the people done in case he won the election. Flynn was then SETUP in a coordinated effort to WITH THE WILLING ACCOMPLICE PENCE to act as a surrogate for the Deep States machinations under the guise of ONE OF US. Once General Flynn was forced to resign he was correct “THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE WATER” and they systemically removed those around him who could effect change. Flynn was the most important chess piece on the board that they needed to discard of. From that moment on we saw a Completely hijacked First term with endless headwind after another designed to slow him down. The real end game WAS TO FORCE HIM TO RESIGN AND INSTALL PENCE w/ the use of the mockingbird media running all their cover and operations. Don’t forget who did their part on J6 at the certification. They are trying to use the same playbook again which is why Elon was removed as soon as possible to control his information. It’s also why they have continued to relentless attack Hegseth. Ask yourselves WHO IS IT IN THE MEDIA THEY DONT ATTACK? There in lies your answer for is toeing the line and not a disruptor..they also likely had a hand in selecting. When Flynn said his family was “Blue Collar Kennedy Democrats” it all made sense…that’s what my family started out as. Everyone should watch the full “FLYNN” movie. This is the first time I’ve watched it and it is a systematic walkthrough of the levels of corruption. This was an INTELLIGENCE OPERATION & Gen. Flynn was punished because he loves this nation. Does anybody see this playbook seeming very similar TO OUR FIRST YEAR?
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@ShadowofEzra These leftists are out of control.
reSee.it AI Summary
I describe Tucker Carlson interviewing Nick Fuentes; MTG confronts him about a “Groyper” in her office, says she fired one of his people and ruined his life. Nick says we’re on the same page now. “I was cancelled for 10 years for saying these things.” This interview is about to explode.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥🤣 “I THOUGHT YOU WERE A FED” -@TuckerCarlson “YEAH WELL I THOUGHT YOU WERE A FED” -@NickJFuentes Tucker Carlson has Nick Fuentes on MTG comes up to which Nick informs Tucker she fired one of his people because she found out a “Groyper” was working in her office and ruined his life. Nick says now that everyone agrees with me and are on the same page we can get along. “I WAS CANCELLED FOR 10 YEARS FOR SAYING THESE THINGS” Welp. Heads are gonna explode over this interview.
reSee.it AI Summary
I observe Bennie Thompson calling the murder of Sarah Beckstrom an “UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT” and hinting at perjury charges; Noem labeled it “A TERRORIST ATTACK.” Thompson once wanted to strip Pres. Trump of Secret Service if jailed. These leftists are enemies of the Republic.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥😡WOWW Bennie Thompson calls the MURDER of Sarah Beckstrom an “UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT” & later insinuates potential PERJURY charges Sec. Noem for pointing out the Biden administration let the Afghani into our country. Noem called it what it was “A TERRORIST ATTACK” This is the same Thompson who wanted to STRIP PRES TRUMP OF SECRET SERVICE if he was sent to jail. These leftist are enemies of the Republic.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The exchange centers on who is responsible for approving an asylum claim linked to an Afghan individual who was part of the Afghanistan evacuation and who was involved in a deadly incident in Washington, D.C. The dialogue is combative and procedural as members press for accountability and a straight answer.
- Speaker 0 references a National Guardsman’s death in an incident involving the same individual, calling it an unfortunate accident, while Speaker 1 insists it was a terrorist act and asserts the guard member was shot in the head. The interaction escalates as Speaker 0 seeks clarification about who approved the asylum application for this person.
- Speaker 0 asks plainly: “Who approved the asylum claim?” Speaker 1 responds that the asylum application was thoroughly filled out by information gathered by the Biden administration and that the asylum process was put into place under rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 counters that, by implication, the Trump administration had changed the vetting process and the asylum had moved forward under those changes, prompting a dispute over attribution of responsibility.
- Speaker 1 emphasizes that the evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was “thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in time” and insists that the individual’s asylum process followed the vetting and rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 pushes back, pressing for a yes-or-no determination of who approved the asylum.
- Speaker 2 offers a different framing, stating that the individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan and that this vetting standard was used by the Biden administration “as a ruse to bring him here.” He asserts that had standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas been followed, “none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America,” attributing responsibility to President Biden. He also invokes a point of order and references a murder “that took place in DC,” insisting the prior description as “unfortunate” was inappropriate.
- The dialogue includes interruptions and procedural motions: Speaker 2 asserts the comment about a murder was not a valid point of order; a separate speaker notes that the incident being discussed was not merely an “unfortunate incident” but a murder.
- Throughout, the participants accuse each other of misattributing the asylum approval to the wrong administration and of altering vetting processes, with repeated demands for a straightforward answer about who approved the asylum application and persistent insistence that the Biden administration’s vetting and rules were the basis for the asylum decision. The exchange ends with procedural interjections and the continuation of the dispute over responsibility for the asylum approval and the accompanying tragic incident.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But you did. Madam secretary, you and the gentleman from c t NCTC, reference the unfortunate accident that occurred with the National Guardsman being killed.
Speaker 1: You think that was an unfortunate accident?
Speaker 0: I mean It
Speaker 1: was a terrorist.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. Look. I'll get it straight, and then you can
Speaker 1: You shot our National Guardsman in the head.
Speaker 0: Look. Mister chairman, will you direct the witness to allow me to ask my question? It was an unfortunate situation, but you blamed it solely on Joe Biden. I want you to know who approved the asylum, application for this same person.
Speaker 1: Mister Thompson, this individual that came into the country
Speaker 0: I I wanna know who approved
Speaker 1: Congressman Thompson, I want you to understand. No. When this individual came into the country I'm not gonna let under
Speaker 0: I'm not gonna let you.
Speaker 1: Evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in a time allowed into our country and that was never followed up. I wanna remind everybody in congress
Speaker 0: Reclaim my we
Speaker 1: follow the law, and every asylum is supposed to have a check-in every single year, and the Biden administration failed to do that. We they vetted this individual, allowed them into our country, and did not do
Speaker 2: The witness will allow the gentleman to ask his question.
Speaker 0: Yes or no? Who who approved the asylum claim?
Speaker 1: The application on the asylum was thoroughly filled out by information that was gathered by the Biden administration.
Speaker 0: So the Biden administration approved the asylum
Speaker 1: Asylum application was put into place under the rules established by the Biden administration.
Speaker 0: Reclaiming my time. I don't wanna charge foul perjury charges against you, but I'm of the opinion that the Trump administration, DHS, your DHS, approved the asylum application.
Speaker 1: The asylum application moved forward under all of the information and vetting processes that were put in place under the Biden administration, which is when vetting happened, and that's what president Trump has changed. Under president Trump's administration
Speaker 0: my time again. When when It's obvious you don't wanna answer the question. Mister Kent, do you want a shot at it?
Speaker 2: The individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan, and that vetting standard was used by the Biden administration as a ruse to bring him here. Had we followed the standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas We're talking about individual and none of the all allies welcome people would have come to America. That's on Joe Biden. No. Gentlemen's No.
Titles expired. That was the answer. Point of order, mister chairman. That was a murder that took place in DC. It was not an unfortunate incident.
And those comments are effing
Speaker 0: disrespectful. Who is it? Don't know.
Speaker 2: That's better from the the It's not a valid it's not a valid point of order. Recognize the gentleman from Texas, the
Speaker 0: former
reSee.it AI Summary
I understand that about six weeks ago the case was cracked with @FBIDDBongino leading and Patel reassigning the old agents to a new team. Brian Cole is in custody from Northern Virginia. Solomon says many who wanted to keep their pensions were squeezed by Dan and Kash over Comey and Wray’s secrets. It’s like Dan and Kash became captains of a ship with a hostile crew.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥 “THE WAY THIS CASE WAS CRACKED about 6 weeks ago..WAS @FBIDDBongino was the lead on it & Patel decided to take THE OLD AGENTS OF THE CASE & PUT A NEW TEAM ON IT” - John Solomon Brian Cole has been identified as in custody and is from Northern Virginia. Solomon says regarding the entrenched old guard a lot of the people who wanted keep their pensions were squeezed by Dan & Kash about Comey & Wray’s dirty secrets. We can all admit it Dan & Kash were made captains of a ship with a hostile crew.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A recent arrest in Northern Virginia was described as the result of a major shift in how the FBI operates on this case. The key details: a month to six weeks ago, Bongino and Patel decided to remove the old agents and assign a new team to the case. The new team applied fresh ideas and new technologies, which allowed evidence that had been overlooked to lead to the arrest of a suspect this morning. Authorities stressed that the arrest is just the beginning of understanding how the operation was conducted, who was behind it, whether there were additional conspirators, or if it was a lone actor.
The discussion draws a parallel to the Charlie Kirk investigation, noting that the FBI’s old-guard elements resisted changing the approach, such as withholding the suspect’s photo. Bongino and Patel insisted the photo be released to prompt a father to flip, which they say contributed to the arrest. The overall claim is that a different mentality within the FBI is yielding results: numerous arrests and cases solved that had stalled for years, and some cases resolved rapidly, like the “assassin” case in thirty-three hours.
Two notable dynamics are described. First, success stories are being produced, contrasting with resistance from some FBI personnel who prefer their prior methods. Second, this has resulted in internal dissatisfaction among some personnel who “grouse” about the changes, though supporters point to real progress. The narrative asserts that Donald Trump instructed Patel and Bongino to “break glass at the FBI,” and that these changes are being implemented, with demonstrations of success.
The conversation identifies two groups within the bureau. The “deep state” elements are described as being purged or pressured to reveal what they did over the last six to eight years, including discussions of burn bags and other hidden actions from the Ray and Comey era. Initially, there was concern about why certain people remained in place, but as cases are solved, opposition within the agency has diminished. Resistors are said to have moved outside the building, while inside the FBI, new personnel are adopting a different approach.
Additional context highlights one practical change: the FBI’s development of a counter-drone program, described as a major shift in capabilities that aligns with the broader theme of modernization and adaptation within the agency. The speaker notes that this evolving FBI is now seen as capable of applying fresh methods to combat emerging threats, paralleling external events such as Ukraine-Russia drone dynamics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mentioned, I think it was, just before Thanksgiving on your show. I thought there would be an arrest this week. They were zeroing in on a gentleman whom they arrested this morning in Northern Virginia. And the way this case was cracked was about a month or six weeks ago, Bongino, who was the lead on it, and Patel decided to take the old agents off the case and put a new team on it. Now there was a little resistance, as there always is in the FBI, to any form of change, but the new team came in.
They applied some new ideas, some new technologies, and some of the evidence that was sitting right in front of them with fresh eyes was, followed, and it was able to be led to this gentleman who they arrested a little bit ago. We don't know much about his ideology or his intentions or his motives yet. And one of the things that FBI officials stress with me this morning is that this is really the beginning. The arrest is the beginning of trying to understand how this operation was conducted, who's behind it, whether there are more conspirators or whether this is a lone wolf. Still all of that to be determined, but a really extraordinary effort.
Five almost five years later, with a fresh set of eyes and a different approach, the FBI that couldn't solve the case for four and a half years solves it very much like the way the Charlie Kirk investigation occurred in the in the first few hours. There were a lot of FBI agents, old guard, that didn't want to put the suspect's photo out, but Cash Patel and Baggino insisted that was gonna be key to getting the father to flip, and they put the photo out, the father flips, and, of course, you get that arrest as we see. What you're seeing, is a different mentality in the FBI, and that plays out in two different ways. First, you see successes that we haven't seen in a while, lots of arrests, cases solved that had not been solved for a long time, other cases which could have gone on for months being solved in thirty three hours like Charlie Kirk's assassin. The second part is it results in a lot of whining from FBI people who think they know, what's better, and you see that even in the Miranda Devine story earlier this week.
You've got these grousers and grouchers because the truth of the matter is Donald Donald Trump ordered Patel and Bongino to break glass at the FBI. They broke glass, and now the FBI is doing things differently. They're succeeding, but, there are people who wanna focus on the whining and crying, not actually the success of what the FBI's been doing. The way they solved this case was fresh thinking.
Speaker 1: Here's what kind of strange credulity. In five and a half years, Dan puts on Dan comes in with cash but Dan's foots on it finally gets tired of it puts on a new team and I understand it's a fresh set of eyes a different perspective but it doesn't strain credulity to think that the original FBI team was really in this the problem with all of J six. Mean were they part of the problem because I mean to say that Bongino and these guys came in and in six weeks cracked the case is fantastic but you sit there and go particularly see a lot of these former whistleblowers of people trashing cash every day.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Is the building just still adamantly opposed to Cash, Bongino, and President Trump?
Speaker 0: Oh, fewer and fewer people are opposed. There are even people that were opposed at the beginning, like this guy's just a talking head, he's not an FBI agent, then you start solving cases, and people are like, damn. Hey. This is this is working. We're getting bad guys off the street.
So there there are two or three dynamics going on in the bureau. The first is there are people that are still the deep state. And as Kash Patel and Dan Bongino find them, they throw them out or they twist them in a way that they're required to show us what the deep state did the last six or eight years that we didn't know about. Early on, there was some question, why was why was Cash Patel keeping certain people behind? Because those people wanted to keep their pension, and Cash Patel and Dan Bongino want to know what really went on, and they squeezed those people to to find out what the dirty secrets were that existed from the Ray and, Comey era, and that's how they found the burn bags, they found all that stuff.
So you have resistance. That resistance is growing less. The resistors now move to the outside. This report that, you know, I think, Miranda writes in the New York Post, it's an anonymous whistleblower for it's kinda weird to have a a study that doesn't have any names to it, but a a lot of those people are gone, and they're grousing from the outside. Inside the building, the people that remain, there there are new people coming in that are showing a new way.
Success is breeding trust, and all of a sudden, got an FBI that's doing it. And there's a lot of unique things going on inside the FBI. It's remarkable to think that we've watched the Ukraine, and Russia war take place, and all of these small drones creating incredible lethality and have an FBI in America that until just a few months ago didn't have a counter drone program. Just think about that. Now there's a counter drone program.
That's a major change. Agents who realize what
reSee.it AI Summary
I say the Rockefeller Foundation is led by Rajiv Shah, appointed to run USAID by Obama, now partnered with MrBeast. Mike Benz Cyber is my hero; I’m grateful for this video. I felt something off about this person, even after an independent investigation cleared him of underage contact. I urge every parent to stop letting kids watch YouTube’s PSY-OP brainwashing. Funders like Rockefeller, Soros, Atlantic Council fuel soft power. Mike shows this in one minute.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥🔥WOWWWW.. "THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION IS HEADED BY THE RAJIV SHAH WHO WAS APPOINTED TO RUN USAID BY PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOW PARTNERED WITH MR.BEAST." THIS IS WHY MIKE BENZ IS A HERO. I could NOT THANK Mike Benz enough for this video. I have known something always felt completely OFF with this person when his best friend was married and then transitioned but was supposedly contacting underage people while part of the company but he stepped down after they investigated themselves and an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION found him to be innocent of inappropriate contact LOL. Show this video to EVERY SINGLE PARENT who lets their kids watch this completely co-opted YOUTUBE algorithm pushed PSY-OP. "If any of you have kids watching Mr. Beast videos GET THEM THE HELL OUT." - @MikeBenzCyber I can feel Mike Benz pain watching this..at it SLOWLY poisons children's brains with fast cuts, idiotic statements and HORRENDOUS MUSIC. This is BRAINWASHING. Funders of the NED endowment The Rockefeller Foundation, George Soros & Atlantic Council. Mike showcases by enduring ONE MINUTE of this brain rot which is the most popular content on the internet with 100+ MILLION VIEWS. And now we are seeing HOW EVEN MR. BEAST IS USED FOR SOFT POWER STATECRAFT. This is why I subscribe to Mike so I can watch these EXACT videos. Every wonder why he so interested in PROJECTS AND PHILANTHROPY IN EVERY NATION BUT IN AMERICA??
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion opens with a provocative line about not needing a CIA director this year because the National Endowment for Democracy is in place, followed by introductions of Carl Gershwin as founding co-president of the National Dialogue for Democracy and the plan to cover the topic at length. The speakers claim that democratic groups worldwide could be seen as subsidized by the CIA, noting that such subsidies were curtailed in the 1960s and that the Endowment was created to fund groups the CIA subsidized back then. They assert that, before grants are made, all grants are sent through the State Department to the CIA, and promise deeper exploration of “Ned CIA” material.
They list prominent entities alongside the National Endowment for Democracy, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Atlanta Council, Ellen White as an operative who prepared the way for political changes in the past two years, and efforts to take down the Soviet Union through internal coups in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, as well as the Atlantic Council, are also named as funders or players in this network. The conversation identifies the Rockefeller Foundation as a major funder, calling it the “hellspawn of John D. Rockefeller and the octopus of Standard Oil,” and notes its funding of the Atlantic Council alongside the Pentagon and the State Department, claiming over $1,000,000 a year.
A claim is made about the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement beyond NATO’s civil society arm, including a reference to Google as the source for who runs the Rockefeller Foundation, and a mention that the foundation had an endowment around $6,000,000,000, making it the thirtieth largest foundation globally by endowment. The discussion briefly covers Raj Shah, described as having been appointed head of USAID by Barack Obama, previously at the Gates Foundation, and later running the Rockefeller Foundation, identifying him as the number one head of USAID.
Speaker 2 shifts to criticizing Raj Shah and USAID, then highlights a partnership announcement between USAID and Mr. Beast’s philanthropic endeavors, noting Mr. Beast’s substantial net worth (estimates cited around $2.6 billion, with a referenced $5 billion company valuation). The speakers then pivot to analyzing Mr. Beast’s online influence, citing his enormous view counts across multiple channels and arguing that his content represents the most popular material on the Internet, capable of shaping hearts and minds and, therefore, serving as a finely tuned instrument of statecraft.
The dialogue returns to ongoing coverage of Mr. Beast videos, including a live example of a Minecraft-based Hunger Games-style video with multi-minute view counts, and ends with a broad assertion that the Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the CIA in a civil-society capacity and that Mr. Beast’s platform, with hundreds of millions of views, could function as a tool of statecraft, given its reach and influence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Which starts off by saying we don't even need a CIA director this year because we've got the National Endowment for Democracy. Damn. I'm good. Trouble. It would be terrible.
This is the founding co director,
Speaker 1: Carl
Speaker 0: Gershwin, founding co president of the National Dialogue for Democracy, which we will be covering at length later in this as we seem to always do. Every stream seems to get into the national effort democracy.
Speaker 1: It'd be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA. We saw that in the sixties, and that's why it's been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that's why the endowment was created, to fund, to subsidize the groups that the CIA got in trouble for subsidizing in the nineteen sixties. Before grants are made, all the grants are sent through the state department to the CIA. We're gonna get to this Ned CIA stuff in even deeper detail.
I don't wanna get too far afield on Listed right alongside the National End for Democracy is the Rockefeller funded Rockefeller Foundation funded Atlanta Council. Ellen White, she's just one of many operatives who've prepared the way for the political miracles of the past two years, taking down the Soviet Union through internal coups in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia.
Speaker 0: George Soros and the Soros Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, and the Atlantic Council. So even in 1986.
Speaker 1: So one of the top funders of the Atlantic Council is the
Speaker 0: hellspawn of John D. Rockefeller and the octopus of Standard Oil
Speaker 1: who sponsors the Atlantic Council alongside the Pentagon and the state department over $1,000,000 a year to the Atlantic Council. Well, who else is the Rockefeller Foundation sponsoring besides NATO's
Speaker 0: civil society action arm with seven CIA directors on their board, annual Frank, Pentagon? Well, turns out they are actually now partnered with Mr. Beast. And who is the Rockefeller Foundation run by? Who is the one who is giving over
Speaker 1: $1,000,000 a year to the Atlanta council? Who is funding the CIA pass through vehicle? The CIA and NATO pass through vehicle. Who's running the Rockefeller Foundation? Oh, Google.
Google.
Speaker 0: Google says I originated the term. Oh, wow. An interview hosted by Trump junior. Okay. Interesting.
This is the head of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of
Speaker 1: the top funders of the Atlantic Council, running the foundation arm of John d Rockefeller. What was he doing? How do you how do you how does one qualify to run the Rockefeller Foundation? And how many let's look at the, Rockefeller Foundation. Let's do influence watch.
Speaker 0: How many how what's their what how many billions in assets do they have? Okay. $4,000,000,000 as of 2014. Yes. This was the vehicle for Standard Oil billionaire John D.
Rockville. Is that true? Is it yeah. Rockville Foundation. Let's see if there are more updated numbers here.
Speaker 1: $6,000,000,000 endowment. Well, how does one run the $6,000,000,000 influence fund? Thirtieth largest thirtieth largest foundation globally by endowment.
Speaker 0: Well, let's see. In 2009,
Speaker 1: doctor Raj Shah
Speaker 0: was appointed the head of USAID by Barack Obama. The number one head, he was the Samantha Power of the Obama administration. Before that, he was at the Gates Foundation. So you go from the Gates Foundation to USAID
Speaker 1: to running the Rockfeller Foundation. So that is who, the number one head of USAID.
Speaker 2: Here's doctor Raj Shah's Twitter. The head of USAID for Barack Obama, who completely freaking just, like, bastardized USAID, which is already a bastard fucking child, bastardized it beyond all belief. The head of it, that asshole, is now partnered. If any of you have kids and you're watching Mr. Beast videos, get them the fuck out.
Speaker 1: Proud to announce our partnership with Beast Philanthropy. So Mr. Beast, is now probably a billionaire, what's Mr. Beast's net worth with these insane freaking videos? Mr.
Beast's net worth.
Speaker 2: $5,000,000,000 valuation of his company. $5,000,000,000, and his net worth is estimated to be $2,600,000,000. Let's see. Finally revealed his net worth.
Speaker 0: K. Thanks for making me scroll for it. What's where's the money, Lebowski?
Speaker 1: Okay, the company.
Speaker 0: K. Well, thank you. Finally, reveals net worth doesn't say what it is. Alright. But he's reported to be worth 2,600,000,000.0 now.
And and for folks who who don't know the kind of utter brain rot that this is, this this, beast shit. Let's just let's just watch some classic mister beast. Okay.
Speaker 1: Here's, here's what he posted twelve hours ago. Already has 2,800,000 views in twelve hours. Let's watch this brain rot. This is who the Rockefeller Foundation, working with the CIA since 1950, run by Obama's head of USAID. Let's, with 500,000,000 YouTube subscribers.
Let's see. How do you get worth $2,600,000,000? What kind of content do you need to produce to be the king of YouTube? Let's watch a minute of this. Let's see if
Speaker 0: we can last one minute in in, in the in the brain rot brain cancer digitally downloaded onto your cranium via YouTube. Let's just
Speaker 1: see if we can we last one minute? Mister Beast challenge. Mister Ben's challenge. Can you last one minute watching a Mister Beast video? Alright.
We're at zero. Let's go.
Speaker 3: I gathered the biggest Minecraft YouTubers on the planet. Just be late.
Speaker 2: I'm already out. I'm out. I'm out. Bounce rate immediately. Holy shit.
Speaker 0: Something in my brain makes me go, oh, no. No. No. No. It's a trap.
Speaker 1: Don't like this. I already don't like it. But if there's I know that if there's any part of me that could like this,
Speaker 2: that I fucked up as
Speaker 1: a human
Speaker 2: being. I've lost the path. If even as a
Speaker 1: guilty pleasure, I could find some dopaminergic innervation as a result of this. We're three seconds in. I've already feel like felt like my my brain has been hit by a truck. But we're gonna do this. Okay?
Because you have to understand what the Rockefeller Foundation, the CIA civil society front. It's not really a it has its own independent. This is one of these things. I would not call the Rockefeller Foundation a CI front. It is a partner.
It works with the CIA the same way Jeffrey Epstein does. I don't think Jeffrey Epstein worked for the CIA. He worked with the CIA when it suited his own interests as well. The CIA needs to move, do do a covert arm sale in Africa, and they need a bunch of co investors to help capacity build the network or to help build an infrastructure project that they're gonna use to redirect funds in the area, blah blah blah. Hey.
Friend of the station. Who who's in network? That's when you make a call to, the former USA director you were just working with in the government
Speaker 0: at the Rockefeller Foundation, and you make
Speaker 1: a call to your private financier friends like Jeffrey Epstein. Alright. Let's see. What are they doing now? What's the Rockefeller Foundation partnering with now?
Okay. We're gonna do one minute. I'm not gonna say anything. One minute. Let's go.
Speaker 3: I gathered the biggest Minecraft YouTubers on the planet to simulate hunger Games and Minecraft, and whoever is the last player standing gets to move whatever they want on a billboard in Times Square. Start the Hunger Games.
Speaker 1: Guys, everything will be doing.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1: Okay. One's in the middle. One's in the middle. I'll just trust you here.
Speaker 3: Let's go, bro. Come here, guys. Oh. I will not be the first step. Oh.
I'm loaded. Yo. Let's go. Don't skip it. Yeah.
I need that. Oh my god. PvP's already on. Oh, fight. I killed them.
Slaughter each other.
Speaker 1: Come here, bro. Chill.
Speaker 3: GG, that's how you do it. Guys, get on you. Run. Run.
Speaker 1: I hate to be the mayor of bad news, but they're just gonna die. Without a doubt.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, dude. What's up? No. No. No.
There we go. Here we go. Oh, we got a chest. Gobble net. Gobble net.
There's so many people. Let's just keep going. We'll chill out a little bit and try not to get in trouble.
Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. We made it one minute into a twenty four minute video. And this is Look out.
Speaker 0: Because I'm sure this thing is okay. This thing already has 3,000,000 views in just twelve hours.
Speaker 1: In twelve hours, this thing has 3,000,000 views. Because this is what YouTube is, like, completely recommend. This is mister beast gaming. This isn't even his main channel. This isn't even his main freaking channel.
He's got
Speaker 0: a second channel with 50,000,000. That's just for games. His main channel
Speaker 1: 60,000,000 views, 70 80,000,000 views, a 117,000,000 views, a 131,000,000 views, 50,000,000 views, a 100,000,000 views, a 173,000,000 views, a 130,000,000 views, a 130 everything that he puts up gets a 130 views. 80,000,000 views, a 130,000,000 views, a 192,000,000 views, 213,000,000 views, a 150,000,000 views, a 150,000,000 views, a 121,000,000
Speaker 0: views, a 194,000,000 views. He averages a 150,000,000 views with this brain rot, digital brain cancer. But it's the most popular content on the entire Internet. And because of that, mister beast can influence hearts and minds. And because of that, Mr.
Beast can be morphed, molded, shaped into a finely tuned instrument of statecraft.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss the ALL AMERICAN COUNTER SUPER BOWL HALFTIME SHOW hosted by TPUSA on Feb 8, with Seamus Coughlin joining me. Seamus, 11 years in, 1M YouTube subs, says we’ve fought the news battle but lack entertainment, needing counter-narrative outside Hollywood. I loved the South Park episode with Charlie Kirk. Seamus stresses entertainment and storytelling to pass culture, and notes how outsiders teach our kids. Also, Titanic Rose and Jenny as villains.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥Jack discusses the ALL AMERICAN COUNTER SUPER BOWL HALFTIME SHOW that is a way to counter the culture war being waged against us hosted by TPUSA on February 8th. http://AMERICANHALFTIMESHOW.COM He has Seamus Coughlin of Freedomtoons on the show to join him who creates political cartoons. His show is now 11 years old and has amassed ONE MILLION SUBSCRIBERS ON YOUTUBE. Seamus is correct that we have done a great job on the news battlefront but are lacking in entertainment. I couldn't agree more. Movie/TV studios will never make anything counter to the narrative of "THE MESSAGE" so it needs to be made alternatively outside of the Hollywood element. Jack says one of the last things he got to do with Charlie Kirk was the South Park episode and Charlie ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT. Jack said they did a livestream reaction to it and he thought it was hysterical and "THIS IS WHAT IT IS ABOUT BECOMING PART OF THE CULTURE." @JackPosobiec is 100% correct about the conservative content not yet BEING THERE and appear to come off as lecturing and tells Seamus he is glad his show never does that. Seamus says entertain and telling stories is a way to pass on culture to the next generation and nails it when he says "WE HAVE A WORLD WHERE COMPLETE STRANGERS ARE ALLOWED TO COME INTO YOUR HOME AND TEACH YOUR CHILDREN AND THEY HATE YOU." @seamus_coughlin talks about how in Titanic she are rooting for a person in Rose who does bad things ..SHES THE VILLAIN and let me just ad...SO WAS JENNY FROM FORREST GUMP..This guy gets it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
They announced an all American halftime show for February 8 via americanhalftimeshow.com, part of fighting leftist culture. Seamus Coughlin discussed Freedom Tunes, started at 19, grew to a million subscribers with 600 videos and a quarter of a billion views, all with $0 spent on marketing. They’re launching a 22–25 minute animated anthology series, five episodes, funded by twistedplots.com; at the $25 level donors get a preview of the pilot, and feedback has been encouraging. They noted the South Park episode with Charlie Kirk as a positive example of embracing culture, saying, "this is what it's all about. becoming part of the culture." They cited George Barna: "children get, just a vast majority of their understanding of how the world works from media..." and argued conservatives must create media that makes people root for good, not bad, criticizing Titanic as "promoting adultery." Entertainment should come first.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That we've taken this completely insane idea that I had to hold a counter halftime halftime show, an all American halftime show by Turning Point USA, and we're gonna be doing it. We are gonna be holding it come this February 8. You can go over to americanhalftimeshow.com to get more information on that. And we're also, by the way, talking about what else we can do to get involved in the culture war, to fight back for pro American culture, but also to fight back against leftist culture. And for so long, we complain about it.
We we we whine about it. We say, oh, I can't believe they're doing this. I can't believe we're doing that. And the same thing with this bad bunny guy. So I said, Let's do our own.
Let's literally do our own. Well, someone who's joining us right now is doing his own as well. His name is Seamus Coughlin. He joins us today. Seamus, how are you, brother?
Speaker 1: Great to be back. Always a pleasure to talk to you, man. I'm honestly doing great. The the crowdfunding can't fit pain for the new show we're putting together is off to a very, very strong start. I've just been overwhelmed by the outpouring of support we've gotten from people and seeing how many positively minded conservative people want to reshape culture, want to help break apart the dominant media culture's monopoly over story and entertainment.
I am really pumped up here, man. I'm very optimistic about the future.
Speaker 0: So talk to us a little bit about what now you've you've done Freedom Tunes. And and so what and for people who let's say, let's there's people in the audience that don't even know what that is, who you are. Obviously, you've got a huge pro, know, platform, but give us a little bit about what brought you to want to make Freedom Tunes, and then how did that turn into the new show?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Great question. So I started Freedom Tunes when I was 19 years old. I I began a small business and animation production when I was 18. And then when I was around 19, I just started posting short animations that I made about politics to my YouTube channel in my spare time.
Eventually, it started picking up traction. And so I began investing more time and energy into that. And then by the time I finished college, we were pulling in enough money with Freedom Tunes and with the political work that I was doing for political clients for me to be able to make a living off of it and then I was also able to start to hire a small crew and so Freedom Tunes has just grown from there. It's, eleven years since I started it and we've amassed a million subscribers. We've made over 600 videos.
We have a quarter of a billion views and I'm proud to say that I've done all of that. We've done all of that with $0 spent on marketing. I just have an amazing team and an extremely loyal audience and one thing many of us have noticed is while the right wing is great at at making documentaries and probably over the two decades. The right has done a better job countering the left in the news space and building out news platforms such as this one. One thing that we have not been quite as strong at is building out entertaining content.
So, after eleven years of consistently churning out these entertaining comedy videos that people seem to really enjoy, we've decided we wanna take this to the next level and we wanna make a twenty two minute to twenty five minute long show. Each episode being twenty two to twenty five minutes long and we're gonna do a five episode season. It's like, it's an animated anthology series. Each episode tackles a completely different story. The audience reception we've already gotten back from our first episode has been extremely positive.
People who donate, to our crowdfunding campaign to fund the show, twistedplots.com. They get, at the $25 level, a preview of our pilot. They get to watch the full twenty five minute long thing, and the feedback has just been very encouraging. People are are really enjoying it and the the success of our crowdfunding campaign so far has been sending a clear message which is that people want grassroots content which promotes their values instead of spreading contempt for them in their way of life.
Speaker 0: It's really, really simple. But, you know, we talk about this kind of stuff. We we talk about, you know, what's it like and, you know, it's I I gotta say too, you know, even though so, Charlie, right, one of the last things that that we got to do, you know, the last big things, I guess, was this South Park episode, right, where South Park Yep. It was kind of you know, they they were I I guess they attempted it as a parody of Charlie, but he totally leaned in and he loved it and he embraced
Speaker 1: guys saw that. I didn't know him personally, but I saw those videos. Yeah. I thought he handled that perfectly.
Speaker 0: So he yeah. So he actually he he like, I remember when it happened. He was you know, we're in the group chat together and he he hits us up and he goes, what he goes, guys, what do you think about this? We're like, dude, it's great. It's great.
He's like, should I no. He's like, because I kinda like it. And was like, no. You tell people you like it. You know, just just say that.
Just go with that. Don't don't turn into a few. Just laugh along with it. So we we even did an episode. We did, like, a livestream where we sort of did a you know, legally, we couldn't do a watch along, but we did sort of, like, a live reaction to it.
And he he thought it was the funniest thing. He said, you know, this is what it's all about. This is what it's about becoming part of the culture. And it's, you know, obviously horrifying that, you know, just a couple of weeks after that, hanging out, you know, watching South Park with my buddy, that that's, you know, what happened to him. But it it it's something where it shows that a show like that, South Park, becoming so iconic, something that people use as a touchstone, that sets culture, that sets opinions, and that eventually trickles down.
This is what Breitbart taught us. This is what trickles down into our politics, and yet so many times conservatives have tried to do this. And, you know, well intentions, of course, but it hasn't been great because I think when we were on TimCast the other day, you said it. It's like, you know, a lot of conservative content is like someone just shows up on screen and starts lecturing, and I'm like, I'm so glad that you don't do that.
Speaker 1: No. I appreciate that. And that's actually been a really important rule that we've had with Freedom Tunes. Freedom Tunes is much more explicitly political, but the entertainment and the jokes come first. We wanna be able to lampoon things and parody things in a way that someone can genuinely laugh at it and not just go, I agree with that and clap along because it's pandering to them and so, I didn't, just to touch on what you said, I didn't know Charlie Kirk.
I met him once. He did a nice interaction, very pleasant guy. But being able to laugh at yourself is a a real show of character and being a good sport about a cartoon being made about you is a really good show of character. I think it's important for us on the right to be able to show that we as a movement can actually claim the high ground not just of economics, not just, with respect to our knowledge of how political systems work, and and not even just necessarily with the culture, but just the ability to have fun, the ability to laugh at ourselves, the ability to make really entertaining stuff.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Exactly. And the idea that you can make something entertaining, something that people are going to like and that's by the way, that's what Charlie was doing with his campus tours. He was making culture for Gen Z, for even Gen Alpha, which I I didn't even kind of understand prior to, you know, prior to what happened, prior to his murder, because there's so many people who say this is what you know, this is cultural. It became a cultural thing, and and now people sharing it.
And people, you know, aren't necessarily saying, oh, look at these debate clips. They're saying, listen to what he talked about with his wife. Listen to what he talked about about marriage. Listen to what he talked about about faith. Listen to what he talked about about health.
These are all cultural topics, not political.
Speaker 1: I I believe that doctor George Barna did a study on this a while ago. I had the pleasure of interviewing him on my my podcast a while back, But he was explaining the I believe this was a study that he did. And basically, what they found was unsurprisingly, children get, just a vast majority of their understanding of how the world works from media. They're more likely to adopt a belief that they've seen in media than they are to adopt a belief that they've heard from their parents or even heard in church or heard at school. People forget how important the cultural aspect of these things are.
Again, I think it's really important to do news shows. I think it's really important to do documentaries. But the way people have learned things historically is through story. Story has been a way that we've passed on our collective memories to younger people and to the next generation. And for the past several decades, what we've been allowing, and I believe I'm paraphrasing Mister Rogers here actually, but what we've been allowing is for complete strangers to come into our homes to teach our children which is totally insane and to allow complete strangers to come into our home to teach us.
Why would you want that? Why would you want your entertainment to be made by people who literally hate you, literally hate your values? We were chatting about this on the show the other day, but George Lucas acknowledged that when he made Star Wars, he was basing the the resistance off of the communists in Vietnam, which is insane. I mean, the literally murdered Catholic children. These were horrible, horrible people.
I understand that communist did a very good job taking over academia in The United States so you don't hear a lot about this and people don't recognize the atrocities that were committed by these communist fighters and by the Viet Cong But this is how much contempt the people who have made your media have for you. And it's it's not just limited to people like that. And and it's not just limited to media like that. Even a film like Titanic. We've talked about this before.
This is a film which is one of the the highest grossing romance films of all time and it's just promoting adultery. It's promoting cheating. It's it's it's a very horrible story. If you just laid out that story in black and white, people would say, I don't like this woman, but because James Cameron is a true master of his craft and you have to give him that. He's very, very good at what he does.
You watch that film and you sympathize with a person who's doing really bad things, And it makes you root for a person who's doing really bad things.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: So what I believe we have to do as conservatives is we have to make media that gets people to root for good things. That teaches people the moral lesson that you want to be a good person. You're not gonna get away with being a bad person because no one gets away with anything.
Speaker 0: Quick break, Seamus, right back because this is straight fire, especially on Friday. Human events
Speaker 1: daily,
Speaker 0: rural America's voice continue.
THE ALL-AMERICAN HALFTIME SHOW
Yes, the rumors are true... Turning Point USA is thrilled to announce The
All American Halftime Show. Performers and event details coming soon.
americanhalftimeshow.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe President Obama will always regret the events of April 30, 2011, at the White House Correspondents Dinner. That night, his hubris led to President Trump not only ending Obama's career but also his legacy, allowing Trump to reclaim the Oval Office twice.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥President Barack Obama will NEVER forgive himself for April 30th 2011 at The White House Correspondents Dinner. That was the night he set in motion for President Trump to not only end his entire career ..BUT LEGACY. His HUBRIS put into motion Trump not only taking the keys to the Oval Office once…but TWICE..when President Trump came back to take them again from his SHADOW THIRD TERM.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"No one is happier. No one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to West than the Donald."
"did we fake moon landing? It really happened in Roswell. And where are Biggie and Tupac?"
"Trump was steaming. His face was all locked and he was not having a good time."
"Maybe I'll run. Maybe I'll show them all."
"Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a republican, which is surprising since I just assumed he was running as a joke."
"Donald Trump owns the Miss USA pageant, which is great
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Please have a seat. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is here tonight.
Speaker 0: And proceeds to fillet Donald publicly.
Speaker 1: No one is happier. No one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to West than the Donald. And that's because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter. Like, did we fake moon landing? It really happened in Roswell.
And where are Biggie and Tupac?
Speaker 2: Donald's face was so incredibly serious.
Speaker 3: I was two tables away from Trump. The conventional way in Washington of absorbing a joke at the White House Correspondents Dinner is to keep your chin up and at least pretend to have a sense of humor about it even if you go cry into your pillow that night. Trump was steaming. His face was all locked and he was not having a good time.
Speaker 1: All kidding aside, obviously, we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience. For example, no seriously, just recently in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice, at the steakhouse, the men's cooking team, did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks. Space. And there was a lot of blame to go around, but you mister Trump recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership. And so ultimately, you didn't blame little John or Meatloaf.
You fired Gary Busey. And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night.
Speaker 0: And he's being treated like a pinata by the president of The United States. And I think he felt familiar.
Speaker 1: Well handled, sir. Well handled. Well about, mister Trump. He certainly would bring some change to the White House. Let's see what we got up there.
Speaker 0: I think this was intolerable for Donald Trump. I think that is the night that he resolves to run for president. I think that he is kind of motivated
Speaker 1: by it.
Speaker 0: Maybe I'll just run. Maybe I'll show them all.
Speaker 2: Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a republican, which is surprising since I just assumed he was running as a joke. Donald Trump often appears on Fox, which is ironic because a fox often appears on Donald Trump's head. If you're at the Washington Post table with Trump and you can't finish your entree, don't worry. The fox will eat it. Gary Busey said recently that Donald Trump would make a great president.
Of course, he said the same thing about an old rusty bird cage he found. Donald Trump owns the Miss USA pageant, which is great for Republicans because it will streamline their search for a vice president. Donald Trump said recently he has a great relationship with the blacks. Though unless the blacks are a family of white people, I bet he's mistaken. Mister Trump may not be a good choice for president, but he would definitely make a great press secretary.
How much fun would that be? Kim Jong il is a loser.
Speaker 0: You know, when president Obama was elected, I said, well, the one thing I think he'll do well, I think he'll be a great cheerleader for the country. I think he'd be a great spirit. I really thought that he would be a great cheerleader. He's not a leader, that's true. He's actually a negative force.
Speaker 1: President Obama will go down as perhaps the worst president in the history of The United States, exclamation point, at real Donald Trump. Well, at real Donald Trump, at least I will go down as a president.
Speaker 3: This is a Fox News election alert. Pennsylvania goes to Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the president of The United States.
reSee.it AI Summary
I expressed my disbelief at phone companies handing over records of sitting senators, suggesting they might as well buy a pair of testicles. I also proposed that we should bring Merrick Garland and Wray in for questioning about whether they were informed of these subpoenas.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥🤣 “OR MAYBE THEY CAN GO ON AMAZON AND BUY A PAIR OF TESTICLES” Sen. Kennedy tells Pam Bondi regarding phone companies handing over records of SITTING SENATORS. He also says MAYBE WE SHOULD GET MERRICK GARLAND & WRAY IN HERE when AG Bondi is asked if THEY would have been informed of these subpeonas.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss subpoenas for phone records of eight sitting United States senators. A joke states, "Hypothetically, senator, maybe they didn't recognize any of the names... That was a joke." They debate whether there are copies of the subpoena applications for the eight senators; Speaker 0 says, "I can't discuss anything regarding the" and "I can't discuss whether there is or is not a pending investigation." Speaker 1 raises liability concerns for telecoms, FBI agents, and a possible special counsel. The hypothetical: "If I were your special counsel... and I'm trying to get the phone records of a sitting United States senator, is that something you would expect me to tell you as attorney general of The United States?" Speaker 0: "They better have. Yeah." The segment ends with, "switch to another subject in the twelve minutes that I have left since everybody else got to go over."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hypothetically, senator, maybe they didn't recognize any of the names of the eight sitting United States senators. Uh-huh. Hypothetically. That was a joke.
Speaker 1: Or maybe they should have gone to Amazon and buy some testicles online instead of just saying, sure. I'll just show you the phone records of a sitting United States Senator on the basis of an administrative subpoena? Now do you have do you have copies of the subpoena applications for these eight
Speaker 0: Senator, I can't discuss anything regarding the
Speaker 1: You can't even tell me if you have copies?
Speaker 0: I can't discuss any of this.
Speaker 1: Alright. When are you gonna General, when are you gonna be able to discuss it?
Speaker 0: I can't discuss whether there is or is not a pending investigation. I understand. But let's say there is a
Speaker 1: pending investigation, I don't want this to get swept under the rug. Okay? Because I think you're gonna get pushed back from all quarters. I think the telecommunication companies are gonna be all over you like a bad rash because they've got liability here for just turning over these records. When they knew what was going on, I think some FBI agents may have some liability here.
I think a special counsel might have some liability here. If I were your special counsel and you had appointed me and I wanted to get the the the records of a sitting United States senator, is that something you would expect me to tell you as attorney general of The United States?
Speaker 0: They better have. Yeah. And yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Do we know in this instance of the eight sitting United States senators if they told attorney general Garland?
Speaker 0: Senator, I just learned about this, very recently as did director Patel, and we cannot discuss the details. I don't know many of
Speaker 1: the we ought to get attorney general Garland here. Do you do you know the the the the special counsel told FBI direct director Ray? Is that something let me put it another way. If I were your special counsel and you were the director of the FBI, and I'm I'm trying to get the phone records of a sitting United States senator. Did I mention it was a sitting United States senator?
Is that something that that that you would expect me to tell you as director of the FBI?
Speaker 0: In general, I would believe the FBI would help execute the subpoenas Yeah. To the business. I wanna
Speaker 1: switch to another subject in the in the in the twelve minutes that I have left since everybody else got to go over.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve been pondering how the shooter knew the exact location of the event, especially since it was only announced a week prior. It seems he must have done reconnaissance beforehand. The timing of the attack, right after the event started, raises questions about how he could have known the best spot. There are also inconsistencies regarding the rifle's presence and a man arrested nearby with an airsoft rifle. With so many coincidences and ongoing investigations, I share the concern that if we don’t get answers later, it could indicate a larger scheme at play.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥 Exactly. “ HOW DID THAT SHOOTER KNOW TO GO TO THAT EXACT LOCATION??” - Matt Tardio Spot on and I’ve been wondering the same thing since day 1. The exact event location wasn’t announced til 8/30 a little over a week prior. So I was saying he must have been doing recon days before and that why I said before he was caught him they need to go back a week before the event in the tapes. Also once again how would he HOW CHARLIE KIRKS EVENT AND PRESCISE LOCATION WOULD BE SET UP? So Matt is correct..it would draw attention if he was going there prior. It was AS IF KNEW THE PERFECT SPOT TO BE and it began right after the event had started so ALL EYES WOULD BE FACING FORWARD. @chrismartenson then breaks down how that rifle does not appear are all to be on his pant legs. He shows the ludicrousness of it being in his bag and the both him & Matt agree that this is NOT a rifle that comes apart easily. @angertab notes that a man was arrested in the parking lot with an airsoft rifle. Compound all of this with George Zinn proclaiming he did it as a distraction and you have alot of coincidences. I agree with the guests that because the case is on going j they may not want to disrupt the case but if and when the case is concluded and we do NOT then have answers to these inconsistencies I would be alarmed as well. “I BELIEVE THERE WAS A MUCH LARGER PLOT AT SCHEME HERE” says Matt Tardio and I agree.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"how did this guy know to move to that exact location?" "There was also a man that was arrested in a parking lot with an airsoft rifle." "that crazy guy screaming that he was basically a distraction?" "the best way to tell a difference between people is to look at their ear." "the ear does not is a bit different to the one we've seen of of photos of Tyler, old photos Tyler." "it's not obvious, but we don't have any positive proof here that there is a rifle in this video at all." "how did he get a rifle up on the roof?" "it's not a takedown model." "the bulge in his pocket" "12:23:34" "potato cam footage" "I didn't shoot him, I didn't do anything, I swear guys." "rifle was pre positioned at some period in time, and that he then was able to pick it off the property, and because he knew he couldn't walk all the way across, and then stash it like that as he was moving into position finally." "there's so many different people that are talking about this and it hasn't died yet." "a Twitter post the day before and ended up sharing it, the same day within hours of when Charlie Kirk got shot, that said he was attending school there, he said something very big was gonna happen the next day"
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But that goes back from the same questions that I had, which is how did this guy know to move to that exact location? You know, if I'm unfamiliar with that that campus to that degree, how do I know how how to walk between point a and b in order to get up to one rooftop, let alone multiple let alone go into that one position on the first time, crawl into space, and take the shot?
Speaker 1: Couldn't he a
Speaker 0: logical explanation?
Speaker 1: Prior to the to the event? Sure.
Speaker 0: Sure. He absolutely could have, Mario. But but again, he would have to know the setup for where Charlie's gonna be in order to figure all that stuff out. And he's also he's also, you know, exposing himself by doing a reconnaissance like that. Going over there and walking on rooftops is something that's gonna draw attention of campus police and security is gonna get caught on camera.
Right? And they would be able to release some of that stuff beforehand. Not only did he was he there this day, but we also caught him two days before, you know, conducting recon on these rooftops to go check out, you know, his different shooting positions. I'm unaware of any of that. And, you know, the the troubling part with me is there was also a man that was arrested in a parking lot with an airsoft rifle.
That is not just for me, but that's also from contacts that were on the ground that day in law enforcement, and I'm going leave it very general. But there was a man that had an airsoft rifle. Why did that guy have an airsoft rifle? What was he doing there? Why was that crazy guy screaming that he was basically a distraction?
He wasn't the shooter. So I think that there was a much larger plot at at the scheme here.
Speaker 1: Okay. Walking up the stairs, or the gentleman walking up the stairs. And then you've also gone through on him jumping off the roof. So I'd love to give you the mic again for a while, Chris, to break that down for us because there's some good questions there as well.
Speaker 2: Well, mean, the question is how how did he get a rifle up up on the roof here? And so they released these in this day and age of having HD, you know, cameras everywhere that they release these potato cam footage things. It's just it's it's annoying, and they don't show us, the video itself so we could actually assess his movements for ourselves, but what we can see here very clearly is these are the video, stills they gave us, and we can see at least nope. There's no no at least no assembled gun down that pant leg, but given how tight it is, I'd be hard pressed to say you have either the stock or the separated barrel and and, scope component
Speaker 1: in that leg. Can you expand this Chris' screen so we could see what he's, showing? There you go. Thank you. Yeah.
Go ahead, Chris.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So so that's his left leg. Doesn't look like there's anything down that. His right leg is bent. There is a bulge in his pocket, but that's where it looks consistent with a cell phone outline.
But, again, you know, if you're thinking about this Mauser not you know, model 98, you're gonna be taking off. It doesn't break cleanly in half. If you were gonna disassemble it at all, it's gonna be the bolt will come off. The whole barrel assembly, including the action and the trigger is gonna come out as a single unit. The scope will still be attached to that, and then you'll have the whole stock frame, which is still pretty long.
So I can't account for I mean, the right leg is bent. Left leg is bent. And, you know, the idea that you could fit that in a medium pack like this, it just doesn't work. The geometry is all wrong. So they haven't shown us anything definitive to say how he got a gun up to the roof.
I mean, this is basically the size of that gun sort of roughly scaled. You know? And it doesn't it's not a takedown model. It doesn't have a button you push. It doesn't have any clear, you know, hinge pins so that it's a a breakaway model.
If he took this thing apart, he would have had to reassemble it. And I'll let Matt opine on this, but I've done a lot of shooting in my day. And if I ever reassembled any of my bolt action rifles, I'd have to rezero them. I don't know how much, but it's, it's it's pretty dodgy when you take these things and and, put them off put them back together. As well, I mean, this is his booking photo here.
This is really hard. I wish we had something better to work with. This person looks like, but I can't be sure that they have a fold in their ear there. He doesn't have a fold in his ear. So I'm not a 100% confident that, you know, they said, oh, this is the suspect, and we've got his DNA.
It must be Tyler Robinson. If I was his defense lawyer, I'd be saying this is not positive proof of anything at this stage. As well, the way that this guy is walking, he's got very square shoulders here in all of these things, and and Tyler Robinson always has slumped shoulders. Take it for what it's worth. But he does have what appear to be similar sunglasses to these.
The jeans are this kinda look the same. The the shoes look the same. So we've got that stuff. But, man, there are cameras everywhere, and so we can can we have some more pictures, please? That would be really helpful, particularly moving pictures because then we could see his gait and, this limp that they're talking about.
But the as Matt said, the story they're going with is somebody was tracked. They saw him come onto the roof. He he had this limp, but then after he went out of frame of a video of a camera for a while, he didn't have the limp anymore. And then they found a screwdriver they said they had DNA on and then a towel, but weirdly, they haven't told us they found DNA on the gun, which is maybe an oversight at this point, but that would that would be helpful.
Speaker 0: They did. I they they did in that. Did they? I believe yeah. I believe they actually said they found it on the trigger itself.
They saw it on the firearm. It's in the affidavit. I'm pretty sure I read that.
Speaker 2: Okay. And and then and then there's roof guy here. And so the next thing I'm trying to figure out is exactly when the shot was taken, by seconds as it actually matters a lot. And so according to MSN, they were tracking a live feed. They placed it at twelve twenty three and thirty four seconds.
I don't think that can be quite right because the FBI releases this video of this figure running across the roof from the shooter's position, and it starts at 12:23 thirty four. So why they didn't include the earlier video to show this person getting into position, taking the shot, and then from there, you know, you you decide. But, this is the spot. This is the spot we saw before with the shooter's position. We can identify it here by this vent thing sort of align ourselves.
So at 12:23 thirty four, he's already taken a shot allegedly, stood up, gathered the gun and, I guess, a a towel or whatever, and made it to pass this thing, maybe to about here. So that's gonna be at least a few seconds of of time is gonna have to pass. And so when they gave us this, this is the video that they showed us here. They zoom in. You can see the figure running over here.
You can actually see a little bit. This is an all glass roof window here. You can see right there, comes around the side. He has a shadow. Doesn't have a shadow on the white part, so this camera's either really over blooming.
We don't know. Puts down something, jumps down. This is a pretty good jump right here. Probably looks like 10 feet ish. Obviously, bends both knees, picks something up, can't quite tell what it is, and so that's all we really have to go on.
I can't either rule in or out that there's a gun in this in this picture. I can sort of see how there isn't. I could sort of see how many there is. It's not obvious, but we don't have any any positive proof here that there is a rifle in this this video at all. I I don't know what else to do with that.
And there are some other oddities in here. Like, people have noticed, like, this person is walking, and then for some reason, they don't come out the backside here. So I guess there must be a a walkway that goes that way. Don't know. Kind of a mystery.
But at this point, I don't think there's a lot we can say from this really, except there's a guy here. He seems to have a backpack on. I I think I could sort of make that claim. But beyond that, I I don't have a lot to go on here. And, no.
There aren't other people sort of spilling out coming oh, you know, running away from anything. Everybody looks pretty calm in this photo. So, you know, I I don't know what more we can really say about
Speaker 1: You've got a few questions here, and I'll focus on the main one. So obviously, I only found out a few days ago someone told me, I'm not sure how accurate this is, but the best way to tell a difference between people is to look at their ear. And by the way, KK if you can kinda zoom in so we can see all see each other again. And it's just looking at their ear and then what you're saying Chris is that in the footage, the ear does not is not is a bit different to the one we've seen of of photos of Tyler, old photos Tyler. So I'll be point number one.
Point number two, we see a shadow when he's running on top of the roof and then the shadow disappears when he jumps on a different surface. Now I I know you've talked about that in your latest video that that could be a distortion of the camera and I've got an explanation here, some experts saying that sometimes naturally distort with angle shifts and during the jump Mhmm. A rapid action, the shadow might blur or vanish due to motion artifact or compression. I'm not technical enough to understand it. Now the last one, the fascinating one is where that rifle is because when he's going up the stairs, you cannot see the rifle.
We don't have videos of the rifle. They they talk about a limp being there, but obviously we can't tell based on the photos and the knee is bent. Now I haven't never held a rifle of that size, so I'd love to get Chris, you've given us your thoughts and Matt's thoughts as well as could that rifle really be under his pants and shirt or partly under both and and Tyler be able to bend his knee as he did in that footage? And, obviously, the last thing is that that person in the footage that Chris, I think what you're implying is that the footage might have been edited because that person along with the shadow, that person's kinda walking, and then there's a tree and then suddenly disappears. So what are the odds?
There's a walkway right behind that tree. So that they're kind of the questions being asked. For me, the most fascinating one is where is that rifle? And last point, when he's jumping off the roof, he's holding something. It is very pixelated, so we can't tell.
But from what I've seen as well, Chris, I'd agree with you, is this it doesn't look like there's a rifle under the towel, but it's also too pixelated to know for sure. So it's just really tough, and we're hoping once the investigation is done, we'll be able to get more footage. But, Matt, what what are your thoughts on on Chris, first, did I miss any points from what you said? And there's a lot of cameras, so we should really see hopefully, after the investigation is done, we should see more footage and photos. But, Matt, what do you think?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm with Chris. I don't I don't see where you're fitting that rifle in there. I honestly, I don't. And the other thing you gotta take in for account as well is the fact that he is moving in.
He's walking with that rifle. The only plausible explanation I could see, and I would have to have that specific rifle because people end up modifying their own. So even if I know the overall length of it, is it possible that he cut the stock down and or make who knows? But no, because we have the, like, the after photo. Right?
But what is the overall length of that rifle? Be really nice to know. The only possibility that I could see to where it is quasi plausible is if he had it on his back tucked in, like, underneath his back, underneath his backpack, but even then, it just doesn't jive. Like he said, you know, you're seeing both of his legs bend. There's all sorts of issues with that.
And then when it goes into mobility with the pants, I mean, as his right leg's bent, for example, you would be able to see it protruding at a certain location on his pants, and you don't see it. The only possible explanation that I can have for that is that that rifle was pre positioned at some period in time, and that he then was able to pick it off the property, and because he knew he couldn't walk all the way across, and then stash it like that as he was moving into position finally. So there's always, again, different variables that go into it. I'm not saying the FBI's lying. What I'm saying is, I'm I'm with you, Chris, which is there's so many different people that are talking about this and it hasn't died yet, why haven't you released some of this information which would clarify that?
Speaker 1: Because that's So is is it because the is it because case is ongoing and there's an investigation as well that hasn't been resolved? So that would would that explain what but so the question would become a lot more alarming if nothing is released once the investigation is done and Tyler is likely found guilty. Correct?
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. I would I
Speaker 0: would agree with that. So there's a there's a guy that had made a Twitter post the day before and ended up sharing it, the same day within hours of when Charlie Kirk got shot, that said he was attending school there, he said something very big was gonna happen the next day, and basically alleging towards something bad, right, towards this towards Charlie. When the shooting happened, he ended up taking it down, and then people ended up sharing screenshots of it, you know, and asking, hey, man. What what the heck's going on here? He's like, oh, no.
I didn't do that at all. I didn't shoot him, I didn't do anything, I swear guys. Then he ended up blocking his account, he changed his profile picture, started doing all sorts of stuff. And I don't want to dime this individual out, just in case, number one, it is part of the active ongoing investigation, and number two, he actually did take part in it, or knew about it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I was taken aback by the heated exchange on Piers Morgan's show. Debra Lea Turestky accused Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson of seeking a mistrial for Tyler Robinson instead of justice for Charlie Kirk, claiming Max Blumenthal is funded by Iran, Russia, and Qatar. Max countered by calling her a liar and suggested that she owes her television presence to Netanyahu's influence. I agree with Katie that Trump operates independently, though he has faced information gatekeeping at times. Ultimately, he makes decisions to keep us out of foreign conflicts.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥WOWW. Fireworks are flying on Piers Morgan. “Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson are trying to get a MISTRIAL for Tyler Robinson and not get justice for Charlie Kirk. Max you are directly funded by Iran, Russia & Qatar” - Debra Lea Turestky Max Blumenthal calls her a liar & tells her that through his vehicles like Larry Ellison & Miriam Adelson that Netanyahu bought TikTok and BOUGHT HER and they she wouldn’t even be on television if it weren’t for Bibi. This is quite the exchange but I’ll agree with Katie nobody tells Trump want to do although I’ve always been honest he has been gate kept from info at time but he his is his own man and makes the decision that best ensure ensures WE ARE NOT ENTANGLED IN FOREIGN WARS.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"there has to be a modicum of good faith on both sides to even consider a peace proposal." The discussion frames Netanyahu's strategy around a hard-line agenda: "Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister, has said that this is a business deal, that Gaza is a business deal and a real estate bonanza, and we need to divide it," and "the first stage was demolition and building in Gaza and basically taking it over for Jewish settlers is cheaper"—described as the real agenda. "we will destroy the homes of the people in Gaza to make them leave." "Today, Israel destroyed the largest residential tower in Gaza City, a residential tower because I've reported in Gaza that I've actually seen," and "the defense minister, Israel Katz, celebrated this." The panel links these actions to a broader push: "they're celebrating destruction of entire neighborhoods... to prevent the PR propaganda collapse that Israel's facing." "TikTok is a grave threat to The United States if it was controlled by China" and "the Soros family buys and pays for every single liberal that is existing." Debates include: "a foreign meddling operation... trying to put lipstick on a holocaust" and "That's a huge lie. From your own documents, it is proven by Israel. That you have received money."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here. You see, Max, I I just think that if you're gonna ever get to peace in this awful war, which has killed so many innocent people in the process of the battle between the IDF and Hamas. If you're gonna get to a a a peaceful resolution, at some stage, there has to be a modicum of good faith on both sides to even consider a peace proposal. I just can't under I mean, it's alright Netanyahu now apologizing, but what was he thinking, to do this? I just can't understand it.
Speaker 1: Well, former state department press secretary Matthew Miller said after defending Netanyahu day after day that Netanyahu shattered every ceasefire agreement, broke every possible deal in order to survive and hold his narrow coalition together, a coalition that features people like Gila Gamliel, the innovation minister who said the real agenda in Gaza is to make Gaza uninhabitable until the population leaves, and we'll do the same in the West Bank. Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister, has said that that that this is a business deal, that Gaza is a business deal and a real estate bonanza, and we need to divide it. The first stage was demolition and building in Gaza and basically taking it over for Jewish settlers is cheaper. So that's the real agenda. We're witnessing a kind of final solution that Netanyahu affirmed in May 2025 when he said we will destroy the homes of the people in Gaza to make them leave.
Today, Israel destroyed the largest residential tower in Gaza City, a residential tower because I've reported in Gaza that I've actually seen. And the defense minister, Israel Katz, celebrated this. They're celebrating destruction of entire neighborhoods, which is why while Israel is waging a seven front war, which now extends into US allies to kill the negotiating team because it was getting in the way of this final solution, they're actually extending into an eighth front, which is The United States where Netanyahu has said that his coterie of billionaires, including Larry Ellison, must buy TikTok and buy all these media assets to prevent the PR propaganda collapse that Israel's facing. And we have a panelist here who is in that meeting who appropriately compared Netanyahu and his Likud party to Donald Trump's GOP, essentially because the Likud party controls Donald Trump through vehicles like Israeli asset, Miriam Adelson.
Speaker 0: Okay. Katie, I'm gonna come to you because I wasn't gonna come to you before I went back to Adam. So I will come to you. But just on that point about that meeting, Deborah Lee, you were in the Netanyahu influencer meeting. Do you recognize the characterization that Max just put up for that?
Speaker 2: I think everything that Max is saying is just honestly hysterical because it is so two sided. Max, you are directly funded by Iran, Russia, and Qatar, the organization that you work for.
Speaker 1: That's a huge lie. That's a lie.
Speaker 2: From the Iranian plate
Speaker 1: TV that That is a huge lie. From your
Speaker 2: own documents, it is proven by Israel. That that is you have received money. I've never received a dollar from Israel or the Israeli government where your company, Rayzone, is directly this is not viable. It has been proven. She's a document in your company.
Sanctions, but
Speaker 1: she's in trouble. Violating US sanctions.
Speaker 2: Yes. You claim that your organization, Grey Zone, simply runs off leaders donating money, but that is not true, that and is absolutely not true because it's been proven. Because the 2020 address would said on the intro of this was saying that he needs to buy TikTok and that make it an Israeli weapon. I was in that meeting. I posted the video.
The video that you played was my video. If you watch the video for yourself, he never said that. I was asking Bibi about what do we do in the wake of Charlie's Charlie Kirk's assassination and the rise of the woke right with people like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson creating chaos online even with things like Tyler Robinson saying that he wasn't the assassin when he's confessed to it, trying to get a mistrial for him and not get justice for Charlie Kirk. So I was asking Bibi because I wrote a paper when I was in college, as Max mentioned, about the similarities between the GOP party and the identities and the values of Republican party under Trump and how the Likud party in Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu has similar ideologies and values, and they're cut from the same ideological cloth. I didn't say that the Likud party controls the GOP.
I literally wrote that they just have similar ideological values, which I hold as a conservative Jew. So as far as buying TikTok, we saw in that video, every single person here and nearly every single commentator agrees I've never seen dollars that cheap shot. Netanyahu is trying to buy you. My bank accounts You wouldn't even be
Speaker 1: here, Netanyahu. I hadn't bought you.
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm still talking. That's not true. I've been on Fox nine times. I was like, TikTok in 02/2020. I'm not lying.
You're a liar. Anyway, I wasn't done talking. Every single person here, every single political commentator, and the Trump administration will acknowledge that TikTok is a grave threat to The United States if it was controlled by China. All of us have acknowledged how China can influence United States through TikTok, through videos, through making us dumber, through putting out propaganda, whatever it is. With x.
Why didn't you get lost on x?
Speaker 1: Because we recognize
Speaker 2: the free speech issues on there under Mark is it that every single time, though, answer the media gave Alright.
Speaker 3: Email that you have
Speaker 2: been warned from change in modern times? Deborah, let's say okay. Time out.
Speaker 0: Let's hear from Katie.
Speaker 2: I just don't understand. I don't understand.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Unless your name is Katie, please don't now speak. Katie.
Speaker 3: Every time an American female Jew speaks in our country, it is that they're bought and paid for by the Israelis. Why is it that every single time a Jew has an opinion, they must be therefore bought and paid for by the Israeli government? Can they not just have an opinion that is valid and not be bought and paid for? I just do not understand to me separate strip propaganda to Israel. And let let me let me continue by saying this.
Speaker 2: I mean, we don't want go propaganda to it in Israel.
Speaker 0: Once, please. Katie.
Speaker 2: But what I can
Speaker 3: tell you, I was not there. I did not hear Bibi Netanyahu speak at the the UN. But what I can tell you is that president Trump has never been bought and paid for by anyone. Bibi Netanyahu surely does not have the position that he is in control of president Trump. If anything, Trump has proven that he has walked away multiple times.
If you believe that Bibi Netanyahu apologized to Qatar on his own free will today, I can assure you that is not the case. There's a reason why that phone call happened during his White House visit. It is because this president takes very seriously his commitments to the American people that they will not be dragged into any more foreign wars, and that includes with Israel.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, Casey, I mean, I can't wait on, please. Than any other No.
Speaker 0: Max, wait a minute. Just to just wanna make
Speaker 2: sure please.
Speaker 3: That the Soros family buys and pays for every single liberal that is existing. Casey. Every single picture you have has Soros in it. So please sit
Speaker 2: down.
Speaker 1: But they're Americans. They're Americans. I mean, we're witnessing a foreign meddling operation with Deborah Leah Schwartzman at the forefront as an influencer trying to put lipstick on a holocaust.
Speaker 0: Well, you know
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall when Barack and Michelle got Roseanne fired from her show by personally calling ABC, leading to her character's death. Now, Jimmy Kimmel has only been suspended for a joke and a false claim about a murder. I didn't see the same outrage back then.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥Remember when Barack & Michelle PERSONALLY got Roseanne fired from her own ABC show..THEY CALLED ABC UP…then ABC killed her off and aired the show she created without her? So far Jimmy Kimmel has only been SUSPENDED..and Trump didn’t call them up personally like the Obamas. I didn’t see the outrage then. One person made a joke and one person with Kimmel lied about a man who was horrifically murdered and claimed a supporter of MAGA did it…See the difference?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on fired comedians and Roseanne. Speaker 0 says, “these are my jokes,” then, “Because she's the one that got me fired. You know? Michelle? Yeah. She's the one that called ABC and said I had to go Are you serious?” The exchange notes, “Racist tweet. Yeah. Really?” and, “Michelle Obama. She said it. It's gotta true.” He adds, “Bob Iger, who fired me, said his first phone call was to Valerie Jarrett to apologize to her, and that Michelle Obama also got on the phone with them, and that Obama called him afterward to thank him for firing me. So that's in the paper.” “Iger's many interviews where he talked about it.” On Roseanne, “the biggest story of the day today was Roseanne,” and “ABC decided to cancel their highest rated show, Roseanne, following… a tweet… to an ape.” ABC calls it “abhorrent, repugnant, and inconsistent with our values, and we've decided to cancel her show.” Barr speaks of being fired as a “witch burning,” notes The Connors killed her character, saying, “they killed my character… 28,000,000 viewers.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I say, oh, these are my jokes.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Because she's the one that got me fired. You know? Michelle? Yeah. She's the one that called ABC and said I had to go Are you serious?
Racist tweet. Yeah. Really?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Was this public information?
Speaker 0: I've said it.
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama. She said it. It's gotta true.
Speaker 0: It is too. I'm gonna fucking smack you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Good.
Speaker 0: Crush you
Speaker 1: to think. Well, I I I applaud you on when you're right, but when you say things like Donald Trump is still the president and there's not gonna be an election
Speaker 0: I said you must in chief.
Speaker 1: Out of and I respect the hell out of you when you say things like
Speaker 0: change everything. I said commander in chief. Now listen. Bob Iger, who fired me, said his first phone call was to Valerie Jarrett to apologize to her, and that Michelle Obama also got on the phone with them, and that Obama called him afterward to thank him for firing me. So that's in the paper.
I didn't make
Speaker 1: I believe you. I didn't make it up. That's something that sounds very credible.
Speaker 0: Iger's many interviews where he talked about it.
Speaker 2: On the subject of of terrible things posted online, the biggest story of the day today was Roseanne. Roseanne, you're not gonna believe this, but she tweeted something outrageous. No. I know. Yeah.
Right. The president did it too. It's crazy. Anyway, ABC decided to cancel their highest rated show, Roseanne, following following a tweet in which Roseanne compared an African American woman, a former adviser to president Obama, to an ape, which did not sit well with ABC management or anyone with a brain, really. So they announced that the this first season of the show is also its last, which is a huge blow to biz I mean, we don't have much on this network.
We're hoping the NBA finals goes 11 games this year. We're still airing America's Funniest Home Videos. Okay? Roseanne was a very bigly hit for ABC, and we needed it. But I say, why why just get listen.
Hear me out. Just because Roseanne is gone doesn't mean the whole show has to go. The show must go on. That's what we say in show business. And with that said, I have an idea that I think makes this work for everyone.
Speaker 1: America's favorite working class family is back with all the cast members you love. Hey, Dan. Mister Connor, sir. Hi. How are you doing?
Coming to ABC this fall
Speaker 3: Yeah. That job turns out it fell through. Dan.
Speaker 1: Oh, come on.
Speaker 2: Right? I mean, come on.
Speaker 3: With that single inflammatory tweet, Roseanne's rising star imploded today. Within hours, the highly anticipated return of one of TV's most beloved shows, Roseanne, canceled, and Roseanne Barr effectively banished from Hollywood for this racist tweet. Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby equals VJ. The VJ referred to is Valerie Jarrett, the former adviser to president Obama. Barr deleted the tweet and tweeted an apology to Jarrett saying in part, forgive me.
My joke was in bad taste. Almost no one thought it was funny. Within hours, ABC pulled the plug on the show saying Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant, and inconsistent with our values, and we've decided to cancel her show.
Speaker 4: Roseanne who?
Speaker 5: Character from Planet of the Apes. This morning, the former top Obama adviser spoke out on the view.
Speaker 4: In all seriousness, as I've said before, I'm fine. I am just fine. And now if some one of you said something like that about me, that might hurt my feelings, but this isn't what keeps me at night.
Speaker 6: Me Barr gives her candid reaction to her character being killed off The Connors. In a February 9 interview with the Los Angeles Times, the controversial comedian opens up about getting fired from her sitcom's reboot back in 2018, calling the experience a witch burning. She says when they killed my character off, that was a message to me knowing that I'm mentally ill or have mental health issues that they did want me to commit suicide. They killed my character and my character. And all of that was to say thank you for bringing 28,000,000 viewers, which they never had before and will never see again because they can kiss my ass.
Fans will remember that the actress
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed with Liz Wheeler the troubling dynamics surrounding the Charlie Kirk situation and the potential for more incidents like it. I highlighted how influential figures, like Destiny, can incite dangerous rhetoric. We examined the funding of NGOs that map right-wing groups, acting as extensions of the DOJ. I also addressed the "Armed Queers" group in Salt Lake City, their controversial statements, and their connections to the State Department and Antifa. This all points to a broader strategy to organize fringe elements in a new Cold War against populism.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
"YOU HAVE THIS TRANTIFA NETWORK ACTING AS BOOTS ON THE GROUND" - Mike Benz @MikeBenzCyber joins Liz Wheeler regarding the Charlie Kirk Assassination and ask Mike if "If we can expect more of this?" ..to which Mikes says "I think it is possible for anyone with a large mouthpiece or platform." He says especially when you have people like Destiny w/ nearly a million followers saying things like " IF YOU WANTED CHARLIE KIRK TO LIVE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE ELECTED DONALD TRUMP A SECOND TIME." I agree with Mike & that is their intent. Benz notes that Charlie walked into the lion's den on college campuses which were essentially ideologically captured by leftists and was cool as a cucumber while being unflappable while debating. Mike breaks down the millions given to NGOS to MAP right wing groups to act as an ADJUNCT arm of the DOJ for investigations. Mike notes what "FED POSTING IS" where if anyone made a remark or a post that called for violence from the right it would be catalogued and raise a flag because WE DON'T SPEAK IN THAT MANNER. Liz & Mike also discuss the "ARMED QUEERS GROUP" of Salt Lake, City traveling to Cuba and a video them saying.."IF WE ARE TERRORISTS THEN WE ARE PROUD TO BE TERRORISTS." Mike makes mention of the DETAILED research that @DataRepublican posted yesterday and how it was tied into the State Department. Benz says they have ignited a new Cold War but this time against POPULISM. Benz says when you do not have the majority YOU NEED TO ORGANIZE THE FRINGES. It about having people with the HIGHEST RISK TOLERANCE WITH NOT ALOT OF MONEY TO AND MORE INCLINED TO ACCEPT A BRIBE. @Liz_Wheeler notes that same group of "ARMED QUEERS" received State Department funding and is linked to Antifa. "ITS NOT JUST ANTIFA BUT CELLS TO ACT AS BOOTS ON THE GROUND WITH THE BACKING OF THE BLOB" - Benz
Video Transcript AI Summary
Following Charlie Kirk's murder, the speakers discuss an assassination culture on the left, noting celebration and gaslighting by the media. They cite Destiny's line that "this is a good thing because, you know, right wingers need to fear talking in public" and claim "if you wanted Charlie Kirk to live, then you shouldn't have elected Donald Trump as president the second time." Kirk is described as "the single most trusted public figure for young men under the age of 30 years old," and Turning Point as having changed the game on campuses; a Jubilee video of Kirk taking on 25 college leftists reportedly has 35,000,000 views. They argue the online left faced less purge than the right, citing "fed posting" and SPLC/FBI/DHS ties. The armed queer Salt Lake City group proclaims "we are terrorists and we're proud to be terrorists," with six principles, including "First principle is armed and militant protection of queer and trans communities..." Urmiah Fanayan, its leader, received awards from a state department affiliated NGO and cohosted "educational workshops" with the Elm Fork John Brown gun club; linked to the July 4 Texas ice facility shooting. The discussion ties transgender militancy and Antifa to U.S. foreign policy and regime-change playbooks, referencing USAID, the state department, Timber Sycamore, and Syria.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our minds, in these days since Charlie Kirk's murder, and that is, you know, it's been a long time in our country since we saw a political assassination like that. I mean, I I think the last time we saw that this this significance of a political assassination was in the nineteen sixties. When you are analyzing what happened and what motivated it and the reaction, the celebration from the left, the the gas lighting for the mainstream media. What do you what do you see? What are the implications?
Do you think more assassinations like this are coming?
Speaker 1: It's quite possible. I think, everyone in this space with a with a large loud microphone feels feels it. I mean, you hear, left wing influencers like Destiny proudly going on Piers Morgan, and I believe the, the quotes were something along the lines of this is a good thing because, you know, right wingers need to fear talking in public. And then I think there was another quote that was something to the effect of, well, if you wanted Charlie Kirk to live, then you shouldn't have elected Donald Trump as president the second time. And, you know, these are folks with millions of followers, you know, daily livestreams.
There's Charlie was a unique target of of these online communities for a very long time because he was the most trusted person. I think a YouGov poll showed that Charlie Kirk was the single most trusted public figure for young men under the age of 30 years old. And Charlie not only built with his own hands the the institutions, on college campuses that young people on the left had to confront for ideological hegemony. There was there was nothing before that. College Republicans was always a joke.
Turning Point completely changed the game, and Charlie was not only the face of Turning Point, but Charlie was a was a tall, cool as a cucumber figure who would walk right into the lion's den, take on 25 people at a time. I think the Jubilee video for Charlie Kirk going up against 25 college leftists is at 35,000,000 views right now on YouTube. And, you know, he never lost. He was completely unflappable. And not only that, because he was so successful and so good at it both institutionally and linguistically, it emboldened young people of Gen z to speak up and aspire to be that eloquent, that influential, that proud and confident of their own beliefs.
And so Charlie was singularly targeted by these these online communities. And I I think it's worth noting that this kind of assassination culture on the left, I think, or another YouGov poll showed that 25 or 26% of of the far left endorses or is okay with political violence or assassination, whereas it was, like, 3% of the far right. I mean, it's like you're talking orders of magnitude in in difference here. And I think a lot of this is because of the fearlessness, because the the there is a hard edged far right or at least there was, maybe you could argue, a decade ago as part of the primordial soup of the Trump movement. There were these groups like the Adam Waffen division, if folks remember, and these kind of, like, you know, really crazy out there far right groups, but they were neutralized very quickly by the Federal Bureau of Invest Operatives from the FBI, the the the DHS, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Justice Department that nobody anywhere on the right would go anywhere close to anyone who even suggested in coded language the stuff that is said by the online left out loud.
There is a there's a the the concept of fed posting is is something that looms very large, I think, in the online right, which is that everyone knows that if someone were to call for the assassination of a Barack Obama or a Joe Biden or a you know, an online left influencer or the like. Anyone who goes anywhere close to that language is not only socially shunned, but immediately called a fed because only feds talk like that on the right. And we've seen so many, of these, just sweeping operations to to take down any of these networks. And a lot of this is because the way the FBI defined domestic extremism, way DHS did, the way our intelligence community did, the way our law enforcement did, was to define domestic extremism as a right wing phenomenon coming from domestic paramilitary adjacent, extremist groups, and it was effectively verboten to change that definition to include the left side of the political aisle. And not only that, you had institutional capacities built up within civil society to go after that.
We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants to university centers, to NGOs, to civil society organizations, to map the online right, and to triage by extreme level. And then they functioned as essentially another arm of the justice department and the FBI. The SPLC would create these hate maps of hate groups. They even put a bullet sign, a a target over these groups, and labeled TP USA one of them. While the s while the SPLC was partnered with the FBI and DHS to essentially serve as the extended investigation arm of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
And so the online left never really had to go through that process of purging its extreme elements because of the intense focus of law enforcement on it. And I think that has that has led to this wildly disproportionate level of, of restraint on the right and complete, mask off open fearlessness to Fed post. Although, when they do, it's not even Fed posting because they're not even apparently monitored by feds.
Speaker 0: I mean, I don't think anything this week. Unless it has not yet been reported, I don't think anything I don't think destiny suffered any repercussions for saying that conservatives should be assassinated. I mean, the I remember seeing a poll. This is a couple months ago. I remember seeing a poll about how many leftists thought it would be okay if Elon Musk was assassinated, and it's just it's one thing when you see a poll.
It's another thing when you see these leftists celebrating an actual assassination that happened, the murder of a father and a husband, the murder of Charlie Kirk. It's it's horrifying. So, part of the assassination culture is exactly what you described. Part of it is that they have networks of these groups, whether it's armed queers. I mean, I'll be very interested as the FBI is to see if they had any foreknowledge of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, this Discord chat, who these people were, what they knew, or what they didn't know.
But talk to me about the what we do know right now. I mean, when armed queers, Salt Lake City traveled to Cuba, there's a video, and I wanna show this on the screen. There's a video of them saying, we are terrorists and we're proud to be terrorists. Can we play this, Spence?
Speaker 2: Every class of Cuban society thinks like an organizer. And these students who were regular medical students, they came and spoke and basically what they were saying was they were wearing their white coats, you know, they looked like medical students. They were like, we're the reason that America is calling Cuba terrorists. And they were saying, well, if we're terrorists, we're proud to be terrorists because we're sending doctors around the world. And if that's our terror, then then so be it.
Yep. Right? But here's this little island, a couple of miles away from America, you know, 90 miles away from America, and they have an a president who talks like us. They have a president who understands the need for a liberated Palestine. And I think that was, that definitely altered my worldview as an organizer.
Speaker 0: Alright. So this individual who's speaking in this video is someone identified as Connor. I don't know what the last I don't know what Connor's last name is or if that's his real name, but he has another quote. He said, we were there in Cuba to learn and to learn the successes of the revolution and bring it back home with us. Keep in mind, the armed queers claim to abide by six principles.
First principle is armed and militant protection of queer and trans communities, the end of capitalist oppression and exploitation, the creation of socialist society, trans liberation, and the abolition of prisons and police. That's what this group stands for. In July, there was a leader of the group, that openly said we are a queer and trans led Marxist Leninist organization. Mike, I mean, what do you think of this?
Speaker 1: Well, you pointed out some of the research that Dade Republican put out just yesterday, and this this dovetails with something I've been talking about for a very, very long time. Last year when I was leading the crusade against the corruption, at USAID, I I would frequently point out how the the how transgender militancy has become a major tool of US foreign policy. As we have lived in this era for the past decade of an undeclared second cold war, not against left wing communism, but against right wing populism in the same way that the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department, USAID, all of their tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of grantee organizations and cutouts in in institutionally, have tried to topple governments around the world or stop the rise of right wing populist movements around the world and this using the exact same levers of power that were done to stop left wing communism during the Cold War, but this time stop right wing populism in Europe, in South America, in in The United States, domestically. The the LGBT, particularly the t or the t part of it, has become a major front in the same way that It's instructive to understand how the blueprint for this operates when you're trying to conduct a regime change or a people powered bottom up revolution in the country.
What you try to do is you try to organize a coalition of the fringes because you do not have the democratic majority because the only reason you activate these kind of mobs is because the state department's preferred candidate did not win in a free and fair election. And so you need to destabilize the country and then have a minority of the of the voters oust the government in a violent they call it a nonviolent, coup, but it's a violent coup. It is mobs of people on the streets burning police cars, burning buildings, causing an evacuation of the elected president so that the power vacuum can be filled by the US state department's newly picked puppet. This is what was done in Bangladesh last year. This was done in in Ukraine in 2014.
This is what's what's done with our color revolution playbook. And as part of that, getting the coalition of fringes together, what the state department looks for is the most radical extreme groups with the highest risk tolerance and the largest grievances against the elected government who are willing to take the risks of putting their bodies in the streets, of confronting police officers, being willing to get arrested, and often who don't have a lot of means, so a little bit of bribe money in the form of USAID or state department money goes a very, very long way. And so you have this transgender global affinity network that the state department, USAID, the intelligence services have been working with. Really, I mean, especially since the end of the Cold War, a lot of this started, in in the '19 in the early nineteen nineties as the US state department was trying to achieve political vassalage control over Central And Eastern Europe after those countries, after were respectively ceded by the Soviet Union and were now up for a democratic vote, but there was still a lot of legacy cultural and political affinity to the kind of, Soviet Union paternalistic heteronormative kind of machismo culture.
And you see a lot of that in Central And Latin America as well. And so what you find is hundreds of millions of dollars of grants to these groups who then serve as boots on the ground. If I mean and and it's not just the the trans community. It it's ANTIFA as well. ANTIFA is, you know, a militant organization that is a global network and a global affinity network with partner cells in at every civil society level who serves as militant boots on the grounds to break up meetings to, to assault or sometimes murder politicians who are rising in power.
We saw this happen all over Europe with Antifa groups attacking political leaders in Spain, in Germany, in Italy, in France, and, and it's got the back it's had the backing of the blob, of our foreign policy establishment. They've been financed. They they are constantly coordinating. In Syria, there were anti faults who were part of the CIA operation Timber Sycamore network. When the CIA ran its then largest CIA operation in declassified history from 2011 to 02/2016, the, the operation to train al Qaeda and ISIS fighters to take down Bashar al Assad.
The Antifa networks were were all over Syria as well. They had formal anti voter battalions who were state department partners in that in that operation. And so you have these high risk tolerance radical groups. And, you know, this is the sort of thing that was recruited on the right wing during the Cold War. If you look at, for example, the CIA memos, from the nineteen eighties about what to do in Nicaragua and El Salvador where, you know, the CIA would, you know, publish memos about how to work with organized right wing crime networks, and and, and they would be the ones who would be willing to, take to the streets, to use violence, to achieve, to achieve their means, to who are willing to get arrested or potentially go out as a martyr in a gunfight or plant bombs or explosives.
You are and you hear this with operatives like Maria Stefan, who ran the Center for Nonviolent Action at the US Institute of Peace, a a government agency. And, you know, I I recently did a deep dive video on her work with the US Institute of Mob Violence of you know, they call it peace, but it's it's complete violence. They literally advocate for property destruction and say property destruction does not count as violence. Yeah. Because That's
Speaker 0: what we heard the Black Lives Matter rioters when they were when they were, committing arson and throwing rocks through windows and looting merchandise. They were like, oh, that's not violence. That's that's not that's not a crime. That's that's just property. By the way, there's an Antifa connection to this armed queer Salt Lake City group.
So that video that we showed of Connor, who was a member, is was a member of armed queers, the guy in Cuba talking about, you know, if if if we're terrorists, then we're proud to be terrorists. The woman who was standing next to Connor in that video, was the leader of the group. This is a woman named Urmiah Fanayan. 's the one who received the awards from the state department affiliated NGO, so getting paid off as as you described it before. But this same woman, so armed queers s l SLC, Salt Lake City, they cohosted what they called educational workshops with the Elm Fork branch of the John Brown gun club.
That is the trans Antifa perpetrators behind the July 4 ice facility shooting in Texas. And Urmiah Fanayan, that same woman who's the leader of the armed queers group, the one that's in that video from Cuba, she appears to have promoted these so called educational workshops on her private Instagram.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a surveillance video from Utah featuring a potential suspect, Charlie Kirk. I'm curious about a man dressed in black who walks in the same direction as the suspect. It's puzzling that another couple seems unfazed by a loud boom and screams, while someone in the corner reacts to the noise. Moments later, the suspect appears. Perhaps the couple genuinely didn't hear anything, and the man who crouched down sensed something was off ahead.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥Utah Surveillance video of potential Charlie Kirk suspect. Who is the guy dressed in black walking the same direction the suspect goes? Why is the other couple walking as if they didn’t just hear a massive boom from a 38-06 and the screams of thousands BUT THEN in the right corner another person seems to react as if started by NOISE? Second later the suspect appears. Maybe the other couple just didn’t hear anything and maybe the guy who makes himself low to the ground thought something looked OFF about what he saw ahead of him.
reSee.it AI Summary
I find myself in a chair I never wanted to occupy, but I know it's where Charlie wanted me today. I'm honoring Charlie Kirk and 9/11 with a special memorial show in his timeslot. To the world, he was a cultural icon, but to me, he was a friend. Charlie was taken from us through an act of political left-wing terrorism, yet his final moments were spent doing what he loved. He is not just an American martyr; he is a Christian martyr. The mission of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point continues, and we must fight for it.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥" THEY COULDN'T DEBATE HIM SO THEY SHOT HIM." " I AM SITTING IN A CHAIR THAT I NEVER WANTED TO SIT IN..I DONT WANT TO BE IN…BUT I AM GOING TO BE HERE BECAUSE I KNOW ITS WHERE CHARLIE WANTED ME TO BE TODAY." Jack Posobiec is honoring Charlie Kirk & 9/11 with a Special MEMORIAL SHOW in CHARLIE'S TIMESLOT. Jack says to the world he was a cultural icon, firebrand but TO ME HE WAS MY FRIEND. Jack says, "Charlie was taking from is in an act of political left wing terrorism & his final act was doing what he loves. He is not just an American Martyr..He is a Christian Martyr." @JackPosobiec says.”Charlie will be here with you..with me..and what is he saying." ITS YOUR TURN..ITS YOUR TURN..LOCK IN PATRIOTS." " THIS MISSION OF CHARLIE KIRK...THE MISSION OF TURNING POINT GOES ON..WE WOULD WANT US TO FIGHT."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many young people on campuses know it is time for change, 'America's future is a series of choices' and 'There's only one way Our current state of slow motion national decline is a choice.' 'Today is our two year old's birthday. And I look at my daughter, and that is my why.' Jack Posobic recalls Charlie Kirk: 'Charlie Kirk was conservative firebrand, hero, cultural icon. But to me, he was my friend.' 'Charlie Kirk was taken from us in an act of left wing political violence, of terrorism, assassinated.' 'Charlie Kirk isn't just an American martyr. Charlie Kirk is a Christian martyr.' 'Charlie Kirk died with his boots on and a microphone in his hand proclaiming the truth on campus.' 'The mission of Charlie Kirk, the mission of Turning Point USA goes on, and it will never stop.' 'Charlie wouldn't want us to retreat.' 'Lock in, patriots.' 'It's your turn.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A lot of young people on campuses at Our initials, h0.com. I talk to a lot of young people on campuses, at our events, on my radio radio show, podcast, and social media. Said differently, I visit college campuses so you don't have to. We're talking to so many voters that know it is time for change. They know that something is wrong.
America's future is a series of choices. There's only one way Our current state of slow motion national decline is a choice. Today is our two year old's birthday. And I look at my daughter, and that is my why. For those that are parents, you know exactly what I mean.
Speaker 1: Else I'll ever need. All my days, your mercy follow you.
Speaker 0: If the people want it, the people get it. And we, the people, take back America. God bless Arizona, and thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Jack Posobic here live in Washington DC. And today, I'm sitting in a chair that I never wanted to sit in. I'm sitting in a chair that I never hoped to be in, that I don't want to be in, but I'm gonna be here because I know that's where Charlie would want me to be today. And I'm not just here as, I don't know, MAGA, Posobic, or fellow conservative firebrand to the world.
You know, Charlie Kirk was conservative firebrand, hero, cultural icon. But to me, he was my friend. And it's been the honor of my life to be standing shoulder to shoulder with him in this great fight. And so it's with a very heavy heart that I sit in this chair on this show that he built, on the platform that he poured his soul into, because Charlie is no longer with us. He was taken from us in an act of left wing political violence, of terrorism, assassinated.
Yet even in his final moments, Charlie was doing what he always did, standing tall, speaking boldly, proclaiming the truth without fear. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Charlie Kirk isn't just an American martyr. Charlie Kirk is a Christian martyr. And I've got right here one of those one of those hats and Charlie signed right there.
I'm I'm never gonna let it go. I'm always gonna keep it right here with me because Charlie's always gonna be here with me, with you, with all of us, and he's watching us all right now. And what is Charlie saying? It's your turn. It's your turn.
Lock in, patriots. Charlie's faith in Christ Jesus was not just a private belief. It was the foundation of his entire life. The courage that he had to go into the battle that he went into every day on every campus was the courage straight from heaven. It was the Lord's.
He spoke with the conviction because he believed the truth of scripture, and he was unshakable. And he gave of himself tirelessly. He loved his family, his friends, and this country that he knew God had blessed in a very special way. So today, we're not just going to remember the man who founded Turning Point USA or hosted this show or owned the libs. We're remembering the son, the husband, the father, the friend, the mentor, and the warrior who never wavered.
Charlie Kirk died with his boots on and a microphone in his hand proclaiming the truth on campus, his eyes fixed on eternity. He'll be forever 31. So as we begin this memorial podcast, let us not only mourn his loss, Erica's loss, their children's loss. Let's also commit ourselves to carrying forward his mission. Because the mission of Charlie Kirk, the mission of Turning Point USA goes on, and it will never stop.
Charlie wouldn't want us to retreat. No. The word was not in his vocabulary. He would want us to fight with truth, with faith, with love for this nation, and for each other. They couldn't debate him, so they shot him.
That's what happened, and everybody needs to understand that. What was his crime? Talking. He just wanted to talk, and that was too much for you. We're gonna be here today.
We're gonna be remembering Charlie, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure that his sacrifice, that his fight will never end, will never stop, and will never quit. We'll never quit because he never did. We'll be right back. Jack Posovic here in the Charlie Kirkland World Show.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared information about the Christian and Newsome case, highlighting the lack of coverage from major news outlets. While CNN provided some content, other prominent sources like Fox, CBS, and NPR had no stories. I noted the contrast with media focus on other events, like the "white supremacy rally."
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Christian & Newsome Kidnapping, Double Homocide & SA & Tortu*e TRUE STORY 👇🏻 AP stories on this 500 words or less multipe wires Fox stories on this 0 CBS stories on this 0 ABC stories on this 0 PBS stories on this O NYT stories on this O NPR stories on this O WSJ stories on this O BBC stories on this O CNN stories on this 500 words or less WAPO stories on this O Reuters stories on this 0 MSNBC stories on this BRIEF REPORTS TO COVER THE “WHITE SUPREMACY RALLY” or lack of media coverage.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Their vehicle was hijacked and they found themselves at the mercy of a vicious gang." "Shannon's lifeless body was found inside the kitchen, hidden in a trash can." "The four men were joined by Vanessa Coleman, who was seen waiting outside." "To this day, the exact reason why what seemed like a carjacking turned into a prolonged and horrific kidnapping remains unclear." "Chris was the first to endure the horrifying abuse." "The first shot struck him in the back of the neck, grazing between his neck and shoulder." "Finally, one of the men placed the pistol just above his right ear and fired a final shot into his skull, ending his life most brutally." "Shannon was subjected to prolonged sexual and physical abuse at the hands of her captors." "Using pieces of curtain and bed sheets, they tied her neck to her ankles and then sealed her head inside a small trash bag."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Consumed the final hours of 21 year old Shannon Christian and 23 year old Christopher Newsom. What should have been a quiet, uneventful night for a young couple in love turned into a nightmare no one could have imagined. Their vehicle was hijacked and they found themselves at the mercy of a vicious gang. The sheer horror of what they endured would only come to light through painstaking forensic analysis and the emotional confessions of witnesses. As the layers of this case were peeled back, what emerged was story so brutal, so haunting, it would shake even the most seasoned investigators to their core.
Plan to meet up with friends for a late night party. Around 9PM, Chris arrived at Bren's apartment. He parked his truck and walked over to Shannon's car, the Toyota four Runner, where he and Shannon sat together for a while. What they didn't realize was that four men were silently watching them from close by. From that moment on, their fate was sealed.
April 1985 in Nacogdoches, Texas moved with her family to Knoxville, Tennessee during her early childhood. Raised in a close knit, middle class home with her parents and older brother, she was known for her bright energy and uplifting presence. Shannon shared a particularly strong and open bond with her mother, Dina, often confiding in her about all aspects of her life. Police arrived at 2316 Chipman Street, the house appeared empty. But a closer search revealed a horrifying discovery.
Shannon's lifeless body was found inside the kitchen, hidden in a trash can. Her body had been stuffed into at least five trash bags and concealed deep within the bin. Following this, police turned their attention to Lumericus Davidson, the man who rented the house at 2316 Chipman Street. Put their hands behind their backs and drove them to a rundown rental house at 2316 Chipman Street. At the house, the four men were joined by Vanessa Coleman, who was seen waiting outside.
To this day, the exact reason why what seemed like a carjacking turned into a prolonged and horrific kidnapping remains unclear. It's possible that the original intent was robbery, but once inside the house, Chris and Shannon were separated and restrained. That marked the beginning of a series of brutal and degrading acts that would forever change the course of their lives. Chris was the first to endure the horrifying abuse. He was subjected to extreme physical and violence, sodomized with a foreign object, likely the broken leg of a chair.
The assault caused severe internal injuries, including lacerations and bruising. Forensic evidence suggested he may have been raped by at least one of his attackers. After roughly one to two hours of unimaginable torment, Chris was taken outside. Barefoot and gagged with socks, he wore only a t shirt and underwear in the cold night air. His hands were still bound behind his back and a dog leash was tied around his neck, used to prevent any chance of escape.
They took him to the area near the railway tracks. There, Chris was forced to kneel down. His ankles were then bound tightly with his own belt and his shirt was pulled over his head to blind him. What followed was a slow, merciless execution. The first shot struck him in the back of the neck, grazing between his neck and shoulder.
Chris fell forward, face down, still alive. Then came another shot, this time to his spinal cord paralyzing him. But even then, he was not yet dead. Finally, one of the men placed the pistol just above his right ear and fired a final shot into his skull, ending his life most brutally. Soon after the execution, the men wrapped Chris's body tightly in a comforter.
They poured gasoline over his lifeless body and set it on fire. She was forced to call her father and claim she had changed plans, telling him she would be home later. It was the last time anyone would hear her voice. Over the next several hours, Shannon was subjected to prolonged sexual and physical abuse at the hands of her captors. She was physically restrained, and repeatedly raped.
The injuries she suffered in her mouth and were severe and revealed the horrifying extent of the cruelty inflicted upon her. Prosecutors believe that the attackers tied her to a chair and raped orally. The frenulum connecting her lip and gum had been torn away as her mouth was forced open. She was left injured, frightened, and isolated before she was ultimately killed. She was beaten and stomped on the head, leaving her with severe head trauma.
Deep bruises and signs of hemorrhaging covered her legs, arms, back, and other parts of her body. Now, the attackers turned to one final, chilling act, erasing every trace of evidence. In a calculated attempt to destroy DNA, they forced bleach down Shannon's throat. They also poured it over her genitals, scrubbing the area in a desperate effort to remove anything that could tie them to the crime. After this, they bound her legs tightly against her chest and forced her head forward until it touched her knees.
Using pieces of curtain and bed sheets, they tied her neck to her ankles and then sealed her head inside a small trash bag.
Speaker 1: And the refrigerator again and the gas can beside it. And there's the bottle of bleach cleaner and the red solution.
Speaker 0: Once she was turned and bound, they sealed her into five separate trash bags and placed her into household garbage bin, covering her with bed sheets and shutting the lid. Horrifyingly, Shannon was still alive when they left her there. She died slowly and alone in the dark for ten to thirty agonizing minutes from positional and confined space asphyxiation.
Speaker 2: Who voiced frustration and indignation over the perceived lack of national media coverage. That's not entirely true. There has been some coverage. CNN did a piece, Fox News did some reporting. Although this case is shocking to us and certainly unfamiliar territory for East Tennessee.
It is not necessarily something that hasn't occurred similar in other parts of the country.
Speaker 3: They raped them, they tortured them, they beat them, then they killed them. She was so tall, long legged, her feet still dragging the ground. But she would sit in my lap, put her arm around me, and look at me a certain way, daddy. And I would get this feeling that would come over me like, this is gonna cost me. If I sit down in that chair and shut my eyes, I can feel her do it.
And it sure feels good. And when I open them, I got a rage in me you wouldn't believe. I hate in me. That ain't normal.
reSee.it AI Summary
I was shocked to hear former Sinaloa Cartel kingpin Jay Flores claim he shipped over $3 billion in cash across the border without any seizures. He mentioned that people in Mexico would welcome war fighters and drones, highlighting how trapped they are by the cartels and corrupt politicians.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥WTF? Former El Chapo affiliated Sinaloa Cartel Kingpin Jay Flores tells @WillCainShow “HE SHIPPED OVER 3 BILLION DOLLARS ACROSS THE BORDER IN CASH IN 10 Years in 18 Wheelers with NO SEIZURES!!” That’s insanity. He says the people of Mexico would WELCOME WAR FIGHTERS AND DRONES in their country. I agree with that sentiment..those people are absolutely prisoners of the Cartels..even the Politicians are corrupt.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"The Trump administration is is taking this very seriously, and they're not playing any game."
"the seizure of these precursor chemicals, I believe it was 600,000 kilograms of precursors"
"going after the cash here in America. Like, that you said that would cut off their lifeblood because they literally shipped cash back to Mexico in 18 wheelers."
"We exported back close to $3,000,000,000 of bulk U. S. Currency."
"18 wheelers, tractor trailers, commercial vehicles. And there is no seizures in the ten years. None."
"That's their lifeline."
"The market will be indicator of what's actually going on. And for right now, the market's indicating that there's still a lot of supply."
"The Mexican people will be happy to get help going against these criminal organizations."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Trump administration is is taking this very seriously, and they're not playing any game.
Speaker 1: But how how high and how far do we have to escalate the war, Jay? You you have talked about this with me. I mean, the number of drugs coming into Mexico and then coming into America and the amount of money going back into Mexico, it's like every time we do something, it's swatting at a gnat. There is a swarm of gnats when it comes to the cartels.
Speaker 0: Yes. I believe the seizure of these precursor chemicals, I believe it was 600,000 kilograms of precursors, that has a more significant impact on drug trafficking overall. But I think it's a multifaceted approach. It needs to continue. But as Mr.
Holman said that, you know, we're taking it to them, you know, away games. But we all know that the team always plays better at home. And I don't think that we have done enough things here at home to going after them.
Speaker 1: You told me about that, going after the cash here in America. Like, that you said that would cut off their lifeblood because they literally shipped cash back to Mexico in 18 wheelers.
Speaker 0: Yes, absolutely. It's the reason why I'm here. It's the reason why I started to this. I run a consulting company called Kingpin to Educator. And and what I'm pushing for is that we do more going to go after the bulk US currency that goes across the country and across the border into Mexico each and every day.
We're talking about billions of dollars, sometimes untouched. Me, myself, and my organization, the ten years I was trafficking, we exported back close to $3,000,000,000 of bulk U. S. Currency.
Speaker 1: You exported $3,000,000,000 of U. S. Currency?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir, in total. And how did you export that?
Speaker 1: Was it in 18 wheelers?
Speaker 0: 18 wheelers, tractor trailers, commercial vehicles. And there is no seizures in the ten years. None. None. And I think that there's so many more things we could do here in terms of going after.
That's their lifeline. And I think for law enforcement and for the last fifty years, we've been going after drugs and drug cartels the same way as going after the drugs, going after King Pinta. We've seen that there have you have dinosaurs of drug lords in American prisons, which I applaud the administration. They're doing a great job. It just has to be a whole plan laid out, especially here in The United States.
Speaker 1: You and I've had a fascinating conversation about whether or not the United States military should be going into Mexico drones, special warfighters. And you said the Mexican people would actually welcome that, but it is interesting to hear you say what we might need to do first, just cut off the supply of money that's right here in America.
Speaker 0: Yes. We're talking about billions of dollars. It's a market. It's a business. And all these strategies that the Trump administration is is putting into place, I think, is great.
I I believe that the market will be indicator of what's actually going on. And for right now, the market's indicating that there's still a lot of supply. Drugs are at a time low across every market, across The United States and terms
Speaker 1: of price.
Speaker 0: Yes, in terms of price. And I think there needs to be more done there. But I do believe that the Mexican people will be happy to get help going against these criminal organizations.
Speaker 1: Well, told me you feel a little safer as of today and we wish for you your safety.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥Epstein Survivors Press Conference “WE ARE THE KEYS TO THIS SITUATION WE HAVE THE TRUTH..& The FBI knows the truth. We KNOW WHO WAS INVOLVED…WE KNOW THE PLAYERS.” - Haley Robson Ok so are you going to tell the world the names so we can hold them accountable & bring justice or ???
Video Transcript AI Summary
My name is Haley Robson. I came out in 2019 on the documentary Filthy Rich. I have been very focused on bringing more awareness to all of the survivors. To the women who chose this moment to come out for the very first time about your abuse, I cannot think of a more important, greater purpose in life than to stand in solidarity. Thank you for choosing this moment for the first time to be so brave to come out and stand in solidarity. Virginia, Sky, Danielle, and Carolyn. Their voices were just as powerful, and they were silenced just as much. Shame on you for using our trauma to weaponize this moment. We are the keys to this situation. We have the truth. The FBI knows the truth. The government knows the truth. Your time is up, and now we're doing it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My name is Haley Robson. I came out in 2019 on the documentary Filthy Rich. I have been very focused on bringing more awareness to all of the survivors. I am so proud to stand with them. I am so proud to be up here to support them because they deserve all the love and support.
Yeah. And I just wanna say to the women who chose this moment to come out for the very first time about your abuse, I cannot think of a more important, greater purpose in life than to stand in solidarity when time is against us, when the politicians have made us an enemy, when the world is watching and everybody is hoping for some type of result. Thank you for choosing this moment for the first time to be so brave to come out and stand in solidarity. I prayed for a moment. I prayed for this moment where God would would fill us with reinforcements.
I wanna acknowledge all the women, unfortunately, that couldn't be here today because I think that is the only list of real great importance, and we should never forget the voices that were not only silenced but that are not here today. And we should never forget the sacrifices that they made. So today, I would like to take a moment for Virginia, Sky, Danielle, and Carolyn. Their voices were just as powerful, and they were silenced just as much. And for some reason, I can feel their spirit, especially Virginia's today.
She would be so proud Yes. And she would be so beside herself to see this one moment we have all came together to unite. And for our government and for the politicians who have taken our trauma and have weaponized it against us, making it unbearable, making it unlivable, making it hard to move on in a life that we wish to live in happiness and joy and peace and injustice that can only come from within at this point. And we have gotten to this point. Shame on you.
Shame on you for using our trauma to weaponize this moment. We are not going to be fooled by your trickery. We are not going to be fooled by the lies, by the conspiracy theories. We are the keys to this situation. We have the truth.
And the FBI knows the truth. The government knows the truth. You may pull this the wool over the sheep's eyes, but we are the keys. We know who was involved. We know the game.
We know the players, and we are sitting here for twenty years waiting for you to get up and do something. Yes. Well, guess what? Your time is up, and now we're doing it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I can't believe how quickly Klobuchar shifted the conversation to gun control after the tragic shooting. She emphasized the need for action on assault weapons and background checks, citing her friend's daughter who was present during the Annunciation Shooting. Klobuchar echoed sentiments about "thoughts and prayers" not being sufficient, aligning with Mayor Frey. Dana Bash questioned the ongoing cycle of violence, while Klobuchar referenced the Nashville shooting without mentioning the shooter’s identity. It's frustrating to see the hypocrisy in their calls for civility while attacking others.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥🚨UNREAL..Klobuchar only took 5 minutes to MAKE IT ABOUT GUN CONTROL. THE LEFT ARE DEMONS. " THERE IS THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS BUT THERE IS A WHOLE ROOM OF CHILDREN/COMMUNITY THERE ARE TOO MANY GUNS OUT THERE...AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO SAY WHAT CAN WE DO WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS & BACKGROUND CHECKS". Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota had a friend whos DAUGHTER WE INSIDE THE CHURCH during the Annunciation Shooting of CATHOLIC SCHOOL. He has Three Guns and says "SHE BELIEVES IT MAY BE OVER A GRIEVANCE THAT MAY NOT HAVE EVEN HAVE INVOLVED THE SCHOOL" And here she goes with the morale soapboxing where Klobuchar ECHOES what the mayor said about "THOUGHTS & PRAYERS ARE NOT ENOUGH" and replays Mayor Jacob Frey. Dana Bash says," How many times do we have to see this cycle.. WHEN IS ENOUGH GONNE BE ENOUGH" Then Klobuchar talks about the Nashville shooting but fails to mention it was a trans shooter weaponized BY THE LEFT. She then says stop the angry rhetoric while they have all been calling Trump a TYRANT AND DICTAATOR.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes a mass shooting in a church during a ceremony: 'this was a man, a madman, acting alone, somehow knows about this ceremony.' An eight- and a 10-year-old were killed; 'an eight and a 10 year old,' and 'a total of 19 that we know of that were hit,' with 'seventeen injured, and of those 14 were children.' The gunman used 'three guns, multiple guns.' A child had to tell 'one of her friend's dads that the friend had been shot.' There will be stories of heroism and faith, but 'there are also adults that were shot.' The discussion acknowledges 'thoughts and prayers' are not enough: 'these kids were literally praying' and 'what can we do better with background checks or with assault weapons.' They mention 'a bipartisan bill for community violence' and 'my provision on domestic violence' to keep gun access from those convicted, plus 'national standards.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Literally watched her friends, some of her best friends be shot, one in the neck, one in the stomach. And when they were running out, when they finally got out, she was the one this child who had to tell, one of her friend's dads that the friend had been shot. And in of course, the chaos that would ensue in any place, when there's a mass shooting like this. And the other information, you know, that I got from, the mayor and others were, of course, consistent with what you've heard. This was a man, a madman, acting alone, somehow knows about this ceremony.
All those facts will come out standing outside of this mass, and shooting one by one by one these kids down, whereas they're praying in the church.
Speaker 1: I mean, just to hear you describe Cora, an eighth grader, seventh or eighth grader, having to tell the parent of her friend that they were shot. It's it's I mean, anybody with kids, anybody with a with a beating heart, it's just it's just beyond. Right. Do you know anything more about those who those more broadly who were injured? Yeah.
Those who were killed, an eight and 10 year old.
Speaker 0: Right. An eight and a 10 year old, and then you have a total of 19 that we know of that were hit. Seventeen, of course, we only we have two dead right now, seventeen injured, and of those 14 were children. So there were also adults who were shot. Right?
There were most likely teachers or, I we don't know, people involved in the service. So there were also adults that were shot, and I'm sure as we hear the details on this, the stories of these people trying to get out those doors, trying to scramble underneath the pews, which is what they were told to do, to protect themselves. I know they're gonna be tragic, but there will also be stories of heroism, stories of faith, stories of, parents and others, helping each other. But it is when you think about what happened here and the fact that he had these three guns, multiple guns, I believe it was something over some kind of grievance that may not even involve the school, and we will those facts will be revealed when the police have thoroughly investigated them. But this is a time, as the mayor said, this could be these just aren't someone else's kids.
Anyone can imagine on the first day of school, I remember this, dropping your child off to a bus or bringing them to the school thinking they're gonna be safe. It's just the most horrific thing any parent, and I know you are a parent as well, Dana. Any parent can imagine.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It sure is. Senator, you mentioned that you I know that you wanna let law enforcement take the lead here, but you just mentioned that you believe that this, individual had some kind of grievance not even related to the school. Is there anything else you can share?
Speaker 0: Not really. I just think that they have to get to the bottom of this, as you know, with these scenes from covering so many of them that there'll be rumors and then they're not true, and then you figure it out. But I think this image of this gunman shooting through these windows, picking off these kids just while they're praying is something that it's gonna be with people for a long time. And you when you think about guns and you think about, as the mayor said, thoughts and prayers just aren't enough here right now. Listen.
I had kids were actually praying.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I do wanna listen to that because that sent chills up my spine. I'm sure everybody's spine when they heard the mayor say that. Let's listen to that moment.
Speaker 2: Don't just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now. These kids were literally praying. It was the first week of school. They were in a church. These are kids that should be learning with their friends.
They should be playing on the playground. They should be able to go to school or church in peace without the fear or risk of violence, and their parents should have the same kind of assurance. These are the sort of basic assurances that every family should have every step of the day regardless of where they are in our country.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's expressing something that I know you feel and and most people feel, which is a combination of sadness but but raw rage. That's that's forget forget about thoughts and prayers. These kids were literally praying when they were murdered through a church window. It's unbelievable. And just, you know,
Speaker 0: the Jake Jacob, the mayor, and his wife, Sarah, just had a second baby. So I know he knows this just gutterly of how this feels to think of your own children in that situation. And I think part of what he's getting at here is that there's thoughts and prayers, and then the law enforcement does their job well, and they hospitals do their job well, and they save some lives, and people are injured. But there's a whole room of those kids in that church that are gonna never forget what happened. That, hopefully, they'll be able to get through it in their own lives.
But you think of that in other mass shootings. It's the immediate death. It's the immediate family. But then it's a whole community. And, ultimately, it's an entire nation Yeah.
That has to grapple with the fact of we have too many guns out there right now. And there's all kinds of policy things that we could do that would still preserve people's right to hunt, people's right to collect guns, people's that care about guns for sport and guns for protection. But at some point, when you see these innocent kids praying in a church and they get gunned down by a madman, you have to step back and think, what can we do better? What can we do better with background checks or with assault weapons, may not have played into this situation? But every situation is different.
And there are a number of things we can do that would not hurt law abiding gun owners, of which there are so many in our my state and in our country. And so it does get you to that. But right now, in our state, we're just mourning for these families. We're mourning for those the kids that were in there that may have survived but will never be the same. And we are supporting our law enforcement and our hospitals.
And there is right now some doctors and nurses that are sitting in an Operating Room with a little kid trying to save them from a shot in the stomach or a shot in the neck. And that's what we think of viscerally now.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: But to just let it go there and say thoughts and prayers is no longer enough.
Speaker 1: Senator, I mean, you just alluded to this, and this is what the mayor was getting at. How many times have we seen this cycle, this horrible cycle of the the the trauma, the tragedy? I mean, you you mentioned that the whole nation I I I had to send a a note to my brother to say my niece and nephew who are nine and 10 don't watch the show today because I don't want them to be traumatized. They'll hear about it. And and parents are dealing with this all across the country.
And, of course, the most important, the parents that we're thinking of the most are those who have either lost those two children or those who have their children in in the operating room right now. But when is enough gonna be enough?
Speaker 0: Exactly. You know, I I remember the stories when I was in Nashville after that school shooting, and I was in a bookstore, Ann Patchett's bookstore. And one this was a week later, and one of the moms was in there just she couldn't sleep. She was looking for book. Her of course, her child had survived, but she told the story to us of the kids in a line and how literally her child was in the line and saw her best friend shot, and she's just trying to hold on.
She's trying to find a book. She's trying to figure out what can she read to her to make this better. And there's one thing we can do to make this better and stop the angry rhetoric, start working on solutions that we know have worked in other countries or could work here. And it's not just one size fits all, but we've got to be willing to do it. And especially some of my colleagues who've been afraid to do it, we did do one bipartisan bill for community violence and including with Chris Murphy and senator Cornyn and a number of other people.
It included my provision on domestic violence, and people that have been convicted shouldn't be able to go out and get guns. We've done these things, but there's much bigger things we could do when it comes to background checks and assault weapons and having more national standards in play.
reSee.it AI Summary
I noticed Omar Fateh, a Minnesota State Senator, is phone banking for Zohran Mamdani in NYC. This raises questions about their campaign strategies, especially since Zohran relied heavily on canvassers and a large volunteer base. One canvasser mentioned they were instructed to help people change their voter registration. I suspect many volunteers may have been collecting ballots after they were mailed. This pattern mirrors past allegations of ballot collection in Minneapolis. It seems the goal is to install candidates who will hinder mass deportation, supported by significant funding in states with lax voter ID laws.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥Well would you look at this. Now why would Omar Fateh a Minnesota State Senator be going out of his way to phone bank for Zohran Mamdani all the way in NYC. Remember how Zohrans big strategy was reliant on Canvassers and at one point 50k volunteers? Listen to one canvassers explain who they were instructed to “Get people to change their registration since they moved to NY from their previous state” It won’t surprise me if it turns out that MANNY of these volunteers were returning to pick up all these ballots after they were mailed to these doors they were knocking. In NY the voter can allow someone to act as an agent on their behalf. Why do you think Omar Fateh’s big strategy seems to ALWAYS be door knocking in Minnesota and joining & helping other Dems in that city as well. Remember when @Project_Veritas had that guy admitting on Camera he was going around in Minneapolis collecting ballots for Ivan Omar and being paid under the table? Why wasn’t that investigated. Surely he wasn’t the only one. Since we know all the left does is rely on cheating it’s my belief this is how they won NYC for Zohran. It’s also how much of this HEAVILY ALIGNED anti American socialist machine and its founders get their puppets into power. This Omar Fateh & Zohran Mandan campaign is a near exact replica and the entire goal is to Install people who will impede mass deportation. We are gonna see it in other cities. The democrat money is going toward her feet on the ground to COLLECT BALLOTS IMO. All in NO ID REQUIRED STATES.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Social media helped reach Gen Z and millennial folks through TikTok and Instagram, increasing engagement after canvassing in person. In Flatbush there was a lot of support for the democrat socialist stuff he has been pushing. In the Upper West Side, there was a lot of misinformation about him and people saying he was anti semitic; he’s backed by Jewish Voice for Peace. Some residents didn’t care about universal childcare. The Upper West Side had a mix of rent-stabilized buildings and, like, fancy brownstones; door slams and face, you know, that situation. I absolutely do think he has a shot of winning; I and my friends have been convincing people to change their registration from out of state to New York. Momentum grew from four to 21 canvassers. Affordability is the most important issue: housing crisis is insane and owning a home is a pipe dream; I live in a stabilized apartment, and rents can increase.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Social media or
Speaker 1: I think I first kinda got on the train with social media. I think he's, been great at kind of, like, getting the sort of, like, Gen Z, maybe millennial folks to, like, be excited through, like, TikTok and Instagram. So that's how I first heard about him. And then I started canvassing, with people, and got to know them just through conversations we had in person, and then it got me more and more engaged. So
Speaker 0: And you're canvassing what neighborhoods did you guys visit, and what was kind of the general, like, reaction from people?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. Because it was different. Like, whenever I would be in Flatbush, I think we got a lot of support and a lot of people who really liked the sort of democrat socialist stuff that he has been pushing and fighting for.
I did one in the Upper West Side. It was in the West Eighties, and there was a lot of, like, misinformation about him and, like, people saying he was anti semitic, and I was like, no. Actually, he's backed by Jewish Voice for Peace. Like, what are you talking about? And also people who maybe didn't care about the universal childcare because they didn't have to worry about paying for that or you know?
But in the Upper West Side, it's like some that are super kind of rinky dinky, like, rent stabilized buildings and then, like, fancy brownstones. So, it it was a mix of people, but a lot of, like, door slams and face, you know, that situation.
Speaker 0: And do you think that he has a shot of winning? Or
Speaker 1: Yes. I absolutely do. I, myself, and, like, all my friends have been convincing people to change their registration from out of state to New York and just being like, come on. Like, you don't live in Colorado anymore. Like, change your change your registration already.
Like, you've been here forever. And so yeah. And that kind of momentum. When I first started canvassing, there were, four people. And then the last time I went there were, like, 21 people canvassing for them.
So that was exciting.
Speaker 0: And one last question. What's your most important issue as a New Yorker?
Speaker 1: Affordability. Like, just, housing. The the housing crisis is insane and, like, the prospect of, like, owning a home has become, like, kind of a a pipe dream for a lot of people in my generation, and rent is just insane. And I live in a stabilized apartment. And with the recent sort of increases, now landlords can kind of increase it out the ass.
So, yeah, I don't wanna get priced
Video Transcript AI Summary
Three Yeah. There was video. You could see the video. There was a video out and about that he has the ballots in his car Right. And talking about the only way you can win is with money.
I was looking at them, and they were not filled. They were blank. Who is the one filling out the absentee ballots? People who work, with, like, in Admiral Omar. Where do they pay the money?
The the minute we sign the thing, the election, that's what you get paid.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Three Yeah. There was video. You could see the video. There was a video out and about that he has the ballots in his car Right. And talking about the only way you can win is with money.
I was looking at them, and they were not filled. They were blank. Who is the one filling out the absentee ballots? People who work, with, like, in Admiral Omar. Where do they pay the money?
The the minute we sign the thing, the election, that's what you get paid.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@mazemoore They really did set out to destroy him because he was a populist threat to their goal of a UNIPOLAR GOVERNMENT…that’s what they wanted here and THATS WHY…The EU is lost..there is no coming back for them.
reSee.it AI Summary
In an interview with Oliver Stone, Putin expressed his belief that the Cold War had ended but revealed U.S. support for Muslim Chechens to destabilize Russia. He recounted how George Bush was upset upon learning this but received a dismissive response from the CIA. Putin criticized Gorbachev for not securing a written agreement on NATO expansion. He emphasized the desire for a unipolar world led by the U.S. This context fuels my belief that forces are working against President Trump’s peace efforts, as he embodies a threat to the elite. I believe Trump will be remembered as a great president and that the upcoming Anchorage summit will be historic.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥WOW. Putin tells Oliver Stone during an interview that he believed that Cold War was over but then reveals that our United States OPS were supporting the MUSLIM Chechens to destabilize Russia. When he brought it up to George Bush w/ names & proof he said Bush was upset to find this out and said he would look into it. Instead he got a letter from the CIA that told him to kick rocks lol. He then goes on to criticize Gorbachev for never getting in writing the agreement for NATO promising to stop expanding. One of the most telling parts is at the end when giving a speech in Munich in 2007 to Security Conference w/ European and American leaders he highlights the desire for implies essentially the U.S./NATO/EU to have ONE UNIPOLAR CENTER OF AUTHORITY, FORCE & DECISION MAKING…ONE MASTER..ONE SOVEREIGN… This is why I firmly believe there are many forces trying to Prevent President Trump making peace. And it also underscores why they hate populism and Trump represents a threat to the elite cabal. Nothing else explains WHY he has been treated this way for decades. He also represents US and our freedoms and liberty. President Trump will go down as our greatest President & I believe he learned so much from his first term that we will make peace despite the forces against him. Anchorage is going to be a historic summit and we are WALKING IN HISTORY.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Автор утверждает, что во времена проблем на Кавказе США поддержали эти процессы и что, хотя Холодная война прошла, американские спецслужбы якобы поддерживали террористов для раскачки внутри России. Партнёры на словах обещали сотрудничество и борьбу с терроризмом, но на деле использовали террористов; есть доказательства оперативной и финансовой поддержки, включая случаи, когда называли фамилии сотрудников США, перемещавших боевиков. Буш заявил: «Я с этим разберусь». Позже пришло письмо из Центрального управления США, где коллеги считают себя вправе поддерживать отношения со всеми представителями оппозиции и будут это делать дальше. Речь идёт о террористических структурах, а не об оппозиции. Об объединении Германии: восточная граница НАТО не зафиксирована на бумаге; Горбачёв сделал ошибку. НАТО нужен внешний враг; создаётся образ противостояния между блоками: Варшавский договор и Советский Союз исчезли.
The author argues that during problems in the Caucasus the United States supported these processes and that, although the Cold War has ended, American intelligence allegedly supported terrorists to destabilize Russia from within. Partners publicly promised cooperation and the fight against terrorism, but in reality used terrorists; there is evidence of operational and financial support, including cases where the names of U.S. personnel moving fighters were cited. Bush stated: 'I will deal with this.' Later came a letter from the Central Administration of the United States, where colleagues claim they are entitled to maintain relations with all opposition figures and will continue to do so. The discussion concerns terrorist structures, not opposition. On German reunification: the eastern border of NATO was not fixed on paper; Gorbachov made a mistake. NATO needs an external enemy; a confrontation between blocs is being constructed: the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union disappeared.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Когда у нас начались проблемы в Чечне, на Кавказе на Северном, к сожалению, американцы поддержали эти процессы. Холодная война вошла в прошлое, у нас ясные, прозрачные отношения со всем миром, с Европой, с Соединенными Штатами. И, конечно, мы рассчитывали на поддержку. Вместо этого мы увидели, что американские спецслужбы как раз поддерживают террористов. И я вам сейчас скажу, на мой взгляд, важную вещь.
У нас сложилось абсолютно устойчивое мнение, тогда, не нам, тогда, Что наши партнеры американские на словах говорят о поддержке России, говорят о необходимой готовности к сотрудничеству, в том числе о борьбе с терроризмом, а на самом деле используют этих террористов для раскачки внутриполитической ситуации в России. Ведь вторая, так называемая, Вторая чеченская война началась с того, что именно народ, гражданские лица в Дагестане, а это тоже мусульманская республика, взяли в руки оружие и
Speaker 1: оказали сопротивление, дали отпор.
Speaker 0: Конечно, но что касается информационной и политической поддержки, то это не доказательствах, это было очевидно для всех. Это же публично делалось открыто. А что касается оперативной поддержки, финансовой, у нас есть такие доказательства. Более того, некоторые из мы представили нашим американским коллегам. Был даже такой момент, когда я к президенту Бушу сказал об этом и показал им.
Он назвал даже фамилии сотрудников спецслужб США, которые работали на Кавказе и не просто оказывали какую-то общую политическую поддержку, а оказывали техническую поддержку. Перебрасывали боевиков из одного места на другой шанс. Реакция президента США была очень правильной и очень негативной. Она сказала: Я с этим разберусь. Мы позднее получили по партнерским каналам действительно письмо из Центрального развития управления США, в котором было указано, что наши коллеги считают себя вправе поддерживать отношения со всеми представителями оппозиции и будут это делать дальше.
Ясно было, что речь-то идет не просто об оппозиционных силах, речь идет о террористических структурах организации. Но тем не менее их представляли в виде какой-то обыкновенной оппозиции.
Speaker 1: И
Speaker 0: я Я думаю, что это было бы не очень прилично достаточно, так что я сказал. Я думаю, что Джордж помнит наши и
Speaker 1: Литвия, Литвауэния, Румыния, Словакия и Словения, мы благодарим и
Speaker 0: Тогда, когда решался вопрос об объединении Германии и о последующем выводе советских войск из Восточной Европы, тогда официальные лица и в Соединенных Штатах и генеральный секретарь НАТО, по-моему это был господин Вернер, тогда все говорили, что в одном Советский Союз может быть уверен восточная граница НАТО не будет отодвинута дальше, чем сегодняшняя восточная граница германской демократической республики. Это не было зафиксировано на бумаге. Это ошибка, но уже со стороны Горбачева. В политике нужно вещи фиксировать, даже фиксированные вещи часто нарушают. А он просто поговорил и решил, что всё на этом закончено.
Это не так.
Speaker 1: Она была создана, когда шла конфронтация между двумя блоками Восточной блоком Западной, между двумя лагерями. Теперь нет Варшавского договора, нет никакого восточного блока, даже нет Советского Союза. Или это вопрос о надо узнать? Создается впечатление, что для того, чтобы оправдать сам факты своего существования, НАТО нужен внешний враг. И осуществляется постоянный поиск этого врага или какие-то провокационные действия для того, чтобы кого-то назвать этим врагом.
Speaker 0: И
Speaker 1: я центр власти,
Speaker 0: принятие решения. Это мир одной из этих технологий. Это мир одной из этих технологий. Это и я
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2002 at Wrestlemania IX, I witnessed Hulk Hogan, the heel, face off against The Rock, the fan favorite. Surprisingly, the crowd cheered Hogan, who was once their hero, and booed The Rock. An audible was called mid-match to give The Rock heel tendencies, showcasing our love for Hogan.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥🇺🇸In 2002 at Wrestlemania IX Hulk Hogan faced off against RED HOT FAN FAVORITE..The Rock… with Hulk being the HEEL. The crowd which grew up as kids with Hulk as their hero were now in the 20/30’s were NOT HAVING IT. They cheered Hogan & Booed Rock and an audible had to be called mid match to have The Rock show “Heel tendencies”. That’s how much we loved our Childhood Hero. That is what The Immortal Hulk Hogan meant to so many.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared insights from Jeffrey Sachs during his conversation with Tucker Carlson about the origins of the Deep State Project, which he claims began under Clinton to expand NATO. He highlighted the significance of the recent Trump-Putin call, noting that every president since Clinton has supported this secretive agenda, except Trump. Sachs emphasized the broken assurances to Russia regarding NATO expansion after the Soviet Union's fall and criticized the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002, which he believes increased the risk of nuclear conflict. He also discussed efforts to integrate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, framing the situation as a path that could have led to World War III.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Jeffrey Sachs divulged to Tucker Carlson the “Origination of The Deep State Project started under Clinton to expand NATO” He explains how yesterday was truly HISTORIC DAY once that call between Trump & Putin occurred. Every president since Clinton has signed onto this secret plan until Trump. We had made assurances not to expand NATO to Russia and then after the fall of the Soviet Union we embarked on warp speed expansion. And the most dangerous move was to back out of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) in 2002 which was designed to prevent nuclear war. We then attempted to absorb Ukraine & Georgia into NATO. This full segment is worth the time because it lays out how we arrived to this dangerous point that many times could have led us to WW3.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1994, the U.S. initiated a project to expand NATO eastward indefinitely, despite assurances given to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not move "one inch eastward." This expansion continued under multiple presidents, with seven more countries added in 2004. In 2007, Putin urged the U.S. to halt expansion, reminding them of the earlier promise.
In 2002, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and began installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Russia's bordering territories. In 2008, George Bush Jr. aimed to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, which led to conflict. The U.S. also played a role in the 2014 overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who favored neutrality.
Recently, President Trump had a call with President Putin, signaling a respect for Russia's concerns. The new defense secretary stated that Ukraine will not join NATO. Additionally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged a multipolar world, marking a shift from the U.S. mindset of sole superpower dominance. These events signal a potential shift towards peace.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A very bad idea of The United States taken in 1994. It's a project. The project was a project to expand NATO forever, anywhere. Just keep moving east. Keep moving not only to the first wave, which was the prime minister's country, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, but then move eastward closer to the former Soviet Union, into the former Soviet Union, surround Russia in the Black Sea region, go all the way to a little country in the South Caucasus, Georgia.
It was mind boggling. Clinton signed on to that in 1994. It became what we call the deep state project, meaning it didn't really matter who the president was. Each president would come and basically would be informed. NATO's moving eastward, you're part of that process.
So Clinton started it in 1994. And as prime minister Orban said, he mentioned briefly, in 1990, on 02/09/1990, in unequivocal, clear as can be terms, The United States had said to president Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward. And if you have any doubt about it, all the documents are now online available. You can scrutinize everything. Hans Dietrich Genscher, The US the German foreign minister said the same thing same day.
He's on tape actually explaining, no, no, I don't just mean within Eastern Germany. I mean anywhere to the East. Clinton being Clinton, and The US Deep State being The US Deep State started this project in 1994. They already had the idea, by the way, in in 1991, '92, as soon as the Soviet Union ended. Now we move.
Now we move eastward. Now we control everything. Now we are the sole superpower. So this has gone on for thirty years. And each president got into it under George Bush junior.
Seven more countries were added, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania, nine in 02/2004. Then in 02/2007, President Putin said at the summit that's taking place right now, the Munich Security Summit, said, stop. You told us no expansion, not an eastward expansion, even an inch, you said. You've now done 10 countries. Stop.
Perfectly reasonable. Stop. I don't think our president Donald Trump would much like to see China and Russia building their military bases up from Central America. You know, this was how the Russians saw this. Why are you coming to our border when you told us you weren't gonna move?
And there was one other thing that was very important in this, which was probably the most decisive thing and almost not even recognized. In 02/2002, The US did something really, really, really destabilizing, and that is it unilaterally left the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. That was a core strategy to stop a nuclear war between the two superpowers. Because what ABM had done for thirty years was to say, we each have deterrents. You If you strike us, we can strike back.
We'll limit our anti ballistic missiles so that both sides maintain deterrence. In 02/2002, The United States unilaterally, unprovoked, walked out of ABM, said, no, no, we're not gonna do it anymore. We're going to put anti ballistic missile systems into Russia's bordering territories. The Russians said, are you kidding? The US said, what's your problem?
We do what we want. So in 02/2007, Putin said, stop already. In 02/2008, George Bush junior doubled down as Americans typically do, and said, okay, now we're moving to Ukraine and to Georgia. That was why this war occurred. But Ukraine had one more sliver of life, and that was that they elected a president in 2010 that didn't want to be part of NATO.
And the public didn't wanna be part of NATO. Why? Because they knew this is very dangerous. Why get into this provocative situation? His name was Viktor Yanukovych.
Americans don't like neutrality, but Yanukovych was trying to be neutral between the two sides. And The US played a rather unfortunate role on 02/22/2014 in a violent overthrow of this person. And that's when the war started. And it's been now ten years, and no president has told the truth until yesterday, by the way. Yesterday is a historic day because the a call took place between president Putin and president Trump.
It was the first call. We don't know if there had been a short call beforehand between the two of them, but there was no call by Biden and Putin. With war going on for three years, no call. And now there was a call, and the readout from the American side was excellent. What president Trump said in the call was, we respect Russia.
We hear Russia's concerns. We fought on the same side in World War two. Nice point, by the way. True. Russia lost Soviet Union lost 27,000,000 people in World War II, and was an ally of The United States.
The fact that wasn't mentioned for years and years and years by President Biden. And then the defense secretary Hagstad, the new defense secretary said yesterday, the truth for the first time, that Ukraine is not going to join NATO. This is the basis for peace. This is absolutely the basis for peace. And they couldn't tell the truth for three decades.
They could not admit what any of us knew, because I've been around this region for thirty six years in detail. I sat with Boris Yeltsin. I sat with Mikhail Gorbachev. But the Americans would not tell the truth publicly until yesterday that this was so provocative, it was a game. They thought they'd win the game.
I don't know how many people here play or played in their childhood the game of risk. The game of Risk was a big game for me. You wanted your peace on every part of the world map. That was the game. When you took over the whole world, world hegemony, we now call it, you won.
They're playing that game until this administration. So the two most important, three important things have happened in my view in this administration so far. First, our new secretary of state, Marco Rubio, told the fundamental truth. We are in a multipolar world. First time the sentence was uttered, he told the truth.
What does it mean? The American mindset for thirty years was we run the show. Marco Rubio said, well, we don't run the show. We live with other powerful countries. Great start.
Second and third were the two events yesterday. So I'm feeling about peace that this is really something that happened yesterday. If if they follow through, we know what Washington is like. There's every crazy idea swarming still. A project of thirty years doesn't go down necessarily in one phone call or one statement by the Secretary of Defense, but it's pretty important that it was said so publicly and so visibly.
And of course, Europe is in a tizzy because Europe signed on to The US project. All these politicians in Europe are there where they are because they were part of The US project. And now The US is reversing its project, and you didn't tell us and you didn't what are we supposed to do? We're way out there. And so they're completely befuddled.
And I have to say, I told them personally, many of these leaders, and I mean personally, one by one, for years, you are gonna get trapped this
reSee.it AI Summary
On MSNBC, Amy Klobuchar discussed her dinner with Hortman shortly before an attack, emphasizing the need to reduce horrific rhetoric and the impact of online posts on people's actions. She called for politicians to reflect on their language, yet there was no acknowledgment of the Democrats' use of terms like "fascist" or "Gestapo" in reference to Trump. The conversation shifted to criticizing Mike Lee for his posts, while Klobuchar did not mention condemning Democrat Julie van Haefen for her violent protest imagery against the President.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
On MSNBC Amy Klobuchar says she dined with Hortman hours before the attack. She says “I do hope as we call for bringing the temperature down and less HORRIFIC RHETORIC & POSTS people remember what she did my friend Senator Hoffman. “They read things online, they believe them..they start acting out & go do what they are reading online” They then go on to talk about politicians should look in the mirror about their rhetoric. NO MENTION of democrats for months using the word fascist, referring to Trump as a dictator for months and all last week because of the ICE raids or calling them THE GESTAPO. The hypocrisy is stunning They then go on to attack Mike Lee and vilify him for his posts & she says she’s “condemned what he did at home and will speak to him”…She didn’t mention condemning the Democrat politician Julie van Haefen however that posted a photo of protestors calling for violence against our President.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman's accomplishments and character, highlighting her ability to negotiate bipartisan budgets. The speaker also addresses rising threats against lawmakers, noting a surge from 1,700 in 2016 to over 9,000 in 2024. They attribute this increase to online content influencing unstable individuals, citing the attack on Speaker Pelosi's husband as an example, and also hateful rhetoric.
The speaker condemns Senator Mike Lee's social media posts about the Minnesota shooting suspect, calling them inappropriate and harmful. Lee posted a picture of the suspect at a lawmaker's door with the caption, "This is what happens when Marxists don't get their way." The speaker plans to confront Lee, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation, the impact on the victims' families, and the dedicated work of law enforcement during the 43-hour manhunt. The speaker notes that police prevented further deaths by checking on Representative Hortman's home.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: About statistics and motives. I hope one thing that comes out of this is people will understand what some fine public servants are about, and that is Melissa Hortman. This is a woman that went in. I got to know her. We were both moms with young kids running for office.
She knew practically everyone in her district. She worked at her dad's used auto parts store. She juggled being a Girl Scout leader and a Sunday school teacher and trained dogs. She loved dogs. And she and her husband raised two great kids.
All that time, she moved up in the legislature and became what many are saying, including Republicans in our state, one of the most consequential speakers of the House in Minnesota history, ushering in major changes to law, like school lunch and paid family leave. And just this last yearand I think Joe would especially appreciate itthisthe legislature was tied. And she and Representative Demuth, her Republican counterpart, through the year negotiated a budget and were able to negotiate a budget for the state with the governor's support. That is Melissa. And I cannot tell you what a decent person she was.
So, I do hope, as we call for bringing the temperature down and less horrific rhetoric in Post, that people remember her face and what she did, as well as my friend Senator Hoffman, who is thankfully and somehow recovering with his wife Yvette despite multiple, multiple gunshots.
Speaker 1: Senator, you talked about bringing the temperature down. It feels like the temperature is only rising, right, the threats against lawmakers, both at the federal, state and local level. Can you talk a little bit about that, being a U. S. Senator?
How many are you seeing a massive surge in threats? Are you taking precautions? Are you guys getting more security compared to, say, a couple years ago?
Speaker 0: We have been. Certainly, in the last few days here in Minnesota, a number of elected leaders have received more security. And I thank Senator Thune and Senator Schumer for asking for that security on the Senate side. But whatand when I was chair of the Rules Committee, I worked really hard to get more security for members' homes and offices. And that is because of the facts.
2016, there were about 1,700 threats against members of Congress. Now, in the last year of 2024, there were over 9,000 threats. You're seeing the same in the judiciary, with judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents and governors. You're seeing the same thing with election judges. People are reading things online.
This is just my view. This is a lot of it. Look at the unbalanced sick man who bludgeoned Speaker Pelosi's husband. They read things online. They believe them.
They start acting them out. They already are imbalanced themselves. And they actually go do what they're reading online. So that has been a contributor, as well as, of course, a lot of hateful rhetoric, and there's a lot of politicians that should be looking in the mirror and bring their rhetoric down.
Speaker 2: Well, one politician, and I will say a man that I've known and in in the past have had a good relationship and liked him like a self spoken man, but somebody that posted this weekend, Republican senator Mike Lee of Utah, obviously facing strong criticism for a social media post about the Minnesota shooting suspect. Yesterday, Lee posted a picture of the suspect at the door of one of the lawmakers with the caption, this is what happens when Marxists don't get their way. It is a pinned tweet at the top of his page. Twenty five minutes later, the senator posted another picture of the suspected shooter with the caption nightmare on Wall Street, mocking, of course, the situation with the name of the Minnesota governor. But those posts came hours before Lee tweeted a happy Father's Day message.
Conservative journalist, Brad Palumbo, responded to one of the posts writing, quote, what the hell is Mike Lee doing? Has he completely lost it? Meanwhile, contributing editor for The Atlantic, Norm Orenstein wrote, even for Mike Lee, this is beyond disgusting disinformation beneath contempt. We're we're used to, senator, we're used to wackos on on the extremes on both sides, posting bizarre things on social media. What happens when it's mainstreamed by a senator?
Again, a guy that I've I've known and who used to try to be a thoughtful, conservative voice for small government conservatism when he starts posting things like this. And what what is the what's the United States Senate's answer to that? I only ask that because I can tell you back in my days, I guess in the stone age it is now, I mean, a senator on either side would have been roundly condemned by members of his or her own party if they had done this.
Speaker 0: I have condemned what Mike Lee did here at home, and I will speak to him about this when I return. And what I'm gonna tell him is, you know, this isn't funny what happened here. This was an incredible woman, her husband, her two kids yesterday on Father's Day. There was no Father's Day for them. They lost both their parents.
I'll tell him about the law enforcement that did incredible work here. We had a forty three hour manhunt, the biggest manhunt in Minnesota's history, hundreds and hundreds of officers, 20 SWAT teams, going door to door to door, citizens on edge, hiding in their homes. And they finally were able to arrest this man, who was armed, but there was not a shooting, and bring him into custody and did their jobs. And by the way, if the police had not, on their own, decided to go over to representative Hortman's home without a call because of what they noticed, of course, had happened, the tragedy at senator Hoffman's house, They thought, well, maybe we should check this out. Well, they weren't able to prevent the deaths.
They were able to identify the suspect because he ran out and his car was left there. Otherwise, more people would have been killed. So that's what I'm gonna tell senator Lee when I get back to Washington today, because this is not a laughing matter. And, certainly, what we're seeing in increasing violence and this evil man who did this, this is not a joke.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
IS CNN CHANGING THE SCRIPT?Before when first reported @JohnMillerCNN said he had a hit list of “PRO-LIFE” Advocates. Now hours later Veronica Miracle said He had a hit list of “PRO-CHOICE” Advocates. Which is it? Are you trying to incept the audience or did you get it wrong the first time?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The list includes mayors, medical clinics, abortion providers, and pro-life advocates. It also includes locations and individuals from out of state. Other places in Minnesota are included as well.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A couple of mayors. It includes, other places in Minnesota, including, medical clinics, abortion providers, pro life advocates, and it includes some locations and individuals from out of state.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Representative Hortman was mentioned in connection to attacks. A hit list found in the attacker's car included mayors, abortion providers, pro-choice advocates, and 70 targets in Minnesota and other states. A fall was also found.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Representative, Hortman, in these attacks. Now found in his car, was also a hit list with mayors, abortion providers, pro choice advocates, and a number of 70 different targets both in Minnesota and other states. They found also a fall
reSee.it AI Summary
I just watched the entire Jeffy E segment where Joe Rogan challenges Kash Patel on the Epstein suicide. Rogan raises important points, like the Baden interview suggesting homicide, the deleted clips, and the delay in the video's release. Patel stands firm in his belief that it wasn't murder, emphasizing the security of the unit and stating he would be vocal if he thought otherwise. I really appreciate Rogan for asking these tough questions, as he represents many of our concerns.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥🔥MUST WATCH. Entire Jeffy E Segment where Joe Rogan plays devil’s advocate with Kash Patel on the Epstein Suicide. He asks him if he ever saw the Baden interview stating it was a likely homicide, asks about the supposed deleted clips, asks about AI & why it took so long for this video to emerge after all these years. Kash Patel maintains that he never believed it was a murder and discusses how secure the unit was & says he would be the first one giving press conferences daily if he believed that was the case. I have to give immense credit to Joe Rogan for asking these questions because he is speaking for most of us here.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states they are investigating Epstein's death and will release as much information as possible, including video of the cell. They believe Epstein killed himself, citing their experience with jail suicides and the difficulty of running an operation in that detention center without detection.
The speaker addresses reports of guards sleeping and cameras being down, but says footage will be released. They mention a forensic scientist, Dr. Michael Baden, who determined the death was a homicide due to a broken bone in Epstein's neck, but acknowledge the New York City medical examiner disputes this, calling it a "war of experts."
The speaker became aware of the video footage recently and addresses reports of mistakenly erased footage, suggesting people ask those in power at the time. They acknowledge AI's ability to create convincing forgeries, but claim the footage is authentic. They state that even if Epstein was murdered, the information that could damage powerful people is already out there. They insist they would pursue the case if there was any evidence of murder.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're not gonna let that go. We're gonna investigate him. Right? They charged him. They indict him, and he's awaiting trial.
And I've said it. Dan Bongino said it. We've reviewed all the information, and the American public is gonna get as much as we can release. He killed himself. Do you think let's play out the logical conclusion of this.
Do you think that myself, Bon Gino, and others would participate in hiding information about Epstein's protest activities, or do you think we would also participate in not prosecuting people we had evidence to prosecute people on? But the problem is there's been, like, fifteen years of people coming in and creating fictions about this that doesn't exist. Where's the videotape of an Epstein island of x, y, and z committing these frauds? Why haven't you given it to us? Do you really think I wouldn't give that to you if it existed?
I'm working my ass off along with the leadership at the bureau and DOJ to get you what we're allowed to give you, And you're gonna get the video of the cell, and you're gonna see for yourself. And we will never be able to convince everyone.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's let's get into that. So what did you think before you got in office? Did you think that Epstein was murdered? No.
No suspicion at all of
Speaker 0: it? But I have a different background. Right? Right. So I was a public defender back in the day.
I used to spend a lot of time in jails and a lot of time in segregated housing units, shoes as we call them. Right? And so and I've known people that have committed suicide in these cells. And I know how you get in, how you get out, who works the system. And so the way based on public information at the time that he ended up put the pictures and him hanging himself.
I was like, man, that guy killed himself. It's there's just no way that you could have run an op and had people go into that cell and not have any video of it and not have any people come out and say, hey. Yeah. I saw that guy. He shouldn't have been there, the guard or this guy.
There's just no access points into places like this in the detention center he was in, which I've been in.
Speaker 1: So correct me if I'm wrong, but what I was told, what I'd read was that the guards were not paying attention or were sleeping.
Speaker 0: Well
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And in short order, you'll see it.
Speaker 1: Is that is that correct?
Speaker 0: Well, it's hard to surmise that from a video. Right?
Speaker 1: Like Right.
Speaker 0: Where they, like, you know and look. Do guards doze off on the night shift? Yeah. But no one can get in to the cell. And if they had gotten in to the cell, you would see it.
Speaker 1: But we were told that the cameras were down.
Speaker 0: Well, I don't know who said that.
Speaker 1: But that was that was in the news.
Speaker 0: We're giving you all the footage we have.
Speaker 1: So why wasn't that released, like, immediately? Why why did this speculation escalate?
Speaker 0: I think you'd have to ask who whoever the attorney general back then was, Bill Barr.
Speaker 1: Did you ever see do you remember that HBO autopsy show? Doctor Michael Batten? He's a famous forensic
Speaker 0: I don't think I saw that.
Speaker 1: Scientist. So he's a pathologist, and he reviewed the case, and it was his determination that it was a homicide because of the way his neck was broken. Mhmm. And what he said was it was indicative of a ligature strangulation, and it was because of the positioning on the neck where the marks were, that it wasn't indicative of someone hanging by their weight, which had been higher on the chin, and there's a specific break of the bones and the vertebrae that's consistent with someone who is just strangled to death. I
Speaker 0: I haven't seen it. I'll definitely take a look at it because that's part of my job. You haven't seen that? The report on that? No.
I haven't looked at that.
Speaker 1: Did you see any what did was there any other autopsy done other than the official one?
Speaker 0: Not to my knowledge, but if there was, you'll get it. And that's what we're doing.
Speaker 1: See if you find that doc doctor Michael Badden thing. Yeah. No. Do you remember that show? The HBO show?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Pretty cool show. Yeah. So this guy, doctor Michael Badden, he had a long career of catching murderers, you know, exhuming bodies, finding trace amounts of poisons, different kinds of things, and it a crazy Like, all these wild ways of Well,
Speaker 0: I love watching shows, I spent a lot of time on plants.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It was an old show. It was a show, like, from the early two thousands, I believe. But this guy was, like, you know, he's very well respected forensic scientist who would analyze these bodies, and Mhmm. It was his determination that he was murdered.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And my job, going back to the core of what I've been doing since I studied Russiagate, was to get and is to get everybody the information.
Speaker 1: When did you get here. Epstein's autopsy points to homicide pathologist hired by brother claims. New York City medical examiner strongly disputed the claim that the evidence from the autopsy suggested strangulation. So let's go to by the way, this is the New York Times and they never lie. The private pathologist, doctor Michael Badden, said the morning TV show Fox and Friends, mister Epstein, experienced a number of injuries, among them a broken bone in his neck that are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur much more commonly in homicidal strangulation.
I think the evidence points to homicide rather than suicide to doctor Batten who observed the autopsy done by city officials. Doctor Batten, a Former New York City Medical Examiner and a Fox News contributor said, I have not seen in fifty years where that occurred in suicidal hanging case. Findings by doctor Badden were strongly disputed by the city's chief medical examiner, doctor Barbara Sampson, who previously ruled that mister Epstein's death on August 10 in the Metropolitan Correctional Center was a suicide. I stand firmly behind our determination of the cause and manner of death in this case. Doctor Sampson said in the interview on Wednesday, she added, in general, fractures of the hyoid bone and cartilage can be seen in suicides and homicides.
The hyoid bone is near the Adam's apple. Doctor Sampson also dismissed doctor Baden's contention that the circumstances around mister Epstein's death suggested other people may have been involved. She said her office had done a complete investigation, taking into consideration information gathered by law enforcement in the making in making the determination.
Speaker 0: So this is a perfect example of going back to my public defender and prosecutor days. Mhmm. This is what we call a war of experts. You can always find someone
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: To come in and say the opposite. Right. And I used to do it all the time. I mean, I represented some of the worst humans that you can possibly imagine on earth, literally. The guys that were trafficking children from Mexico into America.
And you could put up a professional expert to say, and this is what's gonna go on forever. And my job is not the forever. My job is to get you absolutely everything that we can give you, and that's what we're gonna do.
Speaker 1: When did you become aware of this video that showed that no one had gone in and out of the cell?
Speaker 0: Recently.
Speaker 1: So why was it recent, though? I mean, if this death was how long ago was this death? Two years?
Speaker 0: No. 2019. Couple.
Speaker 1: 2019?
Speaker 0: '20 '19.
Speaker 1: Oh, really? Mark, time flies. So six years.
Speaker 0: Well, again, that's part of what I'm gonna try to answer for you.
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, JLCCTV erased by technical errors. Whoopsies. Yeah. But you see how anybody on the outs I mean, this is like a perfect storm
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: For some can you pull that article up so we can read what it says, Jimmy? US prosecutor said the jail mistakenly saved footage from the wrong cell. Sorry. Epstein, a convicted sex offender, first tried to kill himself in July, and hang himself in jail.
Speaker 0: Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Yep. Reread that line.
Speaker 1: That he first tried to kill himself in July of last
Speaker 0: year. Yeah. How much of the American public do you think knows that?
Speaker 1: I didn't know that. I do it right now. There
Speaker 0: you go.
Speaker 1: Maybe I heard it and forgot. Did you ever hear it, Jamie? Oh, he was on that's why he's on suicide watch, I think. Oh, okay.
Speaker 0: A guy
Speaker 1: Died himself in jail in August while serving trial on federal sex trafficking charge. He pleaded not guilty to abusing dozens of Earl, some as young as 14. Yeah. Soon after Epstein's death in August, '2 of the c c c CCTV cameras outside his cell malfunctioned and were being examined by the FBI. Found semi conscious in his prison cell with injuries on his neck on July 25 after this incident, he's placed on suicide watch.
Speaker 0: I'm not saying every single camera in the place was working. I'm saying we've got footage and you're getting it. Mhmm. And it then you can make up your own mind. And the theories can continue.
But my job
Speaker 1: So you you became aware of this footage recently?
Speaker 0: The ones that we're looking at. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. And so but this is, like, an article from quite a while ago that was saying that the footage was mistakenly erased.
Speaker 0: Look. I mean, it goes back to the same ask the people that were in power then. I mean, I get it that you wanna hold me to account for their actions and
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: I'm not saying you.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that.
Speaker 0: Not you. The just the the public in general, and that's okay.
Speaker 1: What's confusing to everybody today, first of all, it's very confusing because AI can kinda make anything. You know, it's which has gotta be a bizarre position for you to be in Yeah. When you're looking at videos. I mean, I've watched Viking videos. It looked real as fuck, you know?
They just make Viking towns. I mean, it's really quite incredible what they're doing now, and it it accelerates every month. I mean, I talked to Elon about it, he said we're blown away literally every week. Every week, there's some new breakthrough. We're like, wow.
We didn't expect that.
Speaker 0: Well, I can tell you after having looked at it, this ain't gonna be AI. You don't think so? You're gonna it's it's just not great. You know? It's like if it were AI, like someone wanted to come in and make it, they'd make it better.
Speaker 1: But why would you make it better when people could, you know, you could have ambiguous footage that is, you know, totally generated by AI? I mean, AI can generate blurry images. AI can generate night vision. AI can generate essentially anything that's already existed. Like really shitty 1984 VHS tapes, they can do that.
Speaker 0: They can. But I'm telling you, I'm giving you the tape from the tape. Mhmm. You know, there's just documents from the vault, just like I'm giving you information to congress on COVID origins or what have you, what we find is what you're getting.
Speaker 1: Okay. So now let's say in 02/2019, missing jail video from the first Jeffrey Epstein suicide for the first attempt has been found. So maybe let's put it into perspective. Jails are not the most efficient, best run places. It's not like Fort Knox?
Yeah.
Speaker 0: No. It's
Speaker 1: not. It's.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You know, we're working with what we got. Right. So and listen. This guy's not the only guy to kill himself in prison.
It happens, I don't know how often.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: All the time.
Speaker 1: Even if he killed himself in prison. So if he if he was murdered in prison, crazy. Right? Yeah. You could see why very powerful people wouldn't
Speaker 0: wanna murdered in segregated housing, in isolation after being on suicide watch in a place in a detention center that I've physically been in myself, it would be fiction. It's just in in my experience, that is not doable.
Speaker 1: It's not doable even for the most powerful and wealthiest people in the world?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you think though that, like, if if someone was in a position where a guy could release information that could potentially damage the most wealthy people on Earth, you would have a concerted effort that's unprecedented. Sure. You'd have the resources that we could even possibly comprehend all pointing towards eliminating this one person that it could be done.
Speaker 0: But I I mean, so many people have been implicated, right, already, and some of that inform what do they did to prince Andrew and everybody else is already out there. And so that's the conspiracy stuff that me and Bongino and the folks have to say, look, we will give you everything we can, and then we will have done our job. Also, if I had a shred me, Kash Patel, had a shred of evidence, the Russia Gate guy, the Jan six guy, the COVID origins guy, had a shred of evidence that this guy was murdered, I would be the first guy to bring this case hard and fast. And I would do even doing press conferences every week on it. Mhmm.
The first guy. That's what I'm asking people to play out to their logical conclusion. I'm not Comey. I'm not McCabe. I'm not the guy that was in the seat before.
I have a wildly different background. I've been putting out the truth my entire career. Why would I risk all of it on this guy?
Speaker 1: I believe can pass the letter?
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall Obama encouraging everyone to buy stocks just two weeks before the announcement of Quantitative Easing. He called stocks a "good deal" on March 3, 2009, and the market hit its bottom six days later. The Fed extended QE1 shortly after, raising questions about insider knowledge. It’s frustrating to hear critiques from figures like Warren when the connections between Wall Street and the political elite are so evident. I wonder how they managed their portfolios during that pivotal time in March 2009.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥OBAMA TELLING EVERYONE TO BUY STOCKS 2 WEEKS BEFORE QE WAS ANNOUNCED. I don’t ever wanna hear again about Trump saying to Buy before a temp pause in tariffs. Obama said stocks were a "good deal" on Mar 3, 2009. Market bottomed 6 days later on Mar 9 at S&P 676 & by “luck” The Fed announced QE1 would be extended on March 18th..9 days later. How many of the insiders knew that Quantitative Easing extension was coming a FULL 2 WEEKS before it was announced?? We all know the answer to that given the insidious/incestous nature of the uniparty & Wall Street. I don’t wanna hear it from Warren or the rest of the hypocrite left. What did you do with your portfolio in March of 2009 Pocahontas?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker is focused on the long-term ability of the U.S. and world economy to recover, not daily stock market fluctuations. The stock market is compared to a tracking poll, with daily changes obscuring the long-term strategy. The banking system suffered due to lax regulation, overleverage, and systemic risks taken by both regulated and unregulated institutions. Losses are working their way through the system, and people are absorbing the depth of the banking problem and its international impact. Profit and earning ratios are reaching levels where buying stocks could be a good long-term investment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I'm looking at is not the day to day gyrations of the stock market, but the long term ability for The United States and the entire world economy to regain its footing. You know, the stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. You know, it bobs up and down day to day. And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably gonna get the long term strategy wrong. Now, having said that, the banking system has been dealt a heavy blow, lax regulation, massive overleverage, systemic risks taken by unregulated institutions as well as regulated institutions.
And so there are a lot of losses that are working their way through the system. People absorb the depths of the problem that existed in the banking system as well as the international ramifications. You know, there there's gonna be a natural reaction. On the other hand, what you're now seeing is profit and and earning ratios are are starting to, get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long term perspective on it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I was surprised to learn that Senator Tom Cotton seems to be involved in blocking the release of certain JFK Files. Cuomo raised a good point about Kash Patel's role in this, but I still have faith in him. I think there are many complicated forces at play here.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
WOW Tucker named him. So It’s Senator Tom Cotton that appears to have been actively doing his part to prevent release of certain aspects of the JFK Files. Cuomo asked: “Where is your boy Kash Patel? He went in there to bust all this up?” “Only one of us can call up Trump and ask him & it’s not me” Personally these are good questions yet I’ll maintain my faith in Kash Patel. I believe there are a lot of nefarious forces they are trying to navigate.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Where is Cash Patel? Why didn't he obtain the files himself? I believe serious pressure is being applied to people. Who is exerting that pressure?
I learned that a member of the Senate Intel Committee, Tom Cotton, said you can't appoint a certain person. I haven't asked him about it yet.
Someone is applying massive pressure to elected officials. I want to know who that is. I have discussed this with Mike Pompeo previously. I am concerned that failing to disclose details, like those surrounding a president's murder, will make people think our system is fake. Sixty-two years later, Pompeo was working to prevent Americans from knowing who murdered their president. It's not the CIA. There's no one person calling the shots.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is that source?
Speaker 1: I don't know. And where's your boy Cash Patel? I mean, he went in there to supposedly bust all this up.
Speaker 0: I I can't answer that.
Speaker 1: He put out this weird tweet, you know, that was very general. Like, you know, things are gonna change, and we're gonna do this and after we learn that someone under his control now, right, because he's the head of the FBI, in that office that's under him, why wasn't he there? Why didn't he go there and say, give me the files. Give them to me.
Speaker 0: Weren't you just saying the deep state's not real?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't believe in the deep state as a booby man. Going on? Well, look. They're his guys.
I'm just saying, why didn't he go there and say, give me the files?
Speaker 0: So let's let's just use logic. I I can't answer that question. I think it's a great question. But I'm let's just use logic for one second. Clearly, if you watch this, in my case, for the same as you, thirty five years watching this stuff carefully and somebody, you know, gets in off some and do this, that, the other thing, and then, like, five days later, they're like, well, actually, someone has called that person to say there's something you didn't know.
Here are the consequences of doing that. Someone has applied very serious pressure on this person. Pressure's so serious that that person is willing to humiliate himself.
Speaker 1: So wait a minute. Here's the part I
Speaker 0: don't So who's that person exerting pressure?
Speaker 1: But you are uniquely qualified to get this answer because one of us can call the president of The United States right now and ask him, and the other one is me. So why don't you know?
Speaker 0: That's a great question.
Speaker 1: And It's the only kind I ask.
Speaker 0: So what I what I brought to it was the knowledge that a member of the senate intel committee, I'm not guessing, called over and said, you cannot appoint this person.
Speaker 1: So why don't you expose that person, first of all, so we can start chasing
Speaker 0: after you're of Arkansas did that.
Speaker 1: Tom Cotton?
Speaker 0: Yes. Correct.
Speaker 1: And did you ask him?
Speaker 0: I haven't. No. I haven't asked him. What the
Speaker 1: hell is wrong with you?
Speaker 0: I'd like to, and
Speaker 1: kinda makes people suspicious of you, by the way.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Go you know that if you know that Tom Cotton said you can't pick this person That is correct. And then you didn't go to him and find out why?
Speaker 0: Well, I need to sit down with him. I I'm not sure that he'll do an interview with me.
Speaker 1: With you?
Speaker 0: I'm with you.
Speaker 1: You are you are like the spirit animal of that administration.
Speaker 0: No. No. But it's it's a fair look. It's a fair question. That's a totally fair question, and and the answer is I hadn't thought to do that.
And there's a lot going on, and I've been distracted, and I've kind of been
Speaker 1: Now I think you're part of the deep state. And just like that
Speaker 0: think that. I I probably wouldn't be saying any of
Speaker 1: this if
Speaker 0: was part of the deep state.
Speaker 1: Unless that's what they would do is make me think that it exists, but you're not sure because it's actually you.
Speaker 0: The the number of people have texted me, but, like, oh, you're working for the CIA. It's like, no. Actually, nobody believes more strongly in radical reform at CIA than I do with, I would say, some knowledge of the subject. Look.
Speaker 1: I mean, people can think I work for the deep state.
Speaker 0: I I I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think there is a deep state.
Speaker 0: Here's all I'm saying. Someone is applying massive pressure to elected officials and has for a very long time, and I would like to know who that is.
Speaker 1: Ask Mike Pompeo why he told
Speaker 0: Oh, I have. Oh, I have. When I got into it with Mike Pompeo no. I mean, I I've talked about this before. I don't wanna be boring.
That's all was saying. Here's my point. Please. I am really concerned, not just because, you know, I am curious and I wanna get to bottom of mysteries, which is true, but I'm really concerned that the failure to disclose big things like details about the murder of a president Mhmm. In a democratic democratic country or public, that that will convince people that our system itself is fake, and it's kind of hard to argue that it's real.
Speaker 1: I totally agree. Even know who killed the president. Transparency is trust.
Speaker 0: Sixty two years later, Mike Pompey was working to keep American citizens from knowing who murdered their president. Who are you working for,
Speaker 1: Mike Pompey? Had an election.
Speaker 0: What is that? And by the way, I just wanna say one time. You cannot convince me. I'm not some world expert on the CAA, but I've certainly watched it closely over the years. It's not the CA, the CIA.
CA is like a huge federal agency with all kinds of different components and warring tribes within and, like, there's no CI Bill Burns, is not, like, calling you
Speaker 1: know, Trump and being like, don't release the files. I agree. Just credit CIA. Look. The president knows.
We just had an election where he was hammering on these things.
Speaker 0: And
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m devastated to share that Jamie White, a dedicated Infowars reporter, was tragically murdered outside his home in Austin. Alex Jones is blaming DA Jose Garza for his leniency towards violent criminals. Jamie was a beloved figure in our community. Rest in peace, Jamie.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
This is Horrific. A long standing Infowars reporter, Jamie White, was brutally murdered yesterday outside of his home in Austin, Texas. Alex Jones places a large amount of the blame on DA Jose Garza who is a Soros backed DA and is notorious for his lax treatment of violent criminals. Jamie was a star in Infowars community. His last X post was a repost of Elon Musk asking “Why are the liberals so violent” Godspeed Jamie.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Police found a victim with obvious trauma in an apartment complex parking lot. EMS transported him to the hospital, but he died. Homicide detectives are collecting evidence from a second-floor apartment. The police are asking for the public's help in identifying a suspect.
I'm here to share some horrible news. Jamie White, a great reporter and researcher for Infowars, was murdered last night outside his home. He was working late, even posting on X. We discovered the crime when he didn't arrive at work, finding the scene taped off. Police responded quickly, but he died at the hospital.
Jamie was our best writer, dedicated to fighting tyranny. His last post was about leftist violence, reposting Elon Musk's comment. Austin is facing massive violent crime increases and its district attorney is soft on crime. This is the reality the left is creating and is responsible for.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Gation, good morning
Speaker 1: police really releasing few details about what happened overnight, but this is what we do know right now. Police say they actually found the victim here in the parking lot of this apartment complex. EMS ended up taking that man to the hospital where he later died. Right now, police will not say exactly if he was shot or stabbed, only saying that he had obvious trauma. Homicide detective still on scene, as I mentioned this morning, collecting evidence.
We've seen also a lot of, activity in a Second Floor apartment where they've been taking evidence bags out. Right now, police say they do not have any information about a suspect, and they're asking if you know something about that about that to contact them. You can also remain anonymous using Crime Stoppers.
Speaker 0: The afternoon of Monday, 03/10/2025, and I come to the Infowars family of viewers and listeners into the world with some really horrible news. There are a lot of really cool people that have worked at Infowars over the years, and one of the most amazing people was Jamie White. You know him as a great reporter and researcher. He was up here last night working late during the Sunday show and after it. We even have his last post on acts where he responded to Elon Musk.
Jamie was murdered last night outside of his home just a few miles away from our studios. And we are the folks here breaking that news first because his family has been notified and his good personal friends here that were very close to Jamie have talked to his folks and family. We sent some people over this morning when he didn't answer the phone because he's always here early, loves to work, loves to fight tyranny, loves to promote freedom. And when they got to the apartment complex, there was yellow tape everywhere and blood all over the parking lot. And we went and talked to the manager, and they didn't know anything.
Just like everybody else we see in the left, they just very laissez faire. But our crew members saw a police officer and went and talked to them, and they made a phone call. And she had the details when she talked to him and knew Jamie. The police officer said, yes. He he he died at the hospital very soon after they got him there.
The police responded within two minutes and they had him at the hospital where he was pronounced dead within eighteen minutes. Just wanna say the police did a great job in the response time despite I'm gonna talk about in a moment who I hold responsible for this and who is responsible for this and who are accomplices to Jamie and so many others murder so many others that have been raped and mugged. Heard me on air talk about how the crime is very, very bad here in Austin and he left the city as and just exploded the last four years. But let me just tell you what happened to Jamie. What we know so far, his last post on x was sixteen hours ago.
Elon Musk was talking about leftists saying that if they see cyber trucks, they're gonna attack them and physically attack them and put a rock through their windshield that's now actually happening and they're burning down the Tesla dealerships and shooting them up and they're celebrating on corporate news. Elon responded and said, yeah. Why are liberals so violent? Legacy media propaganda is a major part of the problem. I'm not saying a leftist killed Jamie, but the point is there's a lot of push for violence, White reposted Elon Musk comment in the story, and that's the last thing we know that he ever probably did in his journalistic career.
There's Jamie's ex account. I've sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Original gangster Thomas Jefferson. And, I mean, I'll just say it. Jamie was our best writer and reporter.
They're all great, but they all said he was the best. I mean, there's others that are almost as good, but not as good as Jamie. And he he wrote six, seven articles yesterday, posted all this news, did all this great research, gave us information for the show, assisted us in what we were doing, and we came to this war and the crew looked really upset and they said Jamie didn't come in. And so we sent one of the crew down there and didn't look good. And then they didn't wanna tell me yet that the cops had said, no, it was Jamie White, that we were the first to learn.
We waited until the afternoon till the family's been told. You saw a little clip from a newscast about this in the early morning hours, and it's just become so routine. And then when somebody like Daniel Penny defends a group of people on train, these leftist DAs throw him in prison. We'll get to that in a moment. We have one even worse than Alvin Bragg here in Austin, you can believe that.
Recognized as probably the worst in the country, an actual communist. They love the chaos. It's their Cloward and Piven. We'll get to that in a moment. Because Jamie would want us to talk about this.
And I would I'm gonna talk to the family again a little bit later and see if we can help out, hopefully, with any of the expenses and maybe do a Gibson go or something. Austin Police Department officers responded to a high priority emergency call at approximately 11:57PM, Sunday night. The call was shoot, stab, hotshot, which refers to a high priority potential life threatening call involving possibility of an active shooter stabbings. Officers arrived about two minutes later and found a male victim, obvious signs of trauma, according to APD public information officer Leah Ratliff. Officers attempted life saving measures before the victim was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead at approximately 12:19AM Monday morning.
Homicide detectives are actively investigating the incident which marks Austin's Eighth homicide of the year. Authorities have not released information about potential suspects for specific nature of the victim's injuries. This is pretty early on the investigation and the homicide unit will be releasing more information as they're able, Ratliff said during a media briefing. Well, we've talked to police off record. We know more.
I'm gonna reveal that right now. Multiple police officers we've talked to, detectives said off record that, you know, we we're really sick of this. We're tired of this. And they said, you know, we are too. We have had in the last few years our funding for crime scene, people and responders cut back massively.
They made the biggest cuts in areas that deal with violent crime as we we know from the news, but this was them telling us. And that they will bust really hardened people with huge rap sheets committing serious crimes, robberies, armed robberies, and that the Austin DA who, despite all the pressure and everything, is is is very proud of himself. Soros put him in on record, financed his run, does nothing. In fact, they just intensify it to the point the governors had to put the state police in to Austin just to try to deal with it. And then the state police really don't know anything but writing tickets, so they just write tickets.
And I've been really, you know, talking about that being very, very sad thing. But, everybody's homes and cars are being broken into. I was talking to Rob Dew who got home Saturday night at about 11:30. I said, I said, you're lucky you live out in the country in Nigeria. Said, actually, we pulled up.
There was a truck parked in the street with its lights on. He said to his wife, Trish, you know, they're probably gonna break in the cars and they they did break in the cars that night. They learned from the neighbors. They parked their car in the garage. So, this is the this is what's going on in this country.
And almost everyone I know has had family that have died or been brain damaged from fentanyl. I mean, this is all the open border. This is all releasing the hardened criminals. And, you know, to read at the news and have it happen to your friends and things is is is is really just the tip of the iceberg when you start experiencing the left persecuting people that actually protect their fellow humans. And and when you see the Soros DA's in control of over 800 jurisdictions protecting serious narcotics gangs and human trafficking gangs, and when you see different feds in in ICE calling and warning some of those violent gangs in the world that there's ICE raids coming.
Pam Bondi and others reporting that they are preparing to indict some of these people, but there's so many communist traitors in the government that they're having to polygraphs now.
reSee.it AI Summary
I miss Justice Scalia's fierce dedication to the Constitution, especially on days like today’s ruling. Watching Biden question the nominee reminds me of the brilliance that was often absent in that room. I couldn't help but notice the nominee's Scalia-like moment during the hearing!
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Find someone who looks at you like Justice Scalia looked at the Constitution. It is days like today’s ruling that make me miss that judicial titan. Watching this Senate confirmation hearing with Biden questioning him makes me realize that the collective intelligence in that room was most since Antonio Scalia dined alone. I just realized today he pulled a JD Vance at the camera during the hearing LOL..or I should say..he pulled a Scalia. H/T @DavetheLawyerX
Video Transcript AI Summary
The distinctiveness of American government lies in its structure, particularly the bicameral legislature and separately elected chief executive, unlike many European parliamentary systems. The framers intentionally designed a system of power contradicting power to protect minorities, even if it leads to gridlock.
The 14th Amendment applies to governmental, not private discrimination.
Flag burning is a form of protected free speech, expressing dissent against the government.
Constitutional interpretation should adhere to the original understanding of the words when written, but we've strayed from this principle, embracing a "living constitution" that allows courts to assign new meanings.
Roe v. Wade's theory of substantive due process is flawed. The Constitution doesn't address abortion, leaving it to democratic choice.
Regarding Bush v. Gore, the Court acted correctly, addressing a constitutional violation brought forth by Al Gore.
Corporations haven't ruined politics. The premise of democracy is that people are intelligent and can discern the true from the false. The more speech, the better.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our government. One part of it, of course, is the independence of the judiciary. But there's there's there's a lot more. There are very few countries in the world, for example, that that have a bicameral legislature. Oh, England has a house of lords for the time being, but the house of lords has no substantial power.
They can just make the commons pass a bill a second time. France has a senate. It's honorific. Italy has a senate. It's honorific.
Very few countries have two separate bodies in the legislature equally powerful. That's a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know, to get the same language through two different bodies elected in a different fashion. Very few countries in the world have a a separately elected, chief executive. Sometimes I go to Europe to talk about separation of powers. And when I get there, I find that all I'm talking about is independence of the judiciary, because the Europeans don't even try to divide the two political powers, the two political branches, the legislature and the chief executive.
In all of the parliamentary countries, the chief executive is the creature of the legislature. There's never any disagreement between them and the and and the the prime minister as there is sometimes between you and the president. When when there's a disagreement, they just kick him out. They have a no confidence vote, a new election, and they get a prime minister who agrees with the legislature. And, you know, the the Europeans look at the system and they say, well, it passes one house, it doesn't pass the other house.
Sometimes the other house is in the control of a different party. It passes both, and then this president who has a veto power vetoes it, and they look at this and they say, it is it is gridlock. And and I I hear Americans saying this nowadays, and there's a lot of it going around. They they talk about a dysfunctional government be be because there's disagreement, and and and they and the framers would have said, yes. That's exactly the way we set it up.
We we wanted this to be power, contradicting power because the main, the main ill that beset us, as as Hamilton said in in in the Federalist when he talked about a separate senate, he said, yes, it seems inconvenient. But in as much as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won't be so bad. This is 1780 he didn't know what an excess of legislation was. So unless Americans can appreciate that and learn learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love the gridlock, which the framers believed would be the main protection of minorities, the main protection. If if a bill is about to pass that really comes down hard on some minority, they think it's terribly unfair, it doesn't take much to throw a monkey wrench into into this into this complex system.
So Americans should should appreciate that, and and they should learn to love the gridlock.
Speaker 1: Is a woman included within that definition?
Speaker 2: Yeah. A woman's a person. I think that's well established.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The the the issue is not whether a woman's a person. The issue is You're Going. The issue is what constitutes equal protection.
Speaker 1: Yes. Alright. Are women included?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Of of course, they're included. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you
Speaker 0: But does equal protection mean that that you have to have unisex toilets? I mean,
Speaker 1: that No. No. No. That's the that's
Speaker 0: the question you you have to get into.
Speaker 1: This is your quote, mister justice. In, California, Certainly, the constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that's what it meant.
Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey. We have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. So why doesn't the fourteenth amendment then cover women?
Speaker 0: The the fourteenth amendment, senator, does does not apply to private discrimination. It apply I was speaking of title seven and and laws that prohibit private discrimination. The fourteenth amendment says nothing about private discrimination, only discrimination by government.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Oh, I see. I see what you meant. Yeah. I Okay.
Speaker 3: Why you believe that people who burn the flag in America should be allowed to do so? And yet you personally, if you had the chance, would sing them all in jail.
Speaker 0: Yeah. If I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a first amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress. Burning the flag is a form of expression.
Speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words. It could be semaphore. Burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea. I hate the government. The government is unjust.
Whatever.
Speaker 2: We seek a return to the oldest and most commonsensical interpretive principle. In their full context, words mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written, close quote. Mister justice, in this two hundred and thirty sixth year of our republic, why should it be necessary to devote more than 400 pages to a commonsensical principle?
Speaker 0: That's a very good question. Well, the reason, as explained in in the first part of the book is that we've sort of gone off the rails. That nowadays, especially with regard to the constitution, the accepted view and the view stated by my court, repeatedly is that, the words don't necessarily mean what they were understood to mean at the time, but can be given new meaning. It's up to the court to say what they what they mean today. They mean today what they ought to mean today, and it's up to the court to to decide that.
That's new. And and but, you know, it it it all comes under the the title, the living constitution. The living
Speaker 2: constitution. We'll get to that praise.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But again and again I hate it. You you make that clear. I get Turn
Speaker 3: to Roe v. Wade because you, justice Scalia, you had very strong opinions about this at the time. I know you do now. Why were you so violently opposed to it?
Speaker 0: I I wouldn't say violently. I'm a peaceful man. May adamantly oppose. Adamantly. Basically, because the theory that was expounded to impose that decision was a theory that does not make any sense, and that is namely the theory of substantive due process.
There's a due process clause in the constitution, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. That is obviously a guarantee, not of not of life, not of liberty, not of property, you can be deprived of all of them, but not without due process. My court, in recent years, has invented what is called substantive due process by simply saying, some liberties are so important that no process would suffice to take them away. And that was the theory used in Roe versus Wade, and it it's a theory that is simply a lie. There is the world is divided into substance and procedure.
Speaker 3: So should should abortion be illegal in your eyes?
Speaker 0: Should it be illegal? Yeah. I I I don't I don't have public views on what should be illegal and what shouldn't. I have public views on what the constitution prohibits and what it doesn't prohibit.
Speaker 1: But I
Speaker 3: mean, the constitution, when they framed it, they didn't even allow women to to have the right to vote. I they gave women no rights. Oh, come on. No rights? Did they?
Of course.
Speaker 0: They were entitled to due process of law. All kinds of couldn't send them to prison without the same kind of a trial that a man would do.
Speaker 3: But but but, again, it comes back to changing times. The founding fathers were never gonna have any reason at that time to consider a woman's right to keep a baby or to have an abortion. It wouldn't have even entered their minds, would it?
Speaker 0: I I don't know why. Why wouldn't it?
Speaker 3: Because at the time, it was
Speaker 0: They they they didn't have wives and daughters that they cared about?
Speaker 3: They did, but it was not an issue that they would ever consider framing in a constitution.
Speaker 0: I I don't
Speaker 3: When women began to take charge in the last century of their lives and their rights and so on and began to fight for these, everybody believed that was the right thing to do, didn't they? I mean, why would you be instinctively against that?
Speaker 0: My view is regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad, regardless of how you come out on that. My only point is the constitution does not say anything about it. It leaves it up to democratic choice. Some states prohibited it, some states didn't. What Roe versus way Wade said was that, no state can prohibit it.
That is simply not in the constitution. It was one of those many things, most things in the world left a democratic choice.
Speaker 1: Of all the cases that have come before him on the court, Bush v Gore may have been the most controversial. It has been reported that he played a pivotal role in urging the other justices to end the Florida recount, thereby handing the two thousand election to George Bush.
Speaker 0: I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So so there.
Speaker 1: People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy, but on politics.
Speaker 0: I say nonsense.
Speaker 1: Was it political?
Speaker 0: Gee. I really don't wanna get in. I mean, this is get over it. It's so old by now. The principal, issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida supreme court had put together violated the federal constitution,
Speaker 1: that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two. Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.
Speaker 0: It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn't go looking for trouble. It was he who who who said, I want this to be decided by the courts. What are we supposed to say?
Not important enough.
Speaker 4: Artificial person canon. Right. Now I wrote down beside that even though you didn't Citizens United. That's another one that's created a storm. Well
Speaker 0: well, person isn't used in the First Amendment. I mean, congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or But what what is
Speaker 4: your maybe you don't even wanna touch this, but what is your as a person, do you worry at all? I know you don't well, as a person, do worry at all that there's too much money in politics?
Speaker 0: No. You know, I really don't. I I forget what the figures are, but I think we spend less on our presidential campaigns each year when there's a presidential election than than the country spends on cosmetics. I mean Well, considering considering
Speaker 4: this about, you know, people are worried that the corporations now can buy
Speaker 0: I think this is a real con if if you believe that, you you we ought to go back to monarchy, that the people are such sheep that they just swallow whatever whatever they see on television or read in the newspapers. No. The premise of democracy is that people are intelligent and can discern the true the true from the false, at least when when, as the the campaign laws require, you know who is speaking. You can't speak anonymously. You you have to you have to say, you know, identify the people that
Speaker 4: are But we don't know the in in right now.
Speaker 0: You know the organization that's speaking.
Speaker 4: Not necessarily. I mean, you know they don't have to, and, you know, I don't need to go into the details, but in some of this, the way this money is being raised, we will never know.
Speaker 0: You may not know who contributes to the organization. You can't hold organization that's speaking.
Speaker 4: So that's all you need to know? You don't need to know if they're hiding behind their Well,
Speaker 0: the press can find out, you know, who's hiding behind what. That's not hard, you can tell from anyway, look at it, the premise is freedom of speech. The more speech, the better.
Video Transcript AI Summary
There has been scholarly criticism of the right to privacy, which may be reflected in a brief before the Supreme Court.
Whether the right to privacy exists, and I believe it does, is a key question. I don't recall stating that the right to privacy is one of the deepest beliefs in our society. To meet your test, it has to be one of the most profoundly held views in society.
It's hard to answer without knowing what you mean by the right to privacy. Do Americans believe they have a right to privacy, whether found in the Constitution, natural law, or elsewhere?
No, I'll give you that.
Do you believe the people retain the right to privacy? No doubt in my mind. It seems to me it is a constitutionally protected right of privacy in some form or another.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Right. No, senator. There there I beg to differ. There there there has been a scholarly criticism of of the whole notion of right to privacy.
Speaker 1: Oh, I agree.
Speaker 0: And it's not at all inconceivable that that criticism will be reflected in a brief before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Well, very well may be, but it doesn't In other words, if the right to privacy exists, if you believe the right to privacy exists, And I believe you have stated in what was that in the CNN v case? I think you will. Me one moment. Pardon me? I I believe, and I can't I can't pin down where you said it.
It was in an article.
Speaker 0: I don't think you'll find it.
Speaker 1: In the Panhandle article, did you say that one that that that that the right to privacy is one of the deepest and most profoundly held beliefs in our society?
Speaker 0: I I don't I don't recall having said that, Senator.
Speaker 1: I see. Let me let me I'm sorry. I misspoke. What was being referred to was your your answer to me earlier saying that in order to meet your test, it has to be one of the deepest and most profoundly held views in society. And you always do you you you have any doubt the right to privacy is one of those deeply and profoundly held view of American society?
Forget the constitution. Let's just talk politics, you and me.
Speaker 0: It's very hard to answer. You you you began this line of questioning by answering me, never mind what the right of privacy consists of. I can't answer that question without knowing what you mean by the right of privacy.
Speaker 1: Sure. You can acknowledge whether or not you believe there is in fact let let's let's start over again. Clean the slate. Do you believe that Americans as a whole believe that there is a right to privacy that they have inherent, that they think they have a right to privacy. Do you think that's a deeply and profoundly held belief by American society?
Whether it's it's found in the constitution or found in natural law found in their bible, or found in the Talmud, that's a society. Mean, do you have any doubt that Americans believe No.
Speaker 0: No. I I I I'll I'll give you that, Shannon.
Speaker 1: I think Good man. I'd tell you, we're getting there. Alright. Now, having said that, do you believe that there is any is there any doubt in your mind that the Ninth Amendment, in conjunction with other amendments as it relates to particular assertions of particular rights of privacy, if I can find the Ninth Amendment here so I don't misquote it. Do you have the Ninth Amendment sitting there?
Fig it out for me, will you? The Roman numerals confuse me, judge. I see,
Speaker 0: if yours is the same as mine, I have one here too.
Speaker 1: Alright. I almost read the eleventh. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Is there any doubt in your mind that the people at the time and now believe they have retained the right to privacy, whatever that means?
Speaker 0: No, I think there's no doubt in my mind of
Speaker 1: that. Okay. Secondly, if in fact that Well, I don't have to go any further, actually. In fact, it seems to me, in some form or another, is a constitutional protected right of privacy. What that means remains to be seen.
Whether it means the right to engage in homosexual activity in one's bedroom, or anything else remains, I'm not gonna ask you to comment that. But let me let me you know, I guess my time I don't mind. I know my time is up, but let me pursue this one step further if I may. When I look
Speaker 0: at
reSee.it AI Summary
John McCloy expressed nostalgia for Justice Scalia, reflecting on a recent ruling and the current Senate confirmation hearing, noting the lack of collective intelligence compared to Scalia's era. He humorously compared a moment during the hearing to Scalia's demeanor, suggesting it resembled JD Vance's behavior. Another participant shared a link, likely related to the conversation.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Find someone who looks at you like Justice Scalia looked at the Constitution. It is days like today’s ruling that make me miss that judicial titan. Watching this Senate confirmation hearing with Biden questioning him makes me realize that the collective intelligence in that room was most since Antonio Scalia dined alone. I just realized today he pulled a JD Vance at the camera during the hearing LOL..or I should say..he pulled a Scalia. H/T @DavetheLawyerX
Video Transcript AI Summary
The distinctiveness of American government lies in its structure, particularly its bicameral legislature and separately elected chief executive. Unlike parliamentary systems where the executive is a creature of the legislature, our system is designed for power to contradict power. This separation of powers, though leading to gridlock, was intended by the framers as a protection for minorities, making it difficult for any bill that unfairly targets a minority to pass.
The Fourteenth Amendment applies to governmental, not private, discrimination. Free speech includes symbolic expression, like flag burning, even if offensive.
Originalism is vital; the Constitution should be interpreted as understood at its writing. "Substantive due process," the basis of Roe v. Wade, is a flawed theory. The Constitution doesn't address abortion, leaving it to democratic choice. Bush v. Gore was justified, based on constitutional principles, not politics; Al Gore initiated the judicial involvement. Concerns about money in politics are overstated; more speech is better.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our government. One part of it, of course, is the independence of the judiciary. But there's there's there's a lot more. There are very few countries in the world, for example, that that have a bicameral legislature. Oh, England has a house of lords for the time being, but the house of lords has no substantial power.
They can just make the commons pass a bill a second time. France has a senate. It's honorific. Italy has a senate. It's honorific.
Very few countries have two separate bodies in the legislature equally powerful. That's a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know, to get the same language through two different bodies elected in a different fashion. Very few countries in the world have a a separately elected, chief executive. Sometimes I go to Europe to talk about separation of powers. And when I get there, I find that all I'm talking about is independence of the judiciary, because the Europeans don't even try to divide the two political powers, the two political branches, the legislature and the chief executive.
In all of the parliamentary countries, the chief executive is the creature of the legislature. There's never any disagreement between them and the and and the the prime minister as there is sometimes between you and the president. When when there's a disagreement, they just kick him out. They have a no confidence vote, a new election, and they get a prime minister who agrees with the legislature. And, you know, the the Europeans look at the system and they say, well, it passes one house, it doesn't pass the other house.
Sometimes the other house is in the control of a different party. It passes both, and then this president who has a veto power vetoes it, and they look at this and they say, it is it is gridlock. And and I I hear Americans saying this nowadays, and there's a lot of it going around. They they talk about a dysfunctional government be be because there's disagreement, and and and they and the framers would have said, yes. That's exactly the way we set it up.
We we wanted this to be power, contradicting power because the main, the main ill that beset us, as as Hamilton said in in in the Federalist when he talked about a separate senate, he said, yes, it seems inconvenient. But in as much as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won't be so bad. This is 1780 he didn't know what an excess of legislation was. So unless Americans can appreciate that and learn learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love the gridlock, which the framers believed would be the main protection of minorities, the main protection. If if a bill is about to pass that really comes down hard on some minority, they think it's terribly unfair, it doesn't take much to throw a monkey wrench into into this into this complex system.
So Americans should should appreciate that, and and they should learn to love the gridlock.
Speaker 1: Is a woman included within that definition?
Speaker 2: Yeah. A woman's a person. I think that's well established.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The the the issue is not whether a woman's a person. The issue is You're Going. The issue is what constitutes equal protection.
Speaker 1: Yes. Alright. Are women included?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Of of course, they're included. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you
Speaker 0: But does equal protection mean that that you have to have unisex toilets? I mean,
Speaker 1: that No. No. No. That's the that's
Speaker 0: the question you you have to get into.
Speaker 1: This is your quote, mister justice. In, California, Certainly, the constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that's what it meant.
Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey. We have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. So why doesn't the fourteenth amendment then cover women?
Speaker 0: The the fourteenth amendment, senator, does does not apply to private discrimination. It apply I was speaking of title seven and and laws that prohibit private discrimination. The fourteenth amendment says nothing about private discrimination, only discrimination by government.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Oh, I see. I see what you meant. Yeah. I Okay.
Speaker 3: Why you believe that people who burn the flag in America should be allowed to do so? And yet you personally, if you had the chance, would sing them all in jail.
Speaker 0: Yeah. If I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a first amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress. Burning the flag is a form of expression.
Speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words. It could be semaphore. Burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea. I hate the government. The government is unjust.
Whatever.
Speaker 2: We seek a return to the oldest and most commonsensical interpretive principle. In their full context, words mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written, close quote. Mister justice, in this two hundred and thirty sixth year of our republic, why should it be necessary to devote more than 400 pages to a commonsensical principle?
Speaker 0: That's a very good question. Well, the reason, as explained in in the first part of the book is that we've sort of gone off the rails. That nowadays, especially with regard to the constitution, the accepted view and the view stated by my court, repeatedly is that, the words don't necessarily mean what they were understood to mean at the time, but can be given new meaning. It's up to the court to say what they what they mean today. They mean today what they ought to mean today, and it's up to the court to to decide that.
That's new. And and but, you know, it it it all comes under the the title, the living constitution. The living
Speaker 2: constitution. We'll get to that praise.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But again and again I hate it. You you make that clear. I get Turn
Speaker 3: to Roe v. Wade because you, justice Scalia, you had very strong opinions about this at the time. I know you do now. Why were you so violently opposed to it?
Speaker 0: I I wouldn't say violently. I'm a peaceful man. May adamantly oppose. Adamantly. Basically, because the theory that was expounded to impose that decision was a theory that does not make any sense, and that is namely the theory of substantive due process.
There's a due process clause in the constitution, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. That is obviously a guarantee, not of not of life, not of liberty, not of property, you can be deprived of all of them, but not without due process. My court, in recent years, has invented what is called substantive due process by simply saying, some liberties are so important that no process would suffice to take them away. And that was the theory used in Roe versus Wade, and it it's a theory that is simply a lie. There is the world is divided into substance and procedure.
Speaker 3: So should should abortion be illegal in your eyes?
Speaker 0: Should it be illegal? Yeah. I I I don't I don't have public views on what should be illegal and what shouldn't. I have public views on what the constitution prohibits and what it doesn't prohibit.
Speaker 1: But I
Speaker 3: mean, the constitution, when they framed it, they didn't even allow women to to have the right to vote. I they gave women no rights. Oh, come on. No rights? Did they?
Of course.
Speaker 0: They were entitled to due process of law. All kinds of couldn't send them to prison without the same kind of a trial that a man would do.
Speaker 3: But but but, again, it comes back to changing times. The founding fathers were never gonna have any reason at that time to consider a woman's right to keep a baby or to have an abortion. It wouldn't have even entered their minds, would it?
Speaker 0: I I don't know why. Why wouldn't it?
Speaker 3: Because at the time, it was
Speaker 0: They they they didn't have wives and daughters that they cared about?
Speaker 3: They did, but it was not an issue that they would ever consider framing in a constitution.
Speaker 0: I I don't
Speaker 3: When women began to take charge in the last century of their lives and their rights and so on and began to fight for these, everybody believed that was the right thing to do, didn't they? I mean, why would you be instinctively against that?
Speaker 0: My view is regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad, regardless of how you come out on that. My only point is the constitution does not say anything about it. It leaves it up to democratic choice. Some states prohibited it, some states didn't. What Roe versus way Wade said was that, no state can prohibit it.
That is simply not in the constitution. It was one of those many things, most things in the world left a democratic choice.
Speaker 1: Of all the cases that have come before him on the court, Bush v Gore may have been the most controversial. It has been reported that he played a pivotal role in urging the other justices to end the Florida recount, thereby handing the two thousand election to George Bush.
Speaker 0: I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So so there.
Speaker 1: People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy, but on politics.
Speaker 0: I say nonsense.
Speaker 1: Was it political?
Speaker 0: Gee. I really don't wanna get in. I mean, this is get over it. It's so old by now. The principal, issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida supreme court had put together violated the federal constitution,
Speaker 1: that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two. Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.
Speaker 0: It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn't go looking for trouble. It was he who who who said, I want this to be decided by the courts. What are we supposed to say?
Not important enough.
Speaker 4: Artificial person canon. Right. Now I wrote down beside that even though you didn't Citizens United. That's another one that's created a storm. Well
Speaker 0: well, person isn't used in the First Amendment. I mean, congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or But what what is
Speaker 4: your maybe you don't even wanna touch this, but what is your as a person, do you worry at all? I know you don't well, as a person, do worry at all that there's too much money in politics?
Speaker 0: No. You know, I really don't. I I forget what the figures are, but I think we spend less on our presidential campaigns each year when there's a presidential election than than the country spends on cosmetics. I mean Well, considering considering
Speaker 4: this about, you know, people are worried that the corporations now can buy
Speaker 0: I think this is a real con if if you believe that, you you we ought to go back to monarchy, that the people are such sheep that they just swallow whatever whatever they see on television or read in the newspapers. No. The premise of democracy is that people are intelligent and can discern the true the true from the false, at least when when, as the the campaign laws require, you know who is speaking. You can't speak anonymously. You you have to you have to say, you know, identify the people that
Speaker 4: are But we don't know the in in right now.
Speaker 0: You know the organization that's speaking.
Speaker 4: Not necessarily. I mean, you know they don't have to, and, you know, I don't need to go into the details, but in some of this, the way this money is being raised, we will never know.
Speaker 0: You may not know who contributes to the organization. You can't hold organization that's speaking.
Speaker 4: So that's all you need to know? You don't need to know if they're hiding behind their Well,
Speaker 0: the press can find out, you know, who's hiding behind what. That's not hard, you can tell from anyway, look at it, the premise is freedom of speech. The more speech, the better.
Video Transcript AI Summary
There has been scholarly criticism of the right to privacy, and it could be reflected in a brief before the Supreme Court.
Whether or not the right to privacy exists, do you believe it's one of the deepest and most profoundly held beliefs in our society?
I can't answer without knowing what you mean by the right to privacy.
Do you believe that Americans as a whole believe that there is a right to privacy?
No, I'll give you that.
Do you have any doubt that people believe they have retained the right to privacy?
No, there's no doubt in my mind.
In some form, it is a constitutionally protected right of privacy. What that means remains to be seen.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Right. No, senator. There there I beg to differ. There there there has been a scholarly criticism of of the whole notion of right to privacy.
Speaker 1: Oh, I agree.
Speaker 0: And it's not at all inconceivable that that criticism will be reflected in a brief before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Well, very well may be, but it doesn't In other words, if the right to privacy exists, if you believe the right to privacy exists, And I believe you have stated in what was that in the CNN v case? I think you will. Me one moment. Pardon me? I I believe, and I can't I can't pin down where you said it.
It was in an article.
Speaker 0: I don't think you'll find it.
Speaker 1: In the Panhandle article, did you say that one that that that that the right to privacy is one of the deepest and most profoundly held beliefs in our society?
Speaker 0: I I don't I don't recall having said that, Senator.
Speaker 1: I see. Let me let me I'm sorry. I misspoke. What was being referred to was your your answer to me earlier saying that in order to meet your test, it has to be one of the deepest and most profoundly held views in society. And you always do you you you have any doubt the right to privacy is one of those deeply and profoundly held view of American society?
Forget the constitution. Let's just talk politics, you and me.
Speaker 0: It's very hard to answer. You you you began this line of questioning by answering me, never mind what the right of privacy consists of. I can't answer that question without knowing what you mean by the right of privacy.
Speaker 1: Sure. You can acknowledge whether or not you believe there is in fact let let's let's start over again. Clean the slate. Do you believe that Americans as a whole believe that there is a right to privacy that they have inherent, that they think they have a right to privacy. Do you think that's a deeply and profoundly held belief by American society?
Whether it's it's found in the constitution or found in natural law found in their bible, or found in the Talmud, that's a society. Mean, do you have any doubt that Americans believe No.
Speaker 0: No. I I I I'll I'll give you that, Shannon.
Speaker 1: I think Good man. I'd tell you, we're getting there. Alright. Now, having said that, do you believe that there is any is there any doubt in your mind that the Ninth Amendment, in conjunction with other amendments as it relates to particular assertions of particular rights of privacy, if I can find the Ninth Amendment here so I don't misquote it. Do you have the Ninth Amendment sitting there?
Fig it out for me, will you? The Roman numerals confuse me, judge. I see,
Speaker 0: if yours is the same as mine, I have one here too.
Speaker 1: Alright. I almost read the eleventh. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Is there any doubt in your mind that the people at the time and now believe they have retained the right to privacy, whatever that means?
Speaker 0: No, I think there's no doubt in my mind of
Speaker 1: that. Okay. Secondly, if in fact that Well, I don't have to go any further, actually. In fact, it seems to me, in some form or another, is a constitutional protected right of privacy. What that means remains to be seen.
Whether it means the right to engage in homosexual activity in one's bedroom, or anything else remains, I'm not gonna ask you to comment that. But let me let me you know, I guess my time I don't mind. I know my time is up, but let me pursue this one step further if I may. When I look
Speaker 0: at
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@realannapaulina If you were intentionally trying to sabotage a deal..that is the exact behavior you would expect someone to exhibit. I think he was pressured. Just my opinion.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the arrest of the Romanian President and its connection to efforts against "Trumpism" and populism. Mike Benz highlighted how arms are transferred from Pakistan to Romania to support Ukraine, amid NATO's plans for a significant presence in the Black Sea. Romania's recent election of a Russia-neutral party complicates this support. I noted Pakistan's pivotal role, including the State Department's actions against Imran Khan. Observing the financial trails reveals the globalists' attempts to maintain control, particularly in the EU, as seen in Romania's current situation.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
This is why the 🇷🇴 Romanian President was arrested and how this ties in to stamping out “Trumpism/Populism”. Mike Benz explains how Pakistan is how weapons & arms are transferred to Romania over an air bridge to be used to supply Ukraine. NATO wanted to build the largest NATO based on the Black Sea in Romania. Romania has recently elected a Russia neutral party that wanted to end support to Ukraine. Pakistan has been so crucial for that last year the State Dept deposed Imran Khan. Ryan Routh the man who made the attempt on Trump in Palm Beach was recruiting for Ukraine in PAKISTAN. Follow the money are you will always find the fingerprints. Like I said last week after losing a majority of their propaganda funding and influence the remnants of the globalists attempt at an NWO will make the EU their last bastion to retain as much control as possible. This is what you are witnessing now in Romania.
Video Transcript AI Summary
NATO is considering building its largest military base on Romania's Black Sea coast, aimed towards Crimea. However, Romania's recent election, potentially won by a right-wing populist pledging neutrality, complicates matters. This leader might halt the construction and end support for Ukraine, disrupting NATO's operations, since Romania is a main weapons transshipment point from CIA and UK arms warehoused in Pakistan.
There are concerns that the election could be overturned, similar to attempts in the US in 2016, due to alleged Russian interference. NATO is worried about losing influence in Romania and the impact of figures like Andrew Tate, who oppose the war effort. The UK uses an air bridge between Pakistan and Romania to transport artillery shells. A shift in Romania's government could jeopardize the arms supply to Ukraine. The US State Department has historically influenced Pakistan's leadership to maintain its role as a CIA clearinghouse.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In the war in, against Russia right now. NATO believes we need to build the single largest military base in all of NATO, on the Black Sea Coast of Romania, that points straight out in a line at Crimea and move this this base that's under construction is a % bigger than the biggest current air force, NATO base in, you know, in Europe. See, there's an election going on in Romania right now. You may have you may have heard about this. The canceled election in Romania with the Georgia skew, this right wing populist figure who has pledged neutrality in the war.
He doesn't wanna he's he's no doesn't wanna antagonize America, but he doesn't wanna kill the Russians. He doesn't want he wants to basically back NATO off, and he doesn't want to allow this military base to be to be made. Well, that is a civil decision by the elected government of Romania, decided by the hearts and minds of the voters of the Romanian people. But that civil action will either, in NATO's eyes, win the war or lose the war. So the problem is is, you it would kind of be something of a diplomatic incident, shall we say, if, NATO rolled in and did, you know, Slobodan Milosevic style airs you know, air strifing of, you know, air strikes against, the Romanian parliament building and rolled into, you know, rolled into the capital with tanks and troops just because, you know, the president was responding to the democratic will of the people.
So you need another mechanism to influence these civil affairs. Enter civil military. This is where you get USAID in this, as well as USAID for psychological operations.
Speaker 1: The Russian neutral party, which just won the election in Romania takes power. That party which campaigned on eight on ending all support for Ukraine in the war against Russia, that it would massively cripple NATO's ability to carry out a a successful campaign on behalf of Ukraine because Romania is the main weapons transshipment point from all CIA and UK arms that are warehoused in Pakistan. This is a there's a major sea bridge. There's a major air bridge that allows US weapons which are warehoused in Pakistan to support initially the Mujahideen in the nineteen seventies, and then Al Qaeda, and now ISIS. Serendipitously, this is happening the same week that ISIS just took effective control over Syria.
Actually, they're now the Saddam government, but those arms initially flow from Pakistan from the South and then obviously through Turkey to the North. But there's this there's this transshipment route from Pakistan to Romania, Romania and Ukraine. And if those weapons caches and munitions are stopped because the sitting government in Romania does not want to be hostile to Russia and therefore shuts off the military aid to Ukraine, there goes Ukraine. So here they are sitting there essentially with their thumbs up their butts trying to think of a reason to cancel the elections, so that they're so that they can continue their war on Russia. And so what they've done here is something that was sort of attempted to be done here in The US in 2016.
If folks remember, Norm Eisen and the the legal hatchet blob team in 2016 tried to get members of congress to annul the election results on 01/06/2017 by arguing that Russia had interfered on US social media. Now they were unsuccessful in that campaign. I think something like only 13 or members of the house of representatives were on board with that plan. But, evidently, they pulled that off in Romania. And my question is is who at the state department, who at USAID,
Speaker 0: who at the National Endowment for Democracy leaned on
Speaker 1: the Romanian court to make this happen?
Speaker 0: This week, Romania. We're back in Romania. Oh, that is so dirty. Look. I said this before, but I think the British government and possibly the American State Department, but I'm pretty sure that The UK Foreign Office leaned on Romania.
I shouldn't say pretty sure. I think there's a significant likelihood. Frankly, it would be, you know, if he was doing something like what he was accused of and saying the things he was saying about it, I feel like he probably wouldn't say it that way. But the but the fact is after what they did to frigging Julian Assange with the rape allegations, Donald Trump with the rape allegations, you know, like, all that. Look.
All I'm saying is I don't know the facts of the case, but what I do know is that NATO has been extremely, extremely, extremely concerned about the the narrow hold of NATO loyalists on the Romanian parliament, and they're very concerned about young people in Romania being radicalized by online news to not support the war effort. And with Tate having the megaphone that he has and when he tilted so hard against the Ukraine war because he wasn't talking about that three years ago you know he was he was doing what he was doing with you know all this like Hussler University stuff like way before that But when he married it to the anti war thing, to the anti NATO thing, it was like it was like the Martin Luther King situation, which they also, you know, did all this stuff about messing around with women and all that. And the fact is is like I I do think NATO wanted to take Tate out. I don't again, I'm not I have no idea what happened in this in this case. But Romania is a really interesting country because it is the principal way that arms are smuggled into Ukraine from Pakistan.
Let me show you guys something. This relates to this because again this is Newsweek Romania. Now Romania oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Look at this. This is just four five months after Russia invaded Ukraine. UK. Remember I said it it probably came from The UK with Romania versus versus, Entertain. And it so happens that The UK made an air bridge between Pakistan and Romania to transport artillery shells.
What happens if there's a change in the Romanian government? Because too many voters are listening to Andrew Tate who's living right there projecting, you know, one of the biggest social media influences on all social media before he got banned from everything if you remember, which also happened post 2022. If the government of Romania decides to go back to its historical roots of being allied with Russia and they vote for a populist candidate or a NATO skeptical candidate for president or if the parliament shifts parties, what happens to all of the arms being shipped to kill the Russians to Romania from Pakistan. How many times today do we need to mention Pakistan? Right?
Ryan Ruth was recruiting people from Pakistan. John Brennan was running CIA operations in Afghanistan I'm sorry, in Pakistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski was running CIA operations in Pakistan. Barack Obama flew to Pakistan while John Brennan and Zabrutinib Brzezinski were there while the Moshe hadin was getting set up. Not only was not only was Ryan Ruth recruiting people from Pakistan he was also trying to purchase passports illegally from Pakistan.
Remember Pakistan is just CIA, right? The State Department literally overthrew the government of Pakistan last year. Here's what I wrote. This is like a screenplay out of a Benstradamus fever dream. This is from The Intercept.
The State Department held aid and sanctions, so that's financial bribes and sanctions over Pakistan's head unless the Pakistani military, the military and intelligence, the parliament installed a State Department approved president. This is Pakistan. Seek from the intercept, secret Pakistan cable documents US pressure to remove Imran Khan who was the popularly elected populist president. Pakistan is too precious as a CIA clearinghouse, as a military arms transshipment point to have a president who is aggressively neutral. Aggressively neutral.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
We have officially crossed the Rubicon. @realannapaulina will head up the “Federal Secrets Declassification Task Force” JFK, RFK, MLK, UFO & THE EPSTEIN CLIENT LIST. “ We must restore the trust of the American people through transparency” - Congresswoman Luna https://t.co/iTDqlrBqpr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Our founding fathers championed individual sovereignty against tyranny, but today the American spirit is dimmed by government secrecy. President Trump took a historic step by committing to declassify files related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I have been entrusted to lead the House Oversight Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets.
We will investigate the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations, UAPs, USOs, the Epstein client list, the origins of COVID-19, and the 9/11 files. Representatives Burchett, Boebert, Burleson, Crane, Gill, and Mace will join me. Our first hearing is set for March, and we've already begun communications with various agencies. This task force will relentlessly pursue truth and transparency, cutting through bureaucracy and challenging stonewalling. We aim to restore trust by ensuring the American people receive the answers they deserve, fostering a new relationship between government and the governed, one that enlightens through transparency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Chairman Comer. When our founding fathers stood against tyranny, they did not merely oppose taxes. They defended the sacred idea of individual sovereignty. They declared that no government, agency, or title could infringe upon the freedoms of speech, religion, thought, and the pursuit of truth. For too long, the American spirit has been dimmed by a veil of secrecy, by a government that has grown too comfortable in the shadows, denying us the transparency we deserve.
But today, we stand at the dawn of a new era where the light of truth begins to shine through. A few weeks ago, president Donald Trump made a historic announcement. With the stroke of a pen, he committed to declassifying the files concerning the assassinations of president John F Kennedy, Robert f Kennedy, and doctor Martin Luther King Junior, a decision not just monumental, but pivotal. It is a profound honor that I have been entrusted by speaker Mike Johnson and chairman James Comer to lead the house force or the house oversight task force on declassification of federal secrets. Together with the help of the White House, our intelligence allies, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, we'll be conducting investigations into the following, the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and doctor Martin Luther King, unidentified aerial phenomena, also known as UAPs, unidentified submerged objects, also known as USOs, the Epstein client list, the origins of COVID nineteen, and the nine eleven files.
This task force will be a beacon of bipartisanship. On the Republican side, representatives Burchett, Boebert, Burleson, Crane, Gill, and Mace will be joining me. Although I'd like to note that I'm expanding this to the entire governing body and will be allowing certain members to wave on. Our first hearing is set for March. The date will be announced soon, and we we've already initiated close to a dev a dozen communications with various agencies to include Pam Bondy at the Department of Justice and the Secretary of State.
This will no longer be a task force that makes bold promises only to fade into irrelevance or send strongly worded letters. This will be a relentless pursuit of truth and transparency, and we will not stop until the until the American people have the answers they deserve. We will cut through their bureaucracy, challenge the stonewalling, and ensure that the American people finally get the truth that they have been denied for too long. If we are to endure and thrive as a nation, we must restore trust, trust through transparency. The American people must be trusted to think for themselves, to form their own judgments from the truth that they are entitled to know.
We've been treated like children for too long and kept in the dark by those we elected to serve us. It is my solemn duty to begin mending this trust to form a new relationship between the government and the governed. Let us embark on this journey together towards a government that does not serve, but one that enlightens. That does not just serve, but one that enlightens. Trust through transparency, that begins now.
Without further ado, we'd like to open it up for questions as I'm sure many of you have those.
reSee.it AI Summary
Blumenthal is losing it, demanding financial disclosures from Musk, claiming his Republican colleagues say Elon is losing popularity. That's laughable—he's more popular than ever. Then he accuses Elon of seeking contacts and money. How does Connecticut keep electing these frauds?
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Blumenthal just absolutely losing his mind “ I DEMAND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES FROM MUSK” Then he goes on to say “His republican colleagues are hearing from their constituents are Elon is losing his popularity” ..LOL I’ll take things that never happened for 100 Alex. He’s more popular than ever. Lying Dick then says “ Elon is in it for contacts, money, power and to enrich his tech bros” How does Connecticut keep electing this frauds?
Video Transcript AI Summary
During a press conference with Donald Trump, Elon Musk's presence and focus raised concerns. It appeared to be a PR move to counter Musk's declining popularity, while also serving Trump's image.
Transparency is the key issue. Musk claims full transparency, but his actions don't align. I don't believe Musk is being transparent, especially considering his companies' contracts with government agencies. He has access to a lot of data and information, and controls contracts for Tesla, SpaceX, and others.
It's about more than just contracts and money, it's about control. By controlling information, he controls the lifeblood of his companies. This information could be shared with other tech billionaires, enriching them all.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hover sitting behind the the resolute desk. It was clear today that Donald Trump was the president, and Elon Musk is working for him. Erin.
Speaker 1: Alright. Jeff Zeleny, I mean, certainly, I guess, that's the image that they wanted to portray. I wanna go to Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal now, former attorney general of Connecticut, sits on the senate judiciary committee. Senator, you watched that. Was that your reaction when you saw that press conference, Elon Musk and his son, standing, while Trump was sitting at the at the resolute desk, but Elon Musk, twenty of the, thirty two minutes were devoted to Elon in this press conference.
What did you see there?
Speaker 2: It's an obvious public relations ploy, Aaron, to push back against a lot of the criticism Musk has dropped precipitously in popularity. I talked to my Republican colleagues, and they are gassed at the unpopularity they're hearing from their constituents. But it also seems to be an effort by Donald Trump to be the president and show that he's in charge. And the issue here really is transparency. If Elon Musk wants transparency, he should make available fully and completely all of those financial disclosure forms.
I demand that he make public all of his finances.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's interesting when you say that when I when when Jeff was going through his donations. Right? His donations appear to be about equivalent generally to Scott Besson's net net worth, you know, who is worth a lot of money and disclosed and divested and did all the things, that that that one should do if you're going to be, treasury secretary or in such a position in the US government. So when Musk was asked today about this conflict of interest, senator, he responded all of our actions are fully public, maybe referring to his ex posts, and then he added this.
Speaker 3: All of our actions which are are maximally transparent. In fact, I don't think there's been I I don't know of a case that where where an organization has been more transparent than the Georgia organization.
Speaker 1: And yet they're trying to keep, you know, records there private until 2034, which is a bit confounding, obviously, with that statement. But do you believe him when he says that?
Speaker 2: I don't believe him. You know, he has contracts with all of these agencies that he is now privy to all the data and information about. He controls, potentially, the contracts in those agencies that are awarding contracts to Tesla or SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, all of the companies that he owns that have made him a billionaire, and I don't believe for a moment they're ever gonna make public the relevant facts here. He's giving new meaning to the word corruption. And rather than rooting out fraud, abuse, and waste, they're firing the inspectors general who are the watchdogs.
Speaker 1: I'm curious, senator, what you think. And I know this is just, you know, what's what's in your head. But Elon Musk is already the world's richest man. So, you know, some people say, oh, well, you know, he wants to get more government contracts. I mean, I suppose maybe, but you could also make the case that no money isn't what this is about at all for him.
This is about something else. But, I mean, that that wouldn't excuse no disclosure. I'm not trying to make that argument at all. What I wanna ask you though is what do you think this is about from us? Do you think it's about more contracts and money?
Speaker 2: I think it's about more contracts and money, but it's also about control. If you control the information, you control the lifeblood of many of the companies that Elon Musk control. That information then can be shared with some of his billionaire tech friends. He sent this crew of 20 something tech bros into companies. They are reaping, harvesting, collecting information.
And if you follow the information as well as following the money, what you see is that he is enriching himself and the billionaires in this process.
Speaker 1: I I just wanna ask you.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
“Musk wants to rescue these Gremlins from working underground” LOL Jesse Waters is Hysterical. He just pulled an Affleck. How can these leftists think anyone will ever take them seriously acting like grown toddlers? https://t.co/J0or9yLd0j
Video Transcript AI Summary
Are you on my side? Trump wants us all to bow to him, but we want him in jail. Also, Musk wants to rescue these government gremlins from working underground.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you on? Tell me Which side are you on? Oh. Which side are you on? Trump's covenant for our unions.
He wants us all to fame. He wants us to to bow to him, but we want him in jail. Musk wants to rescue these government gremlins from working underground. And what
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@VigilantFox LOL don’t ever happen. And he could care less about money lady..contrary to closet case Blumenthal’s insinuations.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe there was definitely a conspiracy behind Butler. Kash will clarify things once he’s in, as the FBI took over the investigation from the USSS. I’m holding off on forming conclusions until then, but I have many questions. I created this back in August when I was frustrated with the situation.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Was there a conspiracy behind Butler? 100%. Kash will be the one that determines that when he is in because the FBI took over that entire investigation from the USSS. I’ll wait for that day before reading too much into this affidavit. It’s not far off..there are a ton of questions though..it’s long but I made this in August when I had like 15 followers because I was so pissed at what they tried to do our President.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just put together a new video addressing the unanswered questions surrounding the July 13th assassination attempt on President Trump, which has left the American public in the dark for three weeks. I encourage everyone to check it out and share their thoughts.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
" Malice, Incompetence or Malice disguised as incompetence" I just compiled this new vid that shows all the questions the American public is still awaiting answers on 3 weeks after the July 13th Assassination Attempt on President. Trump. I hope you guys give it a ganders. #Trump #Assassination #Attempt #Butler #Crooks #JFK #RFKJR #Conspiracy #Oswald #Sniper #DonaldTrump #maga #republican #secret #spy #questions @KatyinIndy @nicksortor @StoneJAlex @freethinkerpat @DanScavino @dbongino @CJTThumper @AVette98 @cnel775 @QPsyOps @LauraLoomer @zerohedge @EpochTimes https://rumble.com/v5acokd-the-july-13th-trump-assassination-attempt-and-the-important-questions.html
Video Transcript AI Summary
Every precaution was taken, yet the former President was shot. This raises questions about cascading failures within security. Whistleblowers report unchecked IDs and obstructed lines of sight at the Trump rally, while the First Lady's event, though publicized earlier, received significantly more security. The Secret Service denies diverting assets, claiming resources were comparable to the risks, a claim disputed given the disparity in security measures and personnel. Questions remain about communication breakdowns between local law enforcement and the Secret Service, the delayed response, and the shooter's presence on the roof for an extended period before firing. Investigations are ongoing, with accusations of deliberate security cuts and a possible stand-down order.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Every possible precaution has been taken. The reception line is formed, and there is missus Kennedy.
Speaker 1: This was a failure of Is it
Speaker 2: not prima facie that somebody has failed? The former president was shot.
Speaker 1: Sir, this could have been our Texas school book depository.
Speaker 3: From Dallas, Texas, the flash apparently official president Kennedy died at 1PM Central Standard Time, two o'clock Eastern Standard Time, some thirty eight minutes ago.
Speaker 4: So how did this nearly happen again? Ever since 11/22/1963, the Secret Service has endeavored to have a zero fail mission to ensure our nation never had to endure the loss of our president and the power of our vote snatched away with a bullet. So how did, as Dan Bongino says, an apocalyptic failure happen on July 13? Now in order for this to occur, there had to have been cascading failure after failure at every single avenue while simultaneously every advantage through sheer happenstance benefit the shooter that allowed him to outmaneuver the most elite security force in human history. That math don't add up.
People have questions. I've compiled some of those questions.
Speaker 5: Doubt at this point. They clearly screwed this up. Listen to this. I
Speaker 6: thought you guys were on the roof. Why are we not on the roof?
Speaker 7: Why why weren't we?
Speaker 8: I'd say this is a No. We're not too much gas company. Somebody out there.
Speaker 9: It's a busy political day ahead here in Western Pennsylvania. First Lady Jill Biden and former president Donald Trump in town this afternoon. Chilikas Adele joins us live with the details. Chilikassee, there's a lot to do for folks who are into politics today.
Speaker 10: Indeed, Barry. Good morning to you. The first lady is set to speak in Pittsburgh this afternoon, But let's talk about the former president. First, he'll be campaigning in Butler County today. He's holding a rally at the Butler Farm Showgrounds.
That's on Evan City Road in Butler. And it's expected to begin at 5PM. Now as I said before, first lady Jill Biden will be in the Steel City. The White House announced Wednesday that she'll speak at an Italian sons and daughters of America dinner. That is also at five tonight.
Speaker 11: We're prepared, and and we're ready to mitigate any potential threat.
Speaker 5: And is the greater threat now homegrown terrorists or foreign terrorism?
Speaker 11: I think it's probably a little bit of both. I think we have to make sure that we are assessing the risk for both of those, as well as any other type of threat that may come at us, whether it's a a lone gunman, you know, or an organized attack or an organized group. So we try to cover off on that. And the lone gunman, you've got folks that are are radicalized. You've got demonstrations that may pop up and, you know, obviously, we hope they remain peaceful here, that they could, you know, turn violent
Speaker 9: At this point, we saw what appears to be an advanced team for the rally and judging from their license plates, possibly secret service members scoping this likely location. We say likely because even the exact spot of the stage isn't made public. This large open field is a pretty good guess judging from the generators and another clue. Robert Bricker knows he's hauling in lights for the rally.
Speaker 2: Not secret service agents. They were Homeland Security agents. And get this, Jesse, most of them had never worked a rally before. And yet this is who she chose to staff the event with, and she didn't train them or integrate them. From top to bottom, It was a total disaster.
Jesse, it is a miracle, a miracle, not only that Trump is alive, but that more good Americans were not killed. That's unbelievable.
Speaker 12: You're saying that the site agent in charge of this security in Butler wasn't checking IDs? What what what do you mean? She was just letting people in?
Speaker 2: That is what whistleblowers tell me is that IDs were not checked to allow individuals into secure areas, Jesse. In other words, it was a total free for all. Whistleblowers portrayed in me a circumstance, a a situation that was totally out of control where people were milling around, including in what were supposed to be highly secure areas. Nobody knew who they were. By the way, it was also the lead site agent's job to make sure that the line of sight for where Trump was was clear, that agents could see all angles, and she didn't do that.
In fact, I'm told that the line of sight was obstructed, which means that agents from different angles couldn't really see around Trump, couldn't see potential dangers to Trump. This is pretty textbook stuff, Jesse. And what whistleblower say to me is none of it was done properly. None of it was done by the book. And frankly, when you know all that, it's amazing more people weren't killed.
This person needs to be fired as does anybody who had leadership on that day.
Speaker 13: And, you know, president Trump is the former president and the future president. So I would say that that is a fairly high risk event. Would you agree?
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 13: Okay. Let's conversely, the first lady had an event at a casino in Pittsburgh, just a few dozen miles away. It was a dinner for the Italian sons and daughters of America. It was publicly announced on July 10. What's interesting is that the casino is actually extremely secure.
They already have magnetometers existing prior to this event even being announced. It was in a ballroom. And the size of the crowd, a mere 400. There were no specific threats. There may have been general threats, and the asset is the first lady.
Those seem like there's a huge disparity relative to risk. Would you agree? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Multiple whistleblowers and various media outlets have reported that the Pittsburgh field office of the Secret Service allocated 12 additional post standers to the First Lady's event and three additional post standers to the Trump rally. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: There were no assets that were diverted from the first No.
Speaker 14: No. No. No. No. This is
Speaker 6: a very
Speaker 13: simple question. I'm not asking anyone who was diverted. Did the first ladies event that was relatively secure, especially compared to Trump's rally, get 12 assets, and the first did the first lady's event get 12 assets and Trump's get three from the Pittsburgh Field Office? It's that's a yes or no. But if you don't know, don't answer it.
Speaker 2: I mean, if
Speaker 13: you don't know, don't answer it.
Speaker 11: Personnel that were allocated to both of those events were comparable to the risk at both of those events.
Speaker 13: Wow. Really? So you think that the Pittsburgh Casino four hundred person in a ballroom with ingress egress through probably a very well guarded parking garage was four times more dangerous than a 20,000 person rally in open field with, the former president and future president? You think that that's four times more dangerous than casino then?
Speaker 11: I didn't say that at all.
Speaker 13: Well, they got four times the resources from the Pittsburgh field office who was likely in charge of the final walk through for for both events. Decision to to deploy 12, post standards to the casino, where the first lady was having a 400 person dinner, and only three people from the Pittsburgh field office to the 20,000 plus person plus Trump rally. Who made that decision?
Speaker 11: There were additional Secret Service resources available at the former president Trump's event.
Speaker 13: Who made the decision to deploy 12 to the first lady's event and three to the Trump event.
Speaker 11: The allocation of resources is decided based on the availability of personnel and their location and where they are, but there were sufficient resources What
Speaker 14: did you just say that?
Speaker 11: That were given
Speaker 13: to Did you just say there were sufficient resources? President Trump got shot. Someone got killed. There were not sufficient resources clearly.
Speaker 7: Ask because because the failures on that day were catastrophic. By the way, is it true that on the day of the of the Butler event that Secret Service transferred agent for president Trump to the first lady?
Speaker 1: No, sir. That's not true. That's been widely reported. It's not true. There was one airport agent that actually went on the manpower request for the Trump detail.
They handled the arrival at the airport.
Speaker 7: What is the what was the relative size of the Trump detail compared to the detail that is assigned to the president or the first lady?
Speaker 1: Senator, the former president travels with a full shift just like the president.
Speaker 7: What's the so the exact same size, is that your testimony that that president Trump had the same size detail that president Biden has?
Speaker 1: On the day of in Butler, the agents surrounding him, it is the same number of agents surrounding the president today. There is a difference between a sitting president who also not only
Speaker 7: Hold on. You're using president in a way that is not clear. Is it your testimony that in Butler, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump had the same number of agents protecting him that Joe Biden has at a comparable event?
Speaker 1: I'm telling you the shift, the close protection shift surrounding That's the answer you asked me, senator, and
Speaker 7: I'm trying to answer it. You are not answering it. Is it the same number of agents or not? Stop interrupting me. Go ahead, sir.
Refusing to answer clear and direct questions. I am asking the relative difference in the number of agents between those assigned to Donald Trump and those assigned to Joe Biden. I'm not asking why you assign more to Joe Biden. I'm asking is the difference is it two x? Is it three x?
Is it five x? Is it 10 x?
Speaker 1: Senator, I will get you that number so you can see it with your own eye.
Speaker 15: Benny Johnson had had also, a while back, had put this up, which we reported on before, said they had a scoop. Right? The real reason Trump's assassin was not eliminated on the rooftop before firing on Trump was, and they said this information comes from a firsthand source, highest credentials. Quote, there was a three man SWAT sniper team located in this position. One member of the team went home early, which we've established.
Not sure how this was allowed, but it happened. Well, it was it was pre agreed according to the text. The remaining two snipers positioned in this room were notified that a suspicious individual was lurking outside the building. K? Take exception with that.
It's not they were notified. They were the ones notifying about this suspicious individual. Because remember, they took the pictures from the Second Floor window of crooks down on the retaining wall. They were the ones sending these pictures out. Okay?
One team member left his position to investigate, leaving just one sniper with overwatch of the roof. Well, now that one has a very important job, I guess. The investigating team member found nothing, and in the process of returning to his position, realized he'd forgotten his access card into the building. The last remaining sniper with overwatch left the position to retrieve his team member locked outside. Now this is weird because, again, we've established that we all know that there's this big giant entrance over there.
The entrance and exit in the grassy materials, it's got a purple set of lines around it. Right? This is the place. And somehow they couldn't get back in. Right?
So this very odd tale, like like, there. There's your way back in. There it is. Right? Right there.
I don't understand, this story at all. So now we have to believe that maybe there were other entrances on the other part of the building. And so said, oh, I gotta go let this person in. So now they have to run from the Second Floor down to the First Floor and maybe open one of those back doors that opens to the back parking lot. Okay.
How long do you think it takes to go, oh, shoot. I'm the last person up here, and I got a lot of gear up here. So I gotta go let this guy back in because he's just texted me, and I'd like to see the text or the phone call that says, hey. I'm locked out. Can you let me back in?
You know, rookie mistakes. Right? I goofed. You run down the set of stairs. You push the door open.
You run back up. What are you thinking? Twenty, thirty seconds? Dudes, we got somebody on the roof. So this is the timeline we're supposed to accept.
Local sniper teams have been planning for weeks. They take positions at 11:00 in the morning. They're tracking weirdness about crooks for at least a hundred and five minutes. It's an hour and forty five minutes. Six zero three, it's showtime.
Trump finally takes the stage. This is everything you've been planning for, all the thing. Yeah. This should be the heightened moment of alert. And at 06:05, two minutes after Trump takes the stage, roughly, one of the remaining two Overwatch snipers leaves the post to look for crooks.
And then at 06:06, the last sniper leaves the Overwatch post. And so when they left the windows open, they possibly was still sniper gear set up. We have questions about that. Ostensibly to let the other sniper back in, we're told, but we now don't know the name of the other sniper. We don't know if they were let back in.
We're missing six whole minutes here because, you know, at, 06:08, we have crooks captured on video by James Kopenhaver. We have radio reports that there's somebody on the roof. And at 06:11 thirty three, the first shots are fired. How is this happening back here at 06:05, six zero six? We lose both snipers from that room.
Speaker 13: And to make sure we'll take back
Speaker 14: the way out. Because if we do, we're gonna make America better than ever before. We're gonna make it. Yeah. Look.
On the road. It's much tougher than it. It happened It went right on the road for that. Ever. In recorded history, we had the best border.
In fact, if they could ever put up a chart, I don't know if they can do it. Do you guys have access to that chart that I love so much? You don't mind if I go off teleprompter, do you? Because these teleprompters are so damn boring. I try and explain that.
Oh, there's a Wow. You guys are doing it. They're getting better with time. My guys, take a look at that chart. Take a look at the arrow on the bottom.
See the big red red arrow. Right? So that's when I left office. That was the lowest point and that comes right from the government services, comes right out of border patrol. Take a look at that.
So that arrow is the lowest amount of illegal immigration ever in recorded history into our country. And then and then the worst president in the history of our country took over, and look what happened to our country. Probably 20,000,000 people. And, you know, that's a little bit more of that truck that
Speaker 16: Identified the building as a vulnerability that required special attention. Correct?
Speaker 11: That's reporting from NBC?
Speaker 16: Yes.
Speaker 11: So I am still looking into an active investigation.
Speaker 16: I know, but it's been nine days. I mean, you you should you should know that. Right? And yet, despite the fact that the AGR Building was in rifle range of the stage and it was flagged as a vulnerability, this building was put outside of the Secret Service's security perimeter. And I I I respectfully submit the security Secret Service must expand its security perimeter to account for the kinds of weapons that can be used outside the perimeter to endanger the protectees inside the perimeter, ma'am.
Speaker 17: Several people who look at the perimeter, hearing that news, look at the perimeter, and say, how, knowing that there was a credible threat against the former president, how could that perimeter be, so small that it excluded a building just a 50 yards away from the podium?
Speaker 11: I can't get into the specifics of of any threats, but obviously with all of our protectees, we're constantly monitoring the threats that are
Speaker 7: So I I'm reading from the Washington Post, 07/20/2024. Secret service said to have denied request for more security at Trump events. The opening paragraph. Top officials of the US Secret Service repeatedly denied request for additional resources and personnel sought by Donald Trump's security detail in the two years leading up to his attempted assassination, according to four people familiar with the requests. Is that right?
That repeatedly, the Trump detail asked for more resources and repeatedly secret service leadership
Speaker 1: turned that down? That that is not accurate, senator. Assets are requested. There's a process that is made, and
Speaker 7: How many requests did did the Trump team or the Trump detail ask for?
Speaker 1: I can get you that number in a q
Speaker 8: You you
Speaker 7: don't you don't know now.
Speaker 1: So I can speak to the ones that reported in The Washington Post, and we can go through them if you like.
Speaker 7: But you don't know how many how many requests there were?
Speaker 1: In general, how many requests since 2021 that the former Trump detail has made a request
Speaker 2: for assets?
Speaker 7: You've had two weeks. You had a spokesperson put something out that is false on its face. By the way, did you approve this statement when it went out?
Speaker 1: I don't know if I did or didn't, senator.
Speaker 7: Spokesperson is he still employed? Is he still
Speaker 1: evident? Employed, senator.
Speaker 7: So he lied on behalf of the Secret Service. He still has a job. Did your predecessor, the former director, does she approve this statement?
Speaker 1: Senator, our comms team, they they send out statements. They do deconflict them and they put them out.
Speaker 7: Did she approve this statement?
Speaker 1: I don't know if she did or did not.
Speaker 7: And you don't know if you did either?
Speaker 1: I don't recall re approving it, senator.
Speaker 18: Who, ever turned down enhanced security requests from Donald Trump's detail, his special agent in charge, Sean Curran? You ever turned that down?
Speaker 11: No. I have not.
Speaker 18: Have there been has has your team? Has the secret service? Maybe not you personally.
Speaker 11: I believe, as I mentioned earlier, there are times when requests are made for And
Speaker 18: you have denied them. They have been denied.
Speaker 19: Use what they consider to be failures of planning and communication that would prove catastrophic.
Speaker 6: We were supposed to get a face to face briefing with the Secret Service snipers, whenever they arrived, and that never happened. So I think that that was probably a pivotal point where I started thinking things were wrong because that never happened, and we had no communication with the Secret Service.
Speaker 19: You had no communication with the Secret Service at all on that Saturday?
Speaker 6: No. Not until after the shooting, I believe.
Speaker 19: Yeah. And by then?
Speaker 6: It was too late.
Speaker 8: Was that the Secret Service did not attend the 09:00 briefing the day of the event. In your testimony you said that, a site briefing was conducted with Secret Service personnel and law enforcement partners supporting the event. Those both can't be true. So local law enforcement do not believe Secret Service was present at 09:00 briefing, were they, or
Speaker 1: were they not? So senator, with respect to the snipers that went on national television and gave an interview and said that they did not get a briefing from the secret service, they were not they were supporting through mutual aid, and our personnel briefed the tactical team leader, that had was leading that element that was providing this counter sniper. I don't
Speaker 13: know. 5036.
Speaker 12: Go ahead.
Speaker 8: I need fifty thirty six, 50 30. Start towards the farm show.
Speaker 6: I fucking told them they need to post the guys
Speaker 8: fucking over here. To Benbrook.
Speaker 6: I told them that the fucking the secret service. I told him that fucking Tuesday. I told him to post fucking guys over here.
Speaker 8: I
Speaker 6: I don't want that. I mean, I'm not.
Speaker 13: What? Sir, I thought you guys were
Speaker 14: in the room.
Speaker 6: No. We're inside. Not anybody inside. There's no security inside. Fucking told the secret service, post the fucking guy over here.
Speaker 8: That's us. I told
Speaker 6: I told him that fucking at the meeting. What's that? So I think this student read
Speaker 13: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Whether he witnessed it, whether he whatever. He was with him. Who was he with him? Okay. I think
Speaker 8: for a while.
Speaker 14: Why why why why why why why why why why
Speaker 6: Because I thought we were gonna post guys over here.
Speaker 8: Can you talk me?
Speaker 6: I I thought I talked to the secret service guys. They're like, yeah. No problem. We're gonna post guys over here.
Speaker 7: Watch the large wind every time.
Speaker 8: Oh, I
Speaker 6: bet you climbed up here.
Speaker 20: I thought you climbed the bush.
Speaker 6: I don't I don't think so.
Speaker 13: The triple lid was right there. Oh. I thought triple lid was
Speaker 12: y'all that. We
Speaker 6: didn't see them,
Speaker 20: but the bush was there.
Speaker 8: We also have confirmed that the radios that local law enforcement gave the Secret Service sniper teams were never used by the Secret Service. So again, all the communication was channeled, people were, you know, the sniper and SWAT teams were on different communication channels than the patrol officers, different communication channels from, secret service, all funneled in through a central communications, system which obviously delayed things and allowed this tragedy to happen.
Speaker 21: Okay. The feds have one radio system. We have a different radio system. We have a radio system that statewide and local wide, local, all our local agencies can talk.
Speaker 14: Mhmm.
Speaker 8: But
Speaker 21: if the feds have a separate system, then we marry our locals with the feds. So we always have fed communications, and they always have our communications Every time. All the time. That's why this stuff that I'm watching on television, it's like, wait a minute. Wait a minute.
We couldn't have all brought our favorite two bottles of wine and made up this horror story with pencil and
Speaker 20: nobody was placed in the most obvious spot to conduct counter sniper operations. I was a sniper in the SEAL teams colonel. When as soon as I got out of the SUV and I saw that sniper that water tower, I was like, that's exactly where I'd be. Put me right there. So obvious.
Speaker 21: The mere fact that they didn't have someone on the roof of a building a 48 yards to the lectern where the president speaking is raw insanity. That's not just a failure. That's raw insanity. There's also a water tower that you don't have to be on that water tower as long as no one else is on it and you've got somebody at the base of the water tower. Now as time goes on, there's failure after failure.
Speaker 12: Spazak
Speaker 2: who decided who made the decision to send Donald Trump on the stage knowing that you had a security situation, has that person been relieved of duty?
Speaker 1: No, sir. They haven't.
Speaker 2: Has the person who decided not to pull the former president off of stage when you knew that in your words the locals were working a serious security situation, has that person been relieved of duty?
Speaker 22: No, sir. Which, at a minimum, people knew that this guy had a gun at least two minutes before the shooting happened. I want to know what you can tell me about what happened during that final two minute period where a whole bunch of people in the crowd saw and were shouting, he's got a gun. During that two minute period, perhaps at the beginning of it, the local police started to climb the rooftop, and there was at least thirty seconds after which local police were able to personally observe the shooter with a gun, had the gun pointed at him. What happened during that time period, and why on earth was president Trump not removed from the stage at that moment?
Speaker 1: So, again, senator, the reason why senator Trump, president Trump was not removed, was again, we did not have anything more than locals working an issue at the 03:00. Wasn't determined as to whether or not it the same individual or not, and there was no report of Same individual as what? The same suspicious individual.
Speaker 22: Right. But we we've left the category of suspicious individual at that point. You've got a guy with a gun on a rooftop 36 yards away from the stage. You know that he's got a gun at that point. What happened during that time period that did not result in president Trump, his protective detail being notified of that and him immediately being removed
Speaker 1: from the situation. Senator, what I will say and then I'll I'll, turn it over to deputy director of bait, no information regarding a weapon on the roof was ever passed to our personnel.
Speaker 22: How is that even possible? Do you wanna comment to that?
Speaker 1: Senator, again, I believe that information, and this is probably something my colleague can can expound on, information that was in law enforcement local law enforcement channels, but did not cross over and make it to secret service awareness.
Speaker 15: Again, that's the spokesperson for the state police of Pennsylvania, was heightened after Crooks was spotted looking through a range finder, a tool used by hunters to judge long distance shots. And at that point, they sent a call and a text to state police who verbally turned right around and gave it to the secret service. The commissioner added, okay. Verbally turned right around. So text comes in, secret service person goes I mean, sorry.
State police person in the command post receives it and turns around and says to the secret service person, hey, dude. We got an issue here. Okay? So we not verbally turned right around and gave it to the secret server. That means that I didn't that verbally was not re texted.
It wasn't sent electronically. Turned right around, gave it to secret service, so we know secret service got it. Okay? Another odd point in this whole story.
Speaker 5: Told me they found the shooter twenty six minutes before and still let president Trump walk on stage. Why was he on the stage? Another banger of a show today for all the wrong reasons. Again, one of these shows I wish I wasn't doing, but I have to.
Speaker 12: Not to take the stage?
Speaker 23: No. Nobody mentioned it. Nobody said there was a problem. And I would have waited for fifteen. They could have said let's wait for fifteen minutes, twenty minutes, five minutes, something.
Nobody said I think that was a mistake. How did somebody get on that roof? And why wasn't he reported? Because people saw that he was on the roof. When you had, Trumpers screaming, the woman in the red in the red shirt, she was screaming, there's a man on the roof.
And then other people said, there's a man on the roof who's got a gun.
Speaker 5: At every site, there's a PI team, folks. I've said this before, a protective intelligence team. Their only job is to go investigate threats. What the hell were they doing for ninety minutes? What were they doing?
Was there a CSU team there? A counter surveillance team? Their entire job is to go and act in an undercover manner and detect threats. Were they even there? If not, why?
Who denied the asset? If they were there, how did they miss this? Folks, you had three post standers from the Secret Service, and I believe 20 to 22 HSI post standers. How did they miss this? You had to shift the body men around president Trump.
They're sitting there. There's usually a right and a left post standard at 12:00 right off the nose of the stage. You've seen them on both sides of the press, standing there like this with the glasses. How did they not see this? You had the DL and a shift supervisor there, the detail leader and a shift a shift supervisor.
Did anybody know this guy was on the roof? Get your pens out. What was the protective intelligence secret service team doing? Were they there? If not, that's an even worse problem.
Why didn't you have a PI team? If you did, what the hell were they doing? Where was the counter surveillance team? How did the post standers miss this? How did the shift miss it?
This is just unforgivable, and I would not be surprised if texts were being deleted right now. I warned you from the beginning that Ron Rowe is part of this scheme to strip security assets from Donald Trump. Nobody listened but you, and thank you. Here's, Nick Sorter breaking. Whistleblowers just revealed to senator Hawley that acting secret service director, Ron Rowe, personally directed cuts to secret service agents responsible for threat assessments while deputy director, and now he's been promoted.
The whistleblower also told Hawley, none of these threat assessment agents were president Butler when Trump was shot. Many of them have been sounding the alarm and problem problems for months. Yet another coincidence. Folks, I told you this. Now why does it matter?
That's where they go to a site in advance and do an assessment of its vulnerability. I'm I'm sorry. I'm not trying to sound students. None of this is hard. Why did I tell them to ask for that?
Because they weren't there. Whistleblower accuses acting secret service director Roe of reducing counter surveillance before Trump's shooting. Two weeks ahead. I told you. Nothing happens, by accident on the show.
If you would have asked for the vulnerability assessment early, you would have found out they don't have one because they weren't there to detect the guy surveilling the site. And as one whistleblower there's a lot of whistleblowers coming forward, so I don't want you to lose faith in the entity, folks. There are a lot of people speaking out, and I told you it was gonna happen because people have known about this forever. One whistleblower came out and said if we would've had counter surveillance there, that guy would've been in handcuffs in the parking lot.
Speaker 1: Have a drone on-site. We did not, put a drone up. Based on the information I have right now, I am aware that there was a request from a local agency to, to offer to fly a drone on that day.
Speaker 24: Police says the whistleblower tells him local law enforcement repeatedly offered to provide drone coverage in the sky above former president Trump's July thirteenth campaign rally, but the Secret Service turned it down. Holly writing in part to Mayorkas, quote, the drones the United States Secret Service was offered had the capability not only to identify active shooters, but also to help neutralize them. It seems the more we learn about this story, the more questions we have.
Speaker 12: Ronald Roe made a shocking admission. Watch.
Speaker 24: Can you confirm that this was the first twenty twenty four campaign event that counter sniper teams were assigned to to the former president.
Speaker 1: It was the first time Secret Service counter snipers, were deployed to support, the former president's detail.
Speaker 12: The former president of The United States and the nominee as the Republican, the man who Democrats in the media have been labeling a clear and present danger to democracy, Hitler and a dictator, wasn't given Secret Service counter sniper teams at his campaign rallies for the last two years. That means when they put Trump on trial in Manhattan, every day when he returned from court to Trump Tower, there were no Secret Service counter snipers. The whole world knew Trump's schedule and location for six weeks in a city with thousands of windows and high rises. No Secret Service counter snipers. That means when Trump was in the Bronx, no Secret Service counter snipers.
Anyone could have climbed onto a tree, could have gone onto a rooftop with a gun. What about when he went to the bodega in Harlem after court? He's enveloped by buildings, hundreds of windows, any one of which a rifle could have fired from. No Secret Service counter snipers. So why all of a sudden, after two years of no Secret Service counter snipers, they showed up in Butler?
Speaker 8: Does Secret Service use encrypted communications at events? On our radio nets, we do, sir.
Speaker 1: Are those memorialized? Are those saved? The radio traffic from Butler, we did not have recordings. Do you normally? Not on the road outside of DC or outside of a presidential or vice presidential, stop.
Speaker 8: So communications between seeking service agents will not be available like we've gotten the communications from local law enforcement.
Speaker 1: I I'm sorry, senator. I So
Speaker 8: we're we're not gonna be able to get those communications. You didn't save them? No, sir. Which is which is very unfortunate.
Speaker 1: It is, sir. And moving forward, we've actually I've directed, that we will now start recording those, so that we will have them moving forward.
Speaker 15: Does the Secret Service have recorded communications from the July 13 event?
Speaker 11: We do not have radio communications from that day.
Speaker 8: When my staff your committee staff, went down to Butler on Friday, first of all, at 05:45, the sniper teams, the secret service did receive the photos of crooks, and they knew he's at the AGR billing. So this is twenty six minutes before he took his first shot. So we we've had that confirmed.
Speaker 15: So what's already happened is the other guns are facing north. They're facing north that way. They've already they were facing the other direction, boop, and they picked them up from facing that direction, and then they faced them this way. So they were facing this way, and they went this way. In fact, let's just look at that real quick.
This is what it looked like before they activated. Their guns were actually not mounted on their tripods. They were lying on the roof. You got the one guy over there, on the far side on the phone talking to somebody. This guy's patrolling closer to us.
He's patrolling with his giant honking binoculars. Those things are monsters. Look at that. He's patrolling his duty area, which is to the south. Right?
Down there. Okay. So that's how they were right before anything happened, and then they had to take their guns, mount them, get them on, and that's when we see them here even before the shots happen. So they're alarmed enough to have abandoned their actual post, pick their guns up, mounted them, and gotten into position so they're glassing in the time that those first three shots ring out. So they're they're on it.
So Secret Service has been informed. These guys are Secret Service. They they have been informed enough to be alarmed enough to abandon their duty overwatch area and swing to the north. So the question is, if that's the case, this isn't just a breakdown of communication between local and secret service. This also, at a minimum, is a breakdown of communication within secret service itself.
So that that much is clear. Okay. That's just logic.
Speaker 11: An individual with a range finder is not a threat.
Speaker 25: What about a man laying on a building that has direct line of sight of President Trump with a gun that people are screaming and pointing out. Is that a threat, miss Cheadle?
Speaker 11: Once that individual was identified, they were neutralized.
Speaker 25: No, they were neutralized. Crooks was neutralized after he shot President Trump in the face, miss Cheadle. Is he only a threat once he fires the weapon?
Speaker 26: Guy or DHS, the secret service is under DHS of of this individual planning to do what he did in the way that he did it. That is going to the roof at that time in order to take a shot at the president. And someone within the FBI or within DHS would have then had to have communicated with DHS's Secret Service to say stand down at this time at this at this aspect of the perimeter, I e the roof. And so that's really the the link here. And so so the the thing that needs to be drilled down to is is this the nature of the stand down.
Again, we have a affidavit from a Secret Service whistleblower that they were supposed to be there, but they were told to stand down. So every
Speaker 11: The information from the people in the crowd was relayed to any law enforcement personnel.
Speaker 25: Now you knew that everyone knew. The people there knew that there was a danger. They knew there was a threat to president Trump, and it was allowed to happen. Was there a stand down order, miss Cheadle? Was there a conspiracy to kill president Trump?
Speaker 11: Absolutely not.
Speaker 25: Then how did this happen?
reSee.it AI Summary
I was surprised to hear Tucker Carlson mention that during his time in the Alps, the wealthiest visitors were Ukrainians. He also pointed out that Ukraine is reportedly selling weapons to other nations, including Mexican cartels, and questioned why this isn't being discussed.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
WOWW…Tucker Carlson during his conversation with Col. Davis says that when he was in the Alps the wealthiest people visiting were Ukrainian. He also states that Ukraine is selling weapons to other nations including MEXICAN CARTELS. He wants to know why nobody is talking about this fact. Good question.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I recently attended a meeting in an expensive Alpine town, overwhelmingly populated by wealthy Ukrainians spending lavishly. This is a pattern across Europe; the richest people are Ukrainian. This money, I believe, should belong to American taxpayers. Furthermore, I know that a significant portion, possibly half, of the arms we send to Ukraine are being sold, some ending up with drug cartels on our border. Our intelligence agencies are aware of this. The media reports Zelensky's denials, but the New York Times could easily order Ukrainian weapons online—this is a fact. The official death toll is likely a lie; the entire situation is a deception. Sending billions in aid without tracking its use is irresponsible, and the possibility of these weapons being used against us is terrifying. This situation mirrors the issues we faced with the Mujahideen in the 80s. The lack of transparency and accountability is appalling.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Again, I had a meeting at, you know, in a ski resort in the Alps, which is probably the most expensive town in the world. I was not there to ski for the record. But the whole town is Ukrainian. You know, all the visitors are Ukrainian, and they're rolling into Hermes and dropping a million dollars in an afternoon. Okay?
So it's it's all through Europe you see this. The richest people are the Ukrainians. That money is ours. It belongs to me and you and every other American taxpayer. That's where it's going.
Second fact, fact, not guess, fact is Ukrainian military is selling a huge percentage up to half of the arms that we send them. Half. And I'm not guessing about this. I know that for a fact, a fact. Okay?
Not speculation. And they're selling it, and a lot of us winding up with the drug cartels on our border. So this is the this this is a crime, what's happening. Our intel agencies are fully aware of this. You tell me they're not profiting from this.
Of course, you think CIA is not profiting from this? Yes, they are. I can't prove that, but I believe that. What they don't know is I know this, but they don't know this. They know this.
And no one is saying it. Like, no American seems aware of this. We're sending these arms to Ukraine, Billions Of Billions hundreds of billions of dollars, and it's being stolen and sold to our actual enemies. Like, what the I'm trying not to swear. What is this?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, the reason why is because you have Zelensky, it was about three weeks ago, I think, was specifically asked this question. So he went at some length in one of his interviews to say, oh, no. Absolutely not. There's no truth to that at all.
We've implemented all of this thing. I know that, but the the media just reported what he said.
Speaker 0: The New York Times could get on the web and order Ukrainian weapons. That's a fact. I'm not guessing. It's a fact. They could do that today.
Like, everyone who wants to know what's going on knows, and yet they're telling me, oh, seventy thousand Ukrainians have died. Seventy thousand? Really? You think that's the number? Everything about this is a lie, and Tony Blinken, of course, because he's running the US government, knows that it's all a lie, and so for him to say that out loud is evil.
Like, that's truly deceptive, I think.
Speaker 1: Oh, and and 100% it is because it is in a direct contradiction to reality on the ground.
Speaker 0: They're selling weapons to the drug cartels? Are you kidding? This is a nightmare. I don't understand. Why is nobody report how come I know that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's that's
Speaker 0: one of the questions. Know
Speaker 1: that? Yeah. You haven't seen that report. Yeah. Yeah.
I mean, how could they not? I mean, this this stuff is all over the place. It's and this has been an open secret for almost the duration of this. Yes. And sometimes they put a a little caveat headline and then move on to whatever's next.
And they don't no one says the implication of, wait, this stuff could come back to bite us on our own border.
Speaker 0: Well, yeah. We saw that we saw that in the eighties with the mujahideen. Of course. How are you gonna have commercial air travel around the world? By the way, if their missiles systems, you know, handheld you know, you you can shoot down a commercial airliner pretty easily with a lot of this stuff.
That's what it's designed to do. And if it's in the hands of separatist groups, terror groups, drug cartels, which it is now, how do you have a civilization? How do you have global air travel? I don't I don't get
Speaker 1: it. Well, yeah. I mean, I I I pray that remains a potential and not something that actually gets manifest, but it's out of our hands, and that's the problem.
Speaker 0: But how can you send hundreds of billions of dollars of aid and weapons to a country and then not keep track of what happens to it?
Speaker 1: I I I can only speculate that they just don't care about that. If it ends up if some of it ends up hurting Russia, then cool. And I think
Speaker 0: that's the standard terror attacks inside Russia, a lot of them. Yeah. So since when does the US government sponsor terror attacks? Like, this is our government.
Speaker 1: Well, of course, we just put a different tag on it. Well, no. We're just helping the Ukrainian side fight its war against the Russian You're fascinating. People. That's that's yeah.
I mean and, yeah, as I think you've talked about before, Julian's daughter who was caught up with people. Yeah. Certainly.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. In general, not Again, not speculating this. Months at all. I know firsthand.
Yeah. So, anyway sorry to get upset. It's that the Lincoln stuff is, like, it's gone.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And then Austin did the same thing.
reSee.it AI Summary
On the 61st anniversary of JFK's assassination, I reflect on how that day in 1963 marked a dark turn for our republic. JFK's efforts to unite Texas Democrats and his last moments with Jackie reveal a couple deeply connected through grief. His last words in Dallas were filled with irony, as the motorcade turned onto Elm Street, leading to tragedy. The aftermath saw LBJ take the oath on Air Force One, with Jackie refusing to change from her bloodied clothes. This day reshaped American politics, leaving lingering questions about conspiracy and power.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🧵MEGA THREAD TIMELINE “Commemorating the 61st Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy” Released at 1PM the time of his death. On November 22, 1963 which is 61 years ago today President Kennedy was assassinated while in Dallas, TX. It was on that day I believe our republic was taken from our hands and sent down a dark path. In subsequent years his brother RFK was assassinated as well on June 6, 1968 at the Ambassador Hotel after winning the California primary preventing his presidency. I believe those same dark forces attempted to do the same to President Trump but something different happened this time in the course of American history. He turned his head and went on to win on 11/5/2024 and so began the first steps to restoring the republic and he did it with the help of a Kennedy which makes this rather poetic. 🧵
Video Transcript AI Summary
Secrecy is repugnant in a free society. The assassination of President Kennedy occurred at 1 PM CST. We must overcome societal divisions – racial, economic, etc. – and work together. The assassinations of both Kennedy brothers are acknowledged. The dangers of excessive concealment outweigh the justifications for it. We must not let the need for security be used to expand censorship. The CIA’s purpose was creating constant wars for the military-industrial complex. Many Americans distrust the Warren Commission report. We must protect our freedoms; they are coming after us. No official should use my words as an excuse to censor, stifle dissent, or withhold facts. Some media push personal agendas, threatening our democracy. We seek a true peace, not one enforced by American weapons; we all share this planet and our children’s future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society. And we are, as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, the secret oaths, and the secret proceedings.
Speaker 1: From Dallas, Texas, the flash apparently official president Kennedy died at 1PM Central Standard Time, two o'clock Eastern Standard Time, some thirty eight minutes ago.
Speaker 0: We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it.
Speaker 2: It's quite clear is is that we can work together in the last analysis and that what has been going on within The United States over the period of the last three years, the divisions of violence, the disenchanted with our society, the divisions whether it's between blacks and whites, between the poor and the more affluent, that we can start to work together. We are a great country, a selfish country, and a compassionate country, and I intend to make that my face as we're running now.
Speaker 3: You won, and I killed Robert Kennedy.
Speaker 4: Yeah. No.
Speaker 3: They shot him down.
Speaker 4: Oh my god. Both of them. Both brothers.
Speaker 0: Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of
Speaker 5: our
Speaker 0: nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning.
Speaker 6: Surrounded by military industrial complex, and, and he learned very early in in an intelligence apparatus that he realized early on that the purpose of the CIA and the intelligence apparatus was to create a constant pipeline of new wars for the for the military industrial complex.
Speaker 0: To the very limits of official censorship and concealment, that I do not intend to permit to the extent that it's in my control.
Speaker 6: Overwhelming information that there was more than one shooter involved and that there were multiple people involved has been recognized, by the American people. 70 of Americans don't believe the warning report to
Speaker 3: what happened. Away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom. It's very simple. They wanna silence me because I will never let them silence you. They want you silent.
And I am the only one that can save this nation because you know they're not coming after me. They're coming after you, and I just happen to be standing in their way, and I will never be moved.
Speaker 0: And no official of my administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal lives and agenda controls to ensure exactly what they will say. And this is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Speaker 3: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Speaker 4: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous.
Speaker 3: You are fake news. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: What kind of a peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
JFK wanted to end a feud between Texas Gov. John Connally & Sen. Yarborough, both democrats. This was to show unity before the 1964 election vs Goldwater likely. Special Assistant to JFK ..Dave Powers brought his home camera.San Antonio was the first stop on 11/21/63 https://t.co/PGIbQPDSZq
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
President Kennedy & Jackie Kennedy would spend their last night together at the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth, Texas in Suite 850. https://t.co/GAw0r61FZ6
Video Transcript AI Summary
Good morning! President and Mrs. Kennedy arrived in Fort Worth last night to a large, enthusiastic crowd and spent the night at the Hotel Texas. Thousands gathered in the rain this morning to see them. It was Mrs. Kennedy's first trip to Texas. As a White House correspondent, I covered President Kennedy extensively. There was some concern about his reception in Texas, as it wasn't considered a Kennedy stronghold. The President was inspirational; even those who disagreed with him liked him. He famously declared we would go to the moon this decade. The decision to go to the moon wasn't about ease, but about the challenge. He was a risk-taker.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Five seven o radio in Fort Worth, WBAP. Here is morning edition, complete news and weather coverage combining authoritative sources of WBAP and ABC, brought to you by your 30 conveniently located Buddies Supermarket. Good morning, everyone. President and missus Kennedy arrived in Fort Worth from Houston late last night to an enthusiastic reception from huge crowds and spent the night in Suite 850 at Hotel Texas downtown.
Speaker 1: Thousands gathered around the presidential hotel at Fort Worth this morning in drizzling rain, many starting nearly three hours before the Kennedys were to come out. After all, it was missus Kennedy's first trip to Texas, and Texans like to make big impressions. This is Sid Davis with the presidential party in Texas.
Speaker 2: I was with Westinghouse Broadcasting Company as a White House correspondent, and I covered Kennedy wherever he went. When the Dallas trip was announced, we were excited to the fact that, it would be a good political trip because we knew that Texas was not a a Kennedy town or state. So there was some trepidation on the part of the press on what kind of reception Kennedy would get.
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, the president of The United States.
Speaker 2: He was inspirational. Even if you didn't agree with him, you couldn't help but like him. No. We shall go to the moon in this decade and return the astronauts safely to Earth. Everybody say he's nuts.
He's crazy.
Speaker 3: Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, thirty five years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon.
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other thing. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Speaker 2: Talk about being a gambler. This guy had what his Spanish would call cojones.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Mrs. Kennedy was not intending on attending the campaign breakfast at 9:30 AM however JFK needed to make a splash and wanted to utilize Jackie. In Paris it was abundantly clear of how popular she was not only nationally but globally. She also spoke fluent French. JFK’s last meal was taken in his room before & was 5 boiled eggs, crispy bacon,Fresh OJ, Coffee with hot milk,toast butter on the side & orange marmalade.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Over 2,000 people attended the Texas breakfast. President Kennedy wanted Jackie to be there because Texas was an important state, believing her presence would improve his reception. Jackie initially wasn't planning to attend. I went to her hotel room, and she was preparing to leave when the President's agent called, insisting she come to the breakfast. Upon her arrival, the crowd erupted in cheers. She wore a two-piece suit; I described the color as raspberry after consulting with a reporter.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There was a breakfast that morning, and I think there are about 2,000 or more people there. And president Kennedy really wanted Jackie to be seen by everybody in Texas. Texas was such an important state. He felt that with Jackie along, he would do better.
Speaker 1: As you may have noticed, missus Kennedy did not enter with the president. So far, we have no indication of where she may be. And I can tell you from where we are standing, there are quite a few ladies who appear to be quite disappointed that missus Kennedy is not here.
Speaker 2: Now missus Kennedy had indicated that she was not planning to go to this breakfast. And so I went to missus Kennedy's room, and she was preparing to leave the hotel.
Speaker 1: Quite a few people in the ballroom are watching the maitre d'. He's the short man that's walking back and forth behind the head table. Now he's pouring coffee. As he moves down the line, he did not stop at missus Kennedy's place.
Speaker 2: Then the phone rang, and it was the agent who was with the president down at the breakfast. He said, Clint, the president wants you to bring missus Kennedy down here. I said, oh, she's not planning to go to that breakfast at all. He said, Clint, you didn't get the message. The president says, bring missus Kennedy down here now.
I said, okay. I got the message. The door opened, we walked in, and the place absolutely erupted.
Speaker 0: When she walked into the room, the crowd just got out of its chairs and started cheering. She was dressed in this two piece suit, and I'm not a fashion expert. So I said to one of the lady reporters, I said, is that pink? And she said, missus Kennedy wouldn't be caught dead in pink. I said, sue excuse me.
What do you call it? She said, you can call it strawberry or raspberry. And I called it raspberry.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The President's valet relayed his breakfast order: a five-minute boiled egg, crisp bacon, fresh orange juice, coffee with hot milk, and toast with butter and orange marmalade. He also specified hot milk with cream and peppers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The president's doctors was ordered by his valet which told us that he would want five minute egg, boiled, crisp bacon, orange juice, fresh, coffee with hot milk. You wanted hot milk with peppers to cream. Toast with butter on the side, and you particularly want an orange marmalade.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo JFK & Jackie had become closer than they ever were in their marriage since the death of the newborn son Patrick on August 9th, 1963 brought them together through shared grief. https://t.co/JTUWDGSJgQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two years ago in Paris, I was known as the man who accompanied Mrs. Kennedy. Traveling through Texas now, I get a similar feeling. People aren't curious about Linden and my attire.
Mrs. Kennedy had a difficult time the previous four months, grieving the loss of baby Patrick. This Texas trip was her first public appearance outside the White House since, and it was uplifting for people to see her happy and smiling.
Before this trip, we never publicly displayed affection. Afterward, we held hands and hugged openly, changing our relationship completely. I've never seen her happier. In Fort Worth, we were given a hat to protect the President from the rain, which he doesn't usually wear.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, two years ago, I introduced myself in Paris by saying that I was the man who had accompanied, missus Kennedy to Paris. I'm getting that somewhat that same sensation, as I travel around Texas. Nobody wonders what Linden and I wear.
Speaker 1: She'd been through a terrible period previous four months. Her baby, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy died in August. And so she was getting over that. This was her first visit out of the White House in the public. And so it was an uplifting thing for people to see her out and smiling.
Speaker 2: Prior to that, you'd never see them hug or kiss or both hands in public. From that point on, they didn't care who who was there. They'd hold hands. They'd hug. And it changed their relationship.
It really changed everything.
Speaker 1: I've never seen her happier than she was that morning.
Speaker 2: Mister president, we know that you don't wear
Speaker 0: a hat.
Speaker 2: We couldn't let you leave Fort Worth without providing you with some protection against the rain.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo Air Force One with JFK & Jackie landed at Dallas Love Field at 11:30 and was greeted by supporters but the team was on edge considering it hostile territory. They were overwhelmed with the support. https://t.co/rtFjyARQep
Video Transcript AI Summary
The vice president and Mrs. Johnson greeted President and Mrs. Kennedy at Love Field. Large crowds surged around the President as he approached the fence. Mrs. Kennedy, unusually, went with him. We were aware of a Dallas group opposed to the President's policies, but their intentions were unknown. The crowd's density prevented us from getting closer. Someone suggested getting ahead of the motorcade for a better view. The President and First Lady then left the fence and proceeded to the limousine where Governor Connolly awaited them for the trip downtown.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The official greeting party is consisting of the vice president Lyndon Johnson and missus Johnson, of course.
Speaker 1: At the airport in Love Field on arrival, there's large crowds. President Kennedy, he just headed straight for the fence where the people were. Missus Kennedy normally wouldn't do that, but she went right along right behind him, and so I accompanied her. We knew that there was a group in Dallas that did not like or did not agree with president Kennedy's position on many things. Now how far they were willing to go for that, I did not know.
We did not know. You never know what's in that crowd, who is in that crowd.
Speaker 2: I mean, the crowd was pushing, just surged around us, and we weren't able to get any further. I wasn't able to really get up close. And Bill said, I think we can probably get ahead of the motorcade and get down where we could get, maybe a closer look.
Speaker 0: And now president and first lady are retreating from the fence. They're heading now for the official limousine. The governor Connolly stands waiting their arrival so that they can make their way downtown.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo “I Have a Rendezvous with Death" by Alan Seeger was JFK’s favorite poem. "We're heading into nut country today. But Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it?" -JFK https://t.co/lR67RfYO6B
Video Transcript AI Summary
The rain had stopped when we left; the President wanted an open car to be close to the people. I surveyed the crowds, even climbing onto the presidential vehicle's rear bumper to be near Mrs. Kennedy, unsure of the onlookers' intentions.
I was on the press bus, enjoying the view. There was something special about this trip, possibly because Jackie was there. My perspective of Dallas shifted; it wasn't cold, and the city seemed welcoming to Jackie, making it a celebration for them to see the First Lady, who'd never visited. Of course, it changed her life.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now it had been raining lightly, but it had stopped. By the time we were ready to leave, the word was the top is to be off. The president insisted on having an open car was because he wanted to be as felt as close to the people as possible. He wanted the people to feel there was never any barrier between them and him. We started to drive through the outskirts of Dallas.
And I was surveying the crowd, just scanning them to see what was going on. Everywhere that they could get to see president and missus Kennedy, they tried to get. I jumped from my position on the follow-up car and went to the rear bumper of the presidential vehicle and got up on top of there to be as close to missus Kennedy as I could be because I didn't know what to expect from any of these people who were that close to her.
Speaker 1: I was in the press bus because I could sit up front in the bus and see out. There was something magical about this trip, and I think it was Jackie and the fact that he brought her. I don't know. I, I changed my opinion about Dallas and Texas. It was not a cold city.
It made a big difference because Jackie was there, and I think that the town really was very, very welcoming to her. It was a celebration that they were getting a chance to see this first lady who'd never been to Dallas. And, of course, it changed her life.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo Nellie Connally the wife of Gov John Connally elated at the reception turns to JFK & says “Mr. President you can’t say Dallas doesn’t love you” “NO, THEY SURE CANT” - JFK’s Last Words https://t.co/C8d2pIEgcY
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Dallas crowd was enthusiastic, and I was relieved that everyone was behaving. I told President Kennedy that Dallas clearly loved him. Then, almost instantly, I heard a noise. I looked at the President; his hands flew to his neck, and he slumped in his seat. He didn't speak, but his eyes…
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Kind of a parade. The Dallas people were just eating the Kennedys up and the Kennedys were thrilled. And I was the old mother hen so happy that the children and the grandparents were behaving. And then So I turned to the president and said, mister president, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you. It may have been could have been a minute.
It might have just been a few seconds and I heard this noise and, I didn't know what it was but I turned to look at the president and his hands flew up to his neck and he sort of sunk down in the seat. He didn't say a word, but his eyes look
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo At 12:30 PM The Kennedy motorcade turns on Elm Street past the Texas State Book Depository & into history. Within seconds the entire fabric of our nation would be torn apart with bullets and never be the same. https://t.co/ALDtUwI8La
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm consumed by guilt; I should have done more, been faster. Something happened in the motorcade. The limousine sped up. Mrs. Kennedy screamed; they shot him in the head. "I love you, Jack," she cried. It happened at Dealey Plaza. People scrambled to escape. I saw women running barefoot, a father shielding his son with his body. We were incredibly close when he was shot in the head. My maternal instincts took over.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have this sense of guilt. I should have been able to do more than I did. I wasn't fast enough. I guess I wasn't faster than a speeding bullet.
Speaker 1: There appears as though something has happened in the motorcade route. Something, I repeat, has happened in the motorcade route. The limousine is now traveling at a very high rate of speed. Secret service men standing up in the representative.
Speaker 0: Missus Kennedy was screaming. They shot his head off. I love you, Jack. It was at Dealey Plaza. We saw the people trying to escape the danger.
I saw women taking their shoes off running without heels. I saw a father take his little boy, place the boy on the ground, and put up his body on top of the boy.
Speaker 2: We were one lane width away from him when he was shot in the head. I think my maternal instinct kicked in.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo At this time Robert Kennedy is swimming & having lunch at Hickory Hill with CIA director McCone and receives a call from his adversary J. Edgar Hoover to inform him. RFK Jr. would be picked up from school and join his father shortly. https://t.co/R1m1ffjGEH
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was at home after my lunch swim, about to return to the Justice Department, when the White House called. It was Ethel, my wife, who answered; it was J. Edgar Hoover. Hearing Hoover's name, I knew it wasn't good news. He told me the President had been shot, possibly fatally.
The news was devastating. It was a shock, and it changed my life forever. My brother was the golden boy; if he could be killed, anything was possible. It instilled a sense of fatalism in me.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bobby was at home when the news came. He'd just taken a swim on his lunch break and was about to head back to the justice department when the phone rang. The direct line to the White House. It was urgent.
Speaker 1: Ethel Kennedy, his wife, picks it up and pulls up the line and says, it's J Edgar Hoover on the phone for you. And as soon as Bobby heard that, his stomach began to sink. He knew that Hoover never called with good news. J. Edgar Hoover said the president has been shot, and it may be fatal.
He is ashen faced. He's, you know, shocked in that moment. Bobby Kennedy's life changed dramatically and forever. It created a kind of fatalistic feeling in Bobby. His brother was the golden boy.
So if he can get killed, anything can happen now. Anything can happen.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I learned about my uncle Jack's assassination when my mother picked me up from school and we saw the flag at half-mast. My father was distraught. The first person he called was the CIA desk chief, asking, "Did your people do this?" He then called Enrique Ruiz, a former Bay of Pigs Brigade commander and friend, asking the same question. CIA Director John McCollum visited our home that day and spent time with us. My father was devastated and walked around like a ghost for months. We hugged him under our yard's cedar tree, trying to comfort him during his grief.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The. Do you remember how you found out about it? I was picked up from school early that day. I went to Sedwell Friends School in Washington, DC, and my mother picked us up early. And while we were leaving, we saw a man in front of the school lowering the flag to half mass.
And I asked my mother why he was doing that, and she said that a bad man had shot my uncle, had shot uncle Jack. And I you know, then when I went home, my father was actually walking in the yard with the director of the CIA, John McCollum. And he had been the first one to my house because CIA was only about, maybe a half mile from our house in Hickory Hill. And the director came over every day and swam in our pool, And my, my he had showed he'd appeared in our house. My father actually that day, the first call that he made was to the CIA, to a, to the desk chief and asked.
And he asked him he was in a, you know, in a state at the time, and he asked, did did, your people do this? That was his first Wow. And then he called Enrique Ruiz, who had been one of the commanders of the Cuban brigade and who was one of the brigade leaders who had remained very, very close to my father. And he, we saw him. He came to dinner off, and he came on ski vacations with us.
And he had fought alongside of Castro and then turned on him, and he had been part of the Bay of Pigs Brigade. And he was in Washington DC at a hotel that day. And my father's next call was to him, and he said, did your people do this? And then when Macomb came over, he asked him the same question as he walked in the yard. When we came in the driveway, my father left Macomb and came up and hugged us and then took us for a walk around the yard.
And, there was a cedar tree at the bottom of our yard, and we all sat on the stood under that together. And I, you know, and hugged my dad because we couldn't see how upset he was that he was destroyed. And it took him, it took him many, many months to to recover. He walked around like a ghost for, for several months
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo 12:35 PM The Kennedy motorcade arrived at Parkland Hospital and after being in a state of shock Jackie finally releases her embrace of JFK and he is taken into trauma room 1. https://t.co/GLjQKaTFig
Video Transcript AI Summary
At Parkland Hospital, Mrs. Kennedy clutched the President's body, refusing to let go. I covered him with my coat to get her to release him. Initial reports from the emergency room indicated the President was still alive, though Governor Connally was also injured.
I was near the President's feet; I couldn't look at him for fear of fainting. I knew I needed to stay strong. A doctor urgently requested access, and people were asked to evacuate. Someone then inquired about the President's blood type. Mrs. Kennedy's stunned, "Do you mean he's alive?" was met with silence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When we got to Parkland Hospital, missus Kennedy had hold of its body, and she would not let go. I pleaded with her. I said, please, missus Kennedy, let us help the president. Got no response at all. And then I realized she wasn't going to let go.
So I took my suit coat off and covered up his back with his head, shoulders, and upper back, and when I did that, she let go.
Speaker 1: The latest unconfirmed report from the emergency room is that he is still alive. Texas governor John Connally also was hit by the bullets.
Speaker 2: We got to try my room one. I kinda got pushed in with the crowd right beside his shoes or feet. I couldn't look at the president. I I was feeling faint. I knew if I looked at him I'd pass out and it was like I I would just you can't do this Paul.
Now was a time you know you're needed more. You gotta stay with it. You gotta hang in there. I heard a doctor shouted, let me through, let me through, and they're asking everybody to evacuate the room. And it was about that time somebody came out and asked for the, if anyone knew the president's blood type.
And missus Kennedy kind of stood up and said, oh, do you mean he's alive? And it was just utter silence.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo Secret Service agent @ClintHill_SS is informed that Robert Kennedy is on the phone requesting an on the ground update of his brother’s condition. https://t.co/MY3nsjsIQi
Video Transcript AI Summary
My boss yelled at me to call the White House. The operator connected me to Robert Kennedy, who asked what was happening. I told him both President Kennedy and the governor had been shot—it was as bad as it could get. He hung up. Mrs. Kennedy knew immediately, when he fell into her lap, that the President was dead.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My boss yelled at me, Clint, get a telephone, open up a line to the White House, let them know what's going on. The operator said, mister Hill, I'm sorry, but Robert Kennedy wants to talk to you. I said, okay. Fine. Mister attorney general, can I help you?
He said, Clint, he said, what's going on down there? I said, both president Kennedy and the governor have been shot. And he said, well, how bad is it? And so I just said, well, it's as bad as it could get. And with that, he just hung up the phone.
Missus Kennedy, she knew as soon as he fell in her lap, I'm sure she knew, that the president could not have survived and was, in fact, dead.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo @ClintHill_SS 2 Priests give President Kennedy last rights & he is pronounced dead at 1pm. Press. Secretary Malcom Kilduff makes the announcement at 1:33 that JFK is dead shocking the nation. https://t.co/roamnBvmP7
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Kennedy died today in Dallas from a gunshot wound to the head. This is confirmed by two priests who were with him. I don't have further details about the assassination. We're trying to reach WBAP TV. Right now, I'm overwhelmed; I don't know what to say or do. It feels like the United States lost its innocence today. A press room is being set up, and Malcolm Kellgren, assistant press secretary, is visibly upset.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Upstairs is a press room being established upstairs. And the Malcolm Kellgren assistant press secretary got up at the microphone, tears streaking his cheek.
Speaker 1: Rupert Johnson f Kennedy died at approximately 01:00 today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain. As a fourth, right through the head. I have no other details regarding the assassination of the president. Two priests who were with president Kennedy say he is dead.
Out of bullet wounds. This is the latest information we have from Dallas. We will attempt now to get to station WBAP TV. Twenty five minutes. I see a aircraft.
With a ballot. What's your feeling right now? I really couldn't say. Really. Right now, I just don't know what to do.
I don't even know where to go, what to say. It's nothing for me to say. Yeah. It's my belief that the United States lost its innocence on 11/22/1963.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo @ClintHill_SS Jackie along with JFK’s casket head to Love Field. Once on board LBJ calls RFK to ask the procedure of taking the oath even though it’s not necessary since he’s the defacto President. He insists on taking it while still in Dallas. https://t.co/0UVDhBOqgj
Video Transcript AI Summary
I drove to Love Field to see Air Force One. We had to unload a gasket. I sat in the second row, by the window, and I completely broke down.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We went and drove to Love Field where Air Force One was situated. And then we had to offload the gasket. I went to the front sat in the second row against the window and I I broke down completely.
Video Transcript AI Summary
On Air Force One, before takeoff from Dallas, President Johnson called Attorney General Robert Kennedy to secure his approval for the presidential oath administration. This call was incredibly difficult for both men; Johnson was calling his nemesis, while Kennedy was still reeling from his brother's assassination. Johnson pressed Kennedy with questions about the oath's requirements, a detail Kennedy found insensitive and irrelevant at that moment. Kennedy, somewhat puzzled by the call, promised to check with an assistant. There's disagreement over who initiated the idea of the in-flight oath; Johnson claimed it was Kennedy's suggestion, a manipulation tactic to involve Kennedy and deflect responsibility. This tactic backfired, further escalating tensions between the two.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: LBJ, while he's on board Air Force One, they haven't left the ground yet, decides to call Robert Kennedy, the attorney general, to basically get his buy in to a plan to have the oath administered before they leave Dallas.
Speaker 1: Just think about how difficult and painful this phone call is for both men. Lyndon Johnson is calling his arch enemy. Robert Kennedy is stunned. I mean, he's still in a state of shock. He just found out less than a half an hour earlier that his brother was dead.
And now he's talking to a man who we never accepted as vice president, a man who he despised, who is now occupying his brother's chair. And Robert Kennedy was somewhat puzzled about why Johnson would be calling him about the oath of office. Robert Kennedy doesn't know anything about the oath of office.
Speaker 2: Johnson peppered Kennedy quite insensitively in retrospect with questions about who could administer the oath of office and whether it had to take a precise form and what the constitutional requirements were and all sorts of practical questions that really didn't concern Robert Kennedy at that moment. He certainly understood that there needed to be president of The United States, but he felt that Johnson was grabbing control much too eagerly for his taste.
Speaker 1: So what he says to Lyndon Johnson is, let me check with the assistant attorney general to find out about the oath and who can administer it. Robert Kennedy interrupts the conversation.
Speaker 0: How the conversation between Johnson and Bobby unfolds is a matter of some dispute. Bobby Kennedy insists that the idea for Johnson to take the oath while still in Dallas on the plane came from Johnson. Johnson implies that it was Bobby Kennedy's idea.
Speaker 1: But again, this is Johnson the master manipulator. He wants to pull Robert Kennedy into this whole process. He wants to be able to make the decision to take the oath in Dallas, not his decision. This is RFK's decision. And for that afternoon when they rest of the Kennedy people came to the plane, you know what Johnson said, don't you?
Bobby wants me to take the oath. But it only worked against him, and it only increased the anger and the hostility between the two camps. And it was about to come to a head on Air Force One.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Jackie is requested to join LBJ for the taking of the oath administered by Judge Sarah Hughes. When asked if she wants to change her bloody clothes she responds, “NO, LET THEM SEE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE” LBJ takes the oath at 2:38pm Jackie’s Chanel suit will remain unseen in the National Archives until 2103.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I recall entering the room with 28 others assembled by LBJ. We waited for Mrs. Kennedy, who had agreed to join us for the swearing-in but needed time to compose herself. When she arrived, the damage was evident; blood stained her dress and shoes. She appeared to be in shock, her expression serious and unsmiling. Mrs. Johnson offered her a change of clothes, but she refused, stating, "Let them see what they have done." The impact of the moment was profound.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I remember coming into the room. There were 28 people in the room that I counted, and LBJ, as he usually did, would assemble the people. He had his secretary go back and talk to missus Kennedy and see if she would like to stand with us for the swearing in. And she sent word back, yes, I do. But I need some time to compose myself.
And we waited about four, five, or ten minutes, and she came forward. And I could see the damage that had been done. Then I could see the dress. She had blood on her where she crayed out the president's head in her lap. Blood was congealing on her stocking and on her shoes.
I would say she was in shock. I I she knew what was going on, but, her eyes were wide, unsmiling, serious. Missus Johnson said, would you like to change your clothes to something else? And she said, no. Let them see what they have done.
I just don't want to swear open
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo @ClintHill_SS Air Force One departs Love Field in Dallas,TX at 2:47 pm and for the first time in history it carries two American Presidents on board. https://t.co/Kmr1cDTybL
Video Transcript AI Summary
It was a bittersweet moment. He said, "Now let's get in the air." Seven minutes after Lyndon Johnson's inauguration, and 106 minutes after John F. Kennedy was declared dead, Air Force One departed from Love Field in Dallas, heading to Washington D.C. For the first time ever, Air Force One carried two American presidents.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A joyous moment because it's not. And he turns and he says, now let's get in the air. And at 02:46, just seven minutes after Lyndon Johnson takes the oath of office, one hundred and six minutes after John f Kennedy is officially pronounced dead, Air Force One lifts off from Love Field in Dallas en route to Washington DC. And for the first time in history, Air Force One was carrying two American presidents.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@NatGeo @ClintHill_SS LBJ requests Air Force One patch in Rose Kennedy the mother of President John F. Kennedy to offer his condolences. https://t.co/yGNqIzowFG
Video Transcript AI Summary
We called President Kennedy's mother in Hyannis. She addressed him as "Mr. President," even before Johnson felt comfortable using that title. Johnson became emotional, breaking down, and quickly handed the phone to Lady Bird.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We should call Kennedy's mother. So a call is patched through to Hyannis, where the mother of president Kennedy gets on the line. She calls him mister president. Before Johnson was comfortable with the term, you know, Rose Kennedy's already calling. And then Johnson really becomes emotional and breaks down and quickly gives the phone over to Lady Bird.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Air Force One finally lands at 5:58pm EST at Andrew’s AFB and is met by Robert F. Kennedy who races on board and brushes past a scorned LBJ without a word or a glance to meet Jackie & escort her with his brothers casket to Bethesda bringing an end to the most consequential day in American politics arguably.
Video Transcript AI Summary
At Andrews Air Force Base, Lyndon Johnson wanted a public display of the presidential transition, with the press witnessing the transfer of power. He planned to escort Jackie Kennedy off the plane after JFK's body. However, Robert Kennedy rushed past Johnson without acknowledgement to reach Jackie. This was seen as a deliberate snub by Johnson and his advisors, creating tension at a time of national grief. Johnson was furious at being deprived of a planned photo opportunity, deplaning without any Kennedy family members. While some Kennedys claimed Bobby didn't see Johnson, the incident highlighted the immediate rift between the Johnson and Kennedy factions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: At Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, DC. Robert Kennedy had wanted this to be a private affair. He knew how shy missus Kennedy was. He knew that certainly under these conditions, she would not want the world media to see her and to see the coffin carrying her husband as they got off the plane. But Lyndon Johnson wanted the press to
Speaker 1: be there.
Speaker 0: We wanted the whole world to see that the transition of power had taken place. Now Johnson had made clear is that what he wanted to do was to have the president's body taken off first, and then he would escort missus Kennedy off the plane behind the casket to, again, communicate the single most important message of the day, continuity.
Speaker 2: This will show that kind of orderly transferral of power. It will show his concern for the Kennedy family. There's gonna be photographers there. It's gonna be a nice picture. It will show him at his best.
It's the decent thing to do I think but it's also the political thing to
Speaker 1: do. JFK's coffin was going to be removed from the rear of the plane. Robert Kennedy as soon as the plane lands raced across the tarmac and entered the plane at the front and began to push his way throwing elbows really to get as quickly as possible to Jackie Kennedy to find where she was in the plane.
Speaker 0: And as he's pushing his way through, one of the people he brushes by without even acknowledging is the new president of The United States, Lyndon Johnson.
Speaker 2: He just blows by LBJ. I mean, an unbelievable breach of protocol that he doesn't even stop to acknowledge the new president of The United States.
Speaker 1: Later, some of the Kennedy people, including Bobby Kennedy himself, would insist that in Bobby's single mindedness to find Jackie, he hadn't actually seen LBJ.
Speaker 0: But let's face it. Lyndon Johnson's a pretty difficult guy to miss. It's hard on a plane to walk past the six foot four guy and not see him. So you have to think that Robert Kennedy willfully refused to acknowledge the new president of The United States, and that just drove Johnson nuts. Robert Kennedy and the Kennedy people take possession of the casket, and they are the ones who exit with it, leaving Lyndon Johnson deprived of his photo opportunity.
So what ends up happening is by the time the Kennedy people deplane with the body and load it into an ambulance and they pull the card away and bring up the steps, the Kennedy people are long gone. And there's Lyndon Johnson. I mean, he was furious having to deplane without any member of the Kennedy family and without Jackie with them.
Speaker 1: Lyndon Johnson and his advisers took this as a very deliberate snub. And right in this moment when there ought to have been some unity and there ought to have been this shared feeling of of tragedy and resolve for the difficult days that were ahead, There was the sense that Robert Kennedy had no interest even in exchanging a single word with LBJ, that this was the way it was going to be and Robert Kennedy made it clear
Speaker 0: in
Speaker 1: that moment.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
Finally. The film JFK by @TheOliverStone was what stirred my interest in politics & the harsh reality that all is not as it seems. On the matter of conspiracy I will simply note that on that day in Dallas. The mayor was Earle Cabbell was the mayor. It’s been declassified under the JFK Records ACT that he was a CIA asset since 1956. The brother of CIA Director Allen Dulles who was fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs disaster. I will just leave you with this quote “That little Kennedy….he thought he was a God” - Dulles
Video Transcript AI Summary
In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned against the undue influence of the military-industrial complex. John F. Kennedy's narrow 1960 election victory ushered in a new era, but he inherited the CIA's secret war in Cuba, culminating in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Amidst these crises, Kennedy's administration also grappled with conflicts in Laos and Vietnam. He publicly advocated for peace, urging a re-evaluation of relations with the Soviet Union, emphasizing our shared humanity and the need for a peace not enforced by American might.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Military security alone.
Speaker 1: January '19 '60 '1, president Dwight d Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation.
Speaker 0: Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
Speaker 1: November 1960, senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy of Massachusetts wins one of the narrowest election victories in American history over the vice president Richard Nixon by a little more than 100,000 votes. Alongside his beautiful and elegant wife Jacqueline Bouvier, Kennedy is the symbol of the new freedom of the nineteen sixties, signifying change and upheaval to the American public.
Speaker 2: That all men are created equal. The degree of mind and spirit that I possess will be devoted to the cause of freedom around the world. Today, the proudest post is is the ideal leader. Now.
Speaker 1: He inherits a secret war against the communist Castro dictatorship in Cuba, a war run by the CIA and angry Cuban exiles. Castro was a successful revolutionary frightening to American business interests in Latin America. This war culminates in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 when Kennedy refuses to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade. Kennedy, taking public responsibility for the failure, privately claims the CIA lied to him and tried to manipulate him into ordering an all out American invasion of Cuba. In October 1962, the world comes to the brink of nuclear war when Kennedy quarantines Cuba after announcing the presence of offensive Soviet nuclear missiles 90 miles off American shores.
Soviet ships with more missiles sail towards the island, but at the last moment, they turn back. The world breathes with relief. In Washington, rumors abound that JFK has cut a secret deal with Russian premier Khrushchev not to invade Cuba in return for a Russian withdrawal of missiles. Suspicions abound that Kennedy is soft on communism. Kennedy also finds himself embroiled in Laos and Vietnam.
Speaker 2: We've got our difficulties there quite obviously. Unless a greater effort is made by the government to win popular support. I don't think that, the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it's their war. They're the ones who have to win it or lose it.
Speaker 1: Early that fateful summer, Kennedy speaks of his new vision at the American University in Washington.
Speaker 2: What kind of a peace do I mean, and what kind of a peace do we see? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. We must reexamine our own attitudes towards the Soviet Union. Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air.
We all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Pastor Budde is solely responsible for the backlash she’s facing after disrespecting Trump and his supporters during a solemn church event. Her actions seemed calculated, likely influenced by the left, aiming for a soundbite. This “theater” at the National Cathedral inadvertently drew attention to her and her funding sources, ultimately leading to scrutiny of USAID. It’s ironic that her attempt to make a statement has backfired, and I can’t help but find humor in the situation.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
The Screeching Left only has one person to blame and it’s Pastor Budde for drawing attention to herself by disrespecting Trump and his supporters in church on a solemn occasion which led to looking into her and consequently…USAID. She was playing a game of FA and likely given instruction by the left to say something they could clip for news bites thinking this is 2017 and forget about the FO stage. So they can all thank the pastor for opening her big mouth..She didn’t realize it then but her little “Theater” at the National Cathedral is what led to X and then Trump looking into her source of funding and then landed squarely on USAID. I hope it was worth it lady…because we thank you LOLOL
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
@JamesOKeefeIII The suppression is on..when Trump wins they are gonna have alot to answer for regarding election interference..we also need to repeal the Mundt-Smith Modernization act that made propaganda legal in 2013..guess who signed that bill? You already know who. https://t.co/9DzOJAStdd
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2013, propaganda was legalized in the United States. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, buried within the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, repealed the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act. The original act authorized the State Department and mainstream media to engage in propagandizing foreign countries, but prohibited releasing that same propaganda in America for public consumption. Obama's signing of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act lifted this prohibition. Now, any propaganda, even if outrageous, is legal, making it easier to perpetrate false narratives on the American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 2013, it was legalized in the United States to propagandize its citizens. What? Like, that's some scary third world stuff going on. That's the kind of stuff that people use to topple governments to take away freedoms.
Speaker 1: Yes. You heard that right. Almost a decade ago, propaganda was legalized in the United States with the passage of the Smithmont Modernization Act, which you've probably never heard of. The Smithmont Modernization Act was buried in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act for a good reason, because it repealed the 1948 Smithmont Act, which authorized the State Department and the mainstream media to engage in propagandizing foreign countries, but it prohibited releasing that same propaganda in America for public consumption. This prohibition was lifted when the Smith Modernization Act was signed into law by Obama.
Very simply, Obama gave it a reboot in 2012. So no matter how outrageous the propaganda may be, it's completely legal. Propaganda, in other words, a false narrative for whatever specific purpose, is now much much easier to perpetrate on the people.