reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @Milajoy
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
The White House releases the names of the NGOs FUNDING Antifa and the riots. https://t.co/FC1JbUNpoP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript claims the organizers “followed the money” to what they call “Riot Inc.” and its “protest industrial complex,” stating it involves a network of NGOs funded by multiple sources, including the Soros/Open Society network, the Arabella funding network, the Tides funding network, the network of Neville Roy Singham, “Foreign Cash,” and “big left wing funders.” It also says some funders “aren’t citizens of this country,” citing Mr. Hansjorg Veiss of Switzerland.
The speaker presents three “money facts” about Riot Inc. First, like any corporation, Riot Inc. is described as having many divisions beyond an “anti… boots on the ground division,” including PR, marketing, and a “very well-funded legal division” intended to get “boots on the ground” back on the streets quickly. The transcript states that Riot Inc. has “investors that I mentioned.”
Second, the speaker claims “dozens of radical organizations” have received “more than one hundred million dollars” from Riot Inc. investors. These organizations are described as including “lawyer groups” and groups that advocate labeling “good, honest Americans” as “fascists.”
Third, the transcript claims “more than one hundred million dollars in US taxpayer funding” flowed into these funding networks, including “at least four million dollars” to “these very groups themselves.” It cites an Atlanta event called “Stop Cop City,” saying “over sixty rioters were charged with domestic terrorism,” and claims these groups received money for that from both “the billionaire class as well as taxpayer money.”
The transcript further claims the money helps fund “de-decentralized crowdfunding platforms,” naming groups and references such as “Antifa,” “the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork” (stated as having links to an attack on an ice facility), and “the Socialist Rifle Association.” It adds that some crowdfunding platforms are funded by the Riot Inc network, and asserts that lacking LLCs or EIN numbers “doesn’t mean they can’t get paid.”
The speaker closes by stating they will “keep following the money” and thanking leadership.
Full Transcript
We followed the money, and we followed it to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. And we found a network of NGOs. It's not just the Soros network, the Open Society network, it's other funding networks, the Arabella funding network, the Tides funding network Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash and it's also big left wing funders. Some of them aren't citizens of this country Mr. Hansjorg Veiss of Switzerland. They're pouring- Money into this entire ecosystem, and so I want to share three money facts with you about what we call Riot Inc. Number one, like like any corporation, Riot Inc. has many divisions. It doesn't just have the anti-uh, boots on the ground division. It has PR divisions, it has marketing divisions, it has a very well-funded legal division to get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible. but it does have those investors that I mentioned. Number two We have identified dozens of radical organizations, not just the decentralized Antifa organizations, but dozens of radical organizations that have received more than one hundred million dollars from the Riot Inc investors. These would be the lawyer groups, these would be the groups that advocate for calling good, honest Americans fascists, et cetera. and then three, I think the most shocking thing is that we have found that more than one hundred million dollars in US taxpayer funding has- Flowed into these funding networks, including at least four million dollars to these very groups themselves, not just Antifa types, but there was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City, over sixty rioters were charged with domestic terrorism these groups received money for that from both the, the billionaire class as well as taxpayer money. So one other thing, the-- this money helps fund the de-decentralized crowdfunding platforms the- These are ways that Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork, which had links to that attack on the ice facility, the Socialist Rifle Association, and just because they don't have LLCs or EIN numbers doesn't mean they can't get paid. Some of these funding platforms, crowdfunding platforms, are funded by this network that we call Riot Inc. So, again, I wanna thank you for your leadership, for the whole cabinet's leadership on this. we're gonna keep following the money and I appreciate everything you're doing, sir.
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
The White House releases the names of the NGOs FUNDING Antifa and the riots. https://t.co/FC1JbUNpoP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker says they “followed the money” to what they call the “protest industrial complex,” “Riot Inc.,” and identified a network of NGOs funding the ecosystem. They state the funding extends beyond the Soros/Open Society network to other funding networks, including the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, and “Foreign Cash,” along with “big, left wing” funders, including non-citizens. The speaker names Mr. Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland as an example of such funders.
The speaker presents three “money facts” about Riot Inc. First, they describe Riot Inc. as having divisions similar to a corporation: not only an “Antifa boots on the ground” division, but also PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a “very well funded legal division” to “get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible,” alongside the investors previously mentioned. Second, they claim they identified “dozens of radical organizations” that received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors, including “lawyer groups” that advocate for calling “good honest Americans fascists.” Third, they claim that more than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to “these very groups themselves.”
They cite an Atlanta event called “Stop Cop City,” saying more than 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism and that these groups received money from both “the billionaire class” and “taxpayer money” for that. The speaker also claims that this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms used by groups such as “Antifa,” the “John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork” (linked by the speaker to an attack on an ice facility), and the “Socialist Rifle Association.” They add that groups without LLCs or EIN numbers can still be paid through these crowdfunding platforms.
The speaker closes by saying they will keep “following the money” and thanks the audience for leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We followed the money, and we followed it to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. And we found a network of NGOs. It's not just the Soros network, the Open Society network, it's other funding networks, the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash. And it's also big, left wing funders. Some of them are not citizens of this country.
Mr. Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. They're pouring money into this entire ecosystem. And so I want to share three money facts with you about what we call Riot Inc. Number one, like any corporation, Riot Inc.
Has many divisions. It doesn't just have the Antifa boots on the ground division. It has PR divisions, it has marketing divisions, it has a very well funded legal division to get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible. But it does have those investors that I mentioned. Number two, we have identified dozens of radical organizations, not just the decentralized and Tifo organizations, but dozens of radical organizations that have received more than $100,000,000 from the Riot Inc.
Investors. These would be the lawyer groups. These would be the groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists, etcetera. And then three, think the most shocking thing is that we have found that more than $100,000,000 in U. S.
Taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves, not just Antifa types, but there was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City. Over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class as well as taxpayer money. So one other thing, this money helps fund the decentralized crowd funding platforms. These are ways that Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork, which had links to that attack on the ice facility, the Socialist Rifle Association and just because they don't have LLCs or EIN numbers doesn't mean they can't get paid.
Some of these funding platforms, crowdfunding platforms are funded by this network that we call rioting. So again, I want to thank you for your leadership, for the whole cabinet's leadership on this. We're gonna keep following the money, and I appreciate everything you're doing, sir.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m saying that on the day George Floyd died, the post claims he used fentanyl and other drugs, assaulted a woman and child, tried passing a counterfeit $20, robbed a liquor store, resisted arrest, and then died of overdose. It calls to remove his statues and replace them with ones for Laken Riley or Joselyn Nungaray.
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
Reminder: On The day he died, George Floyd got wasted on fentanyl & other drugs, assaulted a woman and her child, tried to pass a counterfeit $20, ripped off a liquor store, resisted arrest and then died of a drug overdose. The George Floyd statues need to be taken down and replaced with ones for Laken Riley or Joselyn Nungaray instead.
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
A year ago James Comer referred ActBlue to the DOJ for prosecution. And we haven't heard a word about it since. And now ActBlue raised $3 billion last year. Democrats get away with everything because Republicans are WEAK. https://t.co/06ZqF8yjHS
Video Transcript AI Summary
FEC data shows some senior citizens across the US have been donating thousands of times per year, with names and addresses attached to over $200,000 in contributions. The report says it knocked on the doors of some of these donors to corroborate the received data and is “wondering if these donors are victims of what appears to be a money laundering scheme.”
Cindy Noe of Annapolis, Maryland, is described as having allegedly contributed over 1,000 times in 2022 to ACT Blue, totaling $18,849.77—presented as requiring three donations per day every day for the year. When approached, the transcript shows an exchange in which the interviewer asks if Cindy Noe donated to ActBlue, saying, “You did donate to ActBlue, right?” The response given is: “Once in a while.” The interviewer references the amount: “About eighteen thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars.” The response given is: “No, I don’t think so.” The interviewer then asks whether people are using Cindy’s address: “No people are using your address?” The response is: “I don’t think so.”
Full Transcript
FEC data shows that some senior citizens across the US have been donating thousands of times per year. Some of these individuals' names and addresses are attached to over two hundred thousand dollars in contributions. We went and knocked on a few of their doors to corroborate the data that we received. We're wondering if these donors are victims of what appears to be a money laundering scheme. Cindy Noe of Annapolis, Maryland, who in the year two thousand twenty-two allegedly contributed over one thousand times to ACT Blue, totaling eighteen thousand Eight hundred and forty nine dollars and seventy seven cents. That means Cindy would have had to donate three times a day every day for the whole year. My name's James O'Keefe, and we're doing a story on the amount of people that have donated. You did donate to ActBlue, right? Once in a while. About eighteen thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars. No, I don't think so. No people are using your address? I don't think so.
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
Stacy Abrams started a NGO and 30 days later was given $2 BILLION dollars by the Biden Administration. To date, she has not had to return a penny. Even Elon Musk talks about the obvious FRAUD. Where is our money, Stacy? https://t.co/cnyMseJxSN
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker says the fraudsters complain the loudest and with fake righteous indignation, and that is a tell. They describe these people as crazy. They point to examples like the $2,000,000,000 to Stacey Abrams’ NGO that basically didn’t exist and suddenly gets $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government. She asks, why? and notes that there are many such cases like that.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The you know who complains the loudest and the with the the most amount of fake righteous indignation? The fraudsters. That's it's a tell. You know what that are crazy. Like, the the $2,000,000,000 to Stacey Abrams NGO that basically didn't exist and suddenly gets $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government.
She says, why? And there are many such cases like that.
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
Stacy Abrams started a NGO and 30 days later was given $2 BILLION dollars by the Biden Administration. To date, she has not had to return a penny. Even Elon Musk talks about the obvious FRAUD. Where is our money, Stacy? https://t.co/cnyMseJxSN
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserts that fraudsters complain the loudest and with fake righteous indignation, calling it a tell. They cite a striking example: $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government to Stacey Abrams’ NGO, which the speaker says basically didn’t exist. They question, “Why?” and note that there are many such cases like that.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The you know who complains the loudest and the with the the most amount of fake righteous indignation? The fraudsters. That's it's a tell. You know what that are crazy. Like, the the $2,000,000,000 to Stacey Abrams NGO that basically didn't exist and suddenly gets $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government.
She says, why? And there are many such cases like that.
reSee.it AI Summary
I reveal the actual dollar amounts these Senators took from Big Pharma: Bernie Sanders $23M, Elizabeth Warren about $11M, Raphael Warnock about $15M. It should be illegal to vote on America’s health when you’re owned by Big Pharma.
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
Check out the ACTUAL dollar amount the holier than thou Senators took from Big Pharma. It should be ILLEGAL to vote on America’s health when you are owned by Big Pharma. Bernie Sanders: over $23 MILLION Elizabeth Warren: nearly $11 MILLION Raphael Warnock: nearly $15 MILLION https://t.co/n9OpoO9V1c
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
This paid protestor/agitator discusses what he charges for different levels of RAGE when “protesting”. We always knew the protests weren't organic. This guy PROVES it. https://t.co/XtfX1kT8Fp
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses paid protest work and different rate structures. They say protest contracts are lower: “maybe 20 an hour to hold a sign.” For “outside agitators,” the rate is higher: “I go 50 an hour. Nice. Go 50 an hour.” After certain temperatures, the pay increases further; in negative temperatures like “negative 30 Minneapolis,” the rate is “100 an hour to be out here.” The speaker notes someone is paying them and confirms they’ve received similar payments recently: “I know I got the same check last week. Exactly. Know.” They add that they were previously earning “35 an hour,” but they weren’t “screaming my lungs off,” and there are contingencies in place. The speaker mentions decibel readers used to measure loudness and says the right doesn’t know about that yet, claiming to personally have one: “They make you aware of those decibel readers to see how loud you’re actually… MAGA doesn’t know about the decibel readers. I got one on me right now.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Really, it's paid. Speaking of being paid, how much do you get paid to protest? I know that's a Usually protest rates go like outside agitator rates or just strict protest rates? Like, just like sign up, put your code on, hold a sign that was pre made for You you just hold a sign. I got a couple of pictures holding signs.
I can tell you those contracts are lower, maybe 20 an hour to hold a sign. You want to outside agitate? I go 50 an hour. Nice. Go 50 an hour.
Then that once we pass certain temperatures, we're in the negatives, like negative 30 Minneapolis, I'm charging a 100 an hour to be out here. Yeah. You better. You know, who's paying me too. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. I know I got the same check last week. Exactly. Know.
We get like, I mean, I was getting 35 an hour, but you know, I wasn't screaming my lungs off. I was only, you know, I was There's contingencies. They make you aware of those decibel readers to see how loud you're actually They do. And the right doesn't know, MAGA doesn't know about that yet. Yeah.
MAGA doesn't know about the decibel readers. I got one on me right now.
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
REMINDER: this was George Floyds toxicology report. He died of a drug overdose. There wasn't a drug he didn't take that day. https://t.co/Xx6JKdPYvK
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
CNN cameraman admits to being a part of the cabal trying to overthrow Trump while secretly being filmed. https://t.co/bxjhx9xCUi
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
Do NOT let this fade. Keep the pressure on. Ilhan Omar and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi’s (Omar’s BROTHER) marriage certificate. This incestuous SICKO married her full blood brother to skirt immigration laws. Denaturalize and deport her. https://t.co/Yiu7HLAcg8
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
The White House releases the names of the NGOs FUNDING Antifa and the riots. https://t.co/xMVivLO9oB
Video Transcript AI Summary
We followed the money to what is described as the protest industrial complex, referred to as Riot Inc., and to a network of NGOs funding it. The network includes not only the Soros/Open Society network but also the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash, and other large left-leaning funders, with some participants not citizens of the United States. Mr. Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland is cited as recognizing this international funding flow into the ecosystem.
Three money facts are shared about Riot Inc. First, Riot Inc. operates like a corporation with multiple divisions beyond the visible “Antifa boots on the ground” unit, including PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division designed to keep these boots on the ground on the streets as quickly as possible, in addition to the investors previously mentioned. Second, dozens of radical organizations have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and other organizations that advocate for portraying good, honest Americans as fascists, among other activities. Third, more than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, with at least $4,000,000 directed to the groups themselves (not only Antifa-type groups). An example cited is an Atlanta event called Stop Cop City, where over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism, and these groups reportedly received money from both billionaire donors and taxpayer funds.
The speaker notes that this money also supports decentralized crowdfunding platforms, which facilitate funding for groups such as Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (linked to the attack on the ice facility), and the Socialist Rifle Association. The absence of LLCs or EIN numbers for some of these groups does not prevent them from getting paid. Crowdfunding platforms are funded by the network identified as Riot Inc., enabling these groups to receive funds despite organizational formalities. The speaker concludes by thanking leadership and promising to continue following the money, emphasizing the cabinet’s leadership in this effort.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We followed the money, and we followed it to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. And we found a network of NGOs. It's not just the Soros network, the Open Society network, it's other funding networks, the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash. And it's also big, left wing funders. Some of them are not citizens of this country.
Mr. Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. They're pouring money into this entire ecosystem. And so I want to share three money facts with you about what we call Riot Inc. Number one, like any corporation, Riot Inc.
Has many divisions. It doesn't just have the Antifa boots on the ground division. It has PR divisions, it has marketing divisions, it has a very well funded legal division to get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible. But it does have those investors that I mentioned. Number two, we have identified dozens of radical organizations, not just the decentralized and Tifo organizations, but dozens of radical organizations that have received more than $100,000,000 from the Riot Inc.
Investors. These would be the lawyer groups. These would be the groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists, etcetera. And then three, think the most shocking thing is that we have found that more than $100,000,000 in U. S.
Taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves, not just Antifa types, but there was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City. Over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class as well as taxpayer money. So one other thing, this money helps fund the decentralized crowd funding platforms. These are ways that Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork, which had links to that attack on the ice facility, the Socialist Rifle Association and just because they don't have LLCs or EIN numbers doesn't mean they can't get paid.
Some of these funding platforms, crowdfunding platforms are funded by this network that we call rioting. So again, I want to thank you for your leadership, for the whole cabinet's leadership on this. We're gonna keep following the money, and I appreciate everything you're doing, sir.
reSee.it AI Summary
BOMBSHELL: I say the House Judiciary Committee proves Cheney and Thompson fed Smith transcripts, documents, and Meadows’ texts to target Trump. ILLEGAL COLLUSION: they violated House rules in Dec 2022 rush before GOP takeover. PROVEN SETUP—J6 was a Deep State hit job. Lock them up!
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
BOMBSHELL: House Judiciary Committee proves J6 leaders Liz Cheney & Bennie Thompson secretly fed Jack Smith evidence—transcripts, docs, Meadows' texts—to target Trump. ILLEGAL COLLUSION: Violated House rules, abused power in Dec 2022 rush before GOP takeover. PROVEN SETUP — J6 was a Deep State hit job. Lock them up! 🇺🇸
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
The FBI says that it was Adam Schiff that signed off on the leaking of classified information regarding Russiagate. Lock him up. https://t.co/dUeWC24r3q
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Ivanka Trump flying coach on JetBlue with her family and passenger spots her and freaks out. The passenger was eventually REMOVED from the flight. https://t.co/bPh34Pz4XN
Video Transcript AI Summary
A passenger on a JFK to San Francisco flight, Mark Schef, who happened to be sitting in front of Ivanka Trump and her family, witnessed the sequence that led to a passenger being removed from the plane. The flight started with a slight delay and appeared routine until another passenger noticed the family directly behind him.
Schef recalled that when he saw the family, he said out loud, "oh my god," not yelling, but clearly disturbed. His hands began shaking. He didn’t recognize Ivanka at first, thinking she appeared to be “a nice young mom flying with her family.” He later realized the person behind him was Ivanka Trump and her husband, along with their children and others.
What Schef didn’t know at the outset was that the upset passenger’s husband had allegedly tweeted that his husband was chasing down the couple to harass them. The disturbing comments included, “they've ruined the country. Now they've ruined our flight.”
Schef observed that the passenger behind him did not accost Trump, but was clearly agitated. He heard Trump tell security that she didn’t want to make this a thing. JetBlue officials decided to remove the upset passenger from the flight, a move Schef said he understood.
Reflecting on the incident, Schef stated he didn’t vote for Trump, but maintained that Ivanka Trump deserved to have a quiet flight and that no one on the plane deserved to be insulted.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was a passenger on a flight to San Francisco yesterday who just happened to be sitting in front of Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, and he witnessed the scene that led to a man being kicked off that flight. CBS eleven's Brooke Rogers spoke with him today and has the story.
Speaker 1: Apart from a slight delay, Thursday's flight from JFK to San Francisco started off standard for passenger Mark Schef, until another passenger spotted the woman sitting directly behind him.
Speaker 2: When he saw the family, he said out loud, and he didn't yell. He just said out loud, oh my god. This is a nightmare. And and his hands started shaking.
Speaker 1: The family was Ivanka Trump, her husband, children, and others.
Speaker 2: I didn't recognize her at first, because, you know, she looked like a, you know, a nice young mom flying with her family. I thought it was odd. Didn't know why the president elect's daughter is is is flying behind me because I fly coached, but I I really didn't have any judgments or or opinions about it, honestly.
Speaker 1: What Schef didn't know was that the husband of the upset passenger had allegedly sent a tweet saying his husband was chasing down the couple to harass them.
Speaker 2: He said, you know, they've ruined the country. Now they've ruined our flight.
Speaker 1: Schef says the passenger never accosted Trump but was clearly agitated. He heard Trump tell security she didn't wanna make this a thing. JetBlue officials made the decision to remove the passenger, and Schefz says he understands why.
Speaker 2: Nobody deserves to be insulted on a plane. I don't I didn't vote for Trump, but I, you know, I I was just taking a flight with Ivanka. She deserved to have a quiet flight.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Journalist is filming the front of a local Homeland Security (DHS) office. The Director comes out & goes BALLASTIC at being filmed & ASSAULTS the journalist. Cops called. Cop SCARED of arresting someone from DHS. Detectives called… Will he finally get arrested? https://t.co/vhkEKaENff
Video Transcript AI Summary
The exchange centers on a confrontation in a public/Louisiana parish building during a first amendment audit conducted by Justin (Speaker 0). Justin explains that he entered a public area and was subjected to aggressive behavior from a man who grabbed his belongings, attempted a headlock, and threw Justin’s phone. Justin asserts that this occurred in front of a deputy, who did not intervene. He claims the man (Ellis Booth) took his phone, assaulted him, and tossed it across the parking lot, while the deputy “did nothing.”
Justin emphasizes that he was having a polite conversation when Booth acted aggressively, grabbed his property, and threw his phone multiple times. He argues that if he had done any of these actions, he would be in cuffs, and he questions why Booth has not been arrested. He challenges the deputy’s handling of the incident, insisting that the deputy witnessed the events and should have acted. He also claims the deputy’s inaction contradicts the duty to protect the public and enforce the law, noting he has a large social media following and intends to publicize what he perceives as misconduct.
The dialogue includes several attempts to obtain formal statements and to follow proper procedure. Justin asks for a statement from the deputy who witnessed the incident, and for access to video footage (body cam) and other evidence. He asserts that the deputy’s eyewitness account should be sufficient to pursue charges, and he questions why extra steps or warrants are being pursued if the deputy clearly witnessed the events. He also mentions he has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the body cam footage.
Speaker 4, Detective Adams of the Cattle Parish Sheriff’s Office, enters the conversation and tries to mediate. He explains that a new process is necessary: a written statement and a signed affidavit from Justin before any warrants or arrests can proceed, since there is no direct on-site arrest of Booth by the acting officer. Detective Adams clarifies that if a judge signs a warrant based on the deputy’s statements and Justin’s signed affidavit, Booth could be arrested. He notes that the deputy did not witness the exact moment of the phone being thrown in Justin’s hands, but did witness the assault and the destruction of property. He emphasizes following chain-of-command and needing a judge’s warrant to proceed.
The discussion includes comparisons of how officers would be treated if the roles were reversed. Justin argues that the officer’s standards should be the same regardless of whether the person is a private citizen or a Homeland Security employee. Detective Adams explains that the Homeland Security director (Beeson) was not present to arrest on-site and that Booth’s arrest is tied to the body camera and the deputy’s written report. The exchange touches on past incidents, including a controversial encounter involving a black officer and other officers, which Detective Adams says he plans to address separately with superiors.
Towards the end, it is confirmed that Booth was arrested previously (yesterday) for simple battery and criminal damage to private property, but the battery charge was kept separate from the damage charge after Justin notes his phone’s condition. Booth bonded out at $1,255 cash and would have a court date set by the district attorney. The district attorney asks Justin to forward any video and his written statement. Detective Adams states he will present the materials to a judge, and if a warrant is signed, Booth will be arrested. Beeson is identified as the online security director who previously attended the incident, and there is a discussion about obtaining more video and verifying all witnesses’ statements.
In sum, the transcript captures Justin’s allegation of police inaction during a visible assault and property destruction, the procedural requirement for statements and affidavits to pursue warrants, and the subsequent administrative steps that led to Booth’s prior arrest and ongoing cooperation with the district attorney’s office.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: See?
Speaker 1: This is a secure building outside.
Speaker 0: It's not, sir. Outside. See? This is what
Speaker 1: I do not touch me.
Speaker 0: Do not touch me.
Speaker 1: Did you ask to come in this building?
Speaker 0: I don't have
Speaker 1: to. It's a public area. A secure building.
Speaker 0: She asked me a question, and I was answering her. We didn't
Speaker 1: know what
Speaker 0: This is what I was talking about. Get out of my face.
Speaker 2: You just lost it.
Speaker 0: Get out of
Speaker 1: face. Right now.
Speaker 0: Dude, are you gonna no. You you just saw him assault me and break my stuff and take my stuff and throw it? You need to take care of this, deputy. No. I I follow the law.
He doesn't.
Speaker 1: I follow the law. My
Speaker 0: attention. My whole job is to follow the law. I know what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: Alright. My my job is
Speaker 0: Deputy, are what's your name, sir? Deputy. Please please deescalate him.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm gonna
Speaker 0: Get him out of my face now.
Speaker 1: What did you
Speaker 0: I had I had I had every right to knock the shit out of you back there.
Speaker 1: You had all rights? Yeah.
Speaker 0: You you tried to put me in a headlock. You took my stuff. What did Dude, I was having a polite conversation.
Speaker 1: Office. That is a fair
Speaker 0: Deescalate him. He is losing his shit. He's about to lose his job. I guarantee you.
Speaker 1: I I knew
Speaker 0: Enjoy your last week here, bro.
Speaker 1: When you stay in my office, that is just
Speaker 0: Enjoy your last week here. Good. I get cops fired all the time because good cops love me and bad cops hate me. Deputy, need to speak with you, sir, please. This is a multiple purpose building, and those ladies invited me in.
We're having a very nice conversation. My door. Yes, sir. Yes, buddy. You're right.
Brother, I promise there was no he's the only person starting anything with me all day. If you wanna see any video, I'll show it to you in a heartbeat.
Speaker 3: And then
Speaker 0: he just came detective. And took my stuff. You saw it, dude. I'm gonna let them know what happened. He did the same thing inside before I came out.
He did it twice. You need to like, if I did that to him, where would I be right now? In cuffs in the back of your car. So why isn't he? He's Why isn't he?
Speaker 1: He's inside.
Speaker 2: No. He needs
Speaker 1: to be
Speaker 0: in the cuffs in the back
Speaker 4: of your car.
Speaker 0: I understand that. So this isn't fair treatment. That's why I've no. That's why I've got my detectives over here. What chief detective What would you have done if I had done that to him?
Be be honest. He grabbed your phone. That was it. And threw your phone. That was it.
No. He put me in a headlock inside also. It's on camera. Well, grabbing my phone and throwing it, it's assault and battery. And and But did he hit you with it?
And theft. No. Touching me at all, brother. Assault is just I don't even have to touch you. I'd have to threaten you with being touched, and that's assault.
When you touch me, it's battery. And then you can add on, he took my phone from me and threw it. Right. Now it's destruction of property, the theft, you name it. If I did any of those to you right now, what would happen to me?
I mean. Be honest. Just be honest. It's it's I would go to jail.
Speaker 4: I've got
Speaker 0: them coming over here. Dude, just do your job. Arrest him like you fucking would me. Alright. Right now, I'm gonna collect the statement from you.
Dude, I'm not even gonna talk to you if you're not gonna do what you what's right. If you're not gonna do what's right, I'm not talking to you. Because if you're just gonna try to get my information and then go tell him, no. Call. I have to grab a statement from you of what happened.
You don't have to I I did not I don't have to say anything. Okay. You want charges pressed? You saw it. Yes.
I know. Okay. So for what you saw in your presence, act on it. You don't need a statement to what you saw with your own eyes. I did not see him physically hit you.
You saw him take the phone. Okay. But there's there's
Speaker 4: a procedure.
Speaker 0: Do what with what you saw. Not what you didn't see. What you saw. Okay. But there's a procedure I have to follow.
You wouldn't have followed it. If there's other way around, I'd be in cuffs right now. I still have to get a statement from I wouldn't be in cuffs. If you if you just Bro, just answer the question. Would I be in cuffs?
Just answer it. At this point, no. Because
Speaker 1: I wouldn't. See what happened
Speaker 0: to took his phone and threw it across the parking lot, you no problem. I'll get a statement. I mean Do not tell me that. That's a lie. I have to give this you're not a good cop.
You're a bad cop. Okay. You're a bad person, dude. You need to rethink what you're doing.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm post certified.
Speaker 0: I'm older. No. You don't. You no. I'm doing my You take his side over the public.
Speaker 1: No. I'm trying trying to
Speaker 0: You're supposed to protect the public, not Homeland Security.
Speaker 1: I am.
Speaker 0: You are You're not protecting dude, you just saw a crime and you're doing nothing about it. And you're about to be all over the Internet doing nothing about it. I have a lot of subscribers. A lot. And they're all gonna see you doing nothing about it.
Okay. And you're probably gonna lose your job too. I'm gonna make
Speaker 2: sure you lose your job too. How about that? Okay.
Speaker 0: Go in there and arrest him and do your do the right job. That's why I have my chief detective Why can't you? Are you a cop? I thought you knew what you were doing. You do or don't know what you're doing?
I do know what you're doing. Well, then go arrest him. Why do you need someone else? Why do you need anybody else? You just saw it in front of your own eyes.
He didn't see it with his own eyes. You did. So go do something, and then I'll talk to you. I don't trust y'all. I don't trust y'all.
Who are you? Who are you? I'm the chief detective. I'm only gonna talk to you if you're gonna do the right thing.
Speaker 5: Sure. Well, one of your guys just came in. We were talking to him. He come got a complaint form. We were trying to get all that for him.
Speaker 0: Alright. So I was just trying to make a public record request. I was told to go do that in that in this building by, like, half a dozen people. I walk in there. The lady at the front desk says, you'll need to do that in the Homeland Security office down at the right.
So I go down the hallway on the right, look inside the office, no one's in there, come back out. The ladies are like, hey, what are you doing with the camera? I'm just explaining, have you ever heard of a first name in audit?
Speaker 5: Sure. Yes.
Speaker 0: That's literally what I'm doing. Yeah. He comes in there, puts me in a headlock, takes my phone out of my out of my hand, throws it on the ground. I have to wrestle my phone out of his hand, then he follows me outside right in front of your deputy, takes my phone out of my hand again, and throws it across the parking lot. And guess what your deputy did?
Nothing.
Speaker 5: Okay. Let me go over and get some paperwork. Let me go over there.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Steve, where where do you feel comfortable talking to giving me a statement?
Speaker 0: So I'm not gonna I'm not gonna talk unless so that deputy with his own eyes witnessed more than enough to arrest him. If you're gonna do the right thing, I'll come talk to you and tell you everything that happened. I'll show you videos.
Speaker 5: That's what
Speaker 0: we're doing. If you're not doing well If if you will give it to me, I would like to have your footage for the evidence. And I will. But but before I do anything, because I've been through this road before and I know how cops work, is you're gonna get all the information you can out of me and then tell me to get fucked. No.
No. That's not Well and so with before I even make a statement or even show you a video with what that deputy saw with his own eyes is more than enough.
Speaker 5: To him too.
Speaker 0: So if if you do the right thing with what he saw alone, then we'll talk.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Let me go talk to you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And can I get your name, sir?
Speaker 5: So Duane Lester.
Speaker 0: I'm Justin.
Speaker 5: Okay. We're trying to make this right that he's not way superior. He's not don't
Speaker 0: work for break the law, though.
Speaker 1: I agree. Agree.
Speaker 0: And he needs to go to jail just like I would.
Speaker 5: And I'm not I'm not saying that that ain't gonna happen. I'm just letting you know that he don't work for us.
Speaker 0: I understand that. And and, actually, that makes it better because if he did work for you, you would just give him he wouldn't he definitely wouldn't go to jail, but he's not even your department. So you can act on it.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm gonna talk to the deputy and see what he's got on. Maybe he's got a body cam. Can watch or something.
Speaker 0: I mean, his own I would you call him a liar or because he saw it with his own eyes, he could just tell you. He saw
Speaker 5: Oh, yeah. I'm just asking.
Speaker 0: He saw him do that
Speaker 2: to me.
Speaker 5: That my damn show to me so I could see it.
Speaker 0: Like, if I if I if I ran up and grabbed your phone out of your pocket and threw it, what happens to me?
Speaker 5: Sure. I I I
Speaker 0: And that's only one of, like, 10 things that happened. Yeah. But that just that alone, what would happen?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, at at a minimum, it could be he took your phone. And
Speaker 0: threw it. Yeah. No. What if I did that to you? What would happen to me?
Speaker 1: You probably got jailed.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: I mean,
Speaker 5: likely, it's according to the yeah. That's what saying. I'm only
Speaker 0: Well, was this whole story. It's a lot worse than that, but that alone would take him take me to jail. So let's do it to him.
Speaker 4: Well,
Speaker 0: he needs to
Speaker 5: see what's happening here.
Speaker 0: Do you believe that an a law officer has a higher standard or a lower standard that they need to operate on? You think that they should
Speaker 5: I I 100% agree that
Speaker 0: Higher standard? Standard. Okay. So then He's
Speaker 5: not a law officer. So
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, then even better then take him, dude. Who's asking?
Speaker 4: Detective Adams with the Kettleman Parish Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 0: Oh, the scumbags. Yeah. What's going on, dude?
Speaker 4: Okay. Let me go ahead and stop you right there, mister McKenney. I'm trying to work this case, but I'm not gonna tolerate you insulting me. I'm not gonna insult you.
Speaker 0: Unless you are
Speaker 4: tolerate any other board. Hey, dude. Trying to help.
Speaker 2: You're not, though. If you that line Hey. Let's let's stop. Okay? Did you arrest Ellis Booth yesterday?
Speaker 4: That's the reason for my call. I need a statement from you.
Speaker 2: No. You don't. And that's why I'm calling you names. That's why I'm calling you names, dude. You witnessed several
Speaker 3: crimes.
Speaker 4: No. I did not.
Speaker 2: Your officer did. Your officer did.
Speaker 4: I have a statement from that officer.
Speaker 0: That's all
Speaker 1: you need. He witnessed.
Speaker 2: If you arrest him, I'll cooperate. Just like I told you yesterday, Until you do the right thing, I don't trust you. And I have a very good reason to not trust you because you didn't do anything when the officer saw it with his own eyes. Do the right thing, then I'll cooperate. Until then, I don't trust you for a very good reason.
Speaker 4: So are you gonna write a statement and sign an affidavit
Speaker 2: or Not unless you do the right thing because what I'm gonna do actually is I've already spoken to my lawyer, and your department's about to be on the hook, dude. You guys, that's dereliction of duty. That's not honoring your oath. You're gonna be named in the lawsuit. I'm not fucking around.
Do the right thing.
Speaker 4: I'm not either.
Speaker 0: You don't you don't
Speaker 2: need me. You don't need me to make the arrest. You don't need me. You need what your officer saw and the body cam and everything. Your officer's statement is more than enough to make the arrest.
You decided not to when you had more than enough. Whenever you and him both admitted, had he seen me do the same thing, I'd already be in jail. So why isn't he? Why isn't he?
Speaker 4: My first conversation with you. I have not talked to you. I haven't
Speaker 2: seen you. Well, the head okay. There was a dude yesterday that said he was the head detective. And so I said, will you please go do the right thing? If you're admitting that if I did that to anyone here, I'd be in jail.
Why isn't he? And they said, well, he's Homeland Security. Like, that makes him immune from the law. And I said, I'll make a statement. I will fully cooperate with you guys if you do the right thing, but I don't trust that you will.
I know how you work. You want all my information. That way, you can just tell me to off and nothing happens. I've seen this go I've seen this a 100 times. If I can see that you actually want to do the right thing, then I'll cooperate.
But there's no point in me cooperating with a bunch of crooks. I even heard you guys talking yesterday about what you could charge me with. Why would you why was that even a fucking conversation?
Speaker 4: I don't know. I was not there. I didn't hear that conversation.
Speaker 2: So why are you the one talking to me? Why are you the one calling me
Speaker 3: right now then? You weren't
Speaker 2: even there, dude. This is what I'm talking about.
Speaker 4: Are you gonna let me speak for a minute?
Speaker 2: Yeah, man.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Okay. The officer that was there yesterday left today going on vacation for a scheduled event. It wasn't because of this. The sheriff is gone. It's LSA conference is what it is.
Okay? With that said, I've been left to try to sort this out. I've got a statement from mister Boo saying you attacked him. That's why I need a statement from you telling your side of what happened. The way that I do this is I present this to a judge, and if a judge signs a warrant for, number one, simple battery on you.
Number two, destruction of your private property by throwing the phone across the parking lot as the deputy stated in his written statement, his report, then I will if the judge signs the warrant, I will arrest mister Booth. There is no bearing. I don't care if he's on the security or
Speaker 3: Dude, your entire department.
Speaker 4: Nothing to do with me.
Speaker 2: You have enough to arrest him on what your witness on what your officer witnessed. What happened before that is quite frankly irrelevant even though he attacked me. And if you got statements from the two ladies inside, unless they're lying, which I don't they don't seem like the type, they'll vouch that he attacked me.
Speaker 4: So when you say the two ladies in the office, that's the little brick building across the road by the White church or is that the court building? Which so I'll know which two ladies to talk to.
Speaker 3: So you're I do not
Speaker 4: have statements from them is what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: What? So this is your department, dude. This is your department. How did they not get statements from them yesterday? So, dude, that's embarrassing.
But it's
Speaker 2: the listen. I'm gonna talk I'm gonna tell you what happened, but I'm not I'm I just don't trust you guys.
Speaker 4: That's not I want it that day. I don't. Can earn the trust I will, but I don't I deal with that. I need you to tell me what happened or either give me something in writing
Speaker 0: This is that
Speaker 4: I can receive.
Speaker 2: I I'll tell you what happened. I was there doing
Speaker 3: a first amendment audit. Have you ever heard of that, sir?
Speaker 4: I'm very familiar with
Speaker 3: that.
Speaker 4: Okay. And how it works.
Speaker 0: But I
Speaker 3: haven't even gotten to a building yet. And he is picking a fight with me where I'm having to back up away from him. He's he's a completely unhinged insane person. And I'm and I'm like, look, dude.
Speaker 4: I agree with that.
Speaker 3: You agree? Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: I agree with that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. He really is. So I walk in the front office. The lady in the front has nothing to do with him, but
Speaker 2: I I don't know that at
Speaker 3: the time. I asked her about it, and she says, yeah. His office is the last office down there on the right. Go down there and see if he's in there. So I walked down the public hallway, go to his door.
It's wide open. I don't step even my toes inside his doorway. I'm outside of his door frame the entire time. I'm looking inside his
Speaker 4: within your right's doing that.
Speaker 3: Thank you for understanding that. What do you think your deputy should've done in that moment when he sees this man grab my stuff try to grab me, then grab my stuff, and throw it?
Speaker 4: They should have arrested him for a simple battery and a criminal name, mister Frank.
Speaker 3: Alright. Well, he didn't even think about it.
Speaker 4: With that said, the reason that I called you was see if I could do the right thing on this, but I've already told you that I need a written statement a signed affidavit before I can
Speaker 3: go further. No. You don't. With what your your deputy saw with his own eyes is enough to do something. You admitted just a second ago, what would what what should that have deputy have done?
You said arrested him. Okay. Go for it, bro. So don't don't go back on your word.
Speaker 4: What I have.
Speaker 3: The brother, you just told me ten seconds ago, and I'm recording this, that he should have arrested him.
Speaker 4: I am not afraid of your attorney. I'm not afraid of being recorded. Recorded.
Speaker 3: I can see that.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to tell you I will do my job, but I've gotta have something to do
Speaker 3: it with you. You don't, dude.
Speaker 4: I will present listen just a second. Let me tell you what I'm gonna do. I will present what I have to a judge. And if a judge says he will sign a warrant on this, I'll arrest mister Booth. I do not have a problem with that.
But a little bit of cooperation and less sarcasm on your part would go a long way with me.
Speaker 3: It's not sarcasm, dude. I'm I don't trust you. That's not I'm not being sarcastic.
Speaker 4: Word out of your mouth whenever you answer me on the phone and tell I tell you I identify myself as a detective with the Cattles Parish Sheriff's Office and the next word out of your mouth is scumbag Yeah. That's pretty derogatory to me. I make offense to that.
Speaker 3: Okay. I don't consider myself
Speaker 4: a scumbag. I consider myself a
Speaker 3: fair Mhmm.
Speaker 4: I try to do my job to the best of my ability. Did we not do exactly what we may have should have done yesterday? I can't do anything about yesterday. I'm trying to make it
Speaker 3: right yesterday. You're still not. And You're you're
Speaker 4: bent on trying to insult me and this
Speaker 3: Well, listen. When you first called no.
Speaker 4: But I did.
Speaker 3: When you first called, I thought you were the detective I spoke with yesterday. Okay? I don't I didn't okay? And he is a scumbag, and I'll call that to him all day long. Okay?
So that's why I called you that. I thought you were him. So I apologize for calling your name. I've never even met you. But your department is still a stumbag.
Speaker 4: Seen me. I didn't see you yesterday. All of this was over by
Speaker 0: the time I got
Speaker 3: involved. But but guess what? You admitted just a minute ago that you wouldn't need a warrant to arrest him and that your officer should have done that yesterday.
Speaker 4: I stand by that. He should have arrested mister Booth yesterday.
Speaker 3: So you don't need a warrant, and you wouldn't have needed a warrant to arrest me. So why are we doing this? Just go get him, dude. Do your job, please. I'm begging you.
Speaker 4: I told you. I'm gonna present what I've got to
Speaker 3: a judge, and
Speaker 0: it's You're doing
Speaker 4: sign on my side.
Speaker 3: You okay. Why are you treating him special like this? Be real. You wouldn't do this to if this was me, you wouldn't be doing this. You would have already got me.
Speaker 4: I don't think we can get any further. We're not gonna agree on that.
Speaker 3: So respectfully, you wouldn't need a warrant to arrest me. Right? If I had done that to anyone there, you would not be
Speaker 4: I saw what happened.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: I did not see it happen.
Speaker 3: Well, your officer did. And let's just say your officer came to you and said, he saw me do this. You wouldn't need a warrant to arrest me. So why do you why are you going through all these extra hoops and steps for mister Booth?
Speaker 4: Because I did not see it. The officer saw it.
Speaker 3: Okay. Please stop deflecting. Sir. Sir. You're literally
Speaker 4: contrary to what you're saying.
Speaker 3: You are deflecting. It's not contrary. You're deflecting. It's not contrary to what the officer said. And as I just said, what you you would not need a warrant to arrest me.
You admit that the officer would have that you could arrest me for any of this. You are definitely 100% going through extra steps for him that you wouldn't do for me or anyone else.
Speaker 4: No. I'm not.
Speaker 3: You okay. You're so you would do the same thing. So if if your officer came and told you that he saw me grab someone's phone and throw it, you'd say, well, we we better get a warrant first.
Speaker 4: No. And he should have arrested me on the spot.
Speaker 3: Okay. That no. Answer the question. Don't deflect to a different question. The question is, if that same officer came to you and said that he saw me grab mister Booth's phone and throw it, he saw it.
It's on camera, on his body cam. He he's the witness. Do you are you gonna go get a warrant for me, or you're just gonna arrest me?
Speaker 4: My next question to that officer would be why don't you why didn't you arrest him? I do not have a problem arresting him. If I have some enough probable cause and a signed affidavit and a voluntary statement from you.
Speaker 3: Well, you just got a statement.
Speaker 4: Signature on a warrant.
Speaker 3: You just got a statement from me, sir. I just I just told you everything.
Speaker 4: Well, if you'll sign a voluntary statement and an affidavit at this point, I don't have a complaint in the computer from you.
Speaker 3: You don't need a complaint. You're dude, why can't you get this? Your officer witnessed three crimes. So unless you don't believe unless he is he on the Brady list or something? Like, why don't you believe what he says?
Go do it. Why are you why is it why are you gonna take my word over your own officers?
Speaker 4: I'm gonna call my boss who is the sheriff. And if he tells me to proceed with this
Speaker 3: Gotcha. Idea,
Speaker 4: I'll do what I need to do.
Speaker 3: Extra steps.
Speaker 4: And if not, then
Speaker 3: Extra steps.
Speaker 4: I'm follow my chain of command.
Speaker 3: No, dude. Just do the right thing. Why do you why are you putting these extra steps on for Booth that you would not do for anyone else? You're proving my point.
Speaker 4: It's not just for Booth.
Speaker 0: It is.
Speaker 3: Way we do things No. It's not, dude. I do this for a living. I know how you work. I know when you the only time you ever go through all these hoops is whenever it's one of your own.
I see I see this is literally what I do twenty four seven. I I know you guys better than you know yourselves. The only time you do these freaking extra steps and hoops and special treatment is when it's one of your own. If it was some some drug addict down the street, you wouldn't ask anybody.
Speaker 4: Yes, sir. Called to let you know that been arrested and booked into the jail on 07/2825 at 01:09.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you alright. Thank you so much, dude. Hold on one second. And so you arrested him yesterday.
Did you go what was the charges?
Speaker 4: Charge of simple battery. I did simple battery and criminal damage to private property, but you told me your phone was not damaged. So I took that charge off of the affidavit.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Man, my OtterBox I swear by the OtterBox now. This thing is barely scratched. Doubt. Yeah.
Speaker 4: I don't leave out of the store without one. It's just they pay for themselves.
Speaker 0: I was like, there's no way it's not shattered, but it didn't even have a scratch. So okay. So he was arrested for battery. Did he bond out or anything?
Speaker 4: He he did bond out. Yes. It was 1,255 cash bond, so he's bonded out probably back at work today. I told you I was gonna do my job. That's what I did.
It's in the district attorney's hands now. But he'll be issued a court date, and I don't know that date or I will give it to you, but I can notify you. You should get a letter from the DA. I actually spoke to the district attorney today, and, he asked that you forward me any video that you had and a written statement, you know, stating your side of what happened.
Speaker 1: Did you get
Speaker 4: Outside the office.
Speaker 0: Okay. I sent an email with a statement. Did you get that? And can I make a Freedom of Information Act request? Sure.
I wanted the body cam. Okay. Actually, what's the officer's name that witnessed all this?
Speaker 4: William Beeson.
Speaker 0: Is he getting any kind of any kind of reprimand or anything?
Speaker 4: I have not discussed it with his cap his patrol captain, but I will.
Speaker 0: Would I be able to get the body cam for the arrest?
Speaker 4: No. He he walked into the office. Here I I don't know if you know his role and all this. He is the online security director for the parish. He walks in and out of dispatch periodically.
And when he walked in dispatch, I had already delivered the warrants down there, and he was out of town as a reason. He wasn't arrested on-site. But whenever he came back to town, he was to report to his supervisor, which is the parish police jury secretary, and he was going to be booked in then. He he didn't go to her office. He went straight to dispatch, and that's whenever they told him, hey.
We have a warrant for your arrest, and they booked him in. That's where that went. Just kinda got off to a bad start. Like I told you, I'm an open book. I have nothing to hide.
I believe in doing my job, and I believe in justice. So you know?
Speaker 0: Thank you, man. Yeah. I I I honestly did not expect anything to happen, especially after your chief investigator didn't do anything.
Speaker 4: And I I'm not trying to jump in their defense. There's more here that don't, and I'm I'm gonna ask you about it before we don't know. But him being the Homeland Safety Director, the the officer base and that was on the scene, I understand his part. He didn't know if he actually had the power to arrest him since he was a state employee over Homeland Security. And and I'm gonna support him in that decision because he just didn't know.
Now had it been a life and death situation, you know, surely he would have done something, but I can get the names. But he's probably been out of the academy less than two years.
Speaker 0: Then well, shows his mindset, and he doesn't have a good sense of morality if his default is I can't do anything because he's the government. Then you don't need to be an officer, honestly.
Speaker 4: Let me ask you something. Did you when you and when you and mister Booger were standing on the corner by the bank, or on the corner by the courthouse and the black officer was there, did you have that recorded as well, the conversation between him and the black officer?
Speaker 0: Oh, I know what you're talking about. And I heard about this through my friends, but I don't think I was there.
Speaker 4: Okay. I I have a problem there.
Speaker 0: And I
Speaker 4: and if you have that on video, I would love if you could send that to me because I'm not happy with that situation there at all. And I have a report on that in my file from that officer, what he said to him, and that that's just not cool.
Speaker 0: I mean yeah. That
Speaker 4: We should be way past that. And here's my deal with that. I'm I'm being 100% transparent with you. If that guy got this rattled just from you walking into a public lobby and videoing and asking a few questions, is that who you really want over your homeland security in case of an emergency? Come on.
Speaker 0: That's a really good question. Yep. Exactly. I
Speaker 4: mean and and I if I get the opportunity, I plan on asking that question to his superiors. In fact, I've already met with the secretary treasurer and gave her a copy of this. If you were in a supervisory position, you're trained. You've got to overcome those obstacles and just do better, be better, and handle things differently. And if he can't handle this situation no better than he handled it, god help us if we have a tornado come through the middle of our parish.
Alright. Like I said, I have nothing to hide off or anyway I can as long as I'm allowed to. If they shut me down, say, hey. No more correspondence. But I'll give you what I've got until then, till they tell me different.
And so far, I thought the sheriff is actually at an LSA conference in Florida out of state right now. And I to him last night, and he said, absolutely. Call him back, you know, as soon as you get a minute. Let him know that Booth has been arrested, and we're gonna cooperate fully. So that's what we're
Speaker 3: doing. Awesome.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Holy SHIIIIT! Its TRUE. Gavin Newsom is FUNDED by George and Alex Soros. No wonder he wants Los Angeles DESTROYED. https://t.co/YF2er6Wr7V
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Gavin Newson and his wife actually created a NGO just to STEAL Fire Aid money. Gavin Newsom is lower than low. https://t.co/LfZHR07D3r
Video Transcript AI Summary
Gavin Newsom and his wife created organization 'just to steal some of the fire aid money.' The controversy centers on a concert raising '$100,000,000 for the victims of the Palisade fires' and claim that 'Where the fuck did all that money go?' Money was distributed in two rounds. 'The first round just went to just a fuckload of NGOs,' with '$50,000,000 apparently to all these corporations and nobody did a fucking thing.' In round two, 'Cal Volunteers'—organization 'created by Gavin Newsom and his wife, and they have never done fucking anything before this'—was a recipient. They 'haven't said what they plan to do with the money' and 'haven't even said how much of the money they received.' After the story broke, 'they took down their name and their organization from the website' and 'Cal Volunteers is no longer listed as a recipient.' 'This dude is a top tier fucking criminal.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So Gavin Newsom and his wife actually created an organization just to steal some of the fire aid money. Like, how this man is still governor of California and not behind bars is fucking mind blowing. So I'm sure most of you have heard about the fire aid controversy. You know, where they had this concert to raise a $100,000,000 for the victims of the Palisade fires. And people started asking, hey.
Where the fuck did all that money go? Because there's not a single person who was a victim of the Palisade fires who's seen a cent of it. And through some investigative journalism, what we found is that they distributed the money in two rounds. Now the first round just went to just a fuckload of NGOs. Like, some of them have nothing whatsoever to do with fire recovery, but they handed out 50,000,000 apparently to all these corporations and nobody did a fucking thing.
But then when we got to round two, this shit got even murkier. Because when you actually look at the names of who was given money under round two, you saw this little organization called Cal Volunteers. Now that organization is no longer listed as a recipient on the website. Funny how once the story broke, they took their name off the website. I mean, that doesn't look guilty at all.
But Cal Volunteers is an organization that was recently created by Gavin Newsom and his wife, and they have never done fucking anything before this. This organization was created strictly for the purpose of getting fire aid money, and they've not said what they plan to do with the money they got. They haven't even said how much of the money they received. No. All they did when people noticed that fucking Gavin Newsom's organization was getting money was take down their name and their organization from the website that where the fire aid money went.
So, like, not only did these fires happen because Gavin Newsom is a shit governor and doesn't know how to manage shit, not only was the response to these fires complete and total dog shit because Gavin Newsom's a horrible governor, but after his failures, he then created an organization just to siphon off money that they raised to take care of the people that he was supposed to take care of. This dude is a top tier fucking criminal.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Confirmed DOGE found USAID gave Chelsea Clinton $84 million - which was 'supposed' to go for relief in Haiti - line items show $3 million, of the $84 million, was spent on Chelsea Clinton's wedding and wait for it... $10 million to purchase a luxury mansion all on our dime!
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Donald and Melania Trump on the Ellen show. https://t.co/FPZ3v1QxpB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Melania from Slovenia joins the show, and the host congratulates her on her engagement. The host asks about the ring, joking about its size and then asks about "Trump bling." Melania mentions wearing cheap bling for a magazine shoot.
The host then inquires where Melania and Donald met. Melania says they met at a party during fashion week in New York. Donald says his opening line was, "Give me your number immediately." Melania didn't give it to him that night, but he worked for a month to find her. They have known each other for six years.
The host asks if Donald takes out the garbage at home. Melania says no, they each do their jobs, and the housekeeper does her job. Donald describes Melania as very neat, saying she likes everything perfect. The host asks when the wedding will be.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Engaged.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Melania, is that how
Speaker 1: you said? Melania.
Speaker 0: Melania. And and she's gonna join us in a minute, and we'll say hello to her and see what you really like.
Speaker 1: Okay. Alright.
Speaker 0: We'll be right back right after that. We're back down from in Melania, Melania. Melania. Melania. Where are you from Melania?
Speaker 2: I'm from Slovenia.
Speaker 0: Slovenia? Yes. Melania from Slovenia. That's right. And Melania you now engaged.
Congratulations. Thank you. That's very exciting. That's all I got you? Is that little tiny thing right there on your finger?
Look at the size of that. That's that's check. I I how many carrots is that?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I never think about it.
Speaker 0: You don't think about carrots? No. I bet you do. I bet you know exactly how many carrots.
Speaker 1: I do actually.
Speaker 0: See. And then the the the bracelet is Oh, that was a gift. What what about like Donald Trump bling? Trump bling?
Speaker 1: Well, I had that on Esquire magazine. I had bling all over the place.
Speaker 0: No. But you should have your
Speaker 1: cheap bling. That cost about $10 a shot. Yeah. And that's the kind of bling I like.
Speaker 0: Oh, really?
Speaker 1: I like it. Yeah. I thought it was good. But anyway, so next question.
Speaker 0: Okay. So well, I'm just saying it's another product for you. Don't act like no and the next time I see you, you've got something.
Speaker 1: Like last time. Yeah. Alright.
Speaker 0: So And now where do you meet? Now where because people at home are going, I'd like to meet Don. I was trying to introduce you to my mom last time.
Speaker 1: I I love your
Speaker 0: mom. Yeah. You didn't go for it.
Speaker 1: She's there again. I love your mom.
Speaker 0: Still in the same seat waiting for you to come back. That's good. And and where did you two meet?
Speaker 2: We met in New York. Mhmm. It was a fashion week and it was party big party. So Mhmm. We met there.
Speaker 0: And and now he comes over and and says what?
Speaker 2: He came over and he said, what did you say? I think he said
Speaker 1: Give me your number immediately. I want your phone number. It was very crude, but Yeah. Sometimes it works.
Speaker 0: It's just that easy.
Speaker 1: It's very direct.
Speaker 0: I want your phone number.
Speaker 1: It's very direct. Yeah. And you either get slapped or you get the number. In her case, I didn't get slapped. I didn't get the number.
I worked on it for about a month and then finally I was able to find
Speaker 0: out Really? Yes.
Speaker 1: Where she lived and everything.
Speaker 0: Look at that.
Speaker 1: And I worked hard.
Speaker 0: You've know you said you're friends. How long have you known each other?
Speaker 1: Well, we've Six years. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Six years.
Speaker 2: It was six years. Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's great.
Speaker 2: Since we know each other.
Speaker 0: So you do know each other very well? Yes. We do. And at home, does does he take out the garbage? Does he like, is he that kind of No.
No. He's doing his job. Uh-huh.
Speaker 2: And I let him do his job, and I do my job, and Uh-huh. A housekeeper do his job.
Speaker 0: Her job. But still, but even if you have a housekeeper, are are you neat? Are you messy? If somebody's gotta be
Speaker 1: pretty neat. He's But she's very neat. She's from a part of the world, the Austria Slovenia thing, which is like immaculate. And she is so neat. Everything's perfect.
If I get up, leave bed for a minute, I come back, the bed is made, which is pretty amazing. When you have somebody like this that also has that characteristic, that's a pretty unusual trait. So I'm very happy about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I like stuff perfect. You know?
Speaker 0: Me too. I like I'm very organized. Good. And now when is the wedding? When are gonna get married?
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Actress Valerie Bertinelli is fighting the urge to drink. https://t.co/je53LAz7gt
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes experiencing intense, uncomfortable feelings and the urge to numb them with alcohol or food. They acknowledge that numbing feelings only makes them stronger and leads to additional shame. Instead of suppressing the emotions, the speaker chooses to slice and eat a watermelon, savoring the taste and nutritional benefits without using it to numb the feelings. They emphasize the importance of feeling emotions fully, allowing them to pass, rather than suppressing them. The speaker suggests that feelings are information and proposes using watermelon as a way to cope with sadness while processing emotions. They express feeling better and hope the approach is helpful to others.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have been going through some really intense, uncomfortable, sad, emotionally excruciating feelings last few days, and I wanna drink.
Speaker 1: I wanna numb it. I don't wanna feel it.
Speaker 0: But my logical mind is like, no, don't wanna do that. You don't wanna numb it. You know what will help you feel better is to just feel the feelings, get through to the other side, have a good cry. And yet I can't cry. So I wanna eat it away too.
Like I wanna eat something that I know isn't necessarily going to put a lot of vitamins and minerals and fiber and protein into my body, the things that my body needs. Because I just want to numb these fucked up feelings. So you
Speaker 1: know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna come on the internet and slice a watermelon because I love watermelon. And it's watermelon season and a watermelon will make me feel better, but it won't make me numb my feelings. Slice the watermelon with me. Okay?
And we're gonna eat a watermelon, but I'm not eating to numb any feelings. I'm gonna feel my feelings while I slice the worm. I may not post this. Oh my god. I love that sound.
Another crack crack where you can oh, look at how beautiful that is. It's so pretty.
Speaker 0: That is gonna taste really good. This is my favorite time of year. It's watermelon season. So I have these feelings.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna talk about why I have them, where they came from, but I do wanna talk about feelings and how when we suppress them, when we numb them, it only gets makes them stronger. And it doesn't make us
Speaker 0: feel better about ourselves. What happens
Speaker 1: is when we numb them, we feel bad about what we've
Speaker 0: done to numb the feelings.
Speaker 1: So then that adds on to whatever shame that we may have about those feelings. And
Speaker 0: it just adds an extra layer of shame, which is what we don't want. We just wanna be like, if we're sad, we just wanna be sad. We just wanna be sad.
Speaker 1: And then you eat a watermelon
Speaker 0: and you get happy
Speaker 1: because it tastes so good and it's got vitamins and water and fiber and minerals. And I'm not numbing my feelings. I just know that I feel sad and it's just a feeling it'll pass because I'm strong and I'm good. I just happen to feel sad right now, and I'll get through it. And so can you.
We don't have to drink alcohol or eat food to numb feelings that we just need to feel so that these feelings can then feel heard. Anyway, I feel better.
Speaker 0: Feelings are information. So now, every time I want to wallow in my sadness, which I don't want to do, I'm just gonna have a pan of watermelon and ask my feelings what they want to tell me.
Speaker 1: Hope this was helpful.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Why this liberal voted for Donald Trump in 2024. https://t.co/vPuC1rKAzR
Video Transcript AI Summary
A former Democrat who was a vegan, LGBTQ, and environmental activist says they left the Democratic party in 2021, believing the liberal movement had become a fascist, woke movement that silences dissent.
The speaker says they now align with classical liberals on most social issues, lean left, and voted for Donald Trump. They support and identify with MAGA, which they see as a centrist movement, not a traditional Republican or GOP or conservative movement.
They will make independent choices based on candidates, policies, and history, and advises liberals to listen to those who are tired of "woke shit," noting that some woke politicians like Gavin Newsom are turning their backs on the movement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Liberal fatigue is very real, former Democrat here as well. I left the Democratic party in 2021 after a decade, and I was in pretty deep. I was a vegan, LGBTQ, and an environmental activist. I hit the streets often, but I walked away in 2021 because I saw what I thought was a liberal movement turned to a woke movement, which was actually more of a fascist movement, especially when they started trying to silence or cancel anyone who disagreed with them on literally anything. I tend to align with classical liberals on most social issues.
I still lean very left, but, yes, I voted for Donald Trump. And now I support MAGA, and I identify with MAGA. And I do not identify MAGA as a traditional Republican or GOP or conservative movement. I believe MAGA to be more of a centrist type movement, and I do align closely with them. I'm not a Republican for many reasons, and I will not devote any of my votes in the future to Republican nor against the Democratic party.
I will make an independent choice based on the candidates and the policies and their history as politicians or business people, whatever their background may be. But I just wanna say to the liberals, you might actually wanna listen to a lot of the people that are saying they're sick and tired of the fucking woke shit. That's why you see many of your woke politicians such as Gavin Newsom turning his back on you now. I mean, I guess you still have people like walls in your court, but I don't know what good that guy is. Either which way, you might wanna pay attention.
You might just wanna pay attention.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
ICE vehicle doesn't stop for protestors in San Francisco. Would you? https://t.co/x43436jg60
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Donald Trump throws a perfect spiral and wins one million dollars for charity in 1992. https://t.co/gn6me5tgiP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker introduces Donald Trump, mentioning airline tickets and asking if Trump still owns his own airline. The speaker expresses surprise and admiration, stating, "Who says there's not luck in football?" and concludes by calling Trump "the man."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is my man, mister Donald Trump. Only for airline tickets. You own your own airline, don't you? Do you still own your own airline? Oh, they haven't taken that away from you yet, No.
Good. Wait a minute. We gotta get a word. No. How did you do that?
I don't know. I have no idea. Who says there's not luck in football? You are the man. One time, everybody.
Donald Trump. Unbel
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Her sister was just taken by ICE. They were waiting for her at work. No illegal is safe. Self deport now. https://t.co/aLIspt1nSN
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
BREAKING: MASSIVE explosion at Fordow. Bunker Busters do the trick. https://t.co/VZZopyhNAP
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
People have had ENOUGH of leftists blocking their cars. https://t.co/zWIcAkaaxb
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
BREAKING: Its been revealed that Senator Lindsey Graham accepted money from GEORGE SOROS. This guy is a TRAITOR. https://t.co/aUJDKMH2vf
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
This is how much money USAID gave to terrorist-linked organizations. Most of these are STILL in the new budget. WTF is our government doing seriously? https://t.co/rTXrR3ag9u
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Legal Iranian immigrant wearing a Trump shirt is CONFRONTED by an old leftist at the gym. https://t.co/mJNQK40jeb
Video Transcript AI Summary
A man at the gym was approached by an older man who told him that his shirt would offend immigrants. The man laughed and said that he is an immigrant from Iran who supports the president. The older man said that he was wrong.
The man said that he also supports law and order. The older man then claimed that many in the military disagree with the president. The man responded that he is a veteran and that the military obeys the commander in chief.
He clarified that he was not talking about immigrants, but illegal immigrants, as he waited his turn in a refugee camp. He stated that his family raised the American and Texas flags when they arrived. He told those who disagree to leave the country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm at the gym minding my own business. This older white guy comes up to me pointing to my shirt and said, let me talk to you real quick. So I walk over there. I'm like, what's up, man? He said, you shouldn't be wearing that shirt right now.
You're gonna offend a lot of people. I was like, who? Who am I gonna offend? He said, immigrants. I started laughing.
I'm like, I'm an immigrant. I support the president. He's like, no. You're not. I was like, yeah.
Born and raised in Iran, man. He gets a little confused, and he's like, well well, how about the soldiers? Military is being deployed to target protesters. I was like, I like law and order too. I like stores that are not looted.
I like taxi cabs that are not burned. I don't know about you. I support him on that. And he's like, well, a lot of people in the military don't. They're speaking up.
They're walking away. And I was like, well, guess what, man? I'm a veteran too. And the thing they teach you in the military is that you obey the chain of command. And guess who's at the top of that chain?
It's the commander in chief, the president of The United States. So I told him this. If you are talking about immigrants, you're wrong. You're talking about illegal immigrants. I spent three years in a refugee camp in Turkey, waited my turn with no source of education, no source of income because we knew what was on the other side.
I mean, when we got here, we didn't raise the Iranian flag. We raised the American flag and the Texas flag, and we still do today. So you're not talking about immigrants. You're talking about illegal immigrants, those people who invaded this country. And anybody in the military that have a problem with this, or like this guy, or those foreigners that are raising the foreign flag, you all are more than welcome to get the hell out and go find another place.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
The California Democratic party bought TWO HUNDRED PALLETS OF BRICKS. The actual Democrat Party. https://t.co/AyIzgundtu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The California Democratic Party purchased 200 pallets of bricks, according to a review of their monthly expenditures report.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Oh, hey. Did you know the California Democratic Party bought 200 pallets of bricks? A recent review of their monthly expense, expenditures report shows they bought a bunch of bricks, and I have nothing to say about
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
BREAKING NEWS: A Federal Judge has issued an arrest warrant for Jack Quillin, who runs the @lascanner X account, for doxxing ICE agents. I voted for this. https://t.co/tCzTRYT7dz
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Lawyer goes to the bathroom and ICE grabs her client. I voted for this. https://t.co/raHwfy7V5h
Video Transcript AI Summary
A woman is being taken into an elevator, but someone is objecting, stating, "You can't manhandle her into an elevator." They claim her lawyer is in the bathroom. The woman is reportedly fainting in the hallway, and the speaker insists they need to get medical services and cannot transport her in that condition. The speaker repeats, "You can't manhandle her into an elevator," while stating that her lawyer is in the bathroom.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. Wait. You can't manhandle her into an elevator. No. You're manhandling her into an elevator.
Lawyers in the bathroom. Hold on. Hold on. Let's get her lawyer. Her lawyer's in the bathroom.
That's why they're taking her now. Kate, they're taking your client. Hold on. She's fainting, Kate. Yeah.
Dude, she's fainting on the hallway. Wait to get medical. No. No. No.
You can't you want a medical. You can't transport her. You need to leave her. Let get med give medical services. Come on.
No. No. You can't Hey. Quit you can't manhandle her into an elevator. No.
You You're manhandling her into an elevator. You're manhandling her into an elevator, dude. Her lawyer Her lawyer's in the bathroom.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
BREAKING NEWS: Leftist rioters at the LA ICE detention facility are now breaking up concrete to use as WEAPONS against ICE. LAPD ordered not to assist ICE. There's an army of 1000+ rioters. Kash Patel needs to send in an ARMY of Feds or this is going to escalate fast. https://t.co/aWlq7814M7
reSee.it AI Summary
I confirm that Biden staffers were involved in taking payoffs for autopen pardons, essentially bribes. It's time to arrest them all for serious crimes, including obstruction of justice, bribery, and treason, as outlined in various U.S. codes.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Rep. Tim Burchett CONFIRMS, that Biden staffers were TAKING PAYOFFS in exchange for autopen pardons. Another words, bribes Now, arrest them—arrest every single one of them—for the crimes: • 18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records • 18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness • 18 U.S. Code § 1503 – Obstruction of justice • 18 U.S. Code § 201(b) – Bribery • 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
The left just burned down a governor’s mansion firebomed Tesla dealerships murdered two foreign diplomats firebombed kids & elderly people at a peaceful protest They are a terrorist organization.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
CNN cameraman admits to being a part of the cabal trying to overthrow Trump while secretly being filmed. https://t.co/bxjhx9x54K
Video Transcript AI Summary
Carrie Porch, a satellite uplink technician and CNN contractor, secretly recorded the 9AM rundown calls run by CNN President Jeff Zucker. She says her "dream job" at CNN turned into a "nightmare."
According to Porch, Zucker has a personal vendetta against Trump and CNN will be negative towards him. She says Zucker wants media to be creative with Trump. Porch says Zucker called Fox News a fake news and propaganda machine, but she believes CNN is pumping out propaganda.
Another speaker says they don't care about the MSOB event and want to stay focused on impeachment. They claim Fox News spreads fake news and conspiracy nonsense that is destructive to America. Porch says she wants news organizations to be transparent about their leanings so people can make up their own minds.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I I don't care about the MSOB event. Okay? I don't care about them. Let's just stay very focused on impeachment.
Speaker 1: My name is Carrie Porch. I'm a satellite uplink technician. I'm a contractor at the CNN Washington DC bureau.
Speaker 0: But Jeff Zucker, yeah, basically president of CNN, has a personal vendetta against Trump. It's not gonna be positive for Trump. He hates it. He's gonna be negative.
Speaker 1: I decided to wear a hidden camera. I'm even creative with Trump, sir. I'm gonna need a camera before we play it every single day. Yeah. Media creative with Trump.
I decided to secretly record the 9AM rundown call meetings, and it's basically run by Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN. When I came to work at CNN, I mean, it was my dream job. And that dream actually just turned into a nightmare.
Speaker 0: I know that there's lot of people at CNN that are friendly with the scrum. Time to knock that off, and it's time to calm them out. I think what's going on in America now is really fundamentally the result of years of fake news, conspiracy nonsense from fake from Fox News.
Speaker 1: He was calling Fox News fake news and a propaganda machine. And with what I saw, I'm like, that's pretty much what CNN was. Like, it's just pumping out propaganda.
Speaker 0: The the the fake conspiracy nonsense that Fox has spread for years is now deeply embedded in American society. And, frankly, that is a destructive to America, and I do not think we should be scared to to say so.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to own where they're at. Like, hey. If we if we lean left, cool. Let's just say we lean left. If we lean right, let it be known.
But again, it just dovetails back to that thing. I just want people to have the information to make up their own minds.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
French President Macron seems to be having a fight with his wife. https://t.co/d5mqvna0E5
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Charlie Kirk explains that E. Jean Carroll LIED and he makes perfect sense. The simplest explanation usually is the correct one. https://t.co/aNggubULZS
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states they will be politically incorrect and issues a trigger warning. They question the claim that a wealthy man, married to a supermodel, would sexually assault E. Jean Carroll in a Tiffany's store. The speaker highlights that the alleged incident occurred at the height of the man's career, with no prior accusations for twenty years, and only surfaced when he ran for president. The speaker dismisses the accusation as "complete rubbish and political nonsense."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I'm gonna be politically incorrect. Is that okay? Alright. Trigger warning. Okay.
So let me let me understand this. Here is the world's wealthiest man. One of the world's wealthiest men worth like $10,000,000,000. He's got a show on the NBC apprentice. He's literally married to a supermodel.
He can have any woman on the world. And I'm I'm supposed to believe at 2PM at in a Tiffany store, he walks in and Eugene Carroll, who is not exactly a supermodel, and risks his entire fortune of which there is no accusation for twenty years, but he pops up and runs for the president. And all of a sudden, says, this guy me, even though I can't remember the day, the month, the year, 2PM in a department store at Tiffany's while he was at the height of his career. I'm sorry. That's complete rubbish and political nonsense.
reSee.it AI Summary
I revealed a shocking scandal involving Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who allegedly funneled over $14M in federal grants to Ocean Conservancy, benefiting his wife Sandra with $2.7M. An ethics complaint has been filed, but his team claims it's just politics. Taxpayers deserve clarity!
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
🚨SHOCKING SCANDAL: Senator’s Votes Pump MILLIONS into Wife’s NGO Cash Cow – You Won’t Believe the Payoff!🚨 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse funneled over $14M in federal grants to Ocean Conservancy, where his wife Sandra raked in $2.7M. Ethics complaint filed, but his team cries ‘politics.’ Corruption or coincidence? Taxpayers deserve answers!
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Letitia James is on a panel and an audience member asked a SAVAGE question… https://t.co/pgswivAFJU
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker demands Tush James apologize to President Trump for a "witch trial" that wasted millions of New York state dollars. The speaker asks James how it feels to know she will be imprisoned for mortgage fraud.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Yes. My question is for Tush James. Will you apologize to president Trump for wasting millions of dollars and the state of New York for a witch trial.
And how does it feel to know that you're you will be imprisoned for mortgage fraud? How's it feel? How's it feel, Tush? How's it feel, Tush? Yes, sir.
Yes, sir. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
28,
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m excited to share that America First Legal, led by Stephen Miller, has launched a significant lawsuit against Chief Justice John Roberts and Robert J. Conrad. The suit aims to assert presidential oversight over the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office, which America First Legal claims have overstepped their roles. They argue these agencies are engaging in executive functions and collaborating with Democrats on anti-conservative efforts against Justices Thomas and Alito. This move is seen as a crucial step in supporting President Trump’s agenda to uphold the separation of powers.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
BREAKING NEWS: Holy SHIIIIIIIT! And we’re off… Stephen Miller’s America First Legal Takes on Chief Justice John Roberts in Bold Lawsuit! 🚨 In a fiery move to restore executive authority, America First Legal, led by Trump’s powerhouse advisor Stephen Miller, has filed a blockbuster lawsuit against Chief Justice John Roberts and Robert J. Conrad, head of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The suit demands that the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office—accused of overstepping their judicial bounds—be placed under rightful presidential oversight, ensuring the judiciary sticks to judging, not politicking! AFL argues these agencies perform executive functions, like cozying up to Democrat lawmakers pushing anti-conservative witch hunts against Justices Thomas and Alito. This is a major win for President Trump’s agenda to drain the swamp and protect the separation of powers! 🇺🇸
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
The mafia tried to get to Trump but they determined he was uncorruptable. That's my President. https://t.co/uivmKFyIWy
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states they tried to pressure Trump and arrange to work with him, as they had with other contractors, leveraging the power of the unions. However, they couldn't reach Trump because he was surrounded by ex-FBI agents. The speaker claims Trump didn't want to engage in any illicit activities. An associate suggested going to Trump's office, but the speaker refused, believing they would be arrested due to the ex-FBI agents present. The speaker concludes that Trump is legitimate and not interested in such dealings.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Actually try to press up on Trump, but you could never get to him. Yeah. Because he had ex FBI agents all around him? All the time. And I tried a couple times to press him and make arrangements where I could work with him and and on with him.
I did that with other big contractors. I had the power of the unions. I could do all kinds of little things, but I couldn't get to him. He wouldn't bite. He just wouldn't bite.
He he didn't wanna do anything like that. And there was layers of people in the middle. One of my guys said, we'll go up to the office. I said, we'll go up to the office. Everybody around him is an ex FBI agent.
We'll go up to the office. We'll get cuffed, and we'll go right to prison. So forget about Trump. He's a legitimate guy. He don't wanna do it.
Forget about Trump. Yeah.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
BREAKING NEWS: D.O.G.E. has removed 11 MILLION scammers from the Social Security system so far. If each fraudulent person was making just $1800/mo, then D.O.G.E. just saved Americans $19,800,000,000 A MONTH. HOLY SMOKES! $20 BILLION EVERY SINGLE MONTH. https://t.co/ERUc39Kqi0
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
BREAKING: Congressman James Comer has referred ActBlue for prosecution. ActBlue is nothing but lies and fraud. https://t.co/Lkn59mKVyN
reSee.it AI Summary
Cooper Jo Frederick, 24, from Fort Collins, was arrested for allegedly throwing an incendiary device at a Tesla dealership in Loveland, causing a fire that endangered people inside. He faces multiple felony charges, including the use of an explosive device and second-degree arson. The judge set bail at $250,000, but the DA requested $20,000 in cash, which Frederick cannot afford, leaving him in jail. With the serious charges against him, he could face up to 20 years in prison. Meanwhile, there's speculation about Kash Patel and federal authorities.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Have you heard this? Cooper Jo Frederick, 24, of Fort Collins, Colorado, was arrested in connection with an incident at a Tesla dealership in Loveland, Colorado. Frederick allegedly ignited & threw an incendiary device at a Tesla dealership. The device landed between two vehicles, starting a fire that endangered several people who were inside cleaning the facility at the time. He was charged with multiple felony charges, including: - Use of an Explosive or Incendiary Device During a Felony (Class 2 Felony) - Possession of Explosives or an Incendiary Device (Class 5 Felony) - Second-Degree Arson (Business Damage $5,000 – $20,000, Class 5 Felony) - Criminal Mischief (Business Damage $5,000 – $19,999, Class 5 Felony) - Criminal Attempt to Commit a Class 5 or 6 Felony (Class 6 Felony) Judge wanted $250K bail. DA insisted on $20K CASH bail. Frederick doesn't have the dough. So he sits in jail. And with all those felonies he will be there 20 years. Hope it was worth it, Cooper.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
…and Kash Patel and the Feds haven't gotten a hold of him yet. Just wait.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
Dumbass getting arrested for keying a Tesla Cyber Truck. https://t.co/9qvdTRR6Qi
Video Transcript AI Summary
An individual is being handcuffed and arrested. The speaker believes the arrestee will be prosecuted and likely had outstanding warrants. The individual is being taken away.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yep. They're pan they're handcuffing him. No. Oh, take a picture. He's he's getting arrested.
Yep. Look at this. Yeah. Can they see me? No.
He's gonna be prosecuted. Yeah. He must have had other warrants out. For sure. He's getting taken away.
He's He's no way. Oh my god. I can see.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
BREAKING: DHS employee Brandon Wright, a platform services manager, explains to O’Keefe Media’s hidden camera how DHS Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) wont be able to really do anything at DHS. Think Brandon still has a job? https://t.co/OG7oXRQIPx
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states that while secretaries can set priorities for the department, they cannot dictate actions. The speaker claims "we don't let them get out of our way" and argues that this is their job. The speaker asserts that the Secretary of Homeland Security is unaware of the department's activities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Christine, now I'm So the secretaries can set the priorities for the department, but they can't actually tell us what to do. The truth is we don't let them get out of our way. I would argue. I'm not even being I would argue. That's my job.
She has no her The Department of Homeland Security could fall off her head, and she wouldn't recognize what it is. Because you know him doesn't know Yeah.
reSee.it AI Summary
AOC's hiring of an undocumented immigrant as her chief of staff has sparked controversy, with claims that she knowingly violated federal law. The potential consequences include hefty fines and possible jail time. There's a lot of chatter about whether this is hypocrisy or recklessness, and many are questioning the lack of action from ICE. I also feel strongly that Pam Bondi should take action and not let AOC evade accountability.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
AOC’S ILLEGAL HIRE SCANDAL EXPLODES 🚨 BREAKING: AOC knowingly put an illegal alien—zero work papers, pure lawbreaker—on payroll as her CHIEF OF STAFF. AOC IS GOING TO JAIL. Straight-up violated 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, the fed law banning this exact move. She KNEW, hired anyway, and now faces the heat: $3,200–$16,000 in fines, maybe $3,000 more plus 6 months in jail. Congress can’t shield her—IRCA doesn’t care about titles. X’s buzzing: is this hypocrisy or just reckless? Proof’s out there—where’s ICE when you need ‘em? Thoughts? ⬇️
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
I sure hope that @PamBondi doesn't let @AOC SPIT in her face and get away with it. @AGPamBondi MUST bring charges.