TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @NanLee1124
@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi
🔥“Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Obama, Monaco…I cannot find words harsh enough to condemn the conduct of these conspirators…insurrectionists!” @StephenM https://t.co/WZxLrNmihT
Video Transcript AI Summary
Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Obama, Monaco conspired together, all worked together to try to sabotage, undermine, unravel the democratic institutions and structures of this country. The Russiagate hoax, the Russiagate conspiracy, and all of the assaults against our liberties that went with it. The predawn raids, the handcuffing of innocent Americans, the espionage against president Trump's campaign and staff, the removal of his national security adviser, one fake indictment, one fake charge after another, the special counsel; all of it was a unrelenting attempt to overthrow the government the American people voted for. I cannot find words harsh enough to condemn the conduct of these conspirators, these insurrectionists.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Comey Well, and then Clapper Yeah. Go ahead. Brennan, Obama, Monaco, all conspired together, all worked together to try to sabotage, undermine, unravel the democratic institutions and structures of this country. The Russiagate hoax, the Russiagate conspiracy, and all of the assaults against our liberties that went with it. The predawn raids, the handcuffing of innocent Americans, the the espionage against president Trump's campaign and staff, the removal of his national security adviser, one fake indictment, one fake charge after another, the special counsel, all of it was a unrelenting attempt to overthrow the government the American people voted for.
I cannot find words harsh enough to condemn the conduct of these conspirators, these insurrectionists.
@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi
MUST-WATCH interview as Tucker Carlson is joined by @MikeBenzCyber: “USAID is effectively a rent-a-riot operation. That raises questions about the Black Lives Matter protests.”🔥 https://t.co/Mbpb7CH8e7
Video Transcript AI Summary
For years, I've exposed the nexus between US government agencies, NGOs, and private entities, revealing their influence on censorship, regime change, and other unconstitutional actions. Recent revelations about USAID's activities have validated my work, sparking a national conversation. This isn't a moment for celebration, but reflection. We're performing open-heart surgery on the American empire, a necessary but risky undertaking. The goal isn't to eliminate US soft power, but to reform it. The system's corruption has reached alarming levels, affecting both foreign and domestic affairs. We need a new vision for foreign policy, one that prioritizes transparency and serves genuine US interests, not just the short-term gains of corporations or ideological excesses. The fight to reform this is just beginning.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you, more than anyone, for the past couple of years, have been awakening the rest of the country and the world to this nexus between public and private sector NGOs, nonprofits, US government agencies, whose acronyms you don't recognize, and you've described an entire complex that affects censorship, regime change, all kinds of sinister, unconstitutional outcomes that most Americans don't know they're paying for. And I'm I'm from DC, so as you've explained this to me a couple of times, it it always made total sense. And, like, sometimes I wonder, like, do people believe what Mike Pence is saying? And now, over the last week since the USAID files have dropped mostly on x, people are discovering what you have been talking about and learning that it's a % true. And I and I just wanted to ask how's that how that feels for you.
Speaker 1: It's it's a sort of somber moment actually more more than anything, and it's I found myself very reflective this week and hit by the weight of history of it, if that makes sense. And there's a lot to this. I mean, a lot of people said, aren't you so happy? You've been fighting for this so long. You know, it's happening.
And so they expecting, you know, cartwheels and spiking footballs. And that that's not how I feel really at all because the task here was to break the halo of of this angel that turned into an angel of death. I don't think we've had the success of the twentieth century without having a soft power influence arm. I don't I think this is how we add cheap gas and affordable homes and, you know, middle class prosperity and export markets for our manufactured goods here. The the the task is to be able to make it be righteous and and virtuous again, but you couldn't do that while it had this halo.
And so the halo had to be broken. The mask had to be taken off in order to implement reforms. And there there have been I I I feel the the global impact of fundamental changes to US foreign policy that are happening now because, you know, as I've been been saying for so long, I mean, there really is a sort of USAID Truman Show, that much of the world lives in. You know, many people found out for the first time this week that 90% of media in Ukraine is funded by USAID. Many people just now finding out, you know, the extent of US media organizations that are that are funded by, by USAID.
You know, they're finding out the the reach of it in everything from the unions to social media censorship to, pandemic and gain of function research, to, you know, strange ties even to things like terrorism and the drug trade. And, you know, there there's that sort of these institutions that everyone thought were private and independent being corrupted by, you know, USAID's forty four billion odd dollar a year budget. And and when I think a lot of people. That was a process that I felt was necessary to tell the story of Internet censorship. Because for me, my journey of discovery on this was, like everybody else, I thought Internet censorship was a domestic story at first.
And so I start following the trail of it, and then I see, oh, well, that's weird. This at this disinformation conference, the next panel is on energy geopolitics. What are they doing together? That's weird. And then you go over to the energy geopolitics people, and you see, okay.
Well, their fellow panelists are all military contractors. Okay. Alright. So the military has something to do with with social media censorship, and and the energy pipeline politics in in Ukraine have something to do with it. Okay.
That's interesting. And then you keep going down the line, and you say, okay. There are these Chamber of Commerce partners, and then you see, oh, there are these suite of humanitarian aid organizations like USAID, NED, the whole suite of of NGOs, you know, state department grantees, National Science Foundation grantees. And and you start to see that this is in order to tell the story, I felt, of of Internet censorship and what to do to stop it, you had to explain a totally different world than the one people thought that they lived in. And for the first several years of this, when I would do my, you know, little private briefings and bring my PowerPoints around the country, and it was it was very hard it was impossible, frankly, to to crack through even when people saw the receipts on screen.
They had the saw the source documents, and and they they just couldn't conceive that the world actually works this way, that that our country does these things. And they have a hard time squaring the morality of it with the the operational side, if that makes sense. Like, they don't want to believe certain things, and so even if it's six inches in front of their face, they won't. And so but I guess getting back to this sort of why am I neutral rather than happy right now is because we are conducting open heart surgery on the vital organs of the American empire, and I am pro empire to the extent that it helps the homeland. I don't think we'd have a prosperous homeland without an empire.
And the the patient needs open heart surgery. It has to be done. I am a % agree with with, the decisions that have been made on on policy so far on this. But I I I want to make sure, and I feel a a great sense of duty and obligation to try as best I can to help identify the organ you're operating on because in in the zeal to, to carry out radical reforms, you can
Speaker 0: if you don't if if Take out the wrong organs.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Or if you don't don't even know, you know, how the atriums how the how the organ works, it's directionally corrected to the open heart surgery, but the patient can die on the table if you if you do it wrong. And all of that has to be like, this is just the beginning of the fight to reform this, in my view, but we are now in the arena and and a blow has been struck. This is, in my view, this week is really the first time, maybe in American history with with few exceptions, maybe in the in the sixties and seventies, that the blob, the foreign policy establishment that impacts so much of domestic affairs and sometimes controls it, has had to answer to the people that fund it. This this is a shot across the bow.
There there have been so many tactics that they've been able to deploy to shift the course of domestic politics in order to ensure that their global vision stays the course, and there's been a blitzkrieg. I don't think they saw this coming.
Speaker 0: I, I understand exactly what you're saying. I don't think Americans even now really understand the degree to which our foreign policy establishment use uses other countries, particularly the five eyes, the other English speaking intel services against us here. You know? I've almost never met a British reporter in The United States who wasn't acting on behalf of some intel service against The United States. It's like it's absolutely crazy.
I dealt with one today, actually. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 1: I don't know the individual you're referring to, but, you know
Speaker 0: You're familiar with the trend. So but I guess what I hear you saying is Americans, when they learn just how corrupt the system is, may lose faith in their country.
Speaker 1: Milton Friedman gives this example about the pencil. Have you ever seen this video? No. He he, he talks about it in the context of libertarian economic theory. He he says, look at this pencil.
And he, you know, holds up, a pencil, and it's got a lead tip and graphite and gum, and he goes, no. No single person in the world can make this pencil. The gum comes from trees in Malaysia, and the lead comes from, you know, some mine in Africa, and the graphite comes from graphite miners in South America. And it's the magic of the market that all makes it possible. You know, everyone doing it for their own self interest economic gain, but it creates this magical web of cooperation where everyone profits, and that's how we get cheap pencils in The US.
And I think what we're what we're about to walk in on is the is is the the flip side of that, which is that people have been lied to in this country where they've thought that they've been they've been sold that this was humanitarian aid and, and cosigned it. And and I got let me come back to this point about the pencil because maybe that'll just appear a little bit later in the story, and I'll just sort of hint at it now. But right now, the people who are trying to defend US aid are stuck between Iraq and a hard place. They they they wanna defend it on humanitarian grounds, and then they get totally deluged with all the ways that it has gone wrong and all the horrible things that's funding. So then they they then turn to layer two.
This is sort of like Lindsey Graham defending our operations in in Ukraine when it was, you know, we need to do this for democracy, democracy. And then we say, okay. Wait. You canceled elections. You know, you've you're you know, there are all these nondemocratic things that are happening.
And he goes, okay. Okay. Layer two of my defense is there's $14,000,000,000,000 worth of natural resources under the soil there. So Right. You know, having it be a US vassal state is advantage to us because then we can exploit those $14,000,000,000,000 worth of resources.
I mean, that's what's implied there. Right? Why would Americans benefit from Ukrainians exploiting that 14,000,000,000,000? Now and by the way, that's not a knock on on Ukraine, but you can you simply saw that shift happen when, you know, as it got harder and harder to defend it on the basis of democracy promotion, the the mask had to slip in order to defend it at the deeper level. It was to to let people in, okay, here's what we're here's what we're really doing it.
And every USAID program operates that way. It is getting back to this rock and the hard place analogy is that they wanna say it's humanitarian aid, but it's clearly done so much harm in so many places. It's doing such terrible things, funding the Wuhan Lab, you know, not to to mention, you know, the whole rest of the USAID Truman Show. But then they go, okay. Okay.
Well, it's US soft power. It's, it advances US strategic interests. And so you say, oh, okay. So it's not aid? And and then it becomes very schizophrenic to defend this thing because it's it's a labyrinth of lies.
USAID's access and its reputation completely depends on its perception as being a kind of quasi charity, even though, you know, it's nowhere charity is nowhere to be found. It's a US foreign policy instrument. Aid isn't even in the name. I've said this many times, but it's the Agency for International Development. And when you see aid Yeah.
It's your mind playing tricks on you.
Speaker 0: And and by the way, when growing up, my dad worked with USAID. It was called USAID, not USAID Right. To make it clear to everybody, it was not an aid organization.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Right? Right. Now they call it USAID.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, I mean, you know, I mean, I'm I'm sure in the Ronald Reagan Building, though, you know, the but but how it's colloquially known, I mean, and how it's described to the voters. It's described as humanitarian assistance. And you go, okay. Well, you know and we can we can get into the the depth of the scandals, but I guess the the fundamental feeling that I have right now is this is going to get a lot worse as people go through this self discovery process of of what's happening.
And we we were talking a little bit earlier where I mentioned, you know, eight years ago when I was writing my, you know, little book attempt to try to explain all everything that was happening in era censorship, and I felt like I had to explain all these other, you know, tectonic plates of American society and and global affairs just to understand who and what and why is why they're censoring the Internet. But, you know, I would I would spend my whole day in USA Spending Dot Gov, you know, to the exclusion of of everything else, friends, family, a social life, and just going through that, this can't be true. This can't be true. Oh my god. It is.
Oh my god. It is. And there are there's a sort of five stages of depression that plays out as you discover it yourself going into these grant databases and seeing the receipts with with your eyes like that because that's what I've seen on on my news feed this week. It's been just hundreds of people all all with huge megaphones who are just spending their day, like, saying hearing about, oh, wow. There's all this corruption at USAID.
Let me plug it into the the search database. Let me fish around a little bit. Oh, here's what I found. And now everyone's contributing to this common knowledge, which is which is really amazing, but I still feel the already, faith has been shaken, but there are layers to this that I think are going to truly shock people when they begin to try to put their their minds around it, and I I believe fundamentally in US soft power. I believe in soft power projection.
I believe there is a role for projects in foreign countries that have a dual function of helping the people there and helping secure import export markets for us, helping secure natural resources, you know, helping secure, you know, US national security goals in in the region. There is a role for that, and I I just I I feel that many came into this movement around MAGA and nationalism because they they cared about their schools and and the woke agenda in their schools, or they cared about their their streets and their neighborhoods and and whether they were safe, and they cared about, you know, corruption from the The US President or their local representatives. They never had to think about Pakistan, Bangladesh, Estonia, Tanzania. They they never had to think about how you make a pencil and how the goods and services that they would that give them the advantaged life that we have in The United States versus other countries depends on the battering ram of this blob apparatus. And so as they learn more and more the depths of depravity of the blob, I am I myself am in a hard sort of between a rock and a hard place where more than anyone, maybe in in that I know, have been have been spearheading and trying to lead the charge to to break the blob's halo.
Now I'm I'm in a sort of curious position where I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't spend this time at least fleshing out that I I don't believe that it should be it should be vanquished entirely. It's it's family, if that makes sense. You know, I I was I was thinking about this the other day with we talked about Ukraine several times when we've spoken, and we've talked about the twenty fourteen Maidan toppling of the democratically elected government. Coincidentally, the person on the on the pro USAID side, who's leading the charge to fight, the the White House's reforms is senator Chris Murphy. Chris Murphy bragged on live national television that, that The US toppled that government.
It was only because of US pressure and US support on the ground for for the movements there that that toppled that government. But leaving aside the the morality of whether that was the right or wrong thing to do in the name of of democracy, when when Victoria Nuland made her speech in December 2013, '2, '3 months before before that, you know, those those protests, you know, changed world history. You know, she bragged about the $5,000,000,000 that USAID and and NED and related, you know, humanitarian assistance orgs had given to the, you know, to offend, especially, the very same Ukrainian civil society organizations that would that would lead that charge. And when she did so, she was at a a sponsored event by standing in front of signs for ExxonMobil and Chevron. And I've reflected on that picture because it's very easy to look at Victoria Nuland as a sort of angel of death figure who knocks on European countries' doors and tells them, hey.
We're about to, topple your democratically elected government. And it's very easy to look at the excesses of of big US corporations. But we do need oil. We do we do want cheap oil and gas. We do want energy dominance.
And so, you know, I'm at this moment when we're seeing the really the first vulnerabilities, certainly in my lifetime, of this blob monstrosity, I'm I feel a strange sort of sympathy for the devil, which is that they've done they've done terrible things, and we should not do them again. And they've gone rogue, and there's no oversight, and, horrors beyond your wildest imagination. At the same time, these are still parts of the American family. There is some vestige of a function there that I believe our foreign policy planners have to at least know was there and was responsible for much of our prosperity, before it's as they try to reconstruct the patient. Does that make sense?
Speaker 0: Of course it does. And I and I and I think maybe that's the whole point of this is that, you know, any nation, particularly a big one like ours, that controls the hemisphere has a foreign policy and has all sorts of ways to affect it, including the soft power that you referred to. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's essential. The question is, why are you doing it?
Are you doing it, a, to serve your own interest, to preserve, you know, import, and and export advantage? Are you doing it to secure energy that you need to have a functioning society? Those are all are you doing to, you know, bring peace to your hemispheres? You don't have a lot of, like, craziness and lawlessness and civil wars and all that? Yes.
Those are all good things. Or are you doing it to sow chaos for its own sake? So, I mean, I guess the problem that I have with USAID and with the state department and with CIA and with all of the ways that we project power abroad is not that they exist. It's that they're not serving us, and they're not serving sort of, like, the basic goals you would want for any great power, which is, like, peace, security, sort of continuity, reasonableness, freedom, democracy. Like, they're not doing any of that.
They're, like, sowing bizarro, destabilizing politics into other people's cultures. Like, why why would you do that? I don't understand. Like, what what US interest is served by having all those agencies that I just named go to some other country and say, no. You need more trainees or some bizarre you know, we need to structure the family differently.
Like, why do we do that? How do who wins when we do that?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm I'm really glad you asked because that is the exact example I've been using to try to to try to give a window of entry into into this larger sort of point about we need a much larger vision about the role of US foreign policy if we are going to get rid of the shortcuts that USAID provides. And so, you know, you just mentioned, you know, why why would USAID be promoting, you know, trans take the example of transgender dance festivals. That's something I've been talking about a lot this week.
Speaker 0: Take the example of transgender dance festivals. Right. Well Love that sentence. It used to be only crazy people thought they were being watched all the time, surveilled, the guy mumbling next to you on the bus. But now, anyone who knows what's going on thinks that because it's true.
Your phones are listening to you. Tech companies tracking all your online activity in order to profit off of what ought to be private information. Governments are watching too. It's a corrupt system. It's frightening, and the worst part is it's all legal.
The government certainly will not help stop this. Of course, the intel agencies love it. So it's up to you to protect yourself, and that's where ExpressVPN comes in. ExpressVPN, which we use here, is an app that sends a % of your online activity through secure encrypted servers. That means nobody can see what you do online, not Internet service providers, not data brokers, not intel agencies.
Don't believe it? Listen to this. Within last year, ExpressVPN received over 400,000 data requests from tech companies and government agencies, but did not share a single piece of customer data. That's because the company has a strict zero logs policy. ExpressVPN cannot and will not share your data.
They don't even have your data to share. ExpressVPN is easy to use, takes one click. It's rated number one by the experts at CNET and The Verge. And right now, you get an extra three months for free when you use a special link. Go to expressvpn.com/tucker and get that extra months for free.
It's expressvpn.com/tucker. What is the Transgender Dance Festival, having never been?
Speaker 1: So that is when USAID or or USAID's companion star, National Endowment for Democracy, or other related NGOs will, you know, fund an event in, in the form of a sort of cultural exchange, and that will they will bring together people from that country to come to, you know, a, you know, a dance festival that's, you know, comprised of transgender individuals and is intended to both, create a sense of unity within the transgender population there and to expose and normalize and curry favor with other parts of the demographics there in order to expand the network node of of US entities who are working with the activist and leaders there.
Speaker 0: Why what American interest is preserved or protected or advanced by pushing transgenderism or any kind of sexual politics or family politics, including family planning? Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Why is
Speaker 0: it our business how many kids other countries have? I I don't I'd I've always been confused by that. Like, what is that? Why are we doing that?
Speaker 1: I I wish that was rhetorical, but and and I do believe in in many instances, it is ideological excess, you know, driven to madness. But give an example from just a few months ago. I believe it was this this August, this year, there was a, a prime minister in Bangladesh who was basically ousted in a sort of military coup coupled with a color revolution. And, GreyZone News, Max Blumenthal's outlet, published this report that I've been talking about a lot for the past week because it's just a really, really clean example of all of the different facets of the dynamics I'm talking about, which is so, basically, starting in about 2028 2018 through 2020, it it appeared that that US statecraft, was not particularly pleased with Sheikh Hasina winning this, you know, the prime minister winning the election, and, baseline assessments were submitted to the state department about how to prop up the opposition group, the Bangladesh Bangladesh National Party, the BNP, which was considered more favorable to US US interests. The the the leaked documents don't get too in the nitty gritty about what US national interest has served, but there there were many conflicts between that Bangladeshi prime minister and, the The US foreign policy establishment.
For example, it was revealed in in WikiLeaks that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, threatened to have the IRS do an audit of her son while while she lived in The US. And, and she is that prime minister has come out publicly and said that, you know, she believed that she was overthrown, because of, or or basically, there was a conflict around, around the construction of a US military base in the region, which is a very common conflict that we have. Oftentimes, foreign countries don't like having a big fat US military base installed, you know, on They
Speaker 0: don't want foreign troops on their soil. Who does?
Speaker 1: Right. They don't want 500 acres of their land. You know, they don't wanna provoke, you know, foreign powers. This is what's playing out in Romania with Georgia's queue and the the, you you know, the cancellation of the elections and he
Speaker 0: It's just like a giant NATO base right now.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, they're building the world the the Europe's largest NATO base, right, currently, which, you know, faces straight out of the Black Sea at Crimea. But there was this but but she had been refusing to build a US military base. So so let's just but as as I walk through this, let me just make some assumptions and and make it a harder issue than, or or something a little bit more, I guess, accessible. Let's just say it really is vital to US national interests to build that military base in Bangladesh to counter Chinese influence, and the Bangladeshi prime minister doesn't wanna do it.
And so our foreign policy planners decide we need to do regime change. And that and whether or not you agree that's a good or an evil thing to do, I'm I'm not even weighing into the morality of it. What if it is the declared or discreet policy of the US government, the state department and the White House and the National Security Council all agree, this government, we we should pursue regime change. All options to destabilize that country in order to weaken the existing government and to build up a our network of democratic institutions and activists, in order to either win the next election or in order to, you know, do a color revolution style, you know, ousting where the, you know, the prime minister has to flee in a helicopter. And what was done in in this case in in Bangladesh, and these leaked documents from the gray zone show this in gratuitous detail, is that, the National Endowment for Democracy's republican arm, the International Republican Institute.
They have four core force, but two of them are political branches. There's the NDI, the National Democratic Institute for Democrats, and there's the IRI, the International Republican Institute for for Republicans. And what the the IRI submit submitted to the state department in 2019, '20 '20, after they got walloped trying to back the the the Bangladeshi National Party, in the the recent past election, was a a plan to destabilize Bangladesh, politics. That's a direct quote. Destabilize Bangladesh politics, by working with they they listed a 70, pro democracy activists, three hundred and four key informants, and then they did a baseline assessment of the different ethnic groups and cultural cleavage points that they could exploit in order to effectively, you know, either destabilize, the the country's politics or prop up the the political alternative.
And in the process of doing that, they they sought the l g b they sought the LGBT population, two two Bangladeshi ethnic minority groups, and young students and student groups who had already been protesting, earlier that year because of, some local a local politics issue there. And and they noted, you know, that, rap music was was popular, and young people were listening to rap music in Bangladesh. So what do they do? They, they turned around and they took US taxpayer funds. They get a % of the money from from the state department, and they work closely with USAID.
They actually administer USAID programs all over Bangladesh and all over the world. And they funded Bangladeshi rap groups to produce, songs and music videos, insinuating that people should take to the streets and, do street protests and, you know, the the classic, peaceful protest that's, has the, you know, upside of being a a riot. And, in in, you know, one of in in IRI's baseline assessments submitted to the state department, they talked about how one of the songs they paid for, was was designed to, to sow resentment, at the sitting government and, you know, basically undermine people the the popularity of the government. So you have one sponsored song to get people to take the streets, another sponsored rap song to to get people to, you know, to distrust their their government. And then, you know, basically, the baseline assessment revealed that that these groups were the ones who would be receptive.
That they those were the contacts in the region. They do field work when they do these baseline assessments. What if the baseline assessment or the strategic assessment happens to reveal that the highest ROI for soft power projection is with very unseemly groups and activities. This is, for example, what how we end up funding terrorist groups and paramilitaries and and and very extreme because oftentimes, when you have a popular government, it's the coalition of the fringes and the extremes and the weirdos and the criminals and the prostitutes. This this was in an NED memo in 02/2009 for Cuba where they were, where the National Down for Democracy, you know, under they have something called the Journal of Democracy, and, you know, they they talked about this exact phenomenon that they might be able to mobilize the Afro Cuban community, to, you know, leveraging racial animus against the, you know, mostly, you know, white Cuban government and, you know, taking note of, you know, proclivities for, I think it was prostitution, crime, and drugs and how how USAID would be and would might be able to swoop in and, you know, mobilize these people because a lot of them are really unemployed.
And, also, USAID should fund the rap groups there because the these these populations all listen to rap, and they did. And this is another great gray zone for You're
Speaker 0: making that hair on my arms go up because you're describing what's happened in our in our country. Yes. You're describing the 2,017, the Nazi march. You're describing what happened on January 6. You're describing the riots after George Floyd was murdered.
You're describing the ride rise of rap music and drugs in our city and all of it. You're describing, you know, trainee story hour and, you know, like, you're describing all the trends in our country that seem to arise out of nowhere whose net effect is to destabilize America, to fray the social fabric, to divide people from each other, to make them easier to control, and in the case of Trump's first term, to to undermine the White House. Right? I mean, I I don't know that any of that's true, but, like, what you're what you're describing that we did in Bangladesh is what's happened here. And so it it raises the question, like, was that all by design also?
And, of course of course, it was. Right?
Speaker 1: Well, there's there's a lot there. USAID gave
Speaker 0: gave Would you mind crazy to ask that?
Speaker 1: No. Not at all. I mean, that that is, to me, the the final the final blow. US it's it's bad, and there's the moral question about whether to do to do this sort of dirty work abroad, and that comes down to different schools of foreign policy thought and to different views on the relative morality of different ways of attacking the issue of ex of US soft power influence abroad. But then there is the the breaking of the firewall where our foreign policy hounds are never supposed to bite the, you know, the owner who, who who feeds them.
And that is, I mean, that that is to me why this is a no brainer, the reforms that are happening. And and But
Speaker 0: do you think it's I mean, look, just to go through them. The two thousand seventeen Charlottesville march where all of a sudden out of nowhere, there are all these Nazis. Like, who knew we had so many Nazis in our country? Right? And guys one, I'm thinking one particular
Speaker 1: USA does never funded Nazis, by the way. Yeah. Right. I mean Right.
Speaker 0: So but, like, all out of nowhere, Trump gets elected, and all of a sudden, Charlottesville, Virginia, home of UVA, not a right wing town. There are always people showing up led by a couple of people who are just so obviously feds. It's, like, not even a question in my mind. And they're, like, marching with candles, and we're gonna restore the fourth Reich or whatever. And then that the next day is used to delegitimize Trump.
And we're think we're supposed to think that's, like, all organic? I mean, that sounds like exactly what groups like USAID do in other countries.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about the Charlottesville case. You know, I I can see enough domestic antibodies on that with the FBI and whatnot. And the fact is is Well, I'm
Speaker 0: not saying USAID did it. I'm just saying it's the same template.
Speaker 1: Oh, right. Oh, of of no. Of of well, the ability for the the battering ram of our cloak and dagger dark arts only supposed to operate abroad to be laundered at home Yes. Is is is really the the reason that I believe the current open heart surgery is a no brainer, and I fully support the total abolition of USAID as an agency and tucking it under state and putting it through you know, having it mend. And then if at some point it needs to be rolled out and spun out into into a different independent agency again with with reforms in place and the and the appropriate, you know, staffing structure, we can have that conversation at a later time.
There is the the domestic one is is is a huge one. There's so many data points there. I think it's it's gonna be I think it's gonna be terrifying to a lot of people who are just now experiencing this, but I do sort of wanna close the loop on this on this foreign side because, my concern is when you try to attack these things at the level of there's no US interest that served in it at all, it's totally crazy. You you're going to encounter very strange layers of resistance trying to attack it from that argument. So k.
So here's an example I've I've been giving this week, and and I'll I'll hit you with the thought experiment. What? Let's just assume and I have no inside knowledge about this. I don't I don't talk to to folks in on, yeah, at that level or anything. But Venezuela has very con Trump has had had a very contentious relationship with the government of Venezuela during his first term.
You know, we, you know, declared Juan Guaido the the sitting president of, you know, the the the elected president. You know, he was standing ovation from, you know, both sides of the aisle. I could see a situation where this White House, where where president Trump and secretary of state Marco Rubio, either in a declared or discreet fashion, seek to deploy US soft power institutions to pursue a policy of regime change in Venezuela? Again, I have no inside knowledge about that.
Speaker 0: I I do have inside knowledge, and they've been working on that for years. Sure. And there are Americans in Venezuela, Fact, because I talked to one of them. As of last year, there are Americans in Venezuela working to overthrow that government. Right?
You know? So That's true. But
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give a narrow example here, but but the problem fundamentally that I'm describing is is fractal across all of this waste, fraud, and abuse we're seeing. What if the state department and and it together with it's it's it's a new USAID function, puts out basically, you know, a request for proposals to all the different NGOs, for how best to capacity build civil society institutions and activists and people who will be willing to, you know, spread pro democracy media and and take to the streets and protest against the police and live dual lives effectively as, you know, you know, working with effectively US spy craft while nominally being Venezuelan citizens or doing the daring and dangerous deeds of, you know, transporting supplies despite, you know, Venezuelan counterintelligence monitoring them? And what if what if the strategic analysis or the baseline analysis that comes back from from these NGOs, is, well, the transgender population in Venezuela. And I know nothing I know nothing about this in in Venezuela, but I've been using this as an example for everywhere. What if the cold hard fact is that the demographic in that in that country that is most effective at destabilizing that country's, democratically that country's government or or that will be most, the the highest return on investment for foreign assistance funds given.
You know, what if $2,700,000 to a a series of 12 different transgender dance festivals? If they if the analysis reveals that we need 5,000,000 votes, you know, to to win this next election that we don't have and everybody who converts from being heteronormative to transgender effectively goes from being a Maduro person or a to a to a, you know, pro US One, and everyone who norm who normalizes or is, or believes that, you know, transgender people being oppressed by the government are more likely to vote against the government, You could see a cynical, self serving, cold hard calculated decision for a, for a MAGA state department to fund transgender dance festivals. And I this is important to keep in mind. In Bangladesh, it was the IRI who funded that. It was the Republicans who funded the transgender dance festivals and rap groups.
You know, Republicans are not known for loving rap.
Speaker 0: Oh, but he's John McCain. I mean, McCain ran it for years. I mean, they're actually all for that.
Speaker 1: But Trump is a winner. Trump likes to win. And think of the feather in the cap that it would be for Marco Rubio to be the person who brought democracy defense. What I'm saying is is leave aside the transgender issue. This is gonna happen in everywhere, and and I think people just don't understand the that aid is a dirty deed.
Speaker 0: With Donald Trump returning to the White House, this country has a unique opportunity, maybe our last opportunity, to save ourselves from the anti American and anti human left. But our efforts may be stymied by the deep state. That's what happened to the first Trump term, permanent Washington, stands in the way of all efforts to improve the lives of ordinary Americans. And right now, they are scheming to do the same thing to the second Trump administration. They are determined to keep their stranglehold on power regardless of elections, anti democratically.
That is a fact. So what do you do to fight them? How do you defeat the deep state? Well, one way you can is by supporting the heritage foundation, which is in Washington and understands exactly how it works in such a way that they're a threat and they're under attack. You know who's effective because they're the ones under attack.
Heritage has a comprehensive plan to dismantle permanent Washington and restore the country to its democratic foundations. It's important. Visit heritage.org/tucker to learn more and to support this critical effort. And when you make a gift today, you get a free pocket constitution to make certain that you are equipped with the founding principles on your person at all times. It's amazing to read it.
Again, that's heritage.org/tucker. I I agree with that. I I think my I have a, like, a macro problem with this, which is, you know, one, it's not at all clear that, like, overthrowing Maduro is in America's interest. I I think there's, like, a a loud exile community in Florida that wants it. More foreigners have come here brought in bringing their stupid feuds into our country, and using political donations to make the US government settle their scores.
So get out of here. It's totally not our problem. Leave us alone. That's how I feel about the Cubans, the Venezuelans, who all of whom I like personally, but, like, these are not our problems. And I feel that way about the Gaza thing.
It's like, take it to Gaza. Okay? Yeah. Not our problem. I think it's fair as an American.
I think it's a fair position to have.
Speaker 1: But so there's that.
Speaker 0: You know, like, is this actually in our interest or we're just being paid to care about this?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Two, there is a moral quality to it. If you're gonna say The United States is better than other countries, then you can't just, you know, assassinate people you don't like. You can't just, like, totally destroy their social fabric. You have to make a straightforward, honorable case and allow the people of that country to decide using democratic means because you're for democracy. Mhmm.
And if you're not for democracy, then don't say you are. And and I do think that, like, there's something so morally corrupting about the means that our foreign policy establishment uses to achieve its goals that it actually does affect our domestic life. Like, January 6 was an op Yeah. By, you know, by the I think, primarily, by DOD is my impression. And it, like, kind of wrecked our country and put all these people in prison.
And, like, who would even think to do something like that? Well, they've been trained for years doing that sort of thing in faraway nations. That's my view.
Speaker 1: Right. I I totally
Speaker 0: agree. Sense?
Speaker 1: Yes. And and I'm I'm glad that you're saying that because that that is ultimately we need to square the circle, which is that you know, imagine a situation I think right now, the thing that I'm heartened by, more than the the technical victories, is the national consciousness raising that USAID does infect all these institutions and that there is this bleed over between foreign foreign and domestic. When people see that media companies that are writing hit pieces on them are being funded by USAID, when people see that, you know, the when I've written about the, you know, social media censorship and and the USAID, you know, primer documents and the USAID SEPS program that, you know, formally plotted to get foreign countries to censor, to pass censorship laws to target US tech companies. It's the sort of thing that we would typically, you know, have it run a sort of USAID covert covert operation to stop an another entity from doing it. It's our they're doing it.
And so but, you know, from from all the way down the line, from the unions to the universities, to the for profit companies, to the media, to the social media, to the terrorist groups, to the, you know, gain of function and, you know, pandemic, I mean, there's you know, how how corrupt does an agency need to be? Drugs, terrorism, pandemics? I mean
Speaker 0: But it corrupts the country after a while. Of course. Of course. Like, you don't allow your cops to just like they knew who all the drug dealers are, but you don't allow your policemen to walk up and execute them. Right.
Because that I mean, that's not our system, and we become as bad as the criminals we're fighting if we behave like that.
Speaker 1: But part of the reason there has been such little transparency about USAID. And and I always say, you know, when it's too dirty for the CIA, you give it to USAID for for for a number of
Speaker 0: serious leaks.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And and I I I think if if there really is a sort of USAID files that, you know, that that we get from this administration, I think this is why I'm saying. I think people are going to want to not necessarily put a new heart in this in this patient when they see how So if it
Speaker 0: just recap some I think you're making a a really important point, and I just wanna make sure it doesn't get lost in the details. Correct me if this is not a fair summation. But I think you're saying when we look at we were discovering all these things, all the transgender dance contests or whatever that they're funding, it's easy to say, well, they're just, like, dipshit liberals who are, like, doing dipshit liberal things. And what you're saying is no. These are hard edged instruments of policy.
Speaker 1: Yes. Now, of course, the personnel, nine you know, 97% of USAID employees donate to Democrats. Right. But but, you know, Liz Cheney started her her career. You know, she is at the at USAID at the Eurasia portfolio of Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary.
And A lot of this is destabilizing.
Speaker 0: Have you noticed like, I thought a great power the reason The US is better than the Soviet Union was we brought stability, predictability, markets, democracy, and they brought, you know, war and instability. And I always thought that, like, good leadership, good stewardship, good parenting brought stability. And it does seem like we are intentionally sowing stability disunity and instability around the world.
Speaker 1: Oh, I mean, I I I literally just, you know, quoted you a IRI document implementing USAID programs where they literally wrote to the US State Department that the purpose of of this, you know, baseline assessment was to gather as many activists and informants and network nodes, quote, to destabilize, you know, Bangladesh politics, but apply that everywhere. You know? And this is, you know, fundamentally what I believe has happened during the
Speaker 0: picture. Do do you really want that? Like, isn't that shameful? Of course,
Speaker 1: it's shameful, but but the I think people don't fully understand how products arrive on the shelves around them. I was I was mentioning Milton Friedman's pencil example. Well, what happens if Malaysia decides to nationalize you know, to to block exports of of gum from the gum trees, and the the African miners, decide that they are going to, go on strike and not allow, you know, not allow Graphite. Graphite or or or lead you know, and no blob, no pencils. If you don't have a mechanism to influence that foreign government, to stop the nationalization law, to hit it with carrots and sticks, or if it's if it's a problem within the population, sub government.
If it's a particular this is what happened in the Cold War when when the CIA was breaking up union strikes in, in France and, you know, the the, you know, the docks and the the longshoremen strikes. And the CIA infiltrated the unions, and they worked with the, you know, AFL CIO slash AFL CIA. And, and, you know, for the they all have union arms, and and so you need a a method to be able to go into the unions if you want to be able to have pencils. Now, okay, you might say you can live without pencils, but how about no petroleum? What if what if it's what if it's something that's what if these are really critical resources for us to be able to have microchips, for us to be able to have renewable batteries, for us to be able to have, you know, build computers, for us to be able to put gas in our car or heating in our home.
There is a potential necessity, and this is why I feel it's so imperative that what's happening right now is happening, and I'm I'm thrilled that it is. But there's still much more to internalize about this because you're gonna need to reconstruct the history of the entire past century as you disentangle this whole thing. If we had not toppled so many foreign governments in in service of big oil, would we have would we have had cheap oil? Well, does a president want to this is where I come back to this Venezuela example. Trump wants to win.
And, again, we don't we don't have to call it Venezuela. We can call it random random country x. We're going to be hit with a choice as we as we reduce the USAID function, if we reduce the USAID function. To my knowledge, you know, the the staff has been radically cut from 14,000 to something like 290. But my my understanding is that most of the grants, you know, it's $44,000,000,000.
At 14,000 employees, it's about a billion dollars of employee overhead, you know, a year. So 43 of the 44,000,000,000, presumably, are still going to all these, you know, Frankensteinian monster projects. But you're you're gonna be hit with that choice of of do you want to win, fighting dirty, or do you want to potentially lose fighting fair? And and that's gonna play out in every industrial sector, in every region. And I'm okay and I I what I'm concerned about is that
Speaker 0: So you're saying The US economy can't continue, our prosperity can't continue unless we, like, wreck other people's countries?
Speaker 1: No. I'm not saying I'm not saying that. I'm saying that that is something there's there's a microfractal portion of that argument that is going to play out and is going to be a sort of siren song every step of the way at every regional desk at the state department, at at every National Security Council interagency coordination, and there are some lines that I believe we cannot ever cross. Like, for example, on the social media censorship side, the fact is is it was according to Biden's foreign policy. Biden declared populism a threat to democracy.
His state department did. His USAID did. And so the best populists were popular online in Europe. So the White House had a whole information integrity working group to have The US funded NGOs lobby the European Union effectively and push, the different, sort of influence and spindle groups comprising the the the regulatory body around the EU Digital Services Act to add more and more censorship regulations to target their political opponents. And what you're doing is is these people could not do that at home because we have a first amendment, but Europe doesn't have one.
So they so if you declare populism to be an attack on democracy, then it's easier to win by advocating censorship. But that to me is a violation of fundamental American values and change.
Speaker 0: Censorship, but putting a lot of people in jail. Using violence, that is a form of violence, incarcerating someone, putting them in handcuffs.
Speaker 1: And that's what USAID does. USAID's role with the prosecutors is unbelievable, the the the depth of that rabbit hole. But if I if I can just complete this point here because I I wanna make sure I'm I've there's a lot of nuance to what I'm trying to say here, which is which is that people need and and and especially at the policymaker and and White House and House Senate Oversight Committee side, they need to get a sort of topographical map of the the scope and spectrum of our dirty deeds done in the name of USAID in order to make a triage assessment of what kind of things can be dual purpose because everything USAID is dual purpose. It has to be. It's it's a US it's everything has to advance US national interest in some respect, whether we're irrigating poppy fields or doing poverty relief programs or public health.
Something about doing that act has to advance some sort of US national interest. Now part of the reason it's been so difficult to oversee USAID or get answers from them is because they can't tell you those dual interests honestly in a public forum. Take this transgender dance festival in in Bangladesh thing. Imagine a hearing on USAID, and, you know, high ranking Republican senator holds up, you know, you're funding Bangladesh, you know, you're funding transgender dance festivals, and you're spending $2,700,000 on this. What possible US interest does that serve?
Can that USAID administrator on live television, say to the world, well, that was a cynical you know, we determined, actually we were running a covert operation to, overthrow that country's democratically elected government, and, it actually wasn't about that, you know, the that at all. This was just, the whole thing was was a total front for
Speaker 0: We were building a coalition to challenge the government in power because we didn't like that government.
Speaker 1: Right. But saying that undermines the efficacy of all other USA programs.
Speaker 0: No. I get it. So it becomes I get it.
Speaker 1: Right. But my concern is there's some things you can't do, assassinations, you know, promoting Internet censorship, you know, full on, you know, regime change, you know, that mobilizes the ugliest assets in a society like terrorist groups or, you know, you know, extremist groups sort of thing. But there's a lot of squishiness in between that, and I I'm not sure that the MAGA foreign policy establishment being very new other now not Marco Rubio, but Marco Rubio is newer to MAGA than, you know, than than the rest of of the White House. And and he, you know, when he was approved, what, '99 to zero or something in the you know, he was he was in in the senate, he was the, you know, the easiest one to pass, and he's and I think he's done a phenomenal job so far, by the way, if if I can say it. But I feel like most of the people who came to the MAGA movement came to that for for for nationalist nationalistic reasons and don't see under understand the interplay between the the national and the global.
And as they are finding that out, they are seeing how horrible the deeds are done of the global, and there is going to be this impulse to destroy this thing, completely destroy this thing. And by the way, I don't that's not even my principal fear because I I actually think that, you know, the other part of this is that I could very easily seeing see most of these grants being preserved simply through the trans
Speaker 0: State department.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. Simply through the state department. I mean, this is what happened with Brexit. Everyone celebrate everyone who was pro Brexit celebrated Brexit the day it happened.
That to me is like the closure of of the USAID building. But the fact is is they effectively stopped Brexit Yeah. Never happened. Brexit because of the there's so many layers of resistance and implementation, and that we're gonna run into that here, which is why I'm I'm I'm using this time to be able to talk with you today on something that is that's on on this, which is that you're you're going to need to understand the purpose for these things and the scope of it and be able to look at just how bad it is with clear eyes and not necessarily I mean, have your rage boiling your anger moment, and when when that clears, a fundamental reorganization of the way we carry out soft power is going to have to replace what we used to do if we don't do these dirty deeds anymore.
Speaker 0: But it has to be in the service of goals that, you know, are worth achieving, you know, like having a strong and free country. Right.
Speaker 1: The the only problem with that is Trump represented something very different than that vision that was expressed by the Bush Biden blob uni party that had that had been there. And in in countries that are not stable, elections completely change every you know? When and this maybe gets to whether or not, you know, the the problem is not necessarily just the institutions, but rather the the sort of legacy of momentum of of all these previous political forces because you could see a situation where then, okay, every time a MAGA type populist candidate wins an election, all of our foreign policy institutions switch radically in one direction, calling that American interests, and then a sort of internationalist blob, a globalist person wins an election, then all the institutions switch all that. And so, you know, you can't you can't even build permanent structures in in foreign countries or permanent networks because everything's so schizophrenic retrograde.
Speaker 0: I mean, this is this is the problem with our system is that it doesn't have continuity. And the whole purpose of the deep state is to provide con I mean, no one ever says this, but I grew up around it. The purpose of the deep state is to provide continuity in a democracy in which leadership changes every four, eight years. So how does that work exactly? So you have the political structure that runs everything at the request of the population.
That's called democracy. But then you have, you know, longitudinal interests that have to be represented regardless of who's in power. Right. And so, you know, the deep state arose in response to an actual need. You have to have continuity.
Speaker 1: Right. Politics stops at the war's edge. Right? That's exactly right.
Speaker 0: But then, unfortunate but at the same time, the deep state has to be in some deep sense responsive to the population or else you have tyranny.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: So, like, it's a very you know, democracy is not, an easy system to administer. It's it's an easy one to talk about. And it, you know, it doesn't work that well in some ways, obviously. I wanted to. I'm not against democracy, of course, being an American, but it doesn't it, you know, it's hard.
Yeah. So, no. I agree. I think the big change is the deep state, these institutions were taken over by incredibly dumb, shortsighted, selfish people. I don't think the problem is, you know, having an elite.
The problem is having an inadequate, mediocre, selfish elite that doesn't actually like the country they're running. So that's just my personal editorial position on that. But I I I see what you're saying. I mean, I've seen it a lot. But here's I wanna get back to something you said at the very beginning, which is the corrupting effect on America, the country, the place of 350,000,000 people of this kind of behavior and the bleeding over of these tactics into our country.
Yeah. So, like, for example, I was the one thing that really shocked me about these disclosures was that a lot of our domestic media is government media. I didn't know that. Politico, which is garbage utterly garbage publication, and it's become much worse, I would say, in the past five or six years. It takes $8,000,000 a year from the government sort of secretly, sort of semi secretly.
Well, what's that?
Speaker 1: Well, there's there's a distinction, I think, that's useful to draw here between public agencies paying for premium services of of US news websites that foreign facing. So for example, you know, the state department pays for premium, subscriptions to various news sites, in order to be able to have access to, you know, all of the, you know, New York Times or Politico, you know, to be able to get behind the paywall for their employees so that while they're doing their job of soft power influence abroad, they have the maximum amount of knowledge at their fingertips. It's the same thing with But but
Speaker 0: that's all fake. I mean, political pro, there's literally it's written by 25 year olds. You know? There's, like, nothing in there that's real. They're paying off political.
Speaker 1: Well, well, that's right. Well, but there's there's two forms of that, and and I'm and I'm just also trying to educate people as they go through this discovery process about the extent of it because you're gonna see it's it's everyone. But there are two forms of it. One is one is you know a % it's pernicious. The other one has there's smoke, but there's not necessarily fire.
And so when I say this the smoke not it obviously creates an incentive to, please your the people giving you these government procurements. For example, if the this is this is what I published, for example, about Reuters. You know, the Biden administration, you know, government agencies, you know, tallied something like $300,000,000 to, to their various Reuters sort of sister sister company groups, between their between their news agency, between their their, Westlaw arm, and between their, you know, sort of, like, forensic and, like, accounting services. But, you know, you you see these big, like, $60,000,000 worth of grants from the justice department. And now the justice department's paying paying for Westlaw, you know, which is a Thompson Reuters thing.
It still makes Reuters richer, but Reuters is writing hit pieces on the very people that the justice department is going after. And so it's it's softening up, you know, the enemies. And in fact, you know, Reuters won a Pulitzer prize for its hit piece for its investigative series on malfeasance by Elon Musk at all of his portfolio companies, Tesla X, NERLINK, SpaceX. And meanwhile, the Biden administration had 11 different regulatory agents regulatory agencies going after all those, and so the the media getting paid by the government was providing the ammunition for prosecutions and regulatory regulatory and disciplinary actions against the very stated targets of the government. And so you you don't have a you don't have a stated agreement in that case.
You have a very, very perverse incentive, but there are places where you have where it's even worse because there's, again, there's there's sort of two forms that can take in the form of, you know, paying for services, but then also there's the affirmative sponsoring of media. So, you know, for for example, the state I believe it's the state department, maybe USAID, does pay, like, the Reuters news agency, for for work abroad, but it's it's a lot less than the the premium services. But but more more to like, here's a really clean example that gets to the heart, I think, of what you're talking about with this domestic and how this all ties together. The law the world's largest consortium of investigative journalists is a group called the OCCRP. It's you think of it, the corruption reporting project.
They have, since the very beginning, been they were initially, I believe, fully funded by by the US government or they were the the anchor funded. Now now I believe half of their funds come from a combination of USAID and and the state department. And the and these are supposed to be independent journalists, and they're investigative hit piece writers covering the topic of corruption. If if there's something that's published on on OCCRP's, you know, website or through their media network, it's never about, the sky was blue today and, you know, someone saved a cat from a tree. No.
It's it's all investigative hit piece work exposing some aspect of corruption in a country. And so for and this was something that, that The US began funding really, I mean, this type of work over a decade ago, and, really, around this is before OCCRP, around the time of Yugoslavia and whatnot because we wanted to create a predicate to arrest the political enemies of the state department in the region by cooking up corruption scandals that prosecutors can then use to arrest them on the basis of corruption. And so the problem is prosecutors don't know what to look for, and, also, it's it's it it's not necessarily politically feasible to prosecute somebody who's got a halo on them. So the halo has to be broken by hit piece news articles, by investigative journalists who often get proprietary access. For example, you know, the the OCCRP, this corruption reporting project, has gotten very strange special access to hacked documents while they're being funded by, you know, what many believe to be a CIA front group, you know, in the form of USAID.
You know, when when they get special access to documents hacked from a a computer and use that as the basis for the Panama Papers, well, you know, we they're reporters. You can't ask them their source, but the interests align. These are the targets of of the US State Department who happens to be funding them. They are mercenary media for the state. Now what now I'm gonna I wanna mention two aspects of this scandal because it's this plays out everywhere, but this one, it's just it it's it's simultaneously clean and dirty enough that I feel like it's just an anecdote everyone should remember forever.
One, directly on US politics and targeting Trump as you mentioned. OCCRP got yeah. Their their Eurasia, you know, it covers, like, seven or eight countries that they're supposed to dig up dirt of, you know, of of corrupt politicians and corrupt, you know, oligarchs in in those in those territories. And their Eastern Europe Europe, 20 Million Dollars for their Eastern European operation, and so that covers Ukraine. And so what did they do in 2019?
They dug up dirt on Rudy Giuliani, and then that dirt ended up being used as part of the impeachment of Donald Trump in 2019. So they so they this is the state department funding mercenary media to then dig up dirt on high profile US citizens, metastasizing into that very evidence being entered into the congressional record to to to successfully impeach the president of The United States. So in that case, if there was no, you know, if there was no State Department USAID funding to OCCRP, they wouldn't have, you know, presumably had the capital to, to go out and dig up dirt on Rudy Giuliani, and then Americans wouldn't have been hearing, you know, these also and they also, you know, wrote hit pieces on Paul Manafort and, and his, I believe, his relations with Julian Assange. But, basically, you had this foreign policy blob apparatus who hated Trump and wanted to take him out. And just like state and USAID were paying OCCRP to dig up dirt on foreign oligarchs and and foreign presidents, the net result and we don't know if there was any sort of and I'm not saying that there wasn't necessarily necessarily, you know, a direct agreement to do that.
I'm not privy to that. But the fact is is that is that is in effect what happened. The the faction of the foreign policy establishment that most detested Trump and wanted him out, He was being impeached because of his foreign policy around Russia and Ukraine. And it and so US aid spending to journalists in Ukraine comes back to be used to impeach Trump.
Speaker 0: Well and and to smear me as a Russian agent. Right. That's been reported. It's out there. It's proven.
So my tax dollars go to impugning my character and calling me a disloyal American. At a certain point, you're like, we kinda need a revolution. I mean, that's why should we put up with that for a second?
Speaker 1: Well, we're we're in a sort of you can you can feel I can you can feel the the passion around this this week and and people sensing how much of their world has been usurped without their consent by these institutions. But just to complete this on on on the corruption reporting project that gets half of its funding from the state department USAID, and the US government has the formal yes, you know, yes, yay, yes, no, about who they can bring on as staff, and they have to, you know, submit basically, you know, what they're gonna do, you know, the the year ahead. But on USAIDspending.gov I'm sorry. On USAID.gov, the USAID website, before it went down this weekend, but I have all the receipts and I have all the PDFs on my social media feed. They they have a sex they have a whole document on this corruption reporting pro probe project and and how how amazing it has been for for US, you know, for for USAID's anti corruption humanitarian work.
And it it shows the entry. It says $20,000,000, and here are the, you know, seven or eight countries they operate in. The next page has something which is just absolutely devastating to the to the concept of of of the of the firewall between, our humanitarian aid organization and prosecutors. It's called it's the accomplishment section, and there are four bullet points in this accomplishment section. Again, this is on USAID.gov publicly boasting about hit pieces for hire, mercenary media to call people corrupt, call citizens, call so the first line item is over a billion dollars worth of assets seized.
So they're basically saying, hey. Great run return on investment. We spent $20,000,000. We were able to seize a billion dollars. But you did that by paying journalists to dig up dirt on people.
What if the journalist got it wrong? What you know, what if,
Speaker 0: There's no legal process, by the way. I mean, it's not like people went to court and were found guilty or anything. We just took the stuff.
Speaker 1: Well, act well, this is this get that we'll we'll get to that actually. That's bullet point four. But bullet point two was it was something like, somewhere between a 300 policy changes, in different government and civil society institutions in these countries. So this USAID saying, us paying for political black ops hit pieces generated hundreds of policy changes at the government level and and at the institutional level there. Well, we're presupposing all those are good.
I mean, they wouldn't be calling them an accomplishment unless the The USA thought they were good. So they're they have a catalyzing change they want to do to the policies of foreign countries, and they think the way to do that is to pay mercenary media outlets to dig up dirt on people and then use that as the predicate to force through policy changes. Then they have a section on all the different government officials that they got that that were, that were forced to resign, because of, their states USAID state sponsored media. And I think the list was, like, six or seven, but they said including a president and a prime minister. So they they are bragging effectively in this in this document that, hey.
What a bang for the buck. For $20,000,000, we were able to topple two governments. And then the fourth bullet point is is the one that winds through its whole this whole USA Prosecutor story. It says 456 arrests and indictments generated on the basis of of OCCRP's reporting. So this is the state department bragging about the incredible volume of human beings whose lives and liberties have been taken from them because of sponsored hit pieces by the US government.
We don't know how many of those people were innocent. We don't know, you know, what what even they were charged for. When you read that USAID.gov document on OCCRP, it doesn't even list their crimes. We just know it's a good thing that 456 people got arrested because we paid for for
Speaker 0: What do their families think? You know?
Speaker 1: Right. And and prosecutors then use that as
Speaker 0: the basis for for criminal indictment. Really become hated in the rest of the world by behaving this way.
Speaker 1: Well, how many foreign leaders have you seen, you know, other than maybe one I can think of, but how many foreign leaders have you have you seen who have been making impassioned floor speeches this week about the tens of thousands of people who are going to die if USA leaves? I'm wondering where all the leaders of African countries have been this week or or, you know, low income Central Asian or Western Hemisphere countries are. Why do why are they all either silent or, like in the case of El Salvador, relieved that this is happening. None of them are getting the money. In fact, in many times, USAID is forced on them as a condition
Speaker 0: Oh, I know. I know some of those leaders, and they don't want our aid at all.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. Right. Oftentimes, USAID institutions are forced into their country or forced into different regions in their country as as part of a compliance measure that the state department is imposing. You know, you need to have a certain level of, human rights, you know, you know, monitoring or, you know, their your your water levels have to have this, you know, certain percent, purity or you need to be able to maintain, you know, this you know, your energy, development has to be this consistent with climate change or else, you know, we're going to destroy you with our trade relations or we're going to put sanctions on you unless you put our humanitarian aid organs in there.
And so boom, just like that, under the banner of aid, we're in control of your energy infrastructure, we're in control of your river systems. So I think the reason that the only people that we really see who are defending USAID right now are people here in The United States or in NATO that are directly or indirectly on the take or their or their donors or constituents are?
Speaker 0: So in September, we went across the country, coast to coast, 17 different cities on a nationwide live tour, and it was amazing. We brought the entire staff with us like we always do because we all work together for so long and enjoy traveling together. And one of our producers is a documentary filmmaker, and so he decided to make a documentary film about our trip, a full month across America with some of the most interesting people around. Different people join us every single night. Don Gino and Russell Brand and Bobby Kennedy and JD Vance and Donald Trump, etcetera, etcetera.
We had the best time, and the fruit of that is a documentary called On the Road, the Tucker Carlson live tour, which is available right now on TCN. On the Road, Tucker Carlson Live Tour is hilarious. You will like it. So I I got an email from a friend of mine, a text from a friend of mine yesterday. He's such a wonderful guy, actually, a conservative Trump fan, but, a a recipient of US aid money.
And, he said it's totally corrupt. You're right. But he goes, they don't understand. You're gonna tank the economy of Northern Virginia if you shut this big it off. Right.
And I thought maybe that's the one perspective people watching in The US don't understand is how totally dependent the DC Metro Area is on foreign policy spending. Yeah. It's not it's not making it to Congo. Yeah. It's stopping in Arlington.
It's
Speaker 1: well, that's why I said donors and constituents. Right? Because those are like, think about the the congressmen in those representing those districts, and, you know, you you you see that. That's exactly right. It's it's it's our own, you know, it's our own economies.
And and and then, you know, the point I was making earlier is that, you know, you are gonna have this sort of, follow on, trickle down economic impact if, many of our multinational corporations who form the bedrock of our, you know, stock exchanges and chamber of commerce, if the dirty deeds that USAID does are cut out, are they still going to have, as will that impact their profitability? And so that's why I I I wanted to, you know, spend the the time in the beginning just talking about that that tension because in in the oil and gas case, like, Trump has a plan around that drill, baby, drill. Right? Like, like, you don't we might not need to fund transgender dance festivals in order to, you know, like, you go to the CIA world book. You know, everyone go on cia.gov and just look at every country, and the CIA has a world book of of all the strategic resources in every country.
And so, you know, Burma is top strategic resource petroleum. Okay. Let's just we don't need to necessarily have the sticky issue about whether or not, we need to extract those foreign resources from Burma if if the sitting government there doesn't, if we are drill baby drilling at home.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: There's creative offsets that can be done to replace dirty tricks. You know, for example, like, you know, with with ISIS and, and the dynamics in Syria and Afghanistan and and Pakistan, if there are ways to reconceptualize the way we do trade in the region or do creative, you know, joint partnerships or or try to make inroads into other, you know, parts of the population that were not, you know, tested as as robustly. But you're gonna need to think a lot more creatively about that when you don't have access to the the dirty deeds done dirt cheap. And that and so that's just I feel like that I just wanna impress that point because I think a lot of MAGA Republicans are going to think that it's it's easier than it is to reorganize that, and there's just a lot of surgery that needs to be done if you're going to cut that function out, which I totally support doing in nine out of ten cases. But there's a there's going to be a remnant, and we need a doctrine that's cohesive and sellable to the American people because the problem was is we'd built such an elaborate lab labyrinth of lies that you couldn't even honestly talk about it with people.
This is the whole oversight thing that I mentioned. You know? You this happened with the Zunzunzinho scandal with USAID in, in from 02/2009 to February, there was, you know, we we USAID and NED were at the forefront of the Arab Spring and toppling democratically elected governments in Tunisia and Egypt and all over, you know, in these street color revolutions that were powered by digital diplomacy, you know, we've discussed this before, you know, where USAID was funding people in you know, to do do youth engagement for how to use Facebook hashtags and, you know, and and how to mobilize street protests so that everyone knows where to go and and what kind of, you know, slogans and slang to use. And so, you know, they wanted to they want Kind of like the George Floyd protests. Yeah.
Kinda like the George Floyd protests.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Kinda. Yeah. We can just ask you to pause and and just remind us why exactly the Obama State Department would want to topple, say, the government of Egypt.
Speaker 1: There's there's a a lot I my understanding is is a lot of it has to do with the natural resources and, you know, the sort of Middle East, North Africa. You know, I mean, the fact is is, you know, like, I mean, Egypt is the, you know, sort of the lip of of Europe that way. And, but I think there's probably Middle Eastern politics that play into it as well, and it's a it's a complicated picture. But I think we They
Speaker 0: we can say ten years later, more than ten years later, it was not a clean win for The United States.
Speaker 1: Oh, right. No. Totally.
Speaker 0: I I don't see how killing Gaddafi, the Iraq war. Like, I don't know that any of this what's going on now in the Middle East, Syria, etcetera, I don't I don't see these are obvious victories for us.
Speaker 1: Oh, I I don't think they do either, actually. There's there's been a lot of where did it all go wrong, in the years post revolution. But in those early years, they were really jazzed up about this new Internet social media superpower that they had deployed to topple those governments. And so they sought to do that in Cuba by creating what they what USAID called a Cuban spring. And the problem was at that at that time, Cuba had banned US social media companies, calling them, you know, a tool of US imperialism, and so there was no Twitter allowed.
And so USAID, pulled off this operation to create a a company called Zunzania, which is it was a it was a Twitter knockoff. It had the same user interface. It had the same like and retweet, button, and, that was, I believe, like, the Cuban slang word for for hummingbird. So it was basically even had, like, the bird. And they they knew that they couldn't it couldn't be an American company, so they had to convince, I think it was two Cuban businessmen to set this up.
And they ran it as they ran it through USAID. They ran it as they what they did is they took humanitarian relief funds earmarked for Pakistan, and they ran it through a Byzantine labyrinth of shell companies and money laundered through Cayman banks and Panamanian banks and and, you know, BVI banks, in so that it it got to these Cuban businessmen to set it up so that Cuban counterintelligence would not suspect that it was a US thing. They this USAID contracted out to a group called Creative Associates International, CAI. It's not CIA, it's CAI. And they're very creative.
And and what the the internal documents showed when this whole scandal blew up at USAID is that USAID's plan was to recruit about a hundred thousand Cubans onto this onto this platform, luring them in with, with algorithms and vibes favoring sports music and hurricane updates were the were the the the main things. And then they said once we've and but at the same time, we're actually gonna be taking all their personal data on the back end, and we're going to be using AI for all the metadata and all the websites that they visit and all the cookies. We're gonna take that to aggregate a political receptive political receptivity map of the of the categories of users within these hundred thousand that'll be most receptive to take to the streets in a violent revolution against against the government. And what they what they plotted is that at at the at the appropriate moment, once the critical nodes once they had a critical mass of users on the platform and made enough support from other civil society institutions that were that were being funded by USAID and and state and NAD at the time that they would then activate what they what they called smart mobs.
They would they would switch the algorithms mobs. They would they would switch the algorithms, and they would selectively target news distribution of of messages to to users on, on the basis of their political proclivities in order to get them to take to the streets in in violent street protests and over overthrow their government. Basically, the same you know, pull off the same thing that was that happened in the air spring, but do it in Cuba, and all they needed was enough people on the user base. That was their that was what they
Speaker 0: Can I pause again and and just remind people that I I think if most Americans had been aware that this was going on in 2020, the Black Lives Matter protest would have been instantly recognizable as a government sponsored revolution, call revolution against Donald Trump because that's what it was?
Speaker 1: Well, I I wanna come back to it because there's actually a lot there that is, I think will be more even more impactful after just kinda finishing this this one point on on USAID here, which is that because, you know, you mentioned if Americans had had known this is going on. Well, what was really interesting about the scandal is nobody knew that that USAID was doing this. This was clearly CIA style covert action. You know, the construction of a private sector for profit social media company that, that gets its funds from, nonprofit humanitarian relief funds earmarked for a country 13,000 miles away, and all with the expressed stated interest of doing diplomatic you know, work with extreme diplomatic implications, overthrowing the government of a foreign country. And so as this scandal all broke open, the the media and what had happened was is senate oversight had been completely blocked from any information about this operation.
This is what you heard Joni Ernst, senator Joni Ernst, tell Elon Musk earlier this week when she was explaining how she was totally blocked by USAID. It was a total black box. They they, you know, it's all in house. It's all subject to the inspector general there, and if the inspector general says no, the senate gets nothing and there's nothing they can do. And it's less accountable in many respects than the CIA because the CIA, when they do covert action, they have to get a presidential finding.
This is part of the reforms that were done, you know, in the nineteen seventies when it looked like, okay, the CIA was going rogue, and so every CIA covert action has to be formally authorized by the president of The United States. But what happens if the president doesn't want to approve something? Well and and you still want the deed done. What if, for example, you know, you belong to a certain wing of the foreign policy establishment? That's adidas with the president, And you know the president's not going to approve it.
So how can you get that done? Like, say for, you know, the funding of ISIS groups, for example. Trump was wanted to crush ISIS. Hillary Clinton and Jake Sullivan said ISIS is on our side in Syria. The Biden administration kicked billions of dollars in the aggregate to ISIS, and and Al Qaeda groups just are now the sitting government of Syria.
In fact, right now, the current head of the government in Syria, Mohammed Al Jalani, was there was a $10,000,000 bounty on his head as being a, Al Qaeda terrorist. That that tweet is still live on The US Embassy in Syria
Speaker 0: as a friend.
Speaker 1: Right. But if Trump wouldn't authorize the CIA covertly running funds to the, to ISIS, but that cell within the CIA still want to do it. All they need to do is walk on over to their friends at USAID, and USAID can do it without a presidential finding. They can call now they can all it takes is creative structuring. They can just do it through humanitarian relief funds to a certain region that has a disproportionate amount of ISK in it.
They can fund the educational institutions or they can water the there's another thing USAID got in trouble for is when they were essentially sustaining the world's heroin supply. 95% of the world's heroin supply came from Afghanistan.
Speaker 0: Why were they doing that?
Speaker 1: Well, so USAID's, one of their close partners, is another USAID adjacent entity called the US Institute for Peace. Its its office is right next to the State Department in in Washington, DC. It gets it was created by Congress. It gets $56,000,000 a year from taxpayers. And in, last in in 2023, the US Institute for Peace wrote a a white paper that said, that told the Taliban not to shut down the the heroin, not to shut down the poppy fields because it would create a, quote, economic and humanitarian disaster, that basically I mean, this is this is the state department.
They're fully funded by the US state department. They are they are the sort of the policy arm, of, you know, many many of the aspects of USAID. Whereas USAID is 44,000,000,000, they only have 56,000,000, but they they all advance US foreign policy in a cohesive vision for a region, and they're both operating in Afghanistan. So while US Institute for Peace is saying we need to keep the heroin flow flowing, It was USAID who was doing all the the water irrigation of the poppy fields, in or that that allowed that propagation of the heroin to continue. And that gets into, you know, a a darker story around the role of of narco, you know, narco activity and narco gangs as instrument of state instruments of statecraft.
You know, this was, you know, the Mujahideen that were pumped up by Zbigniew Brzezinski and our CIA in, you know, in the nineteen seventies and eighties, and that, you know, they were they were being funded by drug money from the golden from the golden crescent and it being laundered into Pakistan banks like the CIA Bank, you know, BCCI, and everyone can read about the Bank of Credit Commerce International scandal and the and and that. But, you know, it was it was narcoterrorism funding, for US backed terrorist paramilitary groups that we were propping up as freedom fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. You know, and if you remember seeing the old, you know, Osama bin Laden puff piece, you know, freedom warrior on the road to peace with, you know, when he's back in the Mujahideen days. But what I'm saying is you see this play out everywhere. You know, this was a business, a big part of, you know, how, how right wing capitalist movements were in in Western Hemisphere were propped up against left wing socialist and Marxist, you know, opposition in in the nineteen fifties and sixties, and and you see this run through everything.
I mean, think about what's happened with El Salvador. You know, why did why did, Bukele say that, you know, basically was the first one on X to say that, yeah, USAID is awful. It's gotta go. Countries don't want it. Look at my case.
Because USAID was trying to regime change him from there. The Soros groups, I mean, they all said that his attempts to clean up the drug trade were humanity you know, were were, you know, humanitarian violations of the rights of drug cartels. Have you seen that that, you know, the the government of Mexico appears to actually be quite, quite happy with the move to abolish USAID? There's a piece in Newsweek about this Trump's strange allies in the in the, you know, in the fight to end US aid, and it's, it's the Mexican government. They don't want it either.
Well, there what I'm saying is is the scope of our dirty deeds done through USAID and state department grants and through CI covert activity that is only made possible because they're working with assets whose budget is funded by USAID or or budget is funded by state or budget is funded by the National Debt for Democracy or others. You know, a lot of that work is just liaising with assets that are that are there. They don't have that big a budget. USAID is a three times bigger budget than the CIA, and so they depend on working with state department USAID cultivated assets. And so we're gonna have to disentangle this whole spider web in order to form a cohesive foreign policy vision that isn't evil.
Speaker 0: And I think that's I kinda think that's the point, that isn't evil. Because, I mean, in our system I really think in any system, even a a monarchy, the people have to think that in general, the government is, you know, doing things they approve of isn't actively evil, isn't, you know, in business with the drug cartels in Mexico, which our government is, as you know, because there's if the people of a country don't think it their own government has legitimacy, like, it can't last very long. No. It just it doesn't last. Right?
Right.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: So, are you concerned that when people learn like, what's gonna happen when these stories penetrate that, yes, your government has been paying to wreck a lot of other places and, you know, is working against you using your money. I mean, what it's kind of hard to unknow that.
Speaker 1: Right. And thank goodness. You know, the because we're we're gonna need that level of national consciousness about these scandals in order to create the moral buffer against the temptation to be evil again.
Speaker 0: Exactly right.
Speaker 1: And, you know, so I do think that this is all because because this is this is a this is a dogfight to the bone. We are going to be at every level, at the every year in the budget, there's going to be this fight. I mean, now and, you know, here's the question. How much more does the state department get in the budget? You know, if since you had, like, a $35,000,000,000 budget.
Now it's getting USAID's forty four billion, but what fraction of that is Trump going to I've been saying here for for for a long time because everyone talks about how USAID is funneling things to left wing causes, and very easy to see that. You know, we talked about the 97% of employees at USAID who donate to Democrats. But to me, the the the main issue here is the remnant of internationalist Republicans in congress who can form a critical majority bloc with in the house or in the senate in order to get their way on this issue. Like, you could you could see a situation where their own vested interests, their own constituents are so dependent on either USAID's funding or the results of USAID operations, that they will side with the Democrats in order to inflict damage on the Trump White House Of course. Budget vision.
And so that's gonna be a a constant fight. And my what what I'm hoping evolves over the next weeks and months is a moral north star for America First Nationalist or populist or MAGA or or centrist or simply, you know, reasonable liberal or or center left folks, where you have the current level of American prosperity, you remove that evil in the in the labyrinth of lies, something needs to fill that gap. We talked about in the oil and gas spaces, drill baby, drill for oil. Okay, but now do that for semiconductors, and now do that for every critical mineral, and maybe the answer is I mean, the what I've been trying to sell is that if you're going to do the dirty deeds and you do believe they're necessary for statecraft, then there has to at least be an obligation to be honest about them. I thought it was very honest when Lindsey Graham finally came out and said the strategic vision of The United States is the $14,000,000,000,000 worth of natural resources.
Relying on the humanitarian predicate for it allows voters to be deceived and for them to, then turn around and be totally feel totally hoodwinked when they find out that, hey. Why are you paying for the unions, the media companies, the why things that are they're acting here on the homeland. I we have this tumor that we're removing from the the the body of the American project, but there was blood flowing into that and it's connected to all these arteries. The thing that I want to make sure happened that is midwifed appropriately is what are you changing about our foreign policy structure so that when you remove the tumor, you know, you the blood still, you know, flows in the way that you want it to. You know?
You're not ripping the heart out with open heart surgery.
Speaker 0: I get it. I'm just less confident than than you are that we're reaping some massive reward for this. I mean, I remember people muttering darkly about, you know, the purpose of the Iraq war in 02/2003 was to seize the oil in Iraq. Well, that didn't happen. Didn't happen in Libya.
I mean, I I don't it's it's hard to I guess I don't have a clear picture of the material benefits that we're receiving
Speaker 1: from this. Look at the benefits to the to the stock price for Chevron and Exxon when the war broke out, and and the the US state department strong armed every country in Europe to divest from Russian gas, and they all were forced to buy expensive, North American LNG. Their their stock prices went to the moon. They've they've got something like, you know, triple the, you know, the profits or something for for a certain period of months, you know, following that and reap these windfall benefits. And, you know, the the this is we're sort of confronting the ghost of Ronald Reagan here because, you know, the the the the reason you do that for statecraft purposes is trickle down economics.
What's good for ExxonMobil is good for the American citizens. And so if if so a dirty deed done to advance, you know, big oil, big ag, you know, big tech, whatever it is, anything that's good for them is good for us. And so anything that the that the US government can do in the form of overt or covert diplomacy or covert influence in the region that tips the scales in favor of those US corporate interests or US multinational interests will ultimately trickle down to the people itself. I mean, that's the logic, and you need
Speaker 0: to trust them. I just I I don't I don't think it's a holistic view of of it. First, it assumes that the interests of big publicly traded companies are identical to those of The United States, which is not true. Second, it assumes that weak neighbors make a strong America, also not true. Destroying the economy of Western Europe is actually not in our long term interest at all.
It just helps China. And it changes the balance of power globally East. That is not in our interest at all. And so I'd I'm not I think the people running this are dumb fucks, actually. I don't think they know what they're doing.
Right. I don't think they even understand, you know, the big picture grand game type diplomas I just don't think they're capable of it. I think they're they're dumb. They're, like, on Twitter. And so I just don't have confidence in their judgment, I guess, is what I'm saying.
Is that fair?
Speaker 1: No. I think it is.
Speaker 0: Because if your measure is, like, short term stock spikes, okay, those are pretty easy to affect. That's, like, you know but that's not the same as, like, long term prosperity. But maybe they're smarter than me. I'm the dumb one.
Speaker 1: Take the Pepsi coup in 1973. Okay. The the you know, we overthrew the government of of Chile. We toppled, you know, the Allende government. And, you know, thirty years later thirty five years later, files were declassified that showed that the chairman of the Pepsi Cola company, had lobbied the secretary of state, to that that US national interest in the form of Pepsi Cola bottling operations were going to be devastated if Allende was allowed, you know, we have one it was allowed to remain in power and, I forget if he was nationalizing some element.
Yeah. But, basically, you know, Pepsi had these bottling operations there. It was going to massively, you know, tank their capacity to produce the the the cans for Pepsi bottles. And so a meeting was organized between, I think this is like it was it was the it was the CIA director at the time and and the chairman of Pepsi Cola. Everyone can look up the Guardian article on this.
Just type in PepsiCo Chile. And, so the the the chairman of Pepsi and the the head of the Central Intelligence Agency have a planning meeting, about the best way to overthrow a government in order to preserve Pepsi's profits. And they even bring in to the meeting, the the meeting minutes show, they bring in, basically, the state department's media guy for the region who ran a a web of of, print media and radio stations so that the media guy could be brought into the propaganda, you know, that was being cogenerated effectively by the CIA and Pepsi. Well, I mean, this plays out everywhere as as multinational corporations can benefit from US government pressure on foreign companies applied to that.
Speaker 0: That's clearly true. I just I just I I, you know, I think that American business interests have a very obvious recent history of trading short term profits for long term strength. You know, selling all your industries to China at 40¢ on a dollar, you know, clearly makes a small number of people rich, but it's, like, it's not a long term plan for prosperity, actually.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, they're just not good at this. In a way, it's a miracle that this is happening because it's forcing us to confront all the related issues as we put together a more cohesive vision for US soft power, which is that that Reaganite style trick down economics nineteen eighties thing may have made sense when those corporations were American corporations Right. With American manufacturing facilities employing American labor. But now these are nominally, you know, American companies, but they are but there's no there's no trickle down because it's not like that's substantially increasing American jobs when they're going overseas to East Asia.
Speaker 0: Jobs in the first place.
Speaker 1: Right. Or or it's not, you know, providing enhancing the security of our supply chains because it's, you know, it's giving more more for our factories because we don't have the factories anymore. And so Trump is doing all this in tandem. You know, he's trying to onshore things. He's trying to bring back domestic manufacturing.
And some of that may be how we approach statecraft, which is that, you know, the the kinds of entities that we consider to be US national interest are the ones that, you know, have a certain amount of American investment. You know, you can't be a sort of American in name only Right. And, you know, have, you know, you know, so much of your workforce in China or have so much of your, you know, you know, operations, you know, I mean, there there may be a sort of we need to sort of have a a cohesive vision of of what national interest is if we're not going to
Speaker 0: Completely agree. I mean, you know, come companies basically owned by the sovereign wealth funds of our rivals who are only here to benefit from our enforcement of copyright, etcetera, etcetera, are no sense really American. Why why are we, like, wrecking the world for their benefit? You know? So I just wanna end on the just to get deeper, if you don't mind, into this question of the effect of our foreign policy on our domestic life, and you just can't escape the suspicion that our politics are really volatile.
We're way less free than we were in part because of, you know, methods of control refined overseas. Like, I just look back the last five years, and I'm like, everything you've said about what USAID and Ned and all these other groups or state department are doing abroad, I'm just seeing that here. So am I being crazy?
Speaker 1: Oh, not at all. I mean, there's a million direct examples of this. There's something that you've brought up several times so far, around Black Lives Matter, and I I I feel like That
Speaker 0: was so obviously fake. Like, this armed robber porn star drug addict gets dies of a drug OD on the street after passing, you know, a counterfeit bill and, like, all of a sudden, America collapses. Alright. Come on. Come on, dude.
Speaker 1: Right. Right. Well
Speaker 0: And Osama bin Laden planned nine eleven. I'm like, the whole thing is just too dumb for me. I can't deal with it.
Speaker 1: Right. No. And there's well, there's a few a few pieces to that. So first, Black Lives Matter is, you know, one of the main NGOs that serves as the Black Lives Matter Clearing House is is the Tide Center and and the Tides Foundation. And, USAID gave the Tide Center a $27,000,000 grant.
Speaker 0: Good. Now here here we go.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And, now nominally, that grant is for, the Tide Tide Center institutions to solicit, secure concrete investments from foreign countries on issues related to US national interest. So, basically, the USAID has deputized this, you know, group that's, you know, in the center of the nest around around Black Lives Matter to secure commitments from foreign governments from a formal US government agency. They're deputized to act as a sort of long arm of the state department, and they're getting 27,000,000 for it. And, by the way, when they get actually, before before I go deeper on the the the Black Lives Matter stuff because there's a there's a lot there, I've been calling this the, you know, the Smithmont problem for USAID.
Right? We had a Smithmont act from 1948 until 2013 with the modernization under Obama that effectively got rid of it that prohibited foreign propaganda or or fake news stories intended for foreign audiences from being circulated here at home.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: They got rid of that. With USAID, it's even worse. Because as bad as it is for propaganda, USAID has the Smithmont problem for financing and operations. The USAID can provide money to international institutions or to NGOs for their work abroad, but then they turn around and and now they have all this money, and they now are wealthy and and powerful and deeply ingrained highly pedigreed institutions because of all their money from State and Aid and and Ned, but there's nothing blocking them from also operating on US soil. So, you know, I'll give you an example of, like, there's a, you know, this this for profit private sector censorship mercenary firm called NewsGuard and got a $750,000 Pentagon contract to, you know, help the Pentagon trace the information for fingerprints of Russian mis and disinformation.
Okay. Maybe there's a strategic interest in the Pentagon, mapping out pro Russia narratives, in in regions around the world, but NewsGuard targets US citizens. NewsGuard has, you know, the the the former head of NATO on its board. The former
Speaker 0: head of the I've been targeted by NewsGuard, so I know.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. Of course. But they whether or not the grant is for like, they don't have there's a lot of domestic censorship grants that the Biden administration gave to pump these things up domestically. Like, the National Science Foundation did this a lot.
But in this case, it's what you're doing is you're making the institution more powerful. You're buffering its revenues. You're padding its profit margins. So it's now more powerful to be able to take you on even if the grant isn't for that money.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: And Exactly. So it bleeds into it. And this this happens with every institution USAID works for. And when you under again, coming back to the fact that USAID is at the heart. You know, USAID is is the swing player between the state department, the CIA, and the Pentagon, and and it works with all three of those.
And, you know, you never know when you see a USAID program which of those three ops is being run, but you know for certain it's one of those three. You don't know if it's to advance, you know, a a stated state department diplomacy, priority in the region. You don't know if it's being used in order to advance a US national security interest in the region, or you don't know if it's being used to advance an unstated state department foreign policy goal being pursued by the CIA in its in its functioning as an intelligence. I'll give you some examples of this. In 2021, I've I've talked about this a few times, but under Mark Milley and and Joe president Joe Biden, the the the first special forces, vision statement prospectus, pages sixteen, seventeen, everyone can look this up.
It's a it's on it's a public doc you know, government document you can find online, and it's it presents a a way to synchronize the the psychological, operations and civil military affairs work that the special forces does, with the different Oregon with with the different foreign policy agencies who can play supporting roles. So they give an example of, they're trying to block block the Chinese from buying a a port in China, and, the the African I'm sorry. In Africa. In Africa. The African government doesn't wanna go through with it.
I'll I'll I'll I'll kinda just try to make this as as simple as possible. Basically, what ends up happening is is, the state department can't get the African government to to cooperate and agree to cancel this, you know, this this port construction. And so they they need to buy time before the port is completed for the state department to have more carrots and sticks, more leverage to be able to force the African government to relent and cancel it. That is they need more either more appropriations and allocations to be able to bribe them with or they need more sticks to be able to punish them with, you know, leverage from from the from, you know, something harm that's being done that they can offer to make the pain stop. And so so this is what the special forces document envisages it envisages, which is that the role of the special forces in that in that scenario, in the name of of great power competition and the special forces role in countering, you know, peer competitor from from China, and and they also argue there's a national security basis because this would give China it was a West African hypothetical country, so it would give China access to the Atlantic.
But what what they what they did in this scenario, and they war gamed this all out, is how they would effectively induce race riots to get the African workers to, to, to go all go on strike and boycott and take to the streets and protest against the Chinese business interests. This would also devastate the the the country economically. It would it would effectively bring the, you know, it it would also humiliate the the Chinese business interests in the area. And so it would create this international scandal. It would scandalize the pork construction, and the destabilized economic state would allow this The US Ambassador to walk back in and say, hey.
You know, you know, all this pain can stop. Just cancel the pork construction type thing. But what's really interesting is in the special forces perspectives Can
Speaker 0: you imagine writing that? Like, let's let's incite race riots.
Speaker 1: And they well, they their quote was inflamed racial tensions or inflamed tensions.
Speaker 0: Can you imagine?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And so what they did is, I think it was inflamed t tensions, but they explicitly say, you know, it's Africans versus the Chinese there. And and what they did is the the the role of USAID in this special operations scenario literally printed, you know, by The US Government was that USAID would would swoop into the scene and provide job fairs. US taxpayers would they would do job fairs in the exact region where the, you know, rioters and protesters were striking in order because they wouldn't the the special forces concern was that the people they needed in the streets in this, you know, protest, to destabilize the country would not want to would not were too poor to leave their jobs. They would not want to go on strike in these Chinese owned factories and businesses.
So they needed a replacement source of income, and that was where USAID came into the operation. USAID would do job fairs. And so the African protesters would be subsidized to do that protest street protest destabilization activity and don't need to worry about whether or not, you know, it's going to cost them their jobs because they're now on the payroll of USAID. And but that was a special forces operation. And and you you see this you see this with with everything USAID does, but, you know, to to to come back to this, you know, thing on, you know, we're talking about, I guess, BLM and some of this domestic, you know, foreign thing is sorry.
If I if you wanna drill down now and ask me a question. But what I'm saying is USAID plays this this military role as well with the with with, support assistance.
Speaker 0: But, I mean, treating US citizens like you would treat foreign enemies or adversaries is something I never imagined would happen, but it it is happening.
Speaker 1: Well, because once they when they defined populism as a threat to democracy because it undermines public faith and confidence in democratic institutions, They were able to effectively categorize the sitting president of The United States as an attack on democracy. And good thing we're democracy promotion programs because that we are the white blood cells, in of the immune system, to stop, you know, the virus of threats to democracy.
Speaker 0: So once course. You know, populism is democracy. Right. The demand for majority rule, but Right. Yeah.
Okay.
Speaker 1: No. Of of course. But they say, you know, we need democratic institutions to provide the bumper cars to stop demagoguery.
Speaker 0: Can I just ask you something like so the Nina Jankowicz famously was, you know, played a censor domestic censorship role? She's an absurd absolutely absurd figure, like, pulled from TikTok, but human. She gets fired because people are like, who is this woman? And she winds up at USAID.
Speaker 1: Well, she winds she winds up at the the Center for Information Resilience, which is a which a is a London based, it's, you know, basically a British statecraft organ. She had to file a FAR registration. She became a a registered agent of The United Kingdom, for, you know, for her work.
Speaker 0: They're recipients of USAID money, aren't they?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. They were yes. Recipients of USAID money. Although, I believe, she, I think she wrote that she left there several months ago sometime in 2024, but the fact is is it's still that same network.
Speaker 0: But a lot of these people I mean, I just you know, being a kid in DC and you'd meet people who had served in the foreign policy, apparatus and, you know, they whatever. They were doing killing Mosaddeck or whatever, but they were pretty smart, I thought. I always thought. I mean, they were. It seems like the current generation has a lot of Nina Jankowicz as, like, just sort of low IQ
Speaker 1: Well, you know
Speaker 0: people. Like, do you know I mean, what what's the caliber of the people administering these programs?
Speaker 1: Well, I actually think there's there's there's layers of sophistication to to Nina.
Speaker 0: And Oh, is that true?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I do I do think so. And and I don't have any personal accent. I mean, she's written a lot of not flattering things about me, and, you know, and I've pointed out the what I consider to be massive, you know, conflicts of interest when, you know, the the the entire field of professional Internet censorship, that is you you get paid, you pay your mortgage with paychecks that come from your job censoring the Internet. I mean, I fundamentally do not believe that that Nina's field, that this disinformation of censoring citizens in our own country, and leave aside the sort of maybe more nuanced issue about whether there's a role of countering foreign propaganda and how robust that is.
The fact is is, you know, what was done here was just straight up saying that domestic misinformation is a threat to democracy, and so the US government should be, you know, should be play the task of of censoring its own its own people through this whole society network. But you you have I mean, there's so fundamentally, I don't believe that that job should exist, and it is, you know, part of what I consider to be my my purpose in life to try to bring freedom to the Internet. And to the extent that that field exists as a profession, those two things are in conflict. And then the other part of it is the conflict of interest. When you can see how these very censorship institutions that are being being funded by USAID, and so many of them are, it's unbelievable.
I mean, USAID is a formal censorship program. I believe we've even talked about it before, but now it's, now I think people are starting to, you know, appreciate the significance of it. In fact, his website just went down a few days ago, and, it's it's under, I believe, an extraordinary mouse scandal, but yeah. Which is that these USAID takes taxpayer money and creates lobbyists for more USAID because all the people who it creates a conflict of interest between their own personal piggy banks and what the actual national interest of the country is. If if if your whole field is is is getting funding, you know, in in significant part from USAID, well, then you if you wanna really make it in this world, you have a moral hazard, a perverse incentive to become a tiny little lobbyist to explain why it is that censoring the Internet is essential to US national interest, and to sell a whole ideology and a whole completely different vision of what our country even is and what we're even fighting for because the more that our public grants and contracts, the more that our procurements, the more that the USAID piggy bank funds that, the bigger the pie of that field gets.
And so the and so you but you see this in everything that USAID touches, you know, from the from the media to the social media to the universities to the to the unions to the anti corruption, you know, prosecutor work to the humanitarian work around, you know, in in drug zones and and in and in paramilitary zones. And and so it's it's, you know, I think it's what Elon would call a self licking ice cream cone, and, you know, the the ice cream's gone bad. But with the BLM thing, it gets it gets very strange, you know, because because USAID is a professional rent a riot organizer. I mean, as as I even I mean, leave aside the countless documented cases of USAID rent a riots from, you know, as as we mentioned, the Arab Spring, which we, you know, we went over the rent to riots there. USAID pumped $1,200,000,000, you know, into the region, you know, during that during that period.
We have literally USAID documents, explicitly doing operational planning to create smart mobs and people to take to the streets in riots. You know, you see it in Georgia. You saw it in Belarus in in in 2020. It's anytime there are about Minneapolis. Well, this is where it gets interesting in the role of these foreign policy, institutions and their domestic, you know, things.
So there's one other so I wanna mention one quick adjacency before we we we go into that, which is around USAID funding to the to the Tide Center, which I mentioned, you know, has this Black Lives Matter adjacency. But the Tide Center is also the the fiscal sponsor of a group called Fair and Just Prosecutions, which is the central group that manages, at least according to reports from, I believe, Daily Wire and, the write ups in the in I think it was Federalist and such, but I believe it was a daily wire investigation bay oh, based on Media Research Center report, that Fair and Just Prosecutions is, is a you know, bill themselves is a sort of left wing progressive, criminal justice advocacy group, and they Media Research Center published a long report, you know, essentially saying that they were the managing control group of Soros prosecutors because the what they do is all these Soros now they don't fund the Soros. They don't fund the election campaigns of the, at least to my knowledge, of the Soros Prosecutors like the Open Society Foundation does, but what they, what they do is they they fund they they manage, you know, they get the prosecutors, the source prosecutors to sign pledges about what they're going to, you know, what they're not going to you know, to not enforce certain laws that are on the books in the region.
You know, they pressure them to prosecute certain political targets. They give them social media, hashtags and talking points. They help write their press releases. They meet with them every, you know, every week, and, you know, they they're it's it's you know, prosecutors, you know, at least according to this reporting, which has some pretty damning, you know, inside documents to, you know, to to make this case. So that you basically have prosecutors being managed by this shady NGO who is effectively, you know, puppeteering these prosecutors who are dependent on continued funding for their election campaigns and continued election funding for their future careers.
You know, let's say, you know, AG, attorney general, is, you know, love the joke is, you know, it's it's short for aspiring governor because, you know, this is you know, the the so it's a path. You wanna cultivate these donor networks forever. But the Tide Center, which gets $27,000,000 from USAID just on basically, you know, two grants alone for the foreign work is the fiscal sponsor of FJP, the this group that is, you know, liaising with, you know, all these prosecutors and securing these pledges.
Speaker 0: Why can I just ask one let me just ask a final question, just to kind of so from everything you've said, and particularly your point that the grants haven't stopped, the staff has gone, they've been Twitterized, but the the money's still flowing, and it's just gonna move to the state department, which oversees USAID anyway? You need some way to stop the poison that they're inspiring overseas from coming in here. Why why couldn't you just get a variety of the Smith Act again that said there's, like, no destabilization effort. There's no society changing effort. There's really no effort that we project abroad that can be brought here.
Speaker 1: That's what needs to happen. For example, you can't share the same corporate entity. You can't you shouldn't be able to you know, if if you're I mean, imagine if Raytheon, who is paid by the US military to drop deadly, lethal, you know, munitions clusters on foreign countries and and either professional job is killing people. And they were getting billions of dollars from the US Pentagon, and they, they opened up a, you know, a Raytheon you know, and Raytheon started creating a new line of business for domestic countering misinformation projects where they where they monitor the Internet for COVID skepticism or or, you know, climate change, you know, denial. You would look at that and you would say, Raytheon is getting paid by the military to kill people overseas, and I know their grants you know, their their their contracts with the Pentagon are not for that work.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: But they have more muscle and money to play with. They're being pumped up by steroids administered overseas.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: And mean, you saw that with the Bangladesh case too, by the way. You know, the when the the person who is now the minister of foreign affairs in Bangladesh after the coup by the way, the the new the new head of state there is a Clinton Global Initiative fellow. But the the the the the foreign minister was brought in by USAID for for formal training on countering misinformation. And you know who, who led that? It was a a another, you know, state department USAID contractor, a a group called PolitiFact.
It It was the executive director of PolitiFact who does you know, who writes hit pieces on you and me that were conspiracy theorists for talking about January 6 or and they are acting as an instrument of statecraft to, you know, to get money from our paychecks to do international work to to to train foreign journalists and foreign ministers, how to censor or or stop, you know, the spread of information the state department doesn't like. Now their now their margins are padded by that.
Speaker 0: Well, that's the point Right. Is that the things that we do abroad affects us here. We're paying the Ukrainian government. They're assassinating people, like, literally assassinating people, trying to assassinate American citizens, fact. Selling weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico, fact.
And you end up, like, wrecking your own country with the things that you do abroad.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, I'll tell you what we did in the financing space, and I remember being a corporate lawyer and watching that evolve and and play out. You know, we we had things like, you know, these anti we had anti terrorist financing, you know, OFAC style laws that prevented laundering, you know, through and even if you could technically do it, you didn't wanna risk it because there were criminal penalties for doing it
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And there were financial penalties.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And so in something like this, imagine if the grantees had to pay treble damages, in in the amount of their grant if if they tripped one of those foreign domestic firewalls. If if they had to if their grant was for $30,000,000 and they have to pay they're they're liable for up to $90,000,000 if if a if a a a US court finds that they violated the US Aid Smith Mundt Act, I mean, this this is something that Congress could put in, you know, put in today. I mean, you could you could add criminal penalties, but you need right now, there's no penalty whatsoever. The only penalty is that, it is that people might find out, and it might cause a political scandal, and it might make the USAID grant coordinator less likely to give you the next grant in the future. Where's the clawback?
Where's the where's the the the restitution damages? You you know, people shouldn't maybe even be able to sue the the US government body administering the grant for for failing to do oversight of the NGO receiving that money. You might create a cause a private cause of action against the state department or whatever new form USAID costs. That can be done legislatively, and the message that I mean, first of all, that would that would go a huge distance to being able to deal with this problem because you're going to have this problem whether USAID exists as an outside as an independent agency or whether the state department just inherits a USAID herpes infection and just lives with it inside the
Speaker 0: agency. Mike Benz, it could go on forever. It was your reporting your dogged, single-minded, almost monomaniacal, I will say, effort to to bring, you know, to to public view this web, that I think started all of this. So Well and
Speaker 1: and you
Speaker 0: It is vindication, by the way. I know you have mixed feelings about it, and you're worried about the whole edifice collapsing, which is a fair concern. But I do think, you know, anyone who called you a a nutcase has to apologize at this point.
Speaker 1: Thank you for saying that, and it wouldn't have been possible without you as well. I do just wanna clarify. I I it's I don't believe that I have mixed feelings. I act I a % endorse directionally and technically everything that I've seen so far, but I I appreciate the weight of the moment and that you are dealing with something much more delicate Yes. Than simply,
Speaker 0: you know Stopping the trainee dance contests.
Speaker 1: HUD turns up a couple billion dollars worth of waste, fraud, and abuse in the city of Chicago. And it's a it's a local issue, and it's a it's a big scandal. We're we're I I feel an obligation to to help midwife this, and and but I I totally support it, and I just to me, the the it's it's reflection rather than rather than hesitation.
Speaker 0: Well, it sounds like you're on the side of US interests abroad, which exist. We do have interests, and we should protect them jealously, I would say.
Speaker 1: But America First.
Speaker 0: Amen. Yep. Mike Benz, thank you very much. Thank you, Tucker.
@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi
🚨WATCH EPISODE 70🚨@TuckerCarlson interviews @rustyrockets! “Governments colluded to shut down and destroy Russell Brand. This is his first interview since that happened. It's one of the most brilliant explanations of the modern world you'll ever hear.” https://t.co/K0zBaQq7XY
Video Transcript AI Summary
In September, media outlets falsely labeled me a sex criminal without naming accusers. This was the culmination of a multi-year campaign to silence my dissenting views on geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. Governments and intelligence agencies, including the US and UK, orchestrated attacks, falsely labeling me a Chinese propagandist and coordinating censorship efforts through organizations like Coda Story, which has ties to the CIA. My critiques, informed by academic sources, presented alternative perspectives on mainstream narratives, exposing the homogenized views of powerful institutions. This coordinated attack, which even involved Moderna tracking my content, reveals the lengths to which powerful interests go to suppress dissent. The accusations were made anonymously, and my own government contacted online providers to demonetize and censor me. This shows that independent media is a threat to those in power, and the open contest of ideas is a sham. The ongoing attacks are terrifying but also reveal the struggle for control over information.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back in September, media outlets around the world, almost all of them here in the West, in the English speaking world, ran headlines that shocked a lot of readers and viewers. Russell Brand, the movie star, the comedian, now the podcaster, was a sex criminal, a bad man, a sex criminal. Now none of the outlets ran the names of the accusers who had been sexually abused by Russell Brand. That was conspicuously absent, but the judgment was overwhelming. This is a very bad man, and he needs to be taken out of public view for the sake of the rest of us.
What was interesting about this is that, in fact, it was the final scene in a long movie that had been playing out for the preceding couple of years outside of public view. This was an attempt to make Russell Brand shut up. Russell Brand has views that diverge from those of most western governments on big issues, not small things, big issues, questions of economic policy and war and peace. And they decided we have to make this man be quiet. Why Russell Brand?
Well, because in contrast to a lot of us who give our opinions for a living, Russell Brand had the capacity to win people over from the other side. He hadn't spent a life identified with the far right, just the opposite. Russell Brand was a man of the left, and to most people, a cultural figure. Everyone knows who Russell Brand is. And so he had the power, the capacity to persuade, and that was the threat.
So we thought it'd be interesting to go through in some detail what happened to Russell Brand. None of this has ever been aired before. The censorship campaign against him began with governments, not private organizations, but governments, their intel services, and their policymakers. And as we said, it played out outside public view, and we thought it would be very interesting and important for people to know what exactly happened. And so to find out, we are now joined by Russell Brand himself, and we're grateful to be.
Russell Brand, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tucker, thanks for having me here.
Speaker 0: So, I I I didn't know any I just wanna say I didn't know any of this, and I was I experienced you because I didn't know you as a viewer. And I remember thinking, boy, that is one of the most articulate critiques of the brand new war in Ukraine I had ever seen. I saw one of your videos on the war in Ukraine, and this was in the winter of twenty twenty two, '2 years ago. And you were making kind of a remarkable case, not against the Ukrainian people and certainly not in favor of Russia, but that there might be real implications for the West if we get involved in a war that is not our own. And you you, I thought, said it so well.
What I missed, and I'm now seeing, is that in March of twenty twenty two, you were denounced by an organization connected directly to the US government as an agent of Chinese propaganda for your views on Ukraine. So let me just ask you your experience of this. Did you know that you were being attacked as a Chinese propagandist for your views on Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I actually didn't and still at this point struggle in to see entirely what the connections are between those two issues and how I would develop and cult and cultivate a strong affinity with China. I've never been to China. I don't purport to understand China. Certainly don't advocate for Chinese policy. I've just got relatively superficial dilettantes knowledge of geopolitical mal matters in the South Asian seas.
It's not something that I would like to tie my colors to the mask for or be willing to be publicly shamed, attacked, and even jailed for.
Speaker 0: So, it happened though. Yeah. And and a lot happens on the Internet that we miss. But these in my reading of it is and we haven't, by the way, talked about this off air, but my reading of it is these were the early seeds of a very deceptive plant that flowered more than a year later in September when you were accused of these crimes and demonetizing and censored as a result of that. But looking back, so you were, accused by a group called Coda Story.
It published a story on its anti disinformation newsletter. Now Coda Story is connected to the UK government, but it's also connected to the CIA. How does it make you feel to know that you were in the crosshairs of two of the most powerful governments in the world and their intel agencies?
Speaker 1: It seems to me ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups that the British government, if indirectly, would spend considerable sums on observing and de amplifying content, that true information shared through our platforms in the period of the pandemic was censored, was cited as high risk. That companies like Moderna had spent considerable revenue tracking our content and, again, de amplifying it. The Dame Caroline Dionidge whose husband is a psy ops expert that worked abroad in terrorism before deploying those methods and techniques. And to some degree, those teams to observe what they call disinformation and misinformation in The UK. I recognize that the new emergent media spaces present a lot of possibilities, even with your kind compliments about our reporting on the Ukraine.
All we've essentially done is listened to brilliant academics talking about the history of NATO and the coup in twenty fourteen in Ukraine and Putin's explicit declaration that he would prefer, let's put it mildly, that Ukraine were not invited into NATO, that some of the regional disputes, how they're escalating tensions. This is information that because of independent media is available and perhaps the function that we, our media organization have fulfilled is been to collate that information and convey it directly in an accessible manner to give people an alternative perspective than to the homogenized mainstream opinion Yes. Which amounts to, I've learned over the last few years, the amplification and normalization of the agenda of the powerful. That no opinions can be allowed into that space. And I'm astonished by how jealously it is guarded.
There are points in my life where my personal self regard would have loved the idea that I'd be considered important enough to attack on this scale, to spend this amount of revenue and resources on. But I'm now seeing that independent media itself is an extraordinary threat. That independent media inevitably leads to independent politics and independent thought. And we appear to be at some precipitous moment of radical transition. I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if anybody could be sure of where this is all heading, what the exact teleology is, but it seems to be to do with mass centralization, globalization, significant attempts to control the information space that are so rigorously adhered to and protected that even what you might imagine to be a marginal voice is considered a significant enough threat to warrant coordinated media attacks, expenditure on peculiar clandestine non government organizations and think tanks that take their money from the industrial complex, from the legacy media, who, by the way, when they're critiquing independent media, they got skin in the game.
They're not able to independently assess your work or my work or the medical opinions of Joe Rogan. They have a vested interest in destroying those organizations. In the last few years, I've learned about the Trusted News Initiative, which has extraordinary connections again to big pharma and sets of interest around the reporting on war that have decided and determined that they are no longer competing with one another. You, in particular, come from a journalistic background where it would have been commonplace for the great institutions of American media to compete with one another for scoops, the New York Times versus the one. Those days are gone.
It explicitly states on the Trusted News Initiative website, we are no longer in competition with one another. We have to curtail and stamp out. I think it even uses the word choke independent media. And it's clear that there are now sets of globalist organizations funded by government, but also corporations that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way. And to be sort of caught up in it is, terrifying on one level.
Absolutely terrifying, particularly due to the nature of allegations I faced. But also revealing more importantly, it's revealing about the way the the way that I believe the world and in particular this space will be affected and the way these events will continue to unfold in the coming years.
Speaker 0: What I love about your critique is that you're coming to all of this pretty cold since you had a midlife career change. You you're doing something very different from what you did fifteen years ago. And I'm wondering if your assumptions haven't been completely blown up. You're you're a British citizen, lived in the country Mhmm. For life.
How strange is it to know that your tax dollars are being used against you by your government, which they are? And how bewildering is it to find that the open contest of ideas that we were promised here in the West made the best idea win is a sham.
Speaker 1: Yes. It's, well, I suppose I went into the entertainment industry really with the giddy trajectory that propels a lot of people into those spaces, believing that there might be some fulfillment and certainly there would be excitement. And when I was a Denizen of that world, I was fostered and adored and celebrated and facilitated and lived the kind of lifestyle which I think is kind of common for people in that area, for single people, in my case, drug and alcohol free, but certainly with, an appetite for a promiscuous lifestyle. When I was part of it, I found it empty and unfulfilling, of course, as it would be as anyone who's had those kind of experiences ultimately realizes. When I departed it as a result really of various spiritual crises or commercial failures or combination of those events, I really felt like, coming home to the type of values that I grew up with.
I grew up in a normal blue collar town, Gray. It's kind of like a place where it's like New Jersey, I guess. Kind of suburban, outside of the city, normal people, good values kind of place. And what I feel like happened is like, well, since I've had a family, since, you know, I've got a young son, I've got a couple of daughters, is I've felt like that I was able to deploy the skills learned through working in entertainment as a man in recovery in a new space. And what simply began, with myself and my partners is tell the truth about things you care about.
Kind of over time, it began to I suppose Glenn Greenwald did have a day, and he goes, you know, you shouldn't be surprised that if you attack the most powerful interest in the world, the deep state, powerful corporations, the machinery of war, that you yourself are the recipient of attacks. Why does that why is that surprising to you?
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: I know, but because sometimes it does feels speculative, doesn't it? You're talking about these really powerful organizations and the way that it's funded and the way that it crosses over and their malfeasance, underhanded, insidious activity. And then as it starts to become more popular, as more and more people realize that it's actually true, as more and more people become willing to take back control in their own lives, as more and more people refuse to consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, having their autonomy and personal and mental and spiritual freedom undermined, their connection to their land undermined, their connection to nature, devoid it. You start to realize that you're actually operating in quite a powerful territory. But while power is very serious and it has to work very hard to maintain its grip, so these organizations it is something did it surprise me to find that the the British government through the department of culture and media and sport, the very person, the very people that sponsored the new rather draconian online safety bill personally contacted the height of these, allegations and attacks on me that contacted social media platforms and asked if I would be demonetized.
But they're the body that regulates them. They have the ability to find those organizations. They're the the very person who is sponsoring the online security bill. For second. Just Yeah.
Of course.
Speaker 0: I understand what you're saying. So these accusations appeared. There were I don't know if this has changed, but at the time, there were no names attached at all. You were accused anonymously of committing crimes. And then your own government, which you pay for
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Reached out without telling you to online service providers and media organizations and said, please kick him off and censor him and take his money away. That's is that what you're saying? Yeah. That's right. Any kind of trial, before any proof that you were guilty, before any names were attached.
Yeah. That that happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's the same people that are sponsoring online safety bills, which amount to facilitating further censorship.
Speaker 0: But what a betrayal by your own government.
Speaker 1: Well, it's astonishing if you regard your government to be in a position of service rather than a a position of domination and control. But what's become apparent in recent years is what the nature of our relationship with government is. That they are there to rule and control and dominate. And whilst they may now do it with an aesthetic of care and with the language of inclusivity, I believe the threat of authoritarianism is far, far greater from those that use the language of liberalism than these emergent, somewhat nationalistically oriented populist movements present because they are leveraging that power now. They're interested in censorship.
They're militarizing the police force. They're introducing protest laws. They're introducing censorship laws. Through their actions, we can observe them. Through their fruits, can we know them?
We can see what they'd and if you try to dissent, if you try to oppose even what I consider to be a relatively marginal scale, then the consequences are severe and immediate and robust and terrifying.
Speaker 0: It I I think what makes your specific case so compelling is that if they could do it to you, a person who had the admiration of a lot of people who aren't interested in politics and was pretty famous and had some means, etcetera, then the average person stands no chance against these forces. So with that, let if you don't mind, can we get specific about a couple of things that you mentioned? The first is Moderna, which is a drug company. It's part of big pharma. Tell us how you intersected with pharma and what you with Moderna and what you think they did to you.
Speaker 1: During the pandemic period, we reported continually about some of the clinical trials that Moderna conducted and whether or not they ought be deemed sufficiently rigorous to warrant the level of measures that were being implemented, if not entirely mandated. We talked about a government official called Jonathan Van Tam, who was the public face of the government saying, you know, we should be taking vaccines, recommending that the measures escalate. Jonathan Van Tam subsequently took a position at Moderna. We reported on that. People within the FDA took positions at Moderna.
We reported on that. We accurately reported that both Pfizer and Moderna were making a thousand dollars, like a second or a minute, just like we reported a lot. We reported accurately and thoroughly about the degree to which big pharma were profiting from a situation in which Albert Baller explicitly said it would be inhumane to profit from this global crisis. This meant that we were tracked by agencies employed by Moderna. They had like us on a high risk category.
This is the reporting of Lee Fang from on his substack, not just me, Jay Bhattacharya, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berenson, a number of what you might call anti pandemic measures voices or strong critics of the way that the pandemic unfolded were under observation for by agencies that were either funded by big pharma, sometimes the government. And in a sense, what I've started to realize, Tucker, is this cartilage between the state and the corporate world is often provided by these unusual organizations that are claiming to be observing disinformation or monitoring, but they're actually crushing dissent. That's what they're doing in practice. Dissenting voices are being aggressively crushed by almost any means necessary. The media organizations are collaborated in a a way that is unprecedented in order to shut down dissenting voices.
And it it appears to me that this is part of something I don't know that we've seen anything like this before.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is that these organizations which purport to be independent are not actually independent from government. They merely give government, the politicians and the intel agencies, especially some some plausible deniability, some distance
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: From what they're doing. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, Tucker. That seems to be the function. There's a group called Logically, and Logically have received millions of pounds of taxpayer money. And what they do is observe dissenting voices around in particular COVID and pandemic measures. But they are now working in The United States, apparently, in order to regard misinformation around election campaigning.
It seems that that that this group received government money in order to control online spaces.
Speaker 0: So if you're worried about the security of electronic voting machines or absentee ballots Yeah. Who are denounced by these people and
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Censored by them.
Speaker 1: That's that's precisely how it works. And, of course, they employ former FBI, agents, CIA agents. In a way, I suppose, what happened during the pandemic period because of, like, the Twitter files, for example, we started to learn the degree to which the deep state were involved in the, in social media companies, the degree to which they were censoring and shutting down information, information that we now know to be true, which it was, you know, of course, you'll be aware that Mark Zuckerberg said we did censor true information. The category in fact of malinformation is information that's true, but but harmful to the agenda or powerful. Well, it seems like groups like Logically and the Public Good Project are specifically empowered to control, censor, de amplify information that is harmful to that agenda.
This seems totalitarian. Yeah.
Speaker 0: To control what people are allowed to think is I think that's the definition of it.
Speaker 1: What I've started to I suppose that's what in essence, what I've started to feel and report on consistently, as you noted at the beginning of this, I'm not someone who's affiliated organically with conservatism or what you might regard as right wing politics. Although I of course recognize the legitimacy of a whole variety of political views and the right of people to hold different views from one another. But it seems to me that authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in a the insidious language of care, concerns, safety, and convenience. It seems to me that we are in a time where we lurch from one crisis to another, that the crisis is always used to legitimize certain solutions, and a docile or terrified public is willing to participate in this proposed solutions that usually involve giving up their freedom. We are continually being invited to give up our freedom in exchange for safety or convenience, and it seems that this process is radically escalating.
And I feel that this is something that we will see yet more of in the coming year. I feel like, you know, you've spoken publicly about this, that we're potentially on the precipice of serious, and to use your term, hot, a hot war with Russia. And that that's being reported on in my country right now. It's like we're being prepped, groomed, primed for war is coming. That we're being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance.
That the ongoing stoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don't begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To to be explicit, I'm talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WF, and their astonishing influence. Added to that, the types of groups we've discussed already that have been exposed due to Li Fang's reporting, these think tanks and apparently independent organizations who are not independent when you look at where they get their money, big pharma, or the government, or the military industrial complex, or the kind of people they employ. People from deep state agencies such as the FBI and CIA that have extraordinary affinity with the legacy media and their ongoing agenda. So what I suppose I'm sensing is that totalitarianism now will not bear the inflections or aesthetics of the twentieth century militarism guys in medals with mustaches, thumping their fists on a desk.
We'll be calmly told by gentlemen with beautifully coiffured hair, or elegantly speaking ladies that just for our safety and just for our convenience, we will be returning to our homes. And anyone that has an audience or a base or an ability to communicate with people to disrupt those types of narratives will be identified and destroyed.
Speaker 0: Well, there's certainly, they've identified you, and they're trying to destroy you in the most obvious way, in a way that hurts not just you but your family. Was there ever a moment when this happened in September where you thought, you know, it's just kinda not worth it to be doing what I'm doing? This is so painful and so threatening to my family that maybe I just bow out and stop talking.
Speaker 1: My son was born with a heart condition. And while this was happening, he was undergoing heart surgery. He, he was 12 old. And I suppose what that did, Tucker, is it revealed that that what we were experiencing was a public concoction. I am aware that I put myself in an extremely vulnerable position by being very, very promiscuous.
That is not the kind of conduct that I endorse, and it's certainly not how I would live now. The I I've been shown a good many things as a result of these events. The value of my family, the value of friendship, the value of being able to speak publicly. I mentioned my son because throughout it, I saw I was able to maintain what is really important in life. And as you have actually said, we all know how this ends.
Attacks like this, a crisis like this, hurtful though it is to be accused of what I consider to be the most appalling crimes, to be accused of this is very, very painful and very hurtful. But I am being shown that there is a con there are consequences for the rather foolish way that I lived in the past. Although, of course, again, to reiterate due to the nature of the world we live in, of course, I deny deny any allegations of the kind that have been advanced. But what I've seen is the significance of family, the importance of having values that are transcendent of this, the importance of God. It's very easy to talk about God.
I talk about God all the time. But when you need God, it's not when the outside world shows you the the the reality of your powerlessness. This is this can just happen. This can be undone. This can be unspooled at you.
And with our boy and to be in environments as you understandably and obviously are when you have a sick child, you're in environments with other people, they're in the exact same position. Yes. And you are shown what is real, and you are shown what is truthful, and you are invited to look at life very differently. So there are many things that I am grateful for as a matter of fact, even though it's not a situation that I welcome and it's, as I say, these are allegations that I object to in the strongest possible terms. The fact that it happened concurrently while I had the opportunity to see the strength and dignity of my wife and the beauty of my little son and the reality of the people that in this world that care for sick children, that perform heart surgery on tiny babies shows me like, oh, we there are look at all of these realities.
How can you live in the ridiculousness of their version of events? I couldn't have been more open and public about the way that I lived when I was younger. I was for risk. If anyone wanted to have sex with me, I'd have sex with them. I publicly announced it at the beginning of all shows.
The idea that that was a some sort of a smokescreen for criminal conduct is absurd. But I recognize now that unless you're willing to be a participant in these systems of compliance and distraction, then you you pose some kind of evident threat.
Speaker 0: A big threat. A big threat. I mean, obviously, the response proves the power of the threat that you posed and still do. But, again, just to quickly back to my question, because this was so intense and it happened as your son was born and under undergoing the surgery, did it ever cross your mind like this I clearly have hit the third rail, and I'm out. I've seen that happen a number of times with people.
Yes. I have. And, yes, with well known people. And but you didn't do that. And here you are.
You've clearly thought about it, and you've decided that you're gonna continue forward. Was that a hard decision?
Speaker 1: Do Do you sometimes think that there is no choice? You have no choice. Yeah. Did you ever really have
Speaker 0: Yes. I do feel that way, strongly.
Speaker 1: There is no choice. We have no choice. Something strange is happening. Something ulterior is moving. Something very important is happening.
I don't, I'm not probably going to be a person that lacks self interest. I'm not like, feel fear. I feel anxiety. I'm a recovering drug addict. I like, you know, you know what, that kind of psychological baggage that comes with, but I feel like, what is the purpose here?
What are we doing here? I've been shown to get I've, in a way, lived a pretty amazing life. I, like, grew up in a normal background. I've got super famous. I experienced all of that giddiness, all of that hedonism, found it empty and hollow, and have been returned to a position where people could actually be connected.
I actually feel incredibly optimistic because of things like the ongoing agricultural protests around the world, the trucker protests, the lengths that people will go to to criminalize not just an individual like me, but whole movements will be criminalized as far right as nazis, right as whatever language is required to delegitimize the rejection of this global authoritarianism is what will be deployed. So, when I say, no, I didn't think for a second about doing anything different. You know, I didn't think that. I don't think like that. And it's not, out of bravery.
It's out of it's something beyond that because I think some you know, sometimes I would like to just be with my little daughters and my wife and my son and just live peacefully. But I don't know, Tucker. It doesn't seem like there's a choice.
Speaker 0: There isn't a choice. There isn't a choice. But, you know, even under those circumstances, some choose cowardice. And, again, I've certainly seen it quite a bit. Dynnich, you mentioned a person called Dynnich.
Can you explain, what you mean by that, who this person is, and what role she plays in what has happened to you.
Speaker 1: When you become accustomed to dealing with American politics, it's huge sums of money. It's powerful agencies that you see depicted in Hollywood movies, characters played by great movie stars. And so when you return your gaze to British politics, you feel like you're dealing with some sort of drudgery, some sort of, like, some, like, ludicrous heritage porn. Who are all these dames and baronesses entitled individuals? They can't be doing anything serious.
Someone called Dame Caroline Dynage, who sounds like a Downton Abbey regular. But actually though, Dame Caroline Dynage put forward the online safety bill. She's married to a dude that does, that that does military psy ops and now uses those very psy ops in this in in with the domestic population. She's the person that got in touch with the social media platforms demanding that I be demonetized. They seem to have an extraordinary agenda.
Like, what the time Can I just ask you something? Yeah.
Speaker 0: I looked up because I'm not as familiar with your politics as I should be.
Speaker 1: Yes. I looked
Speaker 0: her up, and, I think what I was so struck by was that she's a member of the conservative party. Right. And that suggested to me that there isn't a choice in British politics. There's really just one party.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. Absolutely. It's a uni party.
Speaker 0: They're not even pretending at this point.
Speaker 1: They're not really pretending. Like, here's a sort of an an extraordinary thing that appears to be playing out. In addition to just being casually informed by the legacy media that we're on the precipice of war with Russia and that conscription might be reintroduced in 2024, the there was a part there was a COVID inquiry in our country, which, by the way, I don't imagine for a second would have happened without independent media reporting without voices like Jay Bhattacharya Yes. Who was shut down, or voices like Michael Shellenberger or Berenson, people that have been shut down and vilified at large and extensively. The COVID inquiries already cost a hundred and £45,000,000.
It's been booted off and delayed indefinitely, but at least until after the general election. Like many countries, there's an election in our country this year. But as usual, it's between two neoliberal, what you might term centrist parties that are ultimately dominated and controlled by the same concerns, where an extraordinary focus is spent on the tiny minute differences. But it's the party nominally of the left is ultimately a centralist neoliberal party. The party nominally of the right is a neoliberal centrist party.
They may quibble about some issues that seem significant, and certainly those issues are stoked and amplified, but neither party will say, we are going to have a thorough investigation into what went on in that pandemic. That clearly was a lab leak. It looks like it was a bioweapon. It's been concealed. The people that we entrusted with our response to that pandemic are likely explicitly linked to the leak in its in the first instance.
These kind of stories are never told. There are no the legacy media organizations that worked in conjunction with one another to attack me evidently and by their own reckoning over a series of years. They are not conducting investigations into Epstein Island. They're not conducting investigations into the the nature of the pandemic, how it was funded, where the money went, where it came from, the efficacy of lockdowns. Where are these investigations?
Even the
Speaker 0: the fabled Times of London?
Speaker 1: The fabled Times of London. It's such garbage. It's such garbage.
Speaker 0: So there's nobody in and pardon my ignorance. I'm I'm I'm peering in from the outside, but there there really isn't any big media organization in your country. It's even trying to answer the question, what was that? Where this virus come from? No one's doing that.
Speaker 1: Do Do you know one of the things that I find terrifying about becoming more educated about this space, Tucker, mostly by listening to, more educated voices than my own is that many of the things a person might instinctively feel such as you feel like, you know, yourself, forgive my ignorance. I don't know much about British politics. The the but the way that one might intuit, hey. Should we not be provoking Russia into a war? Don't they have nuclear weapons?
Should we think very carefully about that? I mean, how much do we want Ukraine in NATO? And do we even need NATO anyway? The kind of things you might think if you didn't go to university. If you're a regular blue collar person working for a living.
Maybe in the police force or the fire service or as a nurse or as a teacher. Something that gives real value to your nation. The kind of things you might think, they're true. Those ideas are true. And in order to prevent you from reaching those ordinary everyday regulations, a machine is put to constant work to conquer the space of your attention, incessantly and relentlessly, filling your mind with dumb ideas and dumb distractions, making you believe that some sugar or a screen might be a convenient palliative, as your children are marched off into an unwinnable forever war.
You know, like like do you know, like the I saw we've been thinking lately before, you know, like, with the hoofies and stuff. Like, and like, I'm being deliberately glib. But it's like you go from not ever having heard the word hoofie to being invited to hate the hoofies. Oh, the hoofies. We gotta hate the hoofies now.
And And you're like, you know, just to move a battleship into that region, think of the taxpayer dollars. And it's not as if the Pentagon are gonna be passing an audit anytime soon, and telling you where this money is actually going. And $2,000,000,000,000 were spent on Afghanistan. And if you think of the before and after picture of Afghan Oh, well, thank God we spent that $2,000,000,000,000 because before Afghanistan was and now Afghanistan is It's very difficult to fill in those sentences, isn't it? And like, so what I'm saying is, is like your sort of easy dismissiveness of what British politics amounts to is probably right.
Two corrupt parties pursuing the same ulmer end. Keep people tyrannized. Keep people distracted. Keep them turned on one another over minor issues that will not ultimately affect their lives or the lives of their children so that the agenda of the powerful can be pursued without opposition?
Speaker 0: War, the economy, public health, food supply CS, the water supply. I mean, these are the energy. These are the things that matter, and they're the things that are are never discussed openly ever.
Speaker 1: Why can't we have conversations about that? Like, these with the the global farming protest, it's not accurately reported on. When it is, it's reported on with a particular accent and with the always with the insinuation that farmers have suddenly moved their attention from the raising of crops to racism now. The farming's more of a hobby. I've gotta return to my true love that's having strong views about varying ethnicity.
There's no question that a rise in, nationalism is an understandable response to rampant globalism, But the ongoing sort of finger pointing and condemnation of ordinary people I identify with, I recognize it because I grew up in those communities. Professional metro metropolitan people don't like working class people, don't like ordinary people, and now they've found a way to legitimize their hatred. Oh, they're all disgusting. They're all racist. Look at them in their MAGA hats.
Look at them with their white vans and their flags. Look at them with their perspectives, with their unearned views and their belches and their beer. It's a kind of legitimization of a loathing of the people that are most connected to the nation. People that, generally speaking, a couple of generations ago were asked to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters for the for the idea of nation, an idea that they're now being told doesn't exist. For me, what we need to see is an emergence of a different type of populism that transcends the boundaries of left and right.
These things are happening organically and naturally anyway. And what I think is happening is that perhaps it's odd, isn't it? Because the Internet is ultimately a creation of the military. Clearly, they didn't accurately understand that whilst it was going to be a brilliant means for control, and clearly that's one of the wars that's being fought now, it is also a tool for informing and awakening. And I think that we're at this crux point.
Which way is it gonna go? Are people going to wake up to the reality that we are being confronted with? Or are we going to sort of nervously cling on to the idea that somehow through comfort and panaceas, we might hold on to some old life. Increasingly, I think he's over. I watched some of that speech you did in, Ottawa or wherever you were in Edmonton, Canada.
And two of the things I thought were important is knowing that you are not God. You are not God. You are it's not about you. You have to have some purpose in your life. And secondly, people must relearn a connection to their land.
Our connection to our lands has been broken. Now many countries, particularly in a post colonial world, have complex relationships with their land. Sometimes that is a a relationship with a land that had inhabitants prior to the our our arrival or the arrival at least of of settlers in your country, for example, or in Canada that you were describing outlining. But we are divorced from nature. We are divorced from our lands.
We are divorced from one another, and we and we are fed such an empty, hollow, vapid, phatic diet of lies. And either that you said at one point, oh, you should, you know, this is this vast country. You could all have six acres each. Yes. And I felt like other crowd responding to that.
People are frightened of the people of Britain or the people of America or the people of Canada or Australia or people all over the world. For surely, those pharma protests are happening in Sri Lanka, they're happening in India, they're not just happening in Europe or angliphonic countries, they're happening everywhere. They're happening everywhere. And I feel that what's that's precisely the direction we need to return to. Sovereignty of the individual, sovereignty and sanctity of the connection between people and their land, maximum amount of power in your own life and the life of your community and and your loved ones.
Not this transition of power to increasingly centralized forces and this, infantilization and neutralization and castration of individual and familial power. Can I ask you a question that
Speaker 0: you may be able to answer that I've been meditating?
Speaker 1: Oh, give it a go, Tucker. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 0: Well, you're just uniquely positioned to answer it because you've seen both sides. But, so the things that the people in charge hate include nature Yes. And the class of people who are most useful
Speaker 1: to
Speaker 0: your nation. You describe them. Cops, firemen, teachers, nurses, all of them were crushed during COVID, by the way.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And farmers. And it's indisputable that if you don't have those people, you don't have a society. You could get rid of every think tank and every sociology department and every liberal arts university and probably be okay. The greater your pharmacy, you starve to death. So it's not obvious why the leadership of a country would hate the very people they need most and hate the most beautiful and valuable thing they have, which is nature.
Why do they hate those things?
Speaker 1: It terrifies me to contemplate, Tucker, that people like Alex Jones and in our country, David Icke, who aside from some views that are impossible to corroborate around quite occultist, and shall we call them marginal ideas, difficult to corroborate Yeah. Ideas, when it comes to the subject of globalization and the increasing authoritarianization of our planet, appear to have been ahead of the curve. You can see them twenty, thirty years ago saying with the the empowerment of NATO, the empowerment of World Banks and the WHO, like this it's extraordinary. And I it seems to me that the disempowerment of ordinary people, the condemnation, the demoralization of the public, to create people that just are weary and broken. And is, if not enslaved, then so dependent it amounts to a form of slavery, cannot be inadvertent.
It seems to be a denial of something fundamental that I, in my language, I would call spirit. The the right to be who you are. That there isn't something fundamentally ugly or wrong with you. That you are allowed to be who you are. And I see that as a universal principle that will be applied all the way from the left to the right across various ways that people claim their individual identity now.
It seems to me that, yes, that if you start to attack those pivotal infrastructural roles I was struck when speaking to some of the people that you work with, man, as you know, that's been a cop for twenty six years in New Jersey, thirty five years in the security first services. But these are people that give their lives for a country. So to tell those people that your country doesn't mean anything or to alter the meaning of what a nation is or alter what your contribution has been, it seems to be about a kind of disorientation. And it's difficult actually sometimes. The reason I mentioned at the beginning of this rather coroning answer, figures that are broadly condemned as conspiracy theories, but then aren't we all these days, is the reason I mentioned them is because they talk specifically about ideas to do with spirituality, morality, and ethics.
And it is hard for someone like me to consider that the goals of this global establishment are anything other than power, finance, dominion. But when you talk about this loathing of nature, whether that's human nature or botany or the great expense, it's difficult to think that there isn't something dark Yes. At its core.
Speaker 0: Because there's no rational explanation for that. How could you want to despoil nature? How could you hate human nature? How could you want to hurt people? There those are not rational responses to anything.
I mean, there's gotta be I mean, clearly, what we're watching are the fruits of spiritual war. I'd if you're gonna give a better explanation, let me know.
Speaker 1: Certainly, the solution seems to me to be spiritual. And even when they're talking about ecology and evoking words like Gaia, like the spirit of the planet, it seems oddly utilitarian. The Earth is a resource even when claiming to care about the types of energy industry that might be most beneficial and those which might not be as beneficial. I don't see reverence. I don't see an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Earth.
That the that the Earth is not a resource. It's not you know, obviously, the left and right are classically, almost at this point, divided around the subject of climate change. And what I feel is, who or or who among us or not love our planet and behave respectfully and reverentially and lovingly to our planet? And how is that gonna happen if no one has a relationship with it? I think, like, 90% of in my country, 90% of the land is inaccessible to most people.
90% of the land is privately owned, like land that used to be commonly held is now all privately owned. There has been successive law after successive law that has moved power and control and the land and nature herself into the hands of an elite. And is this, I suppose, even where it would have risible So you're
Speaker 0: getting back to feudalism. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It That's what you're saying. Let's get back to good old feudal what was wrong with feudalism? Why are we making such a fuss about it? It's like the idea that you and I are people that operate on different sides of a political spectrum becomes exposed as ridiculous when the anti authoritarian aspect of what we both clearly believe in has to become the clear and pivotal point around which all political views have to now start to coalesce. You you are either going to oppose what's happening when it comes to globalization and centralized authoritarianism, or you are going to be crushed by it individually and collectively.
Speaker 0: How do you see and I'll I'll stop with this, compound question. How is how are your family and friends holding up in the face of this assault on you and your family? And how do you see this playing out, the battle that you just described? Are you hopeful or no? You know, like,
Speaker 1: I because I've been subject to personal attacks, it's very, one thing like, I have a program of recovery. I've been in recovery for twenty one years. It's just in a sense, it's what enshrines and helps me practice my relationship with God. It's the most important thing to me. The thing I have to most be observant of and have to keenly avoid is is descent into self centeredness.
When you are when I am very frightened, it's very easy for me to drift into becoming quite myopic and insular. What I've observed, like, in this period from a personal perspective is that, like, I'm incredibly fortunate. I've got an amazing wife. I've got amazing, beautiful children that are healthy and doing well. I've got incredible people that I work with.
Like, oh my god. And another thing that's been amazing is like for a month, publicly, continually, I was like, you know, called the worst names you can call a man. And then I'd go out in public and people like, Russell, hey. We support you. We support you.
And like, like one time I was wearing like sort of like a family of all their daughters that were aged between like sort of 15 and 19. Oh, can you do photos of us? I was thinking if there were one group that would be negatively affected by what's just been publicly said about me, it would be the parents of teenage kids. And like, people aren't. People aren't buying it.
People aren't buying it. That's the problem. People are waking up. People start to think, well, well, Jesus. Is there gonna be a better example than your former and perhaps future president?
The more they hate him, the more people like him. Yes. The more people like him because what they know is they don't trust the establishment anymore. They cannot trust the establishment anymore. I was speaking from the perspective look.
This isn't the first time I've known personal crisis. I'm a drug acting recovery. I'm a product of a single parent family. I've come from I'm a normal person from a norm from a normal background. But what I would say is that in a sense, a crisis becomes an invitation.
A catastrophe is an invitation. And it seems like whether you're on the left or right, everyone believes catastrophe is coming, and it will be an invitation. It will be an invitation because if what we are being offered is a slow grind into endless war and more and more authoritarianism and more and more control of our personal lives and our ability ability to worship, our ability to affiliate, our ability to pray. If what's being if we what we've been invited to accept is the colonization of the self, of our ability to think freely, then what we got to lose when all they're offering us is more war, endless pandemics that are being legislatively enshrined even now through the WHO treaty. What have we actually got to lose?
I think in a sense, but in a perhaps they are, you know, if there is one God, one all powerful God, then surely that God is at work now. And surely that God is creating the perfect conditions for our mutual awakening. And perhaps what's required is the spur, the ignition of something so unbearable that people will awaken rather than endure it, rather than endure it any further. And perhaps that's what we're being offered now. Yes.
Of course, it seems like we're on the precipice of catastrophe geopolitically and from various potential health pandemics. But also it seems to me like a potential offering to awaken. And I don't think we have any choice other than to see it that way.
Speaker 0: Russell Brand, you have not been broken. You are at your very best. Your very best. And I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Thanks,
Speaker 1: Tucker.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi
Tucker Carlson and @RepClayHiggins discuss what actually happened on J6… this is an excellent account from Clay! @TCNetwork MUST-WATCH… https://t.co/Rr6VSGMd2j
Video Transcript AI Summary
Three years after January 6th, questions remain about the events of that day and the FBI's involvement. Congressman Clay Higgins directly questioned FBI Director Chris Wray about whether FBI assets were embedded among the protesters. Higgins asserts that evidence suggests the FBI had undercover agents dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol before the doors opened, potentially entrapping attendees. He estimates over 200 FBI assets were present, influencing the crowd and orchestrating actions leading to arrests. Higgins emphasizes the need for transparency and urges Speaker Mike Johnson to release all digital evidence from that day to the public, believing it will reveal the truth about the government's role in the events of January 6th.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It has been exactly 3 years since January 6th, the events of January 6th. The racist insurrection that shocked this nation to its core, more profoundly than anything since Pearl Harbor plus the civil war. And it has taken a while, honestly, even for people who aren't on the side of the professional liars to realize there's something amiss about what happened that day. Not just the response, the largest law enforcement mobilization in the history of the United States that was obviously disproportionate, because it wasn't the worst riot that year, not even close. But the day itself, there was something about January 6th that didn't feel right, and hovering over that day has remained the question to what extent was it a setup.
And we still don't really know, but what's interesting is how few people have asked that entirely legitimate question. One of the very few, really one of the only in the United States Congress, is a member called Clay Higgins from Louisiana. In case you haven't seen this clip, it's worth rewatching. This is from 2022 at Homeland Security Committee hearing where he asked it just directly of the FBI director. Why?
Speaker 1: Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protesters and on January 6, 2021?
Speaker 2: Well, Congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when
Speaker 1: Even now, that's what you told us a few
Speaker 2: years ago. Matt finish. About when we do and do not and where we have and have not used confidential human sources. But to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6th, that's categorically false.
Speaker 1: Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol on January 6th prior to the doors being open?
Speaker 2: Again, I had to be very careful
Speaker 1: with what be a no. Can you not tell the American people no? We did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the capitol. Gentlemen, Pam has expired. You should
Speaker 2: not read anything into my decision not to share information Director Ray. Confidential.
Speaker 1: Gentleman's time has expired.
Speaker 0: What a sleazy, repulsive, little authoritarian liar Chris Wray is. That's obvious when you watch that tape. The sad part is so few tapes like that exist because so few have confronted him directly and asked questions to which the entire country has a right to know the answer like that one. Clay Higgins did that. Congressman from Louisiana Louisiana Lafayette joins us in studio.
Congressman, thanks so much for coming up.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me, Tuck.
Speaker 0: So that was over a year ago that you asked that question, which is a central question, and you asked it as I think is appropriate without any embarrassment at all on behalf of your constituents and the rest of the country. Are you any closer to the answer now?
Speaker 1: Well, we're closer to being in a position where we can reveal the answers that we already have. Much of the evidence that we have compiled from investigative effort over the the course of the last couple of years. Some offices like my own would have operated in silos of investigative endeavor, have now been able to come together now that we have a republican majority and we have access to the to the to the staffs of the appropriate investigative committees. And so I sit on the oversight committee and we republicans run that committee now, therefore we control the staff. So when you can magnify the efforts that individual, members of congress have have have pushed within our own offices.
When you can magnify those efforts by the the skill and the numbers of staff from the committees, you you get a lot of evidence reviewed professionally and aligned and assembled into essentially a case file. And in in this case, this is a big file because the the the involvement of of certain actors, and you could say deep state actors within the federal government, to set the stage for, what happened in in j 4, 5, and 6, and and to, entrap thousands of Americans from across the country and lure them into this this set stage on j 4, 5, and 6. The people that were involved in that is is is quite a large web. So, yes, sir. We do have a great deal of evidence compiled, and we are we are gradually, professionally, rolling that evidence out.
So you sort
Speaker 0: of answered the question right there in larger terms. You just said that elements within the federal government, I assume law enforcement intel and military, and I'm using your words, lured Americans to Washington into what you called a trap. Yes, sir. So that would I mean, that's a shocking and I assume that's a that's a sober conclusion based on the evidence. That's what you're saying.
Speaker 1: That's that would be my sober assessment as an investigator, and I'm, you know, I'm quite a I love my country, and and I've I've always been a staunch defender of the thin blue line. And I I would proudly count the FBI amongst that number. They're just like brothers to me. So to find that level of, of conspiratorial corruption at the highest levels of the FBI has been very troubling to me as a man, as a cop, and and yet did you know, you follow the evidence wherever it leads, and Yes. This is what investigators do.
So, when I asked Christopher Wray that that question, for instance, I already knew the answer. I had reviewed compelling evidence that the that FBI had assets, human assets, dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol prior to the doors being open and the masses allowed in. So now I I knew that the FBI was deeply involved. I'd seen evidence even at that time with, that the FBI had embedded themselves into various groups online across the country of Americans who were essentially voicing their their concerns and airing their grievances with each other about COVID oppression. Those Americans were targeted by the FBI, almost universally, Republicans and and, largely Trump supporters, but the FBI worked undercover to infiltrate those conversations and become a significant part of those individual Americans' communications.
And when you dig into the evidence that we've we've had revealed through through some criminal cases that I've I've followed and worked with the families of j six political detainees and Americans that have been persecuted for their involvement in in the capital that day. And some of that evidence is shockingly reveals that the the the FBI agents that were operating undercover within the online groups across the country were were the first ones to plant the seeds of of, suggestions of of a more radical occupation of the capital and and they were sort of testing the waters of who amongst that group would would begin acknowledging that, you know, yeah, may maybe we should do that. Maybe we should plan for an occupation like that. But if you look at the the origins of those conversations, it it was started by the the FBI undercover guy that was operating inside the group. And then months later, on January 4th, 5th, 6th, many of those Americans met for the first time in person when they gathered for the massive rally where American patriots assembled to object to to everything that had happened during 2020, the COVID oppression, and the the stunning results of what we believe was a compromised election cycle in November 2020.
So Americans gathered at their own capital to to appropriately air grievances and protest at their capital, but embedded amongst their number was an FBI asset that had been working from within their group online for many months. So this was the level of of manipulative effort that the FBI invested into American citizenry and our our assembly online to, and to exercise our rights under the first amendment, to talk to each other about whatever we wanna talk about, including the the the insidious suppressions of COVID that we were suffering across the country. So and our concerns about where the election was going, the whole mail in ballot thing, we could see the stage was being set for a compromised election cycle possibly, and to our horror that's what happened. So FBI had fingerprints on this thing from from many months prior to j 4, 5, and 6.
Speaker 0: I wanna go back to something you said in the first sentence, which is you have seen evidence and that's for your questions to Chris Wray that there were FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters within the capital. So that is proof of entrapment because, of course, the federal government could have prevented entry into the capital building. Aren't that many doors. You work there, you know. But they allowed people in on purpose to entrap them.
That's what that proves, I think. Does it not?
Speaker 1: Well, it's certainly condemning. It's another piece of the of the strategy that the that the government employed to sort of complete the entrapment of Americans that they had had, infiltrated and then prodded and provoked with online with the with the those original seeds planted of of, actions like, you know, what type of gear to wear and and and just in language that incited behavior that could go the wrong way. You know, pushing actions of of legal and legitimate peaceful protest to an edge where where those Americans would likely not have gone had they not been been, you know, encouraged by the FBI plant amongst their number that they didn't know was there. So by the time it was actually j 6 and you had you had, masses of Americans assembled outside the capitol, almost, like, 99.9%, 100% peaceful. On the inside, you had FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters that knew their way around the capitol.
Before the doors even open. Before the doors open. Or else how are you gonna get around the capitol? You've been there many times. You need a guide to get from whatever door you go in.
It's a labyrinth. It's, yeah, it's it's a maze inside there. So you that's right. So there's no way just Americans, most of which, had never been to the capitol, There's no way they can come in some random door that gets opened and then get their way directly to the to the statuary or the house chamber or the senate chamber. It's just not possible.
So the the the FBI assets that were dressed as Trump supporters that were inside the capitol were there, I believe, and evidence indicates that they were there to to specifically waive in the the Trump supporters that had gathered outside the capitol, and the doors open and they were allowed in. And on the inside were were oh, there's some more Trump supporters, but really those were FBI assets, law enforcement assets that knew their way around the capital. And they they waved those guys in, said, come on. Follow us. And they they're the ones that led them on the path directly.
Now how do you think of guys? Never been to the capital. Gotta gotta come into the capitol all amped up on on emotion and make his way straight to Nancy Pelosi's office. Come on. It's like I couldn't get to there's no way.
I've been there for 7 years. Could come in some random door at the capitol and make my way to Nashville. Everything is unmarked.
Speaker 0: I mean, those leadership offices are unmarked. So how would
Speaker 1: you know? It's confusing to get around in the capitol. Every American that has been there knows this. When you go on a tour, you bring your family to DC, you go through the capital, you have to have a guide. And and on January 6th, the guides were FBI assets, the law enforcement assets, and they were dressed as Trump supporters.
They were positioned inside the capitol prior to the doors being open so that the Americans that had assembled outside the capitol, once allowed in, could be brought directly to the areas where the FBI, the DOJ, and the deep state actors knew would be the most, the most sort of condemning criminal action of of Americans being a lot being inside the capital, protesting without permit and things. So they knew they were setting the stage for arrest and prosecution. It's such a crime. Who who planned this, do you think? I think factions planned this.
I wouldn't say who talked about it because that, yeah, I don't think there was one person that that planned this, but I believe the the faction of, establishment liberals within the FBI and the Democrat Party and our intelligence services to to another extent, use their massive powers of surveillance and, investigative, assets that they have across the country, confidential informants, registered informants, non registered informants, voluntary informants. It's a it's a complex web of of FBI assets across the country that can be activated. So if you have authority at some of the highest levels in the FBI, it doesn't take much, the faction within the FBI and within our intelligence services that would coordinate with with the most extreme liberal, factions within a Democrat party that were desperate to keep Trump out of office, and and, you know, worked within the the theater of operations, shall we say, that had been that had been set by the COVID alleged medical emergencies nationwide and millions and millions of mail in ballots. There's no daylight between the the compromised election cycle of November 2020 and ultimately what happened on on on j6. So you ask who planned this?
This would be the combination of several several of the most extreme liberal anti Trump, anti America First factions that, that were in positions of authority within our federal law enforcement organizations and the the Democrat party across the country.
Speaker 0: Can when you say that there were FBI assets in the crowd, it in the building beforehand and and certainly outside, What's the scale of this? You're talking, like, 10, 20? No.
Speaker 1: Based upon some very conservative, but, like, hard investigative effort evaluation of of the numbers from putting together eyewitnesses and and videos and, and affidavit statement, and whistleblower statements, and court records that have been revealed through individual criminal cases where j6 defendants have been prosecuted, and smart attorneys have forced, admissions by the DOJ and the FBI, but those admissions have been sealed within the parameter of that criminal case by protective order by the judge, so they I I can't share them, but I've seen them. So real hard objective and conservative, estimates would would put the number of FBI assets in the crowd outside and working inside at at well over 200. 200? Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So you're in law enforcement. Yeah. Yep. Before you came to congress in the military as well, that seemed that's an extraordinary number.
Is it?
Speaker 1: Well, no. When you think about the scope of the operation, if you were gonna do this, you would need you would
Speaker 0: need that relative to so like when, I don't know, Minneapolis burned down or when Saint John's, the Episcopal Church of Carson, the White House in Lafayette Square was set ablaze, and all the secret service agents were injured. Were there 200 FBI assets in the crowd among Antifa then?
Speaker 1: I mean, I I don't know how many undercover agents FBI would have in a situation like that, but but but but j 6 was the was the was the final act prior to arrest and prosecution of of Americans that that were identified as as Trump supporters. I mean, the objective was to destroy the entire MAGA movement, to to forever stain the, the patriotic fervor that was associated with with the America First Mega Movement that had won in 2016 and we believe won again in 2020, and the the establishment on both sides, both major parties were determined to smash that out of existence, not just by defeating Trump, but by destroying the reputations of the movement itself by creating this narrative that was totally false, but was heavily pushed that mega Republicans, America First Republicans are somehow a danger to our republic and a a domestic terror threat, which is a whole another story about what the FBI has done to tagging Americans as, suspected domestic terrorists and and following us as we travel across the country. But the the bottom line is that, 200 as a I I believe is a conservative number. First of all, I think there were there's many more, But a number that I'm comfortable going on record with is that we believe that there were that there were easily 200 FBI undercover assets operating in the crowd, outside the capital, embedded into groups that entered the capital or provoked entry of the capital, and working with FBI assets that would have included Metro Police and Capitol Police that would dress as Trump supporters inside the capital because those were the guys that knew their way around the capitol.
So given the scope of the operation and the number of doors where entry was allowed or even encouraged, and the number of people that were actually outside the capital and it entered, we believe 200 is a conservative number. Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: It's it's shocking what you're saying. It confirms everyone's worst suspicions about this. It's clearly true. Did you come across any evidence that the the DOD, the military, either Defense Intelligence Agency or National Guard or any part of the US military played any role in this at all?
Speaker 1: I have not seen that. I've heard the echoes of that suspicion, and I have I have observed, circumstantial evidence that that has been presented to me, that I've that I have reviewed, but to but to me, it does not rise to the level that I would call actionable from an investigative perspective. So there's some there was some suspicion, but in in in law enforcement the thresholds you're looking across is reasonable suspicion that would prompt a criminal investigation, and then the next threshold is probable cause, which you need for arrest. And then of course in our system, finally, the last threshold is is, is conviction, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So the I I did review evidence, Tucker, regarding some suspicions of military involvement in some way, but and I and I've I have reviewed some of that evidence that that had been that I've been able to get my hands on, and, I do not think that the the military was, was involved, not at the level, most certainly not at the level of the of the FBI and, over the course of all of 2020.
And then on j 4, 5, and 6, the FBI working in coordination with other law enforcement assets that that they roped into the operation Right. From Metro PD, from DC, and and, the Capitol Police was sort of sort of tricked into participating with the with what the FBI had been staging for, you know, 10 months. Just a bit
Speaker 0: if you take 3 steps back, this is not democracy. So the federal agencies serve under the oversight of the elected president, and then on under the oversight of the elected congress. Their elected people get to make the decisions. You have a Republican president. You now have a Republican congress, and neither one can get a straight answer from the FBI.
No no one has any control of the FBI. You're describing a government within a government.
Speaker 1: Well, in America, a question becomes reasonable men would would would ask when we face a crisis like this, who investigates the investigate? Right. And the answer in America is is congress. So we we have the responsibility to investigate through the appropriate committees, which would we're certainly we're certainly doing that now that we have a republican majority in control of the committees, but we don't have the power to arrest. We can we can give criminal referrals based upon our investigative efforts, but we have to have a DOJ that's receptive to the criminal referrals.
So we we've hit quite a a brick wall, have we not? Constitutionally, we we have the responsibility to investigate objectively, and and and anyone that knows me know that's exactly what I'm I'm pursuing. I do not have I'm not trying to create a crime to fit a narrative to blame on the FBI. I'm following the evidence, and and to my horror, it implicates our FBI at the highest level, and a and a a conspiracy within our government at the highest level to create the the, to set the stage for a compromised election cycle in 2020, and then the the the actions that took place on j 4, 5, and 6, and then the the criminal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Americans that they were able to entrap and document with the thousands of cameras that were operating that day and use that evidence that they knew they were setting up to investigate, arrest, and prosecute the Americans that they had entrapped. So Congress can investigate these things, and we and we are, and we will reveal these horrific truths, and we will have criminal referrals.
But until you have a a a president running the executive branch that will clean house at the DOJ and FBI at the highest levels and put American patriots in place that will be that will act upon the criminal referrals that that congress provides, then none of those guys are gonna get arrested because they're not gonna arrest themselves, and we don't have arrest authority.
Speaker 0: I'm a little surprised and don't expect to be critical of your colleagues in the Republican conference, but, I mean, they do control the house. Impeachment is a thing. Chris Wray is still the FBI director. I watched Republicans, some of whom I know, cheer the murder of Ashley Babbitt who was unarmed woman less than 55, by Michael Byrd. They were Michael Byrd side, and it I have to say for a lot of Republican voters and I count myself among them.
Very clarifying. If you're cheering Ashley Babbitt's murder shooting women now, that's okay because she likes Trump. And the Republicans were like, yeah. I was happy. Like, a lot of them thought that.
What the hell?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was and it it made me sick. Me too. You know, I'm there's a a great responsibility when you when you wear a badge in America. I mean, think about it.
To be to be the to be the designated servant of your community that has that has the the authority to, to deny the freedom of a fellow American in the land of the free. Like, that's a heavy responsibility. So the the escalation of of force is must be appropriate in order to affect a lawful arrest, and and a a bad a bad shoot is the worst thing that an officer can possibly be involved in in his in his career. It's it's, you know, we it's it's it's the thing of nightmares for for good police officers. So to take what was what was from a law enforcement perspective was clearly a bad shoot because there's some basic rules you just cannot violate.
You have to attempt to effect an arrest before you can go to deadly force. There was there was no attempt to arrest Ashley Batman. There were there were officers on the other side of the window she was climbing through. There were officers on the interior side of the window she was climbing through. There was no indication that had been that this had been going on for an hour, and there was there was no reports on the radio or anywhere else of of gunfights.
So there was no reason at that point to expect that Ashley Babin or anybody else in the in the crowd was gonna produce a firearm and start firing on police officers. Why? Because it had not happened. So that's part of the totality of circumstance that a police officer is responsible for knowing. We stay in constant communication with our radios.
We know what's going on. That officer that that that pulled that trigger would shot a a American woman who was clearly in a in like a physically compromised position climbing through the broken glass of a of a window is not, you know, it's not like she just stepped into the cage in MMA and she was ready to fight. She was climbing through a window draped in a flag. There's police officers on the other side of the window. There's police officers on the interior side of the window.
So you have plenty enough officer presence. If you wanna arrest that woman, then by all means, pull it through the window, you know, put flex cuffs on her and throw her in the corner. We'll get to you later, ma'am. We're kinda busy right now. That's what you do.
You'd have grabbed that woman and pulled her through the and threw her in the corner, or handed her back to somebody that could pull her back, you know, from that front line right there. So understand that very well, I understand officers have to make split second decisions, but you never you never make a decision to use lethal force unless it's absolutely called for and required, if you're losing a fight attempting to effect an arrest, then then, yeah, if if there's if if the officer's life is in danger and he's all by himself, but there's never should be a circumstance where you just pull the trigger and a woman climbing through a window that's clearly unarmed. There's no evidence of gunplay from the crowd that she's coming from. You got officers on both side of where she is. If you gotta arrest her, then by all means, arrest her.
You know, to put flex cups on her and and move on. So, you know, she'd nannle the next person trying to come through the window, but she don't shoot her. So that was a
Speaker 0: bad issue. An invest a reveal investigation. Was cheered.
Speaker 1: Yep. Why do you think that was? And there's this in there's this insanity that has taken hold in the in the the minds and hearts of many otherwise reasonable American citizens where they did they they hate Trump so much. Like, they're they're so deeply embedded, and they're they've sold their souls to the establishment that when we had an America first president and and he and he, like, stopped the, the military industrial complex forward momentum and and he and he began restoring power to individual members of congress and restoring individual rights and freedoms and sovereignty of the state, and he took away the actions of the cartels and and brought this this real common sense approach to the executive branch and was leading our country in that beautiful direction. This was interfering with the business model of the establishment.
So many career politicians on both sides of the aisle, and I, you know, I don't like those guys, man. I'm not one of them. And I I served my country in congress, but, I I don't consider myself a politician by any means. I'm a servant to We The People. Some of these guys, man, they pop out of the womb to be to be politicians.
They get groomed their whole life, you know, to be a a career politician. And those are the ones that had this instinctive cheer for something really bad happening to a Trump supporter. You know, they their true color showed in that moment and was an ugly color. Yeah. That's it.
Speaker 0: We shouldn't be shooting women, number 1. I couldn't agree more. So where where does this go from here? You have this corpus of information. It sounds like it's definitive.
When does the public see the detail, and what's the process after that?
Speaker 1: It's a good question. So evidence from criminal investigations by nature is rather secretive, but there is a, a tremendous compilation of data that I think should be made completely available to the public, and that's the digital files from from j 4, 5, and 6. This is where, speaker Mike Johnson can be a champion for for that will be remembered for throughout history as the speaker of the house that fully released unredacted, digital files from j 4, 5, and 6 completely to the American people. And within that data, there is full truth, and and the American people, it is the only staff large enough to, you know, frame by frame, go through 80,000 hours of digital evidence. Nobody has a staff big enough to do that, but we can crowdsource it to the American people.
So you ask when will this evidence be released? I'd I've I've been encouraging speaker Johnson, as I did speaker McCarthy, to, my god, man, release this data to the American people.
Speaker 0: Why won't why won't they?
Speaker 1: I believe speaker Johnson will, but but Mike is a is is quite a skilled constitutionalist attorney himself, and he's a very measured, patient, faithful man. So, I have I extend trust to to speaker Johnson when he says that it's his intention to fully release the the call the j6 tapes, but really it's digital evidence, it's more than it's more than just video evidence, it's it's a lot. You know, radio transcripts, the whole thing. I I believe my speaker Johnson knows that this is a significant, duty that he must he he he must perform for the American people. It's a moment in history where where, you know, I believe our lord and savior has placed him in that in that position of service to the country, and he has a responsibility to to fully release that data.
And then the American people will see for themselves what some of us have already learned to our horror to be true.
Speaker 0: Congressman Hinggens, thank you very much. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi
🚨NO MORE RINOS! Please listen to @teameffujoe: “We need to stop @LeaderMcConnell !!! CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND LET THEM KNOW YOU WANT A PUBLIC BALLOT AND @SenRickScott @ScottforFlorida as the Sen Majority Leader”… https://t.co/gLeQ9KGgdT
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mitch McConnell is attempting to undermine the Trump agenda by calling for early leadership votes with a secret ballot for Senate majority leader, allowing only three candidates. Two of these candidates oppose Trump’s goals, while Rick Scott is the only one who supports the agenda we voted for. If McConnell installs one of the other candidates, progress will be stalled, and bills will require compromises with the left. It's crucial for Trump supporters to contact their representatives to oppose a secret ballot and advocate for Rick Scott as majority leader. We need to ensure that the Senate moves forward with Trump’s agenda, not hinder it with liberal leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A Republican senator Mitch McConnell is already trying to undercut the Trump agenda you voted for. Now I said after Trump got elected that it was our job as conservative creators on this platform to hold the Republican party accountable to do what they said they were gonna do. We're gonna start with that sneaky sack of shit, Mitch McConnell. So Senator McConnell has called for early leadership votes. He wants to hold a secret ballot on Wednesday to decide the Senate majority leader and he's only allowing 3 people to run.
Now, 2 of those people are completely against what Trump wants to do. They are completely against what we all just voted for, especially that fucking liberal John Cornyn. Now out of these 3, there's only one that's on board with the agenda. There's only one that's actually gonna help Trump accomplish everything he promised to do and everything we voted for. That's senator Rick Scott.
Now anybody that's been following me for a while knows I have my own criticisms of Rick, but in comparison to those other 2, he's amazing. And most important of all, he is the only one out of those 3 who is actually gonna work to push Trump's agenda, The agenda we all just voted for. If we install 1 of those other 2 as a senate majority leader, this shit is gonna get held up. All the bills are gonna have to come with special favors for the left and for private organizations. The only way we're gonna be able to actually get shit done, it was Rick Scott as the senate majority leader.
Like I said, the election is on Wednesday. So anybody who voted for Trump and actually wants him to execute his agenda, you need to reach out to your congressman or woman. You need to let them know that you are not gonna stand by and let them install some liberal to run the senate. That's not what we voted for. We voted for the Trump agenda.
We voted for the actual clearing of the swamp and voting out people like Mitch McConnell. But don't let Mitch McConnell put a stop to this before it even gets started. Because make no mistake, if he puts in one of those other 2, nothing is getting done. He puts in one of those other 2, we might as well not even have won the senate. And don't worry, we're gonna deal with Mitch McConnell and those other 2 in the next election.
But until then, they need to get the fuck out of the way and let Trump do what we voted for him to do. So contact your congressman or woman and let them know that one, you don't want a secret ballot. You wanna know exactly who every one of these senators is voting for. Number 2, let them know you want Rick Scott. Let them know you want an actual Republican, not a liberal who just pretends so he can get elected.
@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi
BE PREPARED. @DanBongino shares a list of the things we need to be prepared for the worst threat we face. LISTEN. https://t.co/ofbJPsgXQO
Video Transcript AI Summary
You should have Faraday bags and EMP protection devices for your car and home. Have a generator, but the speaker cannot recommend Generac. Store an extra supply of gasoline safely. Secure water filtration and a way to bottle water, if not bottled water itself.
Stock firearms with working, properly stored ammunition, potassium iodide, water and general disinfectants like alcohol and peroxide, and a stash of antibiotics. Have buckets and barrels to store water and aim to be self-sufficient for 3 to 6 months.
The speaker believes that in the event of a grid wipeout, those unprepared will be desperate. Ensure you have enough ammunition, possibly for hunting or self-defense. Consider a quiet slingshot for small game. The speaker warns against being caught unprepared.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You should have some Faraday bags in your house to protect against an EMP number 1. You can put these, EMP protection devices on your car and your home. You should have a generator. Just after the Generac debacle. I cannot recommend this company, yesterday.
What a mess. You should have a generator. You should have an extra supply of gasoline, safely stored, of course. Be very careful with that. You should obviously have water filtration, and you should have a way to bottle water, if not bottled water itself.
You should have firearms. You should have ammunition that works and properly stored. You should have potassium iodide. You should have water disinfectants and actual disinfectants, alcohol peroxide. You should have a stash of antibiotics.
We've had multiple sponsors with that product, and other companies do it too. Folks, please be prepared. You should have a way. You should have some buckets and some barrels to store some water. You should be able to survive for 3 to 6 months on your own.
I may sound crazy, but, folks, I'm telling you, if they wipe out our grid, the only crazy people are gonna be the ones crazily knocking at your door asking for your food. And make sure you have enough ammunition, by the way. You may need it to hunt. God forbid you need it to protect yourself. Get yourself a wrist rocket, a slingshot that's quiet.
That way you can take out some small game possibly. But you may you think this sounds nuts and all the lefties, you guys, they'll be knocking at your door when the satellites go down. Don't let that be you.
@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi
@dbongino is the correct handle how did I miss that ?!🙄😵🙄😵🙄
@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi
“Please don’t California our U.S.” says @Tiffany_Gomas who shares this video of Kamala’s hometown of Oakland, CA… “This is what the progressive dream really looks like….The place she’s represented in elected office for 20 years.” https://t.co/bSNhBXGUMB
@NanLee1124 - NanLee2
🚨INSURRECTION vs FED-SURRECTION: What really happened on J6? Listen to Lara Logan for the TRUTH exposed! @laralogan @Truth_InMedia⬇️ https://t.co/VbuylOVRrL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Multiple undercover agents and informants have been involved in various incidents throughout history. For example, in Michigan, there were more informants and agents than actual kidnappers in a right-wing militia plot. The FBI has also infiltrated left-wing groups like Occupied Cleveland. On January 6th, a man named Ray Epps, who was seen leading the charge into the Capitol, has raised suspicions of being an informant. Footage shows him pushing a large MAGA sign towards police officers, an act that got others charged with assault. Meanwhile, other individuals involved in the Capitol breach have faced harsh sentences, despite being poor or middle-class individuals who were there to protest the election. There is evidence suggesting that undercover law enforcement officers may have encouraged and assisted individuals in entering the Capitol. The investigation into the events of January 6th is ongoing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When federal agents go undercover these days there's often more than 1. That's how you end up with at least Five FBI agents and informants in a tiny right wing militia in Michigan supposedly plotting to kidnap the governor only to find out there were more informants and undercover agents than kidnappers. And in April 1991, According to senior counterterrorism expert, JM Berger, agents posed as members of an invented racist militia group called the Veterans Aryan Movement, whose cover story was that they robbed armored cars to buy weapons and support their extremist ideology. But it's not just the right. The FBI also has a history of infiltrating left wing groups like Occupied Cleveland.
6 anarchists were arrested in 2012 for plotting to blow up a bridge in Ohio, but in court it emerged they were led by an FBI informant. And when we started looking into the role of government agents and informants on January 6th, It seemed as if there wasn't much political will to find real answers.
Speaker 1: Wherever there was trouble to be found outside the capital on January 6th, there was also a decent chance you could find Raheps.
Speaker 2: We are going to the capital.
Speaker 1: The self declared Trump supporter from Arizona wasn't just directing people.
Speaker 2: The capital's misdirection.
Speaker 1: He was at the 1st main breach around 12:52 PM with what the department of justice described in the statement of offense from his case As the vanguard of rioters, trespassing on restricted grounds, and whispering into the ear of a man named Ryan Samsell, Who's in prison for what he did seconds later. Then Epps joined the flood of rioters Who stormed through the downed barricades and breached the first line of defense according to the DOJ. A short way down the path, When rioters took down more barricades, the DOJ said Epps continued to penetrate the restricted grounds And headed for the west plaza, also a restricted area. Thanks to his tall frame and red hat, You can make him out amidst the crowd at these barriers, where he is once again in the 1st group to break Through and get past the police. After that, he's seen all along the defensive police line walking up and down and here and there.
Hot commander, hot peacemaker.
Speaker 2: They're not the army. Thank you for making this. Appreciate that. I can keep them on your step. Is that okay?
Speaker 1: As noted by the media, the DOJ and the January 6th committee We have all come to the defense of Rayap's, and there's one thing that hasn't come up as much in interviews or under oath.
Speaker 3: We have video of Rahab's holding up this huge MAGA sign, steel MAGA sign, and he's actually helping push it. Some
Speaker 4: Some of the men who
Speaker 3: were touching that sign, they're in prison today.
Speaker 1: Jim Haft runs The Gateway Pundit, an online news site that's been a thorn in the side of progressives And establishment sensors ever since he started blogging some 20 years ago when the Internet was still fairly new, Few have devoted as much time to covering January 6th as Haft and his team of reporters who've published well over a 1000 stories In two and a half years, he told us they were one of the first to report on the possibility, still unconfirmed, That Ray Epps may be an informant.
Speaker 3: Couple of these guys touched it because it went over their head, and they didn't wanna get hit in the head. It got pushed at police. No police officer was injured, but these these people were still sent to prison. So they're in prison today for this. Ray Epps is pushing the sign, and he was never arrested for that.
Right? So it's just another incident of Ray Epps This suspicious activity, the media won't report this, but, we have the footage and we'll be glad to share it with you.
Speaker 1: Haft did share the footage with us and you can see the sign going over the crowd as he described. Here, Epps reached up and touched it for about 10 seconds and then made this gesture with his hand signaling toward the capital and the police. As the sign passed and changed direction, Epps can be seen on camera pushing it towards the line of officers and then joined in in pushing the crowd forward. We couldn't ask him about this because he didn't respond to our requests for an interview, And his attorney declined. There's no doubt about Epps touching the sign.
That was confirmed by the DOJ and Ray Epps himself In the statement of offense he signed when he plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge for disorderly conduct on restricted grounds In September of this year, it said he touched the sign with both hands and specifically mentioned the hand signal seen on camera where Epps pointed forward toward the line of officers several times. The government offered no explanation for what that meant and did not address Epps pushing the sign at police, an act that got others charged with various offenses, including assault. Also not in dispute, the fact that Epps was pushing with the crowd. According to the statement, a group of rioters, including Epps, Pushed forward, leaning their bodies on each other. Again, no explanation was offered.
Speaker 5: REAPS denies Being a source or undercover or anything, you know, says it's all nonsense, not true in the least. His wife says the same, so does his attorney. Why don't you believe him?
Speaker 3: Oh, I think, it's the strangest Story, isn't it? Here you have, the January 6th committee. You have the media Defending this man who's clearly leading efforts to get people inside the capital.
Speaker 5: How does anyone prove that someone is a Confidential source for law enforcement, whether it's the armed homeland security, JTTF, Joint Terrorism Task Force, FBI, ATF, right, or as we found out even TAB, I mean, how do you find out? These agencies are never going to admit it.
Speaker 3: You know, I think the what what's interesting is, Raps had threatened to sue some people.
Speaker 5: He has sued some people.
Speaker 3: He he needs to put his money for where his mouth is.
Speaker 1: In a series of news reports, Hafden, the gateway pundit, traced what happened to other protesters who touched the sign and ended up in prison. Brad Smith, Who was 24 years old when he was raided by the FBI, got an assault charge and almost three and a half years for placing his hands on the sign for a few seconds and a conspiracy charge for texting with friends about Saving DC according to his mother. One of his friends, marshal Neef, a young father from Pennsylvania with severe mental health issues, Also got close to three and a half years for, according to the DOJ, carrying a wooden club and participating in hoisting and pushing A large metal sign frame into a defensive line of officers. 30 year old Thomas Patrick Hamner Pledged guilty to one charge for grabbing and assisting in throwing the sign and got 30 months. Jose Padilla from Tennessee and Sean McHugh from California both got six and a half years 78 months for touching the sign and other charges, McHugh, a young father, spent 2 years in prison waiting for his trial.
Vietnam vet Howard Richardson and Alan William Bialy, both from Pennsylvania, also touched the sign But were imprisoned for unrelated assault charges. Two and a half years later, Reaes has yet to set foot in jail, Although he could get anything from 0 to 6 months for his misdemeanor charge when sentenced in December. In his plea agreement, the justice department cited his lack of criminal convictions as a factor in sentencing. We took a closer look and found no convictions, but our search turned up what appeared to be an outstanding arrest warrant In Pennsylvania from 2015, it was ironically for the same crime Epps was urging people to commit at the capital, Criminal trespass. We contacted the victim named in the arresting officer's report, but have withheld her identity for privacy reasons.
She declined to comment, but we did reach the judge in the case, Daniel O'Donnell. Case records showed he signed off on two updates, 1 in July 2022, the other in October of this year. But he stressed the class c misdemeanor for defiant trespass was minor. Judges in Washington, DC seem to have taken a different view. By July this year, they'd sent close to 200 January 6th defendants To prison for trespassing and other charges.
Jim Hoff said he's tried to cover as many cases as he can, But it's hard to keep up. Prosecutions and arrests continue to this day.
Speaker 5: What about rehabs? And he gets death Now he's afraid for his safety.
Speaker 3: I think that's tragic. I don't I don't recommend that for anyone. You know, I don't recommend it for you, for, conservatives, I don't recommend it for for liberals. That's, that's very sad, right? I've had death threats.
I know I've had the police come to my door telling me, that they got calls from Washington, D. See, and my name is on a Antifa hit list, and so we're gonna have somebody sit outside your house for a while because, Your your name is on this list. So I know how that is.
Speaker 1: In light of his security concerns, we agreed not to close the exact location of Jim Haft's home in Saint Louis, Missouri where we met. Haft, now 61, Lives with his partner and runs the Gateway Pundit from here. He said it's become one of the biggest online news sites With almost 3,000,000 page views a day in spite of the left's best efforts to discredit him and his work.
Speaker 5: And I'm following you.
Speaker 3: You're in charge. The the big office. Yep.
Speaker 1: The nerve center.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So much for the newsrooms of old. Right?
Speaker 3: See this picture there? So my family's from Iowa, and my grandfather, in World War 1, when on armistice day, he put up a flagpole when he was a little boy, and it was in a town called Herring. And everybody moved away from the town. The only thing left Today is a flagpole that my grandfather put up, so I bought the town. So I own this plot of land with the flagpole, and those are my little Nice as we did a celebration.
Town?
Speaker 0: But the whole town is just
Speaker 3: A flagpole left. Everything was torn down. Isn't that a great little Americana story? It's just
Speaker 6: This is you. Right? You're in this picture? Yeah. That's you up there.
Speaker 1: Haft showed us some of the footage Gateway Pundit has featured in its reporting. His critics love to say he's far right fake news, But he'll tell you that's because he's exposing what they don't want known or seen.
Speaker 3: This is a slow motion Of the actual flashbang grenades being fired into the crowd. Look at this. And these people have no idea that this is about to blow up in their face.
Speaker 1: They also don't seem to be doing anything
Speaker 5: but standing around. Can you Yeah. Can you go back
Speaker 3: on that
Speaker 1: list, Jim?
Speaker 3: They're just standing around. They're not even looking at the police or anything. They're talking to each other. They're conversing. They're have no idea what is about to happen to them.
And they're not they're not pummeling cops. They're not spray painting buildings.
Speaker 5: What have we learned about January 6th? That we learned because of you first, stories you broke before anyone else.
Speaker 3: Well, I know our one One of our writers, exceptional writer, Cassandra Fairbanks, after, officer Sicknick, she was the first one to talk to the family, and she Broke some stories about the officer and about the, fire extinguisher. I believe Cassandra was the first one to point out that, after speaking with the family that it he he wasn't hit.
Speaker 5: Which was a really, really big story.
Speaker 3: Huge Story.
Speaker 5: I mean, because the whole narrative of January 6 hinged on officer Sicknick's death.
Speaker 4: Right. Because
Speaker 5: he was the only person they claimed had been murdered by protesters.
Speaker 3: At that time, yes.
Speaker 5: And it was false.
Speaker 3: It was completely made up. And not just killed, but he was beaten in the head with a Fire extinguisher. I mean, that was her story, and they all ran with
Speaker 5: it. Everyone.
Speaker 3: Our reporter, Kara Castronova, she interviewed, the gentleman who got pushed off the 2nd story ledge by the police officer.
Speaker 5: Sir. So That footage is clear as day. There is the balustrade, and people are climbing up there. And a police officer with a blue helmet?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Kill people. He Should've killed him. He's lucky to be alive. People, you know, had to drag him away.
Speaker 1: Was he badly injured?
Speaker 3: I think he was injured pretty Badly. He didn't wanna speak about it because he was afraid he's getting arrested, so he didn't talk about it for a long time, this guy.
Speaker 1: This guy was Derek Vargo, A 31 year old man living in Tennessee who suffered severe foot and spinal injuries and broke his ankle when he hit the ground some 20 feet Below, people like him don't usually get to tell their stories to the New York Times, but Jim Haft will give them a voice and a chance.
Speaker 4: Most of
Speaker 3: these people were poor or middle class or lower middle class. These weren't people with a lot of money. These were people who went there for the first time. Of the prisoners that I've spoken with, I spoke with an attorney a a week or two ago, and she told me that She believes 90% of these people are on have, attorneys that are appointed to them because they just don't have the money. You know
Speaker 1: So public defenders Yes.
Speaker 0: Who are typically left leaning or far left in their views?
Speaker 3: Well, certainly in Washington, DC. Absolutely. And in most big cities across the country.
Speaker 5: So you have people whose politics is the exact opposite of those protesting representing them in court?
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 5: And somehow they're supposed to get a real defense.
Speaker 3: Yeah. It doesn't make any sense. And we've seen the results of these trials. And It's heartbreaking. And you see a woman who walked through the capitol with a flag.
She's a former Social worker. She dealt with addiction, addictive people, and she carried the flag and she has cancer, And they arrest her and and put her in jail for 60 days because she walked through the Capitol. What kind of sense does that make in this country? How can anyone who has any integrity say that this was a fair sentence? And it's she's not the only one.
We've seen a lot of people like that.
Speaker 1: Or would the counterargument to that
Speaker 5: be, well, they interrupted an official proceeding, and they were part of an insurrection? We don't care what people actually did in the capitol. It's the fact that they were there where they had no legal right to be.
Speaker 3: Well, they can say that, but, I mean, you could say the same thing about any Black Lives Matter, protests that was going on when they're burning down a building. I mean, these are bogus charges. To me, this is a political hit. It's it's it it breaks my heart because a lot of these people don't have a pot to piss in. I had mentioned a defendant who just went to court last about 2 weeks ago.
This defendant is Camping because he doesn't have any money to stay in a hotel. And
Speaker 1: So he has to come to Washington, DC to For
Speaker 3: his trial.
Speaker 5: Trial. But he he has to pay to get himself there, and he has to
Speaker 3: And he has to pay to eat or stay somewhere. And I put up the story, and it's It's heartbreaking. It's to me, it's absolutely heartbreaking. This is sort of my background. 9 kids in a Catholic family in Iowa.
My father was always struggling to own a business. I I can relate to these sorts of things. I can relate to running out of gas, you know, and Walking to the gas station and things like that, that's my that's my background. We put up a Gibson Go form, and I'm very proud of this. These stories make me the most happy, And that is that we our audience, god bless them, raised $29,000 for this guy in 24 or 36 hours.
29,000 they donated so he could stay in a hotel. Well, obviously, that's gonna cover more than a hotel. Probably more money than this guy's ever seen in his life.
Speaker 1: Do you think
Speaker 5: Those, people on January 6th were framed.
Speaker 3: Oh, absolutely. Not a one of them was there for to plan an insurrection. The people were there to protest the election, and I think the only organization Organized activity that day came from, many of these what I who I believe are operatives. Will we ever know everything? Probably not.
But I think there's enough evidence there right now to to definitively prove that the government and several agencies were involved, in the violence that day.
Speaker 5: How does that absolve people of, the violence that took place and, so on?
Speaker 3: Well, that's a great question. I think it's very evident from the video. So it's not just that they admitted that they had people in the crowd, but we have video now from some of the operatives. There was 1 operative, a female operative. She's got a mega megaphone, and she's, you know, telling people on the way walking over to the cabin, we're going inside.
We're going inside.
Speaker 1: He's talking about this woman, Megan Paradise, number 9 on the FBI wanted list and seen here holding a baseball she reportedly stole From Nancy Pelosi's office inside the capitol, Hauft has dubbed her the female Ray Epps because like Epps, She went too far for others in the crowd who immediately pushed back.
Speaker 2: If a if a woman tells you to charge the line, you never charge
Speaker 4: the line.
Speaker 2: No. Dude, She's up there saying we need to go. It's like what are you
Speaker 3: talking about?
Speaker 2: Don't listen to her.
Speaker 1: And Lyceps made a reference to getting arrested. Yet she's never been locked up. And paradise was not the only one. This man was identified as Luke Philip Robinson by the far left site sedition hunters who've been relentless in pursuing January 6 suspects. He was photographed with an earpiece and dubbed hashtag ginger gun Because he was caught on camera carrying a weapon.
His pistol exposed when his shirt got stuck On the back of the grip. That made him one of the few supposed protesters who came armed to the capital, Which after 911 was designated a counter terrorism zone and has a higher level of security by law, More stringent than the federal district of Washington DC, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Yet like Rea Epps, Robinson was removed from the FBI suspects list and has remained a free man. We traced him through public documents To a business that started in Tennessee and is now based in Arizona. That's where he was in this footage from the JFK report When confronted by another January 6th defendant, Mikasia Jackson.
Speaker 4: Got an earpiece and a firearm, man. That's that's a you had a firearm on federal property. That's serious Stop.
Speaker 1: He appeared uncomfortable and did not answer any of his questions.
Speaker 4: What's with the earpiece at the capitol? Where who were you talking to? I'll see you guys later. Who were you talking to, though? I'm sure you
Speaker 2: wanna buy this bike or
Speaker 4: not. No. Thank you.
Speaker 1: According to at least 8 ballistic experts and arms dealers we consulted, the gun he was carrying appeared from what was visible to be a SIG 320 and either the m 17 or m 18 model. On their website, SIG said it was specifically built For the US military, we reached out to the DOJ and the FBI for comment, but we're still waiting for a response.
Speaker 5: What have you learned so far?
Speaker 7: We're tracking down different ideas and theories. And one of those theories was that there were undercover law enforcement officers In the crowds, we know that to be true. Some would have a reason to be there, but there's also been speculation that there were Federal agents or local law enforcement, they were encouraging people to go into capital.
Speaker 1: Congressman Barry Loudermilk, Georgia's 11th congressional district, Has been on the hill for almost a decade. He's the chair of the house administration's subcommittee investigating the investigators, Trying to get to the bottom of the security failures around January 6th.
Speaker 7: When there was 1 video clip that had made it out, in public that some people had claimed this was definitely a police officer. We verified that to be true.
Speaker 1: This is the clip recorded on the body cam of the undercover officer in question.
Speaker 2: I've never seen anything like this.
Speaker 1: He can be heard chanting.
Speaker 2: USA. USA. Yes? Yeah. They're fucking they're they're throwing shit off the hook everywhere.
Speaker 1: And at times, urging the crowd to advance.
Speaker 2: Go. Go. Let's go. Go. That's it.
It's tear gas. It's tear gas.
Speaker 1: The committee has not made his name public yet, But he was identified to defense attorneys as officer Nicholas Thomasula.
Speaker 7: We've already been able to say confirm, yes. This was a Metropolitan Police officer?
Speaker 5: Undercover.
Speaker 7: Undercover.
Speaker 5: Who was doing what?
Speaker 7: He was at at one point, He was helping people climb up the scaffolding because remember out on the West Terrace, the scaffolding was being built for the inauguration. He was helping people get up the scaffolding and telling them, go. Go. Go. Keep going.
Keep going.
Speaker 2: Come on. Go. Go. Go. Keep going.
Keep going.
Speaker 1: Well, according to what police told
Speaker 5: the New York Times and other reporters right after January 6th, People use that scaffolding to get to the upper west terrace,
Speaker 1: and they define that as
Speaker 5: a critical access point that day. So if you have an undercover police officer assisting people in climbing up there, that doesn't sound insignificant.
Speaker 7: No. It it isn't. Now the next question is, what was he doing? Right? Why was he telling those people to go?
Speaker 5: And why was he there?
Speaker 7: And and why was he there? And that's a coup a key question. There?
Speaker 1: Who who put him there?
Speaker 7: Exactly. Now could it be he's trying to get up to the top to help? Right? He's got other officers there, and so he's just telling them, go go go. I'm trying to get up there.
But the fact is when he gets up there, he doesn't help. He just turns and walks away from the capitol.
Speaker 5: So he's encouraging and assisting other people?
Speaker 7: That's what it appears that
Speaker 5: they have to go in.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Loudermilk, a 59 year old air force veteran, Told us he doesn't like leaks, and he's played his cards close to his chest intentionally.
Speaker 5: There is a video That has police offices on the west side by the fountain yelling at each other, and one of them says we're hurting innocent people. And they say, for every 1 we're pulling out, we're making 10 angry at
Speaker 6: Not only that, we're taking out 1 and 10 of them are getting wangry. It's it's it's we're multiplying them by hitting them.
Speaker 1: You know, when you listen to that,
Speaker 5: you have the sense that the offices We're set up for failure as much as the protesters.
Speaker 7: Yeah. And we've got a video of officers saying we were set up.
Speaker 2: They set us the fuck up. That's what they did. They set us
Speaker 6: up. They
Speaker 2: set up 64. Oh, absolutely. And And then they asked y'all to come up 2 hours later. They set us up. They needed everybody right away.
No. Right away. They set us the fuck up. We're not we ain't got sick.
Speaker 6: We ain't got a
Speaker 2: motherfucking thing. They set us the fuck up.
Speaker 7: That's one of the things that we wanna know. What do they mean by that? What exactly do you mean that you were set up? Because there's a lot of interpretations.
Speaker 5: Are you investigating the possibility that pinstigators And other people inserted themselves in the crowd and, and took action
Speaker 0: to provoke the crowd and
Speaker 1: to provoke The police, so they were provoking both sides.
Speaker 5: I mean,
Speaker 7: there was there was definitely that there. I don't know who they are. We're looking into that. But, you know, as you're talking about the great contrast, you've got the people over here that When we do have audio, we're saying, hey. We appreciate you guys, you know, talking to law enforcement.
Speaker 5: Yes. Protesters in the midst of the violence saying we're on your side.
Speaker 7: Yeah. And then we've got other folks that have steel pipes that are, you know, beating officers with it.
Speaker 5: So when has that ever happened at a Trump rally?
Speaker 1: Never. For the congressman, it's somewhat personal after being falsely accused of leading a surveillance mission Inside the capital the day before January 6th, he said the truth has to get out and subpoenas may be next.
Speaker 0: What have you learned About what really happened that
Speaker 5: day that you didn't know at the time.
Speaker 2: Well, first, I've learned about pain.
Speaker 6: All I said, I put my hands up. I said, don't touch me. Please don't hurt me. Please. I said and he's like, I'll do whatever the hell I want to you.
And I said, I have constitutional rights. Please don't. He's like, you don't have Any rights in here?
@NanLee1124 - NanLee2
A VERY FRIGHTENING PRECEDENT is being set in Colorado. "These are republic-ending tactics." @mrddmia @Article3Project @stinchfield1776 https://t.co/jPRMHyuQq1
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Democrat judge who donated to an anti-Trump political action committee is expected to rule against President Trump and disqualify him from the ballot in Colorado. The case will likely be expedited to the left-leaning Colorado Supreme Court, setting a precedent that could affect swing states like Michigan. Democrats may stall the process to delay it reaching the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court will have to take on the case and make a decision, as this is a significant issue that goes beyond Trump. These tactics by Democrats are seen as a threat to democracy and are described as Orwellian.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I would say this, there's no question that this judge, this Democrat judge who donated to an anti Trump January 6th political action committee 2 months before she went on the bench in January is going to rule against president Trump. She's going to disqualify him from the ballot probably around Thanksgiving. This is gonna go on an expedited basis to the Colorado Supreme Courts. This is a leftist Supreme Court because Republicans stopped winning elections out here in Colorado when they legalized weed. And all the dirt balls from California and New York moved here and they went to all mail ballots.
So the Supreme Court of the United States is going to have to resolve this because you're gonna see this precedent set in a deep blue state like Colorado and then taken on the road to swing states like Michigan.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And we know that they're up next. And so, how quickly can this get to the Supreme Court? Because if I'm a Democrat in Colorado not to give them any tips, I'd stall it. I I'd play the stall game, and I'd stall getting it to the Supreme Court.
If I'm on the Supreme Court and I'm a radical Democrat, I'd stall taking it up.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, the Supreme Court will have to take this on an expedited basis. The Supreme Court has discretionary review, and so far, they like to avoid Trump cases, but they're gonna have to put on their big boy pants here and actually decide this case because this is so much bigger than Donald Trump. These are republic ending tactics by Democrats. If they think that they're protecting democracy by taking the leading presidential candidate off the ballot.
This is this is crazy. This is Orwellian. These are republic ending tactics.
@NanLee1124 - NanLee2
Mollie Hemingway: “The lengths Democrats are willing to go to destroy the republic and rule of law over their seething and obsessive hatred of one man and his supporters is terrifying to contemplate.” @MZHemingway
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is a continuation of what I believe is the greatest witch hunt of all time. The judge in this case has ruled that my properties are worth much less than they actually are. The attorney general who brought these charges against me is a racist and a failure. She used this case to try to get me before she even knew anything about me. My financial statements are actually better than what was reported. The banks were not affected and were paid back on time. There was no crime committed. This is all an attempt to damage me in the election. Our country is in serious decline and I'm running to fix it. Thank you.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a continuation of the single greatest witch hunt of all time. We have a rogue judge who rules that properties are worth a tiny fraction, 1 100. A tiny fraction of what they actually are. We have a racist attorney general who's a horror show, who ran on the basis that she was gonna get Trump before she even knew anything about me. She used this to run for governor.
She failed in her attempt to run for governor. She had virtually no polling. She came back and she said, well now I'll go back to get Trump again and this is what we have. It's a scam. It's a sham.
Just so you know, my financial statements are phenomenal. They are actually less in terms of the numbers used than the actual net worth. The actual net worth is substantially more. No bank was affected. No bank was hurt.
They don't even know why they have to be involved. And they've so testified. They can't believe that they're involved because they were paid back on time. There were no defaults. There were no problems.
And it was like a perfect client. In the meantime, people are being murdered all over the sidewalks of New York. There was no victim here. The banks were represented by the best, biggest, most prestigious law firm in the state of New York actually in the country. Some of the biggest and best law firms in all cases, the biggest and best law a representative.
The banks got back their money. Again, there was never a default. It was never a problem. Everything was perfect. There was no crime.
The crime is against me because we have a corrupt district attorney, but we have a corrupt attorney general. And it all comes down from the DOJ. They're totally coordinated this in Washington because I'm leading, I'm the leading candidate. I'm leading Biden by 10 points and I'm leading the republicans by 50 60 points. That's pretty much they say over.
I never accept that, but they say it's over. This has to do with election interference, plain and simple. They're trying to damage me so that I don't do as well as I'm doing in the election. And our country's gone to hell. We have a country that's in decline, serious decline.
We have a man running our country who has no clue, as nobody's doing and you know it better than anybody because you have to cover them. What they've done with open borders, what they've done with interest rates, and taxes. It's a disgrace. So what we have here is an attempt to hurt me in an election. Claimed.
It's an attempt to hurt me in an election. It's never happened before, where president of the United States leaves the office and gets indicted. And the reason I got indicted was that I ran. If I didn't run, I'd be sitting right now at a beach like Biden does every time, even though he's supposed to be working. So very simply put, It's a witch hunt.
It's a disgrace. We have a corrupt attorney general in this state. We see how she does. This trial was railroaded and fast tracked. This trial could have been brought years ago, but they waited till I was right in the middle of my campaign.
The same with Other trials and indictments, it's all run by DOJ, which is corrupt in Washington. Everything goes through them. They're all corrupt people. Frankly, our country is corrupt. And that's one of the reasons I'm running.
We're gonna straighten it out. They have a lot of different types of things that we have in the world. And so we have a lot of $18,000,000. And the property is probably worth, could be anywhere from 50 to 100 times more than that. And a lot of those numbers could even be low.
We have other properties, the same thing. So he devalued everything. I didn't even put in my best asset, which is the brand in terms of value. Coca Cola, take a look at their value. They have a value.
The value of their brand is more than everything else put together. My brand is extremely valuable. I didn't even use it in my financials. If I wanted to build up a financial statement, I would have built it up by using brand in addition to everything else. We have the greatest properties.
We have among the greatest properties in the world and I have to go through this for political reasons. This judge is a politician. He comes out of the clubs. He's running unopposed. The reason he's unopposed is because He's getting trumped.
They always run opposed. He's getting trumped. The bosses say, don't run against this guy. He's doing great. He's getting trumped.
But he overplayed his hand and he should be investigated for what he's done. What he did in undervaluing these properties is a disgrace to our nation. This shouldn't be a case. One other thing, we have a clause in the contract, which tells essentially, buyer beware. The contract is very, very, If you take a look and you speak to the banks, if you will, I hope you speak to the banks because the banks got paid in full.
I hope you speak to the banks. But we have a clause in the contract. It's like a buyer beware clause. It says, when you take a look at the financial statement. Don't believe anything you read.
This is upfront. Don't believe anything you read. Some people call it a worthless clause because It makes the statement and anything you read in the statement worthless. It says, go out and do your own research. Go out and do your own due diligence.
You have to study the statement carefully. Do not believe anything. In fact, it's so strong that people read it and they don't even accept it. They don't even want it. They don't even use it.
It's called the disclaimer clause. It's very common. If you put it in if you don't have time to do statements or even if you do have time, people like to have it. This is what's called a full disclaimer. We disclaim the financial statements.
But even with a full disclaimer, which immediately takes you out of any fraud situation and any litigation. And by the way, when the attorney general found out about the disclaimer, she said, that's okay. Let's go forward anyway. Good publicity. These are corrupt people we're dealing with.
The most corrupt people. We have a great company. I built a great company. It's got tremendous value. It's got some of the greatest real estate assets in the world.
And now I have to go before a rogue judge as a continuation of Russia, Russia, Russia, as a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time. And I don't think the people of this country are going to stand for it. If I weren't leading in all the polls or if I weren't running, I wouldn't have any of these cases. I wouldn't be seeing you this morning. But I'll be seeing a lot of you.
Because this is a horrible thing that's into our country and we've got to get it straightened away. So we'll go in and see our rogue judge and we'll listen to this man. And, I think most people get it. People are getting it. I can tell you the voters getting it because every time they give me a fake indictment, I go up in the polls and that's never happened before.
But this is a disgrace. And you had to go after this attorney general because she's turning off everybody from coming in. You know, I don't know if you take a look at the outflow business. Businesses are fleeing New York because of horrible, horrible attorney generals and judges like we have. They go to other places where they can be treated fairly and with respect.
Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.