TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @OKeefeMedia
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing an internal Susanville Rancheria email warning staff about confidentiality and professional conduct as the OMG Exposé unfolds, noting SBA’s suspension of all ATI government contracts. The message was sent by Christi Choo, Secretary/Treasurer and Interim Administrator of the Tribal Council, per the tribe’s site.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
UPDATE: Internal Email from inside Susanville Ranchiera just sent to all employees about OMG EXPOSÉ: "We are currently addressing a highly sensitive situation, and it's important that we all remain mindful of our responsibilities regarding confidentiality and professional conduct. As a reminder, please review the following policies…” Susanville Indian Rancheria, owner of ATI government solutions & subject of OMG undercover investigation, is now warning their members against publicly sharing anything pertaining to their operations. This comes after SBA announced the suspension of all ATI government contracts. Follow @OKeefeMedia for updates to this story.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
The email was sent by a member of Susanville Rancheria Tribal Council Christi Choo who, according to their website, serves as Secretary/Treasurer & Interim Administrator. https://t.co/McJsxc9F2r
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across leaked emails from Curry College professors who mocked Charlie Kirk's murder, labeling him a "Nazi" and "bigot." They expressed shame over the college lowering flags for him and claimed that many more deserving individuals have been overlooked in death.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
LEAKED UNIVERSITY EMAILS: Professors at Curry College Mocked the Murder of Charlie Kirk In Private Faculty Email Chains, Calling him a “Nazi” & “Bigot”, Saying "Charlie Kirk approved of the way Charlie Kirk was killed.” “I was ashamed that our college lowered our flags to half-mast for a bigot." “Many better people have been assassinated with no recognition.” “We are being gaslit in this country to make Charlie Kirk into some national hero.” @CurryEdu @TPUSA
Video Transcript AI Summary
O'Keefe Media has obtained leaked Curry College emails revealing professors using official faculty lists to call Charlie Kirk a Nazi fascist Christian nationalist and writing that he 'approved of his own killing.' After the murder of Charlie Curry, Curry College issued a campus-wide mass email acknowledging heavy events in early September alluding to Charlie and nine eleven, while vice president Eric Marisep invited faculty to share feedback on the campus-wide message. Professors responded with anger and disappointment that Kirk's death was acknowledged. Senior lecturer Benjamin Chica wrote, 'Charlie Kirk approved of the way Charlie Kirk was killed and that he was, 'ashamed that our college lowered our flags to half mast for a bigot.' Chica went on, 'many better people have been assassinated with no recognition.' Professor Janet Farrone stated, 'while I agree that a mass email is a hard place for a debate, I am writing because I definitely agree with what Benjamin said, as I feel like we are being gaslit in this country to make Charlie Kirk into some national hero.' This is not just a debate about free speech. It's about normalizing political violence and exposing the evil of these sorts of professors and staff that think it's good to assassinate people because of their beliefs. If you have more, reach out to us, tips at okeithmediagroup.com or a signal at (914) 491-9395. Stay tuned and more to come.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: O'Keefe Media has obtained leaked emails from Curry College revealing professors using official faculty email lists to call Charlie Kirk a Nazi fascist Christian nationalist and writing that he, quote, approved of his own killing. After the murder of Charlie Curry. Curry College put out a mass email to all members of the university, including students acknowledging there have been heavy events in the first two weeks of September alluding to Charlie and nine eleven. But in the leaked emails, vice president Eric Marisep invited faculty to share feedback on the campus wide message. Professors responded with anger and disappointment that Curry College acknowledged Kirk's death.
Senior lecturer and professor Benjamin Chica wrote, quote, Charlie Kirk approved of the way Charlie Kirk was killed and that he was, quote, ashamed that our college lowered our flags to half mast for a bigot. Chica went on saying, quote, many better people have been assassinated with no recognition. Professor Janet Farrone in the email chain goes on to agree with her colleague Benjamin Czecha stating, quote, while I agree that a mass email is a hard place for a debate, I am writing because I definitely agree with what Benjamin said, as I feel like we are being gaslit in this country to make Charlie Kirk into some national hero. At OMG, we are shining a light on what people behind the scenes are saying. This is not just a debate about free speech.
It's about normalizing political violence and exposing the evil of these sorts of professors and faculty and staff that think it's good to assassinate people because of their beliefs. If you have more, reach out to us, tips at okeithmediagroup.com or a signal at (914) 491-9395. Stay tuned and more to come.
reSee.it AI Summary
I am dedicated to empowering parents through homeschooling initiatives. My recent work, "Parents' Guide to Homeschool: Making Education Easy and Fun," serves as a practical workbook for homeschooling families. I host "The Sam Sorbo Show" and "School’s Out with Sam Sorbo" on EpochTV, where I challenge conventional education and advocate for parental involvement. I founded the “They’re YOUR Kids” Foundation to support educational freedom and parental rights, and I lead the Parents Demanding Justice Alliance to expose corruption and oppression faced by parents today.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Actress, author, and education freedom advocate @thesamsorbo has focused heavily on empowering parents through homeschooling initiatives. Her recent work includes Parents' Guide to Homeschool: Making Education Easy and Fun, a comprehensive workbook offering practical guidance for homeschooling parents. She hosts The Sam Sorbo Show and School’s Out with Sam Sorbo on EpochTV, challenging conventional education and promoting parental involvement. Sorbo founded the “They’re YOUR Kids” Foundation to advocate for educational freedom and parental rights. Sam is on the front lines of speaking out for the rights of parents in the face of intimidation from the Federal government under the Biden Administration and leads the Parents Demanding Justice Alliance group which is exposing this corruption and oppression of parents across America. Subscribe and Support Sam Sorbo: https://sorbostudios.com/sam-sorbo
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Schooling is what I call it. It's not education... we have a system of schooling in the country, which is why we are becoming more and more stupid and stupefied as a nation. Money is not the answer, and it's not the highest value. We've sacrificed relationship for money." Sam Sorbo promotes homeschooling, forming "Parents Demanding Justice" with Kelly Walker. In Arizona back in '21, three fathers at a peaceful school board meeting were arrested three days later; one faced a "$10,000 fine and a hundred days in jail" and the arrest remained on the record. Similar cases include a Pennsylvania lawyer fired after speaking at a board meeting and a professor fired in Arizona; nonprofit legal groups are needed. The NSBA's 9/29/2021 letter asked for "immediate assistance" to protect districts; the DOJ issued a Garland memo discouraging prosecute threats. The solution is to "make parenting great again" and "honor"—"living a morally righteous life." "What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, life, then you are for sale." samsorbo.com.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Look. This has been going on for a long time. We can talk about education. Yes. Schooling is what I call it.
It's not education. So we have a system of schooling in the in the country, which is why we are becoming more and more stupid and stupefied as a nation. It's not a bad thing to have money necessarily, but money is not the answer, and it's not the highest value. You think about the people that you love. You think about relationships, and we we have put that aside at our own peril because we are losing our entire culture because we've sacrificed relationship for money.
Speaker 1: I think these are not bad people.
Speaker 0: These are good people. They've never been tested. They've never been tested.
Speaker 1: They've been
Speaker 0: tested, perhaps they've failed. If you were a pedophile, where would you go to find children? Schools, Boy Scouts, churches. Way back when, on their website, they advocated for joining the Boy Scouts. They advocated.
They said if you're, you know, you wanna you wanna have sex with little boys, the Boy Scouts is a great resource for finding and grooming and procuring. What
Speaker 1: is your price? Because if your price is not your life, life, then you are for sale. Welcome back to the price is my life. I'm joined today by Sam Sorbo. Sam Sorbo has focused heavily on empowering parents through homeschooling initiatives.
Her recent work includes the Parent's Guide to Homeschool Making Education Easy and Fun, a comprehensive workbook offering practical guidance for homeschooling parents, she hosts the Sam Sorbo Show and Schools Out with Sam Sorbo on Epic TV, challenging conventional education and promoting parental involvement. Sorbro founded the They're Your Kids Foundation to advocate for educational freedom and parental rights. Sam is on the front lines of speaking out for the rights of parents in the face of intimidation from the federal government under the Biden administration. We recall how, mothers were raided by the FBI. We have that in common.
And leads the Parents Demanding Justice Alliance group, is exposing the corruption and oppression of parents across America. We have the testimonies of parents targeted by the DOJ weaponization, and we'll jump right into it. Before we get into all of this school board stuff, I just kinda wanna talk to you about your experience in Hollywood for a minute, and you're a public figure, and you're married to Kevin Sorbo, and you you came to my film Line in the Sand, and I I got a chance to have dinner with you, and I really enjoyed our conversation, particularly about being a public figure and and being conservative in Hollywood. Just talk about that for a minute. What what that was like for you and what what made you decide to to come out with your beliefs in Hollywood?
Speaker 0: Well, know, Hollywood was conservative, and by the time I got there, it wasn't so noticeably not conservative. It was fairly neutral, but I think once Obama was elected, it became very polarized very quickly, and so, maybe a little bit under Bush, I don't think I was really there for that. We lived in New Zealand and we lived in Canada, but when we got back to Hollywood, it had gone kind of off the rails and people were getting more more and more polarized. And so it wasn't that it wasn't that we were sort of on the outs, we just set our peace and it didn't go well.
Speaker 1: What year was this?
Speaker 0: I'm thinking 02/2008.
Speaker 1: Obama. Yeah. I've had a number of people tell me that the Obama era is really when things just Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's when we moved back to Hollywood. We had been out of the country up until basically that point, and so we got back to Hollywood and we started there was a clandestine group that was formed called Friends of Abe, and I started Maybe
Speaker 1: he saw you there in 2010 or something.
Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah. And so, you know, we got that started and slowly realized that, you know, there was really a battle. I mean, I remember Kevin coming home from an audition, and the audition was for the bad guy, and there was a good girl, and the interviewer, the casting person was like, Okay, so just think of it this way, so the good girl, that's like Chelsea Clinton. Like she's just really good and positive and loving and and you're the bad guy, so you're like Bush. And that's how she That's
Speaker 1: what the casting director said.
Speaker 0: Yes, that's that was her language. So they had started to adopt very politicized language to express themselves. And, yeah, it so that was a shift.
Speaker 1: And how did you handle that at the time?
Speaker 0: Well, he was quiet in that particular audition because there's no reason to lose a job over, you know, that. But I think he was more shocked than anything, like, wow, So tell me how you really feel. Wow. And then he just started speaking out, because he's because he won't stay quiet with that. But it wasn't you know, he didn't get into fights with people over politics.
He just said truthful things, and they decided that they didn't didn't like that.
Speaker 1: And just briefly, how did that go when when he did come out, when you did come out? -Oh, mean -What was that like?
Speaker 0: -Well, at a certain point, at a certain point, his his manager and his agent did basically an intervention, and they said, We can't work with you anymore.
Speaker 1: Can't work with you anymore?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So it hurt Oh yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I don't think, I think, you know, we kind of thought that maybe things weren't gonna go that well, but we didn't think it was gonna be just, oh, we can't work with you anymore.
Speaker 1: It was very very blunt.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Very very cut and dry. We're done.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Did a lot of people reach out to you? A lot of other people? That that
Speaker 0: No. It wasn't publicized. It wasn't like this big thing, like, now Kevin Sorbo will not be working in Hollywood. It was just this very quiet and that's how they that's how they kill people. Right?
They do it very quietly, unless they unless they want you to know. I'm talking about the communists, obviously, you know, in which case they come in the middle of the night and they make a fuss so that everybody knows that they come for you in the middle of the night. But in Hollywood, it's it's it's typically much less obvious than that.
Speaker 1: And on the show, Hercules, had Kevin come out publicly yet with his beliefs?
Speaker 0: Not really. He was just a Look, he's Minnesota. He's just Minnesota nice. He's just a good guy. And there wasn't that there wasn't that much reason to be that political.
Look, the country used to be Democrats and Republicans, and everybody was pro life because life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. The Democrats started to go off the rails when they were captured by the feminists who are pro death. That sect, and the communists who are also pro death, that sect shifted the Democrat Party, so now we are at odds as to the very definition of life. Like, at the most fundamental level, these two parties are completely at odds. And the problem is that the nation itself is one direction.
America is for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and life being the first thing. So if you are not for life, then it's very difficult to make the case that you're pro America.
Speaker 1: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money.
Interest rates and inflation remain high. And everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 833324 Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 833324gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe.
Don't just watch history, own a piece of it. So did you have any regrets over anything you did or what happened? -No regrets?
Speaker 0: -No. I you you live in the moment, and I make a point of not having regrets in my life. I think it's silly to regret. If you make a mistake, you fix it and you move on, but Kevin wishes that Hollywood were different. He wishes for the old Hollywood.
Speaker 1: And that's what When did that change, old Hollywood to new? -Sixties. -In the sixties.
Speaker 0: Yeah, pretty much in the sixties. Look, this has been going on for a long time. We can talk about education. -Yes. -Schooling is what I call it.
It's not education. So we have a system of schooling in country, which is why we are becoming more and more stupid and stupefied as a nation. So very difficult to have, you know, profound conversations with people. People have become less thoughtful, less full of thought.
Speaker 1: I also don't read anymore, I Right?
Speaker 0: Less full of thought.
Speaker 1: I'm reading
Speaker 0: They don't read to improve themselves, they don't want to know that much, they're happy to binge on Netflix or whatever.
Speaker 1: And Instagram.
Speaker 0: And Instagram and boom scrolling. Boom scrolling. This is a product of our schooling. Our schooling has dumbed us down, and that's why I'm such a staunch advocate for home education.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about that. So what are you working on right now?
Speaker 0: So Parents Demanding Justice is a new organization that I formed with Kelly Walker. Kelly Walker is maybe the first or one of the very first parents that was targeted by his school board, and what happened to him is such an egregious betrayal of our justice system, say. So he had a meeting. He and two fathers went to this meeting with the principal on behalf of one of those fathers, on behalf of his child. This was about masking.
This is back in, I think, '21. And they sat down, they had a very peaceful meeting, there was a disagreement, they disagreed, they had different opinions, that happens. They left the meeting, the superintendent made an announcement saying the meeting was peaceful and everybody left and everything's fine. And then three days later, each of those gentlemen were arrested. They went to their houses.
Speaker 1: -Where What state is this?
Speaker 0: -This is in Arizona. And Kelly, because he had a coffee shop where people were meeting, and disagreeing with the mandates that were being passed around, they decided to make an example of him. While the other two gentlemen got a $250 fine for trespassing, he got a $10,000 fine and a hundred days in jail, and they targeted his business, and they had to shut down the business.
Speaker 1: Who's they?
Speaker 0: The school board people and the people they got in law enforcement to help
Speaker 1: effectuate Sheriff's office or local sheriff? And what you know where this is in Arizona? What county?
Speaker 0: It's in Vail County, Arizona.
Speaker 1: Vail County.
Speaker 0: He eventually moved, but the problem is he still has an arrest on his record. Why? They threw out the charges, but the arrest is still there. They need to take the arrest off his record. They need to give him back the $10,000 that they stole from his account.
They I mean and he's not the only one. We have a lawyer in, in Pennsylvania who spoke at a school board meeting, and the board decided they didn't like what he had to say. So they sent a note to his employer and said, fire this guy. We just had another case in Arizona actually again of a professor who spoke at a school board meeting on behalf of his kids, and the school board whoever on the school board called his employer and had him fired. He's a professor, they fired him from the university, and there's a nonprofit legal group that's taking it up and they're going to pursue it because he was unjustfully terminated.
Speaker 1: And that's another challenge, is getting the attorneys to step up and defend people who are prosecuted. We need more nonprofit legal groups to help people, I think.
Speaker 0: Yes, and sadly we shouldn't need them, right? This shouldn't be happening. But we have such a betrayal of American values, and especially in our schools, which is the formation of the next generation. So for instance, if you're pro Second Amendment, if you think that people should have the right to bear arms, that's great, but all the kids who go to school today are being taught that the Second Amendment is terrible and we should vote it out. And so in ten years, they will vote it out.
Speaker 1: So I have a on 09/29/2021, the National School Board Association sent a letter to the DOJ asking for immediate assistance with the growing number of threats. If we could pull that letter up on the screen. Growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation being levied at various school boards across the country.
Speaker 0: And They always claim violence. They oh. They always claim. There was no violence. Jim Jordan did the did the research, had a congressional committee researched this.
There was absolutely no violence.
Speaker 1: And it says on September 29, it says, NSBA believes immediate assistance is required to protect our students, the National School Boards Association. Yes. What is the National School Boards Association?
Speaker 0: It's the organization that promotes the school boards and and trains them.
Speaker 1: It's like the National Education Association. It's like a union for school boards. Correct. Okay. And educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce affecting interstate almost like using the commerce clause there.
Speaker 0: It's almost like they made it a federal issue.
Speaker 1: Yes. Because of threats to their districts, families, and, you know, they use the same kind of irrational logic in addressing the journalism that I do. Like, someone will get an anonymous death threat from a random commenter with no
Speaker 0: Right. It's suddenly your fault.
Speaker 1: Somehow I'm responsible for the I'm I'm promoting death threats. Right. That's what I I find that they've done that.
Speaker 0: Well, look, this is a a typical tactic of the left. And you and you'll have you have testimony from Merrick Garland saying, no. No. It was just the violent parents that we were concerned about, but there were no violent parents. But, you know, if you're a leftist, words are violence.
Speaker 1: Words are violence.
Speaker 0: That's So
Speaker 1: If you're a Marxist quote. Justify it. As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions should be equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes. As such, NSBA requests a joint expedited review by the US Department of Justice, Educational Homeland Security. By the way, as we're talking about this, Andrew, pull up the video we did in New Jersey of the teachers.
This is a school board that I went to. Just wanna show you, Andrew, get that clip up. This is the New Jersey I went to New Jersey and I filmed a school board meeting. I just showed up, just by way of example, And it was so interesting to watch the tyranny of these school board officials. They called the police.
The police came. They said, they look Trump ish. They look like Trump don't even know what that means. They look Trump ish. I was wearing a blazer and a button down shirt.
But it was it was fascinating to see the psychology. We'll pull that up and talk about that. So so this is the letter 09/29/2021. This prompted a memo from the DOJ on October 4, a memo now calling the Garland memo which states the DOJ would discourage prosecute threats. And, is that kind of what was your your motivation?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Seeing all this? Just created righteous indignation?
Speaker 0: Well, my motivation was seeing all the parents.
Speaker 1: Seeing the parents.
Speaker 0: And understanding that there are a lot of parents whose lives have been ruined, and their children their children's lives have been threatened and ruined. And, we can't allow that Okay. I will tell you my motivating, because I understand as home educator, I understand better than many that the number one indicator for academic success for a child is parental involvement. So we should be seeking to have parents more involved in education, not less. So therefore schools or school boards that seek to marginalize parents are not for the academic success of that child.
So then you have to ask what they are for. Well, they're for porn in the schools, and porn
Speaker 1: Pornography in the schools.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Pornography. And porn is the first step towards trafficking a child. You show them porn. It desensitizes them.
And so then they're more easily trafficked.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's
Speaker 0: And yes, I am saying that they want to have sex with our kids. Yeah. Because because I say that now because it's so evidently true.
Speaker 1: You know, one quick story. I wanna tell you two quick stories. Andrew, let's pull up the clip, not of the going to the board meeting, but actually the body cam footage video that came shortly thereafter. I went back to my school board meeting in New Jersey where I'm from. I had a pretty okay public school experience in in New Jersey.
I it wasn't that bad. The only thing I didn't like about my public school experience was they taught me about like AIDS in like I was in fourth grade and it was a little graphic. I was like, I don't need to see like anal sex stuff. That was the only thing like It was one of
Speaker 0: the say that don't say that was the only thing. That was horrifying.
Speaker 1: It was horrifying for me. Remember being horrified. Horrible. Because they're talking about anal sex and I was like nine.
Speaker 0: There's very little good that can actually mitigate that.
Speaker 1: I actually had to go to the bathroom and I almost fainted because it was I was just squeamish hearing about this sort of thing.
Speaker 0: They were grooming you.
Speaker 1: That's what it I didn't I didn't know what that was.
Speaker 0: Of you don't know. You're in But fourth
Speaker 1: I will say, I went back to my high school board meeting two years ago, and I did not go as a journalist. I went as a, I don't know, a member of the tax paying public. And when I went there, half of the auditorium was filled with LGBT flags and there were men wearing dresses. And I graduated high school in 02/2002. We we just didn't really it seems like things have really changed
Speaker 0: Yes. Really.
Speaker 1: Over the last ten, fifteen years. What do you attribute that change to?
Speaker 0: That's a good question. I don't I don't care. I just know that it's done. Like like, you know, I can I can conspiracy theorize all you want? I just know that that's what's happening.
And the only way to protect children is not to put them in there. But the second way to protect children is to try to get them out of there.
Speaker 1: So you advocate homeschooling children across
Speaker 0: the Well, advocate homeschooling because school will never beat homeschooling for the parents or the child. School can never compete, really. Homeschooling has a much better academic outcome, it has a much better social outcome, the outcomes are much better, and the children are more protected. That said, I I my heart breaks for the children who are in school, and so whatever I can do to help the parents who feel that they are obliged to put their child in that environment, I will do. I cannot sit by and watch these people run ramshots over these parents.
Now the parents are individuals, and so they've divided and conquered. They have the NSBA. They've got the union behind them. They've got the they've got law enforcement behind them. They get to dictate to law enforcement.
We had one board member who decided she didn't he didn't like one of the dads who spoke at the school board meeting. So we got law enforcement, and he said to law enforcement, this guy's not allowed on school property. I'm the school board member, and I get to decide who comes on school property. So the dad goes to pick up his kid, gets arrested for trespass.
Speaker 1: Guys, can we put that video back up on the screen? This is a body cam footage obtained off of the officers, police officers body cam footage in New Jersey. And what's remarkable is it's we all know these stories, just change the names, change the tone. I attended the school board meeting and they called the police on on me. I just spoke at the board meeting and
Speaker 0: And they're talking about you like, we don't
Speaker 1: know They're talking who about he the policeman's camera, he forgot that he's wearing a camera.
Speaker 0: Right. Don't know what who this people is, and
Speaker 1: we I don't think believe that one solution is when they call the police on citizens to FOIA the body cameras and to do this sort of thing across when I did this, I thought people should be doing this en masse.
Speaker 0: You're absolutely right, and these are working parents, and they don't have the resources or the time. They you know, they're just they're trying to get by. And by the way, when a police officer comes for you at a school, you know we have a parent in Florida who just stood up at a school board meeting and told the woman, the president of the school board that she shouldn't be celebrating the death of a MAGA because it's one less MAGA person in the world. She represents all the people of her district, not just the non MAGA people. And he got booed because the entire room was filled with the LGBT crowd, whatever, and the police escorted him out, infringing on his right to speech.
Wow. And and what's he gonna do? Like
Speaker 1: Well, you mentioned that people don't have the the resources and the the the they're just trying to live their lives.
Speaker 0: This is my point, is they're individuals. Mhmm. All of our parents are just individuals. This is why they're falling through the cracks. They're just individuals.
They're just trying to get by, but they need to they're trying to protect their kids, so they're brave enough to stand up at a school board meeting, but the school boards have the NSBA. They've got law enforcement. They've got every they've got
Speaker 1: they've got Why do have law enforcement? That that I don't understand. Because law enforcement is by and large relatively conservative compared to the rest of the Are they just following orders? They're just following orders.
Speaker 0: In fact, Kelly was speaking with the law enforcement and he was like, Guys, you know, some of you know me, like, why are you doing this? And they're like, well, you know, we're just they don't want to lose their jobs. Nobody wants to lose their jobs.
Speaker 1: Know Because
Speaker 0: we went to school, and in school we learned that money is the highest value.
Speaker 1: Interesting.
Speaker 0: And so we have no more morality, we've lost integrity, we have no honor, because money has replaced all of those things in our culture.
Speaker 1: I agree with you. Know. I think that this is someone made this argument recently I read. It's like, if you actually ask the question why five times about why you're doing what you're doing. Oh, why do you want to do get a good grade?
Well, because it helped me get a good job. Why do want to get a good job? Because it'll help me earn a living. Why do you want and it actually fundamentally questions the philosophical underpinnings of your essence, why you're doing it.
Speaker 0: Our entire culture is built on this idea that money is the highest value. And that's a very dangerous idea, because it leads young women to abort their babies. Right. This is Moloch. This is sacrificing your child.
Speaker 1: Your son wrote a book
Speaker 0: For money.
Speaker 1: Recently about I talked to your son, I hung out with your son. He's a really cool guy. I intend to have him on to talk about his
Speaker 0: He's not even my favorite.
Speaker 1: He's not even your favorite. I actually worked out with your son and he is like, he's a big guy. He's a big guy. And it's tough in Southeast Florida too with the culture here and women, we were talking about that. And money is the ultimate thing they teach you.
You're saying in school.
Speaker 0: Teach you College prep and career readiness. Mhmm. School is for college prep and career readiness. If you're talking about the why, why, why, why. Right?
Yeah. Why do you go to school? To get an education. Why? To go to to go to college.
Why? Well, college gets you a a better paying job. Why? It's all about a better paying job.
Speaker 1: And then why? And then and then you really start to get philosophical about why do you need a better paying job in that kind
Speaker 0: of Because money happiness. Money is success. So I was very lucky. I made a lot of money as a young person.
Speaker 1: How did you do that?
Speaker 0: I modeled. I was an international model. And so, so I finally quit school, which was very hard for me, because I was an academic and I loved learning. I did not like school, but I did love to learn, and I finally was like, well, I can earn a lot of money and do everything else I want, or I can just learn the stuff that I want to learn and spend money and go into debt, right, in college. And so when I did that, I started to think about what life was really about, because that was the brass ring that I was always taught, go earn money.
That's your highest value, earn money. Make sure you can earn money. And I was raised by a single mom, so her whole thing was, you know, I didn't go to college, that was such a dumb move, because now I have no money. And so I went on a search after that, and I realized that there is a higher order to the universe than money.
Speaker 1: When did you stop? How old were you when you stopped modeling?
Speaker 0: Early twenties, I started acting.
Speaker 1: Did you didn't go to college?
Speaker 0: I did. I went to Duke University. I biomedical engineering.
Speaker 1: Biomedical engineering from Duke. That's that's not an inexpensive school.
Speaker 0: No. I was going into massive debt. And so I had the choice. And I to take a year off from school because I was working on an ulcer, because I was so anxious about being able to earn money.
Speaker 1: It It is anxiety provoking.
Speaker 0: Well, school is anxiety provoking, which
Speaker 1: is a learning inhibitor. And biomedical engineering at Duke, that can't be easy coursework.
Speaker 0: It was very difficult until I went off and earned a ton of money, and then when I went back, was the easiest thing ever, because the anxiety was gone. It was like super easy. It was kind of crazy. And so through that I figured this all, I figured out a lot, and the one thing that I figured out is that money is not the answer. Money helps.
Don't get me wrong. It's good to have money. It's not a bad thing to have money necessarily, but money is not the answer, and it's not the highest value. And when you die, you don't say, I wish I'd spent more time at the office. I wish I'd made a better deal on that one thing that I did.
Whatever. You think about the people that you love, you think about relationships, and we we have put that aside to our at our own peril, because we are losing our entire culture, because we've sacrificed relationship for money.
Speaker 1: Has this been true? Is it getting worse?
Speaker 0: Yes, because every decade or every generation that sends their children to an alternate authority loses a you know how if you're copying digitally, you'll lose you'll lose pixels or whatever. We're losing pixels every generation. So now we are a largely unparented society. Parents don't know how to parent, so they're happier to send their children away from them because they don't know how to manage it, and we're losing the family. And the family is the bedrock of our culture.
Speaker 1: People think money is the solution, or what did you say it was? It was the answer? It was the
Speaker 0: Yeah, it's not the answer. It's helpful.
Speaker 1: But people think that it is the answer.
Speaker 0: Right. Money is useful, but it's not the answer, and if you sell your grandmother because you can get $10,000,000, you will be a very miserable person.
Speaker 1: What, what is the answer? Honor. Honor. Explain what you mean by
Speaker 0: living a morally righteous life is probably the best answer.
Speaker 1: And what is a morally righteous life?
Speaker 0: Doing unto others as you would have done unto you. The golden rule. It's the golden rule, and it's the rule on which our entire culture was predicated, and that's why it's falling apart now, is because we've we've sacrificed that. And so, you know, you and I were talking about trying to get trying to get parents demanding justice, taken care of in Washington DC. So we have we have we've drafted a draft executive order.
This is a a national issue. This is a federal issue. It should be handled by the federal government, but getting things done in Washington, you know, I haven't tried doing anything like this before. It's it's very frustrating. The wheels in Washington move exceedingly slowly, if they move at all.
And and and part of that is because money is the highest value.
Speaker 1: Even in Washington. Especially in Washington. People think politics is about doing the right thing and solving society's Even
Speaker 0: if people Madison Cawthorn talked about this. You know, even if you go in wanting to do the right thing and and really believing that you can do the right thing, they will compromise you in some way that you will be forced to do the wrong thing.
Speaker 1: Blackmail. Yes. That's that's a story that needs to be told. That's a story that And Conkurin tried telling this. He tried and then Sex parties and all those things.
Speaker 0: And then they got him on, so I can't remember what they got him on, but they So he's done.
Speaker 1: We never even remember the pretense that they use. They just get people. They remove them. They remove them. I mean, I was removed from the organization I created, which was its own type of trauma, but it happens to everybody.
But going back to what you said about honor, I I think I've thought about this a lot, the money thing and you came to my screening of the film Line in the Sand where I literally called it Line in the Sand. It was a film about the border, but it was also a film about human nature. Right. And all these border patrol agents don't want to lose their jobs. And I gave this talk and this is the title of our podcast here, The Price is My Life to this group of men twice my age in New York City at Socrates in the city and I said, if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Speaker 0: I remember that. And people
Speaker 1: again, men who are twice my age, audibly gassed.
Speaker 0: Yes, were awestruck.
Speaker 1: I don't even to someone like you, it's so self evident, it doesn't even need to be explained, but it's almost like people don't I think these are not bad people. These are good people.
Speaker 0: They've never been tested. They've never been And when they've been tested, perhaps they've failed. And they've justified it because you can rationalize anything.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a philosophical and then there's the in the world in the arena. You mean they've never been tested in real life in this way?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The thought has never occurred to them? Or
Speaker 0: The they don't think about audible gasp believe the audible gasp that you heard, because I watched it, was that this was such a profound thought, and it required them to think more. Right? My Price is My Life. It sounds out otherworldly. Right?
And and yet, it's profound, it's meaningful. It's Christ.
Speaker 1: It's Christ. It's biblical.
Speaker 0: It's deeply religious. Right? And and it requires you to think about it. My son, Braden, who wrote his second book was Embrace Masculinity, he says, if you don't work out, you don't have an opinion. In other words, if you don't keep up your physical strength, then you don't have the strength to hold an opinion, because the moment that your opinion is challenged, you won't be able to defend it.
So you really don't have the luxury of having an opinion. Now, I don't know if I fully agree with that, but I hadn't heard that before and it struck me.
Speaker 1: I've never heard that before.
Speaker 0: Right? It struck me. And I'm like, there is something to that. How how strongly can you hold an opinion if you're not willing to pay for it?
Speaker 1: He's talking about you need physical strength to defend your opinion as well as moral strength.
Speaker 0: And we know that there's a mind body connection.
Speaker 1: Yes. So I always say people say, oh, you look like you're working out. I say strong body, strong mind. Right. That's a different way of saying that I suppose, but that makes perfect sense to me.
You can't defend something unless you are strong enough to defend it.
Speaker 0: To defend it. If you can't defend it, then do you really have it? Do you really feel that way? Can you you know, you can pretend that you feel that way. You can pretend that you're very staunch, but when push comes to shove, if you're not ready to bear arms
Speaker 1: Well well going back to what you're talking about here, and you and I could talk
Speaker 0: about You're wandering everywhere.
Speaker 1: I might have to bring you back to round two because we could you and I could talk about this for two hours. We've got a lot to cover in the next thirty minutes. We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing.
We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth. You, we are the media now. It seems to me that most people's price is it I don't even think it's millions and millions of dollars. It seems like it's like $80,000 a year or something like that.
Speaker 0: It's the lack of pain. We are so afraid of suffering because of how we've I think we've been convinced there's a pill for that or whatever, and so we're so afraid to suffer. Suffering is perceived as losing a job, taking a pay cut, not being able to subscribe to Netflix or whatever. Like we just want to avoid suffering, any kind of suffering, any kind upheaval or problem.
Speaker 1: Would change to our lives?
Speaker 0: Maybe. Maybe even change, right? Change is hard.
Speaker 1: And you're saying the school system, the public school system, the conditioning has made us this way for the most part.
Speaker 0: Oh, I can guarantee it. I mean if you a look homeschooler, even if they are schooled at home, they still have opportunity to go explore and make mistakes and suffer, whereas if you're in the institution all day long, you have much less opportunity to try to start a business, to mow the neighbor's lawn, to whatever, all of those things, that you become much more dependent, and in school you become dependent on being told this is what you need to know, this is what you have to learn, this is how you solve that problem, and so when you finish school, you are not a problem solver, you are an implementer of other people's strategies, perhaps, right? You don't and that's why colleges are recruiting home schoolers, because they know that home schoolers think outside the box, but if you grow up inside the institution, you've boxed in your thinking because of that. And I'm not saying for every single child, right? We're talking in generalities, but by and large now in the schools, they slow everything down for almost the slowest child, which makes it boring for the faster children.
Some children excel in math, some excel in reading because that's their proclivity. They right? And so the children will suffer because they're held up by the other children.
Speaker 1: And is it all about money with the unions and the board? It's about power and money, I assume. What's your thought on that?
Speaker 0: So there's a nefarious element. Let me ask you this. If you were a pedophile, where would you go to find children? Schools, Boy Scouts, churches. So NAMLA, the national sorry, the North American Man Boy Love Association, which was largely dismembered, but not really.
It doesn't have the power that it did have. But way back when, on their website, they advocated for joining the Boy Scouts. They advocated. They said if you're, you know, you wanna to have sex with little boys, the Boy Scouts is a great resource for finding and grooming and procuring. So I think with the okay, I know, with the advancement of anything goes in terms of sexuality, and the I guess the development of this idea that it's pretty easy to run for school board and get on a school board.
There is a nefarious element now that has infected The sexual nefariousness. Absolutely. Yes.
Speaker 1: So power, money and sex Yes. Is the third one and perhaps sex.
Speaker 0: Perversion. Let's call it perversion. Sexual perversion. I mean, Kenny, right, Kenny developed the what you were taught in fourth grade, right? The guy who developed our sex ed program did experiments on babies, sexual experiments on babies.
And that was his claim to fame, that's what gave him the notoriety to design our sex ed curriculum for schools. They sold us sex ed for schools, They sold it to us promising that it would reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. The number of teenage pregnancies skyrocketed, but no one did the research after the fact to go, well, that didn't work out so well.
Speaker 1: I remember being in fourth grade and I got that anal sex education class or whatever it was about AIDS. And the AIDS crisis was just ending. But I remember feeling so uncomfortable and my teacher I went to the bathroom and my teacher came to me and said, Are you ashamed? Do you feel uncomfortable about yourself? It was weird.
But that was, I mean, how am I supposed to know if it's bad or good in the sense that I don't know what to compare
Speaker 0: it to? As a fourth grader? I don't know. You're not meant to know.
Speaker 1: I think it's much worse today.
Speaker 0: You're meant to not make a judgment. Our schools have taught us the lack of discernment, so we refuse to make judgments, which is which is why I get on people's nerves because I'm very quick to judge.
Speaker 1: Objectively. Like when you're young and you're going through that, you don't know. You don't know. You don't know what's different or But again, I went back to my school, you know, what, two years ago and it was much different than it was in the nineties. I mean, was there was a couple of gay people, but they weren't really that out and certainly no one men wearing dresses, but I mean, when I went back, there were guys in dresses with beards.
Like they didn't even care. They didn't even try
Speaker 0: to be girls. It was just crazy. No, it's one of our parents in St. Louis, in the most conservative district in St. Louis took her four year old to the library to get a library card, and the chief librarian there that was in charge of that was a cross dressing tranny who wore fishnets and the shortest miniskirt so that you were afraid that you would catch a glimpse of something.
Speaker 1: Is this a guy being It's a a guy. Or a girl trying to be a guy?
Speaker 0: A guy dressing like a whore.
Speaker 1: Oh, I see. Did they have surgeries or or
Speaker 0: I don't know, but a bearded guy dressing like a whore.
Speaker 1: Did they still have the beard? Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And so the point and and so she reached out to the head of the library to have a discussion with him, and he refused to meet with her until she pressed him, and then they finally he finally agreed to meet with her, and then when she showed up and she brought 65 people with her because he said to her, no one else has complained, you're the only person who complains about this individual, and I mean fishnets and five inch heels in front of a four year old. It's not appropriate. No. And all she was saying was could he dress more appropriately, not could he get fired, but just you know, there's there are dress codes. And just because you're a tranny doesn't mean you can just run ramshots over all the dress codes that we have in our society.
I didn't come here in a bikini.
Speaker 1: There's a sexual there's an underlying perverse sexual in the power money dynamic that
Speaker 0: And so she shows up for the meeting and there's police cars and there are a bunch of protesters, LGBT protesters. So let's
Speaker 1: go back to these police officers. I think this is fascinating. You know, these are relatively conservative compared to the cross dressing trainees. As a rule, police officers are generally more conservative.
Speaker 0: Well, they're called because there might be some upheaval. So we need you there because there might be some
Speaker 1: upheaval. They're followers.
Speaker 0: And they and they are to keep the peace, and so they're seeing, okay, we've got people on the trans side, and we've got people on the not trans side, and we're just here to keep the peace. But she goes into the library and they say, oh, he cancelled the meeting. So they just lie, because clearly he didn't cancel the meeting, the protesters were there, they called the police, something was happening, and then they got a photo of him hiding behind a pillar upstairs. Hiding behind a pillar? Yes, because he did not want to have the meeting.
Hiding behind a pillar, that would be And so she said, how did he cancel the meeting? He doesn't have any way of contacting me, and nobody contacted me. But this is it's all the same idea. What's the solution to
Speaker 1: all this?
Speaker 0: The solution is to make parenting great again. The solution is for parents to understand that they've been entrusted with their children by a higher power and to take that responsibility very seriously, and it is more important than money.
Speaker 1: That's going to be a hard thing, a hard current to swim against.
Speaker 0: Yeah, well we have the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, so we can go down that path. That's one option. The town folk wanted to have sex with angels, and now they want to have sex with children. But I would just encourage parents, look, it's just you and your kids, and it's you and your kids for the rest of your life. And so your job is to protect your children, and that should be the most important thing
Speaker 1: on your books. But I also think, you know, my reaction to that is, and I hey, guys, pull up that beginning of that school board meeting if you have it, is I wanna help vis a vis citizen journalism, investigative journalism. I like what you said your what your son said. You have to be so strong to fight against this evil.
Speaker 0: Well, like, this is a very, very strong statement. It is. Like, I am willing to go to the death.
Speaker 1: You basically have to If give your
Speaker 0: you're willing to go to the death, you better work out. Like, because because at least you can forestall something. Right?
Speaker 1: What does the scripture say? Something to the effect of greater love hath
Speaker 0: No man than this. He lay down his life for his friend.
Speaker 1: For his friends. Lay down his life for his If you're not willing to lay down your life, then you're gonna be tested. You're gonna be just tested. Okay, just play thirty seconds of this because I think it sets up a practical conversation about where to go from here I equip people with cameras in the school boards. I wanna equip parents because I think the light, the They look they're different looking.
They look Trumpish. They look Trumpish.
Speaker 0: So it's just amazing that they've drawn the battle lines. We're the ones who are sitting here going, really?
Speaker 1: There's Okay. Here's my reaction to that. It requires an unbelievable amount of strength because I think that's really what it's about. I mean, yes, giving up your life, that's true, but may not have to get that far. I think it requires an unbelievable amount of strength and like, you have to endure unbelievable amounts of pain to stand up to the evil that you're describing.
Speaker 0: You know what? It's really very simple. Do you love truth? And in my fourth grade, I discovered that I love truth. I had a really seminal moment where I discovered that the truth was the best version of everything.
And so if you're willing to so you just have to decide, do I believe in truth? And if you believe in truth, then you have to be willing to stand for it. And then it becomes easy.
Speaker 1: Go back to your fourth grade. What caused you to have that epiphany?
Speaker 0: It's kind of silly. The teacher asked a question, what is 10 divided by one half plus two? And he went around the class and everybody said seven, and he got to me and he said, so you say it's seven, and I said no. And this was a difficult moment for me, my palms were sweaty, I was like scared, And he said, Well, that's that's silly, because everybody says it's seven. What do you say it is?
And I said, It's 22. And he said, Well, should we throw her out the window? And then and then I was right. And I really enjoyed that. I really I was like, okay.
It's good to be right. It's it's correct to be right. I'm getting I'm, like, anxious right now because I'm reliving that moment. You you liked it because you
Speaker 1: felt it was good to
Speaker 0: be Because it's true.
Speaker 1: You Because I knew the truth. You knew the truth.
Speaker 0: And so I said, oh, no. That's wrong. Mhmm. And we have to be willing to do that. Mhmm.
We have to be willing to do that for children. And if we are not, then we are useless. We are terrible, terrible people. And unfortunately, because we lack discernment, I think there are so many people who are not only not willing to stand up for children, but they're not even willing to condemn themselves for not doing it.
Speaker 1: Well, Pete, maybe people have to live through what you lived through in that moment somehow. If that was your proximate cause, if that was the thing that did it for you, I'm just trying to figure out how we can motivate people then, how we can get people to care. That's something that we need to do. You have to stand up
Speaker 0: for They care when their child is killed by a school shooter. They start to care. I don't know. I you know, we used to teach people the Bible. We used to teach them what morality really was, what it meant, that it's important.
And, you know, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything, you know? We used to have that as an adage.
Speaker 1: Most people don't know what that means.
Speaker 0: Right? They so It's one
Speaker 1: thing to read it in a book, like, say, being raided by the FBI. If you read about it or see watch a movie or whatever the shows are, or every show is about the FBI and cops these days.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But when
Speaker 1: they actually come to your house, like they did with my colleagues with the jackets and the guns, to live it is a different
Speaker 0: thing. To get handcuffed and put out on your front lawn in front of your kids Which would happen these mothers. Yes.
Speaker 1: And after that happened to the mothers, did you know some of these people, you've read their stories? How did that affect? Because I don't know them.
Speaker 0: Mean, of these parents are they've got PTSD. They're struggling. And they're struggling with their jobs. They're being ostracized.
Speaker 1: In other words, it's all pain.
Speaker 0: It's all pain. It's all
Speaker 1: pain, but suffering brings us closer to God. That's what wisdom would say, right? So therefore it's worth it.
Speaker 0: Well, it's worth it because they stood up for their kids and they know what's important.
Speaker 1: And also, love to know as their children grow up, how their children views that experience.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Because they'll admire their parents more. They should. I had Rick, Professor Rick from Florida Tech here on this program a couple weeks ago, unbelievable man, who's been fired from his job as a professor, and he's mowing lawns to pay the bills. But he says, you know, my children need spiritual fulfillment as much as they need nourishment fulfillment. Correct.
Very wise. Right. Another one of those things that evokes audible gasps from people. Right. Because I think it also doesn't it make people feel insecure?
That's the other thing I want to ask you is that you're doing something, people like these families and the Border Patrol agent talked about the religion of apathy. In other words, by doing the thing, you're making people who don't do the thing feel insecure. Right. And I've actually observed people get emotional. It's a complex combination of emotions.
When they see someone they admire doing something, and they themselves are not doing anything, and they don't really have a good excuse. Have you ever observed that, witnessed that?
Speaker 0: I got it a lot with homeschooling. I had a lot of people sort of resenting me because my homeschooling somehow passed judgment on them not homeschooling. Just you being you? Just me being a homeschooler, they felt judged. Really?
Like, and it's funny because, look, I meet people where they are, that's what I try to do anyway. I know that home educating your children is better for you and for your children. I know that, because I've seen it too many times, and because it's biblical, you know, so, and I want what's best for you, and I want what's best for your children. That's just the way that I roll. So but but they so there is that.
There there's a little bit of I
Speaker 1: think that's a big one. I think that might be a big one, and that that people feel, you know, insecure or threatened. This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances.
Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeifmediagold.com or 833324 Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe.
Don't just watch history. Own a piece of it.
Speaker 0: Well, okay. We were gonna start talking about this.
Speaker 1: Right? Yes. We can end on this. Come full
Speaker 0: circle. You know, when you're a celebrity and people admire you, they will come up to you and they don't know how to behave. A lot. Not all of them. Some of them are so insecure that they have to say, like, not great things about you, like people used to guys used to go up to Kevin and go, I thought you'd be bigger, and he's like, yeah, I'm six foot three and a hundred and thirty pounds, two thirty, but you know what, it's you know, like, it's so stupid.
Because they don't know what to say, and
Speaker 1: because They they're say in Kevin secure Sorba, I thought you'd be bigger.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Like and that was when he was playing Hercules. Like, that was when he was really big.
Speaker 1: So what do you say in response?
Speaker 0: So I actually taught him to say thank you.
Speaker 1: You just say thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And then if they meant it as an insult, they would have to defend insulting him. No, I meant I Right? Or if they didn't mean it as an insult, then it wasn't taken as an insult, and and they could go and not feel so bad about themselves because people don't know people don't know how to behave. And and that's normal.
Speaker 1: Especially in in the face of a public figure. They do a weird thing, don't they, when
Speaker 0: they There's a shift, right? It's not a normal relationship. And you know, I meet reporters or news anchors, right? And I want to be on their show. So there's this other element in the meeting.
You want something. Oh, hi. Hi. It's so nice to meet you. Right?
There's just this other element.
Speaker 1: There's an element of artifice, think, in when I interact with members of the public who want a picture with me. Usually want something from me.
Speaker 0: They'll say really degrading things about themselves or about you. It's horrible.
Speaker 1: Right? I'm so glad you brought this up. I know we only have five minutes, I could talk about this with you for an hour. I find this fascinating. They say horrible things and they usually say something to the effect of, like I was at a speech, I won't say where because they're gonna take this personally and they're not bad people, but they'll say, you look completely exhausted.
Oh, that. And I'm sure you've done this. And usually this would You're be an so much older. This is an obese person talking about how I I don't look that bad. I mean, I guess I look a little tired because I work a hundred hours a week.
And I thought about saying, well, look lazy or you look fat. It's like, why do people talk about your appearance when their appearance is horrible? So that's the first thing. You know, I'm sure I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The thing is you you have to give people grace You
Speaker 1: have to.
Speaker 0: Because you come with some excess baggage, which is the fame or whatever you wanna call it. It's it's the known entity Well, you can't even of say
Speaker 1: that you're famous because they'll look at you as But self you
Speaker 0: come with that. You come with this known entity. So your job seriously, your job, because you have to protect your reputation also, your job is to be gracious. Your job is to say, well, thank you. And even if it's like the most insulting thing, and by the way, and I truly believe this chances are they don't mean to insult you.
They're not looking to insult you. And if they are, you shouldn't give them the satisfaction. So it works out to the same thing.
Speaker 1: Saying thank you and and genuinely smiling is probably the best you can do. It is sometimes Yeah. Hard because what you don't want to do is
Speaker 0: gets you off guard too.
Speaker 1: I don't want to come across as insincere or phony. So I'll have a lot of people sometimes that say, can I get a picture? And I'll say, sure, absolutely. I say, you must hate this, don't you? And I say, please don't say that.
Please don't say that. I don't hate this. I want it Even if I have ten seconds with you Yeah. I want it Where are you from? Rochester.
Oh, my mother's from like, I want to have some grace and Right. But it's very tough because they'll try to make it awkward. They'll say the weirdest, damnedest, most uncomfortable things. And I and I
Speaker 0: think it's too big And you're stuck. I think part of the problem is you're stuck because you can't take it there. You can't let it go there. No. Because it has to be COVID-nineteen.
Speaker 1: You have to take the beating. And so you just put up. You look horrible. Thank you so much. It's so nice that you have to Right.
And you have to do it and this is not easy. This is actually the hardest part. By the way, the hardest part of my job is not going in undercover and meeting with gay guys in DC. No, no, no. It's taking photos in a line because you don't want to lose your soul.
Yeah. Right. So how what's the best way people can support your efforts? Is it a five zero one c three you're working
Speaker 0: on? We do have a five zero one c three. It's on my website, samsorbo.com, and all the information is there, the dossier of the targeted parents are there, if you are a targeted parent, you can join our cause, we are considering now a class action lawsuit or some such thing, I'm not a legal person, but these parents need some representation. They need some restitution.
Speaker 1: There's the website, samsorbo.com is
Speaker 0: You the
Speaker 1: have a show, you have a nonprofit, and I'd like to talk to you offline about muckraking on the school boards and doing foyer quest on body cameras. I'm gonna borrow a line from Mike Malice, who I admire. What was your favorite part of our conversation today? What was your favorite thing to talk about? Because I might have you back on.
Speaker 0: I really liked going into the degradation of our entire culture. That seems to be my theme these days, is trying to wake people up, and we can turn it around in a generation if we don't put our children in school. Thank you. It's really that simple.
Speaker 1: Thank you for being here.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Sam Sorbo - About
sorbostudios.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I stood with Jeffrey Epstein survivors at a significant press conference on Capitol Hill, calling for the full release of the Epstein Files. Despite bipartisan support, I criticized Speaker Mike Johnson for promoting a placebo resolution and highlighted the financial pressures from billionaires to silence the truth. I shared insights from James O’Keefe's DOJ investigation, which revealed ongoing obfuscation. I remain resolute that the truth will emerge, forcing D.C. to choose between protecting the powerful or standing with survivors.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Congressman Thomas Massie stood with Jeffrey Epstein survivors at a historic press conference on Capitol Hill, demanding the full release of the Epstein Files. Those demands were echoed by allies from both parties. According to Massie, Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing a placebo resolution, billionaires are spending millions to crush him, and congress members whisper support in private but stay silent in public. James O’Keefe showed Massie a preview of OMG’s DOJ investigation that confirmed the pattern of obfuscation that he has been seeing happen around the full Epstein files release. But Massie isn’t backing down. He says the truth will come out, and when it does, D.C. will have to choose between protecting the powerful or standing with the survivors. Epstein Files Transparency Bill Press Conference (1:50) Why Trump Calls the Bill a “Hostile Act” (4:07) Rep. Massie Reacts to OMG’s DOJ Epstein Tapes (6:40) Why the Epstein Client List Remains Hidden (9:06) ‘Private Support, Public Silence’ (11:10) The Outlook for the Transparency Bill (14:28) The Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause (15:45) The Price of Telling the Truth (16:37) Is Trump in the Epstein Files? (20:36) Should More Reps Go Public? (21:15) “My Price Is My Life” (23:00) Inside the SCIF (23:55) Redactions and Concealed Truths (29:31) The Evil Reality of Epstein’s Crimes (31:08) When the Government Lets Criminals Walk Free (33:11) @RepThomasMassie @MassieforKY Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Website: https://okeefemediagroup.com/rep-thomas-massie-my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe-11/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Congressman Massey, an MIT-trained engineer and independent voice, led a push to release the Epstein files. At yesterday's press conference—the 'biggest press conference on Capitol Hill in the last five years'—survivors said they supported Massey’s legislation; 'every survivor was asked, do you support the legislations Massey's legislation? And they all raised their hand.' Massey aims for 'two eighteen signatures' to force a vote; if not, 'one trick' would be to bypass the speaker. He says Republicans fear Trump’s political machine; 'they're terrified of President Trump's political machine.' Three women—'Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace'—co-sponsored. He notes 'DOJ has released thousands of pages, but what they've done is to heavily redact all of those pages.' He mentions Acosta and Epstein's ties to government intelligence, and quotes the line 'What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is it that the Republicans fear Trump so much, but they agree with you privately? How do just talk about that for a minute? Yeah. Is that it? That's it.
That's it
Speaker 1: in a nutshell. They I don't think, my colleagues are happy about covering up for pedophiles, but that's what's happening. And the and it's so sick and twisted. The reason they're doing it is because they're terrified of president Trump's political machine. He's also gone as far as to say, oh, this could endanger the survivors.
But that's false. Every survivor was asked, do you support the legislations Massey's legislation? And they all raised their hand.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back to the Price Is My Life podcast. Today, we are off location live in Washington, DC, and I'm with Congressman Massey. Thomas Massey, an MIT trained engineer, inventor, farmer, and one of the most independent voices in Washington coming fresh off the heels of his press conference yesterday with Jeffrey Epstein, survivors representing Kentucky's Fourth District since 2012.
He's known as mister no. Is it doctor no or mister no?
Speaker 1: Mister no.
Speaker 0: Mister no. For his willingness to stand alone against trillion dollar spending bills, government overreach, and even presidents from his own party, own political party, from building a solar powered off grid farm to leading the bipartisan push to release the Epstein files, Massey has lived his life by principle regardless of what you think about him. Liberty isn't negotiable to him even when it comes at a cost. Congressman, thank you for the Price Is My Life podcast. We have, like, thirty minutes.
Usually, it's three hours, so we're gonna do lightning round. How do you think it went yesterday?
Speaker 1: I was told it's the biggest press conference on Capitol Hill in the last five years. So we had several major networks carry it. Most importantly, the survivors had a platform, and nobody can call this a hoax anymore. I was shocked myself. I was hoping the survivors would compel my colleagues to co sponsor my effort to release these files, but what I found out is it emboldened me to redouble my efforts because I was driven to tears really listening to their stories.
Speaker 0: And, you know, I watched the press conference, I was physically there, I was walking around, did know Were
Speaker 1: you wearing a disguise? Were you the blonde?
Speaker 0: Actually, I did have a wig.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: I did have a wig. I was not physically in the gaggle with you. I was off to the side, and I released a video about it yesterday. There was a lot of left wing agitator types there, believe all women, and talking about Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, and I just noticed a lot of what I would characterize as like liberal activists, maybe perhaps using that to their advantage. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: Well, had the bicycle barricades set up. I'm only responsible for what happened inside of the bicycle barricades. Like, there are people claiming that other people at our press conference and they even spoke from the microphone. All we had speaking there were three of us, three members of Congress, myself, my colleague Ro Khanna, and my colleague Marjorie Taylor Green, the 10 survivors and two of their attorneys.
Speaker 0: And what do you think is going to happen? Are people going to sign on to this?
Speaker 1: I'm almost certain we're going get to two eighteen signatures. That's the threshold we need to force a vote on this. And at that point, they're going to hate me for breathing air up here because Republican members of Congress are going to have to choose which version of Donald Trump they want. Do they want the Donald Trump who ran for office and his vice president who said they would release the files and his attorney general who said they would release the files? Or do they want the Donald Trump who says now it's a hostile act if anybody co sponsors my resolution?
Speaker 0: In short, why is the president taking that approach?
Speaker 1: I think he has rich and powerful friends who maybe they're not gonna be indicted when this is released, but they'll be embarrassed. And I also think there's a person in his administration who's gonna be embarrassed, Acosta, who was part of the first plea deal.
Speaker 0: That was the US attorney?
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was the US attorney when Epstein got off easy, and then recommitted all these crimes. Like there are hundreds of victims because Epstein basically went back to his predatory ways after he got that light sentence. So I think that's part of it. And finally, there's government intelligence. Epstein had ties to that, and I don't think the American people are ready to, they're not gonna accept lightly the fact that this guy who was a pedophile was working with our own intelligence agencies and those of foreign countries.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money.
Interest rates and inflation remain high. And everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 833324gold. Again, that's okeifmediagold.com or 833324 Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keith.
Don't just watch history, own a piece of it. We released a tape. We are about to release a tape. As of the time of this filming, it hasn't been released yet, and I just wanna get your reaction. This is a guy named Joseph Schnitt, acting deputy chief inside the DOJ, and I'm just gonna play a clip here.
Speaker 2: They'll redact every Republican or conservative person in those files, leave all the liberal Democratic people in those files.
Speaker 0: I mean, they visited that Maxwell person
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Who's been also involved?
Speaker 2: Got transferred to a minimum security person too recently, which is against BOP policy because she's she's a convicted sex offender. They're offering her something to keep it by yourself.
Speaker 0: That was the acting Okay. So that was someone high up in the DOJ saying they're offering Ghislaine Maxwell something to keep her mouth shut, saying the Epstein files do exist, saying there's thousands of files and they'll redact every Republican person. This guy is pretty credible because he works in the office of enforcement operations. He's kind of an intel guy in the DOJ working with the Bureau of Prisons. What's your reaction to that?
Speaker 1: When was that filmed roughly? About a month ago. Yeah, well, he's right, I think. I mean, why would he be lying, first of all, if he didn't know he was being taped? But it's turned out he's right because the DOJ has released some files.
First, the attorney general said there's nothing left but child porn in their possession, you know, after she released the phase one binders, Pam Bondi. Well, since then, just recently in the last week, the DOJ has released thousands of pages, but what they've done is to heavily redact all of those pages. So they're taking out the names, as it seems like he predicts there. And also yesterday we heard from survivors who said basically the same thing about Maxwell, that she was getting a light sentence and that you couldn't trust anything that she says because of that, I think she is getting a light sentence. It's almost as suspect as is Jeffrey Epstein killing himself in his cell.
This is even more suspect because it's not a conspiracy theory, we know it's happening, and you've got somebody there inside of the DOJ who's admitting that it's highly unusual and unprecedented.
Speaker 0: One of the criticisms I was watching the reaction to what you did yesterday, and a lot of the people say, We have our own list. Some of the victims said that, right? We have a and we're going release it ourselves. One of the questions people have is why wouldn't they just release that right away or even at your press conference?
Speaker 1: Yeah, they addressed that at the press conference, somebody asked them. And their first answer is why do we have to release the list? Why won't the government release it?
Speaker 0: On principle, they're saying the government should do it on principle.
Speaker 1: The government should do it because they're responsible for enforcing the law. The victims aren't responsible for enforcing the law. But the biggest reason, they're not releasing the list, and I think I have a solution to this that came up at the press conference yesterday, but the biggest reason they're not releasing it is they could be sued into homelessness, like for defamation. So let's say they accuse somebody of something and then the government doesn't prosecute it and they can't get all of this materials and discovery and whatnot, so then they get the counter suits happen, which has happened to these victims, and then they get blamed, and they get defamed, and it's not worth their time. They also get threatened, they get followed by cars, around their neighborhoods, they get intimidated.
So when they said they're going to compile their own list, said, we don't have plans to release it. My colleague Marjorie Taylor Green stepped up to the microphone and reminded America that members of Congress have something constitution called speech or debate immunity that's been rarely used, but it's always enforced, which is to say, we can't be sued for anything we say on the floor of the house. So Marjorie Taylor Greene came up with the idea of if the victims have a list, we'll go to the floor and read the list and we can't be sued or prosecuted for it. And I talked to Marjorie about that after the press conference and we've got some ideas for doing that.
Speaker 0: Do you think that a lot I mean, just speak for a moment about the dynamic here, because this is a weird dynamic. You're not anti Trump, or I suppose No.
Speaker 1: I endorsed him for president.
Speaker 0: So but is is it that Republicans fear Trump so much, but they agree with you privately? I'll just talk about Yeah. That for a Is that it? That's it. That's it
Speaker 1: in a nutshell. I don't think my colleagues are happy about covering up for pedophiles, but that's what's happening. And it's so sick and twisted. The reason they're doing it is because they're terrified of President Trump's political machine. His not just his legislative affairs folks are reaching out from the White House to every Republican member of Congress who might think about cosponsoring this.
They're getting calls from the political machine that Donald Trump runs. We've got members of Congress who have aspirations of running for statewide office, and they can't run they can't win a statewide office in a Republican primary with Donald Trump on the other side, so they're they're terrified of him, With three big exceptions, three women have co sponsored this resolution. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace.
Speaker 0: Why aren't they terrified of President I
Speaker 1: think, number one, because they're women, they feel obligated to take up for the women who've been abused. And number two, I think it's harder for the president to go after a woman who's taking up for women. He's been able to intimidate the men into not taking up for the survivors. There's something else going on here too, which is the Speaker of the House is offering political cover for everybody to be part of this ruse. Yesterday, we voted on a resolution that's meaningless, that does nothing, but it supports basically what's already happening in the oversight committee, and he told all the Republicans in a private meeting yesterday, this will give you political cover back home.
When you don't support Massey's resolution, which is the real one, by the way, you could I've got this placebo one. Now he didn't call it a placebo, but I've got this other one that you can vote for and you'll have cover. So that is going on, plus you have the Speaker of the House trained to use his bully pulpit to convince members of Congress that there's something defective about my legislation. Here's what's ironic about that. When the speaker created his fake version, he copied three pages directly from my legislation that we wrote right here in this office.
So at the same time, he's poo pooing the way my legislation was drafted, he's copied it and taken the teeth out of it. So that's giving a fig leaf for the other members of Congress and a reason. They're saying, oh, it's defective legislation. He's also gone as far as to say, oh, this could endanger the survivors. But that's false because yesterday at my press conference, every survivor was asked, do you support the Massey's legislation?
And they all raised their hand. Why would they support my legislation if it's not good for them? They even had their lawyers present who's looked at our legislation.
Speaker 0: So, what's the next thing that needs to happen here? What happens next? I need to
Speaker 1: get two eighteen signatures. How many have right now? I have two fourteen. I'll probably get two in the next week, and I think I'll get two more in the next two weeks. We'll get to two eighteen.
At that point, there's seven days, legislative days that have to pass, and then on the seventh day, Speaker Johnson has a two day window. He can either bring it up then or he can wait two days, but he's got to have a vote on this. There's one trick he can do. He can try to change the rules of the house. See, I'm using the rules as they are written, which says if you can get two eighteen signatures on something, you can bypass the speaker.
He could get the rules committee to change the rules mid Congress, but if he does that, he's gotta get two eighteen votes for that trickery, that becomes the vote of record of hiding the Epstein files. So he's kind of boxed in here. Now another thing could happen is the Senate could just refuse to pass this when it goes to the Senate. Because to make this binding legislation, to make it legally a law that the DOJ has to comply with, it has to go through both chambers.
Speaker 0: So the women can be sued, but you can't be sued. You were citing, what were
Speaker 1: you citing earlier? The speech or debate clause that's in the constitution, and the reason the founders put that in there, it sounds kinda not very populist, right? That there's a special super first amendment for congressmen, but the founders put that in the constitution because the king would always punish members of parliament, like he would convict them for things they said. If they said anything bad about the king, he could arrest them for their words, or people would sue them into oblivion. It might not sound like a good thing at first that you let congressmen lie if they want to.
I'm not proposing to lie, by the way. But somebody could use the speech or debate clause to do that.
Speaker 0: But how could like, you're gonna have to you're paying a price for this, and you're gonna continue to, I assume. What is the price you're gonna pay? Is it coming after your reelection and the billionaires are are funding your opponents? Like, what is the price you think that you're really gonna have to pay for this?
Speaker 1: $20,000,000 of negative ads in my congressional district.
Speaker 0: Does that matter to your voters there?
Speaker 1: It could. I mean, it's gonna leave a mark. Here's the so there's three billionaires right now. You know, you said what's the price you're going to pay? Let me tell you the price I've already paid.
There's three billionaires, two of them are hedge fund managers, and one of them is a casino mogul. One of them is in Epstein's Black Book, John Paulson. They've spent over $2,000,000 running negative ads about me. Not about the Epstein issue, Things like flag burning, they say, oh, Massey is a bad dude because he says flag burning's protected by the First Amendment, and they try to make a negative ad out of that. I'm just siding with Antonin Scalia, like the best person who's ever been in the Supreme Court, you know, in modern day.
But those are the kind of ads they run to try to diminish my reputation in my district and get me defeated.
Speaker 0: Is that
Speaker 1: working? It has some effect on low information voters. I don't think it's affecting the base of support that I have back home. But that's the price
Speaker 0: you pay. Like you said, it's not the whole country, it's just a very tiny fraction of people in a very specific place. Right. There's a big difference in
Speaker 1: those dynamics. And then the other price I pay is my consultants that you need to win an election, they're leaving me because they're being intimidated by Trump's political machine. You know the old line, you'll never do business in this town if you support this dude. That's literally being told to consultants that I would otherwise hire to help me win this election.
Speaker 0: My assumption is that if a congressman here had worn a hidden camera over the last ten, fifteen years, the things that I would see and hear would shock the conscience.
Speaker 1: There's one other thing that's going on, where we talk about all the ways you can be punished for speaking out. My fundraising in DC has dried up so much that my fundraiser gave up. You're fundraising in DC? Yeah. So, you know, if you if there's a PAC money, which almost every member gets PAC money up here, my fundraiser says, your prospects of getting PAC money are so dismal, you should just quit raising money in DC.
Speaker 0: Do you ever find just being you that once in a while you're just like, this is really, really hard. I can't do this anymore. This is just too tough. Do you ever feel that way?
Speaker 1: I think it's the opposite. If they ever quit attacking me, I might say, well this is kind of boring. When they attack me, I feel obligated to win because I know I'm over the target. Dogs don't bark at parked cars, we say back in Kentucky. They wouldn't be spending $20,000,000.
You can't hold two thoughts in your head simultaneously. You can't say Massey is ineffective in Washington DC and then also observe that they're spending $20,000,000 against me to get me out of DC. It's the reason they're doing that is I am effective. The press conference we had yesterday was the biggest one up here in five years.
Speaker 0: Biggest press conference in Washington. Yeah, Is that because 100 of all the number of press people there or how does that measure?
Speaker 1: The number of cameras, the number that were there, the number of networks that carried it live.
Speaker 0: And a lot of them are just trying to get a political, you know, cudgel against Trump probably, right? Or is Some of some of the democrats are,
Speaker 1: but that's a distraction. I don't think the president himself is implicated in any of these files. If he were, Joe Biden probably would have released these files.
Speaker 0: That's why I asked these protesters, they didn't have a good answer for that, by the way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, this isn't about Donald Trump, it's about people who are actually richer than Donald Trump, and have a lot of influence because they give Do
Speaker 0: people go up to you privately, and like I said, just say like, I agree with you, like in this building, to say, hey, I keep doing what you're doing, but I can't talk about it. Does that ever happen to you?
Speaker 1: It happens every week. Happens every week. Yeah. People are like And you
Speaker 0: have to protect their confidence. You have to protect their anonymity because they're confiding in you that they secretly support you, they don't wanna say so publicly, for example, right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if I were to say that, then they would never confide in me again. And those are my closest friends.
Speaker 0: Your closest friends.
Speaker 1: Your enemies up here don't come and say, I think what you're doing is right, but I just can't be with you, I can't die on this hill, but your friends do.
Speaker 0: Do you think that those people, without naming any names, do you think that they should be more brave and say it publicly, or it's just the nature of politics or the nature of human nature that you can't be public with that?
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously, I would like for them to join me. For some of them, the political reality is they would probably lose their reelection if Donald Trump came against them. Some of them are here because they were in a seven way primary and they got Donald Trump's endorsement and that was their major redeeming factor in an election where there was no incumbent, so people went with the Trump candidate. And now they're incumbents, but they haven't been here very long and so they haven't built trust with their constituents yet. And by the way, I might be losing my next election over this.
You have to get in a headspace where you're okay with that. And too many of my colleagues are not okay with losing their next election if that's what it costs. You said, what's the name of your podcast? Price is My Life. The Price is My Life.
Look, it's not even our life, right? The price is my reelection, I would say.
Speaker 0: So you are resolved, or you are okay with that possibility? Yeah. Psychologically?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then, you know, when I was at this press conference yesterday with the survivors, I got to thinking, for these survivors, the price is their life. Like, this could ruin their lives by speaking out yesterday. And here I've got members of Congress who won't even take a risk in their next election to do the right thing.
Speaker 0: We have five minutes before you have to go vote. Again, this is a lightning round of Price is My Life. We could talk for three hours.
Speaker 1: Sorry if my answers are too long.
Speaker 0: No, no. Maybe we'll have you back in studio at some point. But you and I spoke recently, and you told me a story. If you could just recount it briefly to the extent you can share, because that was so fascinating, of going inside the SCIF, that's a secure compartmentalized information facility, and I think you were approving budgets, some of it was classified. Yeah.
You told me a story about bureaucrats. Can you just recount that story briefly?
Speaker 1: So there's a classified annex to the budget. And a lot of my colleagues don't even know this. Like when they're voting for the classified annex, they don't even know that's what they're voting for. But if you're paying attention, you realize, oh, I've got a week to one week, I can go read the classified annex in a skiff. They don't allow you to bring pen and paper in, they don't allow you to take pen and paper out, you can't bring your phone in, you gotta lock it in a locker.
Speaker 0: And you
Speaker 1: can't bring your staff in. You can't bring your staff in. Imagine, when you get in there, have no smartphone and you have no smart staff, so it's only your own wits. And you can't even bring a pencil and paper or a calculator, and they go in, they let you have a sneak peek at this budget, at the classified annex, and it's basically all the clandestine things that the US government does. And it's, I can say this, it's tens of billions of dollars, I can't give you the exact number, and it's mostly code words.
By the way, there's maybe only a dozen out of the 435 people who ever go down and look at this thing. Code words? Code words for each of the projects.
Speaker 0: Like military Yeah, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, project Phoenix.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So, I'm sitting there reading this thing with three, I'll call them members of the committee staff, the intel committee staff watching me read this. But they're ostensibly they are there to help me understand it. So I'm reading this and I'm like, what is this Phoenix project that has $5,000,000,000? And the three of them look at each other, the three who are responsible for supervising my observation of the budget, and two of them look at one dude and he looks at them and he gets up and leaves the room. And now there's two left.
And he said, well, why did he have to leave the room? Well, Project Phoenix is above his level of classification. So they bring out, he leaves the room, they bring out another binder that I'm sure most congressmen don't get to this other binder. Probably 12 you said go in on a 400 or something? Yeah.
So then they open the other binder and they're like, well, here's Project Phoenix. And then, well, within Project Phoenix there's Project, let's call it Nest Egg. I'm like, well what's Project Nest Egg? And why is there a billion for it? And the two who are left in the room look at each other, and one of them leaves, and like, let me guess, that the other person couldn't know about Project Nest Egg.
Yep. So then I, they tell me about Project Nest Egg. You, now, the only thing I have in there, reference, is a clock, and before I walked in, I had to remember what my next meeting was, and I'm looking at the clock, and I've played 20 questions just to get down into Project Phoenix, and there's probably more binders if I knew the right words to say, you know, abracadabra, then I could get those binders. But this is how hard it is to know what's actually going on in our government.
Speaker 0: Wow, how much time were you in that room for?
Speaker 1: Like an hour, and just trying to drill down in one little thing to understand it. Now there was another, when I was doing that, there was another congressman in there with me, and he was like, how'd you know to ask for that? I'm like, well, I don't know, I just
Speaker 0: thought we should ask about Went to MIT. Yeah. This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances.
Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 833324 Again, that's okeithmediagold.com or 833324. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keith.
Don't just watch history. Own a piece of speaking of redactions, I sent you the FBI raid affidavit in in my case, where they literally redacted every single word of the probable cause. That's the justification for the search warrant. In a case where they admitted there was no indictment, there was no crime, they redacted every single word. And it stands to reason that if they can't even be transparent about why they why they raided a newsroom, why the Department of Justice raided a journalism organization, they can't even tell you why they did that.
It stands to reason they're not gonna tell you, you know, what really happened with Jeff Epstein here. Not voluntarily. Well, not voluntarily.
Speaker 1: And so, what's happening right now is they are curating the release of material to the oversight committee, and I showed the chairman of the oversight committee yesterday the documents he was getting. I'm like, here's the flight log. It's completely redacted. Like, not all of the people on that plane were victims. I said somebody had to fly the plane.
Like, can we at least know who the pilot was? Like, it was crazy.
Speaker 0: Is it all just to protect sources and methods? That's my hypothesis.
Speaker 1: I think it's to avoid embarrassment for some very rich and powerful people and I think it is, to some degree, to protect sources and methods, methods of which American people might not approve of if they knew their tax dollars were using those methods.
Speaker 0: Very last question, very quickly. What was your favorite moment from your press conference yesterday?
Speaker 1: Oh, my favorite moment, I won't call it my favorite moment, I'll tell you what kept me up last night, like sick to my stomach, was when one of the women recanted her story, actually two women, one was in Florida and one was in New York, they basically told the same story. When they were 14, somebody in their high school said, hey, you wanna go give a rich guy a massage and get $200? He's got a really nice house and all this. And she says, sure. She goes, The door closes with Jeffrey Epstein.
He sexually assaults her. He tells her, Whenever I call you, you need to come over here and I'll pay you $200 again. And the thing that makes me sick to my stomach is eventually he said, you gotta go back to your high school and bring me another 14 year old. And the girl admitted that she did it because, and she got $200 for doing it, but she didn't have to get sexually abused if she would bring him to somebody else. So, not only was there evil being perpetrated on her, she was convinced to do evil, or forced to do evil.
I think that's disgusting. And then what else we learned, this is very close to that same thing is that once they got to be like 16 or 17 or 18, they were too old for Jeffrey Epstein. And he would farm them out to friends, not all of them, but some of them. He would facilitate other people to have sex with, sexually abuse them. This gets to the heart of this matter.
Okay, there are two things that went really bad in the Epstein case. Number one, he got off with a very light sentence and then committed these heinous acts to hundreds of kids. Like, before this press conference, I wondered, should I be calling him a pedophile or were these, like, older, you know, girls? No. He was a pedophile.
He didn't even want them once they got to the legal age of consent. So two things went really bad. For some reason, Anacosta himself who works in the Trump administration now said back when he was the prosecutor that it was, that Epstein was tied to government intelligence, okay, but for some reason they let him go back out and recommit these things. And then the other thing that's really bad about this situation, which is what I want to get to, is he had, it wasn't just Maxwell and Epstein who committed these crimes. There were other people involved.
There were people that facilitated it, there were people who participated in it, and none of them have seen one day in jail. And a lot of those are still out there, and the DOJ wants you to believe they don't know who they are. That's preposterous. That's like, if you're an American and you're saying, and I have some colleagues who say this, they say, man, I just hear all that, and I just, my mind goes blank because I hear it so much, I'm tired of it, let's move on. But if that's your mindset, you need to understand that the US government has let criminals go free, Epstein at first, and then others still now, because, and argument right now is for why they can't release these files, is there are people in there who were associated with Jeffrey Epstein who shouldn't have to be embarrassed by being in a release of information.
The problem is, within that list of people that they think shouldn't be embarrassed are actual criminals who should be prosecuted. And so one of the objections to releasing all this material, once you get past the fact that we are gonna protect the victims, one of the objections is this embarrassment thing, but we gotta get over that. We gotta get all this out there and let people sort through, okay, this guy knew Jeffrey Epstein because he funded the scholarship that Epstein gave, right? Whereas this guy was a sexual predator. And I think that we can get to the bottom of that.
Speaker 0: Thank you Congressman for your time today. Thank Thank James. What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Rep. Thomas Massie | My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe #11 - O'Keefe Media Group
Congressman Thomas Massie stood with Jeffrey Epstein survivors at a historic press conference on Capitol Hill, demanding the full release of the Epstein Files. Those demands were echoed by allies from both parties. According to Massie, Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing a placebo resolution, billionaires are spending millions to crush him, and congress members whisper […]
okeefemediagroup.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
BREAKING NEWS: FBI Senior Official Mitchell Rosas TERMINATED & ESCORTED out of FBI Headquarters—Rosas Attempted to Stop OMG From Releasing the Tape O'Keefe Media has more DOJ Tapes to come. Stay Tuned. @FBI @FBIDirectorKash @TheJusticeDept https://t.co/gupBLNnZqY
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mitchell Rosas, a senior FBI official, has been escorted out of the FBI building and terminated. "You are free to report the individual Mitchell Rosas has been dismissed, fired as of today. He was escorted from the building earlier." Rosas sent a "formal objection to publication he sent this Friday at 04:00." "I do not consent to publication. Any portrayal otherwise would be false, misleading, and damaging. I reserve all legal rights and remedies including defamation, false light, and intrusion upon seclusion. Do not publish, direct any further communication to official.correspondenceinbox@outlook.com." "does Donald Trump have a right to know that these things are happening inside the Department of Justice?" We have more videos to come, and we'll be reaching out to Department of Justice about those videos. Stay tuned.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Breaking news. Mitchell Rosas, the senior official from the FBI that we just released a video about today, has been escorted out of the FBI building and terminated. O'Keeffe Media Group just received this statement from a senior FBI spokesperson. You are free to report the individual Mitchell Rosas has been dismissed, fired as of today. He was escorted from the building earlier.
Now the FBI official also sent OMG a message trying to stop the publication of this damning audio on Epstein. This is from Rosas, the guy on the audio recording you heard, quote, formal objection to publication he sent this Friday at 04:00. I am not a government official and was not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself. I was not informed the conversation was on the record. The transcript you reference is a fabrication and does not reflect what I said.
I do not consent to publication. Any portrayal otherwise would be false, misleading, and damaging. I reserve all legal rights and remedies including defamation, false light, and intrusion upon seclusion. Do not publish, direct any further communication to official.correspondenceinbox@outlook.com. Let's put that email address on the video.
We encourage all of you to email that individual. Sounds like something a lawyer wrote. What's interesting about this message is that he's claiming the words that came out of his mouth didn't happen, that he's not a government official even though he's been escorted out of the FBI building. Only one of those two things can be true. Very confusing message.
We are reporting on the FBI, the Department of Justice, people being fired now. For those of you who may be opposed to what we're doing because you support Donald Trump, the question I have for you is, does Donald Trump have a right to know that these things are happening inside the Department of Justice? And people are talking like this, many of them out of turn to complete strangers, not very professional behavior within our government, people making statements. We have more videos to come, and we'll be reaching out to Department of Justice about those videos. Stay tuned.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall delving deep into Jeffrey Epstein long before the mainstream narrative emerged. The longest chapter in my book, *The Clintons’ War on Women*, focuses on him, and I meticulously reviewed the testimonies of women who didn’t settle. I spent six hours interviewing Virginia Roberts-Giuffre, and the notion that she took her own life is absurd. Back in 2015, I had access to FAA manifest records and Epstein's black book, which included names like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) recalls what he uncovered about Jeffrey Epstein long before the story broke. “The longest chapter in my book The Clintons’ War on Women is on Jeffrey Epstein… I read every word of the testimony of the women who didn’t settle.” Stone added, “I interviewed Virginia Roberts-Giuffre for six hours in two three-hour sessions. The idea that she committed s**cide is ludicrous, out of the question.” “I had the FAA manifest records back in 2015. I had Epstein’s black book — Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, Bill Gates, others.” @JamesOKeefeIII Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Website: https://okeefemediagroup.com/roger-stone-my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe-10/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues politics used to be partisan but not like this; in Washington, he had Democrat friends, they ate together, teased, and sometimes beat us. "This is a new thing"—he says it comes directly out of the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He had written a book on the Clintons; "the longest chapter on that book is on Jeffrey Epstein" because he read every word of the testimony. He interviewed Virginia Roberts Jafre for six hours in two three hour sessions. "The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous, out of the question." She's now deceased. He says he knows how many times Bill Clinton was on the island from her testimony and he had FAA manifest records back in 2015. Epstein's butler sold his phone book; "'names circled' of those involved in sex trafficking or were material witnesses, including 'Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, Bill Gates, others.'"
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By the way, it didn't used to be this way. I mean, politics was always partisan. But when I lived in Washington, when I was an active political consultant, I had friends who were Democrats. I had friends in the business who were Democrats. We ate together.
We drank together. We teased each other. Sometimes we beat them. Sometimes we beat them. They sometimes they beat us.
When they beat us, it was like, okay. I'll get you next time. This idea of destroying people, destroying their lives, destroying their families, throwing them in jail. This is it was never like this. This is a new thing.
This is, I think, comes directly out of the presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama. That's what changed Barack Obama.
Speaker 1: I think it changed everything. Was it the Obamacare? What what what what moment was the when things really changed?
Speaker 0: I I think as soon as Obama becomes president, they decide that they want to fundamentally change the way the country is run, and therefore they need to not just beat the opposition, that would be us, they have to destroy us. So the fact that I had written a book on the Clintons, the Clintons war on women, and the longest chapter on that book is on Jeffrey Epstein, because I read every word of the testimony, in the cases of the women who didn't settle, who went on to sue Epstein. I interviewed Virginia Roberts Jafre for six hours in two three hour sessions. The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous, out of the question. And she's now deceased.
She she they tell us that she committed suicide. I don't I don't buy it. But I do know how many times Bill Clinton was on the island from her testimony. I do know how many times he was on the plane because I had the FAA manifest records back in 2015. I do know that when Epstein's butler sold his phone book, his little black book, not everybody in the book obviously is guilty of some illegality, but the butler helpfully circled the names and numbers of all those he said were involved in sex trafficking or were material witnesses.
In some cases, he would just write witness, other cases he would just circle those he said they were guilty. Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, senate majority leader George Mitchell, Bill Gates, others.
Roger Stone | My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe #10 - O'Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn one morning in 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone […]
okeefemediagroup.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn on January 25th, 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone refused, endured what he calls a “show trial,” and lost nearly everything. Now, he reveals how the justice system was weaponized against him. Surprise FBI Raid (1:24) Why Was Roger Stone Arrested? (7:20) The Booking Process/Arrest (11:50) Jury Corruption (14:00) Andrew Weissman’s Role (19:47) Advice for People Who Are Raided (24:28) Disproving the Charges & Resisting Trump Betrayal (25:30) Losing Everything to Pay Attorneys (28:30) Accusations Vs. Tangible Proof (30:20) Prosecuting the Prosecutors (32:00) Finding Faith (35:00) Commuted by Trump/Given Pardon (39:00) Obama Presidency Changed Everything (44:31) Virginia Gieuffre’s Testimony on Jeffrey Epstein (45:15) The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein (46:40) Who Really Killed JFK? (52:59) Richard Nixon on Israel (1:08:10) Stone and Trump Friendship (1:14:32) “The Apprentice” and Seeing Trump’s Potential (1:15:54) Nixon’s Run for President (1:18:50) On Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (1:26:30) @RogerJStoneJr Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Website: https://okeefemediagroup.com/roger-stone-my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe-10/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Roger Stone recounts a morning raid: “17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen” and him facing “the barrel of three m four assault weapons aimed at my head.” He says, “Nothing. That’s what they found,” and claims the case was rigged. He was offered: “we can hit you with some superseding charges and you’ll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump”—which he refused: “you can take this and you shove it up your ass because I’m not doing that.” He says CNN knew in advance: “the initials of the man who wrote it, Andrew Weissman.” He calls the raid “one of the greatest missteps in American political and public relations history” and asserts, “There is no Russian collusion. There is no WikiLeaks collaboration.” He notes funding his defense with shirts: “I sold 15,000 of those shirts in the next twenty four hours.” Trump later “commuted my sentence” and gave “a full and unconditional pardon.” He ends with: “Roger Stone did nothing wrong.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you knew they were gonna raid you that morning?
Speaker 1: Definitely. I That morning. I sensed it. It was coming that morning. We're talking about 17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen.
But I opened the door looking down the barrel of three m four assault weapons aimed at my head. Do know what they found? Nothing. That's what they found. Nothing.
I had no idea that the whole thing would be rigged. I was arrested in January. In July was when they said to me, we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump. Those are your choices. And I said, you can take this and you shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that.
I interviewed Virginia Roberts Dufres for six hours. The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous out of the question.
Speaker 0: She's now deceased.
Speaker 1: She she they tell us that she commits. I don't I don't buy it.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back. I'm here today with Roger Stone. Roger, thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: James, great to be with you. We we have a lot in common. We're both survivors. We both know how intrusive it is to have the feds smash and attack your place at 06:00 in the morning Yes. We do.
And be rested in your underwear. It's it's great to be with you.
Speaker 0: Great to have you here. I'm wearing a a tailored suit today. Alan Fluser.
Speaker 1: Very good. He's a
Speaker 0: New York tailor, so I'm I'm wearing a suit in honor of you. I know how much you appreciate fashion.
Speaker 1: He was my tailor till I got arrested and then suddenly he decided to give a bunch of interviews saying that I was a criminal.
Speaker 0: I didn't know.
Speaker 1: This is after I paid him, I don't know, $350,000 over many years. So he's no longer my tailor.
Speaker 0: Is he still alive?
Speaker 1: He is still alive, but he's not doing all that great. I now use a guy named Adam DeAngelo, who's a excellent tailor. He comes to you.
Speaker 0: Well, I the the guy that tailored is not Alan. Apparently, it's a new person that works for him.
Speaker 1: Looks great.
Speaker 0: But here we are. So speaking of the FBI team, let's pull up the clip regarding Roger in Florida. What was this? 2020? What year?
Speaker 1: 2019.
Speaker 0: 2019. And recently CEO. Oh, there this is CNN. Somehow somehow CNN knew that you were being raided. Yeah.
Let's play this clip, then we'll talk about it.
Speaker 2: Both this morning, a raid video this morning, a really stunning turn of events. So many people who have been charged and, in this Mueller investigation have been allowed to turn themselves in to surrender. Not so this morning. This was, by all accounts, a surprise raid on Stone's house. The reason
Speaker 0: A surprise raid. I know you've talked about this before, but I'm gonna talk about my raid. How did they know that you were being raided? How did CNN know that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's very simple. I was arrested at 06:16 in the morning. At 06:11, someone at CNN texted my lawyer and said, your client's just been arrested. And he, of course, said arrested for what? Because, of course, we knew there was no Russian collusion nor WikiLeaks collaboration.
So she sent him a copy of my sealed indictment, which wasn't unsealed until 10:30 that morning by a federal magistrate in DC. But if you looked at the metadata tags on that document, you find the initials of the man who wrote it, Andrew Weissman. Therefore, the man who leaked it in violation of federal law because the leaking of a search or arrest warrant prior to it being executed is actually a felony. Of course, the judge in my case could care less. But the idea that was a surprise is also false because I figured it out.
Meaning, the previous day around 04:30, the same producer at CNN called me and said, I I wanna mail you something. Can you give me your address? And I said, well, you can find my address online. It's easy to find. Well, there's two different home addresses for you online.
I'm not sure which one is the right one. So I gave it to her on the theory that she could find it anyway. And I said to my wife, they're coming to arrest me tomorrow morning. And she said, well, you've been saying that every weekend for the last six months because of the constant drumbeat of stories. It's part of their strategy of trying to pressure you.
Constant I never went to the grand jury. I never got a target letter. But every two or three days, you'd have a new story pop up saying, I was the focus of Mueller's probe, the noose titans on stone, the the stone under the microscope.
Speaker 0: Were you afraid? Were you scared?
Speaker 1: I was afraid. Was angry because, you know, I knew that there was no Russian collusion. I knew that their entire narrative was false. But every time one of the people who worked for me and some people who didn't work for me. Some people I hadn't been in touch with for fifteen years.
All these people being dragged in front of the grand jury, and, of course, their names are immediately leaked. So four stone three more stone associates go to the grand jury. And I'm scratching my head as are my lawyers because I can't think of any crime that I'm actually guilty of or that I could be charged with. So I would say at about 05:00 in the morning, set my alarm. I got up, I took a shower, I put on my Roger Stone did nothing wrong t shirt because I see a product placement opportunity coming.
Speaker 0: Those are your shirts that you
Speaker 1: I was selling to pay for my legal defense. I was saying them, if if you bought your t shirt for whatever it was, $25.
Speaker 0: So you knew they were gonna raid you that morning?
Speaker 1: Definitely. I I sensed it. It was coming that morning. And then I would say about 05:00, I got a call on my cell phone from a Fort Lauderdale police officer who happens to be a friend of mine. And he said, are you at home?
And I said, yeah, why? He said, well, I'm down at Starbucks and I bet there's, I don't know, 20, maybe 30 FBI agents here lined up getting coffee. Get the distinct impression that they're headed to your house after they leave here. And I said, yes, I'm expecting them. So I was sitting in the upstairs window, you know, which is the only, it's in the bathroom, it was the only window of the house upstairs where you could see the entire front yard.
And sure enough, first you saw the red lights. I mean, they came very very loud, very heavy. You saw the red lights, you heard their sirens, like I'm dangerous. Right. I saw them pull a battering ram out.
But first, before all of that, James, I saw the CNN crew set up 25 feet from my front door. And I later got an affidavit from a Fort Lauderdale police officer who was called in to do backup. They I live on a dead end street, so they roped off the end of the street. All the media was on the other side of the rope about a half a block away, except for CNN. They were allowed to be right at the, you know, at the right next to my house.
And the police officer says in his affidavit, when he told CNN they had to move, he got chewed out by an FBI agent who said, no. CNN had special permission to be, you know, inches away from where I was permission. I I presume the c the FBI did or the the prosecutors. The prosecutors in my case were actually there for my arrest. You realize this was one of the greatest missteps in American political and public relations history.
Helped get Trump elected perhaps. Well, it certainly allowed me to finance my legal defense because if I quietly turned myself in, and the day before my attorneys had talked to the special counsel's office, we handed over 30 pages of text messages, copies of text messages that proved that I was telling the truth and the witness against me were lying. So they could have said at that point, by the way, we're charging your client tomorrow, just bring him in to the federal courthouse. And I would have, of course, done that. But instead, they planned this over the top raid.
Speaker 0: What do you attribute that overreach to? Overzealous prosecutors, the attorney general's office? Why why did they do it that way?
Speaker 1: Well, think, first of all, they went and misrepresented the facts to two federal judges. So they told two different federal judges, we have probable cause to charge Stone with treason, conspiracy against The United States, counterfeiting, I love that one, money laundering, unauthorized access to a government computer, aiding and abetting a conspiracy before and after the fact. So they got into all my emails, all my text messages, all my phone calls. You know what they found? Nothing.
That's what they found. Nothing. So I actually think when they arrested me, they were they had high hopes that their investigation would turn up something useful. How did
Speaker 0: they get into your phone? The
Speaker 1: secret warrant? They they they take your phone. They took all
Speaker 0: my took the phone in
Speaker 1: the phone. They took all my electronic devices. So they took my computer. They took, my laptop.
Speaker 0: Did they have the password or did you
Speaker 1: They asked my wife the the passcode of my phone. She laughed at them and said, are you kidding me? Does your wife have the passcode to your phone? Right. No.
So, I mean, ultimately, figured it out. And once again, they found no evidence of Russian collusion, no evidence of WikiLeaks collaboration. They found nothing useful.
Speaker 0: The clip of the FBI pounding on the door, Andrew, and then also the clip of the FBI pounding on my door, because it's the pounding sound that I I when they did this to me here it is. The FBI pounding on the door, bang, bang, bang.
Speaker 3: FBI, open the door.
Speaker 0: So at this point, pause. So at this point, you what happened?
Speaker 1: So I come downstairs to let them in, obviously. And they say, are you Roger Stone? I say, yes. They say, put your hands behind your back. You're under arrest.
I put my hands behind my back. They say, is there anybody else in the house? I said, yes. My wife's in the house. They said, where is she?
I said, she's upstairs in the Second Floor. There's nobody else in the house. I said, no. There are no firearms in the house. I said, you already know the answer to that, because they did.
And they said, alright. Well, I I said, I'd like to know the charges against me, which I'm entitled by the constitution to know. Well, we'll tell you when we're ready. I said, no. I'd to know now.
I'd also like to see my lawyer. You can see your lawyer when we take you to the booking center in Miramar. Your lawyer will meet us there. So they're running up the stairs and I realized that they don't know that my wife is virtually deaf. So immediately, remember, I opened the door looking down the barrel of three m four assault weapons aimed at my head, aimed at my face.
And it immediately occurs to me that because my wife is deaf and without her hearing aids, she literally can hear nothing, she hasn't heard any she's none of this is going on. She's still sleeping. She sleeps through my entire arrest. My fear is that they're going to to wake her. She's not going to hear a command from Armen, and they're going to shoot her.
She doesn't know if this is
Speaker 0: That was going through your head in this moment. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't she's not they're all in plain clothes. So
Speaker 0: Did they have vests on?
Speaker 1: They had vests on. They but and most of them had night goggles. This was very, very dramatic.
Speaker 0: This is a joke.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it ended up backfiring, I think, very badly for them. Hey, look, I'm not the most sympathetic figure in the world. Okay? I'm a hardboiled political operative, but they made me into a sympathetic figure. Today, even today, this was four years ago, people come up to me and say, what they did to you, I saw it on TV, it was awful.
Speaker 0: That's what they say to
Speaker 1: me. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They always bring you up to me Yeah. And what they did to you. And so did did you open the door for these agents? Of course. Okay.
Because they would have banged it down.
Speaker 1: They were bashed they brought a battering ram up there. They would have smashed the door in. For what for what purpose? I mean, the whole thing was ludicrous. So then they hand they handcuffed me, I'm made to walk out and stand in the middle of the street in front of my house.
Now they bring my wife out, they perp walk her out in the middle of the street, although she's not allowed to talk to me.
Speaker 0: How did they find your wife eventually? Did she walk out
Speaker 1: of the She she she is accompanied out by a woman FBI agent. Fortunately for us, she didn't handcuff her, but
Speaker 0: Did she wake up from the
Speaker 1: She she woke up and then she realized what was going on. Now, remember, told her the night before this was gonna happen, she just didn't believe me. So they'd taken my phone at that point, they also took her phone. Since the whole world is watching this live on CNN, my grandchildren are calling, my children are calling, of course
Speaker 0: You can't answer
Speaker 1: the you can't answer the phone. Then after we left for the fingerprinting and the and the the mugshot at the booking center in Miramar, which at that hour in the morning is
Speaker 0: But what is Miramar for people who don't know what
Speaker 1: that is? Miramar, Florida is an hour and a half south of Fort Lauderdale where I live. And we're at peak traffic time now, so I'm handcuffed behind my back. So I say to the FBI agents, hey. Is there any chance we could move the handcuffs to the front?
No. Okay. Whatever. So we get we get there. I'm here.
I'm fingerprinted. I'm handcuffed.
Speaker 0: This is first time you've ever been arrested?
Speaker 1: For I I don't even have a parking ticket. I mean, it's ridiculous. So they say, okay. Your lawyers are in that conference room. So we go in the conference room.
I look around, and I go because I know they're listening. You know they're listening. So they say, okay. Well, they're going to what's gonna happen here? They said, well, we're gonna go back to the Federal Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale where you'll be arraigned.
We've already told them you're gonna plead not guilty, and they're gonna release you without bail. I said, wait a minute. Why did they arrest me in this over the top manner if if I'm not a flight risk? Their explanation already was, well, we had to do it this way because Stone was a flight risk. James, I didn't I had no valid passport.
I'm extremely recognizable, and I can't swim because I lived on a canal. We're talking about 17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen pulling up to the back of the dock at the back of my home. Frogmen. Frogmen. They jump out.
They're all I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I'm laughing, but it's
Speaker 1: They're also armed. I mean, this is they sent more people to take down El Chapo than they sent you do.
Speaker 0: In this moment in space and time, you mentioned you were angry. There was no part of you that was fearful or scared or in danger? You didn't have any of those emotions?
Speaker 1: I immediately recognized that this was a huge tactical error on their part.
Speaker 0: Almost like an advantage for you.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it I think it turns out to be an advantage for me because I was able to to bring attention to the outrageousness of
Speaker 0: publicity for you.
Speaker 1: And and the outrageousness of the case against me. And then so we go to the courthouse, and they that's another drive north now. They put me in a cell with the three African American gentlemen who were just coming around from a bend in the night before. So I patiently explained the 1994 crime bill to them, and why Joe Biden and and Bill and Bill Clinton are responsible for the mass incarceration of so many black people. At that point, it's now 10:00 in the morning.
I've been arrested at six. I still haven't eaten anything. So I say to one of the guards, hey, could I get like something to eat anything? And they say, no. So was already past mealtime.
So one of these guys gives me half of his peanut butter sandwich, the other guy gives me half of his, so I have an entire peanut butter sandwich to eat. And by the time I left the holding cell to go upstairs and be arraigned, these guys were chanting, Roger Stone did nothing wrong. Roger Stone did nothing wrong. It was not what they expected, I think.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 833324 Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 833324gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it. How did this because you've been a political strategist a very long time, and you have a lot to say about political strategy.
But how did this experience change your approach to political strategy, if at all?
Speaker 1: Well, I see I had no idea that what would happen next would be the complete and total unconstitutional gag that I would no longer be able to defend myself in any forum or on any platform whatsoever. See, in the early rulings in my case, the FBI was forced to admit that they never inspected the computer servers at the DNC, that they relied entirely on the third party report of a company called CrowdStrike. Now, in my trial, my defense attorneys wanted the CrowdStrike memo, but the judge would not allow it. And Mark Elias showed up in court to argue that that I shouldn't be given it because it would hide the secrets of the Democrat National Committee or reveal them. Well, the only thing they were proving was that there was no Russian hack.
Sean Henry, who just happened to be deputy Robert Mueller at the FBI, then the head of CrowdStrike, admits to the House Intelligence Committee under oath about the same time that I testify that in fact he has no proof of a Democrat hack of a, pardon me, a Russian hack of the DNC. That's because there was none. As soon as I started talking about this, then it became absolutely necessary to gag me. Judge put a gag on me as he had done with Paul Manafort, and I could not discuss any aspect of the case. Who was the judge?
Amy Berman Jackson, the most corrupt judge in American history. Later, James, we would learn that the jury for woman, who said in jury selection she had never heard of me, she knew nothing about me or my case, had been attacking me and Donald Trump by name on both Twitter and Facebook for nineteen months prior to her being selected as a juror. But she had all that locked down on a on a private setting, so it didn't turn up in due diligence. And when after I was convicted, but this was learned, it was Mike Cernovich who discovered it, the judge refused to to throw out my conviction to give me a new trial, saying that this woman's attacks on me were not evidence of her bias against me.
Speaker 0: What happened to Andrew Weissman? Where is he now?
Speaker 1: Andrew Weissman is in New York. He's just bought the condominium next to his to keep his wine collection. I imagine that he's lawyered up because he most definitely will be charged in the upcoming prosecutions of those who orchestrated this entire Russian collusion oaks.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna play for you. I'm sure you've seen it, but we'll talk about some of the things in this clip from Westchester County, New York. Go ahead and So it goes on, but this was recorded on a on a on a hidden camera that was oddly enough people say, did you obtain this? The special was the special master appointed in your case? I don't recall.
No. Special master was appointed in my case because we're journalists. And we got the footage because the special master took all the stuff and then we were allowed to see some of the stuff that was filtered.
Speaker 1: In in my case, it was somewhat different. I had security cameras all around my house. When the FBI left, they grabbed the wrong file. They grabbed the wrong tape. So they left me all of the video What whether is it
Speaker 0: a door camera, a door ring camera?
Speaker 1: All the way around.
Speaker 0: I had
Speaker 1: a door camera, the backyard. I mean, my eye house was completely wired for security on all sides, so I could see the frogmen jumping out of the boat onto the dock. I could I could see the 17 cars pulled
Speaker 0: rifles did you say with
Speaker 1: There were 29 FBI agents, all carrying Yes.
Speaker 0: What were they expecting you to have? Like a scarface
Speaker 1: I think I think this was about intimidation because you see, I was arrested in January 2019. By July, they'd gone through all my email and stuff, they realized they had nothing. So Andrew Eisman comes up with this very clever case.
Speaker 0: So this is his This is
Speaker 1: totally it. Totally him. And a miscreant
Speaker 0: And he's a US attorney? What's his title?
Speaker 1: Was the deputy director of the Mueller probe. Oh. This guy has a long history. He gets to start covering up mob murders in Brooklyn. Then he destroyed the Enron Corporation and Arthur Andersen.
His his criminal convictions in those cases are reversed nine to zero by the US Supreme Court. Yet to this day, he still points to them as the gold standard of federal prosecutions. Then he destroyed all the evidence of the of the illegal actions by the Mueller investigators. So after special counsel John Durham puts out a subpoena for the cell phones of the mother investigators, Andrew Weissman is the one who wipes all the memory of them. You see, there are two sets of rules.
They can do whatever they want. Now they would later accuse me of destroying evidence. I destroyed nothing. I I turned over 1,000,000 emails to them. I never I never deleted anything.
There's no evidence of Russian collusion. Here's the most amazing thing. My my lawyers asked for Robert Mueller's final report because the sections about me are completely redacted in the copy they gave us. We wanted an unredacted report. The judge said, no.
You can't have it. I'll review the report in my chambers and I'll give you the sections relevant to you. James, she seems to have forgotten page one seventy eight. It's the page in which he says that there the barriers to prosecuting Stone are factual, meaning they found no evidence of Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration, or any other crime. Somehow, the judge forgot to give us that section.
That's withholding of exculpatory evidence. I suspect when the House Republicans very shortly file articles of impeachment against this judge, which are definitely coming, that that will be one of the items delineated in those articles. Now, can you impeach a federal judge? Takes two thirds vote in the senate. It's difficult, but we should have a trial.
Speaker 0: Weisman was probably in charge because he reported to mule Mueller. Yes. And Mueller wasn't all there.
Speaker 1: Weisman was the de facto head of this witch hunt. This is a guy just to be clear, in the Enron case, he took the CFO of Enron. He locked him in a casket style metal box with just a slot for his eyes and left him out in the sun until he agreed to testify and say what what what Weisman wanted him to say. There was a bar complaint filed in New York on this matter because that's cruel and unusual. Go look for that bar complaint, James.
It's missing. It's gone. It's no longer there.
Speaker 0: This is a sick person. You know, a lot of people have been by the way, we have the clip, Andrew, of Stone walking back into the house with a shirt that says Roger Stone did nothing wrong. I'd like to see that. This is Sinclair Broadcast Group. I guess they published this.
You walking back into the house. Is it 01/25/2019? Is that yep. Mhmm. Roger Stone did nothing wrong walking back in.
Speaker 1: Now, that's part that's product placement. I sold 15,000 of those shirts in the next twenty four hours. All of it dedicated to my But legal defense fund.
Speaker 0: I I mean, seriously, a lot of people have been through this in some way, matter, shape, or form and relate to it in some local or federal form. What advice would you have for people who go through
Speaker 1: it? Well Who are scared?
Speaker 0: Who are afraid?
Speaker 1: Well, in that in that moment, of course, it's very, very intimidating. I admit to you that I my initial reaction was this is ridiculous. There's no crime here. I'll clearly be found innocent. I had no idea that I was gonna be subjected to a Soviet style show trial in which all avenues or arguments in defense were denied.
You can't so I wanted to bring in Bill Binney, the the the CIA's most famous IT guy who could approve there was no online hack of the DNC. The judge would not allow him to test testify. One of the charges against me was I said that a friend of mine in New York who was a a radio personality had told me that he knew a woman lawyer who worked for WikiLeaks and that she had told him that Julian Assange had this huge catch of information on Hillary Clinton and he would release it in October. James, I have the text message in which he told me that. The judge would not allow us to enter it as evidence because it disproved one of the specific charges against me.
So I had no idea that the whole thing would be rigged, but I realized ultimately why it was. I was arrested in January. In July was when they said to me, through my lawyers, look, we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump. Those are your choices. And the guy pushes this piece of paper across.
He says, all you gotta do is sign this. I look at it. I realize every word of it is false. And I said, you can take this and you can shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that. Now I'd already passed two polygraph tests that proved that everything they wanted me to say was false.
So they wanted me to be the ham in their ham sandwich. I refused to do it. I was not going to be Michael Cohen. I was not going to lie. I was not going to say things that weren't true.
Speaker 0: You're not going to I remember you saying, I will not bear false witness.
Speaker 1: I witnessed what they wanted me to do.
Speaker 0: Stuck with me because a lot of people do that. Sure.
Speaker 1: It was the easy way out. They're giving me the easy way out. Look, we we can we'll tell the judge to give you no jail time. All you gotta do is sign this.
Speaker 0: Say, plead guilty to something you didn't do.
Speaker 1: Right. I I wouldn't even have to plead guilty. At that point, they I they would have just theoretically told the judge not to give me jail time. Now, they double crossed Cohen. They would have double crossed me too, and I agreed to testify against Trump, but I was never gonna do that.
First of all, how would you look yourself in the mirror? I wanted Donald Trump to be president since 1988. I tried to get him run-in February. I tried to get him to run-in 2012. I finally succeeded in getting him to run-in 2016.
Not me me and other people. So I was gonna turn on this guy who I'd known at that point for forty years, who I always dreamed about being a great president. There's never any chance that I was gonna do that. And then everything I would have said would have been a lie. I would have to make it up.
In other words, you have Hakim Jeffries who has his famous tweet that claims that I traded my pardon for silence regarding the crimes of Donald Trump. Now if Hakim will just waive his congressional immunity, I'll sue him, but we both know he's not gonna do that.
Speaker 0: I think a lot of people may plead guilty to things they don't do because they can't afford to pay attorneys. Seems to be a stressing point. Did you how much did it cost you, this whole thing cost you, personally Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, recognize that we lost our home. We lost our savings. We lost our insurance. I lost my car. I had to sell my electric guitar.
That was very painful. I sold everything I had essentially, but then I still ran out of money.
Speaker 0: To pay attorneys.
Speaker 1: To pay attorneys and to live. Because remember, if you're gagged, you can't speak, you can't write, that's how I make a living. So I had no ability to make a living. And of course, no one wants to hire you for strategic consulting because you're under criminal indictment. So I raised roughly 3 and a half million dollars for my legal defense.
I worked very, very hard to do it. I went literally from speaking to the prestigious Oxford political union in London to speaking at a gentleman's club in Kentucky, signing women's asses for $50 for my legal defense fund.
Speaker 0: I mean and what I in endure and experience in my life is just the constant litigation, constant defense cost, dealing with lawyers. Do you have any advice on that?
Speaker 1: It's it's endless. First of all, I had 13 civil cases filed against me. All of them baseless, all of them On
Speaker 0: the same cause of action?
Speaker 1: Same cause of action. Well, first of all, some some Obama front group democracy now, some BS group, sued me in a civil case, claiming that I had been involved with WikiLeaks. Their proof, a clipping from the Huffington Post. That's not proof. That's an accusation.
Some kinda like the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian collusion. This is a complete crock of shit. All they did was cut and paste out of the Huffington Post or the Daily Beast some accusation. That's not proof. That's just an accusation, and they call it a report as if it's proof.
It's proof of nothing whatsoever. There is no Russian collusion. There is no collaboration on my part with WikiLeaks, and there is no Russian hack of the DNC. And as you may now know, Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents just this past week that shows that there was no hack of the DNC. And when Admiral Mike Rogers tried to say that, Clapper said, no, no, we all gotta stick to the same story.
It was a lie. It's still a lie.
Speaker 0: Same Clapper that sit under oath while he was rubbing his face that they we don't spy on Americans.
Speaker 1: Right. There is no data collection metadata collection program in Americans. And then Edward Snowden proved that that was a lie. But where did Clapper go after he left the government? He was teaching ethics at Vermont College.
Speaker 0: You can't make that up. You can't make that.
Speaker 1: Do you
Speaker 0: think these people are gonna be prosecuted or
Speaker 1: held I do. Accountable at some point? I think relatively soon. I think the American people demand it. I think the president's base demands it.
Something general Flynn and I and Rudy Giuliani have talked about very extensively. I don't know that it'll be as broad as it needs to be, but certainly, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, I think Hillary herself, frankly, should be prosecuted. I'll be surprised if that happens. Obama may have immunity. I agree with those who say that he could still be impeached even though he's no longer president, and then he would lose that immunity.
On the other hand, I don't think two thirds of the senate would vote to impeach him, even though I think he's on the facts, he's impeachable. But Joe Biden should certainly be charged because he has no immunity for the crimes he committed as vice president. He has no immunity for the financial crimes he committed as vice president, but he has no immunity for the crimes he he committed in the furtherance of the seditious conspiracy that is Russiagate. Here's the important thing. This conspiracy doesn't stop in 2017.
It starts in 2016. It continues in 2017. It continues in 2020, and it continues in 2024. So the raid on Mar a Lago is yet another step in the same seditious conspiracy, which is why the trials can be held in South Florida, where these people will be indicted and stand trial in South Florida, not in Washington DC where you cannot get a fair minded judge and you cannot get a reasonable jury. The jury is the concern in DC.
Well, it's also the judges. Every one of these judges the the the main judge is now retired, but she's epically corrupt. The judge in my case, the judge in general Flynn's case. It's interesting. After my after my conviction, three different jurors while being interviewed all say and the judge never never visited the jury room.
Why would they say that?
Speaker 0: The judge never visited the
Speaker 1: jury room. Right. A jury by law, the judge cannot visit the jury room during deliberations. Why would you just volunteer that she never did that? Interesting.
Speaker 0: Did did you sit through voir dire jury selection in your case?
Speaker 1: Yeah. But it was a joke because the judge ruled that working for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or previous service in the Clinton or Obama administrations was not or being a critic of Roger Stone's, none of those things were barriers to be on this jury.
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. And they they have preemptory strikes and I was in DC for my jury trial and jurors seemed to lie under oath, but there was nothing I could do about it.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: Nothing we could do about it. And so
Speaker 1: Well, they would say, I hate Donald Trump. I think he should be prosecuted, but I can put my personal feelings aside and and release your judgment in this case. Sure.
Speaker 0: Wow. And as you're you you sat in the trial, did the jurors stare at you? Did you look at them?
Speaker 1: Most of them didn't have the courage to stare at me. I gave them the Sicilian death stare, you know. So I would look at them and they would just they would they would avert my glade.
Speaker 0: They wouldn't look at they look away.
Speaker 1: Well, the judge and the the judge did a fifty five minute harangue at sentencing where she looked at me and she said, you have been convicted of lying to cover up for Donald Trump. Well, first of all, I wasn't even charged with that nor was I convicted of that. But even she could not hold my gaze. So The same judge, by the way, who ruled against those the families of the four men killed in Benghazi in a wrongful death suit. The same judge who incarcerated Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for a year and a half prior to his being convicted of anything.
Speaker 0: How long was your trial? How many days?
Speaker 1: It was about ten days, I think. Ten days. I mean, since they wouldn't allow me to offer any defense, it was it went pretty quickly.
Speaker 0: It's like a sensory deprivation chamber and sit in court for for ten days.
Speaker 1: In essence. Of Because I brought a bible with me every day, I was mocked. I was
Speaker 0: relentlessly mocked. Mocked by the the media?
Speaker 1: By the media. Sure. We're not look. I there's no question. A very young pastor who was had become a friend of mine who'd attended one of my book signings, who I kept in in touch with, just was relentless, just pounding on me about restoring my faith and being, you know, and, being redeemed in the blood of the cross.
And he said, look. This is too heavy a burden for any one man. You gotta turn to Christ. You gotta turn back to the church. You're a Catholic.
You believe in God, don't you? And I said, of course, I do. So, well, then now is the time for you to turn this burden over to Christ. So he arranged for me to meet with Franklin Graham, who was doing a revival in Boca Raton. And Franklin Graham was very generous with his time.
He spoke to me for a while, and I told him that, look. I'm angry. I'm frustrated. I'm drinking too much. I'm worried about what's gonna happen to my wife if I'm unfairly incarcerated.
I don't know where she's gonna live, how she's gonna survive. And he said I said, maybe you could talk to the president for me about clemency. I remember I'm thinking like a politico. Mhmm. And he's saying, well, I'll see what I can do about that.
But let me give you a better piece of advice. You need to confess your sins. You need to get right with God. And if you do that, I think that he that he will lift you up. I think he'll protect you from your persecutors.
And in the end, I think I escaped the deadly snare that Robert Mueller and Adam Schiff and Andrew Weissman set out for me only because I I returned to the church.
Speaker 0: In while you're in in this court case, while you're in trial.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I I I I realized at a certain point that I was gonna be lynched. There was no chance of a fair trial. So I really did restore my faith, started going back to church.
I started praying very fervently for a just result. All I wanted Trump to do is realize I was being persecuted because I refused to lie. They had nothing on me. There is no Russian collusion. They kept saying, you were you communicated with Guccifer two point o, who is a Russian intelligence asset.
James, my 28 word communications with the persona of Guccifer two point o on Twitter direct messages took place three weeks pardon me, three months after WikiLeaks had already published all the material. So chronologically, this communications is meaningless. It proves nothing whatsoever.
Speaker 0: Did you talk to any reporters? They usually sit in the back benches of the courtroom. Did you engage in conversation during the trial with them?
Speaker 1: Well, I think they were mostly enjoying themselves. Know, there it's hard to rank them, but the Washington Post is probably the worst newspaper in the country, followed pretty closely by the New York Times. And, of course, the CNN folks who by the way, they got an award for being outside my house. The White House Correspondents Association gave them an award for their incisive investigative reporting. Investigative reporting, they got a tip from Andrew Weissman.
It's right there in black and white.
Speaker 0: We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth.
You, we, are the media now. On 07/10/2020, president Trump commuted your prison sentence before you were scheduled to report to prison. Correct? Yeah. It was very interesting.
Tell me about that.
Speaker 1: First of all, they wanted to send me to a prison in Georgia, which made no sense because generally speaking, the the Bureau of Prisons send you to prison that's relatively close to where you live so your family can visit you. But they picked a specific prison in Georgia where they insisted that there were no COVID cases. Now I was 20 I was 68 years old at the time, have a lifetime history of asthma. And, they were sending me to this prison because they said there were no COVID cases. An African American woman who was the head of the prison guards union either saw this on TV or she read about it.
Somehow, she contacted one of my lawyers and said, this is a lie. There's two hundred COVID cases here. There's many more tests that we don't have results from. It was very clear the idea was to send me there to die, I probably would have died had I gone. But forty eight hours before I had to turn myself in, the president commuted my sentence.
And here's the interesting part. Then that Christmas, days before Christmas, the twenty third, I believe it was, of December, he gave me a full and unconditional pardon. Try to find that on the Internet. If all the stories will say Stone's sentence was commuted, almost none of them will cite the pardon like it never actually happened. But if you want a copy of my pardon, you can go to stonezone.com and go to the store and I will send you sell you an autographed copy.
Speaker 0: Stonezone.com autographed pardon autographed copy of the pardon. Why? Or your t shirt. Or your t shirt. Or your t shirt.
Why is is that not on the Internet?
Speaker 1: I suspect it's it's because it's it's exonerating in a way. It's vindicating in a way. So you find many stories. I have to keep correcting reporters who say Stone's sentence was commuted. Now, a pardon, you have to accept the pardon, and it is technically correct that when you accept a pardon, you're admitting guilt.
But the alternative was to die in a COVID invested prison in Georgia, which I had no real interest in. Had that had a kind of finality to it that I didn't really like.
Speaker 0: Did you you know, one of the things that happens to me, think, sometimes, this process kind of hardens you. The process is the punishment. So when you got this pardon, did you feel justice? Did you feel vindication? Did you feel relief?
Speaker 1: I certainly felt relief. I felt great gratitude both because I had prayed fervently for this and I really did believe. I really had become convinced that God would deliver. I knew that I would be that I would be saved. I knew it.
I knew Trump would do the right thing. People seem to think I had some deal with Trump or assurance from Trump. I hadn't talked to Trump at that point in two years. So I went from talking to him virtually every day to talking to him not at all. My lawyers also had no communications from the president's lawyer, so there was never any guarantee that I would be pardoned.
I had friends out there who were beating the drum like Tucker Carlson, like Laura Loomer, a handful, Larry Kudlow, people out there saying, this case is ridiculous. Stone's done nothing wrong. The president should pardon him. Remember, I was still gagged. Now the judge gagged me, this is interesting, because she said that my defense of myself might taint the jury pool.
Okay. Then why did she leave the gag in place after I was convicted, before I was sentenced, after I was incensed, and right up The jury pool? Right. That was the argument. She she produced no evidence
Speaker 0: that more true in your case than any other case?
Speaker 1: That's How's the Washington Post and CNN, the dominant news organizations in Washington DC, how did that not how did that not taint the jury pool? But, no, this was her argument that I couldn't defend myself because it would taint the jury pool. Even if you believe that, then why did she leave the gag in place after I was convicted, but before I was sentenced, and after I was sentenced, and just before I was supposed to report to prison? So she was violating my first amendment rights throughout because she didn't want her conduct of the trial to be criticized. The fact that she should have thrown out my conviction based on the on the actions of the illegal actions of the jury for a woman, who, by the way, had run for congress as a democrat in Tennessee, and who was a protege of Donna Brazile.
But we're supposed to believe that she can render a totally unbiased nonpolitical judgment on Roger Stone.
Speaker 0: Is it gonna always be like this? Is it gonna get continue to get worse, just the weaponization of the justice system? Is it gonna get better? What is your prediction of the the future?
Speaker 1: That's a very difficult question. I I anybody who says that the people who pulled off the greatest single dirty trick in American political history, The greatest single abuse of power in which the full authority of the US government and the capabilities of our intelligence agencies were used to try to undo an election. There are some who said, well, if we if we maybe we should let that go because if they come back into power, they're going to be brutal against us. No. They're they're already weaponized against us.
The Steele dossier was a fraud. The fact that they claim the DNC was hacked by Russian intelligence is a fraud. I think that you either dismantle them now or, yes, they will come back, and they'll do the same thing all over again. By the way, it didn't used to be this way. I mean, politics was always partisan.
But when I lived in Washington, when I was an active political consultant, I had friends who were Democrats. I had friends in the business who were Democrats. We ate together. We drank together. We teased each other.
Sometimes we beat them. Sometimes we beat them. They sometimes they beat us. When they beat us, it was like, okay, I'll get you next time. This idea of destroying people, destroying their lives, destroying their families, throwing you in jail, this is it was never like this.
This is a new thing. This is I think comes directly out of the presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama.
Speaker 0: That's what changed the Barack Obama. I think it changed everything. Was it the Obamacare? What what what what moment was the when things really changed?
Speaker 1: I I think as soon as Obama becomes president, they decide that they want to fundamentally change the way the country is run, and therefore, they need to not just beat the opposition, that would be us. They have to destroy us. So the fact that I had written a book on the Clintons, the Clintons war on women, and the longest chapter on that book is on Jeffrey Epstein, because I read every word of the testimony, in the cases of the women who didn't settle, who went on to sue Epstein. I interviewed Virginia Roberts Jafre for six hours in two three hour sessions. The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous, out of the question.
And she's now deceased. She she they tell us that she committed suicide. Don't don't buy it. But I do know how many times Bill Clinton was on the island from her testimony. I do know how many times he was on the plane because I had the FAA manifest records back in 2015.
I do know that when Epstein's butler sold his phone book, his little black book, not everybody in the book obviously is guilty of some illegality, but the butler helpfully circled the names and numbers of all those he said were involved in sex trafficking or were material witnesses. In some cases, he would just write witness, other cases he would just circle those he said they were guilty. Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, senate majority leader George Mitchell, Bill Gates, others.
Speaker 0: Now, you were at the turning point. I was there with you on stage, and every person talked about Epstein there.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I
Speaker 0: wanted to ask you about this because at the time, it seemed like and I I asked every person in the audience, do you think the department justice is lying? And almost every hand went up when they said there's nothing to see here. So there there does seem the base is very upset, and I don't know if the issue is gonna go away. And the way the president's been talking, what is your reaction to the current state of affairs with Epstein and the administration?
Speaker 1: Well, I can tell you definitively only because, first of all, I was physically there in the in those days. I was working for Trump. I was living in New York. I never met Epstein, but I saw him from across to the way in a ballroom at a charitable event full of people. And this is a time when when the president was dating Melania before they were engaged.
Engaged. And they had some social interaction, but it is benign. Everything about their relationship is known. When the president says it's a hoax, he's not saying that Epstein was not a child sex trafficker. It was the Trump Justice Department that charged Epstein in 2019 with child sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in child sex trafficking.
What he was saying is all of these records have been in the custody of the Southern District Of New York and in the New York office of the FBI. These are two hotbeds of Trump hate. These people hate Donald Trump. And therefore, there was a high probability, which we saw almost immediately, that the records had been salted with, quote, unquote, evidence against Donald Trump. That's when the Wall Street Journal produced the famous birthday card.
James, who types a birthday card? Who types a birthday card and then signs it? Answer, nobody. It's a Fugazi. It's kinda obvious.
So I think that's what he was saying. And I love to see these Democrats jumping up and down saying, I want full disclosure on Epstein. So do I. You know what's gonna prove? Bill Clinton was on the island at least four times.
Epstein imported two 16 year olds for his amusement. That's in Virginia, Jeffreys testimony, and he was on the plane 26 times, many times ditching his social secure his secret service detail.
Speaker 0: There are Republicans on that list?
Speaker 1: Not that I know of. I couldn't find any of them on the FAA manifest, and I couldn't find any of them in Epstein's phone book. Donald Trump's in the phone book, but he's not among those whose names are certain.
Speaker 0: About compromising material used as blackmail. Do you think that exists?
Speaker 1: See, here's what I think happened. I think there and I think we know this. There's no question that when they raided Epstein's home in New York and they raided the island, and they raided his ranch in New Mexico, and they raided his apartment in Paris, we can see them taking out DVDs and hard drives. Those are in the those are in the custody of of mister Ray's FBI. I think they were switched out.
So when Kash Patel, who I know very well and who I have a very, very high regard for in terms of his integrity and his knowledge, when he says we don't have any video evidence of Epstein or anyone identifiable abusing children, he's telling the truth because that material was destroyed and it was replaced, I think, with just commercial illegal Chinese child pornography.
Speaker 0: Was the evidence that was destroyed, did that implicate third parties?
Speaker 1: That'd be my guess. Sure. I think I think Jeffrey Epstein I had a source for my book, Steve Hoffenberg, who turned everything he told me turned out to be true. Hoffenberg had been the head of one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history, Tower Financial. The number two man in that operation was Jeffrey Epstein.
So he trained Epstein. He went to prison. When he came out, he contacted me and he said, Epstein is running a child sex trafficking ring, and he's going to be arrested for it. Now I knew that he had already been charged in Florida, but the police chief in here in Palm Beach did a six months undercover investigation and handed the state's attorney a case that involved the the trafficking of 33 underage girls. Also handed him a case for statutory rape of 21 underage girls.
So police chief, Michael Reiter, who's an honest man, was shocked when the state's attorney came back with one charge of solicitation. James, that's like walking into a bar and trying to pick up a hooker. It's ridiculous. So that at that point, Ryder, the police chief, goes to Alexander Acosta, the US attorney in Miami who has responsibility for Palm Beach. He conducts his own investigation, and then he rubber stamps the state charge, and he seals the entire case.
Now a lawyer I know was involved when Acosta was appointed secretary of the labor of labor under Trump's first term. First of all, no one ever told Donald Trump that Alex Acosta was the prosecutor who gave Epstein a pass. I have no idea why Reich's previous What
Speaker 0: year did what year did Acosta?
Speaker 1: That would have been 2017 or
Speaker 0: During the first term.
Speaker 1: During the first term. So why no one told the president that, I don't know. But they said this guy's a Hispanic. Given the possibilities of the Republican Party to expand in the Hispanic community, he'd be a great Cabinet. No one ever tells him, oh, by the way, this is the prosecutor who gave Epstein a pass.
I'm sure the president was unhappy when he learned that. And then during the confirmation preparation sessions, a friend of mine who's a lawyer, whose name you would recognize, a guy who's in the federal society, They're doing a motor board. They're practicing confirmation, they say. So, Alex, what are you gonna say when they ask you why you handled the Epstein case the way you did? Why you gave him a pass?
Anacostia says, it's very simple. I'm gonna tell the truth. The CIA came to me and said he was an asset, and I was to seal the case. Here it is. I think that's what happened.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We have the stone cold truth. Trump and Epstein, the recycled smear. Recent weeks have seen this vicious assault on president Trump distorting the facts about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. I wanna switch gears a little bit and talk.
I read audio listened to much of this book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ. I was I just wanna read one quote from this book and then ask you a question about this, and then I ask you a question about Nixon. Sure. This is from Lyndon Johnson, the man chapter one. Learned a lot about I didn't know a lot about Lyndon B.
Johnson.
Speaker 1: Quite a colorful character.
Speaker 0: Quite a character. Have very descriptive language about him when he started to smoke again, his hair got long, and he was unkempt, but this is something that you write. Linden, quote, nothing could obscure the picture. Lyndon Johnson was an overbearing, coarse, ruthless, sociopathic, lowlife, power mad monster. He was a consummate politician, therefore could charm people when he had to, but the mask could easily slip and often did.
Is that but is that not true of many politicians, or was he worse?
Speaker 1: No. He was worse. I I attribute in this book at least 18 murders to him before he got to JFK. Murders to cover up corruption, murders to cover up voter fraud in his forty eight election. He was very definitely a sociopath, a functioning lunatic.
By the way, in this in the oral histories of his of his aides, Bill Moyers, George Reedy as press secretary, even they refer to him as a lunatic. So for example, the the plastic bubble top on Kennedy's limousine is removed on 11/26/1963, not on the orders of Secret Service, not on the orders of JFK, on the orders of Bill Moyers, who's working as an aide to vice president Lyndon Johnson. And Moyers, who's a ordained Baptist minister, says to the Secret Service agent who I interviewed, get that goddamn bubble top off the off of the limousine. Now the bubble top's not bulletproof, but it's opaque. So you couldn't get a clear headshot if the if the bubble top was in place, and it had just rained.
Speaker 0: What what got you motivated to focus on this issue?
Speaker 1: I've been a Goldwater zealot, so I knew Johnson was a crook. The Bobby Baker scandal, the Billy Salesta scandal. Those are his motives. In other words, by 11/26/1963, he's on the verge of being charged in two massive scandals, two corruption scandals. Billy Bobby Baker is the secretary of senate.
He's a bag man. Billy Salestis is a flamboyant Texas Wheeler dealer who has these huge federal agricultural contracts, and he's kicking back to LBJ. So Johnson knows he's on the verge of being dumped from the 64 ticket, and he's probably gonna face federal charges and go to prison. That is his motive motive. Now the means, he convinces Kennedy to go to Texas to bind up the wounds between the Bourbon, more conservative wing of the Democrat party and the progressive wing of the party.
Then it is his henchman, John Connolly, then the governor of Texas, who says, well, the motorcade has to drive through Dealey Plaza. Now Kennedy's going from the fort Dallas Fort Worth Airport to the merchandise mart, neither one of which is in the city of Dallas. So why is the motorcade going in and out of the city of Dallas? Well, to take Kennedy through Dealey Plaza, where they violate the secret service manual. The car comes to a full stop, creating the opportunity for John Kennedy to be shot from both the front and the back, as we now know, by multiple shooters in an elaborately orchestrated plan to destroy his presidency, and so Lyndon Johnson can avoid prison.
Speaker 0: Avoiding prison. That was the primary motivation.
Speaker 1: Well, Drew Pearson, is the, without any question, the most influential columnist at the time, syndicated columnist, has a column for publication on November 23, a Sunday, that says that Johnson took a massive bribe to deliver a defense contract for General Dynamics. That's the end of LBJ. That column gets spiked because LBJ is president by the close of business on 11/22/1963. So his motive is to avoid prison and complete political ruin. Now I'm I'm not alleging in my book that Johnson's acting alone.
This the Central Intelligence Agency is deeply involved in Kennedy's murder. We now know that from the hearings that my friend, Annapalina Luna, has conducted in the congress. Organized crime is definitely involved. The house select committee on assassinations, declares that in their final report in 1987. Big Texas oil is deeply involved in this plot.
So many people had their own individual motives for Kennedy's murder, but one man is the common spoke between all of them, Lyndon Johnson. And I use fingerprint evidence just to prove that at least one of the shooters is Malcolm Mack Wallace. That's who's shooting from the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He leaves his fingerprints there. We know they're his prints because he was convicted of murder in Texas in 1951.
He killed a man who was trying to blackmail Lyndon Johnson. He went to trial. He was represented at trial by John Cofer, who's Johnson's personal attorney. He's convicted of first degree murder, and he gets probation in Texas for murder. He's the shooter from the Sixth Floor.
There's six eyewitnesses who identify a man who meets the physical description of Malcolm Wallace, a medium build, balding, glasses, expert marksman in the Marine Corps. He is the shooter from the Sixth Floor. But there are, as we now know from the new documentary put out by Paramount, there are shooters, both in front and back of Kennedy. He shot from both the front and the back, and that is concealed. The doctors now, some sixty years later, all admit, yes, we saw wounds consistent with these being shot from the front and the back.
The wound in his throat, which we're told is an exit wound, is an entry wound. They perform a tracheotomy immediately so you can't tell. All the doctors see a blowout wound in the back of Kennedy's head that would indicate that he was shot from the front, but by the time his body gets to the Bethesda Medical Center, that has been patched. In Texas, by state law, you have to have an autopsy when there's a murder. Kennedy's body is removed at gunpoint by secret service agents in a face down with the Texas Rangers, so they can remove his body.
The autopsy is not done in Texas, it's done in Bethesda, Maryland.
Speaker 0: Johnson also driven by power a lot. You write about that in the book. I took that from the book.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think he takes the vice presidency with a plan to kill Kennedy almost immediately. He steals the secret service manual and gives it to his lawyer to begin laying this plot. On inauguration day, Bobby Baker, who's Johnson's right hand man, secretary of the senate, his bag man, is standing next to Ted Sorensen, who really wrote Profiles in Courage. John Kennedy neither wrote nor read Profiles in Courage.
It was written by Sorenson.
Speaker 0: I I read that book recently, like, I don't think Kennedy wrote this.
Speaker 1: He didn't even read it. Sorenson Sorenson read it and his father It's a well
Speaker 0: written book.
Speaker 1: Yes. But but ambassador Joseph b Kennedy, the partner with Frank Costello and all the bootlegging going on in in the Northeastern United States, pays for the Pulitzer Prize. But Sorensen is standing next to Baker. And now Johnson and Kennedy have a bitter rivalry, and Johnson is responsible for breaking into Kennedy's offices doctor's office in New York City and releasing, just ahead of the Democrat convention, the fact that Kennedy has Addison's disease. Robert Dallek, who's calls himself a historian, has blamed that on Richard Nixon.
Nixon had nothing to do with that. That was Johnson's doing. So there's very deep hatred between the Kennedy camps and the Johnson camp. But Sorensen, who's the chief speech writer for JFK, turns to Baker and says, well, congratulate after Johnson's sworn in as vice president, he says, well, congratulations, Bobby. And Baker says, John Kennedy will die a violent and premature death, and he storms off.
There it is, right there.
Speaker 0: Imagine if that was on camera. And this is another quote from the book. Taken we have it on the screen behind you. Taken seriously, this opposition that Johnson was was behind the plot to kill Kennedy is the key that unlocks the gate to the greatest of Johnson's crimes, the knowing of a feud feudal war, that's the Vietnam War, that would eventually claim more than 58,000 American lives. So the other thing that struck me about reading about this was just the philandering of of Kennedy and Johnson.
I didn't know about Johnson's philandering.
Speaker 1: Johnson was a notorious womanizer. As he famously said, I get more in a week than John Kennedy gets in a year. That's a direct quote.
Speaker 0: Was it true?
Speaker 1: Well, Kennedy, as I make the case in the book, Kennedy is a genuine war hero. I mean, he's very badly injured when his PT boat was cut in half by a Japanese craft. He swims for hours with a rope in his teeth dragging a wounded comrade to safety. He's a true hero. But he's in horrific pain for the rest of his life.
He gets addicted to methamphetamine because he is seeing doctor methamphetamine.
Speaker 0: With steroids and methamphetamine he was injected. Right. Steroids meaning testosterone or steroids meaning
Speaker 1: Steroids meaning crystal meth. Crystal meth. Early prior early proprietary blend of crystal meth, which at that point is doctor a doctor in Manhattan, doctor Max Jacobson, somebody like doctor the beautiful people. He's attending Marilyn Monroe, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Sinatra, Leonard Bernstein, Pablo Casal, Maria Calais, all Nelson Rockefeller. All these people think that they're getting a proprietary blend of vitamins and enzymes that make them feel good.
No. They're being shot up with meth, which is why why JFK is so randy, why he's, you know, in horrible pain, but he's still chasing 18 year old interns in the White that
Speaker 0: start happening with Kennedy?
Speaker 1: I think it's certainly during his presidency because Robert Kennedy finds out about it, has, the FBI lab do an analysis of what this substance that Kennedy's being shot up with, goes to his brother and says, this stuff is gonna kill you. You can't do this. And he says, I don't care if it's horse piss. It makes me feel good. Right.
So and I think that this is how the deep state, rationalizes the murder of Kennedy. My god. The man's a drug addict. He could give away the store Mhmm. To Nikita Khrushchev.
If you look at the manifest, which is in the National Archives of those who flew to the summit with Kennedy at Vienna, you'll find the name of doctor Max Jacobson on the manifest. He's with Kennedy. There's a terrific book on this called doctor Feelgood. You can still find it.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: It's very heavily documented. So I think, Kennedy is, is, probably addicted at that point. The Secret Service has certainly been has certainly told the intelligence services. But it's also important to recognize it's not just about Vietnam. It's also about, it's about the Bay Of Pigs.
Because the Bay Of Pigs Invasion was a horrific failure. But it's also about the Cuban Missile Crisis because everything you've been told, brave Jack and Bobby faced down Nikita Khrushchev before, none of that's true. As we learned fifty years later when they declassified the documents, we agreed to secretly remove our missiles from Turkey and Italy, NATO missiles, in return from a pledge from from Khrushchev to remove the Russian missiles from Cuba, which we don't really know whether that happened or not because there's no on signs inspections built into this agreement. So the Central Intelligence Agency's motive is very clear. They think Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion.
The original invasion plan called for 29 Panamanian flagged bombers flying out of Panama to provide air cover for the men storming the beaches. That is canceled by the CIA the day before the invasion. Nobody tells Kennedy. Then Curtis LeMay, the head of the air force, goes to Kennedy and says, our men are being destroyed on the beach, mister president. There's only one way to save the day.
That's to send in the US air force. And Kennedy said, wait a minute. I approved the invasion so it looked like an indigenous uprising of Cubans, not a US invasion. So he won't approve the use of the of the US Air Force, and this is where he gets the deep enmity of the CIA and the Pentagon.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. Continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 833324 Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it. Kind of transitioning to Nixon here.
We got about twenty minutes left. I another thing that's happening, and this is admittedly not an area that I know a lot about Middle East in regards to Israel. There does seem to be a I don't know if it's a schism, but just some disagreements about how to approach the state of Israel Yes. These days in the Republican Party. And I wanted to play a clip, team, if you could pull up of Richard Nixon talking about Israel.
My team thought it was an interesting clip to play and then maybe play two minutes of this and get your reaction to this as well as your thoughts on the current state of play with the Republican Party in Israel. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: It isn't a question whether I felt it. The fact is that American Jews support Israel and I understood that. And the fact is that every Jewish prime minister that I have known has enlisted American Jews to bring as much pressure as possible in the political process on American presidents, that's understandable, I don't object to it. Now a president must not go along with it on occasion because some let let me let me explain something about what is called the Jewish lobby in this country. In the first place, Jews understandably in The United States, because of what happened in World War two, because of the Holocaust, are going to be put first priority on the survival of Israel.
Now as good Americans as they are, they believe that America's survival and security is directly related to Israel's. In other words, their belief is that being for Israel first means that that does not mean you're putting America second because they think it goes together. An American president, however, has to approach it in a different way in my opinion. He's got always to think first of what is best for America and that's true whether it has to do with the Israelis or whether it has to do with the Irish or Germans or what have you or the Poles, etcetera. Usually, what is best for America is also best for Israel and vice versa.
But on occasions, for example, an American president must make a decision that does not in effect give the Israelis a blank check and one example of that is a decision that I made. I decided early on in our administration that we were going to see good relations with Egypt and other others of Israel's neighbors. Many of my Israeli friends didn't like that because they want a special relationship with Israel of Israel only. But I have always said that Israel's interests are better served to have The United States a friend of Israel's neighbors and potential enemies and to leave a vacuum which the Soviet Union would fill. I still believe that, I think.
Speaker 0: Alright. So your reaction to that and then your state of on the current
Speaker 1: There's there's several pieces here. There is no question that John f Kennedy is opposed to Israel having nuclear weapons. That is absolute and that he wants a PAC to register as foreign agents. And this is very contagious. Lyndon Johnson gives them the right to have nukes twenty four hours after he's sworn in as president.
Is Israel directly involved in the assassination? Something I'm researching right now. And if I find enough to make that case, I'll do another chapter for the book that you have. It's too early for me to say in my research. I've collected a lot of material.
Still working my way through it. They certainly have the motive. That's not proof. That's just a motive. It is Richard Nixon, of course, who saves Israel from unilateral dis destruction in 1973 over the objections of Kissinger, over the objections of the national security apparatus, over the objections of the Pentagon, over the objections of every aspect of his own administration.
In the nineteen seventy three Yom Kippur war, there's a failure in Israeli intelligence. The Israel he finds himself under attack by the Syrians and the Egyptians. They're running out of ammunition. Their backs are against the sea. Golda Meir asks Nixon urgently for help, and Nixon makes a unilateral decision to airdrop $39,000,000 worth of lethal aid to the Israelis, which saves Israel.
Now you can listen to the White House tapes, and he says a number of disparaging things about Jews. But as Golda Meir herself said, what matters more, deeds or words? Mhmm. Another $60,000,000 in lethal aid comes by boat. So Nixon unilaterally, over the objections of Kissinger, a Jew, who is his national security adviser, saves Israel.
I think that what he says is exactly right, and you've seen Trump, I think, exercise this. The Israelis were not all that happy about the Abraham Accords, where we essentially, the Syrians, the Lebanese, the Saudis, get a special relationship with The United States. And then secondarily, I think the president was very judicious, in the way he approached the question of nuclear weapon developments in Iran. We don't have boots on the ground. We don't have a long term commitment to war.
Not a single American service person lost their lives in this surgical effort to try to destroy nuclear weapons, which the Obama administration, for some reason, believed would improve the situation in The Middle East. So in the end and look, I'm more of a of a Ron Paul Republican when it comes to foreign policy. I'm a I'm not an isolationist, but I am a non interventionist. I don't like war, the endless foreign war that the Bushes kept pushing us into. I think in the end, the president made the right decision.
It was a balanced decision. It was not a decision to do nothing, but it was also not a decision to commit us to an endless war and war.
Speaker 0: What do you just make of just the cultural conflicts right now towards Israel? Like, the Nick Fuentes thing, the the Tucker I mean, just all of it. Just the people. The base seems to just have such disagreement about how to approach Israel. What you what do you
Speaker 1: make of that politically for the Republican Party? I think it's politically, it's interesting. We still don't get a very large percentage of Jewish voters no matter what our position is.
Speaker 0: Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Republican Party. Trump, I think, probably hits a high watermark.
Speaker 0: What is that roughly? Rough numbers.
Speaker 1: It's hard to say, but I think we ended up somewhere around 23, 25%.
Speaker 3: Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And they're the most conservative Jews, of course. The more casual Jews continue to vote for Democrats, and I think continue to vote against the interests of Israel. I think it is yet to play out.
Speaker 0: Alright. We got about fifteen minutes left, and I think we have we have a picture of Roger Stone and Donald Trump. Your longtime friends, is it since 1979, is that correct? Yeah. That's a good photo by the way.
That is When when was that?
Speaker 1: That was after I was pardoned. My wife was diagnosed with stage four cancer, very aggressive stage four cancer, which she has survived. And once she got, the doctor said she was all clear, the president who had attended our wedding in Washington DC at the Willard Hotel, president Trump and his then fiance, Marla Maples, had been at our wedding. They famously had a fight in the lobby of the hotel where she threw her engagement ring at the Who
Speaker 0: threw the engagement?
Speaker 1: Marla Maples threw it, who's a good friend of mine.
Speaker 0: Marla is the second guest of the show.
Speaker 1: Oh, she Yes, indeed. She's great.
Speaker 0: She's a great person.
Speaker 1: She's a great person and a real fighter for health freedom, someone I like very much.
Speaker 0: Is another picture throw the picture of I don't what year this is from.
Speaker 1: There's there's just before the wedding.
Speaker 0: That's the wedding.
Speaker 1: Yep. This is a famous picture of Donald Trump after my father. He was the first one to dance with my wife. So after he learned that my wife had been cured of cancer, he invited us to Mar A Lago, which is where that picture was taken.
Speaker 0: Have you seen that I think you and I talked about that movie that came out. I forgot the name of it. Apprentice. The apprentice. And you were portrayed in that movie and you had a comment to me about that, and now I
Speaker 1: A couple things. I mean, first of all, I'm much better looking than the actor they had playing me. Secondarily, I've never worn a Speedo in my life, nor would I ever wear a Speedo.
Speaker 0: This is a scene in the movie where you're in a swimming pool and you come out
Speaker 1: with a Which is ridiculous because anyone knows me, I would never wear a Speedo. I'm much better dressed than they than they depicted me in the movie. But they correctly say that I may be the first or second person in the country who comes up with the idea that Donald Trump has the the stature and the courage and the stamina, and the independence to be not just a great presidential candidate, but be a great president. I realized this in 1988, and I began pushing the idea then. The only person who sees this before me, ironically, is Richard Nixon.
Nixon and, Trump meet in George Steinbrenner, the owner of the Yankees, box, when the season opens. And I'm working for Trump at that point, but I have I'm friendly with the former president. I'm doing some political chores for him as well. And Nixon calls me the next day, he says, well, I met your man, Trump. I said, yes, What do you think?
He said, I'm just telling you. If this guy ever gets in politics, he could go all the way. I said, do you so you think he should, like, run for governor? He says, no. No.
No. I mean, all the way. And, of course, the New York Times has published this letter from Nixon to Trump in which he says, missus missus Nixon saw you on the Vera Douglas show, and she said that if you ever get in politics, you'll definitely go all the way. And I just want you to know that I completely agree with her. It's a very warm letter.
They had a very warm relationship. Today, president Trump says to me, because it's so antithetical to his character, he says, why did Nixon quit? I don't understand why he quit. I would never quit under fire.
Speaker 0: You mean quit? Resigned. Resigned the presidency. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I said, well, there was no alternative media then. There was no Internet. So you had three television networks. You had a handful of influential news magazines, Time, Newsweek, Life, and so on. They're monolithically against you.
You had no platform from which to mount a counter attack. And when Nixon tries, remember when he famously says, people have a right to know whether their president's a crook. Well, I am not a crook. They use that against him. They use it to mock him.
It's ineffective in his efforts to, defend himself.
Speaker 0: As college student, I read a book called The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom, and the first sentence of that book was student This is in the eighties, written in the eighties. I read it in 02/2003. Students are taught that two things are evil, Richard Nixon and Adolf Hitler.
Speaker 1: Yes. Why
Speaker 0: why existentially, why do people hate Nixon so much?
Speaker 1: I really think it has to do with his being correct about Alger Hiss. Alger Hiss was a high level state department figure in, the Roosevelt State Department. Nixon believed that there was evidence that Hiss was a communist spy. Hiss was Harvard educated. He was very erudite.
He was one of the elites. Nixon came from Whittier, California, his old man was a grocer.
Speaker 0: Up from dirt,
Speaker 1: Up as you from dirt, as he would say. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Or as
Speaker 1: he said. And the whole Washington establishment told Nixon to back off. Alan Dulles, John Foster Dulles, who was Eisenhower's secretary of state, Alan Dulles, who was his brother and the head of the CIA, they all tell Nixon to back off. But Nixon's instinct is that Whitaker Chambers, who had been a editor at Time Magazine, who had come forward and said, I was a communist. I was a member of the Communist Party.
Whitaker Alger Hiss was in my cell, and I passed him government documents. It was Nixon's belief that his was a spy. He pursued it. His ultimately would be convicted of perjury for lying. Forty plus years later, when the when the Soviet Union falls and we get the KGB records, guess what?
Alger Hiss was a Russian spy. But that anti communism, the fact that Nixon turned out to be right, brands Nixon for the rest of his career.
Speaker 0: It's almost like contempt towards Nixon for calling it out correctly.
Speaker 1: And and for being a hardliner anti communist. Yeah. And then secondarily, there is his campaign in 1950 against Helen Douglas, which I think is unfairly depicted as a as a particularly dirty race. It was, but on both sides. He called her the pink lady, because he took her voting record, and he compared it to the voting record of the only communist party member of congress, Vito Marcantonio, was elected in New York City.
And they voted the same about 80% of the time. Nixon pointed that out, in a very effective flyer. It was printed on pink paper. It was a very, very rough campaign, but politics ain't beanbag.
Speaker 0: Is that your quote? I've heard you say that before.
Speaker 1: Probably. Probably was me who said it. But this is where he gets the the nickname tricky dick, because he ran a very aggressive campaign. But let's be very clear about how meteoric his rise is. In 1945, he's released from the army.
He has no job. He has a law degree. He goes around to all of the blue chip, white shoe law firms in New York and Washington, and no one will hire him. He records that he's on Wall Street. He's looking out the window.
There's a ticker tape parade. He sees Dwight Eisenhower riding by. He's in this you know, the ticker tape is being dumped. It's a huge public event. Six years later, he is Dwight Eisenhower's running mate.
He goes from being unemployed to being the candidate for vice president of The United States in six years because he goes back to California. He runs for congress in 1946. He's elected. He serves two terms in the house, runs to the senate in 1950, wins an open seat. He's only senator for two years when he's selected for the ticket in 1952.
So to go from nobody to being nothing, to being vice president of The United States for two terms in six years is an incredibly meteoric rise. What do
Speaker 0: you attribute that to? What was his greatest strength
Speaker 1: there in that meteoric rise? Persistence, grit, determination. I think born of a hardscrabble background. I mean, he pulled himself up from his with his own bootstraps. He saw two of his brothers die of tuberculosis.
He was he was the survivor. Also, he was selected for the ticket because of his anti communist credentials. Mhmm. Remember, Eisenhower had defeated senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who was the favorite of good party conservatives. So they needed to balance the ticket with someone with anti communist credentials, and Nixon was the person they selected.
Then there was a smear against him by the New York Post, who was then a that was a liberal, owned journal, claiming that Nixon had a fund, financed by a bunch of California millionaires, and it was being used to supplement his lifestyle, which was false. But they tried to dump him from the ticket. He survives that by going on TV in the famous Checkers speech in which he says, you know, we've been by everything I have, I've earned honestly. I did take one thing, however. It was a little cocker spaniel dog that a man in Texas said to my daughters.
And I don't care what they say, we're not giving the dog back. It's a little schmaltzy, but it saves his career.
Speaker 0: Going back to the apprentice, Roy Roy Cohn, the attorney, the Stone's rules, and I don't have them in front of me, but one of the rules was it was it admit nothing, deny
Speaker 1: Everything. It's admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.
Speaker 0: And it was one of quite Roy Kwanzer, did you come up with that first? Did he come up with that?
Speaker 1: Did you guys I think that I actually, all of Stone's rules have been appropriated for by the script writer. So so Gabe Sherman wrote the screenplay.
Speaker 0: For this movie, the apprentice.
Speaker 1: Was it we have
Speaker 0: a clip, guys? Do we is this a clip?
Speaker 3: Attack. Attack. Attack. If somebody comes after you with a knife, you shoot him back with a bazooka. Okay?
Rule two. What is truth, Tommy? What is truth? You know what's truth?
Speaker 1: What you say is truth. What I say is truth. What he says is truth.
Speaker 3: What is the truth in life? Deny everything. Admit nothing.
Speaker 0: That's what you just said. What is true?
Speaker 3: What I say is true. And third of all, most important, no matter how fucked you are, never ever ever admit to defeat.
Speaker 0: Alright. Good. So how many of those are similar to your rules?
Speaker 1: I think they're all identical to my rules. Did I get did I get those ideas from Cohen? Yeah. I think that's fair to say. I'm not sure he verbalized in the exact same way I did.
So I saw them from observance rather than being told them or being taught them. But I think Trump and I both learned them from the same guy. Cohen was a force of nature. He was an ardent anticommunist himself. He was a warrior.
And I will say this, in the movie, the actor who plays him does a brilliant job, really captures his mannerisms, his idiosyncrasies, his his verbal and physical tics. The guy really did deserve a an Academy Award.
Speaker 0: I thought you did good job there.
Speaker 1: He did a great job. Yeah. The storyline is, of course, false. The idea that Roy Cohn and Donald Trump had to threaten the head of the of the tax abatement board in New York City with exposing his homosexual background is a complete fabrication and a lie. Typical It
Speaker 0: seemed a little far fetched when I when I watched it. It was entertaining movie, but doesn't mean it's non fiction. It's fiction. A couple quick last questions here, because we're just running out of time. Present day outlook for the current situation.
Well, actually, no, no. We have a a story you just broke on your substack. Can we pull that up, guys? And I just wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about this. This is a story that you've done on a a Republican representative and Cuba.
Let's pull that up. This is Bingo. Representative Mario Diaz. I've never I apologize for saying this, but I've never even heard of this man. What He's he's a republican.
Speaker 1: He's a repub well, he's kind of a republican. He was a registered democrat until the day he ran for congress and became a republican.
Speaker 0: He was a registered democrat before he ran for congress.
Speaker 1: Yes. So you have you have in Miami a cottage industry of these people who have made who've dined out on being anti Castro, but it's largely rhetoric. So for example, Carlos Jimenez, the former mayor, now a congressman, he's the head of the maritime subcommittee maritime security subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee. He has a hearing regarding a huge defense contractor called Crowley, which is Florida based, but he never questioned them about their activities, in Cuba. Crowley has ships going into the largest port in Cuba.
It's a major security risk, but he never criticizes Crowley, which I wrote in a column. He never questions whether, Cuban intelligence is using this access to learn about our trade routes or to get other defense information. And then more recently, in interviews, he pretends like he never heard of Crowley when he conducted a hearing with one of their executives. Mario Diaz Balart, he's at the same hearing. He doesn't have any questions about it.
And then you look in on the FEC records, you find out that Crowley's political action committee has given a substantial amount of money to Mario Diaz de Blar. So all I'm saying is you have these members of congress, virtually all of them Republicans, who hold themselves out as great critics of Castro because it's great for raising cash, but in terms of actually impacting the authoritarian regime and improving the lives of the people in Cuba, you know what they've done? Nothing.
Speaker 0: It's all rhetoric. So it's about money.
Speaker 1: It's all about money.
Speaker 0: Blah blah And and in politics, is it I've been told it's about money, power, and sex. That one of those three usually motivates people?
Speaker 1: Well, know what I say, never miss the opportunity to either be on television or have sex.
Speaker 0: Never to be on television or have sex.
Speaker 1: Yes. Actually, stole that from Gore Vidal, but it is Gore Vidal. It's it's in my rules book.
Speaker 0: And and money power and sex are kind of interrelated to a certain degree. So what's next for Roger Stone?
Speaker 1: I'm writing a book about the attempted assassination of president Ronald Reagan because the true story has never been told. But suffice it to say that John Hinkley junior, who's convicted of trying to kill Reagan, is crouching in front of Reagan, shooting from an upward trajectory. But Reagan was hit from above and behind. There's a second shooter. The CIA knows it.
This book is entitled Bushwacked, The True Story of the Attempted Assassination of Bushwacked. The Bushwacked.
Speaker 0: Is that
Speaker 1: You kinda get the You get the idea. You get idea.
Speaker 0: You get this is the other well, actually, don't have the the I have the Clinton's war on women. I have the only the Kindle version of the Bush book we didn't have time to get into. Are you an are you an optimist? Are you a hopeful person?
Speaker 1: I am. I think we're about to enter a golden age.
Speaker 0: A golden age.
Speaker 1: A golden age of peace, prosperity, security, justice, and law and order. In a very strange way, I think being cheated out of the twenty twenty election turns out to be a good thing because now Donald Trump is much wiser, much more battle hardened, has a much better understanding of how evil the system is in Washington and in the country. He has an all star cabinet. He doesn't have quizlings around him like HR McMaster or general John Kelly. These guys thought that their job was to stop Trumpism, to stop Trump from destroying the world.
They didn't understand their job was to implement Trump's vision. Now you've got people who fully understand, his vision and are set to implement his views. So whether it is Pete Hegseth, who I think is doing a great job, or Robert Kennedy junior, who I think is doing a great job, or Tulsi Gabbard, will be the first woman president of The United States, not necessarily in 2028, but someday, Or Scott Besson, who I think is a brilliant choice to be secretary of treasury, an outside the box thinker, a libertarian, a believer in cryptocurrency, a believer in gold. This is an all star cabinet.
Speaker 0: And loyal?
Speaker 1: Every every single one of them. And frankly, it's a it's an all star White House staff. You know, I'm tired of seeing people say, oh, Susie Wiles was a she was a lobbyist for Pfizer. No. She wasn't.
I've known her for thirty years. Throughout her entire political career, she has always been with the outsider. I worked with her for Ronald Reagan against George h w Bush. I worked with her with Jack for Jack Kemp against George h w Bush. I worked with her against the sitting attorney general for Rick Scott when he was elected governor.
In 2016, she could have been for Marco Rubio. She could have been for Jeb Bush. She chose to be for Donald Trump. So I I think she's the glue that allowed Trump to run the most effective presidential campaign in our history, and without any doubt, the greatest single comeback in history. Because on paper, he should not have been able to do what he did.
And he won every swing state. He ran a masterful, extremely well financed, but also well plotted out campaign. Meaning, who wins is not about who has the right the most money. Who wins is about who spends their money most effectively and can plan for the long term. This is one of the reasons why I think Susie Wiles has done a tremendous job for the president.
Speaker 0: Met Susie Wiles when we did the story on the CIA and they were withholding information from Trump and Susie Wiles told Trump he should comment on it, and he did. Last question. We have undercover reporters everywhere. We're doing investigative work every week. What do you think should be exposed?
What needs journalistic investigation on video? Do you think a priority there is?
Speaker 1: That's an excellent question. I mean, there's so much right here in Florida. I I'm very disturbed about the story about Ron DeSantis and his wife appropriating $10,000,000 from Medicare with the help of our appointed attorney general. Find that very disturbing. But even the Broward County Sheriff's Office, we have an appointed sheriff appointed by Ron DeSantis who turns out to be affiliated with the largest, most radical mosque in the county, turns out to be a big fan of big of Black Lives Matter.
I'd like to see somebody go undercover into the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 0: The Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 1: It's the largest sheriff's county in The United States with over 6,000 employees and a budget of just under a billion dollars.
Speaker 0: Who are not familiar with Florida, where's Broward County? It's Fort Lauderdale. Fort Lauderdale. Well, I'm a new resident of Florida, so that's not too far
Speaker 1: is local.
Speaker 0: All politics is local. And some of the best stories that we've done are local stories. Learned that from Andrew Breitbart. Roger, we're out of time. Thank you so much.
It's great to see
Speaker 1: you. Great to be with you, James. Thank you.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Roger Stone | My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe #10 - O'Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn one morning in 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone […]
okeefemediagroup.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall the intense moment when prosecutors pressured me to sign a false statement against Donald Trump. They warned me of severe consequences, suggesting I could face additional charges and a long prison sentence unless I agreed to testify against him. My response was firm: I refused to betray my principles. James O’Keefe remembered my commitment to truth, stating, "I will not bear false witness."
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone recalls the moment prosecutors attempted to push him to sign a false statement against Donald Trump. “They said to me, through my lawyers, 'Look, we can hit you with some superseding charges, and you’ll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump… All you do is sign this.'” “I said, 'You can take this, and you can shove it up your *ss, because I’m not doing that.” James O’Keefe: “I remember you saying, I will not bear false witness." Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Website: https://okeefemediagroup.com/roger-stone-my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe-10/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Roger Stone did nothing wrong walking back in. I sold product placement. I sold 15,000 of those shirts in the next twenty four hours. All of it dedicated to my I legal defense. He says he was subjected to a 'Soviet style show trial' and 'the judge would not allow him to testify.' He describes being offered: 'we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump.' He asserts: 'Every word of it is false' and 'I passed two polygraph tests that proved that everything they wanted me to say was false.' He adds: 'I was not gonna be Michael Cohen. I was not gonna lie.' 'I will not bear false witness.' He mentions Hakim Jeffries' claim that he 'traded my pardon for silence regarding the crimes of Donald Trump' and says: 'If Hakim will just waive his congressional immunity, I'll sue him.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is it 01/25/2019?
Speaker 1: Is that the correct date? Yep. Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Roger Stone did nothing wrong walking back in.
Speaker 1: Now that's part yeah. That's part of placement.
Speaker 0: I sold product placement.
Speaker 1: I I sold 15,000 of those shirts in the next twenty four hours. All of it dedicated to my I legal defense
Speaker 0: mean, seriously, a lot of people have been through this in some way, matter, shape or form and relate to it in some local or federal form. What advice would you have for people who go through it? Well Who are scared, who are afraid.
Speaker 1: Well, in that in that moment, of course, it's very, very intimidating. I admit to you that I my initial reaction was this is ridiculous. There's no crime here, I'll clearly be found innocent. I had no idea that I was gonna be subjected to a Soviet style show trial in which all avenues or arguments in defense were denied. You can't.
So I wanted to bring in Bill Binney, the the the CIA's most famous IT guy who could approve there was no online hack of the DNC. The judge would not allow him to testify. One of the charges against me was I said that a friend of mine in New York who was a a radio personality had told me that he knew a woman lawyer who worked for WikiLeaks and that she had told him that Julian Assange had this huge catch of information on Hillary Clinton and he would release it in October. James, I have the text message in which he told me that. The judge would not allow us to enter it as evidence because it disproved one of the specific charges against me.
So I had no idea that the whole thing would be rigged, but I realized ultimately why it was. I was arrested in January. In July was when they said to me, through my lawyers, look, we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump. Those are your choices. And the guy pushes this piece of paper across and he says, all you gotta do is sign this.
I look at it. I realize every word of it is false, and I said, you can take this and you can shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that. Now, I'd already passed two polygraph tests that proved that everything they wanted me to say was false. So they wanted me to be the ham in their ham sandwich. I refused to do it.
I was not gonna be Michael Cohen. I was not gonna lie. I was not gonna say things that weren't true.
Speaker 0: You're not gonna I remember you saying, I will not bear false witness.
Speaker 1: I witnessed what they wanted me to
Speaker 0: stuck with me, because a lot of people do that. Sure.
Speaker 1: It was the easy way out. They're giving me the easy way out. Look, we we can we'll tell the judge to give you no jail time. All you gotta do is sign this.
Speaker 0: Say, plead guilty to something you didn't do.
Speaker 1: Right. I wouldn't even have to plead guilty. At that point, they I they would have just theoretically told the judge not to give me jail time. Now, they double crossed Cohen. They would have double crossed me too, and I agreed to testify against Trump, but I was never gonna do that.
First of all, how would you look yourself in the mirror? I wanted Donald Trump to be president since 1988. I tried to get him run-in February. I tried to get him run-in 2012. I finally succeeded in getting him to run-in 2016.
Not me. Me and other people. So I was gonna turn on this guy who I'd known at that point for forty years, who I always dreamed about being a great president. There's never any chance that I was gonna do that. And then everything I would have said would have been a lie.
I would have to make it up. In other words, you have Hakim Jeffries who has his famous tweet that claims that I traded my pardon for silence regarding the crimes of Donald Trump. Now if Hakim will just waive his congressional immunity, I'll sue him, but we both know he's not gonna do that.
Roger Stone | My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe #10 - O'Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn one morning in 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone […]
okeefemediagroup.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn on January 25th, 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone refused, endured what he calls a “show trial,” and lost nearly everything. Now, he reveals how the justice system was weaponized against him. Surprise FBI Raid (1:24) Why Was Roger Stone Arrested? (7:20) The Booking Process/Arrest (11:50) Jury Corruption (14:00) Andrew Weissman’s Role (19:47) Advice for People Who Are Raided (24:28) Disproving the Charges & Resisting Trump Betrayal (25:30) Losing Everything to Pay Attorneys (28:30) Accusations Vs. Tangible Proof (30:20) Prosecuting the Prosecutors (32:00) Finding Faith (35:00) Commuted by Trump/Given Pardon (39:00) Obama Presidency Changed Everything (44:31) Virginia Gieuffre’s Testimony on Jeffrey Epstein (45:15) The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein (46:40) Who Really Killed JFK? (52:59) Richard Nixon on Israel (1:08:10) Stone and Trump Friendship (1:14:32) “The Apprentice” and Seeing Trump’s Potential (1:15:54) Nixon’s Run for President (1:18:50) On Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (1:26:30) @RogerJStoneJr Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Website: https://okeefemediagroup.com/roger-stone-my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe-10/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Roger Stone recounts a morning raid on his home: "17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen." He opened the door to "three M4 assault weapons" pointed at his head, and they found "Nothing." He refused an offer to testify against Donald Trump: "you can take this and you shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that." He describes CNN leaking the sealed indictment with "the initials of the man who wrote it, Andrew Weissman." In custody, chants of "Roger Stone did nothing wrong" arose. He calls the raid one of the "great misstep" and says Trump "commuted your prison sentence" and later granted "a full and unconditional pardon." He proclaims "There is no Russian collusion... no Russian hack of the DNC" and warns of "the weaponization of justice" and future prosecutions. He hints at books, including "Bushwacked," and discusses Epstein and Kennedy theories.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you knew they were gonna raid you that morning?
Speaker 1: Definitely. I That morning. I sensed it. It was coming that morning. We're talking about 17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen.
But I opened the door looking down the barrel of three m four assault weapons aimed at my head. Do know what they found? Nothing. That's what they found. Nothing.
I had no idea that the whole thing would be rigged. I was arrested in January. In July was when they said to me, we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump. Those are your choices. And I said, you can take this and you shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that.
I interviewed Virginia Roberts Dufres for six hours. The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous out of the question.
Speaker 0: She's now deceased.
Speaker 1: She she they tell us that she commits. I don't I don't buy it.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back. I'm here today with Roger Stone. Roger, thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: James, great to be with you. We we have a lot in common. We're both survivors. We both know how intrusive it is to have the feds smash and attack your place at 06:00 in the morning Yes. We do.
And be rested in your underwear. It's it's great to be with you.
Speaker 0: Great to have you here. I'm wearing a a tailored suit today. Alan Fluser.
Speaker 1: Very good. He's a
Speaker 0: New York tailor, so I'm I'm wearing a suit in honor of you. I know how much you appreciate fashion.
Speaker 1: He was my tailor till I got arrested and then suddenly he decided to give a bunch of interviews saying that I was a criminal.
Speaker 0: I didn't know.
Speaker 1: This is after I paid him, I don't know, $350,000 over many years. So he's no longer my tailor.
Speaker 0: Is he still alive?
Speaker 1: He is still alive, but he's not doing all that great. I now use a guy named Adam DeAngelo, who's a excellent tailor. He comes to you.
Speaker 0: Well, I the the guy that tailored is not Alan. Apparently, it's a new person that works for him.
Speaker 1: Looks great.
Speaker 0: But here we are. So speaking of the FBI team, let's pull up the clip regarding Roger in Florida. What was this? 2020? What year?
Speaker 1: 2019.
Speaker 0: 2019. And recently CEO. Oh, there this is CNN. Somehow somehow CNN knew that you were being raided. Yeah.
Let's play this clip, then we'll talk about it.
Speaker 2: Both this morning, a raid video this morning, a really stunning turn of events. So many people who have been charged and, in this Mueller investigation have been allowed to turn themselves in to surrender. Not so this morning. This was, by all accounts, a surprise raid on Stone's house. The reason
Speaker 0: A surprise raid. I know you've talked about this before, but I'm gonna talk about my raid. How did they know that you were being raided? How did CNN know that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's very simple. I was arrested at 06:16 in the morning. At 06:11, someone at CNN texted my lawyer and said, your client's just been arrested. And he, of course, said arrested for what? Because, of course, we knew there was no Russian collusion nor WikiLeaks collaboration.
So she sent him a copy of my sealed indictment, which wasn't unsealed until 10:30 that morning by a federal magistrate in DC. But if you looked at the metadata tags on that document, you find the initials of the man who wrote it, Andrew Weissman. Therefore, the man who leaked it in violation of federal law because the leaking of a search or arrest warrant prior to it being executed is actually a felony. Of course, the judge in my case could care less. But the idea that was a surprise is also false because I figured it out.
Meaning, the previous day around 04:30, the same producer at CNN called me and said, I I wanna mail you something. Can you give me your address? And I said, well, you can find my address online. It's easy to find. Well, there's two different home addresses for you online.
I'm not sure which one is the right one. So I gave it to her on the theory that she could find it anyway. And I said to my wife, they're coming to arrest me tomorrow morning. And she said, well, you've been saying that every weekend for the last six months because of the constant drumbeat of stories. It's part of their strategy of trying to pressure you.
Constant I never went to the grand jury. I never got a target letter. But every two or three days, you'd have a new story pop up saying, I was the focus of Mueller's probe, the noose titans on stone, the the stone under the microscope.
Speaker 0: Were you afraid? Were you scared?
Speaker 1: I was afraid. Was angry because, you know, I knew that there was no Russian collusion. I knew that their entire narrative was false. But every time one of the people who worked for me and some people who didn't work for me. Some people I hadn't been in touch with for fifteen years.
All these people being dragged in front of the grand jury, and, of course, their names are immediately leaked. So four stone three more stone associates go to the grand jury. And I'm scratching my head as are my lawyers because I can't think of any crime that I'm actually guilty of or that I could be charged with. So I would say at about 05:00 in the morning, set my alarm. I got up, I took a shower, I put on my Roger Stone did nothing wrong t shirt because I see a product placement opportunity coming.
Speaker 0: Those are your shirts that you
Speaker 1: I was selling to pay for my legal defense. I was saying them, if if you bought your t shirt for whatever it was, $25.
Speaker 0: So you knew they were gonna raid you that morning?
Speaker 1: Definitely. I I sensed it. It was coming that morning. And then I would say about 05:00, I got a call on my cell phone from a Fort Lauderdale police officer who happens to be a friend of mine. And he said, are you at home?
And I said, yeah, why? He said, well, I'm down at Starbucks and I bet there's, I don't know, 20, maybe 30 FBI agents here lined up getting coffee. Get the distinct impression that they're headed to your house after they leave here. And I said, yes, I'm expecting them. So I was sitting in the upstairs window, you know, which is the only, it's in the bathroom, it was the only window of the house upstairs where you could see the entire front yard.
And sure enough, first you saw the red lights. I mean, they came very very loud, very heavy. You saw the red lights, you heard their sirens, like I'm dangerous. Right. I saw them pull a battering ram out.
But first, before all of that, James, I saw the CNN crew set up 25 feet from my front door. And I later got an affidavit from a Fort Lauderdale police officer who was called in to do backup. They I live on a dead end street, so they roped off the end of the street. All the media was on the other side of the rope about a half a block away, except for CNN. They were allowed to be right at the, you know, at the right next to my house.
And the police officer says in his affidavit, when he told CNN they had to move, he got chewed out by an FBI agent who said, no. CNN had special permission to be, you know, inches away from where I was permission. I I presume the c the FBI did or the the prosecutors. The prosecutors in my case were actually there for my arrest. You realize this was one of the greatest missteps in American political and public relations history.
Helped get Trump elected perhaps. Well, it certainly allowed me to finance my legal defense because if I quietly turned myself in, and the day before my attorneys had talked to the special counsel's office, we handed over 30 pages of text messages, copies of text messages that proved that I was telling the truth and the witness against me were lying. So they could have said at that point, by the way, we're charging your client tomorrow, just bring him in to the federal courthouse. And I would have, of course, done that. But instead, they planned this over the top raid.
Speaker 0: What do you attribute that overreach to? Overzealous prosecutors, the attorney general's office? Why why did they do it that way?
Speaker 1: Well, think, first of all, they went and misrepresented the facts to two federal judges. So they told two different federal judges, we have probable cause to charge Stone with treason, conspiracy against The United States, counterfeiting, I love that one, money laundering, unauthorized access to a government computer, aiding and abetting a conspiracy before and after the fact. So they got into all my emails, all my text messages, all my phone calls. You know what they found? Nothing.
That's what they found. Nothing. So I actually think when they arrested me, they were they had high hopes that their investigation would turn up something useful. How did
Speaker 0: they get into your phone? The
Speaker 1: secret warrant? They they they take your phone. They took all
Speaker 0: my took the phone in
Speaker 1: the phone. All my electronic devices. So they took my computer. They took, my laptop.
Speaker 0: Did they have the password or did you
Speaker 1: They asked my wife the the passcode of my phone. She laughed at them and said, are you kidding me? Does your wife have the passcode to your phone? Right. No.
So, I mean, ultimately, figured it out. And once again, they found no evidence of Russian collusion, no evidence of WikiLeaks collaboration. They found nothing useful.
Speaker 0: The clip of the FBI pounding on the door, Andrew, and then also the clip of the FBI pounding on my door, because it's the pounding sound that I I when they did this to me here it is. The FBI pounding on the door, bang, bang, bang.
Speaker 3: FBI, open the door.
Speaker 0: So at this point, pause. So at this point, you what happened?
Speaker 1: So I come downstairs to let them in, obviously. And they say, are you Roger Stone? I say, yes. They say, put your hands behind your back. You're under arrest.
I put my hands behind my back. They say, is there anybody else in the house? I said, yes. My wife's in the house. They said, where is she?
I said, she's upstairs in the Second Floor. There's nobody else in the house. I said, no. There are no firearms in the house. I said, you already know the answer to that, because they did.
And they said, alright. Well, I I said, I'd like to know the charges against me, which I'm entitled by the constitution to know. Well, we'll tell you when we're ready. I said, no. I'd to know now.
I'd also like to see my lawyer. You can see your lawyer when we take you to the booking center in Miramar. Your lawyer will meet us there. So they're running up the stairs and I realized that they don't know that my wife is virtually deaf. So immediately, remember, I opened the door looking down the barrel of three m four assault weapons aimed at my head, aimed at my face.
And it immediately occurs to me that because my wife is deaf and without her hearing aids, she literally can hear nothing, she hasn't heard any she's none of this is going on. She's still sleeping. She sleeps through my entire arrest. My fear is that they're going to to wake her. She's not going to hear a command from Armen, and they're going to shoot her.
She doesn't know if this is
Speaker 0: That was going through your head in this moment. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't she's not they're all in plain clothes. So
Speaker 0: Did they have vests on?
Speaker 1: They had vests on. They but and most of them had night goggles. This was very, very dramatic.
Speaker 0: This is a joke.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it ended up backfiring, I think, very badly for them. Hey, look, I'm not the most sympathetic figure in the world. Okay? I'm a hardboiled political operative, but they made me into a sympathetic figure. Today, even today, this was four years ago, people come up to me and say, what they did to you, I saw it on TV, it was awful.
Speaker 0: That's what they say to
Speaker 1: me. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They always bring you up to me Yeah. And what they did to you. And so did did you open the door for these agents? Of course. Okay.
Because they would have banged it down.
Speaker 1: They were bashed they brought a battering ram up there. They would have smashed the door in. For what for what purpose? I mean, the whole thing was ludicrous. So then they hand they handcuffed me, I'm made to walk out and stand in the middle of the street in front of my house.
Now they bring my wife out, they perp walk her out in the middle of the street, although she's not allowed to talk to me.
Speaker 0: How did they find your wife eventually? Did she walk out
Speaker 1: of the She she she is accompanied out by a woman FBI agent. Fortunately for us, she didn't handcuff her, but
Speaker 0: Did she wake up from the
Speaker 1: She she woke up and then she realized what was going on. Now, remember, told her the night before this was gonna happen, she just didn't believe me. So they'd taken my phone at that point, they also took her phone. Since the whole world is watching this live on CNN, my grandchildren are calling, my children are calling, of course
Speaker 0: You can't answer
Speaker 1: the you can't answer the phone. Then after we left for the fingerprinting and the and the the mugshot at the booking center in Miramar, which at that hour in the morning is
Speaker 0: But what is Miramar for people who don't know what
Speaker 1: that is? Miramar, Florida is an hour and a half south of Fort Lauderdale where I live. And we're at peak traffic time now, so I'm handcuffed behind my back. So I say to the FBI agents, hey. Is there any chance we could move the handcuffs to the front?
No. Okay. Whatever. So we get we get there. I'm here.
I'm fingerprinted. I'm handcuffed.
Speaker 0: This is first time you've ever been arrested?
Speaker 1: For I I don't even have a parking ticket. I mean, it's ridiculous. So they say, okay. Your lawyers are in that conference room. So we go in the conference room.
I look around, and I go because I know they're listening. You know they're listening. So they say, okay. Well, they're going to what's gonna happen here? They said, well, we're gonna go back to the Federal Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale where you'll be arraigned.
We've already told them you're gonna plead not guilty, and they're gonna release you without bail. I said, wait a minute. Why did they arrest me in this over the top manner if if I'm not a flight risk? Their explanation already was, well, we had to do it this way because Stone was a flight risk. James, I didn't I had no valid passport.
I'm extremely recognizable, and I can't swim because I lived on a canal. We're talking about 17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen pulling up to the back of the dock at the back of my home. Frogmen. Frogmen. They jump out.
They're all I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I'm laughing, but it's
Speaker 1: They're also armed. I mean, this is they sent more people to take down El Chapo than they sent you do.
Speaker 0: In this moment in space and time, you mentioned you were angry. There was no part of you that was fearful or scared or in danger? You didn't have any of those emotions?
Speaker 1: I immediately recognized that this was a huge tactical error on their part.
Speaker 0: Almost like an advantage for you.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it I think it turns out to be an advantage for me because I was able to to bring attention to the outrageousness of
Speaker 0: publicity for you.
Speaker 1: And and the outrageousness of the case against me. And then so we go to the courthouse, and they that's another drive north now. They put me in a cell with the three African American gentlemen who were just coming around from a bend in the night before. So I patiently explained the 1994 crime bill to them, and why Joe Biden and and Bill and Bill Clinton are responsible for the mass incarceration of so many black people. At that point, it's now 10:00 in the morning.
I've been arrested at six. I still haven't eaten anything. So I say to one of the guards, hey, could I get like something to eat anything? And they say, no. So was already past mealtime.
So one of these guys gives me half of his peanut butter sandwich, the other guy gives me half of his, so I have an entire peanut butter sandwich to eat. And by the time I left the holding cell to go upstairs and be arraigned, these guys were chanting, Roger Stone did nothing wrong. Roger Stone did nothing wrong. It was not what they expected, I think.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 833324gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
How did this because you've been a political strategist a very long time, and you have a lot to say about political strategy. But how did this experience change your approach to political strategy, if at all?
Speaker 1: Well, I see I had no idea that what would happen next would be the complete and total unconstitutional gag that I would no longer be able to defend myself in any forum or on any platform whatsoever. See, in the early rulings in my case, the FBI was forced to admit that they never inspected the computer servers at the DNC, that they relied entirely on the third party report of a company called CrowdStrike. Now, in my trial, my defense attorneys wanted the CrowdStrike memo, but the judge would not allow it. And Mark Elias showed up in court to argue that that I shouldn't be given it because it would hide the secrets of the Democrat National Committee or reveal them. Well, the only thing they were proving was that there was no Russian hack.
Sean Henry, who just happened to be deputy Robert Mueller at the FBI, then the head of CrowdStrike, admits to the House Intelligence Committee under oath about the same time that I testify that in fact he has no proof of a Democrat hack of a, pardon me, a Russian hack of the DNC. That's because there was none. As soon as I started talking about this, then it became absolutely necessary to gag me. Judge put a gag on me as he had done with Paul Manafort, and I could not discuss any aspect of the case. Who was the judge?
Amy Berman Jackson, the most corrupt judge in American history. Later, James, we would learn that the jury for woman, who said in jury selection she had never heard of me, she knew nothing about me or my case, had been attacking me and Donald Trump by name on both Twitter and Facebook for nineteen months prior to her being selected as a juror. But she had all that locked down on a on a private setting, so it didn't turn up in due diligence. And when after I was convicted, but this was learned, it was Mike Cernovich who discovered it, the judge refused to to throw out my conviction to give me a new trial, saying that this woman's attacks on me were not evidence of her bias against me.
Speaker 0: What happened to Andrew Weissman? Where is he now?
Speaker 1: Andrew Weissman is in New York. He's just bought the condominium next to his to keep his wine collection. I imagine that he's lawyered up because he most definitely will be charged in the upcoming prosecutions of those who orchestrated this entire Russian collusion oaks.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna play for you. I'm sure you've seen it, but we'll talk about some of the things in this clip from Westchester County, New York. Go ahead and So it goes on, but this was recorded on a on a on a hidden camera that was oddly enough people say, did you obtain this? The special was the special master appointed in your case? I don't recall.
No. Special master was appointed in my case because we're journalists. And we got the footage because the special master took all the stuff and then we were allowed to see some of the stuff that was filtered.
Speaker 1: In in my case, it was somewhat different. I had security cameras all around my house. When the FBI left, they grabbed the wrong file. They grabbed the wrong tape. So they left me all of the video What whether is it
Speaker 0: a door camera, a door ring camera?
Speaker 1: All the way around.
Speaker 0: I had
Speaker 1: a door camera, the backyard. I mean, my eye house was completely wired for security on all sides, so I could see the frogmen jumping out of the boat onto the dock. I could I could see the 17 cars pulled
Speaker 0: rifles did you say with
Speaker 1: There were 29 FBI agents, all carrying Yes.
Speaker 0: What were they expecting you to have? Like a scarface
Speaker 1: I think I think this was about intimidation because you see, I was arrested in January 2019. By July, they'd gone through all my email and stuff, they realized they had nothing. So Andrew Eisman comes up with this very clever case.
Speaker 0: So this is his This is
Speaker 1: totally it. Totally him. And a miscreant
Speaker 0: And he's a US attorney? What's his title?
Speaker 1: Was the deputy director of the Mueller probe. Oh. This guy has a long history. He gets to start covering up mob murders in Brooklyn. Then he destroyed the Enron Corporation and Arthur Andersen.
His his criminal convictions in those cases are reversed nine to zero by the US Supreme Court. Yet to this day, he still points to them as the gold standard of federal prosecutions. Then he destroyed all the evidence of the of the illegal actions by the Mueller investigators. So after special counsel John Durham puts out a subpoena for the cell phones of the mother investigators, Andrew Weissman is the one who wipes all the memory of them. You see, there are two sets of rules.
They can do whatever they want. Now they would later accuse me of destroying evidence. I destroyed nothing. I I turned over 1,000,000 emails to them. I never I never deleted anything.
There's no evidence of Russian collusion. Here's the most amazing thing. My my lawyers asked for Robert Mueller's final report because the sections about me are completely redacted in the copy they gave us. We wanted an unredacted report. The judge said, no.
You can't have it. I'll review the report in my chambers and I'll give you the sections relevant to you. James, she seems to have forgotten page one seventy eight. It's the page in which he says that there the barriers to prosecuting Stone are factual, meaning they found no evidence of Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration, or any other crime. Somehow, the judge forgot to give us that section.
That's withholding of exculpatory evidence. I suspect when the House Republicans very shortly file articles of impeachment against this judge, which are definitely coming, that that will be one of the items delineated in those articles. Now, can you impeach a federal judge? Takes two thirds vote in the senate. It's difficult, but we should have a trial.
Speaker 0: Weisman was probably in charge because he reported to mule Mueller. Yes. And Mueller wasn't all there.
Speaker 1: Weisman was the de facto head of this witch hunt. This is a guy just to be clear, in the Enron case, he took the CFO of Enron. He locked him in a casket style metal box with just a slot for his eyes and left him out in the sun until he agreed to testify and say what what what Weisman wanted him to say. There was a bar complaint filed in New York on this matter because that's cruel and unusual. Go look for that bar complaint, James.
It's missing. It's gone. It's no longer there.
Speaker 0: This is a sick person. You know, a lot of people have been by the way, we have the clip, Andrew, of Stone walking back into the house with a shirt that says Roger Stone did nothing wrong. I'd like to see that. This is Sinclair Broadcast Group. I guess they published this.
You walking back into the house. Is it 01/25/2019? Is that yep. Mhmm. Roger Stone did nothing wrong walking back in.
Speaker 1: Now, that's part that's product placement. I sold 15,000 of those shirts in the next twenty four hours. All of it dedicated to my But legal defense fund.
Speaker 0: I I mean, seriously, a lot of people have been through this in some way, matter, shape, or form and relate to it in some local or federal form. What advice would you have for people who go through
Speaker 1: it? Well Who are scared?
Speaker 0: Who are afraid?
Speaker 1: Well, in that in that moment, of course, it's very, very intimidating. I admit to you that I my initial reaction was this is ridiculous. There's no crime here. I'll clearly be found innocent. I had no idea that I was gonna be subjected to a Soviet style show trial in which all avenues or arguments in defense were denied.
You can't so I wanted to bring in Bill Binney, the the the CIA's most famous IT guy who could approve there was no online hack of the DNC. The judge would not allow him to test testify. One of the charges against me was I said that a friend of mine in New York who was a a radio personality had told me that he knew a woman lawyer who worked for WikiLeaks and that she had told him that Julian Assange had this huge catch of information on Hillary Clinton and he would release it in October. James, I have the text message in which he told me that. The judge would not allow us to enter it as evidence because it disproved one of the specific charges against me.
So I had no idea that the whole thing would be rigged, but I realized ultimately why it was. I was arrested in January. In July was when they said to me, through my lawyers, look, we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump. Those are your choices. And the guy pushes this piece of paper across.
He says, all you gotta do is sign this. I look at it. I realize every word of it is false. And I said, you can take this and you can shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that. Now I'd already passed two polygraph tests that proved that everything they wanted me to say was false.
So they wanted me to be the ham in their ham sandwich. I refused to do it. I was not going to be Michael Cohen. I was not going to lie. I was not going to say things that weren't true.
Speaker 0: You're not going to I remember you saying, I will not bear false witness.
Speaker 1: I witnessed what they wanted me to do.
Speaker 0: Stuck with me because a lot of people do that. Sure.
Speaker 1: It was the easy way out. They're giving me the easy way out. Look, we we can we'll tell the judge to give you no jail time. All you gotta do is sign this.
Speaker 0: Say, plead guilty to something you didn't do.
Speaker 1: Right. I I wouldn't even have to plead guilty. At that point, they I they would have just theoretically told the judge not to give me jail time. Now, they double crossed Cohen. They would have double crossed me too, and I agreed to testify against Trump, but I was never gonna do that.
First of all, how would you look yourself in the mirror? I wanted Donald Trump to be president since 1988. I tried to get him run-in February. I tried to get him to run-in 2012. I finally succeeded in getting him to run-in 2016.
Not me me and other people. So I was gonna turn on this guy who I'd known at that point for forty years, who I always dreamed about being a great president. There's never any chance that I was gonna do that. And then everything I would have said would have been a lie. I would have to make it up.
In other words, you have Hakim Jeffries who has his famous tweet that claims that I traded my pardon for silence regarding the crimes of Donald Trump. Now if Hakim will just waive his congressional immunity, I'll sue him, but we both know he's not gonna do that.
Speaker 0: I think a lot of people may plead guilty to things they don't do because they can't afford to pay attorneys. Seems to be a stressing point. Did you how much did it cost you, this whole thing cost you, personally Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, recognize that we lost our home. We lost our savings. We lost our insurance. I lost my car. I had to sell my electric guitar.
That was very painful. I sold everything I had essentially, but then I still ran out of money.
Speaker 0: To pay attorneys.
Speaker 1: To pay attorneys and to live. Because remember, if you're gagged, you can't speak, you can't write, that's how I make a living. So I had no ability to make a living. And of course, no one wants to hire you for strategic consulting because you're under criminal indictment. So I raised roughly 3 and a half million dollars for my legal defense.
I worked very, very hard to do it. I went literally from speaking to the prestigious Oxford political union in London to speaking at a gentleman's club in Kentucky, signing women's asses for $50 for my legal defense fund.
Speaker 0: I mean and what I in endure and experience in my life is just the constant litigation, constant defense cost, dealing with lawyers. Do you have any advice on that?
Speaker 1: It's it's endless. First of all, I had 13 civil cases filed against me. All of them baseless, all of them On
Speaker 0: the same cause of action?
Speaker 1: Same cause of action. Well, first of all, some some Obama front group democracy now, some BS group, sued me in a civil case, claiming that I had been involved with WikiLeaks. Their proof, a clipping from the Huffington Post. That's not proof. That's an accusation.
Some kinda like the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian collusion. This is a complete crock of shit. All they did was cut and paste out of the Huffington Post or the Daily Beast some accusation. That's not proof. That's just an accusation, and they call it a report as if it's proof.
It's proof of nothing whatsoever. There is no Russian collusion. There is no collaboration on my part with WikiLeaks, and there is no Russian hack of the DNC. And as you may now know, Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents just this past week that shows that there was no hack of the DNC. And when Admiral Mike Rogers tried to say that, Clapper said, no, no, we all gotta stick to the same story.
It was a lie. It's still a lie.
Speaker 0: Same Clapper that sit under oath while he was rubbing his face that they we don't spy on Americans.
Speaker 1: Right. There is no data collection metadata collection program in Americans. And then Edward Snowden proved that that was a lie. But where did Clapper go after he left the government? He was teaching ethics at Vermont College.
Speaker 0: You can't make that up. You can't make that.
Speaker 1: Do you
Speaker 0: think these people are gonna be prosecuted or
Speaker 1: held I do. Accountable at some point? I think relatively soon. I think the American people demand it. I think the president's base demands it.
Something general Flynn and I and Rudy Giuliani have talked about very extensively. I don't know that it'll be as broad as it needs to be, but certainly, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, I think Hillary herself, frankly, should be prosecuted. I'll be surprised if that happens. Obama may have immunity. I agree with those who say that he could still be impeached even though he's no longer president, and then he would lose that immunity.
On the other hand, I don't think two thirds of the senate would vote to impeach him, even though I think he's on the facts, he's impeachable. But Joe Biden should certainly be charged because he has no immunity for the crimes he committed as vice president. He has no immunity for the financial crimes he committed as vice president, but he has no immunity for the crimes he he committed in the furtherance of the seditious conspiracy that is Russiagate. Here's the important thing. This conspiracy doesn't stop in 2017.
It starts in 2016. It continues in 2017. It continues in 2020, and it continues in 2024. So the raid on Mar a Lago is yet another step in the same seditious conspiracy, which is why the trials can be held in South Florida, where these people will be indicted and stand trial in South Florida, not in Washington DC where you cannot get a fair minded judge and you cannot get a reasonable jury. The jury is the concern in DC.
Well, it's also the judges. Every one of these judges the the the main judge is now retired, but she's epically corrupt. The judge in my case, the judge in general Flynn's case. It's interesting. After my after my conviction, three different jurors while being interviewed all say and the judge never never visited the jury room.
Why would they say that?
Speaker 0: The judge never visited the
Speaker 1: jury room. Right. A jury by law, the judge cannot visit the jury room during deliberations. Why would you just volunteer that she never did that? Interesting.
Speaker 0: Did did you sit through voir dire jury selection in your case?
Speaker 1: Yeah. But it was a joke because the judge ruled that working for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or previous service in the Clinton or Obama administrations was not or being a critic of Roger Stone's, none of those things were barriers to be on this jury.
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. And they they have preemptory strikes and I was in DC for my jury trial and jurors seemed to lie under oath, but there was nothing I could do about it.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: Nothing we could do about it. And so
Speaker 1: Well, they would say, I hate Donald Trump. I think he should be prosecuted, but I can put my personal feelings aside and and release your judgment in this case. Sure.
Speaker 0: Wow. And as you're you you sat in the trial, did the jurors stare at you? Did you look at them?
Speaker 1: Most of them didn't have the courage to stare at me. I gave them the Sicilian death stare, you know. So I would look at them and they would just they would they would avert my glade.
Speaker 0: They wouldn't look at they look away.
Speaker 1: Well, the judge and the the judge did a fifty five minute harangue at sentencing where she looked at me and she said, you have been convicted of lying to cover up for Donald Trump. Well, first of all, I wasn't even charged with that nor was I convicted of that. But even she could not hold my gaze. So The same judge, by the way, who ruled against those the families of the four men killed in Benghazi in a wrongful death suit. The same judge who incarcerated Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for a year and a half prior to his being convicted of anything.
Speaker 0: How long was your trial? How many days?
Speaker 1: It was about ten days, I think. Ten days. I mean, since they wouldn't allow me to offer any defense, it was it went pretty quickly.
Speaker 0: It's like a sensory deprivation chamber and sit in court for for ten days.
Speaker 1: In essence. Of Because I brought a bible with me every day, I was mocked. I was
Speaker 0: relentlessly mocked. Mocked by the the media?
Speaker 1: By the media. Sure. We're not look. I there's no question. A very young pastor who was had become a friend of mine who'd attended one of my book signings, who I kept in in touch with, just was relentless, just pounding on me about restoring my faith and being, you know, and, being redeemed in the blood of the cross.
And he said, look. This is too heavy a burden for any one man. You gotta turn to Christ. You gotta turn back to the church. You're a Catholic.
You believe in God, don't you? And I said, of course, I do. So, well, then now is the time for you to turn this burden over to Christ. So he arranged for me to meet with Franklin Graham, who was doing a revival in Boca Raton. And Franklin Graham was very generous with his time.
He spoke to me for a while, and I told him that, look. I'm angry. I'm frustrated. I'm drinking too much. I'm worried about what's gonna happen to my wife if I'm unfairly incarcerated.
I don't know where she's gonna live, how she's gonna survive. And he said I said, maybe you could talk to the president for me about clemency. I remember I'm thinking like a politico. Mhmm. And he's saying, well, I'll see what I can do about that.
But let me give you a better piece of advice. You need to confess your sins. You need to get right with God. And if you do that, I think that he that he will lift you up. I think he'll protect you from your persecutors.
And in the end, I think I escaped the deadly snare that Robert Mueller and Adam Schiff and Andrew Weissman set out for me only because I I returned to the church.
Speaker 0: In while you're in in this court case, while you're in trial.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I I I I realized at a certain point that I was gonna be lynched. There was no chance of a fair trial. So I really did restore my faith, started going back to church.
I started praying very fervently for a just result. All I wanted Trump to do is realize I was being persecuted because I refused to lie. They had nothing on me. There is no Russian collusion. They kept saying, you were you communicated with Guccifer two point o, who is a Russian intelligence asset.
James, my 28 word communications with the persona of Guccifer two point o on Twitter direct messages took place three weeks pardon me, three months after WikiLeaks had already published all the material. So chronologically, this communications is meaningless. It proves nothing whatsoever.
Speaker 0: Did you talk to any reporters? They usually sit in the back benches of the courtroom. Did you engage in conversation during the trial with them?
Speaker 1: Well, I think they were mostly enjoying themselves. Know, there it's hard to rank them, but the Washington Post is probably the worst newspaper in the country, followed pretty closely by the New York Times. And, of course, the CNN folks who by the way, they got an award for being outside my house. The White House Correspondents Association gave them an award for their incisive investigative reporting. Investigative reporting, they got a tip from Andrew Weissman.
It's right there in black and white.
Speaker 0: We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth.
You, we, are the media now. On 07/10/2020, president Trump commuted your prison sentence before you were scheduled to report to prison. Correct? Yeah. It was very interesting.
Tell me about that.
Speaker 1: First of all, they wanted to send me to a prison in Georgia, which made no sense because generally speaking, the the Bureau of Prisons send you to prison that's relatively close to where you live so your family can visit you. But they picked a specific prison in Georgia where they insisted that there were no COVID cases. Now I was 20 I was 68 years old at the time, have a lifetime history of asthma. And, they were sending me to this prison because they said there were no COVID cases. An African American woman who was the head of the prison guards union either saw this on TV or she read about it.
Somehow, she contacted one of my lawyers and said, this is a lie. There's two hundred COVID cases here. There's many more tests that we don't have results from. It was very clear the idea was to send me there to die, I probably would have died had I gone. But forty eight hours before I had to turn myself in, the president commuted my sentence.
And here's the interesting part. Then that Christmas, days before Christmas, the twenty third, I believe it was, of December, he gave me a full and unconditional pardon. Try to find that on the Internet. If all the stories will say Stone's sentence was commuted, almost none of them will cite the pardon like it never actually happened. But if you want a copy of my pardon, you can go to stonezone.com and go to the store and I will send you sell you an autographed copy.
Speaker 0: Stonezone.com autographed pardon autographed copy of the pardon. Why? Or your t shirt. Or your t shirt. Or your t shirt.
Why is is that not on the Internet?
Speaker 1: I suspect it's it's because it's it's exonerating in a way. It's vindicating in a way. So you find many stories. I have to keep correcting reporters who say Stone's sentence was commuted. Now, a pardon, you have to accept the pardon, and it is technically correct that when you accept a pardon, you're admitting guilt.
But the alternative was to die in a COVID invested prison in Georgia, which I had no real interest in. Had that had a kind of finality to it that I didn't really like.
Speaker 0: Did you you know, one of the things that happens to me, think, sometimes, this process kind of hardens you. The process is the punishment. So when you got this pardon, did you feel justice? Did you feel vindication? Did you feel relief?
Speaker 1: I certainly felt relief. I felt great gratitude both because I had prayed fervently for this and I really did believe. I really had become convinced that God would deliver. I knew that I would be that I would be saved. I knew it.
I knew Trump would do the right thing. People seem to think I had some deal with Trump or assurance from Trump. I hadn't talked to Trump at that point in two years. So I went from talking to him virtually every day to talking to him not at all. My lawyers also had no communications from the president's lawyer, so there was never any guarantee that I would be pardoned.
I had friends out there who were beating the drum like Tucker Carlson, like Laura Loomer, a handful, Larry Kudlow, people out there saying, this case is ridiculous. Stone's done nothing wrong. The president should pardon him. Remember, I was still gagged. Now the judge gagged me, this is interesting, because she said that my defense of myself might taint the jury pool.
Okay. Then why did she leave the gag in place after I was convicted, before I was sentenced, after I was incensed, and right up The jury pool? Right. That was the argument. She she produced no evidence
Speaker 0: that more true in your case than any other case?
Speaker 1: That's How's the Washington Post and CNN, the dominant news organizations in Washington DC, how did that not how did that not taint the jury pool? But, no, this was her argument that I couldn't defend myself because it would taint the jury pool. Even if you believe that, then why did she leave the gag in place after I was convicted, but before I was sentenced, and after I was sentenced, and just before I was supposed to report to prison? So she was violating my first amendment rights throughout because she didn't want her conduct of the trial to be criticized. The fact that she should have thrown out my conviction based on the on the actions of the illegal actions of the jury for a woman, who, by the way, had run for congress as a democrat in Tennessee, and who was a protege of Donna Brazile.
But we're supposed to believe that she can render a totally unbiased nonpolitical judgment on Roger Stone.
Speaker 0: Is it gonna always be like this? Is it gonna get continue to get worse, just the weaponization of the justice system? Is it gonna get better? What is your prediction of the the future?
Speaker 1: That's a very difficult question. I I anybody who says that the people who pulled off the greatest single dirty trick in American political history, The greatest single abuse of power in which the full authority of the US government and the capabilities of our intelligence agencies were used to try to undo an election. There are some who said, well, if we if we maybe we should let that go because if they come back into power, they're going to be brutal against us. No. They're they're already weaponized against us.
The Steele dossier was a fraud. The fact that they claim the DNC was hacked by Russian intelligence is a fraud. I think that you either dismantle them now or, yes, they will come back, and they'll do the same thing all over again. By the way, it didn't used to be this way. I mean, politics was always partisan.
But when I lived in Washington, when I was an active political consultant, I had friends who were Democrats. I had friends in the business who were Democrats. We ate together. We drank together. We teased each other.
Sometimes we beat them. Sometimes we beat them. They sometimes they beat us. When they beat us, it was like, okay, I'll get you next time. This idea of destroying people, destroying their lives, destroying their families, throwing you in jail, this is it was never like this.
This is a new thing. This is I think comes directly out of the presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama.
Speaker 0: That's what changed the Barack Obama. I think it changed everything. Was it the Obamacare? What what what what moment was the when things really changed?
Speaker 1: I I think as soon as Obama becomes president, they decide that they want to fundamentally change the way the country is run, and therefore, they need to not just beat the opposition, that would be us. They have to destroy us. So the fact that I had written a book on the Clintons, the Clintons war on women, and the longest chapter on that book is on Jeffrey Epstein, because I read every word of the testimony, in the cases of the women who didn't settle, who went on to sue Epstein. I interviewed Virginia Roberts Jafre for six hours in two three hour sessions. The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous, out of the question.
And she's now deceased. She she they tell us that she committed suicide. Don't don't buy it. But I do know how many times Bill Clinton was on the island from her testimony. I do know how many times he was on the plane because I had the FAA manifest records back in 2015.
I do know that when Epstein's butler sold his phone book, his little black book, not everybody in the book obviously is guilty of some illegality, but the butler helpfully circled the names and numbers of all those he said were involved in sex trafficking or were material witnesses. In some cases, he would just write witness, other cases he would just circle those he said they were guilty. Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, senate majority leader George Mitchell, Bill Gates, others.
Speaker 0: Now, you were at the turning point. I was there with you on stage, and every person talked about Epstein there.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I
Speaker 0: wanted to ask you about this because at the time, it seemed like and I I asked every person in the audience, do you think the department justice is lying? And almost every hand went up when they said there's nothing to see here. So there there does seem the base is very upset, and I don't know if the issue is gonna go away. And the way the president's been talking, what is your reaction to the current state of affairs with Epstein and the administration?
Speaker 1: Well, I can tell you definitively only because, first of all, I was physically there in the in those days. I was working for Trump. I was living in New York. I never met Epstein, but I saw him from across to the way in a ballroom at a charitable event full of people. And this is a time when when the president was dating Melania before they were engaged.
Engaged. And they had some social interaction, but it is benign. Everything about their relationship is known. When the president says it's a hoax, he's not saying that Epstein was not a child sex trafficker. It was the Trump Justice Department that charged Epstein in 2019 with child sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in child sex trafficking.
What he was saying is all of these records have been in the custody of the Southern District Of New York and in the New York office of the FBI. These are two hotbeds of Trump hate. These people hate Donald Trump. And therefore, there was a high probability, which we saw almost immediately, that the records had been salted with, quote, unquote, evidence against Donald Trump. That's when the Wall Street Journal produced the famous birthday card.
James, who types a birthday card? Who types a birthday card and then signs it? Answer, nobody. It's a Fugazi. It's kinda obvious.
So I think that's what he was saying. And I love to see these Democrats jumping up and down saying, I want full disclosure on Epstein. So do I. You know what's gonna prove? Bill Clinton was on the island at least four times.
Epstein imported two 16 year olds for his amusement. That's in Virginia, Jeffreys testimony, and he was on the plane 26 times, many times ditching his social secure his secret service detail.
Speaker 0: There are Republicans on that list?
Speaker 1: Not that I know of. I couldn't find any of them on the FAA manifest, and I couldn't find any of them in Epstein's phone book. Donald Trump's in the phone book, but he's not among those whose names are certain.
Speaker 0: About compromising material used as blackmail. Do you think that exists?
Speaker 1: See, here's what I think happened. I think there and I think we know this. There's no question that when they raided Epstein's home in New York and they raided the island, and they raided his ranch in New Mexico, and they raided his apartment in Paris, we can see them taking out DVDs and hard drives. Those are in the those are in the custody of of mister Ray's FBI. I think they were switched out.
So when Kash Patel, who I know very well and who I have a very, very high regard for in terms of his integrity and his knowledge, when he says we don't have any video evidence of Epstein or anyone identifiable abusing children, he's telling the truth because that material was destroyed and it was replaced, I think, with just commercial illegal Chinese child pornography.
Speaker 0: Was the evidence that was destroyed, did that implicate third parties?
Speaker 1: That'd be my guess. Sure. I think I think Jeffrey Epstein I had a source for my book, Steve Hoffenberg, who turned everything he told me turned out to be true. Hoffenberg had been the head of one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history, Tower Financial. The number two man in that operation was Jeffrey Epstein.
So he trained Epstein. He went to prison. When he came out, he contacted me and he said, Epstein is running a child sex trafficking ring, and he's going to be arrested for it. Now I knew that he had already been charged in Florida, but the police chief in here in Palm Beach did a six months undercover investigation and handed the state's attorney a case that involved the the trafficking of 33 underage girls. Also handed him a case for statutory rape of 21 underage girls.
So police chief, Michael Reiter, who's an honest man, was shocked when the state's attorney came back with one charge of solicitation. James, that's like walking into a bar and trying to pick up a hooker. It's ridiculous. So that at that point, Ryder, the police chief, goes to Alexander Acosta, the US attorney in Miami who has responsibility for Palm Beach. He conducts his own investigation, and then he rubber stamps the state charge, and he seals the entire case.
Now a lawyer I know was involved when Acosta was appointed secretary of the labor of labor under Trump's first term. First of all, no one ever told Donald Trump that Alex Acosta was the prosecutor who gave Epstein a pass. I have no idea why Reich's previous What
Speaker 0: year did what year did Acosta?
Speaker 1: That would have been 2017 or
Speaker 0: During the first term.
Speaker 1: During the first term. So why no one told the president that, I don't know. But they said this guy's a Hispanic. Given the possibilities of the Republican Party to expand in the Hispanic community, he'd be a great Cabinet. No one ever tells him, oh, by the way, this is the prosecutor who gave Epstein a pass.
I'm sure the president was unhappy when he learned that. And then during the confirmation preparation sessions, a friend of mine who's a lawyer, whose name you would recognize, a guy who's in the federal society, They're doing a motor board. They're practicing confirmation, they say. So, Alex, what are you gonna say when they ask you why you handled the Epstein case the way you did? Why you gave him a pass?
Anacostia says, it's very simple. I'm gonna tell the truth. The CIA came to me and said he was an asset, and I was to seal the case. Here it is. I think that's what happened.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We have the stone cold truth. Trump and Epstein, the recycled smear. Recent weeks have seen this vicious assault on president Trump distorting the facts about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. I wanna switch gears a little bit and talk.
I read audio listened to much of this book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ. I was I just wanna read one quote from this book and then ask you a question about this, and then I ask you a question about Nixon. Sure. This is from Lyndon Johnson, the man chapter one. Learned a lot about I didn't know a lot about Lyndon B.
Johnson.
Speaker 1: Quite a colorful character.
Speaker 0: Quite a character. Have very descriptive language about him when he started to smoke again, his hair got long, and he was unkempt, but this is something that you write. Linden, quote, nothing could obscure the picture. Lyndon Johnson was an overbearing, coarse, ruthless, sociopathic, lowlife, power mad monster. He was a consummate politician, therefore could charm people when he had to, but the mask could easily slip and often did.
Is that but is that not true of many politicians, or was he worse?
Speaker 1: No. He was worse. I I attribute in this book at least 18 murders to him before he got to JFK. Murders to cover up corruption, murders to cover up voter fraud in his forty eight election. He was very definitely a sociopath, a functioning lunatic.
By the way, in this in the oral histories of his of his aides, Bill Moyers, George Reedy as press secretary, even they refer to him as a lunatic. So for example, the the plastic bubble top on Kennedy's limousine is removed on 11/26/1963, not on the orders of Secret Service, not on the orders of JFK, on the orders of Bill Moyers, who's working as an aide to vice president Lyndon Johnson. And Moyers, who's a ordained Baptist minister, says to the Secret Service agent who I interviewed, get that goddamn bubble top off the off of the limousine. Now the bubble top's not bulletproof, but it's opaque. So you couldn't get a clear headshot if the if the bubble top was in place, and it had just rained.
Speaker 0: What what got you motivated to focus on this issue?
Speaker 1: I've been a Goldwater zealot, so I knew Johnson was a crook. The Bobby Baker scandal, the Billy Salesta scandal. Those are his motives. In other words, by 11/26/1963, he's on the verge of being charged in two massive scandals, two corruption scandals. Billy Bobby Baker is the secretary of senate.
He's a bag man. Billy Salestis is a flamboyant Texas Wheeler dealer who has these huge federal agricultural contracts, and he's kicking back to LBJ. So Johnson knows he's on the verge of being dumped from the 64 ticket, and he's probably gonna face federal charges and go to prison. That is his motive motive. Now the means, he convinces Kennedy to go to Texas to bind up the wounds between the Bourbon, more conservative wing of the Democrat party and the progressive wing of the party.
Then it is his henchman, John Connolly, then the governor of Texas, who says, well, the motorcade has to drive through Dealey Plaza. Now Kennedy is going from the fort Dallas Fort Worth Airport to the merchandise mart, neither one of which is in the city of Dallas. So why is the motorcade going in and out of the city of Dallas? Well, to take Kennedy through Dealey Plaza, where they violate the secret service manual. The car comes to a full stop, creating the opportunity for John Kennedy to be shot from both the front and the back, as we now know, by multiple shooters in an elaborately orchestrated plan to destroy his presidency, and so Lyndon Johnson can avoid prison.
Speaker 0: Avoiding prison. That was the primary motivation.
Speaker 1: Well, Drew Pearson, is the, without any question, the most influential columnist at time, syndicated columnist, has a column for publication on November 23, a Sunday, that says that Johnson took a massive bribe to deliver a defense contract for General Dynamics. That's the end of LBJ. That column gets spiked because LBJ is president by the close of business on 11/22/1963. So his motive is to avoid prison and complete political ruin. Now I'm I'm not alleging in my book that Johnson's acting alone.
This the Central Intelligence Agency is deeply involved in Kennedy's murder. We now know that from the hearings that my friend, Annapalina Luna, has conducted in the congress. Organized crime is definitely involved. The house select committee on assassinations, declares that in their final report in 1987. Big Texas oil is deeply involved in this plot.
So many people had their own individual motives for Kennedy's murder, but one man is the common spoke between all of them, Lyndon Johnson. And I use fingerprint evidence just to prove that at least one of the shooters is Malcolm Mack Wallace. That's who's shooting from the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He leaves his fingerprints there. We know they're his prints because he was convicted of murder in Texas in 1951.
He killed a man who was trying to blackmail Lyndon Johnson. He went to trial. He was represented at trial by John Cofer, who's Johnson's personal attorney. He's convicted of first degree murder, and he gets probation in Texas for murder. He's the shooter from the Sixth Floor.
There's six eyewitnesses who identify a man who meets the physical description of Malcolm Wallace, a medium build, balding, glasses, expert marksman in the Marine Corps. He is the shooter from the Sixth Floor. But there are, as we now know from the new documentary put out by Paramount, there are shooters, both in front and back of Kennedy. He shot from both the front and the back, and that is concealed. The doctors now, some sixty years later, all admit, yes, we saw wounds consistent with these being shot from the front and the back.
The wound in his throat, which we're told is an exit wound, is an entry wound. They perform a tracheotomy immediately so you can't tell. All the doctors see a blowout wound in the back of Kennedy's head that would indicate that he was shot from the front, but by the time his body gets to the Bethesda Medical Center, that has been patched. In Texas, by state law, you have to have an autopsy when there's a murder. Kennedy's body is removed at gunpoint by secret service agents in a face down with the Texas Rangers, so they can remove his body.
The autopsy is not done in Texas, it's done in Bethesda, Maryland.
Speaker 0: Johnson also driven by power a lot. You write about that in the book. I took that from the book.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think he takes the vice presidency with a plan to kill Kennedy almost immediately. He steals the secret service manual and gives it to his lawyer to begin laying this plot. On inauguration day, Bobby Baker, who's Johnson's right hand man, secretary of the senate, his bag man, is standing next to Ted Sorensen, who really wrote Profiles in Courage. John Kennedy neither wrote nor read Profiles in Courage.
It was written by Sorenson.
Speaker 0: I I read that book recently, like, I don't think Kennedy wrote this.
Speaker 1: He didn't even read it. Sorenson Sorenson read it and his father It's a well
Speaker 0: written book.
Speaker 1: Yes. But but ambassador Joseph b Kennedy, the partner with Frank Costello and all the bootlegging going on in in the Northeastern United States, pays for the Pulitzer Prize. But Sorensen is standing next to Baker. And now Johnson and Kennedy have a bitter rivalry, and Johnson is responsible for breaking into Kennedy's offices doctor's office in New York City and releasing, just ahead of the Democrat convention, the fact that Kennedy has Addison's disease. Robert Dallek, who's calls himself a historian, has blamed that on Richard Nixon.
Nixon had nothing to do with that. That was Johnson's doing. So there's very deep hatred between the Kennedy camps and the Johnson camp. But Sorensen, who's the chief speech writer for JFK, turns to Baker and says, well, congratulate after Johnson's sworn in as vice president, he says, well, congratulations, Bobby. And Baker says, John Kennedy will die a violent and premature death, and he storms off.
There it is, right there.
Speaker 0: Imagine if that was on camera. And this is another quote from the book. Taken we have it on the screen behind you. Taken seriously, this opposition that Johnson was was behind the plot to kill Kennedy is the key that unlocks the gate to the greatest of Johnson's crimes, the knowing of a feud feudal war, that's the Vietnam War, that would eventually claim more than 58,000 American lives. So the other thing that struck me about reading about this was just the philandering of of Kennedy and Johnson.
I didn't know about Johnson's philandering.
Speaker 1: Johnson was a notorious womanizer. As he famously said, I get more in a week than John Kennedy gets in a year. That's a direct quote.
Speaker 0: Was it true?
Speaker 1: Well, Kennedy, as I make the case in the book, Kennedy is a genuine war hero. I mean, he's very badly injured when his PT boat was cut in half by a Japanese craft. He swims for hours with a rope in his teeth dragging a wounded comrade to safety. He's a true hero. But he's in horrific pain for the rest of his life.
He gets addicted to methamphetamine because he is seeing doctor methamphetamine.
Speaker 0: With steroids and methamphetamine he was injected. Right. Steroids meaning testosterone or steroids meaning
Speaker 1: Steroids meaning crystal meth. Crystal meth. Early prior early proprietary blend of crystal meth, which at that point is doctor a doctor in Manhattan, doctor Max Jacobson, somebody like doctor the beautiful people. He's attending Marilyn Monroe, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Sinatra, Leonard Bernstein, Pablo Casal, Maria Calais, all Nelson Rockefeller. All these people think that they're getting a proprietary blend of vitamins and enzymes that make them feel good.
No. They're being shot up with meth, which is why why JFK is so randy, why he's, you know, in horrible pain, but he's still chasing 18 year old interns in the White that
Speaker 0: start happening with Kennedy?
Speaker 1: I think it's certainly during his presidency because Robert Kennedy finds out about it, has, the FBI lab do an analysis of what this substance that Kennedy's being shot up with, goes to his brother and says, this stuff is gonna kill you. You can't do this. And he says, I don't care if it's horse piss. It makes me feel good. Right.
So and I think that this is how the deep state, rationalizes the murder of Kennedy. My god. The man's a drug addict. He could give away the store Mhmm. To Nikita Khrushchev.
If you look at the manifest, which is in the National Archives of those who flew to the summit with Kennedy at Vienna, you'll find the name of doctor Max Jacobson on the manifest. He's with Kennedy. There's a terrific book on this called doctor Feelgood. You can still find it.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: It's very heavily documented. So I think, Kennedy is, is, probably addicted at that point. The Secret Service has certainly been has certainly told the intelligence services. But it's also important to recognize it's not just about Vietnam. It's also about, it's about the Bay Of Pigs.
Because the Bay Of Pigs Invasion was a horrific failure. But it's also about the Cuban Missile Crisis because everything you've been told, brave Jack and Bobby faced down Nikita Khrushchev before, none of that's true. As we learned fifty years later when they declassified the documents, we agreed to secretly remove our missiles from Turkey and Italy, NATO missiles, in return from a pledge from from Khrushchev to remove the Russian missiles from Cuba, which we don't really know whether that happened or not because there's no on signs inspections built into this agreement. So the Central Intelligence Agency's motive is very clear. They think Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion.
The original invasion plan called for 29 Panamanian flagged bombers flying out of Panama to provide air cover for the men storming the beaches. That is canceled by the CIA the day before the invasion. Nobody tells Kennedy. Then Curtis LeMay, the head of the air force, goes to Kennedy and says, our men are being destroyed on the beach, mister president. There's only one way to save the day.
That's to send in the US air force. And Kennedy said, wait a minute. I approved the invasion so it looked like an indigenous uprising of Cubans, not a US invasion. So he won't approve the use of the of the US Air Force, and this is where he gets the deep enmity of the CIA and the Pentagon.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. Continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 833324Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
Kind of transitioning to Nixon here. We got about twenty minutes left. I another thing that's happening, and this is admittedly not an area that I know a lot about Middle East in regards to Israel. There does seem to be a I don't know if it's a schism, but just some disagreements about how to approach the state of Israel Yes. These days in the Republican Party.
And I wanted to play a clip, team, if you could pull up of Richard Nixon talking about Israel. My team thought it was an interesting clip to play and then maybe play two minutes of this and get your reaction to this as well as your thoughts on the current state of play with the Republican Party in Israel. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: It isn't a question whether I felt it. The fact is that American Jews support Israel and I understood that. And the fact is that every Jewish prime minister that I have known has enlisted American Jews to bring as much pressure as possible in the political process on American presidents, that's understandable, I don't object to it. Now a president must not go along with it on occasion because some let let me let me explain something about what is called the Jewish lobby in this country. In the first place, Jews understandably in The United States, because of what happened in World War two, because of the Holocaust, are going to be put first priority on the survival of Israel.
Now as good Americans as they are, they believe that America's survival and security is directly related to Israel's. In other words, their belief is that being for Israel first means that that does not mean you're putting America second because they think it goes together. An American president, however, has to approach it in a different way in my opinion. He's got always to think first of what is best for America and that's true whether it has to do with the Israelis or whether it has to do with the Irish or Germans or what have you or the Poles, etcetera. Usually, what is best for America is also best for Israel and vice versa.
But on occasions, for example, an American president must make a decision that does not in effect give the Israelis a blank check and one example of that is a decision that I made. I decided early on in our administration that we were going to see good relations with Egypt and other others of Israel's neighbors. Many of my Israeli friends didn't like that because they want a special relationship with Israel of Israel only. But I have always said that Israel's interests are better served to have The United States a friend of Israel's neighbors and potential enemies and to leave a vacuum which the Soviet Union would fill. I still believe that, I think.
Speaker 0: Alright. So your reaction to that and then your state of on the current
Speaker 1: There's there's several pieces here. There is no question that John f Kennedy is opposed to Israel having nuclear weapons. That is absolute and that he wants a PAC to register as foreign agents. And this is very contagious. Lyndon Johnson gives them the right to have nukes twenty four hours after he's sworn in as president.
Is Israel directly involved in the assassination? Something I'm researching right now. And if I find enough to make that case, I'll do another chapter for the book that you have. It's too early for me to say in my research. I've collected a lot of material.
Still working my way through it. They certainly have the motive. That's not proof. That's just a motive. It is Richard Nixon, of course, who saves Israel from unilateral dis destruction in 1973 over the objections of Kissinger, over the objections of the national security apparatus, over the objections of the Pentagon, over the objections of every aspect of his own administration.
In the nineteen seventy three Yom Kippur war, there's a failure in Israeli intelligence. The Israel he finds himself under attack by the Syrians and the Egyptians. They're running out of ammunition. Their backs are against the sea. Golda Meir asks Nixon urgently for help, and Nixon makes a unilateral decision to airdrop $39,000,000 worth of lethal aid to the Israelis, which saves Israel.
Now you can listen to the White House tapes, and he says a number of disparaging things about Jews. But as Golda Meir herself said, what matters more, deeds or words? Mhmm. Another $60,000,000 in lethal aid comes by boat. So Nixon unilaterally, over the objections of Kissinger, a Jew, who is his national security adviser, saves Israel.
I think that what he says is exactly right, and you've seen Trump, I think, exercise this. The Israelis were not all that happy about the Abraham Accords, where we essentially, the Syrians, the Lebanese, the Saudis, get a special relationship with The United States. And then secondarily, I think the president was very judicious, in the way he approached the question of nuclear weapon developments in Iran. We don't have boots on the ground. We don't have a long term commitment to war.
Not a single American service person lost their lives in this surgical effort to try to destroy nuclear weapons, which the Obama administration, for some reason, believed would improve the situation in The Middle East. So in the end and look, I'm more of a of a Ron Paul Republican when it comes to foreign policy. I'm a I'm not an isolationist, but I am a non interventionist. I don't like war, the endless foreign war that the Bushes kept pushing us into. I think in the end, the president made the right decision.
It was a balanced decision. It was not a decision to do nothing, but it was also not a decision to commit us to an endless war and war.
Speaker 0: What do you just make of just the cultural conflicts right now towards Israel? Like, the Nick Fuentes thing, the the Tucker I mean, just all of it. Just the people. The base seems to just have such disagreement about how to approach Israel. What you what do you
Speaker 1: make of that politically for the Republican Party? I think it's politically, it's interesting. We still don't get a very large percentage of Jewish voters no matter what our position is.
Speaker 0: Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Republican Party. Trump, I think, probably hits a high watermark.
Speaker 0: What is that roughly? Rough numbers.
Speaker 1: It's hard to say, but I think we ended up somewhere around 23, 25%.
Speaker 3: Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And they're the most conservative Jews, of course. The more casual Jews continue to vote for Democrats, and I think continue to vote against the interests of Israel. I think it is yet to play out.
Speaker 0: Alright. We got about fifteen minutes left, and I think we have we have a picture of Roger Stone and Donald Trump. Your longtime friends, is it since 1979, is that correct? Yeah. That's a good photo by the way.
That is When when was that?
Speaker 1: That was after I was pardoned. My wife was diagnosed with stage four cancer, very aggressive stage four cancer, which she has survived. And once she got, the doctor said she was all clear, the president who had attended our wedding in Washington DC at the Willard Hotel, president Trump and his then fiance, Marla Maples, had been at our wedding. They famously had a fight in the lobby of the hotel where she threw her engagement ring at the Who
Speaker 0: threw the engagement?
Speaker 1: Marla Maples threw it, who's a good friend of mine.
Speaker 0: Marla is the second guest of the show.
Speaker 1: Oh, she Yes, indeed. She's great.
Speaker 0: She's a great person.
Speaker 1: She's a great person and a real fighter for health freedom, someone I like very much.
Speaker 0: Is another picture throw the picture of I don't what year this is from.
Speaker 1: There's there's just before the wedding.
Speaker 0: That's the wedding.
Speaker 1: Yep. This is a famous picture of Donald Trump after my father. He was the first one to dance with my wife. So after he learned that my wife had been cured of cancer, he invited us to Mar A Lago, which is where that picture was taken.
Speaker 0: Have you seen that I think you and I talked about that movie that came out. I forgot the name of it. Apprentice. The apprentice. And you were portrayed in that movie and you had a comment to me about that, and now I
Speaker 1: A couple things. I mean, first of all, I'm much better looking than the actor they had playing me. Secondarily, I've never worn a Speedo in my life, nor would I ever wear a Speedo.
Speaker 0: This is a scene in the movie where you're in a swimming pool and you come out
Speaker 1: with a Which is ridiculous because anyone knows me, I would never wear a Speedo. I'm much better dressed than they than they depicted me in the movie. But they correctly say that I may be the first or second person in the country who comes up with the idea that Donald Trump has the the stature and the courage and the stamina, and the independence to be not just a great presidential candidate, but be a great president. I realized this in 1988, and I began pushing the idea then. The only person who sees this before me, ironically, is Richard Nixon.
Nixon and, Trump meet in George Steinbrenner, the owner of the Yankees, box, when the season opens. And I'm working for Trump at that point, but I have I'm friendly with the former president. I'm doing some political chores for him as well. And Nixon calls me the next day, he says, well, I met your man, Trump. I said, yes, What do you think?
He said, I'm just telling you. If this guy ever gets in politics, he could go all the way. I said, do you so you think he should, like, run for governor? He says, no. No.
No. I mean, all the way. And, of course, the New York Times has published this letter from Nixon to Trump in which he says, missus missus Nixon saw you on the Vera Douglas show, and she said that if you ever get in politics, you'll definitely go all the way. And I just want you to know that I completely agree with her. It's a very warm letter.
They had a very warm relationship. Today, president Trump says to me, because it's so antithetical to his character, he says, why did Nixon quit? I don't understand why he quit. I would never quit under fire.
Speaker 0: You mean quit? Resigned. Resigned the presidency. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I said, well, there was no alternative media then. There was no Internet. So you had three television networks. You had a handful of influential news magazines, Time, Newsweek, Life, and so on. They're monolithically against you.
You had no platform from which to mount a counter attack. And when Nixon tries, remember when he famously says, people have a right to know whether their president's a crook. Well, I am not a crook. They use that against him. They use it to mock him.
It's ineffective in his efforts to, defend himself.
Speaker 0: As college student, I read a book called The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom, and the first sentence of that book was student This is in the eighties, written in the eighties. I read it in 02/2003. Students are taught that two things are evil, Richard Nixon and Adolf Hitler.
Speaker 1: Yes. Why
Speaker 0: why existentially, why do people hate Nixon so much?
Speaker 1: I really think it has to do with his being correct about Alger Hiss. Alger Hiss was a high level state department figure in, the Roosevelt State Department. Nixon believed that there was evidence that Hiss was a communist spy. Hiss was Harvard educated. He was very erudite.
He was one of the elites. Nixon came from Whittier, California, his old man was a grocer.
Speaker 0: Up from dirt,
Speaker 1: Up as you from dirt, as he would say. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Or as
Speaker 1: he said. And the whole Washington establishment told Nixon to back off. Alan Dulles, John Foster Dulles, who was Eisenhower's secretary of state, Alan Dulles, who was his brother and the head of the CIA, they all tell Nixon to back off. But Nixon's instinct is that Whitaker Chambers, who had been a editor at Time Magazine, who had come forward and said, I was a communist. I was a member of the Communist Party.
Whitaker Alger Hiss was in my cell, and I passed him government documents. It was Nixon's belief that his was a spy. He pursued it. His ultimately would be convicted of perjury for lying. Forty plus years later, when the when the Soviet Union falls and we get the KGB records, guess what?
Alger Hiss was a Russian spy. But that anti communism, the fact that Nixon turned out to be right, brands Nixon for the rest of his career.
Speaker 0: It's almost like contempt towards Nixon for calling it out correctly.
Speaker 1: And and for being a hardliner anti communist. Yeah. And then secondarily, there is his campaign in 1950 against Helen Douglas, which I think is unfairly depicted as a as a particularly dirty race. It was, but on both sides. He called her the pink lady, because he took her voting record, and he compared it to the voting record of the only communist party member of congress, Vito Marcantonio, was elected in New York City.
And they voted the same about 80% of the time. Nixon pointed that out, in a very effective flyer. It was printed on pink paper. It was a very, very rough campaign, but politics ain't beanbag.
Speaker 0: Is that your quote? I've heard you say that before.
Speaker 1: Probably. Probably was me who said it. But this is where he gets the the nickname tricky dick, because he ran a very aggressive campaign. But let's be very clear about how meteoric his rise is. In 1945, he's released from the army.
He has no job. He has a law degree. He goes around to all of the blue chip, white shoe law firms in New York and Washington, and no one will hire him. He records that he's on Wall Street. He's looking out the window.
There's a ticker tape parade. He sees Dwight Eisenhower riding by. He's in this you know, the ticker tape is being dumped. It's a huge public event. Six years later, he is Dwight Eisenhower's running mate.
He goes from being unemployed to being the candidate for vice president of The United States in six years because he goes back to California. He runs for congress in 1946. He's elected. He serves two terms in the house, runs to the senate in 1950, wins an open seat. He's only senator for two years when he's selected for the ticket in 1952.
So to go from nobody to being nothing, to being vice president of The United States for two terms in six years is an incredibly meteoric rise. What do
Speaker 0: you attribute that to? What was his greatest strength
Speaker 1: there in that meteoric rise? Persistence, grit, determination. I think born of a hardscrabble background. I mean, he pulled himself up from his with his own bootstraps. He saw two of his brothers die of tuberculosis.
He was he was the survivor. Also, he was selected for the ticket because of his anti communist credentials. Mhmm. Remember, Eisenhower had defeated senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who was the favorite of good party conservatives. So they needed to balance the ticket with someone with anti communist credentials, and Nixon was the person they selected.
Then there was a smear against him by the New York Post, who was then a that was a liberal, owned journal, claiming that Nixon had a fund, financed by a bunch of California millionaires, and it was being used to supplement his lifestyle, which was false. But they tried to dump him from the ticket. He survives that by going on TV in the famous Checkers speech in which he says, you know, we've been by everything I have, I've earned honestly. I did take one thing, however. It was a little cocker spaniel dog that a man in Texas said to my daughters.
And I don't care what they say, we're not giving the dog back. It's a little schmaltzy, but it saves his career.
Speaker 0: Going back to the apprentice, Roy Roy Cohn, the attorney, the Stone's rules, and I don't have them in front of me, but one of the rules was it was it admit nothing, deny
Speaker 1: Everything. It's admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.
Speaker 0: And it was one of quite Roy Kwanzer, did you come up with that first? Did he come up with that?
Speaker 1: Did you guys I think that I actually, all of Stone's rules have been appropriated for by the script writer. So so Gabe Sherman wrote the screenplay.
Speaker 0: For this movie, the apprentice.
Speaker 1: Was it we have
Speaker 0: a clip, guys? Do we is this a clip?
Speaker 3: Attack. Attack. Attack. If somebody comes after you with a knife, you shoot him back with a bazooka. Okay?
Rule two. What is truth, Tommy? What is truth? You know what's truth?
Speaker 1: What you say is truth. What I say is truth. What he says is truth.
Speaker 3: What is the truth in life? Deny everything. Admit nothing.
Speaker 0: That's what you just said. What is true?
Speaker 3: What I say is true. And third of all, most important, no matter how fucked you are, never ever ever admit to defeat.
Speaker 0: Alright. Good. So how many of those are similar to your rules?
Speaker 1: I think they're all identical to my rules. Did I get did I get those ideas from Cohen? Yeah. I think that's fair to say. I'm not sure he verbalized in the exact same way I did.
So I saw them from observance rather than being told them or being taught them. But I think Trump and I both learned them from the same guy. Cohen was a force of nature. He was an ardent anticommunist himself. He was a warrior.
And I will say this, in the movie, the actor who plays him does a brilliant job, really captures his mannerisms, his idiosyncrasies, his his verbal and physical tics. The guy really did deserve a an Academy Award.
Speaker 0: I thought you did good job there.
Speaker 1: He did a great job. Yeah. The storyline is, of course, false. The idea that Roy Cohn and Donald Trump had to threaten the head of the of the tax abatement board in New York City with exposing his homosexual background is a complete fabrication and a lie. Typical It
Speaker 0: seemed a little far fetched when I when I watched it. It was entertaining movie, but doesn't mean it's non fiction. It's fiction. A couple quick last questions here, because we're just running out of time. Present day outlook for the current situation.
Well, actually, no, no. We have a a story you just broke on your substack. Can we pull that up, guys? And I just wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about this. This is a story that you've done on a a Republican representative and Cuba.
Let's pull that up. This is Bingo. Representative Mario Diaz. I've never I apologize for saying this, but I've never even heard of this man. What He's he's a republican.
Speaker 1: He's a repub well, he's kind of a republican. He was a registered democrat until the day he ran for congress and became a republican.
Speaker 0: He was a registered democrat before he ran for congress.
Speaker 1: Yes. So you have you have in Miami a cottage industry of these people who have made who've dined out on being anti Castro, but it's largely rhetoric. So for example, Carlos Jimenez, the former mayor, now a congressman, he's the head of the maritime subcommittee maritime security subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee. He has a hearing regarding a huge defense contractor called Crowley, which is Florida based, but he never questioned them about their activities, in Cuba. Crowley has ships going into the largest port in Cuba.
It's a major security risk, but he never criticizes Crowley, which I wrote in a column. He never questions whether, Cuban intelligence is using this access to learn about our trade routes or to get other defense information. And then more recently, in interviews, he pretends like he never heard of Crowley when he conducted a hearing with one of their executives. Mario Diaz Balart, he's at the same hearing. He doesn't have any questions about it.
And then you look in on the FEC records, you find out that Crowley's political action committee has given a substantial amount of money to Mario Diaz de Blar. So all I'm saying is you have these members of congress, virtually all of them Republicans, who hold themselves out as great critics of Castro because it's great for raising cash, but in terms of actually impacting the authoritarian regime and improving the lives of the people in Cuba, you know what they've done? Nothing.
Speaker 0: It's all rhetoric. So it's about money.
Speaker 1: It's all about money.
Speaker 0: Blah blah And and in politics, is it I've been told it's about money, power, and sex. Is that one of those three usually motivates people?
Speaker 1: Well, know what I say, never miss the opportunity to either be on television or have sex.
Speaker 0: Never to be on television or have sex.
Speaker 1: Yes. Actually, stole that from Gore Vidal, but it is Gore Vidal. It's it's in my rules book.
Speaker 0: And and money power and sex are kind of interrelated to a certain degree. So what's next for Roger Stone?
Speaker 1: I'm writing a book about the attempted assassination of president Ronald Reagan because the true story has never been told. But suffice it to say that John Hinkley junior, who's convicted of trying to kill Reagan, is crouching in front of Reagan, shooting from an upward trajectory. But Reagan was hit from above and behind. There's a second shooter. The CIA knows it.
This book is entitled Bushwacked, The True Story of the Attempted Assassination of Bushwacked. The Bushwacked.
Speaker 0: Is that
Speaker 1: You kinda get the You get the idea. You get idea.
Speaker 0: You get this is the other well, actually, don't have the the I have the Clinton's war on women. I have the only the Kindle version of the Bush book we didn't have time to get into. Are you an are you an optimist? Are you a hopeful person?
Speaker 1: I am. I think we're about to enter a golden age.
Speaker 0: A golden age.
Speaker 1: A golden age of peace, prosperity, security, justice, and law and order. In a very strange way, I think being cheated out of the twenty twenty election turns out to be a good thing because now Donald Trump is much wiser, much more battle hardened, has a much better understanding of how evil the system is in Washington and in the country. He has an all star cabinet. He doesn't have quizlings around him like HR McMaster or general John Kelly. These guys thought that their job was to stop Trumpism, to stop Trump from destroying the world.
They didn't understand their job was to implement Trump's vision. Now you've got people who fully understand, his vision and are set to implement his views. So whether it is Pete Hegseth, who I think is doing a great job, or Robert Kennedy junior, who I think is doing a great job, or Tulsi Gabbard, will be the first woman president of The United States, not necessarily in 2028, but someday, Or Scott Besson, who I think is a brilliant choice to be secretary of treasury, an outside the box thinker, a libertarian, a believer in cryptocurrency, a believer in gold. This is an all star cabinet.
Speaker 0: And loyal?
Speaker 1: Every every single one of them. And frankly, it's a it's an all star White House staff. You know, I'm tired of seeing people say, oh, Susie Wiles was a she was a lobbyist for Pfizer. No. She wasn't.
I've known her for thirty years. Throughout her entire political career, she has always been with the outsider. I worked with her for Ronald Reagan against George h w Bush. I worked with her with Jack for Jack Kemp against George h w Bush. I worked with her against the sitting attorney general for Rick Scott when he was elected governor.
In 2016, she could have been for Marco Rubio. She could have been for Jeb Bush. She chose to be for Donald Trump. So I I think she's the glue that allowed Trump to run the most effective presidential campaign in our history, and without any doubt, the greatest single comeback in history. Because on paper, he should not have been able to do what he did.
And he won every swing state. He ran a masterful, extremely well financed, but also well plotted out campaign. Meaning, who wins is not about who has the right the most money. Who wins is about who spends their money most effectively and can plan for the long term. This is one of the reasons why I think Susie Wiles has done a tremendous job for the president.
Speaker 0: Met Susie Wiles when we did the story on the CIA and they were withholding information from Trump and Susie Wiles told Trump he should comment on it, and he did. Last question. We have undercover reporters everywhere. We're doing investigative work every week. What do you think should be exposed?
What needs journalistic investigation on video? Do you think a priority there is?
Speaker 1: That's an excellent question. I mean, there's so much right here in Florida. I I'm very disturbed about the story about Ron DeSantis and his wife appropriating $10,000,000 from Medicare with the help of our appointed attorney general. Find that very disturbing. But even the Broward County Sheriff's Office, we have an appointed sheriff appointed by Ron DeSantis who turns out to be affiliated with the largest, most radical mosque in the county, turns out to be a big fan of big of Black Lives Matter.
I'd like to see somebody go undercover into the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 0: The Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 1: It's the largest sheriff's county in The United States with over 6,000 employees and a budget of just under a billion dollars.
Speaker 0: Who are not familiar with Florida, where's Broward County? It's Fort Lauderdale. Fort Lauderdale. Well, I'm a new resident of Florida, so that's not too far
Speaker 1: is local.
Speaker 0: All politics is local. And some of the best stories that we've done are local stories. Learned that from Andrew Breitbart. Roger, we're out of time. Thank you so much.
It's great to see
Speaker 1: you. Great to be with you, James. Thank you.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Roger Stone | My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe #10 - O'Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn one morning in 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone […]
okeefemediagroup.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I recount my experience as a political strategist, highlighting the dramatic FBI raid on my home in January 2019. Facing pressure to testify against Donald Trump, I chose to resist, enduring a trial I deemed unfair and losing nearly everything in the process. I discuss various aspects of my ordeal, including jury corruption, the role of prosecutors, and the financial toll of legal battles. I also reflect on my friendship with Trump, the impact of the Obama presidency, and share insights on significant historical events.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn on January 25th, 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone refused, endured what he calls a “show trial,” and lost nearly everything. Now, he reveals how the justice system was weaponized against him. Surprise FBI Raid (1:24) Why Was Roger Stone Arrested? (7:20) The Booking Process/Arrest (11:50) Jury Corruption (14:00) Andrew Weissman’s Role (19:47) Advice for People Who Are Raided (24:28) Disproving the Charges & Resisting Trump Betrayal (25:30) Losing Everything to Pay Attorneys (28:30) Accusations Vs. Tangible Proof (30:20) Prosecuting the Prosecutors (32:00) Finding Faith (35:00) Commuted by Trump/Given Pardon (39:00) Obama Presidency Changed Everything (44:31) Virginia Gieuffre’s Testimony on Jeffrey Epstein (45:15) The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein (46:40) Who Really Killed JFK? (52:59) Richard Nixon on Israel (1:08:10) Stone and Trump Friendship (1:14:32) “The Apprentice” and Seeing Trump’s Potential (1:15:54) Nixon’s Run for President (1:18:50) On Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (1:26:30) @RogerJStoneJr Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Website: https://okeefemediagroup.com/roger-stone-my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe-10/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Roger Stone describes a morning raid on his Florida home: “17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen.” He says he opened the door “looking down the barrel of three m four assault weapons” and that “Nothing. That's what they found.” He claims the raid was rigged, and recounts prosecutors offering him a choice: “we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump,” which he refused: “you can take this and you shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that.” He asserts CNN had advance knowledge via leaks: “the leaking of a search or arrest warrant prior to it being executed is actually a felony.” He describes an “unconstitutional gag” and calls Amy Berman Jackson “the most corrupt judge in American history.” Trump later “commuted” his sentence and granted a “full and unconditional pardon.” He insists “there is no Russian collusion. There is no WikiLeaks collaboration” and cites Virginia Roberts Dufres and Epstein, adding, “The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous out of the question.” He notes personal losses—“we lost our home, our savings”—and that he raised “roughly 3.5 million dollars” for his defense.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you knew they were gonna raid you that morning?
Speaker 1: Definitely. I That morning. I sensed it. It was coming that morning. We're talking about 17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen.
But I opened the door looking down the barrel of three m four assault weapons aimed at my head. Do know what they found? Nothing. That's what they found. Nothing.
I had no idea that the whole thing would be rigged. I was arrested in January. In July was when they said to me, we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump. Those are your choices. And I said, you can take this and you shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that.
I interviewed Virginia Roberts Dufres for six hours. The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous out of the question.
Speaker 0: She's now deceased.
Speaker 1: She she they tell us that she commits. I don't I don't buy it.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back. I'm here today with Roger Stone. Roger, thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: James, great to be with you. We we have a lot in common. We're both survivors. We both know how intrusive it is to have the feds smash and attack your place at 06:00 in the morning Yes. We do.
And be rested in your underwear. It's it's great to be with you.
Speaker 0: Great to have you here. I'm wearing a a tailored suit today. Alan Fluser.
Speaker 1: Very good. He's a
Speaker 0: New York tailor, so I'm I'm wearing a suit in honor of you. I know how much you appreciate fashion.
Speaker 1: He was my tailor till I got arrested and then suddenly he decided to give a bunch of interviews saying that I was a criminal.
Speaker 0: I didn't know.
Speaker 1: This is after I paid him, I don't know, $350,000 over many years. So he's no longer my tailor.
Speaker 0: Is he still alive?
Speaker 1: He is still alive, but he's not doing all that great. I now use a guy named Adam DeAngelo, who's a excellent tailor. He comes to you.
Speaker 0: Well, I the the guy that tailored is not Alan. Apparently, it's a new person that works for him.
Speaker 1: Looks great.
Speaker 0: But here we are. So speaking of the FBI team, let's pull up the clip regarding Roger in Florida. What was this? 2020? What year?
Speaker 1: 2019.
Speaker 0: 2019. And recently CEO. Oh, there this is CNN. Somehow somehow CNN knew that you were being raided. Yeah.
Let's play this clip, then we'll talk about it.
Speaker 2: Both this morning, a raid video this morning, a really stunning turn of events. So many people who have been charged and, in this Mueller investigation have been allowed to turn themselves in to surrender. Not so this morning. This was, by all accounts, a surprise raid on Stone's house. The reason
Speaker 0: A surprise raid. I know you've talked about this before, but I'm gonna talk about my raid. How did they know that you were being raided? How did CNN know that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's very simple. I was arrested at 06:16 in the morning. At 06:11, someone at CNN texted my lawyer and said, your client's just been arrested. And he, of course, said arrested for what? Because, of course, we knew there was no Russian collusion nor WikiLeaks collaboration.
So she sent him a copy of my sealed indictment, which wasn't unsealed until 10:30 that morning by a federal magistrate in DC. But if you looked at the metadata tags on that document, you find the initials of the man who wrote it, Andrew Weissman. Therefore, the man who leaked it in violation of federal law because the leaking of a search or arrest warrant prior to it being executed is actually a felony. Of course, the judge in my case could care less. But the idea that was a surprise is also false because I figured it out.
Meaning, the previous day around 04:30, the same producer at CNN called me and said, I I wanna mail you something. Can you give me your address? And I said, well, you can find my address online. It's easy to find. Well, there's two different home addresses for you online.
I'm not sure which one is the right one. So I gave it to her on the theory that she could find it anyway. And I said to my wife, they're coming to arrest me tomorrow morning. And she said, well, you've been saying that every weekend for the last six months because of the constant drumbeat of stories. It's part of their strategy of trying to pressure you.
Constant I never went to the grand jury. I never got a target letter. But every two or three days, you'd have a new story pop up saying, I was the focus of Mueller's probe, the noose titans on stone, the the stone under the microscope.
Speaker 0: Were you afraid? Were you scared?
Speaker 1: I was afraid. Was angry because, you know, I knew that there was no Russian collusion. I knew that their entire narrative was false. But every time one of the people who worked for me and some people who didn't work for me. Some people I hadn't been in touch with for fifteen years.
All these people being dragged in front of the grand jury, and, of course, their names are immediately leaked. So four stone three more stone associates go to the grand jury. And I'm scratching my head as are my lawyers because I can't think of any crime that I'm actually guilty of or that I could be charged with. So I would say at about 05:00 in the morning, set my alarm. I got up, I took a shower, I put on my Roger Stone did nothing wrong t shirt because I see a product placement opportunity coming.
Speaker 0: Those are your shirts that you
Speaker 1: I was selling to pay for my legal defense. I was saying them, if if you bought your t shirt for whatever it was, $25.
Speaker 0: So you knew they were gonna raid you that morning?
Speaker 1: Definitely. I I sensed it. It was coming that morning. And then I would say about 05:00, I got a call on my cell phone from a Fort Lauderdale police officer who happens to be a friend of mine. And he said, are you at home?
And I said, yeah, why? He said, well, I'm down at Starbucks and I bet there's, I don't know, 20, maybe 30 FBI agents here lined up getting coffee. Get the distinct impression that they're headed to your house after they leave here. And I said, yes, I'm expecting them. So I was sitting in the upstairs window, you know, which is the only, it's in the bathroom, it was the only window of the house upstairs where you could see the entire front yard.
And sure enough, first you saw the red lights. I mean, they came very very loud, very heavy. You saw the red lights, you heard their sirens, like I'm dangerous. Right. I saw them pull a battering ram out.
But first, before all of that, James, I saw the CNN crew set up 25 feet from my front door. And I later got an affidavit from a Fort Lauderdale police officer who was called in to do backup. They I live on a dead end street, so they roped off the end of the street. All the media was on the other side of the rope about a half a block away, except for CNN. They were allowed to be right at the, you know, at the right next to my house.
And the police officer says in his affidavit, when he told CNN they had to move, he got chewed out by an FBI agent who said, no. CNN had special permission to be, you know, inches away from where I was permission. I I presume the c the FBI did or the the prosecutors. The prosecutors in my case were actually there for my arrest. You realize this was one of the greatest missteps in American political and public relations history.
Helped get Trump elected perhaps. Well, it certainly allowed me to finance my legal defense because if I quietly turned myself in, and the day before my attorneys had talked to the special counsel's office, we handed over 30 pages of text messages, copies of text messages that proved that I was telling the truth and the witness against me were lying. So they could have said at that point, by the way, we're charging your client tomorrow, just bring him in to the federal courthouse. And I would have, of course, done that. But instead, they planned this over the top raid.
Speaker 0: What do you attribute that overreach to? Overzealous prosecutors, the attorney general's office? Why why did they do it that way?
Speaker 1: Well, think, first of all, they went and misrepresented the facts to two federal judges. So they told two different federal judges, we have probable cause to charge Stone with treason, conspiracy against The United States, counterfeiting, I love that one, money laundering, unauthorized access to a government computer, aiding and abetting a conspiracy before and after the fact. So they got into all my emails, all my text messages, all my phone calls. You know what they found? Nothing.
That's what they found. Nothing. So I actually think when they arrested me, they were they had high hopes that their investigation would turn up something useful. How did
Speaker 0: they get into your phone? The
Speaker 1: secret warrant? They they they take your phone. They took all
Speaker 0: my took the phone in
Speaker 1: the phone. All my electronic devices. So they took my computer. They took, my laptop.
Speaker 0: Did they have the password or did you
Speaker 1: They asked my wife the the passcode of my phone. She laughed at them and said, are you kidding me? Does your wife have the passcode to your phone? Right. No.
So, I mean, ultimately, figured it out. And once again, they found no evidence of Russian collusion, no evidence of WikiLeaks collaboration. They found nothing useful.
Speaker 0: The clip of the FBI pounding on the door, Andrew, and then also the clip of the FBI pounding on my door, because it's the pounding sound that I I when they did this to me here it is. The FBI pounding on the door, bang, bang, bang.
Speaker 3: FBI, open the door.
Speaker 0: So at this point, pause. So at this point, you what happened?
Speaker 1: So I come downstairs to let them in, obviously. And they say, are you Roger Stone? I say, yes. They say, put your hands behind your back. You're under arrest.
I put my hands behind my back. They say, is there anybody else in the house? I said, yes. My wife's in the house. They said, where is she?
I said, she's upstairs in the Second Floor. There's nobody else in the house. I said, no. There are no firearms in the house. I said, you already know the answer to that, because they did.
And they said, alright. Well, I I said, I'd like to know the charges against me, which I'm entitled by the constitution to know. Well, we'll tell you when we're ready. I said, no. I'd to know now.
I'd also like to see my lawyer. You can see your lawyer when we take you to the booking center in Miramar. Your lawyer will meet us there. So they're running up the stairs and I realized that they don't know that my wife is virtually deaf. So immediately, remember, I opened the door looking down the barrel of three m four assault weapons aimed at my head, aimed at my face.
And it immediately occurs to me that because my wife is deaf and without her hearing aids, she literally can hear nothing, she hasn't heard any she's none of this is going on. She's still sleeping. She sleeps through my entire arrest. My fear is that they're going to to wake her. She's not going to hear a command from Armen, and they're going to shoot her.
She doesn't know if this is
Speaker 0: That was going through your head in this moment. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't she's not they're all in plain clothes. So
Speaker 0: Did they have vests on?
Speaker 1: They had vests on. They but and most of them had night goggles. This was very, very dramatic.
Speaker 0: This is a joke.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it ended up backfiring, I think, very badly for them. Hey, look, I'm not the most sympathetic figure in the world. Okay? I'm a hardboiled political operative, but they made me into a sympathetic figure. Today, even today, this was four years ago, people come up to me and say, what they did to you, I saw it on TV, it was awful.
Speaker 0: That's what they say to
Speaker 1: me. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They always bring you up to me Yeah. And what they did to you. And so did did you open the door for these agents? Of course. Okay.
Because they would have banged it down.
Speaker 1: They were bashed they brought a battering ram up there. They would have smashed the door in. For what for what purpose? I mean, the whole thing was ludicrous. So then they hand they handcuffed me, I'm made to walk out and stand in the middle of the street in front of my house.
Now they bring my wife out, they perp walk her out in the middle of the street, although she's not allowed to talk to me.
Speaker 0: How did they find your wife eventually? Did she walk out
Speaker 1: of the She she she is accompanied out by a woman FBI agent. Fortunately for us, she didn't handcuff her, but
Speaker 0: Did she wake up from the
Speaker 1: She she woke up and then she realized what was going on. Now, remember, told her the night before this was gonna happen, she just didn't believe me. So they'd taken my phone at that point, they also took her phone. Since the whole world is watching this live on CNN, my grandchildren are calling, my children are calling, of course
Speaker 0: You can't answer
Speaker 1: the you can't answer the phone. Then after we left for the fingerprinting and the and the the mugshot at the booking center in Miramar, which at that hour in the morning is
Speaker 0: But what is Miramar for people who don't know what
Speaker 1: that is? Miramar, Florida is an hour and a half south of Fort Lauderdale where I live. And we're at peak traffic time now, so I'm handcuffed behind my back. So I say to the FBI agents, hey. Is there any chance we could move the handcuffs to the front?
No. Okay. Whatever. So we get we get there. I'm here.
I'm fingerprinted. I'm handcuffed.
Speaker 0: This is first time you've ever been arrested?
Speaker 1: For I I don't even have a parking ticket. I mean, it's ridiculous. So they say, okay. Your lawyers are in that conference room. So we go in the conference room.
I look around, and I go because I know they're listening. You know they're listening. So they say, okay. Well, they're going to what's gonna happen here? They said, well, we're gonna go back to the Federal Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale where you'll be arraigned.
We've already told them you're gonna plead not guilty, and they're gonna release you without bail. I said, wait a minute. Why did they arrest me in this over the top manner if if I'm not a flight risk? Their explanation already was, well, we had to do it this way because Stone was a flight risk. James, I didn't I had no valid passport.
I'm extremely recognizable, and I can't swim because I lived on a canal. We're talking about 17 armored vehicles, a government helicopter, and two amphibious units with frogmen pulling up to the back of the dock at the back of my home. Frogmen. Frogmen. They jump out.
They're all I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I'm laughing, but it's
Speaker 1: They're also armed. I mean, this is they sent more people to take down El Chapo than they sent you do.
Speaker 0: In this moment in space and time, you mentioned you were angry. There was no part of you that was fearful or scared or in danger? You didn't have any of those emotions?
Speaker 1: I immediately recognized that this was a huge tactical error on their part.
Speaker 0: Almost like an advantage for you.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it I think it turns out to be an advantage for me because I was able to to bring attention to the outrageousness of
Speaker 0: publicity for you.
Speaker 1: And and the outrageousness of the case against me. And then so we go to the courthouse, and they that's another drive north now. They put me in a cell with the three African American gentlemen who were just coming around from a bend in the night before. So I patiently explained the 1994 crime bill to them, and why Joe Biden and and Bill and Bill Clinton are responsible for the mass incarceration of so many black people. At that point, it's now 10:00 in the morning.
I've been arrested at six. I still haven't eaten anything. So I say to one of the guards, hey, could I get like something to eat anything? And they say, no. So was already past mealtime.
So one of these guys gives me half of his peanut butter sandwich, the other guy gives me half of his, so I have an entire peanut butter sandwich to eat. And by the time I left the holding cell to go upstairs and be arraigned, these guys were chanting, Roger Stone did nothing wrong. Roger Stone did nothing wrong. It was not what they expected, I think.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 833324gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
How did this because you've been a political strategist a very long time, and you have a lot to say about political strategy. But how did this experience change your approach to political strategy, if at all?
Speaker 1: Well, I see I had no idea that what would happen next would be the complete and total unconstitutional gag that I would no longer be able to defend myself in any forum or on any platform whatsoever. See, in the early rulings in my case, the FBI was forced to admit that they never inspected the computer servers at the DNC, that they relied entirely on the third party report of a company called CrowdStrike. Now, in my trial, my defense attorneys wanted the CrowdStrike memo, but the judge would not allow it. And Mark Elias showed up in court to argue that that I shouldn't be given it because it would hide the secrets of the Democrat National Committee or reveal them. Well, the only thing they were proving was that there was no Russian hack.
Sean Henry, who just happened to be deputy Robert Mueller at the FBI, then the head of CrowdStrike, admits to the House Intelligence Committee under oath about the same time that I testify that in fact he has no proof of a Democrat hack of a, pardon me, a Russian hack of the DNC. That's because there was none. As soon as I started talking about this, then it became absolutely necessary to gag me. Judge put a gag on me as he had done with Paul Manafort, and I could not discuss any aspect of the case. Who was the judge?
Amy Berman Jackson, the most corrupt judge in American history. Later, James, we would learn that the jury for woman, who said in jury selection she had never heard of me, she knew nothing about me or my case, had been attacking me and Donald Trump by name on both Twitter and Facebook for nineteen months prior to her being selected as a juror. But she had all that locked down on a on a private setting, so it didn't turn up in due diligence. And when after I was convicted, but this was learned, it was Mike Cernovich who discovered it, the judge refused to to throw out my conviction to give me a new trial, saying that this woman's attacks on me were not evidence of her bias against me.
Speaker 0: What happened to Andrew Weissman? Where is he now?
Speaker 1: Andrew Weissman is in New York. He's just bought the condominium next to his to keep his wine collection. I imagine that he's lawyered up because he most definitely will be charged in the upcoming prosecutions of those who orchestrated this entire Russian collusion oaks.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna play for you. I'm sure you've seen it, but we'll talk about some of the things in this clip from Westchester County, New York. Go ahead and So it goes on, but this was recorded on a on a on a hidden camera that was oddly enough people say, did you obtain this? The special was the special master appointed in your case? I don't recall.
No. Special master was appointed in my case because we're journalists. And we got the footage because the special master took all the stuff and then we were allowed to see some of the stuff that was filtered.
Speaker 1: In in my case, it was somewhat different. I had security cameras all around my house. When the FBI left, they grabbed the wrong file. They grabbed the wrong tape. So they left me all of the video What whether is it
Speaker 0: a door camera, a door ring camera?
Speaker 1: All the way around.
Speaker 0: I had
Speaker 1: a door camera, the backyard. I mean, my eye house was completely wired for security on all sides, so I could see the frogmen jumping out of the boat onto the dock. I could I could see the 17 cars pulled
Speaker 0: rifles did you say with
Speaker 1: There were 29 FBI agents, all carrying Yes.
Speaker 0: What were they expecting you to have? Like a scarface
Speaker 1: I think I think this was about intimidation because you see, I was arrested in January 2019. By July, they'd gone through all my email and stuff, they realized they had nothing. So Andrew Eisman comes up with this very clever case.
Speaker 0: So this is his This is
Speaker 1: totally it. Totally him. And a miscreant
Speaker 0: And he's a US attorney? What's his title?
Speaker 1: Was the deputy director of the Mueller probe. Oh. This guy has a long history. He gets to start covering up mob murders in Brooklyn. Then he destroyed the Enron Corporation and Arthur Andersen.
His his criminal convictions in those cases are reversed nine to zero by the US Supreme Court. Yet to this day, he still points to them as the gold standard of federal prosecutions. Then he destroyed all the evidence of the of the illegal actions by the Mueller investigators. So after special counsel John Durham puts out a subpoena for the cell phones of the mother investigators, Andrew Weissman is the one who wipes all the memory of them. You see, there are two sets of rules.
They can do whatever they want. Now they would later accuse me of destroying evidence. I destroyed nothing. I I turned over 1,000,000 emails to them. I never I never deleted anything.
There's no evidence of Russian collusion. Here's the most amazing thing. My my lawyers asked for Robert Mueller's final report because the sections about me are completely redacted in the copy they gave us. We wanted an unredacted report. The judge said, no.
You can't have it. I'll review the report in my chambers and I'll give you the sections relevant to you. James, she seems to have forgotten page one seventy eight. It's the page in which he says that there the barriers to prosecuting Stone are factual, meaning they found no evidence of Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration, or any other crime. Somehow, the judge forgot to give us that section.
That's withholding of exculpatory evidence. I suspect when the House Republicans very shortly file articles of impeachment against this judge, which are definitely coming, that that will be one of the items delineated in those articles. Now, can you impeach a federal judge? Takes two thirds vote in the senate. It's difficult, but we should have a trial.
Speaker 0: Weisman was probably in charge because he reported to mule Mueller. Yes. And Mueller wasn't all there.
Speaker 1: Weisman was the de facto head of this witch hunt. This is a guy just to be clear, in the Enron case, he took the CFO of Enron. He locked him in a casket style metal box with just a slot for his eyes and left him out in the sun until he agreed to testify and say what what what Weisman wanted him to say. There was a bar complaint filed in New York on this matter because that's cruel and unusual. Go look for that bar complaint, James.
It's missing. It's gone. It's no longer there.
Speaker 0: This is a sick person. You know, a lot of people have been by the way, we have the clip, Andrew, of Stone walking back into the house with a shirt that says Roger Stone did nothing wrong. I'd like to see that. This is Sinclair Broadcast Group. I guess they published this.
You walking back into the house. Is it 01/25/2019? Is that yep. Mhmm. Roger Stone did nothing wrong walking back in.
Speaker 1: Now, that's part that's product placement. I sold 15,000 of those shirts in the next twenty four hours. All of it dedicated to my But legal defense fund.
Speaker 0: I I mean, seriously, a lot of people have been through this in some way, matter, shape, or form and relate to it in some local or federal form. What advice would you have for people who go through
Speaker 1: it? Well Who are scared?
Speaker 0: Who are afraid?
Speaker 1: Well, in that in that moment, of course, it's very, very intimidating. I admit to you that I my initial reaction was this is ridiculous. There's no crime here. I'll clearly be found innocent. I had no idea that I was gonna be subjected to a Soviet style show trial in which all avenues or arguments in defense were denied.
You can't so I wanted to bring in Bill Binney, the the the CIA's most famous IT guy who could approve there was no online hack of the DNC. The judge would not allow him to test testify. One of the charges against me was I said that a friend of mine in New York who was a a radio personality had told me that he knew a woman lawyer who worked for WikiLeaks and that she had told him that Julian Assange had this huge catch of information on Hillary Clinton and he would release it in October. James, I have the text message in which he told me that. The judge would not allow us to enter it as evidence because it disproved one of the specific charges against me.
So I had no idea that the whole thing would be rigged, but I realized ultimately why it was. I was arrested in January. In July was when they said to me, through my lawyers, look, we can hit you with some superseding charges and you'll die in prison, or you can agree to testify against Donald Trump. Those are your choices. And the guy pushes this piece of paper across.
He says, all you gotta do is sign this. I look at it. I realize every word of it is false. And I said, you can take this and you can shove it up your ass because I'm not doing that. Now I'd already passed two polygraph tests that proved that everything they wanted me to say was false.
So they wanted me to be the ham in their ham sandwich. I refused to do it. I was not going to be Michael Cohen. I was not going to lie. I was not going to say things that weren't true.
Speaker 0: You're not going to I remember you saying, I will not bear false witness.
Speaker 1: I witnessed what they wanted me to do.
Speaker 0: Stuck with me because a lot of people do that. Sure.
Speaker 1: It was the easy way out. They're giving me the easy way out. Look, we we can we'll tell the judge to give you no jail time. All you gotta do is sign this.
Speaker 0: Say, plead guilty to something you didn't do.
Speaker 1: Right. I I wouldn't even have to plead guilty. At that point, they I they would have just theoretically told the judge not to give me jail time. Now, they double crossed Cohen. They would have double crossed me too, and I agreed to testify against Trump, but I was never gonna do that.
First of all, how would you look yourself in the mirror? I wanted Donald Trump to be president since 1988. I tried to get him run-in February. I tried to get him to run-in 2012. I finally succeeded in getting him to run-in 2016.
Not me me and other people. So I was gonna turn on this guy who I'd known at that point for forty years, who I always dreamed about being a great president. There's never any chance that I was gonna do that. And then everything I would have said would have been a lie. I would have to make it up.
In other words, you have Hakim Jeffries who has his famous tweet that claims that I traded my pardon for silence regarding the crimes of Donald Trump. Now if Hakim will just waive his congressional immunity, I'll sue him, but we both know he's not gonna do that.
Speaker 0: I think a lot of people may plead guilty to things they don't do because they can't afford to pay attorneys. Seems to be a stressing point. Did you how much did it cost you, this whole thing cost you, personally Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, recognize that we lost our home. We lost our savings. We lost our insurance. I lost my car. I had to sell my electric guitar.
That was very painful. I sold everything I had essentially, but then I still ran out of money.
Speaker 0: To pay attorneys.
Speaker 1: To pay attorneys and to live. Because remember, if you're gagged, you can't speak, you can't write, that's how I make a living. So I had no ability to make a living. And of course, no one wants to hire you for strategic consulting because you're under criminal indictment. So I raised roughly 3 and a half million dollars for my legal defense.
I worked very, very hard to do it. I went literally from speaking to the prestigious Oxford political union in London to speaking at a gentleman's club in Kentucky, signing women's asses for $50 for my legal defense fund.
Speaker 0: I mean and what I in endure and experience in my life is just the constant litigation, constant defense cost, dealing with lawyers. Do you have any advice on that?
Speaker 1: It's it's endless. First of all, I had 13 civil cases filed against me. All of them baseless, all of them On
Speaker 0: the same cause of action?
Speaker 1: Same cause of action. Well, first of all, some some Obama front group democracy now, some BS group, sued me in a civil case, claiming that I had been involved with WikiLeaks. Their proof, a clipping from the Huffington Post. That's not proof. That's an accusation.
Some kinda like the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian collusion. This is a complete crock of shit. All they did was cut and paste out of the Huffington Post or the Daily Beast some accusation. That's not proof. That's just an accusation, and they call it a report as if it's proof.
It's proof of nothing whatsoever. There is no Russian collusion. There is no collaboration on my part with WikiLeaks, and there is no Russian hack of the DNC. And as you may now know, Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents just this past week that shows that there was no hack of the DNC. And when Admiral Mike Rogers tried to say that, Clapper said, no, no, we all gotta stick to the same story.
It was a lie. It's still a lie.
Speaker 0: Same Clapper that sit under oath while he was rubbing his face that they we don't spy on Americans.
Speaker 1: Right. There is no data collection metadata collection program in Americans. And then Edward Snowden proved that that was a lie. But where did Clapper go after he left the government? He was teaching ethics at Vermont College.
Speaker 0: You can't make that up. You can't make that.
Speaker 1: Do you
Speaker 0: think these people are gonna be prosecuted or
Speaker 1: held I do. Accountable at some point? I think relatively soon. I think the American people demand it. I think the president's base demands it.
Something general Flynn and I and Rudy Giuliani have talked about very extensively. I don't know that it'll be as broad as it needs to be, but certainly, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, I think Hillary herself, frankly, should be prosecuted. I'll be surprised if that happens. Obama may have immunity. I agree with those who say that he could still be impeached even though he's no longer president, and then he would lose that immunity.
On the other hand, I don't think two thirds of the senate would vote to impeach him, even though I think he's on the facts, he's impeachable. But Joe Biden should certainly be charged because he has no immunity for the crimes he committed as vice president. He has no immunity for the financial crimes he committed as vice president, but he has no immunity for the crimes he he committed in the furtherance of the seditious conspiracy that is Russiagate. Here's the important thing. This conspiracy doesn't stop in 2017.
It starts in 2016. It continues in 2017. It continues in 2020, and it continues in 2024. So the raid on Mar a Lago is yet another step in the same seditious conspiracy, which is why the trials can be held in South Florida, where these people will be indicted and stand trial in South Florida, not in Washington DC where you cannot get a fair minded judge and you cannot get a reasonable jury. The jury is the concern in DC.
Well, it's also the judges. Every one of these judges the the the main judge is now retired, but she's epically corrupt. The judge in my case, the judge in general Flynn's case. It's interesting. After my after my conviction, three different jurors while being interviewed all say and the judge never never visited the jury room.
Why would they say that?
Speaker 0: The judge never visited the
Speaker 1: jury room. Right. A jury by law, the judge cannot visit the jury room during deliberations. Why would you just volunteer that she never did that? Interesting.
Speaker 0: Did did you sit through voir dire jury selection in your case?
Speaker 1: Yeah. But it was a joke because the judge ruled that working for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or previous service in the Clinton or Obama administrations was not or being a critic of Roger Stone's, none of those things were barriers to be on this jury.
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. And they they have preemptory strikes and I was in DC for my jury trial and jurors seemed to lie under oath, but there was nothing I could do about it.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: Nothing we could do about it. And so
Speaker 1: Well, they would say, I hate Donald Trump. I think he should be prosecuted, but I can put my personal feelings aside and and release your judgment in this case. Sure.
Speaker 0: Wow. And as you're you you sat in the trial, did the jurors stare at you? Did you look at them?
Speaker 1: Most of them didn't have the courage to stare at me. I gave them the Sicilian death stare, you know. So I would look at them and they would just they would they would avert my glade.
Speaker 0: They wouldn't look at they look away.
Speaker 1: Well, the judge and the the judge did a fifty five minute harangue at sentencing where she looked at me and she said, you have been convicted of lying to cover up for Donald Trump. Well, first of all, I wasn't even charged with that nor was I convicted of that. But even she could not hold my gaze. So The same judge, by the way, who ruled against those the families of the four men killed in Benghazi in a wrongful death suit. The same judge who incarcerated Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for a year and a half prior to his being convicted of anything.
Speaker 0: How long was your trial? How many days?
Speaker 1: It was about ten days, I think. Ten days. I mean, since they wouldn't allow me to offer any defense, it was it went pretty quickly.
Speaker 0: It's like a sensory deprivation chamber and sit in court for for ten days.
Speaker 1: In essence. Of Because I brought a bible with me every day, I was mocked. I was
Speaker 0: relentlessly mocked. Mocked by the the media?
Speaker 1: By the media. Sure. We're not look. I there's no question. A very young pastor who was had become a friend of mine who'd attended one of my book signings, who I kept in in touch with, just was relentless, just pounding on me about restoring my faith and being, you know, and, being redeemed in the blood of the cross.
And he said, look. This is too heavy a burden for any one man. You gotta turn to Christ. You gotta turn back to the church. You're a Catholic.
You believe in God, don't you? And I said, of course, I do. So, well, then now is the time for you to turn this burden over to Christ. So he arranged for me to meet with Franklin Graham, who was doing a revival in Boca Raton. And Franklin Graham was very generous with his time.
He spoke to me for a while, and I told him that, look. I'm angry. I'm frustrated. I'm drinking too much. I'm worried about what's gonna happen to my wife if I'm unfairly incarcerated.
I don't know where she's gonna live, how she's gonna survive. And he said I said, maybe you could talk to the president for me about clemency. I remember I'm thinking like a politico. Mhmm. And he's saying, well, I'll see what I can do about that.
But let me give you a better piece of advice. You need to confess your sins. You need to get right with God. And if you do that, I think that he that he will lift you up. I think he'll protect you from your persecutors.
And in the end, I think I escaped the deadly snare that Robert Mueller and Adam Schiff and Andrew Weissman set out for me only because I I returned to the church.
Speaker 0: In while you're in in this court case, while you're in trial.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I I I I realized at a certain point that I was gonna be lynched. There was no chance of a fair trial. So I really did restore my faith, started going back to church.
I started praying very fervently for a just result. All I wanted Trump to do is realize I was being persecuted because I refused to lie. They had nothing on me. There is no Russian collusion. They kept saying, you were you communicated with Guccifer two point o, who is a Russian intelligence asset.
James, my 28 word communications with the persona of Guccifer two point o on Twitter direct messages took place three weeks pardon me, three months after WikiLeaks had already published all the material. So chronologically, this communications is meaningless. It proves nothing whatsoever.
Speaker 0: Did you talk to any reporters? They usually sit in the back benches of the courtroom. Did you engage in conversation during the trial with them?
Speaker 1: Well, I think they were mostly enjoying themselves. Know, there it's hard to rank them, but the Washington Post is probably the worst newspaper in the country, followed pretty closely by the New York Times. And, of course, the CNN folks who by the way, they got an award for being outside my house. The White House Correspondents Association gave them an award for their incisive investigative reporting. Investigative reporting, they got a tip from Andrew Weissman.
It's right there in black and white.
Speaker 0: We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth.
You, we, are the media now. On 07/10/2020, president Trump commuted your prison sentence before you were scheduled to report to prison. Correct? Yeah. It was very interesting.
Tell me about that.
Speaker 1: First of all, they wanted to send me to a prison in Georgia, which made no sense because generally speaking, the the Bureau of Prisons send you to prison that's relatively close to where you live so your family can visit you. But they picked a specific prison in Georgia where they insisted that there were no COVID cases. Now I was 20 I was 68 years old at the time, have a lifetime history of asthma. And, they were sending me to this prison because they said there were no COVID cases. An African American woman who was the head of the prison guards union either saw this on TV or she read about it.
Somehow, she contacted one of my lawyers and said, this is a lie. There's two hundred COVID cases here. There's many more tests that we don't have results from. It was very clear the idea was to send me there to die, I probably would have died had I gone. But forty eight hours before I had to turn myself in, the president commuted my sentence.
And here's the interesting part. Then that Christmas, days before Christmas, the twenty third, I believe it was, of December, he gave me a full and unconditional pardon. Try to find that on the Internet. If all the stories will say Stone's sentence was commuted, almost none of them will cite the pardon like it never actually happened. But if you want a copy of my pardon, you can go to stonezone.com and go to the store and I will send you sell you an autographed copy.
Speaker 0: Stonezone.com autographed pardon autographed copy of the pardon. Why? Or your t shirt. Or your t shirt. Or your t shirt.
Why is is that not on the Internet?
Speaker 1: I suspect it's it's because it's it's exonerating in a way. It's vindicating in a way. So you find many stories. I have to keep correcting reporters who say Stone's sentence was commuted. Now, a pardon, you have to accept the pardon, and it is technically correct that when you accept a pardon, you're admitting guilt.
But the alternative was to die in a COVID invested prison in Georgia, which I had no real interest in. Had that had a kind of finality to it that I didn't really like.
Speaker 0: Did you you know, one of the things that happens to me, think, sometimes, this process kind of hardens you. The process is the punishment. So when you got this pardon, did you feel justice? Did you feel vindication? Did you feel relief?
Speaker 1: I certainly felt relief. I felt great gratitude both because I had prayed fervently for this and I really did believe. I really had become convinced that God would deliver. I knew that I would be that I would be saved. I knew it.
I knew Trump would do the right thing. People seem to think I had some deal with Trump or assurance from Trump. I hadn't talked to Trump at that point in two years. So I went from talking to him virtually every day to talking to him not at all. My lawyers also had no communications from the president's lawyer, so there was never any guarantee that I would be pardoned.
I had friends out there who were beating the drum like Tucker Carlson, like Laura Loomer, a handful, Larry Kudlow, people out there saying, this case is ridiculous. Stone's done nothing wrong. The president should pardon him. Remember, I was still gagged. Now the judge gagged me, this is interesting, because she said that my defense of myself might taint the jury pool.
Okay. Then why did she leave the gag in place after I was convicted, before I was sentenced, after I was incensed, and right up The jury pool? Right. That was the argument. She she produced no evidence
Speaker 0: that more true in your case than any other case?
Speaker 1: That's How's the Washington Post and CNN, the dominant news organizations in Washington DC, how did that not how did that not taint the jury pool? But, no, this was her argument that I couldn't defend myself because it would taint the jury pool. Even if you believe that, then why did she leave the gag in place after I was convicted, but before I was sentenced, and after I was sentenced, and just before I was supposed to report to prison? So she was violating my first amendment rights throughout because she didn't want her conduct of the trial to be criticized. The fact that she should have thrown out my conviction based on the on the actions of the illegal actions of the jury for a woman, who, by the way, had run for congress as a democrat in Tennessee, and who was a protege of Donna Brazile.
But we're supposed to believe that she can render a totally unbiased nonpolitical judgment on Roger Stone.
Speaker 0: Is it gonna always be like this? Is it gonna get continue to get worse, just the weaponization of the justice system? Is it gonna get better? What is your prediction of the the future?
Speaker 1: That's a very difficult question. I I anybody who says that the people who pulled off the greatest single dirty trick in American political history, The greatest single abuse of power in which the full authority of the US government and the capabilities of our intelligence agencies were used to try to undo an election. There are some who said, well, if we if we maybe we should let that go because if they come back into power, they're going to be brutal against us. No. They're they're already weaponized against us.
The Steele dossier was a fraud. The fact that they claim the DNC was hacked by Russian intelligence is a fraud. I think that you either dismantle them now or, yes, they will come back, and they'll do the same thing all over again. By the way, it didn't used to be this way. I mean, politics was always partisan.
But when I lived in Washington, when I was an active political consultant, I had friends who were Democrats. I had friends in the business who were Democrats. We ate together. We drank together. We teased each other.
Sometimes we beat them. Sometimes we beat them. They sometimes they beat us. When they beat us, it was like, okay, I'll get you next time. This idea of destroying people, destroying their lives, destroying their families, throwing you in jail, this is it was never like this.
This is a new thing. This is I think comes directly out of the presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama.
Speaker 0: That's what changed the Barack Obama. I think it changed everything. Was it the Obamacare? What what what what moment was the when things really changed?
Speaker 1: I I think as soon as Obama becomes president, they decide that they want to fundamentally change the way the country is run, and therefore, they need to not just beat the opposition, that would be us. They have to destroy us. So the fact that I had written a book on the Clintons, the Clintons war on women, and the longest chapter on that book is on Jeffrey Epstein, because I read every word of the testimony, in the cases of the women who didn't settle, who went on to sue Epstein. I interviewed Virginia Roberts Jafre for six hours in two three hour sessions. The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous, out of the question.
And she's now deceased. She she they tell us that she committed suicide. Don't don't buy it. But I do know how many times Bill Clinton was on the island from her testimony. I do know how many times he was on the plane because I had the FAA manifest records back in 2015.
I do know that when Epstein's butler sold his phone book, his little black book, not everybody in the book obviously is guilty of some illegality, but the butler helpfully circled the names and numbers of all those he said were involved in sex trafficking or were material witnesses. In some cases, he would just write witness, other cases he would just circle those he said they were guilty. Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, senate majority leader George Mitchell, Bill Gates, others.
Speaker 0: Now, you were at the turning point. I was there with you on stage, and every person talked about Epstein there.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I
Speaker 0: wanted to ask you about this because at the time, it seemed like and I I asked every person in the audience, do you think the department justice is lying? And almost every hand went up when they said there's nothing to see here. So there there does seem the base is very upset, and I don't know if the issue is gonna go away. And the way the president's been talking, what is your reaction to the current state of affairs with Epstein and the administration?
Speaker 1: Well, I can tell you definitively only because, first of all, I was physically there in the in those days. I was working for Trump. I was living in New York. I never met Epstein, but I saw him from across to the way in a ballroom at a charitable event full of people. And this is a time when when the president was dating Melania before they were engaged.
Engaged. And they had some social interaction, but it is benign. Everything about their relationship is known. When the president says it's a hoax, he's not saying that Epstein was not a child sex trafficker. It was the Trump Justice Department that charged Epstein in 2019 with child sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in child sex trafficking.
What he was saying is all of these records have been in the custody of the Southern District Of New York and in the New York office of the FBI. These are two hotbeds of Trump hate. These people hate Donald Trump. And therefore, there was a high probability, which we saw almost immediately, that the records had been salted with, quote, unquote, evidence against Donald Trump. That's when the Wall Street Journal produced the famous birthday card.
James, who types a birthday card? Who types a birthday card and then signs it? Answer, nobody. It's a Fugazi. It's kinda obvious.
So I think that's what he was saying. And I love to see these Democrats jumping up and down saying, I want full disclosure on Epstein. So do I. You know what's gonna prove? Bill Clinton was on the island at least four times.
Epstein imported two 16 year olds for his amusement. That's in Virginia, Jeffreys testimony, and he was on the plane 26 times, many times ditching his social secure his secret service detail.
Speaker 0: There are Republicans on that list?
Speaker 1: Not that I know of. I couldn't find any of them on the FAA manifest, and I couldn't find any of them in Epstein's phone book. Donald Trump's in the phone book, but he's not among those whose names are certain.
Speaker 0: About compromising material used as blackmail. Do you think that exists?
Speaker 1: See, here's what I think happened. I think there and I think we know this. There's no question that when they raided Epstein's home in New York and they raided the island, and they raided his ranch in New Mexico, and they raided his apartment in Paris, we can see them taking out DVDs and hard drives. Those are in the those are in the custody of of mister Ray's FBI. I think they were switched out.
So when Kash Patel, who I know very well and who I have a very, very high regard for in terms of his integrity and his knowledge, when he says we don't have any video evidence of Epstein or anyone identifiable abusing children, he's telling the truth because that material was destroyed and it was replaced, I think, with just commercial illegal Chinese child pornography.
Speaker 0: Was the evidence that was destroyed, did that implicate third parties?
Speaker 1: That'd be my guess. Sure. I think I think Jeffrey Epstein I had a source for my book, Steve Hoffenberg, who turned everything he told me turned out to be true. Hoffenberg had been the head of one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history, Tower Financial. The number two man in that operation was Jeffrey Epstein.
So he trained Epstein. He went to prison. When he came out, he contacted me and he said, Epstein is running a child sex trafficking ring, and he's going to be arrested for it. Now I knew that he had already been charged in Florida, but the police chief in here in Palm Beach did a six months undercover investigation and handed the state's attorney a case that involved the the trafficking of 33 underage girls. Also handed him a case for statutory rape of 21 underage girls.
So police chief, Michael Reiter, who's an honest man, was shocked when the state's attorney came back with one charge of solicitation. James, that's like walking into a bar and trying to pick up a hooker. It's ridiculous. So that at that point, Ryder, the police chief, goes to Alexander Acosta, the US attorney in Miami who has responsibility for Palm Beach. He conducts his own investigation, and then he rubber stamps the state charge, and he seals the entire case.
Now a lawyer I know was involved when Acosta was appointed secretary of the labor of labor under Trump's first term. First of all, no one ever told Donald Trump that Alex Acosta was the prosecutor who gave Epstein a pass. I have no idea why Reich's previous What
Speaker 0: year did what year did Acosta?
Speaker 1: That would have been 2017 or
Speaker 0: During the first term.
Speaker 1: During the first term. So why no one told the president that, I don't know. But they said this guy's a Hispanic. Given the possibilities of the Republican Party to expand in the Hispanic community, he'd be a great Cabinet. No one ever tells him, oh, by the way, this is the prosecutor who gave Epstein a pass.
I'm sure the president was unhappy when he learned that. And then during the confirmation preparation sessions, a friend of mine who's a lawyer, whose name you would recognize, a guy who's in the federal society, They're doing a motor board. They're practicing confirmation, they say. So, Alex, what are you gonna say when they ask you why you handled the Epstein case the way you did? Why you gave him a pass?
Anacostia says, it's very simple. I'm gonna tell the truth. The CIA came to me and said he was an asset, and I was to seal the case. Here it is. I think that's what happened.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We have the stone cold truth. Trump and Epstein, the recycled smear. Recent weeks have seen this vicious assault on president Trump distorting the facts about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. I wanna switch gears a little bit and talk.
I read audio listened to much of this book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ. I was I just wanna read one quote from this book and then ask you a question about this, and then I ask you a question about Nixon. Sure. This is from Lyndon Johnson, the man chapter one. Learned a lot about I didn't know a lot about Lyndon B.
Johnson.
Speaker 1: Quite a colorful character.
Speaker 0: Quite a character. Have very descriptive language about him when he started to smoke again, his hair got long, and he was unkempt, but this is something that you write. Linden, quote, nothing could obscure the picture. Lyndon Johnson was an overbearing, coarse, ruthless, sociopathic, lowlife, power mad monster. He was a consummate politician, therefore could charm people when he had to, but the mask could easily slip and often did.
Is that but is that not true of many politicians, or was he worse?
Speaker 1: No. He was worse. I I attribute in this book at least 18 murders to him before he got to JFK. Murders to cover up corruption, murders to cover up voter fraud in his forty eight election. He was very definitely a sociopath, a functioning lunatic.
By the way, in this in the oral histories of his of his aides, Bill Moyers, George Reedy as press secretary, even they refer to him as a lunatic. So for example, the the plastic bubble top on Kennedy's limousine is removed on 11/26/1963, not on the orders of Secret Service, not on the orders of JFK, on the orders of Bill Moyers, who's working as an aide to vice president Lyndon Johnson. And Moyers, who's a ordained Baptist minister, says to the Secret Service agent who I interviewed, get that goddamn bubble top off the off of the limousine. Now the bubble top's not bulletproof, but it's opaque. So you couldn't get a clear headshot if the if the bubble top was in place, and it had just rained.
Speaker 0: What what got you motivated to focus on this issue?
Speaker 1: I've been a Goldwater zealot, so I knew Johnson was a crook. The Bobby Baker scandal, the Billy Salesta scandal. Those are his motives. In other words, by 11/26/1963, he's on the verge of being charged in two massive scandals, two corruption scandals. Billy Bobby Baker is the secretary of senate.
He's a bag man. Billy Salestis is a flamboyant Texas Wheeler dealer who has these huge federal agricultural contracts, and he's kicking back to LBJ. So Johnson knows he's on the verge of being dumped from the 64 ticket, and he's probably gonna face federal charges and go to prison. That is his motive motive. Now the means, he convinces Kennedy to go to Texas to bind up the wounds between the Bourbon, more conservative wing of the Democrat party and the progressive wing of the party.
Then it is his henchman, John Connolly, then the governor of Texas, who says, well, the motorcade has to drive through Dealey Plaza. Now Kennedy is going from the fort Dallas Fort Worth Airport to the merchandise mart, neither one of which is in the city of Dallas. So why is the motorcade going in and out of the city of Dallas? Well, to take Kennedy through Dealey Plaza, where they violate the secret service manual. The car comes to a full stop, creating the opportunity for John Kennedy to be shot from both the front and the back, as we now know, by multiple shooters in an elaborately orchestrated plan to destroy his presidency, and so Lyndon Johnson can avoid prison.
Speaker 0: Avoiding prison. That was the primary motivation.
Speaker 1: Well, Drew Pearson, is the, without any question, the most influential columnist at time, syndicated columnist, has a column for publication on November 23, a Sunday, that says that Johnson took a massive bribe to deliver a defense contract for General Dynamics. That's the end of LBJ. That column gets spiked because LBJ is president by the close of business on 11/22/1963. So his motive is to avoid prison and complete political ruin. Now I'm I'm not alleging in my book that Johnson's acting alone.
This the Central Intelligence Agency is deeply involved in Kennedy's murder. We now know that from the hearings that my friend, Annapalina Luna, has conducted in the congress. Organized crime is definitely involved. The house select committee on assassinations, declares that in their final report in 1987. Big Texas oil is deeply involved in this plot.
So many people had their own individual motives for Kennedy's murder, but one man is the common spoke between all of them, Lyndon Johnson. And I use fingerprint evidence just to prove that at least one of the shooters is Malcolm Mack Wallace. That's who's shooting from the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He leaves his fingerprints there. We know they're his prints because he was convicted of murder in Texas in 1951.
He killed a man who was trying to blackmail Lyndon Johnson. He went to trial. He was represented at trial by John Cofer, who's Johnson's personal attorney. He's convicted of first degree murder, and he gets probation in Texas for murder. He's the shooter from the Sixth Floor.
There's six eyewitnesses who identify a man who meets the physical description of Malcolm Wallace, a medium build, balding, glasses, expert marksman in the Marine Corps. He is the shooter from the Sixth Floor. But there are, as we now know from the new documentary put out by Paramount, there are shooters, both in front and back of Kennedy. He shot from both the front and the back, and that is concealed. The doctors now, some sixty years later, all admit, yes, we saw wounds consistent with these being shot from the front and the back.
The wound in his throat, which we're told is an exit wound, is an entry wound. They perform a tracheotomy immediately so you can't tell. All the doctors see a blowout wound in the back of Kennedy's head that would indicate that he was shot from the front, but by the time his body gets to the Bethesda Medical Center, that has been patched. In Texas, by state law, you have to have an autopsy when there's a murder. Kennedy's body is removed at gunpoint by secret service agents in a face down with the Texas Rangers, so they can remove his body.
The autopsy is not done in Texas, it's done in Bethesda, Maryland.
Speaker 0: Johnson also driven by power a lot. You write about that in the book. I took that from the book.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think he takes the vice presidency with a plan to kill Kennedy almost immediately. He steals the secret service manual and gives it to his lawyer to begin laying this plot. On inauguration day, Bobby Baker, who's Johnson's right hand man, secretary of the senate, his bag man, is standing next to Ted Sorensen, who really wrote Profiles in Courage. John Kennedy neither wrote nor read Profiles in Courage.
It was written by Sorenson.
Speaker 0: I I read that book recently, like, I don't think Kennedy wrote this.
Speaker 1: He didn't even read it. Sorenson Sorenson read it and his father It's a well
Speaker 0: written book.
Speaker 1: Yes. But but ambassador Joseph b Kennedy, the partner with Frank Costello and all the bootlegging going on in in the Northeastern United States, pays for the Pulitzer Prize. But Sorensen is standing next to Baker. And now Johnson and Kennedy have a bitter rivalry, and Johnson is responsible for breaking into Kennedy's offices doctor's office in New York City and releasing, just ahead of the Democrat convention, the fact that Kennedy has Addison's disease. Robert Dallek, who's calls himself a historian, has blamed that on Richard Nixon.
Nixon had nothing to do with that. That was Johnson's doing. So there's very deep hatred between the Kennedy camps and the Johnson camp. But Sorensen, who's the chief speech writer for JFK, turns to Baker and says, well, congratulate after Johnson's sworn in as vice president, he says, well, congratulations, Bobby. And Baker says, John Kennedy will die a violent and premature death, and he storms off.
There it is, right there.
Speaker 0: Imagine if that was on camera. And this is another quote from the book. Taken we have it on the screen behind you. Taken seriously, this opposition that Johnson was was behind the plot to kill Kennedy is the key that unlocks the gate to the greatest of Johnson's crimes, the knowing of a feud feudal war, that's the Vietnam War, that would eventually claim more than 58,000 American lives. So the other thing that struck me about reading about this was just the philandering of of Kennedy and Johnson.
I didn't know about Johnson's philandering.
Speaker 1: Johnson was a notorious womanizer. As he famously said, I get more in a week than John Kennedy gets in a year. That's a direct quote.
Speaker 0: Was it true?
Speaker 1: Well, Kennedy, as I make the case in the book, Kennedy is a genuine war hero. I mean, he's very badly injured when his PT boat was cut in half by a Japanese craft. He swims for hours with a rope in his teeth dragging a wounded comrade to safety. He's a true hero. But he's in horrific pain for the rest of his life.
He gets addicted to methamphetamine because he is seeing doctor methamphetamine.
Speaker 0: With steroids and methamphetamine he was injected. Right. Steroids meaning testosterone or steroids meaning
Speaker 1: Steroids meaning crystal meth. Crystal meth. Early prior early proprietary blend of crystal meth, which at that point is doctor a doctor in Manhattan, doctor Max Jacobson, somebody like doctor the beautiful people. He's attending Marilyn Monroe, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Sinatra, Leonard Bernstein, Pablo Casal, Maria Calais, all Nelson Rockefeller. All these people think that they're getting a proprietary blend of vitamins and enzymes that make them feel good.
No. They're being shot up with meth, which is why why JFK is so randy, why he's, you know, in horrible pain, but he's still chasing 18 year old interns in the White that
Speaker 0: start happening with Kennedy?
Speaker 1: I think it's certainly during his presidency because Robert Kennedy finds out about it, has, the FBI lab do an analysis of what this substance that Kennedy's being shot up with, goes to his brother and says, this stuff is gonna kill you. You can't do this. And he says, I don't care if it's horse piss. It makes me feel good. Right.
So and I think that this is how the deep state, rationalizes the murder of Kennedy. My god. The man's a drug addict. He could give away the store Mhmm. To Nikita Khrushchev.
If you look at the manifest, which is in the National Archives of those who flew to the summit with Kennedy at Vienna, you'll find the name of doctor Max Jacobson on the manifest. He's with Kennedy. There's a terrific book on this called doctor Feelgood. You can still find it.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: It's very heavily documented. So I think, Kennedy is, is, probably addicted at that point. The Secret Service has certainly been has certainly told the intelligence services. But it's also important to recognize it's not just about Vietnam. It's also about, it's about the Bay Of Pigs.
Because the Bay Of Pigs Invasion was a horrific failure. But it's also about the Cuban Missile Crisis because everything you've been told, brave Jack and Bobby faced down Nikita Khrushchev before, none of that's true. As we learned fifty years later when they declassified the documents, we agreed to secretly remove our missiles from Turkey and Italy, NATO missiles, in return from a pledge from from Khrushchev to remove the Russian missiles from Cuba, which we don't really know whether that happened or not because there's no on signs inspections built into this agreement. So the Central Intelligence Agency's motive is very clear. They think Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion.
The original invasion plan called for 29 Panamanian flagged bombers flying out of Panama to provide air cover for the men storming the beaches. That is canceled by the CIA the day before the invasion. Nobody tells Kennedy. Then Curtis LeMay, the head of the air force, goes to Kennedy and says, our men are being destroyed on the beach, mister president. There's only one way to save the day.
That's to send in the US air force. And Kennedy said, wait a minute. I approved the invasion so it looked like an indigenous uprising of Cubans, not a US invasion. So he won't approve the use of the of the US Air Force, and this is where he gets the deep enmity of the CIA and the Pentagon.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. Continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeefmediagold.com or 833324Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
Kind of transitioning to Nixon here. We got about twenty minutes left. I another thing that's happening, and this is admittedly not an area that I know a lot about Middle East in regards to Israel. There does seem to be a I don't know if it's a schism, but just some disagreements about how to approach the state of Israel Yes. These days in the Republican Party.
And I wanted to play a clip, team, if you could pull up of Richard Nixon talking about Israel. My team thought it was an interesting clip to play and then maybe play two minutes of this and get your reaction to this as well as your thoughts on the current state of play with the Republican Party in Israel. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: It isn't a question whether I felt it. The fact is that American Jews support Israel and I understood that. And the fact is that every Jewish prime minister that I have known has enlisted American Jews to bring as much pressure as possible in the political process on American presidents, that's understandable, I don't object to it. Now a president must not go along with it on occasion because some let let me let me explain something about what is called the Jewish lobby in this country. In the first place, Jews understandably in The United States, because of what happened in World War two, because of the Holocaust, are going to be put first priority on the survival of Israel.
Now as good Americans as they are, they believe that America's survival and security is directly related to Israel's. In other words, their belief is that being for Israel first means that that does not mean you're putting America second because they think it goes together. An American president, however, has to approach it in a different way in my opinion. He's got always to think first of what is best for America and that's true whether it has to do with the Israelis or whether it has to do with the Irish or Germans or what have you or the Poles, etcetera. Usually, what is best for America is also best for Israel and vice versa.
But on occasions, for example, an American president must make a decision that does not in effect give the Israelis a blank check and one example of that is a decision that I made. I decided early on in our administration that we were going to see good relations with Egypt and other others of Israel's neighbors. Many of my Israeli friends didn't like that because they want a special relationship with Israel of Israel only. But I have always said that Israel's interests are better served to have The United States a friend of Israel's neighbors and potential enemies and to leave a vacuum which the Soviet Union would fill. I still believe that, I think.
Speaker 0: Alright. So your reaction to that and then your state of on the current
Speaker 1: There's there's several pieces here. There is no question that John f Kennedy is opposed to Israel having nuclear weapons. That is absolute and that he wants a PAC to register as foreign agents. And this is very contagious. Lyndon Johnson gives them the right to have nukes twenty four hours after he's sworn in as president.
Is Israel directly involved in the assassination? Something I'm researching right now. And if I find enough to make that case, I'll do another chapter for the book that you have. It's too early for me to say in my research. I've collected a lot of material.
Still working my way through it. They certainly have the motive. That's not proof. That's just a motive. It is Richard Nixon, of course, who saves Israel from unilateral dis destruction in 1973 over the objections of Kissinger, over the objections of the national security apparatus, over the objections of the Pentagon, over the objections of every aspect of his own administration.
In the nineteen seventy three Yom Kippur war, there's a failure in Israeli intelligence. The Israel he finds himself under attack by the Syrians and the Egyptians. They're running out of ammunition. Their backs are against the sea. Golda Meir asks Nixon urgently for help, and Nixon makes a unilateral decision to airdrop $39,000,000 worth of lethal aid to the Israelis, which saves Israel.
Now you can listen to the White House tapes, and he says a number of disparaging things about Jews. But as Golda Meir herself said, what matters more, deeds or words? Mhmm. Another $60,000,000 in lethal aid comes by boat. So Nixon unilaterally, over the objections of Kissinger, a Jew, who is his national security adviser, saves Israel.
I think that what he says is exactly right, and you've seen Trump, I think, exercise this. The Israelis were not all that happy about the Abraham Accords, where we essentially, the Syrians, the Lebanese, the Saudis, get a special relationship with The United States. And then secondarily, I think the president was very judicious, in the way he approached the question of nuclear weapon developments in Iran. We don't have boots on the ground. We don't have a long term commitment to war.
Not a single American service person lost their lives in this surgical effort to try to destroy nuclear weapons, which the Obama administration, for some reason, believed would improve the situation in The Middle East. So in the end and look, I'm more of a of a Ron Paul Republican when it comes to foreign policy. I'm a I'm not an isolationist, but I am a non interventionist. I don't like war, the endless foreign war that the Bushes kept pushing us into. I think in the end, the president made the right decision.
It was a balanced decision. It was not a decision to do nothing, but it was also not a decision to commit us to an endless war and war.
Speaker 0: What do you just make of just the cultural conflicts right now towards Israel? Like, the Nick Fuentes thing, the the Tucker I mean, just all of it. Just the people. The base seems to just have such disagreement about how to approach Israel. What you what do you
Speaker 1: make of that politically for the Republican Party? I think it's politically, it's interesting. We still don't get a very large percentage of Jewish voters no matter what our position is.
Speaker 0: Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Republican Party. Trump, I think, probably hits a high watermark.
Speaker 0: What is that roughly? Rough numbers.
Speaker 1: It's hard to say, but I think we ended up somewhere around 23, 25%.
Speaker 3: Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And they're the most conservative Jews, of course. The more casual Jews continue to vote for Democrats, and I think continue to vote against the interests of Israel. I think it is yet to play out.
Speaker 0: Alright. We got about fifteen minutes left, and I think we have we have a picture of Roger Stone and Donald Trump. Your longtime friends, is it since 1979, is that correct? Yeah. That's a good photo by the way.
That is When when was that?
Speaker 1: That was after I was pardoned. My wife was diagnosed with stage four cancer, very aggressive stage four cancer, which she has survived. And once she got, the doctor said she was all clear, the president who had attended our wedding in Washington DC at the Willard Hotel, president Trump and his then fiance, Marla Maples, had been at our wedding. They famously had a fight in the lobby of the hotel where she threw her engagement ring at the Who
Speaker 0: threw the engagement?
Speaker 1: Marla Maples threw it, who's a good friend of mine.
Speaker 0: Marla is the second guest of the show.
Speaker 1: Oh, she Yes, indeed. She's great.
Speaker 0: She's a great person.
Speaker 1: She's a great person and a real fighter for health freedom, someone I like very much.
Speaker 0: Is another picture throw the picture of I don't what year this is from.
Speaker 1: There's there's just before the wedding.
Speaker 0: That's the wedding.
Speaker 1: Yep. This is a famous picture of Donald Trump after my father. He was the first one to dance with my wife. So after he learned that my wife had been cured of cancer, he invited us to Mar A Lago, which is where that picture was taken.
Speaker 0: Have you seen that I think you and I talked about that movie that came out. I forgot the name of it. Apprentice. The apprentice. And you were portrayed in that movie and you had a comment to me about that, and now I
Speaker 1: A couple things. I mean, first of all, I'm much better looking than the actor they had playing me. Secondarily, I've never worn a Speedo in my life, nor would I ever wear a Speedo.
Speaker 0: This is a scene in the movie where you're in a swimming pool and you come out
Speaker 1: with a Which is ridiculous because anyone knows me, I would never wear a Speedo. I'm much better dressed than they than they depicted me in the movie. But they correctly say that I may be the first or second person in the country who comes up with the idea that Donald Trump has the the stature and the courage and the stamina, and the independence to be not just a great presidential candidate, but be a great president. I realized this in 1988, and I began pushing the idea then. The only person who sees this before me, ironically, is Richard Nixon.
Nixon and, Trump meet in George Steinbrenner, the owner of the Yankees, box, when the season opens. And I'm working for Trump at that point, but I have I'm friendly with the former president. I'm doing some political chores for him as well. And Nixon calls me the next day, he says, well, I met your man, Trump. I said, yes, What do you think?
He said, I'm just telling you. If this guy ever gets in politics, he could go all the way. I said, do you so you think he should, like, run for governor? He says, no. No.
No. I mean, all the way. And, of course, the New York Times has published this letter from Nixon to Trump in which he says, missus missus Nixon saw you on the Vera Douglas show, and she said that if you ever get in politics, you'll definitely go all the way. And I just want you to know that I completely agree with her. It's a very warm letter.
They had a very warm relationship. Today, president Trump says to me, because it's so antithetical to his character, he says, why did Nixon quit? I don't understand why he quit. I would never quit under fire.
Speaker 0: You mean quit? Resigned. Resigned the presidency. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I said, well, there was no alternative media then. There was no Internet. So you had three television networks. You had a handful of influential news magazines, Time, Newsweek, Life, and so on. They're monolithically against you.
You had no platform from which to mount a counter attack. And when Nixon tries, remember when he famously says, people have a right to know whether their president's a crook. Well, I am not a crook. They use that against him. They use it to mock him.
It's ineffective in his efforts to, defend himself.
Speaker 0: As college student, I read a book called The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom, and the first sentence of that book was student This is in the eighties, written in the eighties. I read it in 02/2003. Students are taught that two things are evil, Richard Nixon and Adolf Hitler.
Speaker 1: Yes. Why
Speaker 0: why existentially, why do people hate Nixon so much?
Speaker 1: I really think it has to do with his being correct about Alger Hiss. Alger Hiss was a high level state department figure in, the Roosevelt State Department. Nixon believed that there was evidence that Hiss was a communist spy. Hiss was Harvard educated. He was very erudite.
He was one of the elites. Nixon came from Whittier, California, his old man was a grocer.
Speaker 0: Up from dirt,
Speaker 1: Up as you from dirt, as he would say. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Or as
Speaker 1: he said. And the whole Washington establishment told Nixon to back off. Alan Dulles, John Foster Dulles, who was Eisenhower's secretary of state, Alan Dulles, who was his brother and the head of the CIA, they all tell Nixon to back off. But Nixon's instinct is that Whitaker Chambers, who had been a editor at Time Magazine, who had come forward and said, I was a communist. I was a member of the Communist Party.
Whitaker Alger Hiss was in my cell, and I passed him government documents. It was Nixon's belief that his was a spy. He pursued it. His ultimately would be convicted of perjury for lying. Forty plus years later, when the when the Soviet Union falls and we get the KGB records, guess what?
Alger Hiss was a Russian spy. But that anti communism, the fact that Nixon turned out to be right, brands Nixon for the rest of his career.
Speaker 0: It's almost like contempt towards Nixon for calling it out correctly.
Speaker 1: And and for being a hardliner anti communist. Yeah. And then secondarily, there is his campaign in 1950 against Helen Douglas, which I think is unfairly depicted as a as a particularly dirty race. It was, but on both sides. He called her the pink lady, because he took her voting record, and he compared it to the voting record of the only communist party member of congress, Vito Marcantonio, was elected in New York City.
And they voted the same about 80% of the time. Nixon pointed that out, in a very effective flyer. It was printed on pink paper. It was a very, very rough campaign, but politics ain't beanbag.
Speaker 0: Is that your quote? I've heard you say that before.
Speaker 1: Probably. Probably was me who said it. But this is where he gets the the nickname tricky dick, because he ran a very aggressive campaign. But let's be very clear about how meteoric his rise is. In 1945, he's released from the army.
He has no job. He has a law degree. He goes around to all of the blue chip, white shoe law firms in New York and Washington, and no one will hire him. He records that he's on Wall Street. He's looking out the window.
There's a ticker tape parade. He sees Dwight Eisenhower riding by. He's in this you know, the ticker tape is being dumped. It's a huge public event. Six years later, he is Dwight Eisenhower's running mate.
He goes from being unemployed to being the candidate for vice president of The United States in six years because he goes back to California. He runs for congress in 1946. He's elected. He serves two terms in the house, runs to the senate in 1950, wins an open seat. He's only senator for two years when he's selected for the ticket in 1952.
So to go from nobody to being nothing, to being vice president of The United States for two terms in six years is an incredibly meteoric rise. What do
Speaker 0: you attribute that to? What was his greatest strength
Speaker 1: there in that meteoric rise? Persistence, grit, determination. I think born of a hardscrabble background. I mean, he pulled himself up from his with his own bootstraps. He saw two of his brothers die of tuberculosis.
He was he was the survivor. Also, he was selected for the ticket because of his anti communist credentials. Mhmm. Remember, Eisenhower had defeated senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who was the favorite of good party conservatives. So they needed to balance the ticket with someone with anti communist credentials, and Nixon was the person they selected.
Then there was a smear against him by the New York Post, who was then a that was a liberal, owned journal, claiming that Nixon had a fund, financed by a bunch of California millionaires, and it was being used to supplement his lifestyle, which was false. But they tried to dump him from the ticket. He survives that by going on TV in the famous Checkers speech in which he says, you know, we've been by everything I have, I've earned honestly. I did take one thing, however. It was a little cocker spaniel dog that a man in Texas said to my daughters.
And I don't care what they say, we're not giving the dog back. It's a little schmaltzy, but it saves his career.
Speaker 0: Going back to the apprentice, Roy Roy Cohn, the attorney, the Stone's rules, and I don't have them in front of me, but one of the rules was it was it admit nothing, deny
Speaker 1: Everything. It's admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.
Speaker 0: And it was one of quite Roy Kwanzer, did you come up with that first? Did he come up with that?
Speaker 1: Did you guys I think that I actually, all of Stone's rules have been appropriated for by the script writer. So so Gabe Sherman wrote the screenplay.
Speaker 0: For this movie, the apprentice.
Speaker 1: Was it we have
Speaker 0: a clip, guys? Do we is this a clip?
Speaker 3: Attack. Attack. Attack. If somebody comes after you with a knife, you shoot him back with a bazooka. Okay?
Rule two. What is truth, Tommy? What is truth? You know what's truth?
Speaker 1: What you say is truth. What I say is truth. What he says is truth.
Speaker 3: What is the truth in life? Deny everything. Admit nothing.
Speaker 0: That's what you just said. What is true?
Speaker 3: What I say is true. And third of all, most important, no matter how fucked you are, never ever ever admit to defeat.
Speaker 0: Alright. Good. So how many of those are similar to your rules?
Speaker 1: I think they're all identical to my rules. Did I get did I get those ideas from Cohen? Yeah. I think that's fair to say. I'm not sure he verbalized in the exact same way I did.
So I saw them from observance rather than being told them or being taught them. But I think Trump and I both learned them from the same guy. Cohen was a force of nature. He was an ardent anticommunist himself. He was a warrior.
And I will say this, in the movie, the actor who plays him does a brilliant job, really captures his mannerisms, his idiosyncrasies, his his verbal and physical tics. The guy really did deserve a an Academy Award.
Speaker 0: I thought you did good job there.
Speaker 1: He did a great job. Yeah. The storyline is, of course, false. The idea that Roy Cohn and Donald Trump had to threaten the head of the of the tax abatement board in New York City with exposing his homosexual background is a complete fabrication and a lie. Typical It
Speaker 0: seemed a little far fetched when I when I watched it. It was entertaining movie, but doesn't mean it's non fiction. It's fiction. A couple quick last questions here, because we're just running out of time. Present day outlook for the current situation.
Well, actually, no, no. We have a a story you just broke on your substack. Can we pull that up, guys? And I just wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about this. This is a story that you've done on a a Republican representative and Cuba.
Let's pull that up. This is Bingo. Representative Mario Diaz. I've never I apologize for saying this, but I've never even heard of this man. What He's he's a republican.
Speaker 1: He's a repub well, he's kind of a republican. He was a registered democrat until the day he ran for congress and became a republican.
Speaker 0: He was a registered democrat before he ran for congress.
Speaker 1: Yes. So you have you have in Miami a cottage industry of these people who have made who've dined out on being anti Castro, but it's largely rhetoric. So for example, Carlos Jimenez, the former mayor, now a congressman, he's the head of the maritime subcommittee maritime security subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee. He has a hearing regarding a huge defense contractor called Crowley, which is Florida based, but he never questioned them about their activities, in Cuba. Crowley has ships going into the largest port in Cuba.
It's a major security risk, but he never criticizes Crowley, which I wrote in a column. He never questions whether, Cuban intelligence is using this access to learn about our trade routes or to get other defense information. And then more recently, in interviews, he pretends like he never heard of Crowley when he conducted a hearing with one of their executives. Mario Diaz Balart, he's at the same hearing. He doesn't have any questions about it.
And then you look in on the FEC records, you find out that Crowley's political action committee has given a substantial amount of money to Mario Diaz de Blar. So all I'm saying is you have these members of congress, virtually all of them Republicans, who hold themselves out as great critics of Castro because it's great for raising cash, but in terms of actually impacting the authoritarian regime and improving the lives of the people in Cuba, you know what they've done? Nothing.
Speaker 0: It's all rhetoric. So it's about money.
Speaker 1: It's all about money.
Speaker 0: Blah blah And and in politics, is it I've been told it's about money, power, and sex. Is that one of those three usually motivates people?
Speaker 1: Well, know what I say, never miss the opportunity to either be on television or have sex.
Speaker 0: Never to be on television or have sex.
Speaker 1: Yes. Actually, stole that from Gore Vidal, but it is Gore Vidal. It's it's in my rules book.
Speaker 0: And and money power and sex are kind of interrelated to a certain degree. So what's next for Roger Stone?
Speaker 1: I'm writing a book about the attempted assassination of president Ronald Reagan because the true story has never been told. But suffice it to say that John Hinkley junior, who's convicted of trying to kill Reagan, is crouching in front of Reagan, shooting from an upward trajectory. But Reagan was hit from above and behind. There's a second shooter. The CIA knows it.
This book is entitled Bushwacked, The True Story of the Attempted Assassination of Bushwacked. The Bushwacked.
Speaker 0: Is that
Speaker 1: You kinda get the You get the idea. You get idea.
Speaker 0: You get this is the other well, actually, don't have the the I have the Clinton's war on women. I have the only the Kindle version of the Bush book we didn't have time to get into. Are you an are you an optimist? Are you a hopeful person?
Speaker 1: I am. I think we're about to enter a golden age.
Speaker 0: A golden age.
Speaker 1: A golden age of peace, prosperity, security, justice, and law and order. In a very strange way, I think being cheated out of the twenty twenty election turns out to be a good thing because now Donald Trump is much wiser, much more battle hardened, has a much better understanding of how evil the system is in Washington and in the country. He has an all star cabinet. He doesn't have quizlings around him like HR McMaster or general John Kelly. These guys thought that their job was to stop Trumpism, to stop Trump from destroying the world.
They didn't understand their job was to implement Trump's vision. Now you've got people who fully understand, his vision and are set to implement his views. So whether it is Pete Hegseth, who I think is doing a great job, or Robert Kennedy junior, who I think is doing a great job, or Tulsi Gabbard, will be the first woman president of The United States, not necessarily in 2028, but someday, Or Scott Besson, who I think is a brilliant choice to be secretary of treasury, an outside the box thinker, a libertarian, a believer in cryptocurrency, a believer in gold. This is an all star cabinet.
Speaker 0: And loyal?
Speaker 1: Every every single one of them. And frankly, it's a it's an all star White House staff. You know, I'm tired of seeing people say, oh, Susie Wiles was a she was a lobbyist for Pfizer. No. She wasn't.
I've known her for thirty years. Throughout her entire political career, she has always been with the outsider. I worked with her for Ronald Reagan against George h w Bush. I worked with her with Jack for Jack Kemp against George h w Bush. I worked with her against the sitting attorney general for Rick Scott when he was elected governor.
In 2016, she could have been for Marco Rubio. She could have been for Jeb Bush. She chose to be for Donald Trump. So I I think she's the glue that allowed Trump to run the most effective presidential campaign in our history, and without any doubt, the greatest single comeback in history. Because on paper, he should not have been able to do what he did.
And he won every swing state. He ran a masterful, extremely well financed, but also well plotted out campaign. Meaning, who wins is not about who has the right the most money. Who wins is about who spends their money most effectively and can plan for the long term. This is one of the reasons why I think Susie Wiles has done a tremendous job for the president.
Speaker 0: Met Susie Wiles when we did the story on the CIA and they were withholding information from Trump and Susie Wiles told Trump he should comment on it, and he did. Last question. We have undercover reporters everywhere. We're doing investigative work every week. What do you think should be exposed?
What needs journalistic investigation on video? Do you think a priority there is?
Speaker 1: That's an excellent question. I mean, there's so much right here in Florida. I I'm very disturbed about the story about Ron DeSantis and his wife appropriating $10,000,000 from Medicare with the help of our appointed attorney general. Find that very disturbing. But even the Broward County Sheriff's Office, we have an appointed sheriff appointed by Ron DeSantis who turns out to be affiliated with the largest, most radical mosque in the county, turns out to be a big fan of big of Black Lives Matter.
I'd like to see somebody go undercover into the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 0: The Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 1: It's the largest sheriff's county in The United States with over 6,000 employees and a budget of just under a billion dollars.
Speaker 0: Who are not familiar with Florida, where's Broward County? It's Fort Lauderdale. Fort Lauderdale. Well, I'm a new resident of Florida, so that's not too far
Speaker 1: is local.
Speaker 0: All politics is local. And some of the best stories that we've done are local stories. Learned that from Andrew Breitbart. Roger, we're out of time. Thank you so much.
It's great to see
Speaker 1: you. Great to be with you, James. Thank you.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Roger Stone | My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe #10 - O'Keefe Media Group
Roger Stone was one of the most recognizable political strategists in America. Then, before dawn one morning in 2019, the FBI surrounded his Florida home with armored vehicles, helicopters, and frogmen, while CNN cameras rolled. He says prosecutors told him he could die in prison unless he agreed to testify against Donald Trump. Instead, Stone […]
okeefemediagroup.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed how hospitals manipulate medical charts to facilitate the use of puberty blockers like Lupron and cross-sex hormones. For instance, a 15-year-old girl might be labeled as having a testosterone deficiency, effectively changing her identity in medical records. This raises questions about who benefits from such practices. I identified the "Unholy Trinity" profiting from this situation: the hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Vanessa Sivadge (@V_Sivadge) exposes how hospitals rewrite charts, paving the way for puberty blockers like Lupron and cross-sex hormones. “Let's say, a 15-year-old female… the chart would read that she had a testosterone deficiency. But see, now it's not a girl that has a testosterone deficiency. It's a boy that has a testosterone deficiency.” @JamesOKeefeIII asks: “Who profiting off of this?” Sivadge responds: “The Unholy Trinity: the hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies." Listen & Subscribe – Website: https://okeefemediagroup.com/vanessa-sivadge-my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe-9/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
A clinician explains that a chart could show a 15 year old female with a testosterone deficiency, but 'it's a boy that has a testosterone deficiency' and that 'testosterone ... doesn't raise any red flags.' An insurance claim showing 'a boy who has a testosterone deficiency on paper' can obscure fraud. The speaker calls the pattern the 'unholy trinity'—'The hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies.' Regarding drugs, puberty blockers 'was Lupron is the most common one,' plus testosterone and estrogen. Some of these drugs are used to chemically castrate sex offenders, and there are children with health issues who need them. There are lack of safeguards: Medicaid and similar insurers 'don't have a system in place where they verify to make sure this is correct before they reimburse.' There should be oversight. 'They actually put the sex they want to be, not the sex they are.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What that means is if there's, like, let's say, a 15 year old female biological female in the clinic, the chart would read that she had a testosterone deficiency. But see, now it's not a girl that has a testosterone deficiency, it's a boy that has a So testosterone that doesn't raise any red flags.
Speaker 1: What's the example of the sort of half truths where they're
Speaker 0: relying
Speaker 1: upon a strange they're talking about it being a man, not a woman. Would that justify drug prescriptions then?
Speaker 0: Right. Of course. And so an insurance company that receives this claim sees a boy who has a testosterone deficiency on paper. So that makes it very difficult for them to distinguish that there's anything
Speaker 1: What's the
Speaker 0: fraudulent going on? This? The unholy trinity.
Speaker 1: What's that?
Speaker 0: The hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, you may not know the answer. We can look it up. But what what drug companies were what drugs specifically, and what were those companies to your knowledge?
Speaker 0: There so puberty blockers, for instance, was Lupron is the most common one. Of course
Speaker 1: off this.
Speaker 0: Yes. Many of these drugs are used to chemically castrate sex offenders, by the way. These are drugs that are very common and well used for those purposes. So Lupron and then testosterone, whether that's injection or a pill form, and estrogen. And there's, of course, different versions of I wonder how people both of use it.
Speaker 1: People who make those products feel about this? I'm sure there are people who have a crisis of conscience just like you.
Speaker 0: Well, again, it's how you use the product, right? There are children with actual health issues that need these drugs, right, like legitimately. But it's how you use it. It's how you weaponize it for a purpose that's not meant to heal but to harm.
Speaker 1: And you also talked about lack of insurance verification safeguards. You learned something about that. Right? It's not the insurance. Medicaid and similar insurances don't have a system in place where they verify to make sure this is correct before they reimburse.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's again, that's another layer. I think there should be more oversight.
Speaker 1: Well, that's crazy. They actually put the sex they want to be, not the sex they are.
Vanessa Sivadge | My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe #9 - O'Keefe Media Group
Vanessa Sivadge thought she’d found her dream job as a pediatric nurse at the nation’s top children’s hospital. Instead, she says she watched doctors steer healthy kids into gender transitions, prescribing powerful drugs, billing taxpayers, and hiding it from the public. When she raised concerns, FBI agents came knocking at her door. Instead of backing […]
okeefemediagroup.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Vanessa Sivadge thought she’d found her dream job as a pediatric nurse at the nation’s top children’s hospital. Instead, she says she watched doctors steer healthy kids into gender transitions, prescribing powerful drugs, billing taxpayers, and hiding it from the public. When she raised concerns, FBI agents came knocking at her door. Instead of backing down, she chose to speak out and dedicate her life to protecting children. FBI Agents Coming to Vanessa Sivadge’s Home (2:06) Ethics and Morals in Nursing (5:37) Dr. Ethan Haim Blowing the Whistle on Gender Ideology (11:56) “What Happened to ‘Do No Harm’?” (18:00) Protesting Administering Sex Change Care to Children (22:00) Texas Children’s Hospital Committing Insurance Fraud (31:16) The Irreversible Damage of Undergoing a Sex Change (33:52) Texas Legislation on Gender Affirming Care (35:00) Who Profits From Children’s Gender Reassignment? (40:30) Going Public on Texas Children’s Hospital Committing Fraud (43:15) Finding Strength After Blowing the Whistle (44:30) Trump Administration Launches an Investigation (47:15) Activism to Remove Explicit Content from Children’s Education (55:06) Obedience Over Courage (58:44) Retaliation and False Narratives (1:01:22) Safeguarding Children Is a Bi-Partisan Concern (1:14:30) What Does Victory Look Like? (1:22:07) Advice to Potential Whistleblowers (1:25:40) “My Price Is My Life” (1:29:50) @V_Sivadge @protect_txchild Listen & Subscribe – Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vanessa Savage, a Houston pediatric nurse, alleges that “Texas Children's Hospital… was giving underage patients puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones and charging Medicaid for it, even though that is against the law.” She cites “the unholy trinity… hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies” and recalls that “The FBI showed up at my house” and that agents “couldn't protect me unless I helped them… my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.” Savage says she acted after learning from “an anonymous whistleblower within Texas Children's Hospital” and collaborating with “Christopher Ruffo.” She notes SB 14 “had still not been passed and signed into law” at the time. She describes mislabeling charts—“the chart would read that she had a testosterone deficiency” and “listing the preferred gender identity”—and founded Protecting Texas Children; launched “Behind the Shelves” to safeguard children's innocence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I went into the room and quickly saw that this was a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity. And I look and I see that the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly. I can't believe this. You know, I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen. I had turned down a job.
And as soon as I learned the entire role was gonna be centered around providing trans care to kids, I turned it down. And I just said, don't agree with this. I'm gonna I'm gonna pass. Fraudulent going on.
Speaker 1: With this.
Speaker 0: The unholy trinity, the hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies. The FBI showed up. They found this article that I had written, which was condemning the nursing and the medical profession as a whole for caring more about their paychecks than about the lives of children. Yeah. They were, like I said, very intimidating.
They couldn't protect me unless I helped them and that my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.
Speaker 1: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back to The Price Is My Life. Today, we are joined by Vanessa Savage, a pediatric nurse turned whistleblower from Houston, Texas, who courageously revealed that Texas Children's Hospital, also known as TCH, was giving underage patients puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones and charging Medicaid for it, even though that is against the law. After being visited by two agents of the FBI, we have that in common, although the 10 agents from the FBI visited my house.
That was a very strange video. We're gonna get into that. Ultimately fired, Vanessa founded Protecting Texas Children, five zero one c three and five zero one c four organization, to safeguard children's health and innocence. And she joins us as she shares her touching testimony of faith, integrity, and bold advocacy representing the principles behind My Price Is My Life. And I wanna start by going to this start with the FBI clip.
This is the video, and we're just gonna we're gonna go back to this, but these this was, like, December 2024. Right? And Libs of TikTok posted this?
Speaker 0: It was July 2023. July. And
Speaker 1: Was it posted in December?
Speaker 0: I'm sure it was reposted.
Speaker 1: Reposted. Okay. Yeah. And these are two agents with the FBI. Yes.
Let's just watch this clip.
Speaker 2: Hello? Hi. I'm looking for Vanessa Savage. Okay. Yeah.
Over here. I'll make some of the FBI agent. Okay. This is his summit. Right.
I am busy. Okay. Nice to meet you.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a pleasant interaction here.
Speaker 2: I need trouble. Yes. She can talk. Okay. Alright.
Hi. Hi. How are you? She snuck up on you there. You want you want a seat tip?
Are we interrupting dinner? I'm really sorry
Speaker 0: to interrupt. What's going on?
Speaker 2: Let me start at the beginning. So I'm sure you're aware of some of the things that have been going on at your work lately.
Speaker 0: With regards to
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I gotta can I you can we sit down for a minute? Let me do my song and dance.
Speaker 1: Very strange. Very these guys are actually FBI agents?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The FBI is not sending their best. It looks like a joke.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we were completely unprepared. I mean, we were in the middle of hosting friends. This was a Monday night at 7PM. Our friends were in the kitchen wondering what was going on.
We answered the door and we just didn't come back for a little while. And you can see my husband there is just completely bewildered and just shocked because we just, you know, people tell you this is what you should do when you have a federal agent show up at your door. You know, like, mentally what you should do, but in that moment, you never think that's gonna happen to you. You never think that the police state will be weaponized against someone who's done absolutely nothing wrong, which was me in my case. And
Speaker 1: Well, you asked, what is this regards to? And he he kind of was befuddled by that. And then can we just do our song and dance? It just seems so unprofessional.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's it's very manipulative. Right? They're they're putting on a front like they're your friend. Like, they want they're they're acting in your best interest, which is exactly what the conversation was about.
Speaker 1: He's he's trying to suggest, oh, you know, you know what this is about, you know, but they're just not they don't seem right.
Speaker 0: It's not it's not honest. It's it's very deceptive, and that's that was really the whole interaction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, thank God you recorded it. And was there any recording after that ended? Or
Speaker 0: No. Unfortunately not.
Speaker 1: The ring ring bell camera? Or
Speaker 0: We it recorded when they left, which was also posted, but that was They a much shorter came inside for about ten minutes, and both of us were just completely terrified.
Speaker 1: Did you record that they were in your house?
Speaker 0: No. No. I mean, again, this was we were completely unprepared. We were hosting friends. You know, it
Speaker 1: friends Were there?
Speaker 0: Oh, yes. They heard the whole thing. We have witnesses. Just it's just shocking. But unfortunately, like, this was unfortunately all too common during the Biden Harris administration.
This happened to a lot of I'm sure you you know, like a lot of conservative Christian Catholic pro life people, like, received these kind of intimidating visits. And so this was not a surprise, unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Well, we're gonna go back to that FBI clip, but let's rewind and see how things got there. That was August 2024?
Speaker 0: July.
Speaker 1: July of
Speaker 0: twenty Summer twenty
Speaker 1: of twenty three?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: '23.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You've spoken about the crisis of conscience you felt in your job at Texas Children's Hospital. Let's talk about that. What did you mean when you said this? You're a Christian, but you're also a nurse who made a commitment to do no harm through the Nightingale pledge. And I think we have a clip where you talk about the crisis of conscience that you felt.
Speaker 0: As a nurse and as someone working with not only Doctor. Roberts but with other providers as well in the clinic and really just had a crisis of conscience at one point. You know I think my faith played a huge role in that and I'm a Christian but aside from my faith I think as a nurse we go through nursing school and we learn about how to care for patients and upholding the highest standard of ethics in the in that care. And that was something that I I really felt very strongly about in my spirit that what we were doing wasn't providing long term benefit or help to these young boys and girls coming into the clinic but it was just harming them.
Speaker 1: So talk about what you mean by crisis of conscience.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Wow. Well, I graduated from nursing school in 2015. Been a nurse for ten years, and it's still, to this day, one of the most trusted professions ever. People place a great deal of confidence and trust in nurses.
And it's a profession that I cherish, and I went through a lot to get there. And, you know, in 2018, I accepted a job at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. At the time, I thought this was gonna be my dream job. Texas Children's is the number one children's hospital in The United States. It's highly prestigious.
It's consistently ranked top three in in just hospital institutions in in the country. And so anyone who works there will tell you that it is a tremendous honor to be a part of this team. And that's really how I felt for many years. You know, I worked for the first couple of years, I worked in the cardiology department. And so we were seeing the sickest patients, these babies born with congenital heart defects.
They literally their condition was incompatible with life. They were so sick. They were turning blue. They couldn't breathe. And we would take them from that state and we would do a series of surgeries and medications, we would save their life.
And so that was my background. And then a couple years later, I found myself in a clinic that was taking completely healthy patients and making them sick for life. So that's that's the contrast that I couldn't get out of my mind is that we they were the hospital was intentionally prescribing these hormones that and these cross sex hormones and puberty blockers that would have a devastating effect on these children mentally, psychologically, physically. And so that's exactly what I was seeing is in 2021 is really when this all kicked off. I was accepted a new position in a multi specialty clinic.
And this was a clinic where a number of different specialties were housed under one roof. And slowly, week after week, I started to see how healthy children were coming in through the gender clinic, once a week at least. And these these boys would slowly start to become more and more like girls, and these girls would start to develop masculine features week after week. And so there there's a my my crisis of conscience was twofold. Number one, it was a crisis of conscience intellectually because as a nurse who believes that biology matters, that following the science means something when we say that, My objection was from a biological perspective that men and women are created distinctly, beautifully, uniquely, and that those differences should be upheld, they should be affirmed, they should be defended in the nursing and in the medical profession as a whole.
But second of all, it was a spiritual objection. I'm a I'm a Christian, and so my faith informs my view that boys and girls, men and women are made in the image of God, that those differences are to be celebrated and upheld as well. And so everything that I believe stems from my my worldview and the Judeo Christian ethics. And so that was a very difficult time for me because I didn't know what to do. I was one person in this massive medical institution, a huge hospital with over 20,000 employees, endless resources.
And what was I going to do about it? I'm one person. Mhmm. And I think in that moment, God looked down from heaven. He just laughed, you know?
Because God's plans for us are often so much better than our plans for us, even though we may not recognize it or see it at the time. Right? His ways are higher. His ways are better. And so it was in May 2023 that I was sitting at work one day.
After going through months and months of trying to transfer out of the clinic, trying to find a different job elsewhere, I went through all of the different ways to try to kind of shift out of that role. And I would come home to my husband every day, almost every day, and just tell him that there was another girl I saw that was out, and parents were asking for testosterone refill. And it's this is just like debit. I mean, some people might think that that's like nothing. You just do your job and get on with it.
Right? Get on just get to get on with it and collect your paycheck at the end of the day. Right? But I had a real problem with that. Like, was I was one domino.
I was facilitating this process where children were were being harmed. And I had a real a real weight on me. And and so it was in May 2023, I was sitting at work, and I read an article by Christopher Ruffo. And he had collaborated with an anonymous whistleblower within Texas Children's Hospital. And this whistleblower had come forward and had revealed how the hospital was continuing to provide these cross sex hormones and sex change treatments to children in secret.
It was secret because the hospital had scrubbed the existence of this program from their website. There were no traces from the no evidence, no anything from the outside looking in. Someone who was on the hospital website could not see that there was a robust and very lucrative transgender program taking place within the hospital. But this whistleblower had the courage to come forward and to bring that to light.
Speaker 1: Do we know the name of the whistleblower?
Speaker 0: And Doctor. Eitan Haim, who's now gone public.
Speaker 1: So this person inspired
Speaker 0: you? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: So you would you Google this? How did you find this this Rufeld article?
Speaker 0: So it's actually someone at work sent me the article.
Speaker 1: Would that was that person at work having the same crisis of conscience you were?
Speaker 0: I would say this person was concerned about what was going on with children. And there were a few a few of them who shared some deep concerns about what was happening. But again, you you just know that if you were to speak out, if you were to say anything at all, that there would be severe consequences in retaliation.
Speaker 1: Losing your job, losing your paycheck. So you and this is we have it on the screen here. I'm an anonymous whistleblower who drew a story written by Christopher Ruffo exposed. So he actually came out publicly later on.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: He initially was
Speaker 0: He was anonymous. Anonymous.
Speaker 1: But was he retaliated against, to your knowledge, after he came out publicly?
Speaker 0: Yes. So the his story is absolutely insane. Right? The Biden Harris administration went after him, and he faced ten years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars of
Speaker 1: Under what?
Speaker 0: Right. So that's that's that's part of the story. Right? As we get into it. Right.
Speaker 1: So Let's go back to when you you saw this by Ethan Haim. Yes. And and then what happens?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So to give you some context about the state of Texas, when this whistleblower testimony came out in May 2023, s b 14 had still not been passed and signed into law.
Speaker 1: S b 14 is
Speaker 0: Which is the law that essentially made it illegal for minors under the age of 18 to receive hormones and purity blockers. It was it hadn't been passed yet. And so because of this this testimony that came out of Texas Children's, which was prompted by doctor Haim. He was the first one. There were many, Democrat members of the Texas House that flipped their votes upon reading what was going on inside the hospital.
So that prompted a legislative change, and our our governor signed that into law a few months later. And so a few a few days after he came forward anonymously with his testimony, I just said, you know what? I I need to corroborate his account because I knew that they were gonna go after him. Whoever he was, I had no idea. Right?
He was anonymous. But I knew that I needed to come forward as from the perspective of a nurse working in the clinic that was supposedly nonexistent. I knew that was going to be powerful. And I knew that what he had done was courageous and right and true. And so I wanted to add my voice to his.
And that's exactly what I did. I contacted Christopher Ruffo. And a few days later, my anonymous testimony came came out with him. And that was supposed to be the end of the story. Mhmm.
The legislature passed the law, it was signed, and I went back to work feeling very relieved that I was no longer going to be working in a clinic where children were being irreversibly harmed. But that's not the end of the story. And two months later is when is when the FBI showed up at my house in July.
Speaker 1: That's the first time
Speaker 0: of 2023.
Speaker 1: You you the FBI showed up at your house. Nothing happened in between? This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances.
Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. Continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeifmediagold.com or 833324gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured.
This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history. Own a piece of it. The FBI showed up to your house. Nothing happened in between?
Speaker 0: No. I went back to work thinking things were gonna be fine. And no one knew my identity, no one knew I had come forward. I was totally anonymous. And I was
Speaker 1: You were anonymous
Speaker 0: to To to from the article that he had written did not contain my name on it, even though it was my testimony.
Speaker 1: So how did the FBI find out?
Speaker 0: That's a great question.
Speaker 1: Did someone tip did you tell anybody?
Speaker 0: In August 2022, I wrote an op ed for the Washington Stand called What Happened to Do No Harm? A Nurse's Firsthand View of the Transgender Craze. It's still up.
Speaker 1: Here it is. Doctors would manipulate and convince parents that gender affirming care was life saving, an interview with Vanessa Savage. What was the name of the publication?
Speaker 0: It was called What Happened to Do No Harm? But it's the publication arm of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. And so I chose to use my name on that article.
Speaker 1: So they linked this with the Christopher?
Speaker 0: We'll never know.
Speaker 1: I Pull back up the Christopher Ruffo article that you anonymously spoke spoke with. And somehow the FBI got wind of this. This is the murky business of transgender medicine. Did Texas Children's Hospital commit fraud to pay for child sex procedures? And this says 06/18/2024.
And didn't the FBI come? Right.
Speaker 0: Right. They had come a year before.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we will never know how they
Speaker 1: What do you suspect happened?
Speaker 0: I suspect that they Googled my name, and they found this article that I had written, was condemning the nursing and the medical profession as a whole for caring more about their paychecks than about the lives of children. And I was very, very direct and very blunt in this article. The other thing that I think could have influenced this is I had turned down a job previously in which all of the the responsibilities were gonna be directly related to providing transgender services for children. And I did not know this when I applied. This was something that my manager had offered to me.
And as soon as I learned that my whole the entire role was gonna be centered around providing trans care to kids, I turned it down, and I just said, I don't agree with this. I'm gonna I'm gonna pass. And that was the extent of the conversation. But my manager knew at that point that I did not agree.
Speaker 1: Did anybody else do that at your job?
Speaker 0: Do what?
Speaker 1: Protest the way that you did or say, I'm not going to do this, what you Not just
Speaker 0: that I know of.
Speaker 1: Did your colleagues agree with you, any of them?
Speaker 0: I was very careful who I talked about this with. I you know, people talk. Things get up the chain real quick. And you just don't know who you can trust. Right?
So I was very careful. There were a few
Speaker 1: that Obviously, if the FBI is coming, someone's snitching.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Don't know who. Yeah. That's a valid theory. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know I don't know. How is the how does the FBI have jurisdiction on this? Would it be a state issue?
Speaker 0: So and that leads back into Doctor. Haim. So when they came to my house, they told me that they that I was a person of interest in an investigation targeting a leaker, not a whistleblower, but a leaker. And in their words, he had violated HIPAA. He had broken HIPAA confidentiality laws, and they were wondering if I knew anything about it.
Speaker 1: So you were a witness in their prosecution against somebody else?
Speaker 0: Potentially.
Speaker 1: And that would have been Chaim, potentially?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Of course, I didn't know any of this at the time. Now we can kind of piece the the puzzle together and kind of figure it out. But, they were, like I said, very intimidating. They said that he had broken the law and that they couldn't protect me unless I helped them, that I needed to co collaborating and cooperate with their investigation, and that my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.
Speaker 1: Your safety was at risk. This is the
Speaker 0: FBI told you.
Speaker 1: Yes. They said that in your living room?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Your safety is at risk. Yes. Going back to what you were asked to do, the things in your part of your job, like for example, you were asked to teach a patient how to administer an intramuscular injection that was estrogen to a young Yes. Would give us some more examples of the things that you were asked to do that were unconscionable to you.
Speaker 0: Yes. Absolutely. Well, nurses often I'll start with this example. Nurses often have to battle with insurance companies over the coverage of certain medications or treatments for patients. Right?
It's a very common thing. And so one of my jobs was whenever a medication bounced back as not being covered under their insurance plan, I would have to call the insurance and get a prior authorization, is what it's called. And this is just basically telling the insurance this is medically necessary, that the doctor ordered this, that this is essential for their health and well-being. And so I I was put in a in a position where I had as part of my job to do that. It wasn't all the time.
I again, I had lots of other responsibilities outside of the endocrine department. But this was one of them. And so the idea of me picking up the phone and convincing a health insurance plan that this sweet, vulnerable 15 year old girl needs testosterone is just it just
Speaker 1: You had to convince the insurance company that it
Speaker 0: would I had to get authorization for the medication.
Speaker 1: And how would you do that theoretically on the phone with the insurance company?
Speaker 0: So sometimes they requested a doctor's signature, sometimes they requested a letter from the doctor explaining why the medication is necessary. Sometimes all they need is just to talk to a human being, a nurse on the phone and just be like, Okay, we're gonna we're gonna move forward with this. We'll we'll sign off on it, you know, rubber stamp it. But that was just one example, right? Just the act of the the very small, but in my mind, significant task expectation, I should say, as a part of my job, that I had to advocate for these children to sterilize themselves.
Speaker 1: Like, how would that even work in practice? Like, what would you say to the insurance company?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say I would give them the reason it was it was it was prescribed. So the purpose for the medication, the reason for why it was prescribed, the length of time that the child needed to be on it. Just, you know, you're it's just a common thing. This is not just for nurses do this all the time. Right?
Speaker 1: But this was the thing that really pushed you over the edge.
Speaker 0: This, and I would say there was one other situation which you alluded to, where nurses do a lot of patient teaching in hospitals as well, and that's very common. And so this doctor providing transgender services approached me at the nurses' station and said, hey, I just finished seeing this patient. Would you mind going in there and teaching him how to administer an intramuscular injection so he can inject himself at home with the medication that I'm prescribing? I had no idea what he I mean, we do this all the time, and we don't really don't really ask or know in some case excuse me, in some cases. And so I went into the room and quickly saw that this was a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity.
And as I was kind of going through the motions of instructing him, I just thought to myself, I wonder what this is for. I wonder what this medication is for. I go back
Speaker 1: What medication is it, by the
Speaker 0: way? Estrogen.
Speaker 1: Estrogen.
Speaker 0: And so I go back to chart, as all nurses do.
Speaker 1: Chart.
Speaker 0: We just document. Right? We document what we've done just to there's a record. Mhmm. And I look and I see that the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly.
And I said, well, I I can't believe this. You know, I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen. So that was a real breaking point for me as well. And this just built over time and you just get so you get so angry and so and so devastated and so sad for these patients that are believing a lie about their identity, about who God's made them to be. Mhmm.
But you have no idea what to do about it. You're one person.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And you don't know the most effective way, the most the the way that would achieve justice, like true justice for them.
Speaker 1: And the thing that you did was do this anonymous whistleblowing through RUVO?
Speaker 0: Yes. So that was in May 2023. Like I said, it was completely anonymous, and I was perfectly content for it to stay that way. I had no intentions or aspirations to go public.
Speaker 1: But God had other plans.
Speaker 0: As he so often does.
Speaker 1: Yes. You wouldn't be sitting here had it stayed anonymous. Right. What would you have been doing though? You would have been kept going with your job or
Speaker 0: probably would still be a nerd yeah.
Speaker 1: I Doing stayed this.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: So tell us what happened next.
Speaker 0: So in July, like I said, the FBI showed up. And the weeks that followed were a real turning point for me for me and my husband. You know, obviously, I called Christopher Ruffo
Speaker 1: at Wait. Hold on. Before we go, let's go back to the FBI. Let's go back to July 2023, number five. Yep.
And this is this is your tweet. I'll never forget the day these two FBI agents came to my house in an attempt to intimidate me. I was a nurse working in. Now this tweet, you tweeted this out. Was it in July or was it later in December?
Sometime afterwards.
Speaker 0: It was sometime after.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I believe those will expose the hospital.
Speaker 0: I guess it was December. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The Legal Defense Fund. You were told that you were a person of interest because of what you believed, and the HIPAA the the violation that broke HIPAA and and confidentiality laws. And and I'm I'm some more information here. We can't keep you safe unless you cooperate. And it's pretty crazy that they lodged some veiled threats at you like that.
And you didn't cooperate, though. Right?
Speaker 0: No. No. Because I ultimately, I knew that this first whistleblower, whoever he was, had done the right thing. He had come forward with the same concerns that I had. And really, just became a national story overnight that the hospital the number one children's hospital in America had been secretly providing transgender services to children in secret.
And that was just a it was a huge story. And I was so grateful for his for his courage and the guts that it took to do that. And he I mean, they he went through hell. Doctor. Haim has been through hell with his wife.
Speaker 1: How is he doing right now?
Speaker 0: Much better since the Trump administration has since taken off they dropped the case. Yes. And so he's doing a lot better.
Speaker 1: Until the Trump administration what but this pendulum seems to swing depending upon who's in power. How did your family react to the federal agents targeting you?
Speaker 0: I think they couldn't believe it. It's it's it's so it's something it's one thing to read about police intimidation or political persecution that happens in foreign countries and third world countries. And you never imagine that it's going to happen in Texas, in one of the reddest states in America, that they'll come to your door. You never think that that's gonna happen to you until it happens to you. Right?
And then you're I mean, my life changed forever after their visit. My my life has never looked the same.
Speaker 1: And also, just your knowledge of human nature?
Speaker 0: Or Well, I think it it just emboldened me. It it made me very angry.
Speaker 1: Were you scared for a few days? Were you terrified?
Speaker 0: I was I was scared. But more than anything, I think I was was emboldened.
Speaker 1: Emboldened. What do you mean?
Speaker 0: I think their the visit from the FBI really catapulted me into my decision to go public with my knowledge that the hospital was fraudulently billing Medicaid for sex change treatments for children. And the the layers of deception that the hospital was engaged in that I had witnessed personally, that I don't think I would have ever gone public with that knowledge had the FBI not come to my house.
Speaker 1: You've described children coming in with deep mental health struggles, autism, suicide, walking out with irreversible drugs. Yeah. I mean, you you you talked about the insurance fraud. Correct?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So let's talk a little bit about how that how they were doing anything fraudulent.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So first of all, it's important to paint the picture here. These children, like you said, they're deeply vulnerable. We know now that almost fifty percent of children who adopt a false identity have had some form of sexual abuse in their past. Many of them that I personally saw are most of them are girls.
They're
Speaker 1: Trying to be guys?
Speaker 0: Yes. They're deeply they're depressed. They're anxious. They're autistic. They are some many of them are just bullied in school or bullied online.
And so there's some form of vulnerability that's present in their life, whether that's abuse, whether it's bullying, or whether it's just a difficult time navigating puberty. There are just so many heartbreaking stories of children just like that. And I believe you know, as a Christian, I believe that these boys and girls are an easy target for the enemy, to come in and paint them this picture, that their confusion will be solved if they adopt this false identity, if they start taking these cross sex hormones in an attempt to erase who God has made them to be. And, of course, they're welcomed with open arms into this community of affirmation.
Speaker 1: What's the incentive for this you you called it the enemy. What's the incentive for the enemy to do that? Why does the enemy want to do that to them?
Speaker 0: Well, I think you get spiritual really quick with this question. Right? Because, I mean, the Bible tells us that he comes to steal, kill, and destroy what God is called good. And his deception started in the Garden Of Eden with Eve when he presented a very tempting piece of fruit that and and and a promise that she would be like God and that she would know the difference between good and evil. Technically, there was some truth embedded into that lie because the best lies are presented with just a tiny bit of truth that makes it feasible and attractive.
That's how the enemy works best, is he cloaks a lie with just just enough truth to make it
Speaker 1: in this context, how does the enemy cloak this with just a nugget of truth?
Speaker 0: Well, think in this context, children are I believe they're manipulated and convinced into starting these medications. And they're presented this alternative life that they'll have. And at first, this alternative life, it's very it's great. It goes great. They love being you know, the freedom and the friends that they make through this transition.
Right? Like, it feels good. It it it they have all of this encouragement from all of these people. And at first, like, the physical changes that may they may have struggled with at first are suddenly not present anymore. And so for a time, they do feel that sense of enthusiasm at this this new life that they're creating for themselves.
But that doesn't last long. You know, that's very short lived. And they suddenly, with time, they start to realize the decisions and the choices that they've made that little by little become more irreversible. The longer you're on a cross sex hormone, the more irreversible the effects become. And so the enthusiasm doesn't last very long.
Speaker 1: We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth.
You, we, are the media now. So let's talk about the Texas Medicaid policy 2015 prohibiting coverage of cross sex hormones. So just tell me how this works. So it Yeah. Legal or it wasn't legal?
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I'm not an attorney, but I'll tell you what I know. In 2015, Texas passed a law that essentially it's really a statute. It's the Medicaid policy in the state of Texas. And it's very clear, if you read it, that no form of gender affirmation, if you will, hormones, puberty blockers, or procedures can in any way be covered by Texas taxpayers by Medicaid.
A lot of people don't know that, right? Like, that's not a common thing that it's not as common as, say, the law that was passed two years ago by our governor banning all of these irreversible treatments, right? This is a little bit more in the weeds. And so technically, can't hospitals can't receive reimbursement for these services if they're billed according to this Medicaid policy. And yet, after the FBI left my home and I was forced to grapple with, well, what what do I do now?
Like, how am I going to what what am I gonna do? Like, I've done nothing wrong. I've just acted in accordance with with what I believe. I started to kind of notice some red flags at my work, and some some billing things were a little bit off. And so ultimately, I just I saw that children who either had Medicaid, CHIP, or STAR.
Speaker 1: And what's CHIP or STAR? What's the
Speaker 0: It's just a federally funded insurance program, a health insurance program for underprivileged children, supposedly. And saw that the hospital, of course, on every patient's record, you see what insurance program that they're under. And so this was very easily visible to anyone working with these patients. And so not only that, but I think it's really important to like because, of course, anyone who hears this will immediately ask, well, how did the hospital get away with this? How is it that the largest children's hospital in America was committing fraud?
And you were the only one who came out and said something about it. And I think there there's there's some there's you have to kinda get into the weeds a little bit. So first first of all
Speaker 1: Let's put the bill back up on the screen, guys, the Medicaid bill from 2015. It says makes this bill makes private let's see. Was this twenty two thousand twenty three, was this? This bill makes private health benefit plans strictly liable for the lifetime care of the patient for consequences of gender modification. So yeah.
So was this was this legal, what they were doing? I mean, continue with your analysis.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this is this is kind of answering that question. The first thing that would happen is when a child is transgender, and they're wanting to identify with the sex opposite of what they were born with, the first thing the hospital would do is instead of listing the biological sex on the chart, they would list the preferred gender identity of the patient on the official medical record. So that's falsifying the record. That's the first thing.
That's already illegal. Like, that's didn't list sex,
Speaker 1: they listed the preferred gender.
Speaker 0: Yes. And you, as the provider, you know, one of the providers caring for these patients, you would have to dig a little bit to discover that Jane was actually not Jane. She was John. Right? And she was identifying with a different name.
And so that's falsifying the record. So that's the first level. That's the first layer of deceit. The second is any patient of the gender clinic, many of them had fraudulent diagnoses. What that means is if there's, like, let's say, a 15 year old female biological female in the clinic, the chart would read that she had a testosterone deficiency.
But see, now it's not a girl that has a testosterone deficiency, it's a boy that has a So testosterone that doesn't raise any red flags.
Speaker 1: What's the example of the sort of half truths where they're
Speaker 0: relying
Speaker 1: upon a strange they're talking about it being a man, not a woman.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Would that justify drug prescriptions then?
Speaker 0: Right. Of course. And so an insurance company that receives this claim sees a boy who has a testosterone deficiency on paper. So that makes it very difficult for them to distinguish that there's anything
Speaker 1: What's the
Speaker 0: fraudulent going on?
Speaker 1: This?
Speaker 0: The unholy trinity.
Speaker 1: What's that?
Speaker 0: The hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, you may not know the answer. We can look it up. But what what drug companies were what drugs specifically, and what were those companies to your knowledge?
Speaker 0: There so puberty blockers, for instance, was Lupron is the most common one. Of course
Speaker 1: off this.
Speaker 0: Yes. Many of these drugs are used to chemically castrate sex offenders, by the way. These are drugs that are very common and well used for those purposes. So Lupron and then testosterone, whether that's injection or a pill form, and estrogen. And there's, of course, different versions of
Speaker 2: I wonder how
Speaker 0: people both of use it.
Speaker 1: The people who make those products feel about this. I'm sure there are people who have a crisis of conscience just like you.
Speaker 0: Well, again, it's how you use the product, right? There are children with actual health issues that need these drugs, right, like legitimately. But it's how you use it. It's how you weaponize it for a purpose that's not meant to heal but to harm.
Speaker 1: And you also talked about lack of insurance verification safeguards. You learned something about that. Right? It's not the insurance. Medicaid and some other insurances don't have a system in place where they verify to make sure this is correct before they reimburse.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's again, that's another layer. I think there should be more oversight.
Speaker 1: Well, that's crazy. They actually put the sex they want to be, not the sex they are Right. To get the diagnosis. So you saw that. And then walk us through Yeah.
Any other fraud you witnessed.
Speaker 0: So that was so I decided to go public with that knowledge in June 2024. But several weeks prior, in May, I had submitted an official religious accommodation request to my supervisor. And I asked her to transfer out of the endocrine clinic and back towards my core competency in the cardiology clinic. This was a very reasonable request. I'm not asking for the moon.
I'm just asking to be moved from one clinic to the other. Happens all the time. And they stonewalled me. They didn't respond. They stalled.
And they did not grant my request. And a couple of weeks later, I went public with my knowledge of the fraud.
Speaker 1: While you were still employed?
Speaker 0: While I was still employed. And the the next day, the hospital called me and put me on leave. And, of course, you know, my life changed overnight at that point. At that point, everyone knew my name and knew my face and knew the story I had come out with.
Speaker 1: They put you on leave?
Speaker 0: They put me on leave.
Speaker 1: Did they send you a message or a phone call or how did it
Speaker 0: It was a phone call. Yep. We've recorded Paid all leave? Paid leave. We've recorded all of those phone calls.
And they just informed me that I was under investigation and that they would inform me next week of the following steps. And so this kind of I knew that something like this could happen, obviously. We had weighed this decision very prayerfully and very carefully. But your life just changes overnight. And this was not something that I had planned for or anticipated.
I had never spoken in public in my life. I had never given an interview. I mean, if you would have told me, I'd be sitting across from you, I would have laughed in your face.
Speaker 1: So how was that process for you? You go from being an working in a hospital to being a public figure overnight. What was that like?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was really terrifying. You know, it's I think I I really have to give credit to my husband because he was my is my rock and my greatest supporter. And he really made me just feel so empowered and encouraged to do this because we knew that this was the right thing. I couldn't do this without him.
I don't think that I would have had the inner fortitude to go through all of this if he wasn't by my side. But I had to learn very quickly how to deal with friendly media, hostile media, press. And this was all just overnight. I had to just roll with the punches. And this was just a brand it's a completely brand new world for me.
And so a couple of months later in August, I received a phone call from the hospital, and they decided to terminate my employment. So this was literally a year ago in August.
Speaker 1: August '4?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You're fired from the hospital. Yes. And then what happens?
Speaker 0: Well, we retained a really amazing group of attorneys, the Burke Law Group. We've set up a GiveSendGo where the public has been so generous in their support.
Speaker 1: How much has it raised so far?
Speaker 0: I think it's raised oh, I'd have to look. I think 70,000 or $80,000
Speaker 1: $78,000 with a goal of $500,000 And how will these resources be used?
Speaker 0: Well, this every cent that I use will be spent on mounting a legal defense because I believe I was illegally terminated in retaliation.
Speaker 1: So you're to sue the hospital?
Speaker 0: For blowing the whistle.
Speaker 1: Yes. And what's the cause of action? Wrongful termination?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I can't speak to any legal cases right now, what we're involved in, but there is a very concerted effort on I'm very confident that my attorneys will defend me, and so we're working on those options Just right
Speaker 1: to pay attorneys?
Speaker 0: Yes, to pay to pay my attorneys.
Speaker 1: It's always the money to go pay lawyers, isn't it?
Speaker 0: Well, they're they're they are worthy of every cent. Sure. Let me tell you. They are so ferocious, and I'm very confident in their abilities.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us who they are?
Speaker 0: The Burke Law Group.
Speaker 1: Burke Law. And they're in Texas?
Speaker 0: They're in Houston, Marcella Burke. She's also also represented Doctor. Heim, Doctor. Eitan Heim. We're very
Speaker 1: filed the lawsuit yet?
Speaker 0: I can't speak to what can't speak to it. We filed or not filed.
Speaker 1: It'll be a public document once it's filed, my assumption is.
Speaker 0: Yes. What I can tell you is that there is a very public investigation by the Trump administration into Texas Children's Hospital. The Office of Civil Rights under Health and Human Services in April announced a formal investigation into then, the
Speaker 1: MacDonald is the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 0: Yes. But this is health and human services under Robert Kev under Robert Kennedy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. Have you talked to Kennedy about about HHS? Directly. Not directly.
Speaker 0: Hopefully soon.
Speaker 1: So so you've you've come out, you came out publicly, and did you do media interviews? You said you did hostile, you did friendly. What were some examples of those?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'll I'll speak vaguely. But the night before I went public in June, a very the most popular conservative TV network, I would say, that we all know, they at they were at my house the night before I went public. And we did an interview with them. In my living room, they brought their TV crew and everything. And I was just, I mean, so green.
I did not know what I was doing. I was so scared. I was so intimidated.
Speaker 1: Make you more credible, though, if you if you're not a polished
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was not polished at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, polishing can can the polished thing can come across as a little fake, in my opinion.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But so you you can you tell us who
Speaker 0: this was? I I I think people can know. When I say the most popular popular conservative TV platform, I think we all know.
Speaker 1: TV show?
Speaker 0: TV, network, news organization, They came to my house. We did a full interview sit down. And at the end of the day, that interview never got published because
Speaker 1: Never made the air.
Speaker 0: Never made the air because they did not their legal counsel had advised them not to go forward with it because of my claims against Medicaid, that my claims were not credible, potentially not credible enough for them to air it on national TV. And that I was making a huge again, this was under this is a different era. Right? Biden was president.
Speaker 1: When was that interview conducted?
Speaker 0: June 2024.
Speaker 1: June 2024 Yes. A national news organization interviewed you
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And didn't run the story?
Speaker 0: Yes. Because of my claims against relating to Medicaid fraud that the hospital had engaged in.
Speaker 1: Is that what you said?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And
Speaker 0: That's what they said that they didn't run it. Why? And and I didn't want them to run the story without including that. That was the most pivotal part of the story, the most important part, and they didn't wanna talk about it. And so I said, well, that's fine.
Then don't air it.
Speaker 1: Well, sometimes it's like, it's not that what you're saying is false. It's that what you're saying is true. And the more true it gets, oftentimes, the worse it gets for the people in power. So that how did you feel after that happened, Or how much time passed before they told you they weren't gonna air the story?
Speaker 0: It was a few days later. We just got word through my attorneys who had, you know, heard from their legal counsel that they wanted to run the story, but they were going to do it without that portion where I talked about the Medicaid fraud. And I just said, I'd rather not air it at all if you're not going to talk about the most important part of this.
Speaker 1: And that that fraud claim was based upon what specific piece of evidence that you witnessed. You've talked about it today. But the Medicaid fraud, was it based upon they were misgendering the people, and it was that justification?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was it was everything. And I I can't get too deeply into this because this wades into legal waters, which I've been counseled very strictly to not to not dive into the specific evidence. But I just talk about yeah. I can talk about what I saw, right?
What I saw was they incorrectly labeling patients the incorrect They were misdiagnosing patients intentionally with the purpose of avoiding detection by insurance. And then they were prescribing these cross sex hormones and puberty blockers and billing it to Texas Medicaid, which is illegal and has been since 2015. So it layers of deceit and fraud that just compounded on each other. And I knew when I realized that this was being billed to the Texas taxpayer that I had to come forward.
Speaker 1: So they they you know, and and and in terms of your lawsuit, I mean, at some point, if you you don't have to get into it. But if you do sue them, that that that's gonna be quite a quite a battle. It's gonna be a public battle. It's gonna be in court. It's gonna go through discovery.
Are you prepared to go through all that?
Speaker 0: I have the best team of attorneys in the world.
Speaker 1: Understood. And also just fighting that fighting the the enemy. I mean, you're going after the the belly of the beast.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They're gonna deny everything.
Speaker 0: They're gonna
Speaker 1: attack you personally.
Speaker 0: Yep. They sure will.
Speaker 1: And the more it seems like the more successful you will be in your quest, the the more difficult it will be on you and your family. Have you thought about that?
Speaker 2: I
Speaker 0: I'm not doing any of this for, like, the applause of man or potential rewards that may or may not come in the future. I don't that's really not what drives me.
Speaker 1: What drives you?
Speaker 0: I am here for the applause of God. I live for the applause of God. And so if I can please him, then I would have fulfilled what I what I've set out to do.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it's it's it takes a toll on it. That does takes a toll, doesn't it? So far, is it taking a toll on you?
Speaker 0: I think I know that this is what I was born to do. I know that this is my purpose. And now I'm leading this amazing organization called Protecting Texas Children and focusing on safeguarding children's innocence, their health, their future. So that brings me a tremendous amount of fulfillment and purpose and satisfaction.
Speaker 1: When did you start this organization?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We are a brand new organization. We launched just this past year in January. And I am now kind of wading into Texas politics for the first How's time
Speaker 1: that going?
Speaker 0: Oh, it's going. I can tell you. I'm very green. So I'm very green to the to the Texas political space. And you're
Speaker 1: a c three and a c four, so
Speaker 0: you're
Speaker 2: trying
Speaker 1: to lobby to a certain extent the laws of Texas to change.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: What is what is your goal this year with your nonprofit?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this past spring was our Texas legislative session, so I was there every week in Austin testifying in favor of bills that would protect children's mental, emotional, or physical health. There's a number of bills that fall under that category, but I really just focus on the bills that have to do with gender or identity or sex identity or making sure men are not invading women's spaces or sports or just anything related to biological sex or gender identity is kind of where we focus the most on. We're very biblically based. We just launched a new project called Behind the Shelves.
And this is a project just this past week that exposes the dirty and pornographic books found in Texas school libraries. And it teaches and empowers parents on how to get them removed from the shelves. And so part of safeguarding the innocence of children starts with safeguarding what they're reading, what they're exposed to at the library, which should be the safest place where they should learn and grow. But unfortunately, many times, it's not.
Speaker 1: So there's pornographic books in in library in school libraries?
Speaker 0: Yes. Really? Hundreds and hundreds of books, not just one or two books. We have on our Protecting Texas Children website, we have a list of over 900 books that contain some form of pornography. Some of them have QR codes that lead children straight to sex shops and orgies.
Some of them teach children how to commit suicide, how to kill their teacher, how to kill parents.
Speaker 1: Books and libraries.
Speaker 0: Yes. And you know, you think that in Texas, this should not be happening, right? A lot of people think, well, I live in a rural community. I live in a small town. Surely this isn't happening here.
Speaker 1: This is this is your bad book list? Yeah. You've you've got A Clockwork Orange. That's the book made into a movie by Stanley Kubrick, author Anthony Burgess on on your list. Game of Thrones.
I mean, mean, I mean, a critic would say, isn't this tantamount to censorship and
Speaker 0: Well, we're not trying to get anything censored. We want these books removed from the children's section. These books should not be accessible to children in the What children's age? These there's multiple varying ages starting from, like, three all the way to high school. Mhmm.
Different books fall into different categories.
Speaker 1: Is do kids even go into the library of school anymore? Is it all on the iPad and the Internet now?
Speaker 0: That's what I thought too until I went to a library with Bonnie Wallace, who we've partnered with. She has provided a lot of these resources to us. And we stood outside of the Allen Public Library in Texas, and we watched and and just stood out there and presented parents with this information, these books that children have access to check out. You would not believe the number of parents that defended this kind of material to us. They said that it's necessary reading, that it's their First Amendment rights to read this.
You would not believe the number of parents that defended the access to this kind of content. I was shocked because prior to this, I hadn't stepped into a library in years. And so this is just one thing that Protecting Texas Children is now embarking on.
Speaker 1: How many employees do you have?
Speaker 0: Just me.
Speaker 1: Just you?
Speaker 0: I have a team behind me that helps me with all the the back work, but I'm the face of it.
Speaker 1: After you did this, did people reach out to you? Did you get a lot of messages from people like you going through something like you went through, inspired by you?
Speaker 0: Yes. From all over the world, people people reached out. It's been and and really what going back to your question of how are you dealing with this, I think hearing from people all over the world who are encouraged or inspired by the steps I've taken, that's made so much that's made all the difference for me. And just feeling supported by people who have either walked through similar things or are just supporting financially or whatever they can do. You know, it's just such an honor.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, are afraid of retaliation, losing their jobs, losing their income, so they go along with it. And what did what was the thing that these people were telling you that they were most inspired by?
Speaker 0: I think it all had to do with just not being afraid. I think I think we're all afraid. But my fear of God is greater than my fear of man at the end of the day. That's just what it boils down to for me. And I and by the way, I was afraid.
Like, I don't want anyone to watch this and think that there weren't moments of actual fear and trepidation and, like, breaking down and crying. You know, absolutely, I had those moments, you know? But at the end of the day, like, I just know my why, and I know my my purpose for why I have done the things I've done. I my my motivation is is not to to please man. Like, I'm not here to make anyone happy.
You know, as much as I love making people happy, right, it's to please God.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's the that's the kind of litmus test for people who are gonna be successful as whistleblowers, their fear of God versus their fear of man? Is that what it's going to take?
Speaker 0: I think that's one piece of it. And, you know, the other thing for for me as I weighed this prior to to going public is, you know, so many people said, you're so courageous. You're so brave. Right? And I think that courage is there there is a small part of it that is courage.
But for me as a as a follower of Christ, as a Christian, it was more so about obedience than it was about courage. Was I going to be obedient to what God had asked me to do? To expose, as it says in Ephesians, which is like my life verse, take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness, but expose them, for everything exposed by the light becomes visible. That's a very strong language. There's no wiggle room in there.
And I took that very literally. And so the path that God placed in front of me demanded that I take no part in what was going on and expose it.
Speaker 1: So you viewed it more as obedience than courage. Yeah. I mean, some people say it's not so much that you are not afraid, it's that you act despite despite your fear.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: What were you most afraid of? Because you did say that you were scared, you experienced fear. What was the fear?
Speaker 0: I think I was I was afraid at first that the FBI would come back.
Speaker 1: You were afraid of the FBI coming back? Yeah. What about the FBI coming back made you afraid?
Speaker 0: Well, again, you have to remember I was watching Doctor. Haim's case in real time. I was watching what they were doing to him and how they were coming to his home at 05:00 in the morning armed and serving him with all kinds of threats and indictments. And you know, this was playing out nationally. And so I I was very aware that some something similar could be fabricated, concocted against me if I didn't play ball, if I didn't be quiet.
Speaker 1: Well, speak speaking for myself, I was afraid of for example, I don't like being in in in jail. And I and that sounds like, you know, we all are not afraid of being jail. But for me, I guess it's like, don't like being handcuffed. I don't like being confined. I don't like being in a cell.
Speaker 0: Right. Orange is not your color, James.
Speaker 1: Orange is not my color.
Speaker 0: It's not not mine either.
Speaker 1: Orange is the new black. I I was a federal federal jumpsuit. I've been there. But for me, the very I'm just asking a very specific question because I think it's I think it's enlightening to people to practice introspection and examine what exact I always say, like, what are we actually afraid of? Mhmm.
I was talking to an evangelical pastor about this, and the question he said, I've never been asked that question. So I'm asking you, and I'll go first. For me, what was the fear of being confined in a jail cell? And I say, why am I afraid of that? Like, what about that makes me afraid?
But I was just I don't like being you know, your hands are behind your back. You can't scratch your face.
Speaker 0: You're out of control. You're not in control.
Speaker 1: You know? And and and I had to wrestle with that fear.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I had to come to peace with that perhaps coming to fruition.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And learn to learn to temper whatever it was about me that led me to be afraid of that thing, like a fear of spiders or a fear of heights. You just have to confront it. Yeah. So what what I was afraid of Mhmm. The night after the FBI visited me Yeah.
And the fear lasted three days, was being in a holding cell in the Southern District Of New York with my hands behind my back for twenty four hours. I just had a fear of that specific thing. So for you and I asked for a specific reason because you're a Christian, you fear God, not man. By the way, Jody O'Malley said that exact same thing to me four years ago. Another whistleblower who blew a on HHS.
Said, I fear God, not man. For you, what was it about the FBI coming back or the indictments or what the other guy went through that made you feel fear?
Speaker 0: Man, that's a great question. I think them concocting a story that was false about me. I think them them driving an untrue narrative of the events that had happened to slander me, to slander my character, my motives, my intentions, that gave me pause. Because, you know, they can fabricate anything they want. Right?
Like, They usually do. Right. Right.
Speaker 1: So it was the was the the slandering of your of your reputation. And was that just to the public writ large or to in a in a case or both? Which were you more afraid of?
Speaker 0: I think at that point, it was the public at large since I had just gone public and was very new to this world. It's a different
Speaker 1: variable when you're a public figure. Yeah. Because you're playing this game of public perception.
Speaker 0: Right. The court of public opinion.
Speaker 1: Versus and and to a certain extent, the court of public opinion influences justice.
Speaker 0: Right. Right. Exactly.
Speaker 1: Which it shouldn't. Right. But it often does. So is that it was the defamation of your character publicly?
Speaker 0: I would say so. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Looking back, what is the greatest price you've paid? You are on the show called The Price
Speaker 0: of Yeah. Your I should have anticipated this question.
Speaker 2: You haven't given up your
Speaker 1: haven't given up your life, but but what price have you paid so far?
Speaker 0: You know, I I I don't part of me kind of cringes at this question because it makes me look like a victim. And I don't view myself as a victim. I view the children who've been exploited and manipulated and lied to as the victims. So they're the true victims in this story. Mhmm.
I I think when everything is said and done, like, I've maybe I've I've lost some friendships, some, you know, some family and friends very close to me. But that's such a I mean, again, that's such a small price to pay for friends? I think coming forward and and bringing something like this to light, even though it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with right or left. Just being a truth teller, like like you talk about, you know, it it has a way of dividing people.
Speaker 1: It sure does.
Speaker 0: And so you so you could argue, like, no, they weren't they weren't really my friends, but I you know, it's like I I I pray for them. Like, I'm not I don't have any kind of bitterness or
Speaker 1: wanna be hateful.
Speaker 0: No. And it's forgive
Speaker 1: them, but perhaps
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's a difference between forgiveness in the Christian sense, which is a 100% necessary. But you don't wanna forget because you don't want to become friends with someone like that from my perspective. Yeah. Like when I was fired from Project Veritas Yeah. People say, but weren't some of those people your friends?
And I said, evidently not. He said, I was once blind, but now I see. Yeah. So for me, there's difference in forgiveness and forgetting in the sense of
Speaker 0: Yeah. They're they're not the same thing.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: But I would just ask the question, were those people really your friends if something like this would would cause a rift between you and them?
Speaker 0: Probably not.
Speaker 1: Because a lot of people told me they fear losing their friends, and I would say, well, what? Why would a friend leave you as a friend just because you're telling the truth about about
Speaker 0: But, you know, the just just to kind of wrap this this kind of this good question you've asked, I think the friends that I've gained and the people I've met through this journey far outweigh anything that I could have ever, you know, imagined losing.
Speaker 1: And that's not a price. That's a blessing.
Speaker 0: Right. Right.
Speaker 1: That's an addition into your life.
Speaker 0: Right. Oh, it's been such a tremendous blessing. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you get a lot of DMs or or on on social media
Speaker 0: from
Speaker 1: from people?
Speaker 0: Do you check them all? I do. I do. I do read them. Yeah.
Some of them are not very nice. Is it? But most most of them are nice.
Speaker 1: You mean attacking you?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: What percentage of them attack you?
Speaker 0: It's a it's a it's a minor. It's it's not it's minor percentage. It's not a lot.
Speaker 1: A lot of people might say, you know, they might they're they're gonna be watching this, and and they listen to stories like Aaron Vecchi and and
Speaker 0: Yes. I watch that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Vecchi is a great guy. He he's his he had this thing called the religion of apathy, which I thought was very profound. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I've never heard it said like that. It's almost like you what you're doing, I think you make certain people feel deeply insecure about what they're not doing.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And there I mean, that's a good question. Is there are there nurses out there? Have you received any messages, or are you aware of any messages from people in the medical field who almost resent you because you're doing you're you're you're you're demonstrating a virtue that they're not. Maybe you make them feel insecure or inferior. I don't know if you've seen that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. There there hasn't been I think I think in a couple of years, those I I might start to see more of those messages or those that kind of sentiment come through. It's still very, very new. Like, it's kind of the story is still kind of fresh. I've only been public for a year.
And so, yeah, 99% of my coworkers, I've never seen them or spoken with them again. They did not reach out or anything after my story went public. And I think it's there there is that religion of apathy, but it's also, again, their fear of what could happen to them Mhmm. If they were to speak out. And I I lived in that space for I mean, I I have compassion towards those people who are kind of kind of living kind of working in an environment that is hostile to what they believe.
I have a tremendous amount of compassion for them. I I was very, very blessed and fortunate to have the support of Christopher Rufo, who then, of course, connected me with the people I'm not connected to. And so How
Speaker 1: did you reach out to Chris?
Speaker 0: I just I called him. I was terrified.
Speaker 1: You just called his cell phone or
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, we again, we had collaborated on the story. So
Speaker 1: But how did you initially meet him?
Speaker 0: When he when he published Doctor. Haim's anonymous testimony, I had reached out on his website and just said, I'm a nurse working in this clinic, that you've you know, this has just come to light. I would like to talk to you about it.
Speaker 2: I think
Speaker 1: well, the reason I asked the question is because we get, you know, a 100 over a 100 inquiries a day. Yeah. Sometimes even more than that. And what I always say is for people watching is your your reach out to Chris Rufo, you probably articulated it in a in a succinct
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Clear way.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And that's how you're gonna get through to one of these high profile people.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Is if if people out there have a story and you wanna reach out
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: To either of us, state your case, one paragraph or two.
Speaker 0: Give your elevator pitch.
Speaker 1: Here's here's what I've got. Here's my story. Here's my thing. Because sometimes people send these long 20 page things and they throw Yep. A thousand documents at me.
I don't think the if the whistleblower or the truth teller can't tell the
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Doesn't understand the truth themselves, how would they expect me to Yes. To unpack it all? That's why
Speaker 0: I asked the question. Was a writer. And so that was that was really helpful when I came forward is I had obviously written this article for the Washington Stand in which a lot of these sentiments and thoughts that I had already expressed them and was not afraid to do that. And so, no, but I mean, nothing but wonderful things to say about Christopher Rufo. He's
Speaker 1: amazing. I was at the in 2017, Rufo and I were part of the Claremont Institute Fellows Program. He was a very smart, quiet, eccentric, but brilliant man.
Speaker 0: I hope to meet him someday. I still haven't met him.
Speaker 1: Yeah. He's at the Manhattan Institute. Yes. Right? Yeah.
This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324 gold. Again, that's okeithmediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keith. Don't just watch history.
Own a piece of it. Well, you you mentioned it's not left or right, and I agree with you. I don't think this fight is Democrat or Republican, although people frame it that way. Yeah. But it also is perhaps spiritual, God versus the godless, good versus evil.
I mean, how is your faith or has your faith been tested at all through this process?
Speaker 0: Oh my goodness. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Tell me about that.
Speaker 0: Well, so several months ago in April, I was invited to testify before Congress. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, chaired by Chairman Chip Roy. I think that was probably the scariest, most intimidating thing I've ever done.
Speaker 1: Why is that?
Speaker 0: You know, you just you don't know what they're gonna ask you or throw at you. You're you know, especially the Democrats on this committee are very hostile and
Speaker 1: Attack you personally.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and I had watched examples of this, you know, and knew exactly what it probably was going to be like. And so I, you know, I I was just, first of all, very honored to to be able to to do this with Doctor. Hine. And I I thought for sure, in my very, very green and naive political mind, that some of the Democrats on this committee would come armed with, like, really difficult questions that would really just throw me for a loop and stump me.
Like, I'd never thought about this angle or you know? And would you would you believe what what happened? They they just repeated the same Trump, anti Trump talking points over and over till they were blue in the face. They had no original thoughts. They did not come armed with even remotely complex or complicated did.
Mary Scanlon, who is a congresswoman, led me down a line of questioning in which she attempted to discredit my credentials as a registered nurse. She said she started by saying, are you a psychologist? Are you a psychiatrist? Are you a doctor? And, of course, the answer to all of those is no.
I'm a nurse, and I told her, and I have common sense, and I know the difference between right and wrong.
Speaker 1: This is in this is in Congress in DC?
Speaker 0: Yes. And of course, like
Speaker 1: I'd like to see that clip. You guys can pull it up while we're talking.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think I posted it on my Twitter at some point. But
Speaker 1: So Scanlan's cross examining you.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And and this is in the context of me asking you the question, how was your faith tested? So was was it just in the sense that you were being personally targeted?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I think, you know, like, my credentials were called into question, which is, I think, a very common tactic that the left uses when they can't engage with you logically or reasonably.
Speaker 1: You a psychologist? Yeah. Or, you know, do you you know? But did she address the fraudulent you know, this this business of No. Misgendering?
Did they address that? Yeah.
Speaker 0: They just That's reflect not something that is beneficial politically beneficial for them to even engage with. Right?
Speaker 1: But this was one of the hardest things you had to go through was that moment in space and time with scandal.
Speaker 0: Well, I think leading up to this this event and this this opportunity, I think I was just very this is testifying before elected officials in Congress,
Speaker 2: which I
Speaker 1: under oath.
Speaker 0: And I'm under oath, and I've never done this before. And I feel very intimidated and just unsure of myself, I think. And so I think this is just one example of, I think I think after this, my my confidence was
Speaker 1: That's quite a Rubicon. I don't I only think I've done it once before a subcommittee, and there weren't any Democrats on the panel. But I know what you're talking about. I know what you mean because I've been through mean, the George Stephanopoulos interview I did in 2010 on live television in front of 10,000,000 people with Andrew Breitbart. I remember Stephanopoulos just cross examining me
Speaker 0: like a
Speaker 1: little weasel. Yeah. And I remember how it feels. You're putting yourself out there like a piece of meat to the wolves.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's exactly what it felt like.
Speaker 1: Just like they're gonna target me with this innuendo and this mendacity and I just have to be strong. It takes a lot to endure that. It's people that do that are professionals.
Speaker 0: It's more about the fear of the unknown. Right? This is something that you don't know what they're going to use to to use against you. And so it's more in that moment that you have to react and you have to do it well. And Most people fear shame,
Speaker 1: I think was it
Speaker 0: Or embarrassment. Just Yeah. Being
Speaker 1: Public
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: This Mel Gibson said, most people fear public embarrassment and public humiliation, public shame, which is if you're a good person, if you're a Christian, which you are, I mean, none of us all of us are sinners, though, and all of us make mistakes.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So they will hang us upon the cross of ourselves. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: So
Speaker 1: it's Saul Alinsky said in Rules for Radicals, make the Christians live up to their own book of rules.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Well, he's not wrong.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So they can try to do that to you. And how did it go with Scanlon?
Speaker 0: I think I made my point very clear, which was that you don't have to have credentials to know the difference between right and wrong to know the difference between male and female, that everyone who has a brain can identify that men and women are
Speaker 1: Oh, we have the clip. How long is the clip? Five minutes? Just five minutes long. Maybe we can go to go to the part where she's maybe
Speaker 0: At very end. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Fast forward like three minutes. This is you in the subcommittee. You must have your adrenaline must have been off the charts.
Speaker 0: Off the charts.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Check this out. Let's get some sound on here.
Speaker 0: I think this is probably my opening statement.
Speaker 1: Let's fast forward a little bit longer after the opening
Speaker 0: It's like the very last two minutes of the entire hearing is when I get a chance to respond.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We were only able to pull that five minutes.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 0: That's fine.
Speaker 1: Just the five minutes of the statement? Oh, that's alright. We don't have the cross examination. That's okay. Your adrenaline was off the charts.
And and then and then when you were done, so your your faith was a little tested there?
Speaker 0: I would say that's, yeah, I would say that's a good example. I'm trying to think of other examples to share.
Speaker 1: It might be good training for people to, you know, just to hear that and hear how you what would be the what would be the the best advice you'd give to someone in your position there?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I would say that when you're cross examined by the opposing side, don't let them lead you down a line of questioning that's meant to embarrass you. You have to stop the train. You can't you have to you have to change the narrative so that they can't make their point to to embarrass you, which is what they were trying to do. But that takes that takes some skill.
You have you have to think really quickly on your feet.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. Yes. What does victory look like to you in this fight? What is your goal?
Let's say your five year goal. What's victory look like?
Speaker 0: Wow. There's like tears of this. I would like the doctors that were harming patients in the transgender clinic at Texas Children's to lose their medical license. I would like for them to never practice medicine again. I would like for my story and this case to be a warning to all the other hospitals who are billing Medicaid falsely for sex change treatments for kids, which, by the way, the Trump administration last week just announced that they're proposing a guidance that would strip hospitals of Medicaid reimbursement should they provide these services.
So I think the Trump administration is already light years ahead of where we were.
Speaker 1: So you're looking for accountability?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You think it'll come?
Speaker 0: I think it will come eventually. I think we've made huge strides just in a few years.
Speaker 1: Do you think those FBI agents support this puberty blocking, sex change stuff? I know it's a weird question that you probably don't know the answer to, but I'm just asking the question aloud. Like Mhmm. Do the agents just doing their jobs, were they just following orders? They seem pretty just seem pretty nasty in their Or do they actually support puberty blockers and what was happening?
Speaker 0: I don't think we'll ever know that specifically. But what I can tell you is that the agent that was speaking to me in that video is the same agent who knocked on Doctor. Haim's door and served him with the indictment. We know that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: And so you can draw your own conclusions from from that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You could draw your conclusions, but I wonder I wonder if he has a a seared conscience. I wonder if he's a Christian. I don't know the answer to that question. It'd be interesting to do a where are they now series and find out because he's currently working for the Department of Justice as an FBI agent.
I wonder what Kesh Patel thinks.
Speaker 0: We'll see.
Speaker 1: You talked to Kash Patel?
Speaker 0: I have not.
Speaker 1: Everyone always asks me if I've spoken to
Speaker 2: Kash Patel.
Speaker 1: Do you know Kash Patel? Call Kash.
Speaker 0: Call Kash. It's so easy. 100 Kash.
Speaker 1: I say this every show. I'm gonna say it again. If the administration of justice depends upon us as individuals reaching out to the director of the FBI to solve each and every injustice in this country, we have a problem. We have a huge problem. Because the pendulum will flow, we'll go back.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: There won't be a permanent Republican majority in Right.
Speaker 0: Well, mean, what I mean by that is now we have almost half of the states have passed some form of laws prohibiting, you know, gender
Speaker 1: There does seem to be a
Speaker 0: So so that so what I'm what I'm trying to say is that we're a we're seeing a trend in the right direction.
Speaker 1: But we're seeing a trend in the wrong direction from what I've heard and read, when it comes to just testosterone in men generally. Oh, That's a separate matter.
Speaker 0: Separate issue.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But For But that does seem to be an issue within the genders. And what advice would you give to the American people, and there's a lot of this, who see the wrongdoing on the on the scale that you have seen it, perhaps not specifically in this particular topic, but just generally, but they're afraid to take action. What's your advice to them?
Speaker 0: Just someone who's contemplating coming forward and blowing the whistle? Is that what you Correct. Okay. Yes, two things. I would say before you blow the whistle, make sure that you've spoken with legal counsel.
There are and people will say, well, can't afford that. I can't do that. You know? No. Like, I think that now more than ever, there are organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom and organizations like that that are on your side.
Like, they want to help people who have legitimate concerns about whatever they're witnessing at their workplace. So I couldn't have done that without my counsel. I would not be in this situation or What did place you I'm
Speaker 1: reach out to in your case?
Speaker 0: I was connected with Marcella Burke.
Speaker 1: Through whom?
Speaker 0: Through a series of mutual connections.
Speaker 1: So one is contact legal counsel, the second?
Speaker 0: I would say utilize friendly media to your advantage. I would say I had a I don't think just average, everyday people know that there's journalists with integrity who are wanting to share good, you know, just wanting to share truth, honestly, is what it boils down to. That's something that as I just had no idea that that whole world when I was working as a nurse, just didn't know. And I think a lot of people don't know. And so I think you need to you need to, you know, get out of your comfort zone a little bit and reach out to those people because there are amazing and wonderful people out there.
So
Speaker 1: are some of the most admirable? You mentioned Christopher Beau. Name a few good ones.
Speaker 0: You want me to name drop people?
Speaker 1: Compliment people. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking you to name drop the
Speaker 2: bad
Speaker 1: That's what I do for a living.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll name drop two friends of mine because they'll appreciate this. Caroline Downey, National Review. She wrote a really great piece on the DEI culture at Texas Children's in addition to their training on gender fluidity and all of that in the days following my going public. She's a great ally and a great friend, and I appreciate her.
And Mary Margaret Ole Hahn, who is now the White House chief correspondent from the Daily Wire, has also written some really good articles that really were it was just great to have friends in media when I was going public.
Speaker 1: Well, our time is coming to a close here. Name your nonprofit organization again, how people can get in touch with you.
Speaker 0: Yes. It's Protecting Texas Children. Our website is protectingtexaschildren.com. And we're on Twitter and Facebook and would love for people to sign up and follow along. And people can just find me on Twitter.
Speaker 1: And your GiveSendGo page again?
Speaker 0: Yes. It's GiveSendGo, and it's nursewhistleblower.
Speaker 1: Nursewhistleblower. I understand that these proceeds will help your legal defense fund in order to file a wrongful discrimination lawsuit against the hospital and generally hold those who did this to you accountable. Correct?
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna borrow a Mike Malice line. What was your favorite part of our conversation today?
Speaker 0: I think you are such a kindred spirit. And ever since I watched that video of you, you were sitting across from Eric Metaxas in which you talk about how your price is your life and how you cannot afford to surround yourself with people whose price is also not their life. And literally tears streaming down my face watching this video of you. Never in a million years did I think I'd be sitting here with you, James. So honestly, just getting to know you and to meet you has been the greatest honor.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate that. I think what you said is so important that it's the people that you surround yourself with.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the challenge, isn't it? Because you can be strong, but if people around you are not strong, then it's a huge Yeah. That's certainly a lesson that I've learned.
Speaker 0: Personnel is policy.
Speaker 1: That's a line from my old boss Morton Blackwell, the Leadership Institute. You ever heard that group before?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: He has the laws of the public policy process and one is his personnel's policy.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: He has a number of other incredible sayings, but yeah, if your price is not your life, then you are for sale, and if you have people around you that have any challenges, the enemy is going to exploit those. Yeah. So in the business that you're in, which is taking on evil of the highest form, the enemy is gonna exploit the weaknesses of the people that you surround yourself with. Mhmm. And that's going to become and speaking for myself, that has become my greatest challenge.
You know? Because the FBI, mean, everyone's afraid of the FBI. Yeah. When FBI comes a rating, you will quickly know who on your team
Speaker 0: Well, in my case, in your case, you know that you're doing something right.
Speaker 1: The FBI raided me, I went to work the next let's see, it was on a Saturday morning. On Monday morning, I went to work and I walked into the conference room and everyone was just like, what do we do now? Mhmm. It was like in one of those war movies where, like like, the captain died and the next man was up and like, everyone's like, what do we do now, sir?
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Like, everyone was just completely in a state of shock. And I think there were a number of people who, let's just say, people will do anything to protect themselves.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I think hardship, you know, has a way of refining, you know, separating the wheat from the chaff, as they say.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I wouldn't be here with the team that I have if I hadn't gone through that.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: People left my life and the people came into my life. So it's but certainly I understand what that fear feels like. I was paralyzed with fear for three days. Yeah. And many other examples like it, but certainly being going through that and seeing how do you reconcile doing the right thing with self preservation is another challenging one.
Speaker 0: Well, I think there's a temptation for you and I who we faced fear, but we didn't allow it to dominate or control our lives. You know, we didn't stay in that place of fear. We didn't live make choices from a place of fear.
Speaker 1: No. Usually usually, it's if you're only human, it's going to affect you for a little while. But for me, was one of the things that you said that really struck me was all these good people that have come into your life. Yes. You have some bad actors, but you've got some really great people that would not be in your life, but not for this happening to you.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: So that's a really hopeful message to people, and I hope that they take take that message. Unfortunately, we're not gonna do any live callers today. That's for another day, but thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 0: Thank
Speaker 1: you I for having hope everyone supports, and thank you again for coming.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I believed I had found my dream job as a pediatric nurse, but I soon witnessed troubling practices at a top children's hospital, where healthy kids were pushed into gender transitions and powerful drugs were prescribed. When I raised concerns, the FBI visited me, but I chose to speak out instead of backing down. My journey has involved activism, whistleblowing, and a commitment to safeguarding children. I've faced retaliation and false narratives, but I remain dedicated to protecting kids and advocating for ethical practices in healthcare.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Vanessa Sivadge thought she’d found her dream job as a pediatric nurse at the nation’s top children’s hospital. Instead, she says she watched doctors steer healthy kids into gender transitions, prescribing powerful drugs, billing taxpayers, and hiding it from the public. When she raised concerns, FBI agents came knocking at her door. Instead of backing down, she chose to speak out and dedicate her life to protecting children. FBI Agents Coming to Vanessa Sivadge’s Home (2:06) Ethics and Morals in Nursing (5:37) Dr. Ethan Haim Blowing the Whistle on Gender Ideology at Children’s Hospital (11:56) “What Happened to ‘Do No Harm’?” (18:00) Protesting Administering Sex Change Care to Children (22:00) Texas Children’s Hospital Committing Insurance Fraud (31:16) The Irreversible Damage of Undergoing a Sex Change (33:52) Texas Legislation on Gender Affirming Care (35:00) Who Profits From Children’s Gender Reassignment? (40:30) Going Public on Texas Children’s Hospital Committing Fraud (43:15) Finding Strength After Blowing the Whistle (44:30) Trump Administration Launches an Investigation (47:15) Activism to Remove Explicit Content from Children’s Education (55:06) Obedience Over Courage (58:44) Retaliation and False Narratives (1:01:22) Safeguarding Children Is a Bi-Partisan Concern (1:14:30) What Does Victory Look Like? (1:22:07) Advice to Potential Whistleblowers (1:25:40) “My Price Is My Life” (1:29:50) @V_Sivadge @protect_txchild Listen & Subscribe – Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vanessa Savage, a Houston pediatric nurse turned whistleblower, alleges Texas Children's Hospital secretly provided puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to underage patients and billed Medicaid, which she says violated law. After a tip prompted by Christopher Rufo, she went public about the program. Savage describes an FBI visit to her home, where agents told her she was a ‘person of interest’ in an investigation targeting a leaker who allegedly violated HIPAA. She helped document hospital’s transgender program and linked to Doctor Eitan Haim’s testimony; SB 14 banning minors from such treatments was signed into law. Savage asserts records were falsified—listing preferred gender instead of biological sex and issuing fraudulent diagnoses to obtain insurance reimbursement. She was placed on leave and fired in August 2024. She founded Protecting Texas Children and GiveSendGo and advocates legal counsel and media, stating 'If your price is not your life, then you are for sale.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I went into the room and quickly saw that this was a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity. And I look and I see that the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly. I can't believe this. You know, I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen. I had turned down a job.
And as soon as I learned the entire role was gonna be centered around providing trans care to kids, I turned it down. And I just said, don't agree with this. I'm gonna I'm gonna pass. Fraudulent going on.
Speaker 1: With this.
Speaker 0: The unholy trinity, the hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies. The FBI showed up. They found this article that I had written, which was condemning the nursing and the medical profession as a whole for caring more about their paychecks than about the lives of children. Yeah. They were, like I said, very intimidating.
They couldn't protect me unless I helped them and that my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.
Speaker 1: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back to The Price Is My Life. Today, we are joined by Vanessa Savage, a pediatric nurse turned whistleblower from Houston, Texas, who courageously revealed that Texas Children's Hospital, also known as TCH, was giving underage patients puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones and charging Medicaid for it, even though that is against the law. After being visited by two agents of the FBI, we have that in common, although the 10 agents from the FBI visited my house.
That was a very strange video. We're gonna get into that. Ultimately fired, Vanessa founded Protecting Texas Children, five zero one c three and five zero one c four organization, to safeguard children's health and innocence. And she joins us as she shares her touching testimony of faith, integrity, and bold advocacy representing the principles behind My Price Is My Life. And I wanna start by going to this start with the FBI clip.
This is the video, and we're just gonna we're gonna go back to this, but these this was, like, December 2024. Right? And Libs of TikTok posted this?
Speaker 0: It was July 2023. July. And
Speaker 1: Was it posted in December?
Speaker 0: I'm sure it was reposted.
Speaker 1: Reposted. Okay. Yeah. And these are two agents with the FBI. Yes.
Let's just watch this clip.
Speaker 2: Hello? Hi. I'm looking for Vanessa Savage. Okay. Yeah.
Over here. I'll make some of the FBI agent. Okay. This is his summit. Right.
I am busy. Okay. Nice to meet you. It's gonna be a pleasant interaction here. I need trouble.
Yes. She can talk. Okay. Alright. Hi.
Hi. How are you? She snuck up on you there. You want you want a seat tip? Are we interrupting dinner?
I'm really sorry
Speaker 0: to interrupt. What's going on?
Speaker 2: Let me start at the beginning. So I'm sure you're aware of some of the things that have been going on at your work lately.
Speaker 0: With regards to
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I gotta can I you can we sit down for a minute? Let me do my song and dance.
Speaker 1: Very strange. Very these guys are actually FBI agents?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The FBI is not sending their best. It looks like a joke.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we were completely unprepared. I mean, we were in the middle of hosting friends. This was a Monday night at 7PM. Our friends were in the kitchen wondering what was going on.
We answered the door and we just didn't come back for a little while. And you can see my husband there is just completely bewildered and just shocked because we just, you know, people tell you this is what you should do when you have a federal agent show up at your door. You know, like, mentally what you should do, but in that moment, you never think that's going to happen to you. You never think that the police state will be weaponized against someone who's done absolutely nothing wrong, which was me in my case. And
Speaker 1: Well, you asked, what is this regards to? And he he kind of was befuddled by that. And then can we just do our song and dance? It just seems so unprofessional.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's it's very manipulative. Right? They're they're putting on a front like they're your friend. Like they want they're they're acting in your best interest, which is exactly what the conversation was about.
Speaker 1: He's he's trying to suggest, oh, you know, you know what this is about, you know, but they're just not they don't seem right.
Speaker 0: It's not it's not honest. It's it's very deceptive, and that's that was really the whole interaction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, thank God you recorded it. And was there any recording after that ended? Or
Speaker 0: No. Unfortunately not.
Speaker 1: The ring ring bell camera? Or
Speaker 0: We it recorded when they left, which was also posted, but that was They a much shorter came inside for about ten minutes, and both of us were just completely terrified.
Speaker 1: Did you record that they were in your house?
Speaker 0: No. No. I mean, again, this was we were completely unprepared. We were hosting friends. Know, it
Speaker 1: Were your friends there?
Speaker 0: Oh, yes. They heard the whole thing. We have witnesses. Just it's just shocking. But unfortunately, like, this was unfortunately all too common during the Biden Harris administration.
This happened to a lot of I'm sure you you know, like a lot of conservative Christian Catholic pro life people, like, received these kind of intimidating visits. And so this was not a surprise, unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Well, we're gonna go back to that FBI clip, but let's rewind and see how things got there. That was August 2024?
Speaker 0: July.
Speaker 2: July of
Speaker 0: twenty Summer twenty
Speaker 1: of twenty three?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: '23.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You've spoken about the crisis of conscience you felt in your job at Texas Children's Hospital. Let's talk about that. What did you mean when you said this? You're a Christian, but you're also a nurse who made a commitment to do no harm through the Nightingale pledge. And I think we have a clip where you talk about the crisis of conscience that you felt.
Speaker 0: As a nurse and as someone working with not only Doctor. Roberts but with other providers as well in the clinic and really just had a crisis of conscience at one point. You know I think my faith played a huge role in that and I'm a Christian but aside from my faith I think as a nurse we go through nursing school and we learn about how to care for patients and upholding the highest standard of ethics in the in that care. And that was something that I I really felt very strongly about in my spirit that what we were doing wasn't providing long term benefit or help to these young boys and girls coming into the clinic but it was just harming them.
Speaker 1: So talk about what you mean by crisis of conscience.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Wow. Well, I graduated from nursing school in 2015. Been a nurse for ten years, and it's still, to this day, one of the most trusted professions ever. People place a great deal of confidence and trust in nurses.
And it's a profession that I cherish, and I went through a lot to get there. And, you know, in 2018, I accepted a job at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. At the time, I thought this was gonna be my dream job. Texas Children's is the number one children's hospital in The United States. It's highly prestigious.
It's consistently ranked top three in in just hospital institutions in in the country. And so anyone who works there will tell you that it is a tremendous honor to be a part of this team. And that's really how I felt for many years. You know, I worked for the first couple of years, I worked in the cardiology department. And so we were seeing the sickest patients, these babies born with congenital heart defects.
They literally their condition was incompatible with life. They were so sick. They were turning blue. They couldn't breathe. And we would take them from that state and we would do a series of surgeries and medications, we would save their life.
And so that was my background. And then a couple years later, I found myself in a clinic that was taking completely healthy patients and making them sick for life. So that's that's the contrast that I couldn't get out of my mind is that we they were the hospital was intentionally prescribing these hormones that and these cross sex hormones and puberty blockers that would have a devastating effect on these children mentally, psychologically, physically. And so that's exactly what I was seeing is in 2021 is really when this all kicked off. I was accepted a new position in a multi specialty clinic.
And this was a clinic where a number of different specialties were housed under one roof. And slowly, week after week, I started to see how healthy children were coming in through the gender clinic, once a week at least. And these these boys would slowly start to become more and more like girls, and these girls would start to develop masculine features week after week. And so there there's a my my crisis of conscience was twofold. Number one, it was a crisis of conscience intellectually because as a nurse who believes that biology matters, that following the science means something when we say that, My objection was from a biological perspective that men and women are created distinctly, beautifully, uniquely, and that those differences should be upheld, they should be affirmed, they should be defended in the nursing and in the medical profession as a whole.
But second of all, it was a spiritual objection. I'm a I'm a Christian, and so my faith informs my view that boys and girls, men and women are made in the image of God, that those differences are to be celebrated and upheld as well. And so everything that I believe stems from my my worldview and the Judeo Christian ethics. And so that was a very difficult time for me because I didn't know what to do. I was one person in this massive medical institution, a huge hospital with over 20,000 employees, endless resources, and what was I going to do about it?
I'm one person. Mhmm. And I think in that moment, God looked down from heaven. He just laughed, you know? Because God's plans for us are often so much better than our plans for us, even though we may not recognize it or see it at the time.
Right? His ways are higher. His ways are better. And so it was in May 2023 that I was sitting at work one day. After going through months and months of trying to transfer out of the clinic, trying to find a different job elsewhere, I went through all of the different ways to try to kind of shift out of that role.
And I would come home to my husband every day, almost every day, and just tell him that there was another girl I saw that was out, and parents were asking for testosterone refill. And it's this is just like debit. I mean, some people might think that that's like nothing. You just do your job and get on with it. Right?
Get on just get to get on with it and collect your paycheck at the end of the day. Right? But I had a real problem with that. Like, was I was one domino. I was facilitating this process where children were were being harmed.
And I had a real a real weight on me. And and so it was in May 2023, I was sitting at work, and I read an article by Christopher Ruffo. And he had collaborated with an anonymous whistleblower within Texas Children's Hospital. And this whistleblower had come forward and had revealed how the hospital was continuing to provide these cross sex hormones and sex change treatments to children in secret. It was secret because the hospital had scrubbed the existence of this program from their website.
There were no traces from the no evidence, no anything from the outside looking in. Someone who was on the hospital website could not see that there was a robust and very lucrative transgender program taking place within the hospital. But this whistleblower had the courage to come forward and to bring that to light.
Speaker 1: Do we know the name of the whistleblower?
Speaker 0: And Doctor. Eitan Haim, who's now gone public.
Speaker 1: So this person inspired
Speaker 0: you? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: So you would you Google this? How did you find this this Rufeld article?
Speaker 0: So it's actually someone at work sent me the article.
Speaker 1: Would that was that person at work having the same crisis of conscience you were?
Speaker 0: I would say this person was concerned about what was going on with children. And there were a few a few of them who shared some deep concerns about what was happening. But again, you you just know that if you were to speak out, if you were to say anything at all, that there would be severe consequences in retaliation.
Speaker 1: Losing your job, losing your paycheck. So you and this is we have it on the screen here. I'm an anonymous whistleblower who drew a story written by Christopher Ruffo exposed. So he actually came out publicly later on.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: He initially was
Speaker 0: He was anonymous. Anonymous.
Speaker 1: But was he retaliated against, to your knowledge, after he came out publicly?
Speaker 0: Yes. So the his story is absolutely insane. Right? The Biden Harris administration went after him, and he faced ten years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars of
Speaker 1: Under what?
Speaker 0: Right. So that's that's that's part of the story. Right? As we get into it. Right.
Speaker 1: So Let's go back to when you you saw this by Ethan Haim. Yes. And and then what happens?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So to give you some context about the state of Texas, when this whistleblower testimony came out in May 2023, s b 14 had still not been passed and signed into law.
Speaker 1: S b 14 is
Speaker 0: Which is the law that essentially made it illegal for minors under the age of 18 to receive hormones and purity blockers. It was it hadn't been passed yet. And so because of this this testimony that came out of Texas Children's, which was prompted by Doctor. Haim. He was the first one.
There were many Democrat members of the Texas House that flipped their votes upon reading what was going on inside the hospital. So that prompted a legislative change, and our our governor signed that into law a few months later. And so a few a few days after he came forward anonymously with his testimony, I just said, you know what? I I need to corroborate his account because I knew that they were gonna go after him. Whoever he was, I had no idea.
Right? He was anonymous. But I knew that I needed to come forward as from the perspective of a nurse working in the clinic that was supposedly nonexistent. I knew that was going to be powerful. And I knew that what he had done was courageous and right and true.
And so I wanted to add my voice to his. And that's exactly what I did. I contacted Christopher Ruffo. And a few days later, my anonymous testimony came came out with him. And that was supposed to be the end of the story.
Mhmm. The legislature passed the law, it was signed, and I went back to work feeling very relieved that I was no longer going to be working in a clinic where children were being irreversibly harmed. But that's not the end of the story. And two months later is when is when the FBI showed up at my house in July.
Speaker 1: That's the first time
Speaker 0: of 2023.
Speaker 1: You you the FBI showed up at your house. Nothing happened in between? This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances.
Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 833324gold. Again, that's okeifmediagold.com or 833324gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured.
This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history. Own a piece of it. The FBI showed up to your house. Nothing happened in between?
Speaker 0: No. I went back to work thinking things were gonna be fine. And no one knew my identity, no one knew I had come forward. I was totally anonymous. And I was
Speaker 1: You were anonymous
Speaker 0: to To to from the article that he had written did not contain my name on it, even though it was my testimony.
Speaker 1: So how did the FBI find out?
Speaker 0: That's a great question.
Speaker 1: Did someone tip did you tell anybody?
Speaker 0: In August 2022, I wrote an op ed for the Washington Stand called What Happened to Do No Harm? A Nurse's Firsthand View of the Transgender Craze. It's still up.
Speaker 1: Here it is. Doctors would manipulate and convince parents that gender affirming care was life saving, an interview with Vanessa Savage. What was the name of the publication?
Speaker 0: It was called What Happened to Do No Harm? But it's the publication arm of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. And so I chose to use my name on that article.
Speaker 1: So they linked this with the Christopher?
Speaker 0: We'll never know.
Speaker 1: I Pull back up the Christopher Ruffo article that you anonymously spoke spoke with. And somehow the FBI got wind of this. This is the murky business of transgender medicine. Did Texas Children's Hospital commit fraud to pay for child sex procedures? And this says 06/18/2024.
And didn't the FBI come? Right.
Speaker 0: Right. They had come a year before.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we will never know how they
Speaker 1: What do you suspect happened?
Speaker 0: I suspect that they Googled my name, and they found this article that I had written, was condemning the nursing and the medical profession as a whole for caring more about their paychecks than about the lives of children. And I was very, very direct and very blunt in this article. The other thing that I think could have influenced this is I had turned down a job previously in which all of the the responsibilities were gonna be directly related to providing transgender services for children. And I did not know this when I applied. This was something that my manager had offered to me.
And as soon as I learned that my whole the entire role was gonna be centered around providing trans care to kids, I turned it down, and I just said, I don't agree with this. I'm gonna I'm gonna pass. And that was the extent of the conversation. But my manager knew at that point that I did not agree. Did
Speaker 1: anybody else do that at your job?
Speaker 0: Do what?
Speaker 1: Protest the way that you did or say, I'm not going to do this, what you just described?
Speaker 0: Not that I know of.
Speaker 1: Did your colleagues agree with you, any of them?
Speaker 0: I was very careful who I talked about this with. Mhmm. I I I you know, people talk. Things get up the chain real quick. Mhmm.
And you just don't know who you can trust. Right? So I was very careful. There were a few that
Speaker 1: Obviously, if the FBI is coming, someone's snitching.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I don't know who. Yeah. That's a valid theory.
Speaker 1: Don't know I don't know. How is the how does the FBI have jurisdiction on this? Would it be a state issue?
Speaker 0: So and that leads back into Doctor. Haim. So when they came to my house, they told me that they that I was a person of interest in an investigation targeting a leaker, not a whistleblower, but a leaker. And in their words, he had violated HIPAA. He had broken HIPAA confidentiality laws, and they were wondering if I knew anything about it.
Speaker 1: So you were a witness in their prosecution against somebody else?
Speaker 0: Potentially.
Speaker 1: And that would have been Chaim, potentially?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Of course, I didn't know any of this at the time. Now we can kind of piece the the puzzle together and kind of figure it out. But, yeah, they were, like I said, very intimidating. They said that he had broken the law and, that they couldn't protect me unless I helped them, that I needed to co collaborating and cooperate with their investigation, and that my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.
Speaker 1: Your safety was at risk. This is the FBI told you.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: They said that in your living room?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Your safety is at risk. Yes. Going back to what you were asked to do, the things in your part of your job, like for example, you were asked to teach a patient how to administer an intramuscular injection that was estrogen to a young Yes. Would give us some more examples of the things that you were asked to do that were unconscionable to you.
Speaker 0: Yes. Absolutely. Well, nurses often I'll start with this example. Nurses often have to battle with insurance companies over the coverage of certain medications or treatments for patients. It's a very common thing.
And so one of my jobs was whenever a medication bounced back as not being covered under their insurance plan, I would have to call the insurance and get a prior authorization is what it's called. And this is just basically telling the insurance that this is medically necessary, that the doctor ordered this, that this is essential for their health and well-being. And so I I was put in a in a position where I had as part of my job to do that. It wasn't all the time. I again, I had lots of other responsibilities outside of the endocrine department, but this was one of them.
And so the idea of me picking up the phone and convincing a health insurance plan that this sweet, vulnerable 15 year old girl needs testosterone is just it just
Speaker 1: You had to convince the insurance company that it
Speaker 0: would I had to get authorization for the medication.
Speaker 1: And how would you do that theoretically on the phone with the insurance company?
Speaker 0: So sometimes they requested a doctor's signature, sometimes they requested a letter from the doctor explaining why the medication is necessary. Sometimes all they need is just to talk to a human being, a nurse on the phone, and just be like, Okay, we're going to move forward with this, we'll sign off on it, you know, rubber stamp it. But that was just one example. Right? Just the act of the the very small, but in my mind, significant task expectation, I should say, as a part of my job, that I had to advocate for these children to sterilize themselves.
Speaker 1: Like, how would that even work in practice? Like, what would you say to the insurance company?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say I would give them the reason it was it was it was prescribed. So the purpose for the medication, the reason for why it was prescribed, the length of time that the child needed to be on it. Just, you know, you're it's just a common thing. This is not just for nurses do this all the time. Right?
Speaker 1: But this was the thing that really pushed you over the edge.
Speaker 0: This, and I would say there was one other situation which you alluded to, where nurses do a lot of patient teaching in hospitals as well, and that's very common. And so this doctor providing transgender services approached me at the nurses' station and said, hey, I just finished seeing this patient. Would you mind going in there and teaching him how to administer an intramuscular injection so he can inject himself at home with the medication that I'm prescribing? I had no idea what he I mean, we do this all the time, and we don't really we don't really ask or know in in some case excuse me, in some cases. And so I went into the room and quickly saw that this was a male dressing up as a female Mhmm.
Embracing a false gender identity. And as I was kind of going through the motions of instructing him, I just thought to myself, I wonder what this is for. I wonder what this medication is for. I go back
Speaker 1: is it, by the
Speaker 0: way? Estrogen.
Speaker 1: Estrogen.
Speaker 0: And so I go back to chart, as all nurses do, and Chart? We just document. Right? We document what we've done just to there's a record. Mhmm.
And I look and I see that the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly. And I said, well, I I can't believe this. You know, I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen. So that was a real breaking point for me as well. And this just built over time, and you just get so you get so angry and so and so devastated and so sad for these patients that are believing a lie about their identity, about who God's made them to be.
Mhmm. But you have no idea what to do about it. You're one person.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 0: And you don't know the most effective way, the most the the way that would achieve justice, like true justice for them.
Speaker 1: And the thing that you did was do this anonymous whistleblowing through RUVO?
Speaker 0: Yes. So that was in May 2023. Like I said, it was completely anonymous, and I was perfectly content for it to stay that way. I had no intentions or aspirations to go public.
Speaker 1: But God had other plans.
Speaker 0: As he so often does.
Speaker 1: Yes. You wouldn't be sitting here had it stayed anonymous. Right. What would you have been doing though? You would have been kept going with your job or
Speaker 0: I probably would still be a nerd Doing this. Yes.
Speaker 1: So tell us what happened next.
Speaker 0: So in July, like I said, the FBI showed up, and the weeks that followed were a real turning point for me for me and my husband. You know, obviously, I called Christopher Rufo at
Speaker 1: Well, let's go wait. Hold on. Before we go let's go back to the FBI. Let's go back to July 2023, number five. Yep.
And this is this is your tweet. I'll never forget the day these two FBI agents came to my house in an attempt to intimidate me. I was a nurse working in. Now this tweet, you tweeted this out. Was it in July or was it later in December?
Sometime afterwards.
Speaker 0: It was sometime after.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Blue Lewis will expose the hospital.
Speaker 0: I guess it was December. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The Legal Defense Fund. You were told that you were a person of interest because of what you believed, and the HIPAA the the violation that broke HIPAA and and confidentiality laws. And and I'm I'm some more information here. We can't keep you safe unless you cooperate. And it's pretty crazy that they lodged some veiled threats at you like that.
And you didn't cooperate, though. Right?
Speaker 0: No. No. Because I ultimately, I knew that this first whistleblower, whoever he was, had done the right thing. He had come forward with the same concerns that I had. And really, just became a national story overnight that the hospital, the number one children's hospital in America, had been secretly providing transgender services to children in secret.
And that was just a it was a huge story. And I was so grateful for his for his courage and the guts that it took to do that. And he I mean, they he went through hell. Doctor. Haim has been through hell with his wife.
Speaker 1: How is he doing right now?
Speaker 0: Much better since the Trump administration has since taken off they dropped the case. Yes. And so he's doing a lot better.
Speaker 1: Until the Trump administration what but this pendulum seems to swing depending upon who's in power. How did your family react to the federal agents targeting you?
Speaker 0: I think they couldn't believe it. It's it's it's so it's something it's one thing to read about police intimidation or political persecution that happens in foreign countries and third world countries. And you never imagine that it's going to happen in Texas, in one of the reddest states in America, that they'll come to your door. You never think that that's gonna happen to you until it happens to you. Right?
And then you're I mean, my life changed forever after their visit. My my life has never looked the same.
Speaker 1: Also, just your knowledge of human nature?
Speaker 0: Or Well, I think it it just emboldened me. It it made me very angry.
Speaker 1: Were you scared for a few days? Were you terrified?
Speaker 0: I was I was scared. But more than anything, I think I was was emboldened.
Speaker 1: Emboldened. What do you mean?
Speaker 0: I think their the visit from the FBI really catapulted me into my decision to go public with my knowledge that the hospital was fraudulently billing Medicaid for sex change treatments for children. And the layers of deception that the hospital was engaged in that I had witnessed personally, I don't think I would have ever gone public with that knowledge had the FBI not come to my house.
Speaker 1: You've described children coming in with deep mental health struggles, autism, suicide, walking out with irreversible drugs. Yeah. I mean, you you you talked about the insurance fraud. Correct?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So let's talk a little bit about how that how they were doing anything fraudulent.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So first of all, it's important to paint the picture here. These children, like you said, they're deeply vulnerable. We know now that almost fifty percent of children who adopt a false identity have had some form of sexual abuse in their past. Many of them that I personally saw are most of them are girls.
They're
Speaker 1: Trying to be guys?
Speaker 0: Yes. They're deeply they're depressed. They're anxious. They're autistic. They are some many of them are just bullied in school or bullied online.
And so there's some form of vulnerability that's present in their life, whether that's abuse, whether it's bullying, or whether it's just a difficult time navigating puberty. There are just so many heartbreaking stories of children just like that. And I believe you know, as a Christian, I believe that these boys and girls are an easy target for the enemy, to come in and paint them this picture, that their confusion will be solved if they adopt this false identity, if they start taking these cross sex hormones in an attempt to erase who God has made them to be. And, of course, they're welcomed with open arms into this community of affirmation.
Speaker 1: What's the incentive for this you you called it the enemy. What's the incentive for the enemy to do that? Why does the enemy want to do that to them?
Speaker 0: Well, I think you get spiritual really quick with this question. Right? Because, I mean, the Bible tells us that he comes to steal, kill, and destroy what God is called good. And his deception started in the Garden Of Eden with Eve, when he presented a very tempting piece of fruit that and promise that she would be like God and that she would know the difference between good and evil. Technically, there was some truth embedded into that lie because the best lies are presented with just a tiny bit of truth that makes it feasible and attractive.
That's how the enemy works best, is he cloaks a lie with just enough truth to make it
Speaker 1: in this context, how does the enemy cloak this with just a nugget of truth?
Speaker 0: Well, I think in this context, children are I believe, they're manipulated and convinced into starting these medications. And they're presented this alternative life that they'll have. And at first, this alternative life, it's it's very it's great. It goes great. They love being you know, the the freedom and the the friends that they make through this transition.
Right? Like, it feels good. It it it they have all of this encouragement from all of these people. And at first, like, the physical changes that may they may have struggled with at first are suddenly not present anymore. And so for a time, they do feel that sense of enthusiasm at this new life that they're creating for themselves.
But that doesn't last long. You know, that's very short lived. And they suddenly, with time, they start to realize the decisions and the choices that they've made, that little by little become more irreversible. The longer you're on a cross sex hormone, the more irreversible the effects become. And so the enthusiasm doesn't last very long.
Speaker 1: We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth.
You, we, are the media now. So let's talk about the Texas Medicaid policy 2015 prohibiting coverage of cross sex hormones. So just tell me how this works. So it was legal or it wasn't legal?
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I'm not an attorney, but I'll tell you what I know. In 2015, Texas passed a law that essentially it's really a statute. It's the Medicaid policy in the state of Texas. And it's very clear, if you read it, that no form of gender affirmation, if you will, hormones, puberty blockers, or procedures can in any way be covered by Texas taxpayers by Medicaid.
A lot of people don't know that, right? Like, that's not a common thing that it's not as common as, say, the law that was passed two years ago by our governor banning all of these irreversible treatments, right? This is a little bit more in the weeds. And so technically, hospitals can't receive reimbursement for these services if they're billed according to this Medicaid policy. And yet, after the FBI left my home and I was forced to grapple with, well, what what do I do now?
Like, how am I going to what what am I gonna do? Like, I've done nothing wrong. I've just acted in accordance with with what I believe. I started to kind of notice some red flags at my work, and some some billing things were a little bit off. And so ultimately, I just I saw that children who either had Medicaid, CHIP, or STAR.
Speaker 1: And what's CHIP or STAR? What's the
Speaker 0: It's just a federally funded insurance program, a health insurance program for underprivileged children, supposedly. And saw that the hospital, of course, on every patient's record, you see what insurance program that they're under. And so this was very easily visible to anyone working with these patients. And so not only that, but I think it's really important to like because, of course, anyone who hears this will immediately ask, well, how did the hospital get away with this? How is it that the largest children's hospital in America was committing fraud?
And you were the only one who came out and said something about it. And I think there there's there's some there's you have to kinda get into the weeds a little bit. So first first of all
Speaker 1: Let's put the bill back up on the screen, guys, the Medicaid bill from 2015. It says makes this bill makes private let's see. Was this twenty two thousand twenty three, was this? This bill makes private health benefit plans strictly liable for the lifetime care of the patient for consequences of gender modification. So yeah.
So was this was this legal, what they were doing? I mean, continue with your analysis.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this is this is kind of answering that question. The first thing that would happen is when a child is transgender, and they're wanting to identify with the sex opposite of what they were born with, the first thing the hospital would do is instead of listing the biological sex on the chart, they would list the preferred gender identity of the patient on the official medical record. So that's falsifying the record. That's the first thing.
That's already illegal. Like, that's didn't list sex,
Speaker 1: they listed the preferred gender.
Speaker 0: Yes. And you, as the provider, you know, one of the providers caring for these patients, you would have to dig a little bit to discover that Jane was actually not Jane. She was John. Right? And she was identifying with a different name.
And so that's falsifying the record. So that's the first level. That's the first layer of deceit. The second is any patient of the gender clinic, many of them had fraudulent diagnoses. What that means is if there's, like, let's say, a 15 year old female biological female in the clinic, the chart would read that she had a testosterone deficiency.
But see, now it's not a girl that has a testosterone deficiency, it's a boy that has a So testosterone that doesn't raise any red flags.
Speaker 1: What's the example of the sort of half truths where they're
Speaker 0: relying
Speaker 1: upon a strange they're talking about it being a man, not a woman.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Would that justify drug prescriptions then?
Speaker 0: Right. Of course. And so an insurance company that receives this claim sees a boy who has a testosterone deficiency on paper. So that makes it very difficult for them to distinguish that there's anything
Speaker 1: What's the
Speaker 0: fraudulent going on?
Speaker 1: This?
Speaker 0: The unholy trinity.
Speaker 1: What's that?
Speaker 0: The hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, you may not know the answer. We can look it up. But what what drug companies were what drugs specifically, and what were those companies to your knowledge?
Speaker 0: There so puberty blockers, for instance, was Lupron is the most common one. Of course
Speaker 1: off this.
Speaker 0: Yes. Many of these drugs are used to chemically castrate sex offenders, by the way. These are drugs that are very common and well used for those purposes. So Lupron and then testosterone, whether that's injection or a pill form, and estrogen. And there's, of course, different versions of
Speaker 2: I wonder how
Speaker 0: people both of use it.
Speaker 1: People who make those products feel about this? I'm sure there are people who have a crisis of conscience just like you.
Speaker 0: Well, again, it's how you use the product, right? There are children with actual health issues that need these drugs, right, like legitimately. But it's how you use it. It's how you weaponize it for a purpose that's not meant to heal but to harm.
Speaker 1: And you also talked about lack of insurance verification safeguards. You learned something about that. Right? It's not the insurance. Medicaid and some other insurances don't have a system in place where they verify to make sure this is correct before they reimburse.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's again, that's another layer. I think there should be more oversight.
Speaker 1: Well, that's crazy. They actually put the sex they want to be, not the sex they are Right. To get the diagnosis. So you saw that. And then walk us through Yeah.
Any other fraud you witnessed.
Speaker 0: So that was so I decided to go public with that knowledge in June 2024. But several weeks prior, in May, I had submitted an official religious accommodation request to my supervisor. And I asked her to transfer out of the endocrine clinic and back towards my core competency in the cardiology clinic. This was a very reasonable request. I'm not asking for the moon.
I'm just asking to be moved from one clinic to the other. Happens all the time. And they stonewalled me. They didn't respond. They stalled.
And they did not grant my request. And a couple of weeks later, I went public with my knowledge of the fraud.
Speaker 1: While you were still employed?
Speaker 0: While I was still employed. And the the next day, the hospital called me and put me on leave. And, of course, you know, my life changed overnight at that point. At that point, everyone knew my name and knew my face and knew the story I had come out with.
Speaker 1: They put you on leave?
Speaker 0: They put me on leave.
Speaker 1: Did they send you a message or a phone call or how did it
Speaker 0: It was a phone call. Yep. We've recorded Paid all leave? Paid leave. We've recorded all of those phone calls.
And they just informed me that I was under investigation and that they would inform me next week of the following steps. And so this kind of I knew that something like this could happen, obviously. We had weighed this decision very prayerfully and very carefully. But your life just changes overnight. And this was not something that I had planned for or anticipated.
I had never spoken in public in my life. I had never given an interview. I mean, if you would have told me, I'd be sitting across from you, I would have laughed in your face.
Speaker 1: So how was that process for you? You go from being an working in a hospital to being a public figure overnight. What was that like?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was really terrifying. You know, it's I think I I really have to give credit to my husband because he was my is my rock and my greatest supporter. And he really made me just feel so empowered and encouraged to do this because we knew that this was the right thing. I couldn't do this without him.
I don't think that I would have had the inner fortitude to go through all of this if he wasn't by my side. But I had to learn very quickly how to deal with friendly media, hostile media, press. And this was all just overnight. I had to just roll with the punches. And this was just a brand it's a completely brand new world for me.
And so a couple of months later in August, I received a phone call from the hospital, and they decided to terminate my employment. So this was literally a year ago in August.
Speaker 1: August '4?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You're fired from the hospital. Yes. And then what happens?
Speaker 0: Well, we retained a really amazing group of attorneys, the Burke Law Group. We've set up a GiveSendGo where the public has been so generous in their support.
Speaker 1: How much has it raised so far?
Speaker 0: I think it's raised oh, I'd have to look. I think 70,000 or $80,000.78000
Speaker 1: dollars with a goal of $500,000 And how will these resources be used?
Speaker 0: Well, this every cent that I use will be spent on mounting a legal defense because I believe I was illegally terminated in retaliation.
Speaker 1: So you're to sue the hospital?
Speaker 0: For blowing the whistle.
Speaker 1: Yes. And what's the cause of action? Wrongful termination?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I can't speak to any legal cases right now, what we're involved in, but there is a very concerted effort on I'm very confident that my attorneys will defend me, and so we're working on those options Just right
Speaker 1: to pay attorneys?
Speaker 0: Yes, to pay to pay my attorneys.
Speaker 1: It's always the money to go pay lawyers, isn't it?
Speaker 0: Well, they're they're they are worthy of every cent. Sure. Let me tell you. They are so ferocious, and I'm very confident in their abilities.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us who they are?
Speaker 0: The Burke Law Group.
Speaker 1: Burke Law. And they're in Texas?
Speaker 0: They're in Houston, Marcella Burke. She's also also represented Doctor. Heim, Doctor. Eitan Heim. We're very
Speaker 1: filed the lawsuit yet?
Speaker 0: I can't speak to what can't speak to it. We filed or not filed.
Speaker 1: It'll be a public document once it's filed, my assumption is.
Speaker 0: Yes. What I can tell you is that there is a very public investigation by the Trump administration into Texas Children's Hospital. The Office of Civil Rights under Health and Human Services in April announced a formal investigation into then, the
Speaker 1: MacDonald is the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 0: Yes. But this is health and human services under Robert Kev under Robert Kennedy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. Have you talked to Kennedy about about HHS? Directly. Not directly.
Speaker 0: Hopefully soon.
Speaker 1: So so you've you've come out, you came out publicly, and did you do media interviews? You said you did hostile, you did friendly. What were some examples of those?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'll I'll speak vaguely. But the night before I went public in June, a very the most popular conservative TV network, I would say, that we all know, they at they were at my house the night before I went public. And we did an interview with them. In my living room, they brought their TV crew and everything. And I was just, I mean, so green.
I did not know what I was doing. I was so scared. I was so intimidated.
Speaker 1: Make you more credible, though, if you if you're not a polished
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was not polished at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, polishing can can the polished thing can come across as a little fake, in my opinion. Yeah. But so you you can you tell us who
Speaker 0: this was? I I I think people can know. When I say the most popular popular conservative TV platform, I think we all know.
Speaker 1: TV show?
Speaker 0: TV, network, news organization, They came to my house. We did a full interview sit down. And at the end of the day, that interview never got published because
Speaker 1: Never made the air.
Speaker 0: Never made the air because they did not their legal counsel had advised them not to go forward with it because of my claims against Medicaid, that my claims were not credible, potentially not credible enough for them to air it on national TV. And that I was making a huge again, this was under this is a different era. Right? Biden was president.
Speaker 1: When was that interview conducted?
Speaker 0: June 2024.
Speaker 1: June 2024 Yes. A national news organization interviewed you
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And didn't run the story?
Speaker 0: Yes. Because of my claims against relating to Medicaid fraud that the hospital had engaged in.
Speaker 1: Is that what you said?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And
Speaker 0: That's what they said that they didn't run it. Why? And and I didn't want them to run the story without including that. That was the most pivotal part of the story, the most important part, and they didn't wanna talk about it. And so I said, well, that's fine.
Then don't air it.
Speaker 1: Well, sometimes it's like, it's not that what you're saying is false. It's that what you're saying is true. And the more true it gets, oftentimes, the worse it gets for the people in power. So that how did you feel after that happened, Or how much time passed before they told you they weren't gonna air the story?
Speaker 0: It was a few days later. We just got word through my attorneys who had, you know, heard from their legal counsel that they wanted to run the story, but they were going to do it without that portion where I talked about the Medicaid fraud. And I just said, I'd rather not air it at all if you're not going to talk about the most important part of this.
Speaker 1: And that that fraud claim was based upon what specific piece of evidence that you witnessed. You've talked about it today. But the Medicaid fraud, was was it based upon they were misgendering the people, and it was that justification?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was it was everything. And I I can't get too deeply into this because this wades into legal waters, which I've been counseled very strictly to not to not dive into the specific evidence. But I just talk about yeah. I can talk about what I saw, right?
What I saw was they incorrectly labeling patients the incorrect They were misdiagnosing patients intentionally with the purpose of avoiding detection by insurance. And then they were prescribing these cross sex hormones and puberty blockers and billing it to Texas Medicaid, which is illegal and has been since 2015. So it layers of deceit and fraud that just compounded on each other. And I knew when I realized that this was being billed to the Texas taxpayer that I had to come forward.
Speaker 1: So they they you know, and and and in terms of your lawsuit, I mean, at some point, if you you don't have to get into it. But if you do sue them, that that that's gonna be quite a quite a battle. It's gonna be a public battle. It's gonna be in court. It's gonna go through discovery.
Are you prepared to go through all that?
Speaker 0: I have the best team of attorneys in the world.
Speaker 1: Understood. And also just fighting that fighting the the enemy. I mean, you're going after the the belly of the beast.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They're gonna deny everything.
Speaker 0: They're gonna
Speaker 1: attack you personally.
Speaker 0: Yep. They sure will.
Speaker 1: And the more it seems like the more successful you will be in your quest, the the more difficult it will be on you and your family. Have you thought about that? I
Speaker 0: I'm not doing any of this for, like, the applause of man or potential rewards that may or may not come in the future. I don't that's really not what drives me.
Speaker 1: What drives you?
Speaker 0: I am here for the applause of God. I live for the applause of God. And so if I can please him, then I would have fulfilled what I what I've set out to do.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it's it's it takes a toll on it. That does takes a toll, doesn't it? So far, is it taking a toll on you?
Speaker 0: I think I know that this is what I was born to do. I know that this is my purpose. And now I'm leading this amazing organization called Protecting Texas Children and focusing on safeguarding children's innocence, their health, their future. So that brings me a tremendous amount of fulfillment and purpose and satisfaction.
Speaker 1: When did you start this organization?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We are a brand new organization. We launched just this past year in January. And I am now kind of wading into Texas politics for the first How's time
Speaker 1: that going?
Speaker 2: Oh, it's going.
Speaker 0: I can tell you.
Speaker 2: I'm very green. So I'm very green to the to the Texas political space. And you're
Speaker 1: a c three and a c four, so
Speaker 0: you're
Speaker 1: trying to lobby to a certain extent the laws of Texas to change. Yeah. What is what is your goal this year with your nonprofit?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this past spring was our Texas legislative session. So I was there every week in Austin testifying in favor of bills that would protect children's mental, emotional, or physical health. There's a number of bills that fall under that category, but I really just focus on the bills that have to do with gender or identity or sex identity or making sure men are not invading women's spaces or sports or just anything related to biological sex or gender identity is kind of where we focus the most on. We're very biblically based.
We just launched a new project called Behind the Shelves. And this is a project just this past week that exposes the dirty and pornographic books found in Texas school libraries. And it teaches and empowers parents on how to get them removed from the shelves. And so part of safeguarding the innocence of children starts with safeguarding what they're reading, what they're exposed to at the library, which should be the safest place where they should learn and grow. But unfortunately, many times it's not.
Speaker 1: So there's pornographic books in library in school libraries?
Speaker 0: Yes. Hundreds and hundreds of books, not just one or two books. We have on our Protecting Texas Children website, we have a list of over 900 books that contain some form of pornography. Some of them have QR codes that lead children straight to sex shops and orgies. Some of them teach children how to commit suicide, how to kill their teacher, how to kill parents.
Speaker 1: Books and libraries.
Speaker 0: Yes. And you know, you think that in Texas, this should not be happening, right? A lot of people think, well, I live in a rural community. I live in a small town. Surely this isn't happening here.
Speaker 1: This is this is your bad book list? Yeah. You've you've got A Clockwork Orange. That's the book made into a movie by Stanley Kubrick, author Anthony Burgess on on your list. Game of Thrones.
I mean, mean, I mean, a critic would say, isn't this tantamount to censorship and
Speaker 0: Well, we're not trying to get anything censored. We want these books removed from the children's section. These books should not be accessible to children in the What children's age? These there's multiple varying ages starting from, like, three all the way to high school. Mhmm.
Different books fall into different categories.
Speaker 1: Is do kids even go into the library of school anymore? Is it all on the iPad and the Internet now?
Speaker 0: That's what I thought too until I went to a library with Bonnie Wallace, who we've partnered with. She has provided a lot of these resources to us. And we stood outside of the Allen Public Library in Texas, and we watched and and just stood out there and presented parents with this information, these books that children have access to check out. You would not believe the number of parents that defended this kind of material to us. They said that it's necessary reading, that it's their First Amendment rights to read this.
You would not believe the number of parents that defended the access to this kind of content. I was shocked because prior to this, I hadn't stepped into a library in years. And so this is just one thing that Protecting Texas Children is now embarking on.
Speaker 1: How many employees do you have?
Speaker 0: Just me.
Speaker 1: Just you?
Speaker 0: I have a team behind me that helps me with all the the back work, but I'm the face of it.
Speaker 1: After you did this, did people reach out to you? Did you get a lot of messages from people like you going through something like you went through, inspired by you?
Speaker 0: Yes. From all over the world, people people reached out. It's been and and really what going back to your question of how are you dealing with this, I think hearing from people all over the world who are encouraged or inspired by the steps I've taken, that's made so much that's made all the difference for me. And just feeling supported by people who have either walked through similar things or are just supporting financially or whatever they can do. You know, it's just such an honor.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, are afraid of retaliation, losing their jobs, losing their income, so they go along with it. And what did what was the thing that these people were telling you that they were most inspired by?
Speaker 0: I think it all had to do with just not being afraid. I think I think we're all afraid. But my fear of God is greater than my fear of man at the end of the day. That's just what it boils down to for me. And by the way, I was afraid.
Like, I don't want anyone to watch this and think that there weren't moments of actual fear and trepidation and, like, breaking down and crying. You know, absolutely, I had those moments, you know? But at the end of the day, like, I just know my why, and I know my my purpose for why I have done the things I've done. I my my motivation is is not to to please man. Like, I'm not here to make anyone happy.
You know, as much as I love making people happy, right, it's to please God.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's the that's the kind of litmus test for people who are gonna be successful as whistleblowers, their fear of God versus their fear of man? Is that what it's going to take?
Speaker 0: I think that's one piece of it. And, you know, the other thing for for me as I weighed this prior to to going public is, you know, so many people said, you're so courageous. You're so brave. Right? And I think that courage is there there is a small part of it that is courage.
But for me as a as a follower of Christ, as a Christian, it was more so about obedience than it was about courage. Was I going to be obedient to what God had asked me to do? To expose, as it says in Ephesians, which is like my life verse, take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness, but expose them, for everything exposed by the light becomes visible. That's a very strong language. There's no wiggle room in there.
And I took that very literally. And so the path that God placed in front of me demanded that I take no part in what was going on and expose it.
Speaker 1: So you viewed it more as obedience than courage. Yeah. I mean, some people say it's not so much that you are not afraid, it's that you act despite despite your fear.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: What were you most afraid of? Because you did say that you were scared, you experienced fear. What was the fear?
Speaker 0: I think I was I was afraid at first that the FBI would come back.
Speaker 1: You were afraid of the FBI coming back? Yeah. What about the FBI coming back made you afraid?
Speaker 0: Well, again, you have to remember I was watching Doctor. Haim's case in real time. I was watching what they were doing to him and how they were coming to his home at 05:00 in the morning armed and serving him with all kinds of threats and indictments. And you know, this was playing out nationally. And so I I was very aware that some something similar could be fabricated, concocted against me if I didn't play ball, if I didn't be quiet.
Speaker 1: Well, speak speaking for myself, I was afraid of for example, I don't like being in in in jail. And I and that sounds like, you know, we all are not afraid of being jail. But for me, I guess it's like, don't like being handcuffed. I don't like being confined. I don't like being in a cell.
Speaker 0: Right. Orange is not your color, James.
Speaker 1: Orange is not my color.
Speaker 0: It's not not mine either.
Speaker 1: Orange is the new black. I I was a federal federal jumpsuit. I've been there. But for me, the very I'm just asking a very specific question because I think it's I think it's enlightening to people to practice introspection and examine what exact I always say, like, what are we actually afraid of? Mhmm.
I was talking to an evangelical pastor about this, and the question he said, I've never been asked that question. So I'm asking you, and I'll go first. For me, what was the fear of being confined in a jail cell? And I say, why am I afraid of that? Like, what about that makes me afraid?
But I was just I don't like being you know, your hands are behind your back. You can't scratch your face.
Speaker 0: You're out of control. You're not in control.
Speaker 1: You know? And and and I had to wrestle with that fear.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I had to come to peace with that perhaps coming to fruition.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And learn to learn to temper whatever it was about me that led me to be afraid of that thing, like a fear of spiders or a fear of heights. You just have to confront it. Yeah. So what what I was afraid of Mhmm. The night after the FBI visited me Yeah.
And the fear lasted three days, was being in a holding cell in the Southern District Of New York with my hands behind my back for twenty four hours. I just had a fear of that specific thing. So for you and I asked for a specific reason because you're a Christian, you fear God, not man. By the way, Jody O'Malley said that exact same thing to me four years ago. Another whistleblower who blew a on HHS.
Said, I fear God, not man. For you, what was it about the FBI coming back or the indictments or what the other guy went through that made you feel fear?
Speaker 0: Man, that's a great question. I think them concocting a story that was false about me. I think them them driving an untrue narrative of the events that had happened to slander me, to slander my character, my motives, my intentions, that gave me pause. Because, you know, they can fabricate anything they want. Right?
Like, They usually do. Right. Right.
Speaker 1: So it was the was the the slandering of your of your reputation. And was that just to the public writ large or to in a in a case or both? Which were you more afraid of?
Speaker 0: I think at that point, it was the public at large since I had just gone public and was very new to this world. It's a different
Speaker 1: variable when you're a public figure. Yeah. Because you're playing this game of public perception.
Speaker 0: Right. The court of public opinion.
Speaker 1: Versus and and to a certain extent, the court of public opinion influences justice.
Speaker 0: Right. Right. Exactly.
Speaker 1: Which it shouldn't. Right. But it often does. So is that it was the defamation of your character publicly?
Speaker 0: I would say so. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Looking back, what is the greatest price you've paid? You are on a show called The Price
Speaker 0: of Yeah. Your I should have anticipated this question.
Speaker 1: You haven't given up your life, but but what price have you paid so far?
Speaker 0: You know, I I I don't part of me kind of cringes at this question because it makes me look like a victim. And I don't view myself as a victim. I view the children who've been exploited and manipulated and lied to as the victims. So they're the true victims in this story. Mhmm.
I I think when everything is said and done, like, I've maybe I've I've lost some friendships, some, you know, some family and friends very close to me. But that's such a I mean, again, that's such a small price to pay for friends? I think coming forward and and bringing something like this to light, even though it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with right or left. Just being a truth teller, like like you talk about, you know, it it has a way of dividing people.
Speaker 1: It sure does.
Speaker 0: And so you so you could argue, like, no, they weren't they weren't really my friends, but I, you know, it's like I I I pray for them. Like, I'm not I don't have any kind of bitterness or
Speaker 1: wanna be hateful.
Speaker 0: No. And it's
Speaker 1: forgive them, but perhaps
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's a difference between forgiveness in the Christian sense, which is a 100% necessary. But you don't wanna forget because you don't want to become friends with someone like that from my perspective. Yeah. Like when I was fired from Project Veritas Yeah. People say, but weren't some of those people your friends?
And I said, evidently not. He said, I was once blind, but now I see. Yeah. So for me, there's difference in forgiveness and forgetting in the sense of
Speaker 0: Yeah. They're they're not the same thing.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: But I would just ask the question, were those people really your friends if something like this would would cause a rift between you and them?
Speaker 0: Probably not.
Speaker 1: Because a lot of people told me they fear losing their friends, and I would say, well, what? Why would a friend leave you as a friend just because you're telling the truth about about
Speaker 0: But, you know, the just just to kind of wrap this this kind of this good question you've asked, I think the friends that I've gained and the people I've met through this journey far outweigh anything that I could have ever, you know, imagined losing.
Speaker 1: And that's not a price. That's a blessing.
Speaker 0: Right. Right.
Speaker 1: That's an addition into your life.
Speaker 0: Right. Oh, it's been such a tremendous blessing. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you get a lot of DMs or or on on social media from from people?
Speaker 0: Do you check them all? I do. I do. I do read them. Yeah.
Some of them are not very nice.
Speaker 2: Is it? But most most of them are nice.
Speaker 1: You mean attacking you?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: What percentage of them attack you?
Speaker 0: It's a it's a it's a minor. It's it's not it's minor percentage. It's not a lot.
Speaker 1: A lot of people might say, you know, they might they're they're gonna be watching this, and and they listen to stories like Aaron Vecchi and and
Speaker 0: Yes. I watch that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Vecchi is a great guy. He he's his he had this thing called the religion of apathy, which I thought was very profound. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I've never heard it said like that. It's almost like you what you're doing, I think you make certain people feel deeply insecure about what they're not doing.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And there I mean, that's a good question. Is there are there nurses out there? Have you received any messages? Are are you aware of any messages from people in the medical field who almost resent you because you're doing you're you're you're you're demonstrating a virtue that they're not. Maybe you make them feel insecure or inferior.
I don't know if you've seen that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. There there hasn't been I think I think in a couple of years, those I I might start to see more of those messages or those that kind of sentiment come through. It's still very, very new. Like, it's kind of the story is still kind of fresh. I've only been public for a year.
And so, yeah, 99% of my coworkers, I've never seen them or spoken with them again. They did not reach out or anything after my story went public. And I think it's there there is that religion of apathy, but it's also, again, their fear of what could happen to them Mhmm. If they were to speak out. And I I lived in that space for I mean, I I have compassion towards those people who are kind of kind of living kind of working in an environment that is hostile to what they believe.
I have a tremendous amount of compassion for them. I I was very, very blessed and fortunate to have the support of Christopher Rufo, who then, of course, connected me with the people I'm not connected to. And so How
Speaker 1: did you reach out to Chris?
Speaker 0: I just I called him. I was terrified.
Speaker 1: You just called his cell phone or
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, we again, we had collaborated on the story. So
Speaker 1: But how did you initially meet him?
Speaker 0: When he when he published Doctor. Haim's anonymous testimony, I had reached out on his website and just said, I'm a nurse working in this clinic, that you've you know, this has just come to light. I would like to talk to you about it.
Speaker 2: I think
Speaker 1: well, the reason I asked the question is because we get, you know, a 100 over a 100 inquiries a day. Yeah. Sometimes even more than that. And what I always say is for people watching is your your reach out to Chris Rufo, you probably articulated it in a in a succinct
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Clear way.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And that's how you're gonna get through to one of these high profile people.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Is if if people out there have a story and you wanna reach out
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: To either of us, state your case, one paragraph or two.
Speaker 0: Give your elevator pitch.
Speaker 1: Here's here's what I've got. Here's my story. Here's my thing. Because sometimes people send these long 20 page things and they throw Yep. A thousand documents at me.
I don't think the if the whistleblower or the truth teller can't tell the
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Doesn't understand the truth themselves, how would they expect me to Yes. To unpack it all? That's why
Speaker 0: I asked the question. Was a writer. And so that was that was really helpful when I came forward is I had obviously written this article for the Washington Stand in which a lot of these sentiments and thoughts that I had already expressed them and was not afraid to do that. And so, no, but I mean, nothing but wonderful things to say about Christopher Rufo. He's
Speaker 1: amazing. I was at the in 2017, Rufo and I were part of the Claremont Institute Yes. Fellows program.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: He was a very smart, quiet, eccentric, but Yeah. Brilliant man.
Speaker 0: I hope to meet him someday. I still haven't met him. Yeah.
Speaker 1: He's at the Manhattan Institute.
Speaker 0: Yes. Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere.
The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold.
They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis.
Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324 gold. Again, that's okeifmediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe.
Don't just watch history. Own a piece of it. Well, you you mentioned it's not left or right, and I agree with you. I don't think this fight is Democrat or Republican, although people frame it that way. Yeah.
But it also is perhaps spiritual, God versus the godless, good versus evil. I mean, how is your faith or has your faith been tested at all through this process?
Speaker 0: Oh my goodness. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Tell me about that.
Speaker 0: Well, so several months ago in April, I was invited to testify before Congress. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, chaired by Chairman Chip Roy. I think that was probably the scariest, most intimidating thing I've ever done.
Speaker 1: Why is that?
Speaker 0: You know, you just you don't know what they're gonna ask you or throw at you. You're you know, especially the Democrats on this committee are very hostile and Attack you personally. Yeah. Yeah. And and I had watched examples of this, you know, and knew exactly what it probably was going to be like.
And so I, you know, I I was just, first of all, very honored to to be able to to do this with Doctor. Hine. And I I thought for sure, in my very, very green and naive political mind, that some of the Democrats on this committee would come armed with, like, really difficult questions that would really just throw me for a loop and stump me. Like, I'd never thought about this angle or you know? And would you would you believe what what happened?
They they just repeated the same Trump, anti Trump talking points over and over till they were blue in the face. They had no original thoughts. They did not come armed with even remotely complex or complicated did. Mary Scanlon, who is a congresswoman, led me down a line of questioning in which she attempted to discredit my credentials as a registered nurse. She said she started by saying, are you a psychologist?
Are you a psychiatrist? Are you a doctor? And, of course, the answer to all of those is no. I'm a nurse, and I told her, and I have common sense, and I know the difference between right and wrong.
Speaker 1: This is in this is in Congress in DC?
Speaker 0: Yes. And of course, like
Speaker 1: I'd like to see that clip. You guys can pull it up while we're talking.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think I posted it on my Twitter at some point. But
Speaker 1: So Scanlan's cross examining you.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And and this is in the context of me asking you the question, how was your faith tested? So was was it just in the sense that you were being personally targeted?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I think, you know, like, my credentials were called into question, which is, I think, a very common tactic that the left uses when they can't engage with you logically or reasonably.
Speaker 1: You a psychologist? Yeah. Or, you know, do you you know? But did she address the fraudulent you know, this this business of No. Misgendering?
Did they address that? Yeah.
Speaker 0: They just That's reflect not something that is beneficial politically beneficial for them to even engage with. Right?
Speaker 1: But this was one of the hardest things you had to go through was that moment in space and time with scandal.
Speaker 0: Well, I think leading up to this this event and this this opportunity, I think I was just very this is testifying before elected officials in Congress,
Speaker 1: which I under oath.
Speaker 0: And I'm under oath, and I've never done this before. And I feel very intimidated and just unsure of myself, I think. And so I think this is just one example of, I think I think after this, my my confidence was
Speaker 1: That's quite a Rubicon. I don't I only think I've done it once before a subcommittee, and there weren't any Democrats on the panel. But I know what you're talking about. I know what you mean because I've been through mean, the George Stephanopoulos interview I did in 2010 on live television in front of 10,000,000 people with Andrew Breitbart. I remember Stephanopoulos just cross examining me
Speaker 0: like a
Speaker 1: little weasel. Yeah. And I remember how it feels. You're putting yourself out there like a piece of meat to the wolves.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's exactly what it felt like.
Speaker 1: Just like they're gonna target me with this innuendo and this mendacity and I just have to be strong. It takes a lot to endure that. Most people that do that are professionals.
Speaker 0: It's more about the fear of the unknown. Right? This is something that you don't know what they're going to use to to use against you. And so it's more in that moment that you have to react and you have to do it well. And Most people fear shame,
Speaker 1: I think was it
Speaker 0: Or embarrassment. Just Yeah. Being
Speaker 1: Public
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: This Mel Gibson said, most people fear public embarrassment and public humiliation, public shame, which is if you're a good person, if you're a Christian, which you are, I mean, none of us all of us are sinners, though, and all of us make mistakes.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So they will hang us upon the cross of ourselves. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: So
Speaker 1: it's Saul Alinsky said in Rules for Radicals, make the Christians live up to their own book of rules.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Well, he's not wrong.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So they can try to do that to you. And how did it go with Scanlon?
Speaker 0: I think I made my point very clear, which was that you don't have to have credentials to know the difference between right and wrong to know the difference between male and female, that everyone who has a brain can identify that men and women are
Speaker 1: Oh, we have the clip. How long is the clip? Five minutes? Just five minutes long. Maybe we can go to go to the part where she's maybe
Speaker 0: At very end. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Fast forward like three minutes. This is you in the subcommittee. You must have your adrenaline must have been off the charts.
Speaker 0: Off the charts.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Check this out. Let's get some sound on here.
Speaker 0: I think this is probably my opening statement.
Speaker 1: Let's fast forward a little bit longer after the opening
Speaker 0: It's like the very last two minutes of the entire hearing is when I get a chance to respond.
Speaker 2: Yeah. We were only able
Speaker 1: to pull that five minutes.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 0: That's fine.
Speaker 1: Just the five minutes of the statement? Oh, that's alright. We don't have the cross examination. That's okay. Your adrenaline was off the charts.
And and then and then when you were done, so your your faith was a little tested there?
Speaker 0: I would say that's, yeah, I would say that's a good example. I'm trying to think of other examples to share.
Speaker 1: It might be good training for people to, you know, just to hear that and hear how you what would be the what would be the the best advice you'd give to someone in your position there?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I would say that when you're cross examined by the opposing side, don't let them lead you down a line of questioning that's meant to embarrass you. You have to stop the train. You can't you have to you have to change the narrative so that they can't make their point to to embarrass you, which is what they were trying to do. But that takes that takes some skill.
You have you have to think really quickly on your feet.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. What does victory look like to you in this fight? What is your goal? Let's say your five year goal. What's victory look like?
Speaker 0: Wow. There's like tears of this. I would like the doctors that were harming patients in the transgender clinic at Texas Children's to lose their medical license. I would like for them to never practice medicine again. I would like for my story and this case to be a warning to all the other hospitals who are billing Medicaid falsely for sex change treatments for kids, which, by the way, the Trump administration last week just announced that they're proposing a guidance that would strip hospitals of Medicaid reimbursement should they provide these services.
So I think the Trump administration is already light years ahead of where we were.
Speaker 1: So you're looking for accountability?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You think it'll come?
Speaker 0: I think it will come eventually. I think we've made huge strides just in a few years.
Speaker 1: Do you think those FBI agents support this puberty blocking, sex change stuff? I know it's a weird question that you probably don't know the answer to, but I'm just asking the question aloud. Like Mhmm. Do the agents just doing their jobs, were they just following orders? They seem pretty just seem pretty nasty in their Or do they actually support puberty blockers and what's happening?
Speaker 0: I don't think we'll ever know that specifically. But what I can tell you is that the agent that was speaking to me in that video is the same agent who knocked on Doctor. Haim's door and served him with the indictment. We know that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: And so you can draw your own conclusions from from that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You could draw your conclusions, but I wonder I wonder if he has a a seared conscience. I wonder if he's a Christian. I don't know the answer to that question. It'd be interesting to do a where are they now series and find out because he's currently working for the Department of Justice as an FBI agent.
Speaker 0: I wonder what
Speaker 1: Kesh Patel thinks.
Speaker 0: We'll see.
Speaker 1: You talked to Kash Patel?
Speaker 0: I have not.
Speaker 1: Everyone always asks me if I've spoken to Kash Patel. Do you know Kash Patel? Call Kash.
Speaker 0: Call Kash. It's so easy. 100 Kash.
Speaker 1: I say this every show. I'm gonna say it again. If the administration of justice depends upon us as individuals reaching out to the director of the FBI to solve each and every injustice in this country, we have a problem. We have a huge problem. Because the pendulum will flow, we'll go back.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: There won't be a permanent Republican majority in Right.
Speaker 0: Well, mean, what I mean by that is now we have almost half of the states have passed some form of laws prohibiting, you know, gender
Speaker 1: There does seem to be a
Speaker 0: So so that so what I'm what I'm trying to say is that we're seeing a we're seeing a trend in the right direction.
Speaker 1: But we're seeing a trend in the wrong direction from what I've heard and read, when it comes to just testosterone in men generally.
Speaker 0: Oh, That's a separate matter. Separate issue.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But For But that does seem to be an issue within the genders. And what advice would you give to the American people, and there's a lot of this, who see the wrongdoing on the on the scale that you have seen it, perhaps not specifically in this particular topic, but just generally, but they're afraid to take action. What's your advice to them?
Speaker 0: Just someone who's contemplating coming forward and blowing the whistle? Is that what you Correct. Okay. Yes, two things. I would say before you blow the whistle, make sure that you've spoken with legal counsel.
There are and people will say, well, can't afford that. I can't do that. You know? No. Like, I think that now more than ever, there are organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom and organizations like that that are on your side.
Like, they want to help people who have legitimate concerns about whatever they're witnessing at their workplace. So I couldn't have done that without my counsel. I would not be in this situation or What did place you I'm
Speaker 1: reach out to in your case?
Speaker 0: I was connected with Marcella Burke.
Speaker 1: Through whom?
Speaker 0: Through a series of mutual connections.
Speaker 1: So one is contact legal counsel, the second?
Speaker 0: I would say utilize friendly media to your advantage. I would say I had a I don't think just average, everyday people know that there's journalists with integrity who are wanting to share good, you know, just wanting to share truth, honestly, is what it boils down to. That's something that as I just had no idea that that whole world when I was working as a nurse, just didn't know. And I think a lot of people don't know. And so I think you need to get out of your comfort zone a little bit and reach out to those people because there are amazing and wonderful people out there.
Speaker 1: Are some of the most admirable? You mentioned Christopher Beau. Name a few good ones.
Speaker 0: You want me to name drop people?
Speaker 1: Compliment people. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking you to name drop the bad That's what I do for a living.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll name drop two friends of mine because they'll appreciate this. Caroline Downey, National Review. She wrote a really great piece on the DEI culture at Texas Children's in addition to their training on gender fluidity and all of that in the days following my going public. She's a great ally and a great friend, and I appreciate her.
And Mary Margaret Ole Hahn, who is now the White House chief correspondent from the Daily Wire, has also written some really good articles that really were it was just great to have friends in media when I was going public.
Speaker 1: Well, our time is coming to a close here. Name your nonprofit organization again, how people can get in touch with you.
Speaker 0: Yes. It's Protecting Texas Children. Our website is protectingtexaschildren.com. And we're on Twitter and Facebook and would love for people to sign up and follow along. And people can just find me on Twitter.
Speaker 1: And your GiveSendGo page again?
Speaker 0: Yes. It's GiveSendGo, and it's nursewhistleblower.
Speaker 1: Nursewhistleblower. I understand that these proceeds will help your legal defense fund in order to file a wrongful discrimination lawsuit against the hospital and generally hold those who did this to you accountable. Correct?
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna borrow a Mike Malice line. What was your favorite part of our conversation today?
Speaker 0: I think you are such a kindred spirit. And ever since I watched that video of you, you were sitting across from Eric Metaxas in which you talk about how your price is your life and how you cannot afford to surround yourself with people whose price is also not their life. And literally tears streaming down my face watching this video of you. Never in a million years did I think I'd be sitting here with you, James. So honestly, just getting to know you and to meet you has been the greatest honor.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate that. I think what you said is so important that it's the people that you surround yourself with.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the challenge, isn't it? Because you can be strong, but if people around you are not strong, then it's a huge Yeah. That's certainly a lesson that I've learned.
Speaker 0: Personnel is policy.
Speaker 1: That's a line from my old boss Morton Blackwell, the Leadership Institute. You ever heard that group before?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: He has the laws of the public policy process and one is his personnel's policy.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: He has a number of other incredible sayings, but yeah, if your price is not your life, then you are for sale, and if you have people around you that have any challenges, the enemy is going to exploit those. Yeah. So in the business that you're in, which is taking on evil of the highest form, the enemy is gonna exploit the weaknesses of the people that you surround yourself with. Mhmm. And that's going to become and speaking for myself, that has become my greatest challenge.
You know? Because the FBI, mean, everyone's afraid of the FBI. Yeah. When FBI comes a rating, you will quickly know who on your team
Speaker 0: Well, in my case, in your case, you know that you're doing something right.
Speaker 1: The FBI raided me, I went to work the next let's see, it was on a Saturday morning. On Monday morning, I went to work and I walked into the conference room and everyone was just like, what do we do now? Mhmm. It was like in one of those war movies where, like like, the captain died and the next man was up and like, everyone's like, what do we do now, sir?
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Like, everyone was just completely in a state of shock. And I think there were a number of people who, let's just say, people will do anything to protect themselves.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I think hardship, you know, has a way of refining, you know, separating the wheat from the chaff, as they say.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I wouldn't be here with the team that I have if I hadn't gone through that.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: People left my life and the people came into my life. So it's but certainly I understand what that fear feels like. I was paralyzed with fear for three days. Yeah. And many other examples like it, but certainly being going through that and seeing how do you reconcile doing the right thing with self preservation is another challenging one.
Speaker 0: Well, I think there's a temptation for you and I who we faced fear, but we didn't allow it to dominate or control our lives. You know, we didn't stay in that place of fear. We didn't live make choices from a place of fear.
Speaker 1: No. Usually usually, it's if you're only human, it's going to affect you for a little while. But for me, was one of the things that you said that really struck me was all these good people that have come into your life. Yes. You have some bad actors, but you've got some really great people that would not be in your life, but not for this happening to you.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: So that's a really hopeful message to people, and I hope that they take take that message. Unfortunately, we're not gonna do any live callers today. That's for another day, but thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 0: Thank
Speaker 1: you I for having hope everyone supports, and thank you again for coming.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I had to advocate for a 15-year-old girl to receive testosterone, and it was heartbreaking to realize I was facilitating a process that could lead to her sterilization. When asked about my breaking point, I recounted a moment when I taught someone how to administer an intramuscular injection, only to discover it was estrogen. It hit me hard that I was helping someone erase their identity with this treatment.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
“I had to call the insurance company and convince them this sweet, vulnerable 15-year-old girl needs testosterone… just the act of advocating for these children to sterilize themselves was devastating.” @V_Sivadge recalls the moment she realized what was happening in her role and why she could no longer stay silent. @JamesOKeefeIII asks: “What was the breaking point for you?” Sivadge responds: “I went into the room and taught him how to administer an intramuscular injection… then I saw the chart and realized it was estrogen. I couldn’t believe it — I had literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen.” @protect_txchild Listen & Subscribe – Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker describes tasks that felt unconscionable: nurses often battle insurance coverage and must call to obtain a prior authorization, telling the insurer the medication is medically necessary; 'the medication bounced back as not being covered... I would have to call the insurance and get a prior authorization.' She recalls advocating for children, including 'to sterilize themselves.' A doctor asked her to teach a patient how to administer an intramuscular injection so he could inject himself with a prescribed medication—estrogen. She discovered the patient was 'a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity.' After checking the chart and seeing the estrogen order, she says, 'I can't believe this. ... I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen.' This became a breaking point, as she felt anger, devastation, and sadness for patients 'believing a lie about their identity, about who God's made them to be.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Going back to what you were asked to do, the things in your part of your job, like, for example, you were asked to teach a patient how to administer an intramuscular injection that was estrogen to a young boy. Yes. What would Give us some more examples of the things that you were asked to do that were unconscionable to you.
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely. Well, nurses often I'll start with this example. Nurses often have to battle with insurance companies over the coverage of certain medications or treatments for patients. It's a very common thing. And so one of my jobs was whenever a medication bounced back as not being covered under their insurance plan, I would have to call the insurance and get a prior authorization is what it's called.
And this is just basically telling the insurance that this is medically necessary, that the doctor ordered this, that this is essential for their health and well-being. And so I I was put in a in a position where I had as part of my job to do that. It wasn't all the time. I again, I had lots of other responsibilities outside of the endocrine department. But this was one of them.
And so the idea of me picking up the phone and convincing a health insurance plan that this sweet, vulnerable 15 year old girl needs testosterone is just just
Speaker 0: You had to convince the insurance company that it
Speaker 1: would I had to get authorization for the medication.
Speaker 0: And how would you do that theoretically on the phone with the insurance company?
Speaker 1: So sometimes they requested a doctor's signature, sometimes they requested a letter from the doctor explaining why the medication is necessary. Sometimes all they need is just to talk to a human being, a nurse on the phone, and just be like, Okay, we're going to move forward with this, we'll sign off on it, you know, rubber stamp it. But that was just one example. Right? Just the act of the the very small, but in my mind, significant task expectation, I should say, as a part of my job, that I had to advocate for these children to sterilize themselves.
Speaker 0: Like how would that even work in practice? Like what would you say to the insurance company?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would say I would give them the reason it was it was it was prescribed. So the purpose for the medication, the reason for why it was prescribed, the length of time that the child needed to be on it. Just, you know, you're it's just a common thing. This is not just for nurses do this all the time. Right?
Speaker 0: But this was the thing that really pushed you over the edge.
Speaker 1: This, and I would say there was one other situation which you alluded to, where nurses do a lot of patient teaching in hospitals as well, and that's very common. And so this doctor providing transgender services approached me at the nurses' station and said, hey, I just finished seeing this patient. Would you mind going in there and teaching him how to administer an intramuscular injection so he can inject himself at home with the medication that I'm prescribing? I had no idea what he I mean, we do this all the time, and we don't really we don't really ask or know in in some case excuse me, in some cases. And so I went into the room and quickly saw that this was a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity.
And as I was kind of going through the motions of instructing him, I just thought to myself, I wonder what this is for. I wonder what this medication is for. I go back What medication is it, by the way? Estrogen.
Speaker 0: Estrogen.
Speaker 1: And so I go back to chart, as all nurses do. Chart. We just document, right? We document what we've done just to there's a record. Mhmm.
And I look and I see that the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly. And I said, well, I can't believe this. You know, I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen. So that was a real breaking point for me as well. And this just built over time, and you just get so you get so angry and so and so devastated and so sad for these patients that are believing a lie about their identity, about who God's made them to be.
But you have no idea what to do about it. You're one person.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And you don't know the most effective way, the most the the way that would achieve justice, like true justice for them.
Speaker 0: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's not your imagination.
It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers supporting our first responders and heroes. And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account.
That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com. That's 0keefemediagold.com or 833324gold.
Again, that's okeifmediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Vanessa Sivadge thought she’d found her dream job as a pediatric nurse at the nation’s top children’s hospital. Instead, she says she watched doctors steer healthy kids into gender transitions, prescribing powerful drugs, billing taxpayers, and hiding it from the public. When she raised concerns, FBI agents came knocking at her door. Instead of backing down, she chose to speak out and dedicate her life to protecting children. FBI Agents Coming to Vanessa Sivadge’s Home (2:06) Ethics and Morals in Nursing (5:37) Dr. Ethan Haim Blowing the Whistle on Gender Ideology (11:56) “What Happened to ‘Do No Harm’?” (18:00) Protesting Administering Sex Change Care to Children (22:00) Texas Children’s Hospital Committing Insurance Fraud (31:16) The Irreversible Damage of Undergoing a Sex Change (33:52) Texas Legislation on Gender Affirming Care (35:00) Who Profits From Children’s Gender Reassignment? (40:30) Going Public on Texas Children’s Hospital Committing Fraud (43:15) Finding Strength After Blowing the Whistle (44:30) Trump Administration Launches an Investigation (47:15) Activism to Remove Explicit Content from Children’s Education (55:06) Obedience Over Courage (58:44) Retaliation and False Narratives (1:01:22) Safeguarding Children Is a Bi-Partisan Concern (1:14:30) What Does Victory Look Like? (1:22:07) Advice to Potential Whistleblowers (1:25:40) “My Price Is My Life” (1:29:50) @V_Sivadge @protect_txchild Listen & Subscribe – Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vanessa Savage, a pediatric nurse from Houston, testified that Texas Children's Hospital was giving underage patients puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones and charging Medicaid for it, even though that is against the law. After an anonymous May 2023 whistleblower within Texas Children's Hospital and Christopher Rufo, she corroborated the account, revealing hospital fraud tied to Medicaid reimbursements for gender-affirming care. She described "the unholy trinity, the hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies" and said the FBI visited her home in July 2023, pressuring cooperation and warning about HIPAA issues. Savage started Protecting Texas Children and Behind the Shelves; she raised funds via GiveSendGo for a wrongful termination suit after being placed on leave and fired in August 2024. She testified before Congress; "If your price is not your life, then you are for sale."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I went into the room and quickly saw that this was a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity. And I look and I see that the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly. I can't believe this. You know, I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen. I had turned down a job.
And as soon as I learned the entire role was gonna be centered around providing trans care to kids, I turned it down. And I just said, don't agree with this. I'm gonna I'm gonna pass. Fraudulent going on.
Speaker 1: With this.
Speaker 0: The unholy trinity, the hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies. The FBI showed up. They found this article that I had written, which was condemning the nursing and the medical profession as a whole for caring more about their paychecks than about the lives of children. Yeah. They were, like I said, very intimidating.
They couldn't protect me unless I helped them and that my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.
Speaker 1: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Welcome back to The Price Is My Life. Today, we are joined by Vanessa Savage, a pediatric nurse turned whistleblower from Houston, Texas, who courageously revealed that Texas Children's Hospital, also known as TCH, was giving underage patients puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones and charging Medicaid for it, even though that is against the law. After being visited by two agents of the FBI, we have that in common, although the 10 agents from the FBI visited my house.
That was a very strange video. We're gonna get into that. Ultimately fired, Vanessa founded Protecting Texas Children, five zero one c three and five zero one c four organization, to safeguard children's health and innocence. And she joins us as she shares her touching testimony of faith, integrity, and bold advocacy representing the principles behind My Price Is My Life. And I wanna start by going to this start with the FBI clip.
This is the video, and we're just gonna we're gonna go back to this, but these this was, like, December 2024. Right? And Libs of TikTok posted this?
Speaker 0: It was July 2023. July. And
Speaker 1: Was it posted in December?
Speaker 0: I'm sure it was reposted.
Speaker 1: Reposted. Okay. Yeah. And these are two agents with the FBI. Yes.
Let's just watch this clip.
Speaker 2: Hello? Hi. I'm looking for Vanessa Savage. Okay. Yeah.
Over here. I'll make some of the FBI agent. Okay. This is his summit. Right.
I am busy. Okay. Nice to meet you. It's gonna be a pleasant interaction here. I need trouble.
Yes. She can talk. Okay. Alright. Hi.
Hi. How are you? She snuck up on you there. You want you want a seat tip? Are we interrupting dinner?
I'm really sorry
Speaker 0: to interrupt. What's going on?
Speaker 2: Let me start at the beginning. So I'm sure you're aware of some of the things that have been going on at your work lately.
Speaker 0: With regards to
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I gotta can I you can we sit down for a minute? Let me do my song and dance.
Speaker 1: Very strange. Very these guys are actually FBI agents?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The FBI is not sending their best. It looks like a joke.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we were completely unprepared. I mean, we were in the middle of hosting friends. This was a Monday night at 7PM. Our friends were in the kitchen wondering what was going on.
We answered the door and we just didn't come back for a little while. And you can see my husband there is just completely bewildered and just shocked because we just, you know, people tell you this is what you should do when you have a federal agent show up at your door. You know, like, mentally what you should do, but in that moment, you never think that's gonna happen to you. You never think that the police state will be weaponized against someone who's done absolutely nothing wrong, which was me in my case. And
Speaker 1: Well, you asked, what is this regards to? And he he kind of was befuddled by that. And then can we just do our song and dance? It just seems so unprofessional.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's it's very manipulative. Right? They're they're putting on a front like they're your friend. Like, they want they're they're acting in your best interest, which is exactly what the conversation was about.
Speaker 1: He's he's trying to suggest, oh, you know, you know what this is about, you know, but they're just not they don't seem right.
Speaker 0: It's not it's not honest. It's it's very deceptive, and that's that was really the whole interaction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, thank God you recorded it. And was there any recording after that ended? Or
Speaker 0: No. Unfortunately not.
Speaker 1: The ring ring bell camera? Or
Speaker 0: We it recorded when they left, which was also posted, but that was They a much shorter came inside for about ten minutes, and both of us were just completely terrified.
Speaker 1: Did you record that they were in your house?
Speaker 0: No. No. I mean, again, this was we were completely unprepared. We were hosting friends. You know, it
Speaker 1: friends Were there?
Speaker 0: Oh, yes. They heard the whole thing. We have witnesses. Just it's just shocking. But unfortunately, like, this was unfortunately all too common during the Biden Harris administration.
This happened to a lot of I'm sure you you know, like a lot of conservative Christian Catholic pro life people, like, received these kind of intimidating visits. And so this was not a surprise, unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Well, we're gonna go back to that FBI clip, but let's rewind and see how things got there. That was August 2024?
Speaker 0: July.
Speaker 2: July of
Speaker 0: twenty Summer twenty
Speaker 1: of twenty three?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: '23.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You've spoken about the crisis of conscience you felt in your job at Texas Children's Hospital. Let's talk about that. What did you mean when you said this? You're a Christian, but you're also a nurse who made a commitment to do no harm through the Nightingale pledge. And I think we have a clip where you talk about the crisis of conscience that you felt.
Speaker 0: As a nurse and as someone working with not only Doctor. Roberts but with other providers as well in the clinic and really just had a crisis of conscience at one point. You know I think my faith played a huge role in that and I'm a Christian but aside from my faith I think as a nurse we go through nursing school and we learn about how to care for patients and upholding the highest standard of ethics in the in that care. And that was something that I I really felt very strongly about in my spirit that what we were doing wasn't providing long term benefit or help to these young boys and girls coming into the clinic but it was just harming them.
Speaker 1: So talk about what you mean by crisis of conscience.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Wow. Well, I graduated from nursing school in 2015. Been a nurse for ten years, and it's still, to this day, one of the most trusted professions ever. People place a great deal of confidence and trust in nurses.
And it's a profession that I cherish, and I went through a lot to get there. And, you know, in 2018, I accepted a job at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. At the time, I thought this was gonna be my dream job. Texas Children's is the number one children's hospital in The United States. It's highly prestigious.
It's consistently ranked top three in in just hospital institutions in in the country. And so anyone who works there will tell you that it is a tremendous honor to be a part of this team. And that's really how I felt for many years. You know, I worked for the first couple of years, I worked in the cardiology department. And so we were seeing the sickest patients, these babies born with congenital heart defects.
They literally their condition was incompatible with life. They were so sick. They were turning blue. They couldn't breathe. And we would take them from that state and we would do a series of surgeries and medications, we would save their life.
And so that was my background. And then a couple years later, I found myself in a clinic that was taking completely healthy patients and making them sick for life. So that's that's the contrast that I couldn't get out of my mind is that we they were the hospital was intentionally prescribing these hormones that and these cross sex hormones and puberty blockers that would have a devastating effect on these children mentally, psychologically, physically. And so that's exactly what I was seeing is in 2021 is really when this all kicked off. I was accepted a new position in a multi specialty clinic.
And this was a clinic where a number of different specialties were housed under one roof. And slowly, week after week, I started to see how healthy children were coming in through the gender clinic, once a week at least. And these these boys would slowly start to become more and more like girls, and these girls would start to develop masculine features week after week. And so there there's a my my crisis of conscience was twofold. Number one, it was a crisis of conscience intellectually because as a nurse who believes that biology matters, that following the science means something when we say that, My objection was from a biological perspective that men and women are created distinctly, beautifully, uniquely, and that those differences should be upheld, they should be affirmed, they should be defended in the nursing and in the medical profession as a whole.
But second of all, it was a spiritual objection. I'm a I'm a Christian, and so my faith informs my view that boys and girls, men and women are made in the image of God, that those differences are to be celebrated and upheld as well. And so everything that I believe stems from my my worldview and the Judeo Christian ethics. And so that was a very difficult time for me because I didn't know what to do. I was one person in this massive medical institution, a huge hospital with over 20,000 employees, endless resources.
And what was I going to do about it? I'm one person. Mhmm. And I think in that moment, God looked down from heaven. He just laughed, you know?
Because God's plans for us are often so much better than our plans for us, even though we may not recognize it or see it at the time. Right? His ways are higher. His ways are better. And so it was in May 2023 that I was sitting at work one day.
After going through months and months of trying to transfer out of the clinic, trying to find a different job elsewhere, I went through all of the different ways to try to kind of shift out of that role. And I would come home to my husband every day, almost every day, and just tell him that there was another girl I saw that was out, and parents were asking for testosterone refill. And it's this is just like debit. I mean, some people might think that that's like nothing. You just do your job and get on with it.
Right? Get on just get to get on with it and collect your paycheck at the end of the day. Right? But I had a real problem with that. Like, was I was one domino.
I was facilitating this process where children were were being harmed. And I had a real a real weight on me. And and so it was in May 2023, I was sitting at work, and I read an article by Christopher Ruffo. And he had collaborated with an anonymous whistleblower within Texas Children's Hospital. And this whistleblower had come forward and had revealed how the hospital was continuing to provide these cross sex hormones and sex change treatments to children in secret.
It was secret because the hospital had scrubbed the existence of this program from their website. There were no traces from the no evidence, no anything from the outside looking in. Someone who was on the hospital website could not see that there was a robust and very lucrative transgender program taking place within the hospital. But this whistleblower had the courage to come forward and to bring that to light.
Speaker 1: Do we know the name of the whistleblower?
Speaker 0: And Doctor. Eitan Haim, who's now gone public.
Speaker 1: So this person inspired
Speaker 0: you? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: So you would you Google this? How did you find this this Rufeld article?
Speaker 0: So it's actually someone at work sent me the article.
Speaker 1: Would that was that person at work having the same crisis of conscience you were?
Speaker 0: I would say this person was concerned about what was going on with children. And there were a few a few of them who shared some deep concerns about what was happening. But again, you you just know that if you were to speak out, if you were to say anything at all, that there would be severe consequences in retaliation.
Speaker 1: Losing your job, losing your paycheck. So you and this is we have it on the screen here. I'm an anonymous whistleblower who drew a story written by Christopher Ruffo exposed. So he actually came out publicly later on.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: He initially was
Speaker 0: He was anonymous. Anonymous.
Speaker 1: But was he retaliated against, to your knowledge, after he came out publicly?
Speaker 0: Yes. So the his story is absolutely insane. Right? The Biden Harris administration went after him, and he faced ten years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars of
Speaker 1: Under what?
Speaker 0: Right. So that's that's that's part of the story. Right? As we get into it. Right.
Speaker 1: So Let's go back to when you you saw this by Ethan Haim. Yes. And and then what happens?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So to give you some context about the state of Texas, when this whistleblower testimony came out in May 2023, s b 14 had still not been passed and signed into law.
Speaker 1: S b 14 is
Speaker 0: Which is the law that essentially made it illegal for minors under the age of 18 to receive hormones and purity blockers. It was it hadn't been passed yet. And so because of this this testimony that came out of Texas Children's, which was prompted by doctor Haim. He was the first one. There were many, Democrat members of the Texas House that flipped their votes upon reading what was going on inside the hospital.
So that prompted a legislative change, and our our governor signed that into law a few months later. And so a few a few days after he came forward anonymously with his testimony, I just said, you know what? I I need to corroborate his account because I knew that they were gonna go after him. Whoever he was, I had no idea. Right?
He was anonymous. But I knew that I needed to come forward as from the perspective of a nurse working in the clinic that was supposedly nonexistent. I knew that was going to be powerful. And I knew that what he had done was courageous and right and true. And so I wanted to add my voice to his.
And that's exactly what I did. I contacted Christopher Ruffo. And a few days later, my anonymous testimony came came out with him. And that was supposed to be the end of the story. Mhmm.
The legislature passed the law, it was signed, and I went back to work feeling very relieved that I was no longer going to be working in a clinic where children were being irreversibly harmed. But that's not the end of the story. And two months later is when is when the FBI showed up at my house in July.
Speaker 1: That's the first time
Speaker 0: of 2023.
Speaker 2: You you the FBI showed up at your house. Nothing happened in between?
Speaker 1: This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. Continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Again, that's okeifmediagold.com or 833324gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history.
Own a piece of it.
Speaker 2: The FBI showed up to your house. Nothing happened in between?
Speaker 0: No. I went back to work thinking things were gonna be fine. And no one knew my identity, no one knew I had come forward. I was totally anonymous. And I was
Speaker 1: You were anonymous
Speaker 0: to To to from the article that he had written did not contain my name on it, even though it was my testimony.
Speaker 1: So how did the FBI find out?
Speaker 0: That's a great question.
Speaker 1: Did someone tip did you tell anybody?
Speaker 0: In August 2022, I wrote an op ed for the Washington Stand called What Happened to Do No Harm? A Nurse's Firsthand View of the Transgender Craze. It's still up.
Speaker 1: Here it is. Doctors would manipulate and convince parents that gender affirming care was life saving, an interview with Vanessa Savage. What was the name of the publication?
Speaker 0: It was called What Happened to Do No Harm? But it's the publication arm of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. And so I chose to use my name on that article.
Speaker 1: So they linked this with the Christopher?
Speaker 0: We'll never know.
Speaker 1: I Pull back up the Christopher Ruffo article that you anonymously spoke spoke with. And somehow the FBI got wind of this. This is the murky business of transgender medicine. Did Texas Children's Hospital commit fraud to pay for child sex procedures? And this says 06/18/2024.
And didn't the FBI come? Right.
Speaker 0: Right. They had come a year before.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we will never know how they
Speaker 1: What do you suspect happened?
Speaker 0: I suspect that they Googled my name, and they found this article that I had written, was condemning the nursing and the medical profession as a whole for caring more about their paychecks than about the lives of children. And I was very, very direct and very blunt in this article. The other thing that I think could have influenced this is I had turned down a job previously in which all of the the responsibilities were gonna be directly related to providing transgender services for children. And I did not know this when I applied. This was something that my manager had offered to me.
And as soon as I learned that my whole the entire role was gonna be centered around providing trans care to kids, I turned it down, and I just said, I don't agree with this. I'm gonna I'm gonna pass. And that was the extent of the conversation. But my manager knew at that point that I did not agree.
Speaker 1: Did anybody else do that at your job?
Speaker 0: Do what?
Speaker 1: Protest the way that you did or say, I'm not going to do this, what you Not just
Speaker 0: that I know of.
Speaker 1: Did your colleagues agree with you, any of them?
Speaker 0: I was very careful who I talked about this with. I you know, people talk. Things get up the chain real quick. And you just don't know who you can trust. Right?
So I was very careful. There were a few
Speaker 1: that Obviously, if the FBI is coming, someone's snitching.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Don't know who. Yeah. That's a valid theory. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know I don't know. How is the how does the FBI have jurisdiction on this? Would it be a state issue?
Speaker 0: So and that leads back into Doctor. Haim. So when they came to my house, they told me that they that I was a person of interest in an investigation targeting a leaker, not a whistleblower, but a leaker. And in their words, he had violated HIPAA. He had broken HIPAA confidentiality laws, and they were wondering if I knew anything about it.
Speaker 1: So you were a witness in their prosecution against somebody else?
Speaker 0: Potentially.
Speaker 1: And that would have been Chaim, potentially?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Of course, I didn't know any of this at the time. Now we can kind of piece the the puzzle together and kind of figure it out. But, they were, like I said, very intimidating. They said that he had broken the law and that they couldn't protect me unless I helped them, that I needed to co collaborating and cooperate with their investigation, and that my career and my safety were at risk if I didn't do so.
Speaker 1: Your safety was at risk. This is the
Speaker 0: FBI told you.
Speaker 1: Yes. They said that in your living room?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Your safety is at risk. Yes. Going back to what you were asked to do, the things in your part of your job, like for example, you were asked to teach a patient how to administer an intramuscular injection that was estrogen to a young Yes. Would give us some more examples of the things that you were asked to do that were unconscionable to you.
Speaker 0: Yes. Absolutely. Well, nurses often I'll start with this example. Nurses often have to battle with insurance companies over the coverage of certain medications or treatments for patients. Right?
It's a very common thing. And so one of my jobs was whenever a medication bounced back as not being covered under their insurance plan, I would have to call the insurance and get a prior authorization, is what it's called. And this is just basically telling the insurance this is medically necessary, that the doctor ordered this, that this is essential for their health and well-being. And so I I was put in a in a position where I had as part of my job to do that. It wasn't all the time.
I again, I had lots of other responsibilities outside of the endocrine department. But this was one of them. And so the idea of me picking up the phone and convincing a health insurance plan that this sweet, vulnerable 15 year old girl needs testosterone is just it just
Speaker 1: You had to convince the insurance company that it
Speaker 0: would I had to get authorization for the medication.
Speaker 1: And how would you do that theoretically on the phone with the insurance company?
Speaker 0: So sometimes they requested a doctor's signature, sometimes they requested a letter from the doctor explaining why the medication is necessary. Sometimes all they need is just to talk to a human being, a nurse on the phone and just be like, Okay, we're gonna we're gonna move forward with this. We'll we'll sign off on it, you know, rubber stamp it. But that was just one example, right? Just the act of the the very small, but in my mind, significant task expectation, I should say, as a part of my job, that I had to advocate for these children to sterilize themselves.
Speaker 1: Like, how would that even work in practice? Like, what would you say to the insurance company?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say I would give them the reason it was it was it was prescribed. So the purpose for the medication, the reason for why it was prescribed, the length of time that the child needed to be on it. Just, you know, you're it's just a common thing. This is not just for nurses do this all the time. Right?
Speaker 1: But this was the thing that really pushed you over the edge.
Speaker 0: This, and I would say there was one other situation which you alluded to, where nurses do a lot of patient teaching in hospitals as well, and that's very common. And so this doctor providing transgender services approached me at the nurses' station and said, hey, I just finished seeing this patient. Would you mind going in there and teaching him how to administer an intramuscular injection so he can inject himself at home with the medication that I'm prescribing? I had no idea what he I mean, we do this all the time, and we don't really don't really ask or know in some case excuse me, in some cases. And so I went into the room and quickly saw that this was a male dressing up as a female, embracing a false gender identity.
And as I was kind of going through the motions of instructing him, I just thought to myself, I wonder what this is for. I wonder what this medication is for. I go back
Speaker 1: What medication is it, by the
Speaker 0: way? Estrogen.
Speaker 1: Estrogen.
Speaker 0: And so I go back to chart, as all nurses do.
Speaker 1: Chart.
Speaker 0: We just document. Right? We document what we've done just to there's a record. Mhmm. And I look and I see that the doctor has just ordered estrogen intramuscularly.
And I said, well, I I can't believe this. You know, I've literally taught him how to erase himself with estrogen. So that was a real breaking point for me as well. And this just built over time and you just get so you get so angry and so and so devastated and so sad for these patients that are believing a lie about their identity, about who God's made them to be. Mhmm.
But you have no idea what to do about it. You're one person.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And you don't know the most effective way, the most the the way that would achieve justice, like true justice for them.
Speaker 1: And the thing that you did was do this anonymous whistleblowing through RUVO?
Speaker 0: Yes. So that was in May 2023. Like I said, it was completely anonymous, and I was perfectly content for it to stay that way. I had no intentions or aspirations to go public.
Speaker 1: But God had other plans.
Speaker 0: As he so often does.
Speaker 1: Yes. You wouldn't be sitting here had it stayed anonymous. Right. What would you have been doing though? You would have been kept going with your job or
Speaker 0: probably would still be a nerd yeah.
Speaker 1: I Doing stayed this.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: So tell us what happened next.
Speaker 0: So in July, like I said, the FBI showed up. And the weeks that followed were a real turning point for me for me and my husband. You know, obviously, I called Christopher Ruffo
Speaker 1: at Wait. Hold on. Before we go, let's go back to the FBI. Let's go back to July 2023, number five. Yep.
And this is this is your tweet. I'll never forget the day these two FBI agents came to my house in an attempt to intimidate me. I was a nurse working in. Now this tweet, you tweeted this out. Was it in July or was it later in December?
Sometime afterwards.
Speaker 0: It was sometime after.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I believe those will expose the hospital.
Speaker 0: I guess it was December. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The Legal Defense Fund. You were told that you were a person of interest because of what you believed, and the HIPAA the the violation that broke HIPAA and and confidentiality laws. And and I'm I'm some more information here. We can't keep you safe unless you cooperate. And it's pretty crazy that they lodged some veiled threats at you like that.
And you didn't cooperate, though. Right?
Speaker 0: No. No. Because I ultimately, I knew that this first whistleblower, whoever he was, had done the right thing. He had come forward with the same concerns that I had. And really, just became a national story overnight that the hospital the number one children's hospital in America had been secretly providing transgender services to children in secret.
And that was just a it was a huge story. And I was so grateful for his for his courage and the guts that it took to do that. And he I mean, they he went through hell. Doctor. Haim has been through hell with his wife.
Speaker 1: How is he doing right now?
Speaker 0: Much better since the Trump administration has since taken off they dropped the case. Yes. And so he's doing a lot better.
Speaker 1: Until the Trump administration what but this pendulum seems to swing depending upon who's in power. How did your family react to the federal agents targeting you?
Speaker 0: I think they couldn't believe it. It's it's it's so it's something it's one thing to read about police intimidation or political persecution that happens in foreign countries and third world countries. And you never imagine that it's going to happen in Texas, in one of the reddest states in America, that they'll come to your door. You never think that that's gonna happen to you until it happens to you. Right?
And then you're I mean, my life changed forever after their visit. My my life has never looked the same.
Speaker 1: And also, just your knowledge of human nature?
Speaker 0: Or Well, I think it it just emboldened me. It it made me very angry.
Speaker 1: Were you scared for a few days? Were you terrified?
Speaker 0: I was I was scared. But more than anything, I think I was was emboldened.
Speaker 1: Emboldened. What do you mean?
Speaker 0: I think their the visit from the FBI really catapulted me into my decision to go public with my knowledge that the hospital was fraudulently billing Medicaid for sex change treatments for children. And the the layers of deception that the hospital was engaged in that I had witnessed personally, that I don't think I would have ever gone public with that knowledge had the FBI not come to my house.
Speaker 1: You've described children coming in with deep mental health struggles, autism, suicide, walking out with irreversible drugs. Yeah. I mean, you you you talked about the insurance fraud. Correct?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So let's talk a little bit about how that how they were doing anything fraudulent.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So first of all, it's important to paint the picture here. These children, like you said, they're deeply vulnerable. We know now that almost fifty percent of children who adopt a false identity have had some form of sexual abuse in their past. Many of them that I personally saw are most of them are girls.
They're
Speaker 1: Trying to be guys?
Speaker 0: Yes. They're deeply they're depressed. They're anxious. They're autistic. They are some many of them are just bullied in school or bullied online.
And so there's some form of vulnerability that's present in their life, whether that's abuse, whether it's bullying, or whether it's just a difficult time navigating puberty. There are just so many heartbreaking stories of children just like that. And I believe you know, as a Christian, I believe that these boys and girls are an easy target for the enemy, to come in and paint them this picture, that their confusion will be solved if they adopt this false identity, if they start taking these cross sex hormones in an attempt to erase who God has made them to be. And, of course, they're welcomed with open arms into this community of affirmation.
Speaker 1: What's the incentive for this you you called it the enemy. What's the incentive for the enemy to do that? Why does the enemy want to do that to them?
Speaker 0: Well, I think you get spiritual really quick with this question. Right? Because, I mean, the Bible tells us that he comes to steal, kill, and destroy what God is called good. And his deception started in the Garden Of Eden with Eve when he presented a very tempting piece of fruit that and and and a promise that she would be like God and that she would know the difference between good and evil. Technically, there was some truth embedded into that lie because the best lies are presented with just a tiny bit of truth that makes it feasible and attractive.
That's how the enemy works best, is he cloaks a lie with just just enough truth to make it
Speaker 1: in this context, how does the enemy cloak this with just a nugget of truth?
Speaker 0: Well, think in this context, children are I believe they're manipulated and convinced into starting these medications. And they're presented this alternative life that they'll have. And at first, this alternative life, it's very it's great. It goes great. They love being you know, the freedom and the friends that they make through this transition.
Right? Like, it feels good. It it it they have all of this encouragement from all of these people. And at first, like, the physical changes that may they may have struggled with at first are suddenly not present anymore. And so for a time, they do feel that sense of enthusiasm at this this new life that they're creating for themselves.
But that doesn't last long. You know, that's very short lived. And they suddenly, with time, they start to realize the decisions and the choices that they've made that little by little become more irreversible. The longer you're on a cross sex hormone, the more irreversible the effects become. And so the enthusiasm doesn't last very long.
Speaker 1: We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth.
You, we, are the media now. So let's talk about the Texas Medicaid policy 2015 prohibiting coverage of cross sex hormones. So just tell me how this works. So it Yeah. Legal or it wasn't legal?
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I'm not an attorney, but I'll tell you what I know. In 2015, Texas passed a law that essentially it's really a statute. It's the Medicaid policy in the state of Texas. And it's very clear, if you read it, that no form of gender affirmation, if you will, hormones, puberty blockers, or procedures can in any way be covered by Texas taxpayers by Medicaid.
A lot of people don't know that, right? Like, that's not a common thing that it's not as common as, say, the law that was passed two years ago by our governor banning all of these irreversible treatments, right? This is a little bit more in the weeds. And so technically, can't hospitals can't receive reimbursement for these services if they're billed according to this Medicaid policy. And yet, after the FBI left my home and I was forced to grapple with, well, what what do I do now?
Like, how am I going to what what am I gonna do? Like, I've done nothing wrong. I've just acted in accordance with with what I believe. I started to kind of notice some red flags at my work, and some some billing things were a little bit off. And so ultimately, I just I saw that children who either had Medicaid, CHIP, or STAR.
Speaker 1: And what's CHIP or STAR? What's the
Speaker 0: It's just a federally funded insurance program, a health insurance program for underprivileged children, supposedly. And saw that the hospital, of course, on every patient's record, you see what insurance program that they're under. And so this was very easily visible to anyone working with these patients. And so not only that, but I think it's really important to like because, of course, anyone who hears this will immediately ask, well, how did the hospital get away with this? How is it that the largest children's hospital in America was committing fraud?
And you were the only one who came out and said something about it. And I think there there's there's some there's you have to kinda get into the weeds a little bit. So first first of all
Speaker 1: Let's put the bill back up on the screen, guys, the Medicaid bill from 2015. It says makes this bill makes private let's see. Was this twenty two thousand twenty three, was this? This bill makes private health benefit plans strictly liable for the lifetime care of the patient for consequences of gender modification. So yeah.
So was this was this legal, what they were doing? I mean, continue with your analysis.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this is this is kind of answering that question. The first thing that would happen is when a child is transgender, and they're wanting to identify with the sex opposite of what they were born with, the first thing the hospital would do is instead of listing the biological sex on the chart, they would list the preferred gender identity of the patient on the official medical record. So that's falsifying the record. That's the first thing.
That's already illegal. Like, that's didn't list sex,
Speaker 1: they listed the preferred gender.
Speaker 0: Yes. And you, as the provider, you know, one of the providers caring for these patients, you would have to dig a little bit to discover that Jane was actually not Jane. She was John. Right? And she was identifying with a different name.
And so that's falsifying the record. So that's the first level. That's the first layer of deceit. The second is any patient of the gender clinic, many of them had fraudulent diagnoses. What that means is if there's, like, let's say, a 15 year old female biological female in the clinic, the chart would read that she had a testosterone deficiency.
But see, now it's not a girl that has a testosterone deficiency, it's a boy that has a So testosterone that doesn't raise any red flags.
Speaker 1: What's the example of the sort of half truths where they're
Speaker 0: relying
Speaker 1: upon a strange they're talking about it being a man, not a woman.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Would that justify drug prescriptions then?
Speaker 0: Right. Of course. And so an insurance company that receives this claim sees a boy who has a testosterone deficiency on paper. So that makes it very difficult for them to distinguish that there's anything
Speaker 1: What's the
Speaker 0: fraudulent going on?
Speaker 1: This?
Speaker 0: The unholy trinity.
Speaker 1: What's that?
Speaker 0: The hospital system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, you may not know the answer. We can look it up. But what what drug companies were what drugs specifically, and what were those companies to your knowledge?
Speaker 0: There so puberty blockers, for instance, was Lupron is the most common one. Of course
Speaker 1: off this.
Speaker 0: Yes. Many of these drugs are used to chemically castrate sex offenders, by the way. These are drugs that are very common and well used for those purposes. So Lupron and then testosterone, whether that's injection or a pill form, and estrogen. And there's, of course, different versions of
Speaker 2: I wonder how
Speaker 0: people both of use it.
Speaker 1: The people who make those products feel about this. I'm sure there are people who have a crisis of conscience just like you.
Speaker 0: Well, again, it's how you use the product, right? There are children with actual health issues that need these drugs, right, like legitimately. But it's how you use it. It's how you weaponize it for a purpose that's not meant to heal but to harm.
Speaker 1: And you also talked about lack of insurance verification safeguards. You learned something about that. Right? It's not the insurance. Medicaid and some other insurances don't have a system in place where they verify to make sure this is correct before they reimburse.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's again, that's another layer. I think there should be more oversight.
Speaker 1: Well, that's crazy. They actually put the sex they want to be, not the sex they are Right. To get the diagnosis. So you saw that. And then walk us through Yeah.
Any other fraud you witnessed.
Speaker 0: So that was so I decided to go public with that knowledge in June 2024. But several weeks prior, in May, I had submitted an official religious accommodation request to my supervisor. And I asked her to transfer out of the endocrine clinic and back towards my core competency in the cardiology clinic. This was a very reasonable request. I'm not asking for the moon.
I'm just asking to be moved from one clinic to the other. Happens all the time. And they stonewalled me. They didn't respond. They stalled.
And they did not grant my request. And a couple of weeks later, I went public with my knowledge of the fraud.
Speaker 1: While you were still employed?
Speaker 0: While I was still employed. And the the next day, the hospital called me and put me on leave. And, of course, you know, my life changed overnight at that point. At that point, everyone knew my name and knew my face and knew the story I had come out with.
Speaker 1: They put you on leave?
Speaker 0: They put me on leave.
Speaker 2: Did they send you a message or a phone call or how did it
Speaker 0: It was a phone call. Yep. We've recorded Paid all leave? Paid leave. We've recorded all of those phone calls.
And they just informed me that I was under investigation and that they would inform me next week of the following steps. And so this kind of I knew that something like this could happen, obviously. We had weighed this decision very prayerfully and very carefully. But your life just changes overnight. And this was not something that I had planned for or anticipated.
I had never spoken in public in my life. I had never given an interview. I mean, if you would have told me, I'd be sitting across from you, I would have laughed in your face.
Speaker 1: So how was that process for you? You go from being an working in a hospital to being a public figure overnight. What was that like?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: It was really terrifying. You know, it's I think I I really have to give credit to my husband because he was my is my rock and my greatest supporter. And he really made me just feel so empowered and encouraged to do this because we knew that this was the right thing. I couldn't do this without him. I don't think that I would have had the inner fortitude to go through all of this if he wasn't by my side.
But I had to learn very quickly how to deal with friendly media, hostile media, press. And this was all just overnight. I had to just roll with the punches. And this was just a brand it's a completely brand new world for me. And so a couple of months later in August, I received a phone call from the hospital, and they decided to terminate my employment.
So this was literally a year ago in August.
Speaker 1: August '4?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You're fired from the hospital. Yes. And then what happens?
Speaker 0: Well, we retained a really amazing group of attorneys, the Burke Law Group. We've set up a GiveSendGo where the public has been so generous in their support.
Speaker 1: How much has it raised so far?
Speaker 0: I think it's raised oh, I'd have to look. I think 70,000 or $80,000
Speaker 1: $78,000 with a goal of $500,000 And how will these resources be used?
Speaker 0: Well, this every cent that I use will be spent on mounting a legal defense because I believe I was illegally terminated in retaliation.
Speaker 1: So you're to sue the hospital?
Speaker 0: For blowing the whistle.
Speaker 1: Yes. And what's the cause of action? Wrongful termination?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I can't speak to any legal cases right now, what we're involved in, but there is a very concerted effort on I'm very confident that my attorneys will defend me, and so we're working on those options Just right
Speaker 1: to pay attorneys?
Speaker 0: Yes, to pay to pay my attorneys.
Speaker 1: It's always the money to go pay lawyers, isn't it?
Speaker 0: Well, they're they're they are worthy of every cent. Sure. Let me tell you. They are so ferocious, and I'm very confident in their abilities.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us who they are?
Speaker 0: The Burke Law Group.
Speaker 1: Burke Law. And they're in Texas?
Speaker 0: They're in Houston, Marcella Burke. She's also also represented Doctor. Heim, Doctor. Eitan Heim. We're very
Speaker 1: filed the lawsuit yet?
Speaker 0: I can't speak to what can't speak to it. We filed or not filed.
Speaker 1: It'll be a public document once it's filed, my assumption is.
Speaker 0: Yes. What I can tell you is that there is a very public investigation by the Trump administration into Texas Children's Hospital. The Office of Civil Rights under Health and Human Services in April announced a formal investigation into then, the
Speaker 1: MacDonald is the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 0: Yes. But this is health and human services under Robert Kev under Robert Kennedy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. Have you talked to Kennedy about about HHS? Directly. Not directly.
Speaker 0: Hopefully soon.
Speaker 1: So so you've you've come out, you came out publicly, and did you do media interviews? You said you did hostile, you did friendly. What were some examples of those?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'll I'll speak vaguely. But the night before I went public in June, a very the most popular conservative TV network, I would say, that we all know, they at they were at my house the night before I went public. And we did an interview with them. In my living room, they brought their TV crew and everything. And I was just, I mean, so green.
I did not know what I was doing. I was so scared. I was so intimidated.
Speaker 1: Make you more credible, though, if you if you're not a polished
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was not polished at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, polishing can can the polished thing can come across as a little fake, in my opinion.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But so you you can you tell us who
Speaker 0: this was? I I I think people can know. When I say the most popular popular conservative TV platform, I think we all know.
Speaker 1: TV show?
Speaker 0: TV, network, news organization, They came to my house. We did a full interview sit down. And at the end of the day, that interview never got published because
Speaker 1: Never made the air.
Speaker 0: Never made the air because they did not their legal counsel had advised them not to go forward with it because of my claims against Medicaid, that my claims were not credible, potentially not credible enough for them to air it on national TV. And that I was making a huge again, this was under this is a different era. Right? Biden was president.
Speaker 1: When was that interview conducted?
Speaker 0: June 2024.
Speaker 1: June 2024 Yes. A national news organization interviewed you
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And didn't run the story?
Speaker 0: Yes. Because of my claims against relating to Medicaid fraud that the hospital had engaged in.
Speaker 1: Is that what you said?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And
Speaker 0: That's what they said that they didn't run it. Why? And and I didn't want them to run the story without including that. That was the most pivotal part of the story, the most important part, and they didn't wanna talk about it. And so I said, well, that's fine.
Then don't air it.
Speaker 1: Well, sometimes it's like, it's not that what you're saying is false. It's that what you're saying is true. And the more true it gets, oftentimes, the worse it gets for the people in power. So that how did you feel after that happened, Or how much time passed before they told you they weren't gonna air the story?
Speaker 0: It was a few days later. We just got word through my attorneys who had, you know, heard from their legal counsel that they wanted to run the story, but they were going to do it without that portion where I talked about the Medicaid fraud. And I just said, I'd rather not air it at all if you're not going to talk about the most important part of this.
Speaker 1: And that that fraud claim was based upon what specific piece of evidence that you witnessed. You've talked about it today. But the Medicaid fraud, was it based upon they were misgendering the people, and it was that justification?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was it was everything. And I I can't get too deeply into this because this wades into legal waters, which I've been counseled very strictly to not to not dive into the specific evidence. But I just talk about yeah. I can talk about what I saw, right?
What I saw was they incorrectly labeling patients the incorrect They were misdiagnosing patients intentionally with the purpose of avoiding detection by insurance. And then they were prescribing these cross sex hormones and puberty blockers and billing it to Texas Medicaid, which is illegal and has been since 2015. So it layers of deceit and fraud that just compounded on each other. And I knew when I realized that this was being billed to the Texas taxpayer that I had to come forward.
Speaker 1: So they they you know, and and and in terms of your lawsuit, I mean, at some point, if you you don't have to get into it. But if you do sue them, that that that's gonna be quite a quite a battle. It's gonna be a public battle. It's gonna be in court. It's gonna go through discovery.
Are you prepared to go through all that?
Speaker 0: I have the best team of attorneys in the world.
Speaker 1: Understood. And also just fighting that fighting the the enemy. I mean, you're going after the the belly of the beast.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They're gonna deny everything.
Speaker 0: They're gonna
Speaker 1: attack you personally.
Speaker 0: Yep. They sure will.
Speaker 1: And the more it seems like the more successful you will be in your quest, the the more difficult it will be on you and your family. Have you thought about that?
Speaker 2: I
Speaker 0: I'm not doing any of this for, like, the applause of man or potential rewards that may or may not come in the future. I don't that's really not what drives me.
Speaker 1: What drives you?
Speaker 0: I am here for the applause of God. I live for the applause of God. And so if I can please him, then I would have fulfilled what I what I've set out to do.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it's it's it takes a toll on it. That does takes a toll, doesn't it? So far, is it taking a toll on you?
Speaker 0: I think I know that this is what I was born to do. I know that this is my purpose. And now I'm leading this amazing organization called Protecting Texas Children and focusing on safeguarding children's innocence, their health, their future. So that brings me a tremendous amount of fulfillment and purpose and satisfaction.
Speaker 1: When did you start this organization?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We are a brand new organization. We launched just this past year in January. And I am now kind of wading into Texas politics for the first How's time
Speaker 1: that going?
Speaker 2: Oh, it's going.
Speaker 0: I can tell you.
Speaker 2: I'm very green. So I'm very green to the to the Texas political space. And you're
Speaker 1: a c three and a c four, so
Speaker 0: you're
Speaker 2: trying
Speaker 1: to lobby to a certain extent the laws of Texas to change.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: What is what is your goal this year with your nonprofit?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this past spring was our Texas legislative session, so I was there every week in Austin testifying in favor of bills that would protect children's mental, emotional, or physical health. There's a number of bills that fall under that category, but I really just focus on the bills that have to do with gender or identity or sex identity or making sure men are not invading women's spaces or sports or just anything related to biological sex or gender identity is kind of where we focus the most on. We're very biblically based. We just launched a new project called Behind the Shelves.
And this is a project just this past week that exposes the dirty and pornographic books found in Texas school libraries. And it teaches and empowers parents on how to get them removed from the shelves. And so part of safeguarding the innocence of children starts with safeguarding what they're reading, what they're exposed to at the library, which should be the safest place where they should learn and grow. But unfortunately, many times, it's not.
Speaker 1: So there's pornographic books in in library in school libraries?
Speaker 0: Yes. Really? Hundreds and hundreds of books, not just one or two books. We have on our Protecting Texas Children website, we have a list of over 900 books that contain some form of pornography. Some of them have QR codes that lead children straight to sex shops and orgies.
Some of them teach children how to commit suicide, how to kill their teacher, how to kill parents.
Speaker 1: Books and libraries.
Speaker 0: Yes. And you know, you think that in Texas, this should not be happening, right? A lot of people think, well, I live in a rural community. I live in a small town. Surely this isn't happening here.
Speaker 1: This is this is your bad book list? Yeah. You've you've got A Clockwork Orange. That's the book made into a movie by Stanley Kubrick, author Anthony Burgess on on your list. Game of Thrones.
I mean, mean, I mean, a critic would say, isn't this tantamount to censorship and
Speaker 0: Well, we're not trying to get anything censored. We want these books removed from the children's section. These books should not be accessible to children in the What children's age? These there's multiple varying ages starting from, like, three all the way to high school. Mhmm.
Different books fall into different categories.
Speaker 1: Is do kids even go into the library of school anymore? Is it all on the iPad and the Internet now?
Speaker 0: That's what I thought too until I went to a library with Bonnie Wallace, who we've partnered with. She has provided a lot of these resources to us. And we stood outside of the Allen Public Library in Texas, and we watched and and just stood out there and presented parents with this information, these books that children have access to check out. You would not believe the number of parents that defended this kind of material to us. They said that it's necessary reading, that it's their First Amendment rights to read this.
You would not believe the number of parents that defended the access to this kind of content. I was shocked because prior to this, I hadn't stepped into a library in years. And so this is just one thing that Protecting Texas Children is now embarking on.
Speaker 1: How many employees do you have?
Speaker 0: Just me.
Speaker 1: Just you?
Speaker 0: I have a team behind me that helps me with all the the back work, but I'm the face of it.
Speaker 1: After you did this, did people reach out to you? Did you get a lot of messages from people like you going through something like you went through, inspired by you?
Speaker 0: Yes. From all over the world, people people reached out. It's been and and really what going back to your question of how are you dealing with this, I think hearing from people all over the world who are encouraged or inspired by the steps I've taken, that's made so much that's made all the difference for me. And just feeling supported by people who have either walked through similar things or are just supporting financially or whatever they can do. You know, it's just such an honor.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, are afraid of retaliation, losing their jobs, losing their income, so they go along with it. And what did what was the thing that these people were telling you that they were most inspired by?
Speaker 0: I think it all had to do with just not being afraid. I think I think we're all afraid. But my fear of God is greater than my fear of man at the end of the day. That's just what it boils down to for me. And I and by the way, I was afraid.
Like, I don't want anyone to watch this and think that there weren't moments of actual fear and trepidation and, like, breaking down and crying. You know, absolutely, I had those moments, you know? But at the end of the day, like, I just know my why, and I know my my purpose for why I have done the things I've done. I my my motivation is is not to to please man. Like, I'm not here to make anyone happy.
You know, as much as I love making people happy, right, it's to please God.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's the that's the kind of litmus test for people who are gonna be successful as whistleblowers, their fear of God versus their fear of man? Is that what it's going to take?
Speaker 0: I think that's one piece of it. And, you know, the other thing for for me as I weighed this prior to to going public is, you know, so many people said, you're so courageous. You're so brave. Right? And I think that courage is there there is a small part of it that is courage.
But for me as a as a follower of Christ, as a Christian, it was more so about obedience than it was about courage. Was I going to be obedient to what God had asked me to do? To expose, as it says in Ephesians, which is like my life verse, take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness, but expose them, for everything exposed by the light becomes visible. That's a very strong language. There's no wiggle room in there.
And I took that very literally. And so the path that God placed in front of me demanded that I take no part in what was going on and expose it.
Speaker 1: So you viewed it more as obedience than courage. Yeah. I mean, some people say it's not so much that you are not afraid, it's that you act despite despite your fear.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: What were you most afraid of? Because you did say that you were scared, you experienced fear. What was the fear?
Speaker 0: I think I was I was afraid at first that the FBI would come back.
Speaker 1: You were afraid of the FBI coming back? Yeah. What about the FBI coming back made you afraid?
Speaker 0: Well, again, you have to remember I was watching Doctor. Haim's case in real time. I was watching what they were doing to him and how they were coming to his home at 05:00 in the morning armed and serving him with all kinds of threats and indictments. And you know, this was playing out nationally. And so I I was very aware that some something similar could be fabricated, concocted against me if I didn't play ball, if I didn't be quiet.
Speaker 1: Well, speak speaking for myself, I was afraid of for example, I don't like being in in in jail. And I and that sounds like, you know, we all are not afraid of being jail. But for me, I guess it's like, don't like being handcuffed. I don't like being confined. I don't like being in a cell.
Speaker 0: Right. Orange is not your color, James.
Speaker 1: Orange is not my color.
Speaker 0: It's not not mine either.
Speaker 1: Orange is the new black. I I was a federal federal jumpsuit. I've been there. But for me, the very I'm just asking a very specific question because I think it's I think it's enlightening to people to practice introspection and examine what exact I always say, like, what are we actually afraid of? Mhmm.
I was talking to an evangelical pastor about this, and the question he said, I've never been asked that question. So I'm asking you, and I'll go first. For me, what was the fear of being confined in a jail cell? And I say, why am I afraid of that? Like, what about that makes me afraid?
But I was just I don't like being you know, your hands are behind your back. You can't scratch your face.
Speaker 0: You're out of control. You're not in control.
Speaker 1: You know? And and and I had to wrestle with that fear.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I had to come to peace with that perhaps coming to fruition.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And learn to learn to temper whatever it was about me that led me to be afraid of that thing, like a fear of spiders or a fear of heights. You just have to confront it. Yeah. So what what I was afraid of Mhmm. The night after the FBI visited me Yeah.
And the fear lasted three days, was being in a holding cell in the Southern District Of New York with my hands behind my back for twenty four hours. I just had a fear of that specific thing. So for you and I asked for a specific reason because you're a Christian, you fear God, not man. By the way, Jody O'Malley said that exact same thing to me four years ago. Another whistleblower who blew a on HHS.
Said, I fear God, not man. For you, what was it about the FBI coming back or the indictments or what the other guy went through that made you feel fear?
Speaker 0: Man, that's a great question. I think them concocting a story that was false about me. I think them them driving an untrue narrative of the events that had happened to slander me, to slander my character, my motives, my intentions, that gave me pause. Because, you know, they can fabricate anything they want. Right?
Like, They usually do. Right. Right.
Speaker 1: So it was the was the the slandering of your of your reputation. And was that just to the public writ large or to in a in a case or both? Which were you more afraid of?
Speaker 0: I think at that point, it was the public at large since I had just gone public and was very new to this world. It's a different
Speaker 1: variable when you're a public figure. Yeah. Because you're playing this game of public perception.
Speaker 0: Right. The court of public opinion.
Speaker 1: Versus and and to a certain extent, the court of public opinion influences justice.
Speaker 0: Right. Right. Exactly.
Speaker 1: Which it shouldn't. Right. But it often does. So is that it was the defamation of your character publicly?
Speaker 0: I would say so. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Looking back, what is the greatest price you've paid? You are on the show called The Price
Speaker 0: of Yeah. Your I should have anticipated this question.
Speaker 2: You haven't given up your
Speaker 1: haven't given up your life, but but what price have you paid so far?
Speaker 0: You know, I I I don't part of me kind of cringes at this question because it makes me look like a victim. And I don't view myself as a victim. I view the children who've been exploited and manipulated and lied to as the victims. So they're the true victims in this story. Mhmm.
I I think when everything is said and done, like, I've maybe I've I've lost some friendships, some, you know, some family and friends very close to me. But that's such a I mean, again, that's such a small price to pay for friends? I think coming forward and and bringing something like this to light, even though it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with right or left. Just being a truth teller, like like you talk about, you know, it it has a way of dividing people.
Speaker 1: It sure does.
Speaker 0: And so you so you could argue, like, no, they weren't they weren't really my friends, but I you know, it's like I I I pray for them. Like, I'm not I don't have any kind of bitterness or
Speaker 1: wanna be hateful.
Speaker 0: No. And it's forgive
Speaker 1: them, but perhaps
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's a difference between forgiveness in the Christian sense, which is a 100% necessary. But you don't wanna forget because you don't want to become friends with someone like that from my perspective. Yeah. Like when I was fired from Project Veritas Yeah. People say, but weren't some of those people your friends?
And I said, evidently not. He said, I was once blind, but now I see. Yeah. So for me, there's difference in forgiveness and forgetting in the sense of
Speaker 0: Yeah. They're they're not the same thing.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: But I would just ask the question, were those people really your friends if something like this would would cause a rift between you and them?
Speaker 0: Probably not.
Speaker 1: Because a lot of people told me they fear losing their friends, and I would say, well, what? Why would a friend leave you as a friend just because you're telling the truth about about
Speaker 0: But, you know, the just just to kind of wrap this this kind of this good question you've asked, I think the friends that I've gained and the people I've met through this journey far outweigh anything that I could have ever, you know, imagined losing.
Speaker 1: And that's not a price. That's a blessing.
Speaker 0: Right. Right.
Speaker 1: That's an addition into your life.
Speaker 0: Right. Oh, it's been such a tremendous blessing. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you get a lot of DMs or or on on social media
Speaker 0: from
Speaker 1: from people?
Speaker 0: Do you check them all? I do. I do. I do read them. Yeah.
Some of them are not very nice.
Speaker 2: Is it? But most most of them are nice.
Speaker 1: You mean attacking you?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: What percentage of them attack you?
Speaker 0: It's a it's a it's a minor. It's it's not it's minor percentage. It's not a lot.
Speaker 1: A lot of people might say, you know, they might they're they're gonna be watching this, and and they listen to stories like Aaron Vecchi and and
Speaker 0: Yes. I watch that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Vecchi is a great guy. He he's his he had this thing called the religion of apathy, which I thought was very profound. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I've never heard it said like that. It's almost like you what you're doing, I think you make certain people feel deeply insecure about what they're not doing.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And there I mean, that's a good question. Is there are there nurses out there? Have you received any messages, or are you aware of any messages from people in the medical field who almost resent you because you're doing you're you're you're you're demonstrating a virtue that they're not. Maybe you make them feel insecure or inferior. I don't know if you've seen that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. There there hasn't been I think I think in a couple of years, those I I might start to see more of those messages or those that kind of sentiment come through. It's still very, very new. Like, it's kind of the story is still kind of fresh. I've only been public for a year.
And so, yeah, 99% of my coworkers, I've never seen them or spoken with them again. They did not reach out or anything after my story went public. And I think it's there there is that religion of apathy, but it's also, again, their fear of what could happen to them Mhmm. If they were to speak out. And I I lived in that space for I mean, I I have compassion towards those people who are kind of kind of living kind of working in an environment that is hostile to what they believe.
I have a tremendous amount of compassion for them. I I was very, very blessed and fortunate to have the support of Christopher Rufo, who then, of course, connected me with the people I'm not connected to. And so How
Speaker 1: did you reach out to Chris?
Speaker 0: I just I called him. I was terrified.
Speaker 1: You just called his cell phone or
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, we again, we had collaborated on the story. So
Speaker 1: But how did you initially meet him?
Speaker 0: When he when he published Doctor. Haim's anonymous testimony, I had reached out on his website and just said, I'm a nurse working in this clinic, that you've you know, this has just come to light. I would like to talk to you about it.
Speaker 2: I think
Speaker 1: well, the reason I asked the question is because we get, you know, a 100 over a 100 inquiries a day. Yeah. Sometimes even more than that. And what I always say is for people watching is your your reach out to Chris Rufo, you probably articulated it in a in a succinct
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Clear way.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And that's how you're gonna get through to one of these high profile people.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Is if if people out there have a story and you wanna reach out
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: To either of us, state your case, one paragraph or two.
Speaker 0: Give your elevator pitch.
Speaker 1: Here's here's what I've got. Here's my story. Here's my thing. Because sometimes people send these long 20 page things and they throw
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: A thousand documents at me. I don't think the if the whistleblower or the truth teller can't tell the
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Doesn't understand the truth themselves, how would they expect me to Yes. To unpack it all? That's why
Speaker 0: I asked the question. Was a writer. And so that was that was really helpful when I came forward is I had obviously written this article for the Washington Stand in which a lot of these sentiments and thoughts that I had already expressed them and was not afraid to do that. And so, no, but I mean, nothing but wonderful things to say about Christopher Rufo. He's
Speaker 1: amazing. I was at the in 2017, Rufo and I were part of the Claremont Institute Fellows Program. He was a very smart, quiet, eccentric, but brilliant man.
Speaker 0: I hope to meet him someday. I still haven't met him.
Speaker 1: Yeah. He's at the Manhattan Institute. Yes. Right? Yeah.
This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable. But today, I wanna talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances. Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money, interest rates and inflation remain high, and everywhere you look, your hard earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's today's reality. If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you? That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold. They're veteran owned, and proceeds from every sale go to Tunnel to Towers supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account. That's right. A thousand dollars to help you get started protecting your wealth with real physical gold. Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefmediagold.com.
That's 0keefemediagold.com or 8 33324 gold. Again, that's okeithmediagold.com or 8 33324Gold. Take action, get the facts, and protect your future because freedom isn't given, it's secured. This is James O'Keith. Don't just watch history.
Own a piece of it. Well, you you mentioned it's not left or right, and I agree with you. I don't think this fight is Democrat or Republican, although people frame it that way. Yeah. But it also is perhaps spiritual, God versus the godless, good versus evil.
I mean, how is your faith or has your faith been tested at all through this process?
Speaker 0: Oh my goodness. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Tell me about that.
Speaker 0: Well, so several months ago in April, I was invited to testify before Congress. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, chaired by Chairman Chip Roy. I think that was probably the scariest, most intimidating thing I've ever done.
Speaker 1: Why is that?
Speaker 0: You know, you just you don't know what they're gonna ask you or throw at you. You're you know, especially the Democrats on this committee are very hostile and
Speaker 1: Attack you personally.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and I had watched examples of this, you know, and knew exactly what it probably was going to be like. And so I, you know, I I was just, first of all, very honored to to be able to to do this with Doctor. Hine. And I I thought for sure, in my very, very green and naive political mind, that some of the Democrats on this committee would come armed with, like, really difficult questions that would really just throw me for a loop and stump me.
Like, I'd never thought about this angle or you know? And would you would you believe what what happened? They they just repeated the same Trump, anti Trump talking points over and over till they were blue in the face. They had no original thoughts. They did not come armed with even remotely complex or complicated did.
Mary Scanlon, who is a congresswoman, led me down a line of questioning in which she attempted to discredit my credentials as a registered nurse. She said she started by saying, are you a psychologist? Are you a psychiatrist? Are you a doctor? And, of course, the answer to all of those is no.
I'm a nurse, and I told her, and I have common sense, and I know the difference between right and wrong.
Speaker 1: This is in this is in Congress in DC?
Speaker 0: Yes. And of course, like
Speaker 1: I'd like to see that clip. You guys can pull it up while we're talking.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think I posted it on my Twitter at some point. But
Speaker 1: So Scanlan's cross examining you.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And and this is in the context of me asking you the question, how was your faith tested? So was was it just in the sense that you were being personally targeted?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I think, you know, like, my credentials were called into question, which is, I think, a very common tactic that the left uses when they can't engage with you logically or reasonably.
Speaker 1: You a psychologist? Yeah. Or, you know, do you you know? But did she address the fraudulent you know, this this business of No. Misgendering?
Did they address that? Yeah.
Speaker 0: They just That's reflect not something that is beneficial politically beneficial for them to even engage with. Right?
Speaker 1: But this was one of the hardest things you had to go through was that moment in space and time with scandal.
Speaker 0: Well, I think leading up to this this event and this this opportunity, I think I was just very this is testifying before elected officials in Congress,
Speaker 2: which I
Speaker 1: under oath.
Speaker 0: And I'm under oath, and I've never done this before. And I feel very intimidated and just unsure of myself, I think. And so I think this is just one example of, I think I think after this, my my confidence was
Speaker 1: That's quite a Rubicon. I don't I only think I've done it once before a subcommittee, and there weren't any Democrats on the panel. But I know what you're talking about. I know what you mean because I've been through mean, the George Stephanopoulos interview I did in 2010 on live television in front of 10,000,000 people with Andrew Breitbart. I remember Stephanopoulos just cross examining me
Speaker 0: like a
Speaker 1: little weasel. Yeah. And I remember how it feels. You're putting yourself out there like a piece of meat to the wolves.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's exactly what it felt like.
Speaker 1: Just like they're gonna target me with this innuendo and this mendacity and I just have to be strong. It takes a lot to endure that. It's people that do that are professionals.
Speaker 0: It's more about the fear of the unknown. Right? This is something that you don't know what they're going to use to to use against you. And so it's more in that moment that you have to react and you have
Speaker 2: to do it well. And Most people fear shame,
Speaker 1: I think was it
Speaker 0: Or embarrassment. Just Yeah. Being
Speaker 1: Public
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: This Mel Gibson said, most people fear public embarrassment and public humiliation, public shame, which is if you're a good person, if you're a Christian, which you are, I mean, none of us all of us are sinners, though, and all of us make mistakes.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So they will hang us upon the cross of ourselves. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: So
Speaker 1: it's Saul Alinsky said in Rules for Radicals, make the Christians live up to their own book of rules.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Well, he's not wrong.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So they can try to do that to you. And how did it go with Scanlon?
Speaker 0: I think I made my point very clear, which was that you don't have to have credentials to know the difference between right and wrong to know the difference between male and female, that everyone who has a brain can identify that men and women are
Speaker 1: Oh, we have the clip. How long is the clip? Five minutes? Just five minutes long. Maybe we can go to go to the part where she's maybe
Speaker 0: At very end. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Fast forward like three minutes. This is you in the subcommittee. You must have your adrenaline must have been off the charts.
Speaker 0: Off the charts.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Check this out. Let's get some sound on here.
Speaker 0: I think this is probably my opening statement.
Speaker 1: Let's fast forward a little bit longer after the opening
Speaker 0: It's like the very last two minutes of the entire hearing is when I get a chance to respond.
Speaker 2: Yeah. We were only able
Speaker 1: to pull that five minutes.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 0: That's fine.
Speaker 1: Just the five minutes of the statement? Oh, that's alright. We don't have the cross examination. That's okay. Your adrenaline was off the charts.
And and then and then when you were done, so your your faith was a little tested there?
Speaker 0: I would say that's, yeah, I would say that's a good example. I'm trying to think of other examples to share.
Speaker 1: It might be good training for people to, you know, just to hear that and hear how you what would be the what would be the the best advice you'd give to someone in your position there?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I would say that when you're cross examined by the opposing side, don't let them lead you down a line of questioning that's meant to embarrass you. You have to stop the train. You can't you have to you have to change the narrative so that they can't make their point to to embarrass you, which is what they were trying to do. But that takes that takes some skill.
You have you have to think really quickly on your feet.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. Yes. What does victory look like to you in this fight? What is your goal?
Let's say your five year goal. What's victory look like?
Speaker 0: Wow. There's like tears of this. I would like the doctors that were harming patients in the transgender clinic at Texas Children's to lose their medical license. I would like for them to never practice medicine again. I would like for my story and this case to be a warning to all the other hospitals who are billing Medicaid falsely for sex change treatments for kids, which, by the way, the Trump administration last week just announced that they're proposing a guidance that would strip hospitals of Medicaid reimbursement should they provide these services.
So I think the Trump administration is already light years ahead of where we were.
Speaker 1: So you're looking for accountability?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You think it'll come?
Speaker 0: I think it will come eventually. I think we've made huge strides just in a few years.
Speaker 1: Do you think those FBI agents support this puberty blocking, sex change stuff? I know it's a weird question that you probably don't know the answer to, but I'm just asking the question aloud. Like Mhmm. Do the agents just doing their jobs, were they just following orders? They seem pretty just seem pretty nasty in their Or do they actually support puberty blockers and what was happening?
Speaker 0: I don't think we'll ever know that specifically. But what I can tell you is that the agent that was speaking to me in that video is the same agent who knocked on Doctor. Haim's door and served him with the indictment. We know that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: And so you can draw your own conclusions from from that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You could draw your conclusions, but I wonder I wonder if he has a a seared conscience. I wonder if he's a Christian. I don't know the answer to that question. It'd be interesting to do a where are they now series and find out because he's currently working for the Department of Justice as an FBI agent.
I wonder what Kesh Patel thinks.
Speaker 0: We'll see.
Speaker 1: You talked to Kash Patel?
Speaker 0: I have not.
Speaker 1: Everyone always asks me if I've spoken to
Speaker 2: Kash Patel.
Speaker 1: Do you know Kash Patel? Call Kash.
Speaker 0: Call Kash. It's so easy. 100 Kash.
Speaker 1: I say this every show. I'm gonna say it again. If the administration of justice depends upon us as individuals reaching out to the director of the FBI to solve each and every injustice in this country, we have a problem. We have a huge problem. Because the pendulum will flow, we'll go back.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: There won't be a permanent Republican majority in Right.
Speaker 0: Well, mean, what I mean by that is now we have almost half of the states have passed some form of laws prohibiting, you know, gender
Speaker 1: There does seem to be a
Speaker 0: So so that so what I'm what I'm trying to say is that we're a we're seeing a trend in the right direction.
Speaker 1: But we're seeing a trend in the wrong direction from what I've heard and read, when it comes to just testosterone in men generally. Oh, That's a separate matter.
Speaker 0: Separate issue.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But For But that does seem to be an issue within the genders. And what advice would you give to the American people, and there's a lot of this, who see the wrongdoing on the on the scale that you have seen it, perhaps not specifically in this particular topic, but just generally, but they're afraid to take action. What's your advice to them?
Speaker 0: Just someone who's contemplating coming forward and blowing the whistle? Is that what you Correct. Okay. Yes, two things. I would say before you blow the whistle, make sure that you've spoken with legal counsel.
There are and people will say, well, can't afford that. I can't do that. You know? No. Like, I think that now more than ever, there are organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom and organizations like that that are on your side.
Like, they want to help people who have legitimate concerns about whatever they're witnessing at their workplace. So I couldn't have done that without my counsel. I would not be in this situation or What did place you I'm
Speaker 1: reach out to in your case?
Speaker 0: I was connected with Marcella Burke.
Speaker 1: Through whom?
Speaker 0: Through a series of mutual connections.
Speaker 1: So one is contact legal counsel, the second?
Speaker 0: I would say utilize friendly media to your advantage. I would say I had a I don't think just average, everyday people know that there's journalists with integrity who are wanting to share good, you know, just wanting to share truth, honestly, is what it boils down to. That's something that as I just had no idea that that whole world when I was working as a nurse, just didn't know. And I think a lot of people don't know. And so I think you need to you need to, you know, get out of your comfort zone a little bit and reach out to those people because there are amazing and wonderful people out there.
So
Speaker 1: are some of the most admirable? You mentioned Christopher Beau. Name a few good ones.
Speaker 0: You want me to name drop people?
Speaker 1: Compliment people. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking you to name drop the
Speaker 2: bad
Speaker 1: That's what I do for a living.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll name drop two friends of mine because they'll appreciate this. Caroline Downey, National Review. She wrote a really great piece on the DEI culture at Texas Children's in addition to their training on gender fluidity and all of that in the days following my going public. She's a great ally and a great friend, and I appreciate her.
And Mary Margaret Ole Hahn, who is now the White House chief correspondent from the Daily Wire, has also written some really good articles that really were it was just great to have friends in media when I was going public.
Speaker 1: Well, our time is coming to a close here. Name your nonprofit organization again, how people can get in touch with you.
Speaker 0: Yes. It's Protecting Texas Children. Our website is protectingtexaschildren.com. And we're on Twitter and Facebook and would love for people to sign up and follow along. And people can just find me on Twitter.
Speaker 1: And your GiveSendGo page again?
Speaker 0: Yes. It's GiveSendGo, and it's nursewhistleblower.
Speaker 1: Nursewhistleblower. I understand that these proceeds will help your legal defense fund in order to file a wrongful discrimination lawsuit against the hospital and generally hold those who did this to you accountable. Correct?
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna borrow a Mike Malice line. What was your favorite part of our conversation today?
Speaker 0: I think you are such a kindred spirit. And ever since I watched that video of you, you were sitting across from Eric Metaxas in which you talk about how your price is your life and how you cannot afford to surround yourself with people whose price is also not their life. And literally tears streaming down my face watching this video of you. Never in a million years did I think I'd be sitting here with you, James. So honestly, just getting to know you and to meet you has been the greatest honor.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate that. I think what you said is so important that it's the people that you surround yourself with.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the challenge, isn't it? Because you can be strong, but if people around you are not strong, then it's a huge Yeah. That's certainly a lesson that I've learned.
Speaker 0: Personnel is policy.
Speaker 1: That's a line from my old boss Morton Blackwell, the Leadership Institute. You ever heard that group before?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: He has the laws of the public policy process and one is his personnel's policy.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: He has a number of other incredible sayings, but yeah, if your price is not your life, then you are for sale, and if you have people around you that have any challenges, the enemy is going to exploit those. Yeah. So in the business that you're in, which is taking on evil of the highest form, the enemy is gonna exploit the weaknesses of the people that you surround yourself with. Mhmm. And that's going to become and speaking for myself, that has become my greatest challenge.
You know? Because the FBI, mean, everyone's afraid of the FBI. Yeah. When FBI comes a rating, you will quickly know who on your team
Speaker 0: Well, in my case, in your case, you know that you're doing something right.
Speaker 1: The FBI raided me, I went to work the next let's see, it was on a Saturday morning. On Monday morning, I went to work and I walked into the conference room and everyone was just like, what do we do now? Mhmm. It was like in one of those war movies where, like like, the captain died and the next man was up and like, everyone's like, what do we do now, sir?
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Like, everyone was just completely in a state of shock. And I think there were a number of people who, let's just say, people will do anything to protect themselves.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I think hardship, you know, has a way of refining, you know, separating the wheat from the chaff, as they say.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I wouldn't be here with the team that I have if I hadn't gone through that.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: People left my life and the people came into my life. So it's but certainly I understand what that fear feels like. I was paralyzed with fear for three days. Yeah. And many other examples like it, but certainly being going through that and seeing how do you reconcile doing the right thing with self preservation is another challenging one.
Speaker 0: Well, I think there's a temptation for you and I who we faced fear, but we didn't allow it to dominate or control our lives. You know, we didn't stay in that place of fear. We didn't live make choices from a place of fear.
Speaker 1: No. Usually usually, it's if you're only human, it's going to affect you for a little while. But for me, was one of the things that you said that really struck me was all these good people that have come into your life. Yes. You have some bad actors, but you've got some really great people that would not be in your life, but not for this happening to you.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: So that's a really hopeful message to people, and I hope that they take take that message. Unfortunately, we're not gonna do any live callers today. That's for another day, but thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 0: Thank
Speaker 1: you I for having hope everyone supports, and thank you again for coming.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I learned that significant funds were allegedly funneled through major financial institutions and Universal Music Group to alert undocumented individuals about deportation efforts. An insider from the Progressive Caucus mentioned they secured injunctions to halt deportation flights. I believe in pressuring local governments to resist federal cooperation.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
On Vera: Sources Confirm Donors Funneled Millions of Dollars Through Universal Music Group, Fidelity, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs to ‘Tip Illegals Off’ While Progressive Caucus Insider Admits Caucus Secured “Injunctions” to “Stop Deportation Flights” “I think pressuring your local government to not cooperate at all with any of these federal agents.” @GoldmanSachs @Fidelity @BankofAmerica @UMG @KeaneBhatt @verainstitute @USProgressives
Video Transcript AI Summary
"We've been able to, like, have, injunctions that, like, stop, you know, deportation flights and other types of things." "Qian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured injunctions that literally halt deportation flights while also stating that people need to pressure their local governments to not cooperate with the feds." "Last month, their undercover cameras caught Santiago Mouquet, a director at the Vera Institute, admitting the group tracks ICE movements and pushes that information out so illegal immigrants can dodge enforcement." "He also bragged about major donors, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and others." "The Vera Institute isn’t just help illegal immigrants evade ICE. They funnel money into radical causes like Black Lives Matter." "A widespread coordinated effort is currently happening right now to undermine federal law enforcement, slow down the deportation efforts."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've been able to, like, have, injunctions that, like, stop, you know, deportation flights and other types of things. You know? So
Speaker 1: Qian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured injunctions that literally halt deportation flights while also stating that people need to pressure their local governments to not cooperate with the feds.
Speaker 0: I think that pressuring your local government to not cooperate at all with any of these federal agents.
Speaker 1: Last month, their undercover cameras caught Santiago Mouquet, a director at the Vera Institute, admitting the group tracks ICE movements and pushes that information out so illegal immigrants can dodge enforcement. He also bragged about major donors, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and others.
Speaker 2: Who's your main donor?
Speaker 0: It's usually the foundations, like the Gates Foundation Mhmm. Or Jeff Bezos or, like, some of these, like, huge philanthropists who, like, have millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: After further investigation and conferring with multiple sources, OMG has found even more names on various donor lists. This money trail goes much deeper with names listed such as Goldman Sachs, donated $5,000,000, Fidelity forking over $1,300,000 Bank of America, $250,000 and even Universal Music Group giving $50,000 all to the five one c three NGO, the Vera Institute. We then turned our attention back to Vera's website just to see what exactly they're supporting with these funds that they're receiving from these massive foundations. The Vera Institute isn't just help illegal immigrants evade ICE. They funnel money into radical causes like Black Lives Matter.
Speaker 0: There was looting underway nearby.
Speaker 1: The nation erupted into scenes of chaos. Openly calling for police to be defunded and dismantled. It's not just outside groups like Vera working to undermine federal immigration enforcement. Even inside congress, members of the progressive caucus are actively working behind the scenes to stop deportations. That's where this man, Kian Bahat, a policy director for the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the US Senate comes in.
Speaker 2: Why is ICE and and the Department of Homeland Security doing this? Like, what what's the agenda?
Speaker 0: I think the cruelty is the point. I think they wanna show that they are this authoritarian, like, you know, police force that is just breaking up immigrant communities, and that alone is going to show his racist regiment base that they mean business. Like, they want to see these people suffer, and I think they enjoy, like, having all of these communities being here.
Speaker 2: Do you work with any organizations to help to help the illegals come back at least or to prevent We ICE and homeland security.
Speaker 0: It's a really tough situation right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I think, you know, in certain cases, we've been able to, like, win. So Really?
Speaker 2: How, like
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, some of the most egregious instances, we've been able to, like, have, injunctions that, like, stop, you know, deportation flights and other types of things. You know? So
Speaker 1: Kian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured injunctions that literally halt deportation flights while also stating that people need to pressure their local governments to not cooperate with the feds. I
Speaker 0: think, you know, pressuring your local government to not cooperate at all with any of these federal agents and getting your mayors and your local governments to, you know, enshrine the status of being sanctuary cities and, like, protecting the residents there. I think that's another big one.
Speaker 1: Pressuring people to not cooperate with the feds. If we did that, we'd probably be raided by the FBI. Wait. And
Speaker 0: they want to continue to prosecute this case because they see a lot of, like, political benefits for their manga movement in terms of, like, animating them and building their sport. So that's basically it. I think, like, it's it's really sick, and they also, I think, they want to test the limits of of our constitutional system. Mhmm. I think they want to see how far they can go in, like, violating our first amendment, our fourth amendment, our due process rights, all of these things, and test the courts and see as far as they can go.
A lot of our members are working on, like, know your rights campaigns. So in their communities, they kind of, like, walk through, like, what community members can do, how they they need to demand a warrant, how they shouldn't open their door.
Speaker 1: Okay. The footage you just saw is clear evidence of a coordinated effort between members of Congress, NGOs, and their funders, not only by powerful NGOs like the Vera Institute, bankrolled by billionaires and apparently Wall Street, Goldman Sachs. We didn't even know that Goldman Sachs had a nonprofit. But also from inside the Progressive Caucus in congress itself. A widespread coordinated effort is currently happening right now to undermine federal law enforcement, slow down the deportation efforts.
Regardless of what you think of those efforts, we think it's newsworthy that there are attempts and endeavors well funded to slow down federal law enforcement and run campaigns that teach illegal immigrants how to evade federal authorities. The American people deserve transparency regardless of what you think about these policies. We deserve transparency. These are backroom strategies funded with millions of dollars from some of most powerful institutions in the world. At O'Keeffe Media, we will con
reSee.it AI Summary
I was told by many that the media was lying about the Ottawa Trucker Protest, claiming there were Nazi flags and desecration of memorials. I decided to livestream for 3–5 hours daily to document what I saw, which I believe was a stark contrast to the media's portrayal. When asked if I knew the media was exaggerating, I confirmed that I was aware but wanted to reveal the truth.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
“The media said there were Nazi flags, extremists, and desecration of memorials at the Ottawa Trucker Protest. People told me, ‘Viva, they’re lying. Come down and see for yourself.’” @thevivafrei livestreamed 3–5 hours a day from Ottawa, documenting what he calls “the inversion of reality.” @JamesOKeefeIII asks: “Did you intuitively know the media was lying?” Frei responds: “I knew they were exaggerating… but I was prepared to show the world what really happened.” Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Team reviews street journalism clips, noting nervousness but commitment to consent and respect. On Ottawa streets during the trucker protest, a trucker interview begins with questioning media framing; the speaker says, "Born under a totalitarian regime" and, "Definitely. I'm a communist under a totalitarian regime, but I had no choice. I made my choice not to die." He argues the coverage was inverted: "the inverse of reality" and "the world's going see it" after streaming three to five hours a day. The “desecration of the Terry Fox memorial consisted of putting a hat on his head and a Canadian flag in his arms.” A clip with Trista Suk from "North Of Toronto" shows her singing "Amazing Grace" and notes she auditioned for Canada's Got Talent. Weather: minus eight Celsius. "we are the media now"—"the movement of transparency and accountability"—and "you fuel a movement of truth." "one party consent throughout Canada unless I'm You do not need the permission of other people to record conversations."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Team, let's pull up. I wanna look at some of what you've done. This is sort of street journalism that you did there.
Speaker 1: I I had never done this before. Like, I I I'm always nervous about doing things live and doing things with people who might not wanna be on camera afterwards or who might see
Speaker 0: very careful to ask one of the pedestrians, are you okay with being recorded? I've done it everybody,
Speaker 1: but then at some point you get a little more realistic. You can't do it with everybody when you're live in certain but you can be respectful.
Speaker 0: Up the one where he's on the street, on the street in Ottawa. There's a couple clips. Let's take a
Speaker 1: look at some of
Speaker 0: the work that you did up there. Oh, yeah. This This was right after the Fountain Blue
Speaker 1: in Miami. This one was a few days into the Trucker protest.
Speaker 0: Trucker protest.
Speaker 1: And this was a trucker that I was interviewing.
Speaker 2: Was born under a had no choice. Hold on.
Speaker 1: I'm getting close so people can hear. Born under a totalitarian regime.
Speaker 2: Definitely. I'm a communist under a totalitarian regime, but I had no choice. I made my choice not to die.
Speaker 0: It's hard to hear.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because I was I was just off my off my camera. Tell me from
Speaker 0: Kuwait. What you did in the trucker movement.
Speaker 1: So when I get down there, what actually spawned me even going in the first place was people were saying, Viva, the media's line, because if you remember the early days, the first day they said there's a Nazi flag there, it's a swastika and a flag, It's a right wing extremist neo Nazi thing. They're defecating on the war memorial, which they called the Cenotaph, and it was like, Viva
Speaker 0: This what the media was alleging.
Speaker 1: This is what state funded CBC media was saying, and people were like, Viva, they're lying. Come down and see for yourself. I'm like, I don't know who to believe, so I'm going go down with my camera, and if there are people dancing on the cenotaph and relieving themselves on the cenotaph, the world's going see it. If there's a Nazi flag and far right extremists, the world's going see it. I go down there and stream continuously for three to five hours a day, and it was the inverse of reality.
We appreciate I it
Speaker 0: like that. That's what I've always found. When you point your camcorder in any direction, it usually contradicts what CNN
Speaker 1: is
Speaker 0: reporting.
Speaker 1: It was literally like, the problem is it's so frustrating because you know it, as sure as you've seen it with your own eyes. It was not just a lie. It was the inversion of reality. Did you
Speaker 0: know that prior to
Speaker 1: getting there? No, I said I'm going to go down and people
Speaker 0: Did you Intuitively know the media was lying.
Speaker 1: I intuitively knew that they were exaggerating, but I was prepared to get hate for showing what people might not have wanted me to show to the public. Like, I went down there, when they said they desecrated the Terry Fox Memorial, I was like, okay, if they did, I'm sorry, no judgment, people, I'm just gonna show I what get down there. The desecration of the Terry Fox memorial consisted of putting a hat on his head and a Canadian flag in his arms. When they do it for the gay pride, and they cover it in a 2SLGBTQIA flag, That's not desecration. When they spray paint it for the Palestinian protest That's not desecration.
That's not desecration. When they put a Canadian flag and a Canadian hat on it, desecration.
Speaker 0: So I go down All desecration is equal, but some desecration is more equal than
Speaker 1: I you know, I I would I would ordinarily agree, but they won't even they don't even acknowledge that. There was a
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. Wait. We have the clip of of this. This is interesting.
This is you. Let's just play it and we'll pause it as we
Speaker 1: How you doing? A little bit more so. Sorry. I should have asked. You don't you don't mind being on the interwebs?
Speaker 2: Let's do it.
Speaker 1: Are you part of the protest?
Speaker 2: So yeah.
Speaker 0: In Quebec, what's the you may not know the answer, but what's the consent law regarding recording? Is it one party consent?
Speaker 1: It would oh, no. Everything in everything in Canada is one party. This is Ontario. But it's one party consent throughout Canada unless I'm You do not need the permission of other people to record conversations.
Speaker 0: But you asked anyway.
Speaker 1: I asked, well, I didn't want her to I didn't want to embarrass her, and to tell the story behind this, her name is Trista Suk. I had no idea who she was.
Speaker 0: I just She's so well dressed in the wintertime.
Speaker 1: I have thought she was crazy. She comes down to the protest, she's got a guitar, you know, I she was on drugs or just wanna sing, was like, oh boy, and then she says, I'm gonna sing for you. I was like, this is gonna be embarrassing, I let it roll, and I was I held my breath, and when you hear her voice
Speaker 0: Okay. Let's keep playing. This is the lady in
Speaker 1: and where where are you from?
Speaker 2: I'm from North Of Toronto.
Speaker 1: Alright.
Speaker 2: I came here yesterday. I actually came to sing a song on stage and, of course to support the movement and honestly to be around other people. That's the main reason. I just wanna be in a community and I wanna be together and I wanna see people's faces.
Speaker 1: It's very nice.
Speaker 2: It's another thing. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I I I I've I've hugged more people today than I've hugged in. Oh, she's Oh, she's I'm attack you. Which way you had, you're going down to the
Speaker 2: I'm just checking it out. I'm taking some videos. I want to sing for some people.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I was looking
Speaker 2: for a trucker.
Speaker 1: Still wasn't sure if she was crazy or not. Skip to the part where she singing if I you think it's a three minute clip. I just say like, occasionally I go back and watch this.
Speaker 0: Scroll through and see if she's on America Got Talent or something like that.
Speaker 1: She ended up auditioning for Canada's Got Talent. She sings Amazing Grace. It's one of the best songs ever written. She's got the guitar? She's got the guitar, but I still think of like, this is a woman who's, you know, I still thought she might be totally crazy.
Speaker 0: This is why I love going to these events, these protests, these things, because you end up meeting
Speaker 1: these people. Oh yeah, no, everyone is, I never, I did not meet one bad soul at the Ottawa protest in the two weeks that I was there, but hear her voice. You'll you'll hear it.
Speaker 0: It's Let's hear it.
Speaker 2: I'll just say like one verse because my hands are gonna be so fun.
Speaker 1: I know. Pressure, no pressure.
Speaker 0: How cold was it out there?
Speaker 1: Depending on the day.
Speaker 0: Right then, it was like twenty, thirty degrees or so.
Speaker 1: What is that? Fahrenheit. Yeah. Minus, it was minus it was like minus eight, give or take. Minus eight?
But that's in Celsius? I'm very I'm gonna get mocked on the Internet. I don't know which way it goes.
Speaker 0: It's okay. It's probably Celsius, but minus eight Celsius is is below freezing.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. It was below freezing. It was so cold. Like, sometimes you'd you'd have, like, the frost would freeze on my on my I
Speaker 0: chat GBT what minus know, minus let's keep playing.
Speaker 1: Come on. Like this At this moment, realized it would She was not a crazy when she
Speaker 0: It's 20 degrees outside Fahrenheit. How about that? Very talented. Yeah.
Speaker 1: She's Wow.
Speaker 2: How What
Speaker 0: are you thinking
Speaker 1: when this just happened? Was like, thank goodness. She's got a good voice for this. And I remember in the chat, because I'm livestreaming, could see all the comments, everyone was like, beautiful voice, amazing stuff. So you know, I did that for, I would go back virtually every day from Montreal to Ottawa, was about a two and a half hour drive.
I would park the car when everyone says you couldn't park. Traffic was a backlog in all of Ottawa. I went and documented that. It became the biggest moment of call it, the era of the year. At one point, there were like 50 some odd thousand people watching some some crazy man, like myself, walking the streets just talking to people, and it was the most beautiful thing ever.
Speaker 0: We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant. We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth.
You, we, are the media now.
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
Viva Frei gave up a law career, financial stability, and even his home country to follow one principle: the truth matters more than comfort. He’s built a wide audience by breaking down complex legal battles, exposing censorship, and documenting events like the Ottawa Trucker protest in real time, risking his livelihood and personal safety to challenge government narratives and hold the powerful accountable. Along the way, he’s explored deeper questions about human nature, including the fine line between justice and vengeance. Highlights (0:00) Intro (1:21) Giving up Commercial Litigation/Discovering Youtube (2:02) Hate Speech on YouTube (7:40) “Law Tube” (19:01) Canadian Trucker Convoy (24:34) Canadian Quarantine Policy (32:38) Free Speech (41:03) Canada’s Corruption (49:48) Faux Patriotism (1:03:20) Treating Power Like Responsibility (1:12:52) Project Veritas Lawsuit (1:16:08) The Public’s Right To Know (1:38:08) Justice vs. Vengeance (1:46:10) Outro (2:00:06) @thevivafrei Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Vengeance is get demanding more retribution than what is required, and justice is a question of getting that which is fair and proportionate." Viva Fry argues about free speech in Canada, noting that "you don't have free speech in Canada" and that "hate speech is subjective to the person." He recalls YouTube censorship: "the opaqueness is the feature, not the bug," a strike for hate speech over his Alex Jones Sandy Hook analysis, which he says contained nothing inflammatory. The discussion covers defamation: "In The United States, in order to succeed on a claim of defamation, you have to prove that the statements... were false," while "In Quebec, defamation doesn't even have to be false." He cites the Jones case as "the greatest example of injustice"—a liability verdict by default without a merits trial. He recounts his Golden handcuffs moment, leaving law for independence, Ottawa street reporting, and the Nova Scotia ban: "formally prohibited hiking, camping, fishing and the use of the trail system to prevent wildfires under penalty of fines of $25,000." He contrasts First Amendment notions: "There is a First Amendment. Not It doesn't include hate speech."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's the difference between justice and vengeance?
Speaker 1: Vengeance is get demanding more retribution than what is required, and justice is a question of getting that which is fair and proportionate. Vengeance implies an injustice. Justice implies righteousness. And so, like but they could technically look like the same thing at some point. People have always said, Viva, you don't have free speech in Canada.
You don't have free speech where hate speech is subjective to the to the person. Where hate speech, under the proposals that they were trying to put into law last year, you know, could could could land you in jail. But the no. So, like, that, you know, that was it. That was the first one.
I did analysis. It got taken down. I discovered all of the censorship on YouTube. I had friends and family saying at the time, don't touch anything Alex Jones. I had no idea.
You know, he was the biggest boogeyman in Canada throughout the world back then. The next big thing in the evolution of my life was the Ottawa trucker protest.
Speaker 0: Ottawa truckers.
Speaker 1: What actually spawned me even going in the first place was people saying, Viva, the media's lying. Because if you remember the early days, the first day they said there's a Nazi flag there. It's a swastika and a flag. It's a right wing extremist neo Nazi thing. They're they're defecating on the war memorial, which they called the cenotaph, and it was like, Viva the media was This is what the media this is what state funded CBC media was saying.
And people were like, Viva, they're lying. Come down and see for yourself. And I'm like, look, I don't know who to believe, so I'm gonna go down with my camera. And if there are people dancing on the cenotaph and and and relieving themselves on the cenotaph, the world's gonna see it.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Today on my price is my life, we sit down with Viva Fry. Viva Fry, who I've known for about five years, a man who gave up his law firm, his financial safety, and ultimately his own country of Canada to follow an unwavering belief that the truth matters even when it costs you. From defending civil liberties on camera to challenging government overreach in real time, Viva's story isn't just about content creation.
It's about courage, conviction, and the personal cost. Now I've known Viva because we have done you've done analysis from a car. It was a Subaru It was. With your dog, in the 2017, 2018, 2019 time frame, and you did a lot of analysis on some of the cases I was involved in, summary judgment cases, motion to dismiss in the New York Times, defamation lawsuit. I thought that was very well done, and I'd and I've never actually seen anything like what you've done on the Internet.
So that's how I came to know you. And then there was the trucker protest in Ottawa, which you were reporting on, and finally, you moved to Florida in 2022.
Speaker 1: 2022, give or take. I I like when you say give up the law firm. It was like, I don't even wanna say it was like a bad dog that you wanna get rid of. I I say I got rid of it. I never loved the day of the practice.
So it was sort of something fun and spiritually uplifting to get rid of. But, yeah, the financial insecurity that comes with, you say, not lucrative, but a healthy legal practice, Winding it down took like two years, a year and a half where I wasn't taking any new clients, giving away clients, not paying myself. Commercial litigation. Commercial litigation. What type of commercial litigation?
I was doing landlord tenant disputes. I did some copyright intellectual property. Basically, when I left the big law firm, I was at a place called Borden Ladner Gervais, which in Canada was Borden one of Ladner Gervais.
Speaker 0: Gervais. G E R V A I S. From Montreal?
Speaker 1: Montreal, Quebec. You speak French? I studied I did my law degree at Universitatlaval in Quebec City.
Speaker 0: Really?
Speaker 1: All in French. I did one class. I did one exam in English. It was the worst grade I got. I don't know if the teacher didn't like me writing in English or whatever.
I said, I'd never do. I'm gonna write all my exams in French and studied in French, practiced in French, got a job straight out of law school, went from that big law firm on my own. And then at some point, I told my dad, I like, I hate this. I've got to get rid of it. I've got to do something else.
And then I sort of merged into it.
Speaker 0: You hated the commercial litigation.
Speaker 1: I hated every day.
Speaker 0: What did you hate about
Speaker 1: It would be a different thing on different days. When I was doing my internship, and I had just I was just about to get married. I said, look, if I hate it, if I don't like it after my internship, I'm gonna leave. Six months later, you know, we're married, we're looking to have kids. I say, I'll go another six months if I don't like it.
It's just like when you're a young lawyer at a big firm, you don't have any independence. You know, you go to depositions and you're taking notes. You're doing research. It's fun in and of itself, but you want independence that you don't have and will not have for years to come. And then I was sort of like, you know, they viewed me as a future partner.
My dad is a very well known lawyer in Canada, and I think they viewed me as partnership track. But I said, I hate it. I had my first kid, took some time off when the kid was born, went back to the office miserable. I said, I'm leaving. And then I was actually going to go study commercial photography.
I applied, and before I could get rejected after being on a waiting list, everyone's like, hey, Viva, was David at the time. They say, I hear you're on your own. How much do you charge an hour? Was like, I don't know, dollars 150 Canadian. And like, great, couldn't afford you at Bordenlander, now we can afford you, and I built that up so the independence of building my own business was great.
The tedious paper pushing of law, really thinking you're important, and maybe it's my own personal perspective, but feeling like you're not getting anything of value done in life. Five, six years of that is quite enough, and then I said, if I'm not gonna be happy making decent money, at least I'll be happy making much less money, but life is amazing in that Was it paying well? It was, I mean, I was not making a million bucks a year as a solo practitioner, and then we started our boutique litigation firm, but it was a healthy living, and it was fun. Associate. Yeah, was literally called Fryhite Legal.
My father left a big law firm in Canada called Steichmann, joined up with me, and then we had a couple of lawyers, a paralegal, our nice beautiful office. So it good, was healthy living, and so long as you don't screw up as a lawyer, you won't burn your practice down. But I did not like any day more than the last day, and at some point I said, I'm gonna be 50 years old, handcuffed into this practice and miserable.
Speaker 0: Golden handcuffs.
Speaker 1: Golden handcuffs.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that's the concern.
Speaker 1: So wound it all up, took me about a year and a half to give away the files, close the files, find lawyers to replace them, kept one or two clients that I really liked until about 2022, 2023, and then the world went crazy in COVID. I discovered YouTube.
Speaker 0: Did you do all this prior to COVID, wrap it up?
Speaker 1: Yes, I wrapped it up by 2018. I have to make sure I get the years roughly. I wrapped it up before COVID, but I still had a couple of clients. I had a nice two or three clients even throughout COVID, but you know, money that pays rent or pays mortgages. But when before COVID, niched down in the law, legal commentary,
Speaker 0: Yeah, and while we're talking, my team, if we have a video of Viva in the car with the dog, I
Speaker 1: mean, there's
Speaker 0: so many of these videos. This is from, like, six years ago.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be cringe.
Speaker 0: How did you get into the because when I was at Project Veritas, I would I would love to see your legal analysis videos. I'm kind of a nerd in in that I enjoy the nuances of law and the logic, and there's some interesting stuff when with the first amendment, and you dived right into it. But how did you go into commentary?
Speaker 1: So that's interesting. First of the day I knew that I made it was when I found myself in one of your Supercuts on Supercuts, YouTube, or something. Was like, whatever my I call it analysis, and I'm not trying to be lofty or pretentious, but whenever any of my commentary made it into the subject, like when Alex Jones started picking up on it, you, that's like, okay, now you feel not recognized, but valorized might be the good word for something that is value added. But it started, the YouTube channel back in the day was just random cooking family stuff. I was sort of aspiring to replicate Casey Neistat.
I don't know you know who
Speaker 0: he is.
Speaker 1: Casey Neistat is the New York guy, did a vlog every day, editing was beautiful, told stories, it's fun stuff. But then I would do like a day in the life of a lawyer because I was still practicing, and then people would be like, that's cool, do more of this. And so I prep a witness, prepping for a trial, then I did the breakdown of the deposition in Alex Jones' Sandy Hook deposition.
Speaker 0: That was 2018.
Speaker 1: 2018. And you know, the headlines at the time, don't know if you remember this, it was Alex Jones admits to suffering from psychosis, and then they play that three ten second clip, well, was sort of going through a form of psychosis back then.
Speaker 0: That's a pretty good impression.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've talked with him a lot, so, and I was like, okay, that's weird, just wanna go watch the deposition. It was three and a half hours long, and I watched the deposition, like, Alex Jones didn't look bad in this deposition at all. The lawyers looked like a bunch of hacks in this. Not Robert Barnes, his lawyer, the examining lawyer. So I went through this three and a half hour deposition.
I did a twenty minute breakdown of just the highlights to say, here's why the lawyer does not splice together exhibits for a deposition, because you don't make evidence as a lawyer, you adduce evidence. So I did this analysis. It started going viral on Twitter not Twitter, sorry, YouTube. Then they took it down. Or they demonetized it, then they took
Speaker 0: it Did it happen now?
Speaker 1: It was reestablished. They took it down, and they gave me a strike for hate speech. And like, a, nothing in the deposition was hate speech. B, nothing in my analysis was hate speech. That's when I discovered censorship on on YouTube.
Speaker 0: This is 2018.
Speaker 1: 2018.
Speaker 0: The world has changed a lot since then.
Speaker 1: And and my knowledge of the world has changed a lot since then. So you
Speaker 0: you did an analysis, and if we could pull that up as well,
Speaker 1: this is a pull up of the On the roof of my house.
Speaker 0: The Alex Jones this is regarding the Sandy the case involving Sandy Sandy Hook. Hook.
Speaker 1: Last week, someone had asked me what I thought of the attorney's conduct in the deposition of Alex Jones. For those of you who don't know, Alex Jones is being sued by six parents from the Sandy Hook shooting for defamation. In the months and years following that shooting, Alex Jones promoted a number of absolutely unsupportable conspiracy theory Pause.
Speaker 0: I don't even know what I'm looking at here. You've got no hair and no beard.
Speaker 1: They're the same human being? This is me on the roof of my house in in Westmount Montreal or Westmount Quebec, clean shaven. I've I've I've had after this one never to do vlogs and sunglasses again because I I I like you need to see the eyes of somebody. But yeah. So I did the on the roof of my own, this was before we redid it.
Speaker 0: This is impromptu.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I had cut the clips and then I just talked to a camera.
Speaker 0: Let's play let's play thirty seconds of this.
Speaker 1: In the months and years following that shooting, Alex Jones promoted a
Speaker 0: number
Speaker 1: of absolutely unsupportable conspiracy theories. First and foremost was that the parents were actually crisis actors. Six of the parents are suing Alex Jones for defamation alleging that as a result of the conspiracy theories that Alex Jones promoted, in addition to causing them anguish and pain that you can't possibly imagine, other people started harassing them, believing Alex Jones' conspiracy theories that they were actually crisis actors. Now I am only certified to practice law in Quebec, and the Quebec law on defamation is a little different than The US law on defamation. I did a video on this previously, which I'll post the link to now.
In The United States, in order to succeed on a claim of defamation, you have to prove that the statements that were made were false, that they were done maliciously with the intent to harm or out of negligence, and that harm was in fact suffered. In Quebec, we have a bit of a nuance in that the statements don't actually have to be false in order to constitute defamation. The statements can be in fact true, but if they are uttered for the purposes of causing harm, it can still constitute defamation under our civil liability system. And in virtue of the freedom of the press, the press generally benefits from a higher threshold of what they are allowed to publish, and the threshold is a little bit higher when it relates to celebrities who live in the public
Speaker 0: So so you're it's pretty impressive, by the way. Are you are you reading from a script?
Speaker 1: No. I I've I've never scripted. I cannot script. It's pretty incredible. It and I I edit out some of the hemming and hawing in between the sentences and if I get something wrong, but I can't script on paper because it doesn't come out naturally, and also it doesn't flow the But you're
Speaker 0: you're you're citing the elements of of the defamation law in The United States in Quebec without skipping a beat.
Speaker 1: No. Mean, it's so they're they're similar.
Speaker 0: When you Is that true in Quebec? You can I I heard you say that It can be true? If you're intending to harm somebody.
Speaker 1: Correct. There's there's one decision where they disclose think in other states, it might be more analogous to public disclosure of a private fact type thing.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: But Quebec is a unique province in Canada, and it has some unique case law.
Speaker 0: And and and it's some sort of, you know, original English law that the the greater the harm, the greater the libel. And I I've seen that as a through line to the work that I've done throughout my life. Is it it's almost like and there's a great line from the insider where Al Pacino says, the the more true it gets, the the worse it gets. I'm paraphrasing. But it's it's not that the stuff is is false.
It's that it's true. And the more true it is, the worse it is. It's kind of non American jurisprudence tends to approach libel that way.
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: I I mean, I don't from a legal perspective, no. Still has to be, generally speaking, false.
Speaker 0: False.
Speaker 1: But from a political perspective, truth. Like, the the lies are not what do the damage. It's it's the truth that does the damage. Yes. And so, like, that's why I said, like, people can lie about me.
No one's gonna believe some of the lies. And even from a human emotional perspective, someone lies about you. Who gives the sweet bugger all? It's when they it's when they say something that you feel to be true that you genuinely take the offense and sort of lash back out. But no.
So, like, you know, that was it. That was the first one. Did an analysis. It got taken down. I discovered all of the censorship on YouTube.
I had friends and family saying at the time, don't touch anything Alex Jones. I had no idea. He was the biggest boogeyman in Canada throughout the world back then, and I said, no, I'm doing it. I'm not gonna be scared of talking about a subject because people don't like the guy, but I discovered YouTube censorship. I also just found my niche to the extent that What did
Speaker 0: they censor you over?
Speaker 1: Well, took it down and gave me a strike for hate speech. What was Nothing. He didn't even talk
Speaker 0: I'm just trying to understand where they're coming from.
Speaker 1: The opaqueness is the feature, not the bug. I never got an explanation. The opaqueness
Speaker 0: is the feature.
Speaker 3: Like they're But
Speaker 0: they were all just explaining what the law is,
Speaker 1: right? Not even that, it's not even as though the video contained, the video sections of the deposition contained any inflammatory, offensive, or even graphic descriptions. It was just, know, defamation. And then I started fighting with YouTube about it at the time. Ultimately, it came back, and it was remonetized.
But you realize, like I said, someone's going to go to YouTube and see that I've had a video taken down for violating the terms of service as it relates to hate speech. Maybe these days, people could say my tweets are a little bit more offensive than anything I did back in 2018, but that's defamatory by implication. To take down a video of mine and say hate speech on YouTube, at the time, I was making an effort to be polite. Now I've sort of given up on that, truth over politeness every day of the week, but that's how I discovered it. Found my niche back in 2018, you know, what they call the Law Tube didn't really exist.
Speaker 0: Law Tube.
Speaker 1: Law Tube, there was Legal Eagle, I
Speaker 0: don't know any. I'm not familiar with any. Are there any others like you?
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, there's a lot. There's, let's say, Robert Govea, Nick Riccada, Joe Neerman, Good Law Tube.
Speaker 0: Okay, forgive me. I forgot Nick. He does some incredible work.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, He set aside does some incredible work. He's personal issues that he's dealing with, which he is going to overcome and touch wood, come back stronger than before. No, Nick Rakeda, Nate Brody, there's an actual, there's a lot of them legally.
Speaker 0: I have on the screen here. Legal bites. This is from you, what date is this guys? Scroll down so I can see the date. Oh yeah, this is Let's see the date, it's July 7, this is somewhat recently.
Speaker 1: Oh no, I keep giving, I won't stop picking at the soft censorship on YouTube, but now I'm down with Rumble exclusively.
Speaker 0: They're deliberately opaque. That's very true. They are deliberately opaque.
Speaker 1: And they don't you can't get humans on on No. You can't get human explanations. There's no explanation, there's just certain subjects that are off limits for some people.
Speaker 0: It's Kafkaesque, there's no individual that's responsible. It's like just a bot.
Speaker 1: Well, it's even it's it's what they're doing because it's off limits for some people. NBC, CBS, ABC, sixty Minutes plays the exact same clip. They're fully monetized with, like, premium ads. So it's it's only they do not want some people speaking about certain issues. Alex Jones was one.
Because if anybody ever found out and understood truly what judicial injustice Alex Jones went through, they might not think, they might realize that he isn't
Speaker 0: actually What is the greatest, for those who are not familiar, what was the greatest example of injustice in that case involving
Speaker 1: Well, the the that he never had a trial, and people think he had a trial. He was defaulted into a a liability finding in both Connecticut and Texas. There was never a trial on the merits as to the defamation or the intentional inflation of emotional distress, so they never even got to some legal questions, statute of limitations. They never got to legal
Speaker 0: summary judgment or how they get No.
Speaker 1: No. It was it was defaulted into a verdict, liability finding.
Speaker 0: In Texas The judge said
Speaker 1: in in Connecticut, then they piggybacked off that in Texas. They said he so defaulted on his discovery obligations that you don't need to have a trial. Liability. And but and and appreciate this. I say, like, in in Quebec, you know, having your lawsuit dismissed or tossed on a procedural basis, they say that it's sort of like the the nuclear weapon of of of loss of, legal remedies.
Like, you you you get your day in court, period. They could have defaulted him where he said you can't defend, but the plaintiff still has to prove their case. Plaintiffs never proved their case. They never got over certain of the legal hurdles, statute of limitations, actual malice for a journalist.
Speaker 0: Well, actual malice is something, you know, it's like you have to and what I found in my case against the New York Times, which is something else you covered, was that it's hard to prove mens rea or intent in the minds of the defendant if you can't go through discovery with them. So it's kind of a catch 22. You're supposed to file a motion trying to prove things that you can't yet prove in this getting around the hurdle of motion to dismiss. I'm talking about if you're the plaintiff.
Speaker 1: True, true. And then one thing that I've learned in covering legal stuff in The States is motions to dismiss in The States are granted, as far as I'm concerned, surprisingly often. In Quebec, you never get a motion dismissed because you have to get your day in court. Like, whether or not it's flimsy, it'll come out
Speaker 0: in What about when loser is there loser pay in Quebec?
Speaker 1: Not not in Quebec. No. In Ontario to and I'm on civil law.
Speaker 0: So it's tough for a defendant then?
Speaker 1: Oh, it it's it's tough for a defendant because you get sued, you're being dragged into it, and it's virtually impossible to get it dismissed at a preliminary stage. How about
Speaker 0: the legal cost in Quebec versus
Speaker 1: United States? I mean, everything's cheaper in Quebec, but everything's cheaper in terms of legal costs, but it's still an arm and a leg. Awards are much less in Quebec as well. So but no. I I think your audience will probably appreciate it, but it's not even that they said, Alex Jones, you don't get to defend.
You've to sit there in court with a smile on your face, they've got to present their evidence. The judge defaulted the plaintiffs into liability sorry, Alex Jones into liability vis a vis the plaintiffs. The only trial they had in Texas was on how much Alex Jones was gonna pay. And even then, they prevented him from saying he was innocent. They prevented him from saying that he was that he had apologized, that he had retracted.
They forbade him from say so the entire thing was a show trial to the point of literal show trial. They had cameras in the courtroom documenting this for a documentary series that I think the judge attended the premiere of. And so I discovered all that very slowly. But back in 2018, LawTube, there were only three, maybe four of us. It's blossomed into something amazing, and then the evolution over 2018, 2019 kept on covering stories.
Then 2020 happens, world goes crazy, I end up in my car because kids are kids are on lockdown. I got three kids in the house, two dogs. I can't
Speaker 0: get it quite as car videos, team. Defending a Subaru, and you're making law you Lawtube. I've never heard that before. We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant.
We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth. You, we, are the media now. Lawtube videos, how I became a lawyer.
Let's take a look at this clip.
Speaker 1: Oh, this one's gonna be this one's gonna be cringe as well. We like cringe. You know, juice for kids. I popped the switch on the container and dumped 600 gallons of bug juice all over the Oh, this is what I did. I was a bad kid.
In my teens.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's one with a dog. Let's pull up the so you're you're you're making let's pull up another one team a little bit, maybe a year later because those are the ones I'm used to.
Speaker 1: Sitting behind the wheel of a car ranting and raving.
Speaker 0: You had a bumper, like a little musical thing and you did this LawTube, so you do this and then what happens?
Speaker 1: So COVID hits, that really is what changed everything because I'm stuck at home with three kids, two dogs. I have one kid who's very young, so I would drive him around so he falls asleep. When he fell asleep in the car, I would do a video. And so I did a video a day.
Speaker 0: He fell asleep.
Speaker 2: He would
Speaker 1: fall asleep because the kids whether or he has what is it when you need stimulation in order to relax? Like not hyperactivity, but he needed to be driven around in order to fall asleep. I was doing that, developed the niche. COVID hits were all locked down. I started doing longer format interviews periodically, and then the the the, you know, the I had met Robert Barnes.
Speaker 0: This is this is the one I'm now you're starting to
Speaker 1: go out in the West.
Speaker 0: You're starting to get you're on the path to long hair. Play it.
Speaker 1: Kitchen Gone Bad starring David Portnoy. Do you know who David Portnoy is? I would have cut that and up on a
Speaker 0: second shoot shorter. You cut all this yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. I I would I would shoot in the car, take it into the house, go edit, add some music, add some memes, post in the afternoon, tag, you know.
Speaker 0: Play another thirty seconds. I love these videos.
Speaker 1: Viva Fry, Montreal litigator turned YouTuber, and this is Winnie the Westie. You know, when the world seems to be falling apart every now and again, it's fun to get distracted by something as glorious as the worst moment of a deposition imaginable. Alright. I may be exaggerating a bit, but it is a great highlight nonetheless from the deposition of David Portnoy in the context of the Michael Rapaport defamation and breach of contract lawsuit against Barstool Sports. Now in order to truly understand and appreciate the beauty of what went wrong in this highlight of the deposition, one needs a little bit of context, which is going to make everyone smile even if you feel guilty about smiling about it.
Barstool Sports beats Michael Rapaport's defamation claims. A judge won't hold the bro network liable for tarring its former podcaster as a racist, a domestic abuser, and a D list actor with an STD. But in a wild 64 page opinion, the judge sends contract claims to trial. Alright. So the article
Speaker 0: So so this so Portnoy was suing somebody?
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. Portnoy was oh gosh, I forget. I just remember the Michael Rapaport. I don't want to laugh at people's misfortune, but yeah, I forget the details of this now, but I'll go back and rewatch it.
But just I would find a piece of news that interested me, get the, you know, to the extent get the pleadings, pull up some stuff and just put the videos together. Yeah. And it it started going. I built up a you know, I went from 50,000 to 80,000 I did YouTube. Yeah, on YouTube.
But during COVID, when I actually met Robert Barnes, not even realizing that Robert Barnes, who we now have our our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community, and we've become great friends, he was the lawyer in the Alex Jones deposition in the backdrop.
Speaker 0: Oh, really?
Speaker 1: I met Barnes through the Covington defamate the Covington kids defamation case where he was representing the Covington kids, not Nicholas I'm
Speaker 0: interject on that because I want to keep going, but the Covington case, that was the kid who was smiling with the Native American gentleman. And would always a question I had, maybe you don't know the answer to it, but why did they settle? Why did he keep going?
Speaker 1: I don't know. And Barnes didn't represent Sandman, so I've got no insider information. Name was the young man? Nicholas Sandman with two n's.
Speaker 0: His wife heard that there was a settlement.
Speaker 1: Yes, and I don't think it was for what everyone's, people think he made $100,000,000. No, I think, mean at some point you settle if you can get some sort of moral victory out of this because nobody was gonna be retiring off those funds.
Speaker 0: Right. But That was against the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: That was against Washington Post, CNN, I wanna say. I think CNN as well. And Barnes was representing the unnamed Covington kids who were not suing for a 150,000,000. They were just suing for retractions and corrections. But, you know, this this is living through the evolution of how you discovered media has always been lying.
They've always been censoring. You can't trust big tech to even, you know you you can't trust them as a business. If you exist on YouTube, they can shut you down overnight. They can strike your channel out of existence. COVID hits, started doing long format interview.
Then, you know, the the next big thing in the evolution of my life was the Ottawa Trucker protest Ottawa which was two days after your event in
Speaker 0: In Fountain Blue. Yes. Oh, the way, people, this is the Project Veritas experience where I made made a kind of jukebox musical about my life. And you were there. By the way, there was a thousand people there.
Everyone was there. It was like the greatest collection of people. You were there. That was was that after? This was right before.
Speaker 1: So It was before. Yeah. It was two days before. So I'm in You went
Speaker 0: back to Canada.
Speaker 1: I was going well, I wasn't yet in Florida full time yet. Was just here. You
Speaker 0: were Miami, and
Speaker 1: you flew back to Ottawa. No, I flew back to Montreal. So as I'm at the event, everyone's like, Viva, why are you with James O'Keefe? There's a protest going on in Ottawa and you got and like, first of all, at the time, I had no idea. I don't think anybody knew exactly how big this was or how big it was gonna get.
So I was like, okay, guys, first of chill out. I'm here. Come back and I'll head to Ottawa on Monday. Did your event I mean, attended your event. It was fantastic.
Fly back to Montreal, drive to Ottawa on the Monday, and just start live streaming, unedited, walking the streets to see what was going on.
Speaker 0: I think we have some clips from the Ottawa. Team, let's pull up. I want to look at some of what you've done.
Speaker 1: This is sort of street journalism that you did there. I had never done this before. Like I'm always nervous about doing things live and doing things with people who might not want to be on camera afterwards or who might
Speaker 0: see very careful to ask one of the pedestrians,
Speaker 1: are you okay with being recorded? I've I've I've done it to everybody, but then at some point, you get a little more realistic. You can't do it with everybody when you're live certain but you can be pull
Speaker 0: up the one where he's on the street on the street in Ottawa. There's a couple clips. Let's take a look at some of the work that you did up there. Oh, yeah. This This was right after the Fountain Blue.
Speaker 1: This is This one was a few days into the trucker protest.
Speaker 0: Trucker protest.
Speaker 1: This was a a trucker that I was interviewing. I
Speaker 2: was born under a
Speaker 1: totalitarian regime,
Speaker 2: but I had no choice. Hold on.
Speaker 1: I'm getting close so people can hear this. Born under a totalitarian regime. Oh, definitely. I'm a
Speaker 2: communist under a totalitarian regime, but I had no choice. I made my choice not to die.
Speaker 0: Hard to hear.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because was I was just off my off my camera. Tell us some
Speaker 0: point. You did in the trucker movement.
Speaker 1: So I when I get down there, I what what actually spawned me even going in the first place was people saying, Viva, the media's lying. Because if you remember the early days, the first day, they said there's a Nazi flag there. It's a swastika and a flag. It's a right wing extremist neo Nazi thing. They're they're defecating on the war memorial, which they called the cenotaph, and then it like, Viva the media was lying.
This was the media this is what state funded CBC media was saying. And people were like, Viva, they're lying. Come down and see for yourself. And I'm like, look, I don't know who to believe, so I'm going to go down with my camera. And if there are people dancing on the cenotaph and relieving themselves on the cenotaph, the world's going to see it.
If there's a Nazi flag and far right extremists, the world's going see I go down there and stream continuously for, like, almost like three to five hours a day, and it was the inverse of reality. We appreciate I it
Speaker 0: like that. That's what I've always found. When you point your camcorder in any direction, it usually contradicts what CNN is reporting.
Speaker 1: It was literally like, the problem is it's so frustrating because you know it as sure as you've seen it with your own eyes. It was not just a lie. It was the inversion of reality.
Speaker 0: Did you know that prior to getting there?
Speaker 1: No. Said I'm gonna go down and people
Speaker 0: Did you intuitively know the media was lying?
Speaker 1: I intuitively knew that they were exaggerating, but I was prepared to get hate for showing what people might not have wanted me to show to the public. Like, I went down there, they said they desecrated the Terry Fox Memorial, I was like, okay, if they did, I'm sorry, no judgment people, I'm just gonna show I what get down there, the desecration of the Terry Fox Memorial consisted of putting a hat on his head and a Canadian flag in his arms. When when they do it for the gay pride and the the, you know, they they cover it in a two s LGBTQIA flag, that's not desecration. When they spray paint it for the Palestinian protest That's
Speaker 0: not desecration.
Speaker 1: That's not desecration. When they put a Canadian flag and a Canadian hat on it, desecration. So I go
Speaker 0: down All desecration is equal, but some desecration is more equal than others.
Speaker 1: I I would I would ordinarily agree, but they wouldn't even they don't even acknowledge that. There was a
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. We have the clip of This of is interesting. This is you. Let's just play it, and we'll pause it as we
Speaker 1: How you doing? Little bit more. Sorry. I should have asked. You don't you don't mind being on the interwebs?
Speaker 4: Let's do it.
Speaker 1: Are you part of the protest? Yeah.
Speaker 0: In Quebec, what's the you may not know the answer, but what's the consent law regarding recording? Is it one party consent?
Speaker 1: It would oh, no. Everything in everything in Canada is This one is Ontario. But it's it's one party consent throughout Canada unless I'm you do not need the permission of other people to record conversations. But
Speaker 0: you asked anyway.
Speaker 1: I asked, well, I didn't want her to, I didn't want to embarrass her, to tell the story behind this, her name is Trista Suk. I had no idea who she was.
Speaker 0: She's so well dressed in the wintertime.
Speaker 1: I have thought she was crazy, she comes down to the protest, she's got a guitar, know, she was on drugs or something. I just wanna sing. I was like, oh boy. And then she says, I'm gonna sing for you. I was like, this is gonna be embarrassing.
Let it roll and I was I held my breath and when you hear her voice Okay.
Speaker 0: Let's keep playing. This is the lady in Yeah.
Speaker 1: I am. And where where are you from?
Speaker 4: I'm from North Of Toronto.
Speaker 1: Alright.
Speaker 4: I came here yesterday. I actually came to sing a song on stage and, of course, to support the movement and honestly, to be around other people. That's the main reason. I just wanna be in a community and I wanna be together and I wanna see people's faces.
Speaker 1: It's very nice.
Speaker 4: It's another thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah? I I I I've I've I've hugged more people today than I've hugged in Oh, she's nice. She's going hard. She she's attacked you. Which way you had you're going down to the
Speaker 4: I'm just checking it out. I'm taking some videos I wanted to see for
Speaker 1: people. Was just looking for a tracker. Still wasn't sure if she was crazy or not. Skip to the part where she starts singing if It's you I think it's a three minute clip. I just say, like, occasionally I go back and watch this.
Speaker 0: Scroll through and see if she's she's on America Got Talent or something like that?
Speaker 1: She ended up auditioning for Canada's Got Talent, she sings Amazing Grace, it's one of the best songs ever written. She's got the guitar? She's got the guitar, but I still think of like, this is a woman who's, you know, I still thought she might be totally crazy.
Speaker 0: This is why I love going to these events, these protests, these things, because you end up meeting these people.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, no, everyone is, I never, I did not meet one bad soul at the Ottawa protest in the two weeks that I was there, but hear her voice, you'll hear it, it's
Speaker 0: Let's hear it,
Speaker 2: let's hear
Speaker 4: I'll just think like one verse, because my hands are gonna be
Speaker 1: so cold. No pressure. No pressure.
Speaker 0: How cold was it out there?
Speaker 1: Depending on the day.
Speaker 0: Right right then, was like twenty, thirty degrees or so. What is that?
Speaker 1: Fahrenheit. Yeah. Minus it was like minus eight, give or take.
Speaker 0: Minus eight?
Speaker 1: But that's in Celsius? Gonna be very I'm gonna get mocked on the Internet. I don't know which way it goes.
Speaker 0: It's okay. It's probably Celsius, but minus eight Celsius is is below freezing.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. It was below freezing. It was so cold. Some days you'd you'd have like the frost would freeze on my on my I
Speaker 0: chat GBT what minus you know, minus let's keep playing.
Speaker 1: Come on. Like this at this moment, realized it would she was not a crazy
Speaker 0: when she It's 20 degrees outside Fahrenheit. How
Speaker 1: about that?
Speaker 0: Very talented.
Speaker 1: Yeah. She's Wow. What are you thinking? I was like, thank goodness, she's got a good voice for this, and I remember in the chat, because I'm livestreaming, could see all the comments, everyone's like, beautiful voice, amazing stuff.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So you know, I did that for, I would go back virtually every day from Montreal to Ottawa. It was about a two and a half hour drive. I would park the car when everyone says you couldn't park. Traffic was but what is a backlog in all of Ottawa. I went and documented that.
It became the biggest moment the, call it, the era of the year. I mean, at one point, there were like 50 some odd thousand people watching some crazy man like myself walking the streets just talking to people, and it was the most beautiful thing ever. It ended the way it did, and we've since seen what happened in Canada. But that was a change in trajectory where we started doing some live streaming stuff but had that moment which which yeah. It's it's There's another one in a lifetime.
Speaker 0: Of, you know, a Rumble video where there was something involving a quarantine of your 12 year old daughter because they were unvaccinated and there's a video of you on Rumble where you're on the phone. Talk about that.
Speaker 1: Oh no, play it. Well, so this, I don't remember why we crossed the border. It might have been, I don't remember when, we came back to Canada. My daughter, we did not risk medical We didn't get my kid vaccinated. Were like, well, they're not what we did as adults
Speaker 0: You didn't get your 12 year old vaccinated.
Speaker 1: I didn't get any of that particular shot, but we did not get her vaccinated. So when we came back over the border, you had this app. You have to where you went and where you're going, where your address is. And then they said you had to quarantine your kid if they were not vaccinated. And I get this call from like, I don't want to judge the person on the other end of the phone because everybody's, you know, doing their Doing
Speaker 0: their job.
Speaker 1: A bureaucrat telling me, yeah, you gotta lock up your kid for five days. If you play it, I'll try not to get enraged, but
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was like, you'll
Speaker 0: Also a Canadian bureaucrat.
Speaker 1: This is a Canadian designated as a quarantine officer, I think. Just the woman sounds like she's 20 years old.
Speaker 0: Let's play it.
Speaker 1: It was it was a moment of rage. You'll hear it in my voice. I don't scream when I get angry. I this day. Who's this?
Speaker 3: I am would you like to continue this call in English or French?
Speaker 1: Let's go with English.
Speaker 3: And before we proceed, I need to inform you this call is being monitored for training and quality.
Speaker 1: Good. It's being monitored already.
Speaker 0: And you can record it. Federal quarantine act. Federal but but but just help me understand the circumstances. Why did they need to quarantine her? Because she wasn't vaccinated?
Speaker 1: She wasn't vaccinated.
Speaker 0: So anybody who is not vaccinated in Canada must be quarantined.
Speaker 1: Remember, they never told you that it would prevent transmission.
Speaker 0: But that's the law.
Speaker 1: That would that was there were no laws. This was we had
Speaker 0: a federal quarantine act.
Speaker 1: The federal quarantine act basically empowers the government to issue directives that designated officers then get to enforce. The the nothing in the law
Speaker 0: I see.
Speaker 1: Says that they get to tell you
Speaker 0: So they that they were extrapolating a power Yeah.
Speaker 1: They they issue a directive. Like, right they now, they say can, in theory, under the law, if you're infected, direct you to be, you know, isolated. If you're infected.
Speaker 0: If she is if your daughter is infected.
Speaker 1: Infected, symptomatic, whatever. This and this this was only because she was getting disparate treatment because she wasn't vaccinated. But okay. Let's keep playing. Play it.
I'm I'm gonna try not to Yeah. Interrupt with Rage.
Speaker 3: She might be asking a few questions about Mira's quarantine to verify that she keeps in compliance with application, including a day one and a day a COVID test. This call should just take a few minutes.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. And sound
Speaker 3: Can you confirm that she arrived in Canada on Tuesday?
Speaker 0: We're gonna talk over it. Keep playing it.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. That was that was in that was confirmed. Yes. We arrived in Canada Tuesday.
Speaker 3: Okay. And our work had indicated Veschi is a unvaccinated trap entering Canada.
Speaker 1: Oh, she had been infected also. You're coming from Florida. I think so. Unvaccinated. Think we're looking at a place
Speaker 3: at this time. Entering Canada who do not meet the Canadian
Speaker 2: definition of fully vaccinated are required to be in quarantine for a minimum of
Speaker 0: What's the consequence?
Speaker 3: Is she under quarantine?
Speaker 1: She's under quarantine. Go go eff yourself is where she's at quarantine. In Virtue of what is she supposed to be in quarantine for fourteen days?
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No. In virtue of what?
Speaker 5: You're a lawyer. A bureaucrat.
Speaker 1: No. But but what what that's no way to what you're saying. Yeah. You're It says right here.
Speaker 3: He means not your understanding of
Speaker 1: what you're What provision what provision of law are you suggesting requires my daughter to be in fourteen days of quarantine?
Speaker 3: She's under the federal quarantine act, sir.
Speaker 1: No. But what provision of law is it? Because I I I know sir. I know I've read the quarantine act. I've I've studied the quarantine.
Speaker 0: Sure. You have. Okay.
Speaker 1: What what provision of law? Because she tested negative. We've had COVID within the last hundred and eighty days.
Speaker 3: I understand that. So she's not required to
Speaker 1: be vaccinated. But then she's not fully vaccinated. This is insanity.
Speaker 0: That she's required to be quarantine
Speaker 1: for Under what provision of law?
Speaker 3: Sir, the international sir, the
Speaker 1: The international. What the hell was she about to say there? No. But I I'm I'm telling you The international what?
Speaker 0: That was a Freudian slip.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Or or she's reading a different directive. I've read the quarantine act. There is nothing in it that really is confirmed.
Speaker 3: Sir, the if you go on canada.ca/covid19coronavirus, you will see unvaccinated child that entering Canada are required to be in quarantine for fourteen.
Speaker 1: I I I I'm not sure that that I don't believe that's the the the law.
Speaker 3: Yes. Is. She's required to be
Speaker 1: You can stop here. Doesn't it doesn't go
Speaker 0: away She's with her saying that's the law. You're saying the law doesn't allow them to do that.
Speaker 1: She says go to the website and a website now dictates law overnight. Like, it's it's it's insanity, and it's insanity that Canadians still seem to be putting up with. I mean, you heard what's going on in Nova Scotia recently?
Speaker 0: I saw that, tell us about that. Not allowing hunting, or excuse me, allowing hiking.
Speaker 1: Hiking. No. Hiking. Then because Fishing. You you remember the forest fires from 2023?
Yes. It was blowing smoke down into New York. Yeah. I remember
Speaker 0: those fires.
Speaker 1: So those fires, I won't say all of them. The biggest fire in Nova Scotia's history of that summer was the arson. Whether or not it's exacerbated by climate crisis, which is what they want you to believe, horse crap, but it was arson, arson and poor forest management. Also, the fact that forest fires, firefighters had been fired or or kicked out of the forest because they were not vaccinated. So two years ago there were some bad forest fires.
This year there's some fires already, but they're saying it's such a crisis now that it's too risky to go into the forested areas, to go into the woods. Risky to humans. You might spontaneously combust. Start a fire. So Nova Scotia has banned hiking, fishing, camping.
Speaker 0: The entire province?
Speaker 1: In the entire province. Like Nova Scotia. I don't want to make it it's like, I'd say a million and a half people. I don't think it's very many people. It's like the most least densely populated place on Earth.
This guy, the premier Tim Houston, comes out and says, no, I know it sucks. No hiking, no fishing, no camping. You can't go into public forested lands. And it's the exact same pretext and the same sheep that sat down there like, didn't, you know, people are gonna say, Vivi, you didn't protest enough or you didn't go get arrested. Of course, I protested, I ran for office with COVID, with the COVID stuff.
And they say, Vivi, you played along because you wore the face mask and you were What
Speaker 0: was the outcome of your daughter thing? You just
Speaker 1: I never took a call from them again. I mean, when I saw What are
Speaker 0: they gonna do?
Speaker 1: They could have put me in jail for that. They didn't. No. Kept on calling and
Speaker 0: I Keep this up on the screen. We're gonna talk about Nova Scotia in a moment, but I think that what strikes me about what you did is a lot of people just tend to get afraid and they back down, and you didn't back down in that moment.
Speaker 1: Well, they were telling me to put my healthy daughter in quarantine for fourteen days. That's actual child abuse. And then during COVID, there was a place in Ontario called the Peel Region. They were giving directives that if a kid crossed someone who later tested positive because they're doing region? Call it Ontario for people.
It's a specific region. But Ontario, said if your kid came in contact with someone who subsequently tested positive because they were doing contact tracing, that kid needed to quarantine. And they said, as young as five. And I remember at the time, people were posting, or at least posting screenshots, tweets, Facebook messages. I hear my kid crying in the eye.
I know people who did this.
Speaker 0: Quarantine the show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it wasn't on us for five days, three days, put him in a room and slid food under the door.
Speaker 0: What percentage of Canadians do you think did not do it like you? Was it ten percent, twenty percent?
Speaker 1: No, I say not enough, not doing that, I don't know. You have to be a psychopath to do that to your kid, but the more vocal opposition, not enough Canadians were vocally opposed to this and too many were vocally in support of it. And if you see the relics of that today, Canadians are complacent. They're complacent.
Speaker 0: Why is that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think if I go back genetically to the country, you have America, which fought for its independence, and you have Canada, which has always been happy to be a subject of the crown. And they believe, you know, you have your rights that are given to you by the king and the queen, and in America, you fought tooth and nail, guns in hand, for those freedoms that are God given that no king or queen gets to decide when when and where you get them. And that history, that DNA sort of becomes a self fulfilling prophecy in that people who move to America appropriate that zeitgeist, typically speaking. They say like, oh, if you're moving to America and you're in Canada, you're going say, oh, Americans are brash, boorish, ignorant, whatever, the Wild West. So anybody who moves to America is going to be more amenable to that stereotype.
Anybody who moves to Canada, polite, although I think they're fundamentally not just impolite, but tyrannical. So you have this sort of self fulfilling stereotype that breeds out incoming people. But I mean, that's it. Hurts me to have the degree of resentment that I have towards the country. It's not towards the people, it's towards the government, and it's towards those who support that government.
Speaker 0: There's also mean, I get so many tips, as you know. I mean, I get we at some days, we get 10,000 messages. The the number the largest percentage of people that want me to go do a story are Canadians. So there's a lot of people in your country who reach out to someone like me and want me to go up there and do what of course, my response is, well, I might go to jail if I you know, not because I've broken the law, but just because that's that's the it's very tyrannical.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's You know? Insanely tyrannical.
Speaker 0: You guys don't have the same First Amendment that we have. Right?
Speaker 1: We do. I've been on the Internet now for
Speaker 0: a long about this.
Speaker 1: People have always said, Veeva, you don't have free speech in Canada. In 2016, when, I was covering the Jordan Peterson Bill C16, adding gender identity to aggravating factors for hate crimes in the criminal And I was like, Okay, no, I was sort of I was, A, polite, B, trying to be, I say, neutral in assessment. But now you don't have free speech where hate speech is subjective to the person, where hate speech, under the proposals that they were trying to put into law last year, could land you in jail, or tweeting something could get you a fine. You have free speech
Speaker 0: What is your quote unquote First Amendment in Canada?
Speaker 1: That there is a First Amendment. Not It doesn't include hate speech. Hate speech is that which is defined under the Supreme Court ruling as susceptible of fomenting disdain towards an identifiable group of people.
Speaker 0: Say that again.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sort of paraphrasing No,
Speaker 0: I'm paraphrasing. Susceptible of fomenting disdain.
Speaker 1: Disdain, hatred, contempt towards groups of people. And the amazing thing is, when I say, going back to Quebec, defamation doesn't even have to be false. You could say things that are truthful. It's gotten to the point where if you were to say things like statistical overrepresentation in certain types of crimes, statistical overrepresentation
Speaker 0: Which is statistically accurate.
Speaker 1: Statistically accurate, and it might be an inconvenient reality, but it's a reality nonetheless, one which you don't remedy, by the way, by outlawing it could be potentially criminal. But then the problem is you have Canadians saying, yeah, well, you know, feelings matter, and you don't need to say it. Why do you need to say this? Well, you is why I need to say it. Like, I I don't need there's a lot of things I don't need.
You don't get you don't need a car with six cylinders, but you don't get to tell me I can't have one unless it's a damn good reason.
Speaker 0: You were born in Quebec.
Speaker 1: I was yeah. Born born and raised.
Speaker 0: Montreal? Montreal. And yet, you sound like an American.
Speaker 1: Well, this is what I'm thinking. I'm discovering that referring to the American spirit is not a citizenship issue. It's like, I will take risky freedom over a safe prison any day of the week. What made
Speaker 0: you this way? I shouldn't have trusted these guys, but I did trust these guys.
Speaker 1: A lot of people thought there
Speaker 0: was
Speaker 2: malfeasance. I would prefer to say ignorant of those events. I didn't wanna know.
Speaker 0: Nonprofit boards of directors directors can can be be very, very, very very dangerous. Dangerous. Unfortunately, I have recordings and documents to back up everything I'm about to tell you.
Speaker 1: Employees were starting to bundle up and talk.
Speaker 3: If we're about to paint James as a criminal, it better be fucking good.
Speaker 0: They sent a pic of me nailed to a cross. They used these kids. Matt used them to further his agenda.
Speaker 1: The reason why James was bad was morphing.
Speaker 0: I never lived this lifestyle with black bars. He's a mean boss.
Speaker 3: The president of his girlfriend is not appropriate.
Speaker 0: I don't know that Jameson has a private club. James
Speaker 1: took a pregnant woman sandwich. These are people that we thought were people with integrity.
Speaker 2: Who on the board is in control?
Speaker 0: Turns out war members are taking money from donors. How
Speaker 2: much did you invest in which
Speaker 0: of the Nazi Men's companies?
Speaker 5: I don't think that's any of your business.
Speaker 0: We're at the pinnacle of Mount Everest.
Speaker 2: Are you refusing to answer the question?
Speaker 0: Yes. Only thing that has changed is that we broke the biggest story in our organization's history. If a board statement goes out, it's fucking over. We've laid everything changed. And it wasn't right.
It was the timing of it that was so suspicious.
Speaker 2: Is it fair to say that three of the four companies you've invested in, you would consider to be in the medical field.
Speaker 0: So what did the board think people were gonna assume?
Speaker 2: One of the companies could be sold to a big pharma.
Speaker 1: Like Pfizer. Like Pfizer.
Speaker 0: The board not think that people were gonna assume the worst? I wanna talk about your investments.
Speaker 1: I wanna talk about you.
Speaker 0: I'm a fighter.
Speaker 2: You're a cheat.
Speaker 0: I'm a warrior.
Speaker 2: You're a liar.
Speaker 0: And I will get my justice. Not revenge, but justice.
Speaker 1: Is it all about money? Too bad you can't afford that.
Speaker 0: Big difference.
Speaker 1: How do you define conflict of interest? Well, that's what I've been. I've always been you know, when we were talking earlier, a pain in the neck of a kid, which is I I don't like authority, and I don't like people arbitrarily creating rules and imposing rules as though they get to dictate what I can do and what I can think. It used to be your freedom ends at the tip of my nose type thing. And now it's like your freedom ends at the inside of my mind, which is insanity.
And maybe being the youngest of five kids, a family of lawyers my father didn't tell me, it's okay Dave, you know, no, it's like you say something stupid, you're gonna get chewed out by your father, my mother was more polite, you'll get chewed out by your siblings. And so you grow up with this don't go easy on me for saying something stupid, and don't expect you to compromise on your pursuit of freedom from my own personal sensitivities. If I've got issues, I've got issues, and that's with me.
Speaker 0: So was your father that instilled something.
Speaker 1: He was a disciplinarian, but it was, my father's a litigator. He's not gonna let you get
Speaker 0: away with still works.
Speaker 1: He still works down. Now he's 80, 82. He's got good genes. How old are you? I am 46.
Speaker 0: 46.
Speaker 1: So he's always, but he's been tough but loving, like it's the type of father that you need. It's someone who's not gonna put up with crap and who's gonna not let you float through life like a beautiful snowflake that can't see the sunlight because you're gonna melt. And so we've gotten to a point now in Canada where people's feelings dictate what other people can say. If you can't deal with somebody's words well, I draw the line at violence, physical violence, like immediate proximate violence, not people saying, I get in trouble with this, but not even some of the laws that want to prohibit promoting of genocide. That's another one that they're trying to slap into law, which is if you advocate or promote genocide, you can get locked away for life in Canada.
And I'm like, okay, of nobody wants anyone running around saying death to Jews or death to blacks, but flip side, if you start saying trans are not real, well someone's going to say that's a call to genocide. Like you're denying the existence, they're going say this, of people with diagnosable mental illness, so that should be outlawed. And this is where you have to, I don't know when it happened, but you realize you've got to put up with that which makes you feel uncomfortable before they start taking away that which you need in order to live in a free society.
Speaker 0: Has the propensity to remove liberties from free speech gotten worse over the last five years in Canada or has
Speaker 1: it gotten Exponentially worse.
Speaker 0: It's gotten worse. Yeah, the Jordan Peterson fiasco.
Speaker 1: The Jordan Peterson was like, like he said, He tip of the
Speaker 0: was the
Speaker 1: cranberry So that's of coal worse. It has gotten much more restrictive. Much more restrictive. And they only wanna keep going further and further under the pretext of protecting kids on the Internet, literally. And like, first of all, that's not for the government to do.
That's for the parents to do. If you let your kids on the Internet, they're gonna see bad things. We I don't know. You were roughly the same age. Growing up with the advent of the internet, all the internet was for back in the early days were snuff videos.
That's what it was. I mean, maybe we all didn't grow up fine, and maybe kids shouldn't be, I don't say maybe, kids should not be viewing that. But it's the parents that are the ones who are responsible, not the government to protect the sensitivities, and I say exploit the sensitivities of kids strictly for their own power plays.
Speaker 0: So you have this Nova Scotia thing, this is your post yesterday.
Speaker 1: I'm going hard on this guy.
Speaker 0: Nova Scotia has formally prohibited hiking, camping, fishing and the use of the trail system to prevent wildfires under penalty of fines of $25,000. You know what's funny, I'm not going to do this, I just had an idea. What if I just went to Nova Scotia and went hiking?
Speaker 1: Well, was a guy who posted a video and it said, This path is off limits.
Speaker 0: This one's good. There's paths that are good? You can take
Speaker 3: certain paths?
Speaker 1: Apparently, they are doing the exact same thing they did during for
Speaker 0: prejudice and arbitrary, I mean, what's happened? Do you have any information on the ground there in Canada about what people are experiencing?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, are polite. People are abiding by this People are definitely abiding. There are no mass protests.
Speaker 0: What are gonna do? Arrest you? They'll they'll give you a
Speaker 1: fine like they did during COVID. Like, the amount of people who got
Speaker 0: $25,000?
Speaker 1: The fine for being on the path is the same for the is the same fine for burning. Like, it's it's it is insanity. For arson? For well, No. For for doing a fire.
Like, I can For appreciate forest fire. No open fires. Okay. Fine. That is
Speaker 0: the if they said a prohibition on campfires.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. They do that. I mean, they do that. I say absolutely, and then someone's gonna say, where's the line?
The line is one is logically correlated to the event. Fires start from fires. They don't start from fishing. They they don't start from hiking, and they don't start from take preventing people from using public lands that they paid taxes for. The irony is that, Tim Houston, the Nova Scotia premier, so called progressive conservative in Canada, which is like a flat mountain or a jumbo shrimp.
Speaker 0: Progressive conservative. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Speaker 1: Wait. Wait.
Speaker 0: He's he's a progressive conservative.
Speaker 1: He's a he's a conservative.
Speaker 0: Flat mountain. That's like fireproof coal
Speaker 1: Right. Or dry water. It's it's like a pregnant virgin, which I think has only happened once. I've never That could technically be true because Wait.
Speaker 0: Is who
Speaker 1: is this man? Oh, Tim Houston. Look him up. He's he's I spent five minutes on the Internet. I just you put it in words and scandal.
Speaker 0: Put it
Speaker 1: in a guy's name and scandal. Tim Houston, what was his deal? Apparently, he worked in Bermuda. He was involved you remember the Paradise Papers up in Canada? It was the pay it was a a Bermuda offshore bank that somehow the papers leaked and you found all these prominent politicians who had offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes.
Apparently he had no malfeasance. So
Speaker 0: your country is so fascinating. Is really an interesting country.
Speaker 1: It is what happens when there's corruption but there's no pushback against the corruption.
Speaker 0: Look at this. For obviously dishonest, Premier Tim Houston repeatedly met with green hydrogen investor Trent Vichet, then failed to properly file his expense claims obscuring those meetings.
Speaker 1: He lived next to a billionaire Sobeys. I believe This is the premier from Premier of Nova Scotia, the one who gets on the internet and says,
Speaker 0: I know it sucks,
Speaker 1: but we have to keep it. By the way, you wanna have your mind blown? He said those who have properties with big forested areas, your own private property, they implore you to stay out of the forest in your own private property.
Speaker 0: I'd be curious to the extent there's any civil disobedience going on in Nova Scotia.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's, I would never encourage anyone to do it either, like I didn't go out and deliberately pull down my mask and get a ticket during COVID, but I did go document it and I did go protest.
Speaker 0: If I was an American citizen, to vacationing and I just went for a hike and they gave me a little piece of paper and said US $25,000 I just came back to The United States. What are gonna do?
Speaker 1: They actually, during COVID, was I have to I have to refresh my memory on this. They did nail a bunch of Americans who when they were driving from America to Alaska, they have to go through Canada. And at the time, said, you go to your hotel and you can't no sightseeing. And then they caught a bunch of these people at And what happened? I think got massive tickets.
I don't know what happened with the tickets at the end of the day.
Speaker 0: It's interesting.
Speaker 1: No, but Canada is a good look into the future.
Speaker 0: It's like California to the
Speaker 1: It's United exponentially more progressive than California, but it's a good it's a good indicator as to what California could be if it really tried out.
Speaker 0: Are there any parts of like in The United States, we have, like, New Hampshire and Florida. Like, New Hampshire is the so called free state. Florida, they they call it the free state as well. Is there is there a similarity in Canada for a province or
Speaker 1: a part of a province? Typically, they refer to Alberta as the Texas of Canada and not in a well, they they maybe mean in a derogatory way, but it's it's the Western it's the Western province, but not British Columbia, which is more progressive than Portland, Oregon. Yeah. So you got Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, which are sort of the the the heartland provinces. Alberta now, since the election, is really pushing a secession movement.
They wanna they wanna I don't know that it's gonna happen. I think the new three passport carrying globalist who are of a prime minister of Canada, Mark Jay Carney, is going to acquiesce to their energy demands, I think, or at least allow them to strike some deals either with America or internally or abroad, to provo to prevent that crisis. But there's been a strong movement from Alberta to secede. So as far as any independent province goes, it's it's more Alberta. Quebec, French Canadian province, votes liberal, and it has its own federal party, which is a separatist party called the Bloch Quebecois.
And then Ontario Ontario and Quebec dictate the political outcome of the country, which is why the West tends to hate the East because the East dictates the politicians who dictate the policy.
Speaker 0: When in The United States, have, like, the so called New York LA DC. So the equivalent in Canada would be Ottawa's DC. Where is your cultural capital?
Speaker 1: Culture would be Toronto. It would be Ontario, Quebec would be the New York
Speaker 0: And on the Maritime provinces, I'm a sailor, I know a little bit about this. You got Nova Scotia, you got New Brunswick, you've got Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Is there any red, so
Speaker 1: No, called not in any of those.
Speaker 2: Those are
Speaker 0: all more progressive.
Speaker 1: They I mean, Nova Scotia is the one that has the premier who's the conservative banning hiking. They had their maritime bubble during COVID where you couldn't even travel within you couldn't go into those provinces without there were some restrictions and you couldn't leave the provinces without no. There it's it's Canada is is I believe it might be beyond the event horizon of Really? Communism state is No turning back. I I don't know how you turn back now.
And even turning back now would be what? Having the conservative party come into power. They just lost the election where they voted unanimously in support of conversion therapy bans. Like, they they vote for progressive crap on par with the liberals. I mean, the the only the only I don't even know what the difference is, and I don't know what the future of Canada holds.
There has to be a populist pushback, which I there isn't.
Speaker 0: You know, an obscure thing that you you may not know, maybe you do, but when I was on federal probation for three years, and I was confined, and I couldn't leave without permission from a probation officer in The United States, article three courts, you're on a federal probation, My sister married a Canadian man. My sister married a man from British Columbia. So I don't remember the circumstances, but I I I wanted to go visit Canada. And and I and I couldn't leave New Jersey without, you know, getting all types of court orders and documents. And apparently, when when American citizens on federal probation, they can't go to Canada unless they get permission from the prime minister.
Did you know that?
Speaker 1: I did not know that. And and I remember
Speaker 0: that my probation officer said, you must get permission from the prime now at the time, that was 2010. It was
Speaker 1: a conspiracy know it in Harper. Steven Harper.
Speaker 0: Think. Steven Harper. So I couldn't go to Canada without getting permission from the prime minister. I don't know if that's the law. That was I I was told that was the law.
Speaker 1: Mean, entering a foreign country is a privilege and and not a right? And then
Speaker 0: But but this was a misdemeanor. This was like, you know, a class b misdemeanor, but nevertheless, it was federal probation.
Speaker 1: You you wanna like, see, that's how they'll deal with certain elements. Now Canada's offering asylum to two s l g b two q I eight folk from The States because The congruence
Speaker 0: of it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh, because because they they like, they've never been to Miami. Miami's got a massive gay population. The idea that anybody looks at Florida and says it's a tyrannical state or America is an anti two s LGBTQIA plus country, they're they're ill informed idiots that only listen to CBC. It's mad. It's it's it's but it is it's frustrating because I say, like, you you look I I mean, I don't know where I'm gonna be in three years.
I I might I I feel more American in my spirit as far as what it goes. I love Canada.
Speaker 0: And you come to Florida. When did you come to Florida?
Speaker 1: 2022, I got I got, you know, I had my my deal with Rumble, a contract with Rumble, which facilitated everything. But I I made the during COVID, I I I told my wife, it started off as a joke. I knew we were gonna have to leave because I a, I was never imposing that medical treatment on my kids. I was never living in a province where my kids gonna have to show a a a QR code to play sports, and it was not a place to raise a family. And I knew that we were gonna have to get out.
I started jokingly with my wife over the course of a year. She became aware of the fact that we would have to leave. We sold everything, got signed the contract, and got, you Are you happy here? I I mean, I feel guilty saying it, yes. Why do you feel
Speaker 0: guilty saying it?
Speaker 1: Because on the one hand, there's a lot of people who I know would wanna leave Canada if they have the opportunity and don't. Costs an arm and a leg, you know, it requires certain logistical legal technicalities that everybody can't.
Speaker 0: Not everyone can do it.
Speaker 1: Not everybody can do it and
Speaker 0: you And you're not just an American citizen.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not an American citizen.
Speaker 0: Would you like to be?
Speaker 1: I would, I feel like one in my spirit. We'll see what time holds but then I look back at Canada and I make the analogy often, It's sort of like looking at a girlfriend that you used to love, and now you hate this. Everything that you thought you used to love about her, now you hate. You hate the way she smells. You hate the way she looks because she's betrayed you.
And I say this, and I feel guilty just because it involves people who are not guilty of this, but the country, the government has betrayed me. I look back at the country like what I used to love about it, now hate. They give the coffee shops. Oh, yeah, they have their nice cafes and you get good coffee. Can't get good coffee in Florida, that pisses me off.
You have your good cafes, it comes at the expense of absolute tyranny.
Speaker 0: So you look at these coffee shops, you say, I love the coffee, but I hate what I have to give up in order
Speaker 1: to I love get the coffee, I love the downtown, but now they've turned it into like pedestrian only because of, you know, crisis. They've ruined everything about the country.
Speaker 0: So when you, you go back to visit?
Speaker 1: I haven't been back in a while, I'm gonna go back sooner, but I mean I go
Speaker 0: back It kind of makes you sad when you go back.
Speaker 1: It makes me sad and angry. I feel like I'm stepping into a flipping insane asylum. People are still wearing face masks, Construction is through the roof. Homelessness is through the roof. Where I used to live, there's an open air safe injection site a mile and a half down the street.
They've ruined the place that I called home.
Speaker 0: I know Gavin McGinnis, who co founded Vice with Shane Smith, and he was from Montreal.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, he was from Canada. I'm about
Speaker 0: ten years older than you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And he's Montreal. I don't know if he's from Montreal, but I know he's from
Speaker 0: They located in Montreal.
Speaker 1: Know James James. Steven Crowder is from NDG.
Speaker 0: Where is that?
Speaker 1: That's where my my the district where I ran for federal Notre Dame De Grasse, NDG.
Speaker 0: I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So he's he was from my riding where I ran for federal office.
Speaker 0: That's in Quebec?
Speaker 1: That's in Quebec. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So when I go back to New York, New Jersey, where I'm from, the New York Metropolitan Area, I think there's something similar. Yeah. I went back there and I just feel a little sad. But I grew up in the 1990s and the world was much different in every possible conceivable way. But it's almost like I've outgrown it.
And I don't just mean because I'm a little older, I'm a little wiser. There's some complicated factors there because it reminds me of my past. It's not what you're saying. There are things that happened in our previous life, previous company, previous people who I no longer associate with, but I I I when I go back to that place, I think I can't live here.
Speaker 1: No. No. But it's You know? Similar emotions for different reasons. Yeah.
But you you go back, and what used to make you happy makes you angry now, and and it brings back
Speaker 0: feelings of So
Speaker 1: not necessarily angry. Sadness. Like, you can be reminded. Oh, you're you're talking about project Veritas.
Speaker 0: I think it's well, I think it's in I'm I'm trying to relate to you, and I think it's like three or four things. You're talking about one of them, and there's no question. New York City is not 1994. Like, Rudy Giuliani cleaned that place up, the broken windows theory, the subway was clean. It was the safest place per capita.
Safest Manhattan was the safest in the world. When I was in third grade, I went to visit the World Trade Center, you know, and then the bombing happened and then nineeleven happened. I always say, I feel like the year February, everything just started to suck in New York. But the nineties were great. So I relate to a lot of what you're saying.
I think also for me, it's just you outgrow a place and everyone has migrated. It's the great migration to the free state. We're sitting in West Palm Beach, Florida. It's just there's a lightness in the air. There's There's no gun laws here.
You can just go buy a gun and shoot it.
Speaker 1: I unfortunately can't because I'm a non resident. I need to get a I I want a green card if for one reason.
Speaker 0: Are you allowed to shoot somebody else's gun?
Speaker 1: I can I can go to a range? Yeah. So you'll take me
Speaker 3: on.
Speaker 0: We can do that.
Speaker 1: But it's no. It it is you know, there's something to be said. I Florida is it's flat. The freshwater has alligators and brain eating parasites in it. The beach is beautiful.
Brain eating parasites. The parasites are more dangerous than the gators. People don't That's appreciate true. You moved out here and like, there's something to be said about the spiritual liberation of freedom. That's how I feel.
And go up to Canada, people are angry, they're bitter, you can feel it, and people are gonna say, I'm projecting, I'm angry and I'm bitter. No, I go there, people don't smile at you. They don't wanna come within certain vicinity of you on the street. Everybody's, you're dodging homeless people, companies are out of business, and people are still effing crazy.
Speaker 0: Do people recognize you in Canada?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, yeah.
Speaker 0: Does anyone ever curse you off?
Speaker 1: Not, I say touch wood, no, they save that for the internet and even on the internet there's not that much of it.
Speaker 0: They don't have the courage to say it to your
Speaker 1: face. No, don't think I say anything that deserves being told to go ask myself.
Speaker 0: Well, as someone who's a public figure, no one really ever does that to me. The worst they'll do is give you a kind of a frown.
Speaker 1: I got the middle finger by one person, but this was during the Ottawa protest where they were clearly wearing a mask and not of the proclivities of supporting the protest. But no, by and large, I don't know if I'm not controversial enough. Try not to pick personal fights for no Yeah. Good
Speaker 0: You're not really someone who's just bellicose, but does anyone come up to you ever in Canada and say, support what
Speaker 1: you're doing? That happens more. That is all that it happens not too often. I mean, the hair is hard to hide.
Speaker 0: A giveaway.
Speaker 1: It's a dead giveaway. But it happens. But it happens. You know, usually it's going through an airport where you interject when you cross more people's paths. But no, I've never had anyone say, like, how dare you say something about that in particular.
But what are they gonna what are they gonna say? Like, I'm wrong on the trans issue, men in women's sports is fundamentally wrong and fundamentally unfair and fundamentally contrary to the law? Who's going to disagree with that? Someone's going to say, yeah, I believe a 14 year old should get puberty blockers. I mean, I think it's genital mutilation.
Are you going to Hate me for that. But I think, you know, not controversial for the sake of being controversial, and I have not gotten Maybe I don't make as much of the hate that I do get like some people online, but no, I think touch wood. People seem to not hate me.
Speaker 0: Yeah, mean it's like I was up there the Thousand Islands on
Speaker 1: the July 4. So that's a beautiful, beautiful place.
Speaker 0: It's beautiful place. You ever been there?
Speaker 1: Only driving through to cross the border.
Speaker 0: I was there on Canada Day, which is July, what day is it?
Speaker 1: July 1. Did they let Canadians celebrate this year? Yeah.
Speaker 0: This year, July 1. Yeah, I mean I was there on July 1 and everyone was waving their Canada flag along. For those of you who aren't familiar with the area, there's only a couple miles separating Canada from The United States and the river. And yeah, was there on a few of those Canadian islands.
Speaker 1: It's a well off area as well. Financially well off. The houses are beautiful.
Speaker 0: Excuse me, this Ontario.
Speaker 1: Ontario. I mean, because it's island homes and it's it's it's gloriously beautiful.
Speaker 0: Had a very narrow shipping channel through So you have these tiny, tiny little island. I mean, of the islands are the size of this room and there's a house on it And and there's people with Canada flags I mean, I I was on a tiny little sailboat, and there were people waving their Canadian flag an American flag. And they were like waving their Canadian flags. Was like, maybe I should take down the American flag. I don't know if they're waving at me out of Canadian pride or waving it at me as a middle finger.
I don't
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's a question what what the Canadian flag means right now. The the I call it faux patriotism. A faux patriotism. Sorry.
Faux patriotism? Yeah. Because during the Ottawa trucker protest, you literally had the CBC saying that the Canadian flag was sort of like, you know, the the the calling cry of the far right. They literally said, like, the flag and freedom were the rallying cries of the far right. And now they now since Kearny comes in and they wanna pretend to be patriotic to stick it to America, now they start flying the the Canadian flag as a form of patriotism.
So I I do call it faux hypocritical and and virtue signaling patriotism because that flag, when the truckers were flying it, was a was a was a, you know, it was an act of hate against these people, same ones who are now flying it, but presumably as a as a sign of hate towards America. The the anti American sentiment in Canada right now is shocking, even among people who I think are smart and should know better. They they do blame America and Trump for everything that's going on in Canada.
Speaker 0: Well, appreciate you're willing to be so honest and and not sugarcoat it. I mean, lot of people, you know, they're very politically correct. Oh, they're nice people. But even, again, speaking as someone relating to what you're saying as someone from the Northeast, I find people in New York, I don't mean Upstate New York, I mean New York City metropolitan area, Westchester County, Connecticut, New Jersey, I just find them to be half of them are miserable and neurotic.
Speaker 1: They're just mean. Neurotic part I could relate to, but the miserable I'm joking.
Speaker 0: Wrong type of neurotic.
Speaker 1: I It's know what you mean, and when people say Canadians are polite, it's the I'm not gonna use a hyperbolic or offensive term. It's it's again, it's it's it's not even faux politeness. It's surface level politeness. It's subservience. And, you know, subservience is politeness right up until the time where someone else is not sufficiently subservient, then they become teacup tyrants.
Tyrants. Like, is Yeah. As they go, they're nice and polite. Hey. How you doing?
And then they see you in the park, they call westbound security because you're in the playground when you shouldn't be. Like, it's not politeness. It's subservience.
Speaker 0: You're in the parking lot outside the department store not wearing a mask, and the Karen becomes instantly, like, tight,
Speaker 1: like I was I went it was one of the videos that was fantastic. When they were enforcing the vaccine passport, you had to show your QR code to get into department stores. And I said, I got two shots for whatever the reason. I said, I'm not showing you a damn thing. And he says, well, you can't come in.
I was like, yeah, I can go to the pharmacy. You're not allowed denying me the right to go to the pharmacy. It was a Walmart. So then the guy's like, all right, I'm going to walk with you from the front door to the pharmacy. What do you need?
I said, I need a bottle of rubbing alcohol. They walked me, get it, and then escorts me out. So like, it's politeness when you follow the rules. That's fake politeness. Then oddly enough, the most polite people in Canada were the ones protesting, were the ones saying break unjust laws and defy these unjust leaders.
I
Speaker 0: I know I think I know the answer, but tell us from your perspective, at the end of the protest movement, it kinda just if my memory serves me correct, they cracked down using some emergency They
Speaker 1: invoked the Emergencies Act, which allowed them to use, basically, it allowed them to, for lack of a better word, suspend the constitution. I know Trudeau says, We're not suspending the constitution. We are just coming in with a militarized police force literally beating veterans, literally, jailing people, arresting them.
Speaker 0: And then the patriotic community did what? They dispersed?
Speaker 1: They They went home. That was they dispersed. Some of them got arrested.
Speaker 0: Wanna get beaten up and go into jail.
Speaker 1: Some some of them had their lives ruined. Mean, you heard what's going on with Tamara Leach and Chris Barber, the two supposed organizers of the protest. They were convicted on mischief and counseling mischief or counseling to defy a court order, and the Crown wants to
Speaker 0: lock Mischief. Them up
Speaker 1: Mischief. Nonviolent mischief. The Crown wants to lock them up for seven and eight years respectively. They submitted sentencing memoranda to have them locked up for seven and eight years. Literal rapists don't get that much time in Canada.
There was a guy who literally kidnapped someone who was later murdered. He got probation because he had already served a few years before getting a
Speaker 0: What does the Supreme Court of Canada say about this?
Speaker 1: They they're it's a political organization. It's not
Speaker 0: it's not It's
Speaker 1: not won't say it's
Speaker 0: not as corrupt as Not as bad as Brazil.
Speaker 1: It's not like corrupt in the demorais sense of like one man controlling the outcome of things, but it's it's a partisan it's it's the the judiciary protecting the governments. It's it's one big club, and we're not in it.
Speaker 0: The Emergencies Act of 1988 is a federal law that could be used by the federal government in in the end of the
Speaker 1: It did replace the Wartime Measures Act, And the only
Speaker 0: nineteen oh eight
Speaker 1: minute No, because it replaced an anti replaced an older law, was the War Measures Act, which oddly enough, Justin Trudeau's father invoked during the FLQ crisis of 'seventy eight. And so and oddly enough, the father abused to go after his political rivals. So they rebranded it the
Speaker 0: emerging Nothing on about that, it's human nature, right? Its power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Speaker 1: You know what's funny, I was on a space, a Twitter space with Andrew Dittmann, you know the guy who sounds exactly like Elon Musk on Twitter? Was it Elon Musk or Dittmann? Someone said it.
Speaker 0: I think I know who you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he said, I said that and he says no because you'll never know if someone is uncorruptible or not corrupted until you give them power. To not have power, you don't even get to use or abuse it. You need to give someone power to see if they are corrupt.
Speaker 0: Correct. I agree And with
Speaker 1: it's true, like, know, you get corrupt jackasses like Trudeau. Look, I haven't I've yet to meet a politician who has wielded the power in a non corrupt manner. I think, you know Very
Speaker 0: few, but it's rare.
Speaker 1: It's rare. And I say, me call me biased to think the Trump admin is not wielding the batons of power as freely as they could to go after the people who went after them, but set that aside. I agree with that. Yeah. Mean, I The
Speaker 0: Biden administration rated journalists. Yeah. You imagine the Trump administration executing search warrants? I'm just trying to give an example of a non legacy media, like a like a kind of the equivalent of James O'Keefe or whatever the crystal ball. I can only think of crystal ball or like the Daily Beast reporters.
Can you imagine? Well I mean
Speaker 1: you know, but it is funny now that you mentioned, was is Steve Baker, he was with he's with the Daily Beast. No. Is he with the Daily Beast?
Speaker 0: Baker's or the Blaze?
Speaker 1: The Blaze. I'm sorry. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Was with Glenn Beck.
Speaker 1: And they they went after Steve Baker, like, and they don't don't Like, the the left doesn't care. And if if the Trump administration had done a fraction of what the Biden administration did, and I you know, or what his DOJ did, they would have locked him up. It would be the end of everything.
Speaker 0: Going back to your, and we're gonna get to the FBI, I wanna talk to you about the affidavit, I wanna talk to you about the constructive termination thing, you were attacked for, silly enough.
Speaker 1: Well, watching your channel knows what happened with you, but the idea that they raided you for the Ashley Biden diary when, as far as I'm concerned, she deliberately abandoned it there to try to sabotage her father, but no element of criminality, no hint of criminality.
Speaker 0: But going back to the the absolute power tends to corrupt. I think you're right. I think if you wanna test someone, you give them power, and the the appropriate like, I found this true in my life that the if you have an appropriate level of character, you will treat power like responsibility, and it'll weigh on you. That that's to me I don't know how you feel, but that to me is is how I would approach power. It's like, now I have this power.
Now I have this we have this profound responsibility, and politicians tend to they view it the exact opposite way. You
Speaker 1: know? Well, it is not that I have any power, but I have a you know? It's the thing when every time you send out a tweet, it's not power. It's just it's reach. Many dollars do you have?
700 and some odd That's quite a few. No. And like, it would be my biggest concern is being unfair to somebody, like being I I once made an accusation of someone that was false. And like, and it's the question like, okay, I have the power to say F off and I'm doubling down whatever. And it is a question of how people respond to that power.
Some will say, never be held I never need to be held accountable nor do I ever expect to be, and so I never need to apologize versus those saying, I have this power, if I use it improperly, I say, like, what would my father think type thing. Seems that some people don't have either a fear of God or a fear of parents ingrained in their psyche. Well, you
Speaker 0: used the word accountability, and I think those who do have the kind of power where they feel that equates to responsibility, they're held accountable every hour of the day. It's very humbling, you know, to to have that kind of well, you have 700,000 followers. And if you don't mind me asking or if you're able to talk about it, what was that moment where you got something wrong or you
Speaker 1: Oh, it it was an anonymous account of a guy who accused Robert Barnes of having put out a tweet. Mhmm. And so then I go and I look for the tweet, and I can't find the tweet. Then I find the guy who said Barnes tweeted the tweet tweeted a tweet verbatim, and then retweeted it saying that it was it was the and that's like, you you met you put that together, you retweeted the tweet, and because it didn't get enough traction, then you accused Barnsley. No.
It turns out the tweet was out there. It was it was it was luckily innocuous and irrelevant, but it was I made an accusation of someone that was false. The person it's it's an anonymous Twitter account in any event, but, you know, I apologize. And when I put out the tweet about, Tim Houston calling out corruption, like, after I sent him, like, did I did I dot all my i's and cross all my t's? It's like, did I make a mistake?
Is there another Tim Houston who was in the Paradise Papers that I just accused? It's like you have the ability to do good, and you want to make sure that you don't use your powers to do bad or, at the very least, to do harm Mhmm. Unjustly and unnecessarily or wrongly, I should just say.
Speaker 0: Well, let's talk about I guess we'll go to the the constructive termination because this was interesting. You you had a comment about this. This was this was me being, well, I would say fired from project Veritas on February 10. And in the case, they actually brought up your name, and I I won't say where or who yet, but this was, I guess, some commentary you gave back in 2023. Team, if we can pull up that screenshot from the board minutes of this was 02/10/2023.
They're gonna pull up the image, 02/10/2023. And it was a case involving this is actually what the Veritas lawsuit is all about. I was fired from the company and definitely suspended without pay. They said, no. That that that wasn't firing you, and then they sued me.
And then because I started OMG sometime after February 10, they said you you breached your contract because you were still technically employed, and this is really what the case comes down to. So
Speaker 1: It was I would add, for those who may not be familiar, It wasn't just a question of ousting constructive dismissal. It was defamation. It was destruct. It was it was an evisceration of character in an attempt to undermine everything you've ever done and everything that you would ever do. It wasn't just a question of parting ways.
And and that struggle session, was it a was it a recording?
Speaker 0: February 6, six hour long word meeting.
Speaker 1: It was what they tried to do was steal Project Veritas and what you had turned it into to use it for their own political purposes for whatever those might be because it was it Projekt Veritas was James O'Keefe, and and I'm not trying to stroke your ego. There was no one you think Projekt Veritas, it's James O'Keefe and vice versa. No one's gonna come in there and
Speaker 0: It's almost like they resented the fact that it was me, though. Because a lot of people say that to me. You're one of 10,000 people that have said precisely what you just said, and I'm just asking you questions, but it seems as though they resented that. Didn't want that to be true.
Speaker 1: I think what what I think it was reprisal clearly for something Pfizer related, but they wanted to appropriate the reputation and branding that you had brought to Project Veritas in order to use it for their own jaded political purposes. That's my that's my underlying belief. And when they tried to force you, I would say, oh, you know, it's it's not it's not constructive dismissal. It's not firing. We're just you know, you're you're you're being suspended indefinitely unpaid.
I don't know what the hell else you would call that. But then to try to, like, gin up employee complaints to try to tarnish who you were as a person and then to accuse you of being disloyal by trying to solicit donations when I was following it at the time, and I think you were following good legal advice. They they don't appreciate that people will when you leave a if a law firm kicks you out, if you don't solicit the clients, it doesn't prevent the clients from going to you. You they nobody owns the clients.
Speaker 0: That that's what happened. The donors, they would allege that I was proactively disparaging them with donors. This is me February
Speaker 1: It was all it was all both.
Speaker 0: February 6 and February 20. Donors were calling me, and they were like, give me the phone number for the board, please, because I'm gonna call them and yell at them. I'm gonna call them and tell them the situation. What am I gonna say? No?
I say, here's the number. There's no disparagement. There's no but it was, you know, there's did we have a video of Veeva talking about this team? Is that what this is?
Speaker 1: Kyle Seraphin releases this video, Kyle Seraphin
Speaker 0: thing. Oh, god. I don't know. I don't know if you have the constructive termination thing, guys, but if we don't, we'll go to Kyle Seraphin.
Speaker 1: At all, let's say I will defend I will criticize when criticism is warranted, and I will defend when defense is warranted. The that was another part of it that I So think was a prolonged
Speaker 0: so so apparently, we've learned that that Matthew Tiramond provided Kyle Seraphin the video tape
Speaker 1: Of the bar the bar incident in
Speaker 0: provided this woman, this 20 year old girl who was she she had had some drinks, but I I think I think I I think I bought her one drink. But what was funny about the woman in DC, we we I don't know if the audience knows what I'm talking about, but they're this was a this was a videotape that Kal Seraphin, the former FBI agent, published of of me in a bar. And I said, we should turn the camera on. So this other guy turned the camera on, the iPhone on, and as as as sloppy as she seemed, she was like I don't know. She was Eastern European or something.
She worked for Chuck Schumer. And she's and I was like, So what do you tell me about your boss. And she's like, You know that I cannot talk about my boss. So she was, like, clever. I was like, Oh, you're, like, kind of overdramatizing how intoxicated you are.
Like, you know what I mean? Like, if she really was drunk drunk drunk, I felt like she would have I felt like she would have been more open looped.
Speaker 1: This look, if someone wanted to sabotage if there were a double fakie, sabotage, that that is one angle that this could have been. A Chuck Schumer at a bart how does someone working for Chuck Schumer not know who you are? I don't remember if she knew who you were.
Speaker 0: Well, a lot of people don't know who I was, but most of these people in DC by the way, I didn't intentionally go after this lady. She just happened to be I was at a wedding, and I was with the wedding party in this restaurant, and this woman starts hitting on this other guy who was a guest of the wedding. I mean I mean, hitting on him hard, saying things I don't even wanna say on on the air. And, you know, a lot of stuff that we record, we don't publish. We at Projie Veritas, the stuff that exists on our server, there's a lot of stuff I would never publish.
I don't publish people's sexual stuff that they talk about because I believe that to be an intrusion. I think there are certain facts that are not public.
Speaker 1: And not newsworthy.
Speaker 0: And not newsworthy, and I'm very careful to redact that. Like, I have hundreds of examples, but there was one example in New Jersey where a union official invited us to go up to her room and engage in a threesome. The individual in question is married. I'm not going to publish this.
Speaker 1: I say you're you're you're good to have it on camera because if you don't have the evidence on camera, in that particular case, I think you could have been easily accused
Speaker 0: of about the chylserafin, and keep guys, keep this stuff on the screen. My team is pulling up clip after clip. We don't get to it. Is that they published the stuff that I didn't publish, and they're trying to make the argument that that it's it's really weird. They're publishing it, and then they're trying to hold me culpable for doxing a lady, which I didn't dox because they published it.
I didn't. And one must understand, there is a difference between recording something and publishing it. And Seraphin, he didn't blur the woman's voice, so she was easily identifiable. And and and then the aggressor becomes the victim.
Speaker 1: Well, this is this is Seraphin, I I I follow him on Twitter. He's done he does some good stuff, and but he seems to have had a vendetta for you for whatever the reason, and I and I publicly addressed that. Steve Baker also, talking with him, he was not as quite as, you know, malicious against you, but they're like, you know, a man would have helped her, you know, call her a cab.
Speaker 0: Oh, the Blaze guy?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Was like, first of all first of all, like, you don't even know if that was a ploy to get James O'Keefe, like, to pretend to be drunk and try to make him look bad for it grab to
Speaker 0: grab her boob. Nothing good happens after midnight, I refused. I refused. She's like, grab my boob. And and I and I I was like I was like, you know, I mean, I know that this is being recorded and she's talking about all the plastic surgery she's done and, you know, I mean, this is just
Speaker 1: It could easily have been a setup.
Speaker 3: It could be.
Speaker 0: I don't that it was.
Speaker 1: No. But I say what was clear was the treatment wasn't fair of you. And so I'm look. It doesn't matter who
Speaker 0: it It was really remarkable to see all these other people. I I don't know what Seraphin's beef is, but we have a clip of Viva and Robert Barnes talking about a lawsuit against OMG. Let's play a a little bit
Speaker 5: of They're going a coup by bad faith, corrupt actors who wanted to silence James
Speaker 0: Oates This is Robert Barnes.
Speaker 5: And effectively shut down Project Veritas, people like Matthew Timmand and others, in terms of at least their populist direction. And now we see confirmation of that because they have confirmed in their lawsuit that their goal was to effectively mute him, to prevent him from doing anything. They suspended him. They now here's a little trick, by the way. They say they suspended him with pay in one section, and then a few set paragraphs later, they just say they suspended him a few days later, and they don't say whether he was paid or not.
Speaker 1: No. We know
Speaker 5: we the whole lawsuit, a reasonable inference is they paid him for like three days and then quit paying him.
Speaker 1: Forbade him from using the company credit card, forbade him from doing anything, but it doesn't He wasn't doing require
Speaker 5: his job. So like the what are they seeking? They admit that basically that that the whole along their goal was to gag James O'Keefe by the and that they had some sneaky lawyers who thought they had found a way to do it and didn't understand who and what James O'Keefe is. And so they, like so what are they seeking? They're seeking some of the most ridiculous remedies I've ever seen.
They are seeking to prevent, the federal they want a federal court judge to legally prohibit James O'Keefe from even contacting or talking to people he's known his whole life if they merely were a donor, prospective donor, employee, or contractor of Project Veritas.
Speaker 1: Man, just sit there and shut Okay.
Speaker 0: So yeah. So, guys, if we could please pull up on the screen the board minutes from February 10 I just sent you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So what's amazing is Barnes is more often than not very, very right and was right again there. By the I was I I remember I was at a hotel there, is why the Internet connection was glitchy.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this is this is the board minutes from February tenth, indefinite suspension of Mr. O'Keefe without compensation, which I think you called constructive termination. That's just termination. That's just termination.
Speaker 1: The hell, constructive dismissal typically is they change the, I mean I guess changing your remuneration from something to nothing is constructive. But typically, it's like, I don't know, if you're an executive and they make you do secretarial work, they're not firing you, but they're changing the terms to If the you're point where a janitor,
Speaker 0: what Yeah, are
Speaker 1: but yeah, okay, so they suspended you without pay after having February subjected That that that
Speaker 0: That was after this February 6. So February 6 was the was the subjecting me to the six hour long struggle session, I call it.
Speaker 1: Six hours?
Speaker 0: And I six hours long, and the grievances and the you know, that I took a I had we had a driver and
Speaker 1: then You took the pregnant woman's sandwich, Chris.
Speaker 0: A pregnant woman's sandwich.
Speaker 1: Did she give it to you? I said I said, we don't even know. She probably gave it to him just to be nice.
Speaker 0: What I believe happened was we were in court a year prior, half a year prior, and there was like a plastic bag of sandwiches from the cafeteria, and maybe someone drew the short straw. But what was most hurtful about that for me I mean, all this was my audience has heard these stories a 100,000 times. What was most painful about this whole dynamic was that I worked a hundred days a year on the road raising money to make sure all these people could feed their families. And I spent and I'm not a victim, I'm just explaining my reality I spent countless nights alone in hotel rooms very late at night, and that's the sacrifice that a leader has to make. That's what I signed up for.
But she, this individual, Julia is her name, was upset that there was one sandwich too few in the bag of lunch sandwiches. But can
Speaker 1: you imagine?
Speaker 0: Like, well, woman, you get to go home every night to be with your loved ones while I'm on the road half the year, and you're gonna make a federal case out of the fact there's two short and by the way, here's the other thing I'll say about human nature. They can't just say, I was wrong. Nobody can ever admit no one ever has contrition or introspection or humility. No, no. No, no, no, no.
They'll litigate this to a federal judge, which they did. They went into a federal courtroom after you guys sat down. They went to New York, and they tried to get a federal judge to shut my company down. OMG.
Speaker 1: James, it's first, the idea that of all of the things any bad boss could have done, that would have been among the top 10 that was That was the top 10? That that is it's insanity beyond insanity. The but the human nature to not admit that you made a mistake or to apologize on an individual level, I think one of the reasons is that people just you know that apologies get weaponized against you, so there's almost no incentive to apologize. On a professional basis, from a lawyer's perspective, can never do it. A, you you gave bad advice to your clients, you took money for what you shouldn't have done in the first place, you gotta double down, triple down, and then have it thrown up by court, when it happens to get thrown up by court, blame the court.
Speaker 0: Blame the judge. Absolutely. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But that yeah. Of all of the terrible things you did as a boss, anyone would remember that is is is insanity to me.
Speaker 0: But This is a tweet. I asked Julia Wood for comment. She evaded the the response to the pregnant woman who now denies I took her sandwich. So we actually reached out to the pregnant woman, and the pregnant woman denies I took her sandwich. This is actually something that we did recently.
Can you imagine?
Speaker 2: So
Speaker 0: then wouldn't I be the one being defamed? And then and then and then what happens journalistically is they they say the person that we reached out to is is is either miss she isn't knowing or she lied. This happened multiple times throughout this ordeal. So there was a fabrication or or or a grievance.
Speaker 1: But an an exaggeration. It might have been a joke.
Speaker 0: It might
Speaker 1: have been a joke at the time
Speaker 0: of kernel of truth. Like, maybe there was a bag and there was one sandwich too short, but somehow that becomes I stole that other woman's sandwich. So the pregnant woman says, no. No. No.
I bought my own sandwich. I don't need anyone to get me a sandwich. Dude, I'm telling you, this is this is so What's crazy about
Speaker 1: it is the the players involved in it
Speaker 0: This is like
Speaker 1: Like, Timurand going after you and and effectively, I don't know, he and others
Speaker 0: Now he attacked you too. We'll get to that later,
Speaker 1: but Please, you can judge your judge yourself on the enemies you've made.
Speaker 0: He attacks anybody viciously. I mean, I gotta give him credit because it takes a it takes a degree of, I would say, cleverness. He he viciously attacks anybody who supports me. So good for him on that. But the the the legal issues here, the constructive termination, what are you what are your thoughts legally?
Speaker 1: I mean, it was it was bunk from the beginning. The only my only real query is how and when and why. I mean, the the timing wise, it fit with the expose on Pfizer, and it's not I mean, this is all my you I know nothing. Right. That is I I know nothing confidential.
It the timing, you you it's either astronomically coincidental or it's not. So you you could draw your own conclusions there. What was clear is they wanted you out, and they wanted the goodwill and the the assets of Project Veritas not appreciated. I think the goodwill.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think that's that's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, because it it was a brand. It was a brand brand.
Speaker 0: Now there is a kind of special raison d'etre, to borrow a French word. How do you say that? Yeah. Don't say it like that.
Speaker 1: The reason for being.
Speaker 0: Reason for being. Raison d'etre. There is a special even this this, motto and the slogan that we have here, I think there's a special something in the in the, core values and the virtues of what we stand for. And it's, you know, it's a story about human nature, about ego, about pride, about greed, about it was a company, but it wasn't really it was a corporation, but it wasn't really a company in the traditional sense. It was a mission.
And when you get big, you know, these things happen.
Speaker 1: Well, when do what you do, which consists of taking down industries, government, officials, look, you go after Pfizer, you release this thing on Pfizer, and then a couple of weeks later, I don't even know what the timeframe It's was
Speaker 0: ten days.
Speaker 1: It's not
Speaker 0: angry at me for saying that, but that's a fact. It it it It's a fact that it happens ten
Speaker 1: days later. That everybody paying attention to it observed. It's and anyone wants to say it's just a coincidence. Okay. If you wanna believe it's a coincidence, that's fine.
Others don't. So, And those players, mean, Tim Ryan, I've never known him to do anything good. He's just a pain in the neck on Twitter. What's curious is just other people. Like, Steve Baker, I had him on my channel.
We had a good discussion about this. I disagree with his position there. I think it's a principled position. Principled, like, yeah, you should
Speaker 0: What did Baker say?
Speaker 1: He was the one that, you know, a real gentleman would have called her a cab and whatever, not Oh, with the Saraphan flip. Saraphan, I I know that he's taken good positions on other issues, and I just I'm curious as to what the issue was with you because I found that attack to be unfair. If it were right, I would you know, would've tried
Speaker 0: to you came out, I remember that video that you did. Team, if you want to pull up the Viva Seraphim video It's that pulled up a few moments
Speaker 1: not that you're a friend and it's bad. It's that it was unfair. There have been unfair attacks on Candace Owens. I don't think she's a friend, but it's like you just have to be fair in your attacks, and I will not
Speaker 0: Let's just play it by sixty seconds of your frustration.
Speaker 1: Kyle Sarifen releases this video, which James O'Keefe chose not to release, which would easily allow for the identification of the woman
Speaker 0: That's fine.
Speaker 1: Discloses alleged medical information of the woman if she needed an ambulance at the end of this. I'm curious to know if that in fact occurred. Right. Because from the suggestion, it was something to do with James O'Keefe's conduct that required an ambulance for her. If it's her drinking herself stupid, I presume it's not the first time and it's certainly not attributable to James O'Keefe.
Bottom line, provides a video which would clearly allow for the identification of the woman, discloses medical information, and in his tweet mentions that she knew what night he was calling her about. So he's soliciting information from this person in an attempt apparently, ostensibly to take down James O'Keeffe. Now recall the last time James O'Keeffe was taken down or attempted to be taken down. Remember the last time project Veritas was infiltrated and destroyed from within in close proximity to a certain Pfizer video that was released. It might have been a coincidence.
It might not have been a coincidence. We don't know. Those are the dots connecting with the wall. Forgot I had said this.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So, yeah, this is and and the truth be told, I
Speaker 1: didn't ply her with alcohol. But the the other
Speaker 0: half a drink in my presence, but the the one of the things that my adversaries try to do, this is I'm sure your adversaries do it, is they they'll say so things so confidently that aren't so. We don't you don't do that. I I I try I I don't think I've ever done that. In other words, they'll go out on a limb and make presumptions, and they'll state them as fact, like James plied this woman with alcohol. He got her drunk.
How can you say that? I did not do that.
Speaker 1: Worse still now, I remember I remember what I thought at the time where they said she required an ambulance afterwards. I thought you had done something like it the ambiguity for anyone who wants to So ambiguity. Is that you did something even worse to her that required an ambulance. I I forgot. The ambulance because she got too drunk.
First of all, what are you like, I got I get to it doesn't happen very often. You're not that person's father. She was clearly drunk before. It's the bartender's fault. She's totally Oh.
I don't even know
Speaker 0: how drunk she was. She was tipsy. She was acting overly drunk. It god.
Speaker 1: But it's it's gossip. It's gossip. But it was being used to try to discredit you on in ways that I thought were unfair.
Speaker 0: I love the fact that they published the video. And I and I
Speaker 1: think Did she get fired? Did she get fired?
Speaker 0: I don't know. I should do aware of they now. But I don't the poor woman, I I don't she didn't do anything wrong. It's why I mean, she hit on a die. She said some, please grab my tits and she said
Speaker 1: Don't do it, people. Think I did it. Think it was it was a honey
Speaker 0: I didn't do it.
Speaker 1: Yes. Didn't.
Speaker 0: In fact, if you see in the video, I'm literally going like this.
Speaker 1: No. Was not trying to suggest you did.
Speaker 0: A point you point you pointed I think it was you or Barnes that pointed this out. But the the bottom line is my reaction was some guy was filming on his phone, and I and I said and we looked through it to see if she if she did anything improper regarding the senator. And when we produced our videos, we would redact. But the bottom line is we thought this is not appropriate for the public to see this, a distinction lost upon mister Seraphin, and a point you pointed out. But we can we don't have to beat that dead
Speaker 1: horse. No. All I have to say is if a girl asks you to touch her boobies, don't do it. Had you not had it on video, I suspect you might have been facing charges of some sort of sexual impropriety.
Speaker 0: You know, I don't think first of all, fair enough. I don't think that would fly muster in in in in a in a court of law that treats the law equally. Because if a woman asks you to to touch her and she consents truth, she she actually is able to consent, there's nothing illegal about sexual activity.
Speaker 1: Set aside the court of the court, this court of public opinion.
Speaker 0: There's the court
Speaker 1: of The rumors would have been circulating, and she's drunk. You can't
Speaker 0: get Well, a and the other thing that Seraphin has suggested, which is bizarre, is that if you were if you're a Christian, you're not allowed to, flirt or or have sexual relationships with your partner. That's a whole other story for another day. Won't do the
Speaker 1: theological discussion today. I mean,
Speaker 0: are you are you you what are your religious views? Am curious.
Speaker 1: Well, I see. If I say I'm born Jewish, I'm gonna get accused of being anti Jewish. I'm I'm we're we're a Jewish family. We're we're kohanim, like, of tribes that descended from the kohens. But I can say that I'm I'm at a point where any spiritual leanings that I have are not affiliated or tied to any one organized religion.
And and the other reason why, like, I'm I'm born Jewish, nothing I can do about it. I people always tend to say, well, I'm Jewish, so therefore, I get to say certain things, and my opinions on these issues are more valid than yours, and you're not Jewish, so you don't get to say certain things, which I never do because my religious upbringing has never influenced my views and it does not allow me to say any views that I have are more valid than somebody else's who is not Jewish. Long winded answer to saying that, but if there's a God, gonna piss everybody off. You know? We like that.
I I appreciate the the teachings of the Bible, of the New Testament. It's impossible to look at a historical figure regardless of whether or you think he was God like Jesus and say, two thousand years after somebody's death, people are still praising and living moral lives by his standards. You cannot disregard that as a valuable thing to live by. But I eat a lot of bacon, and I just had bacon for breakfast today. All the way over here.
Bacon shellfish. I mean, this the most delicious stuff on earth.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm gonna read this in the context of Christian teaching in regards to the subject we were just talking about. A lot of people were outraged. And after you made this video there, I was looking at some of the comments, and and Serafin commented and others comment. I'm just gonna read this to you that you're putting they're addressing Kyle Serafin, not you, but they're commenting on your video. You, Kyle Seraphin, are putting good people who care about his work in a position they're they're talking about Seraphin publishing my private life stuff separate from this, to defend his personal sexual life, which subjects them to ad hominem attacks by any megaphone that wants to hurt his reputation.
Christian teaching emphasizes the importance of respect for the dignity of individuals even in the midst of conflict. Forgiveness and reconciliation are preferred means of dispute resolution. Public shaming, as you're doing, should be avoided as it undermines the dignity of the individual and could potentially harm the community. Look at the comments on your post, Kyle. Some people seem to think that's the intention the intention to shame.
And I find this interesting because they have a First Amendment right to do it, perhaps unlike other countries. But in journalism, I feel as though and I would like maybe we can finish this up by asking because I think this is important. The intention is the public's right to know. So if I'm a reporter, I want people to know information. But if I'm just trying to hurt someone and shame them and smear them even if it's, like, true.
Like, for example, I'm gonna report on how you talk to your wife in the bedroom. I don't know.
Speaker 1: It was, you know, funny, and I'm even reluctant to bring up these specific examples because you rehash these these public incidents. When they went after Crowder for a fifteen second video of him maybe being trite what's the word? Triter? You know?
Speaker 0: The doorbell camper.
Speaker 1: Was like, I said, I'm not I'm not gonna judge a man based on a fifteen second out of context clip. And and the other thing is like, if you get the someone recorded at their if you get the video of someone at their worst moment ever, anyone, it'll be it'll probably be pretty bad. We've all said things that you wish you could take back. You know, we've we've not all done things that you wish you could take back. I think, like, violence is something you can't really take back, and, you know, a a video of domestic violence is not something I would say, well, it was private.
No. Someone being rude, someone being impatient, someone, you know, having a bad day and blowing up on phone. Mean, yeah, this could be very embarrassing, someone being nude or engaging in whatever sexual proclivities they like to engage in. Think in the Glenn Greenwald incident. And people say, oh, yeah, it's newsworthy because it shows questionable judgment.
I don't want to know what you do in your bedroom. And I'm not saying this because I'm a freaky pervert. I'm probably in a very, very traditional married
Speaker 0: But any man married to his wife, what you say during sex is so outside the bounds of isn't the intentional infliction tort some of these torts, they talk about outside the bound I don't remember the words. You're good at this. But outside the bounds of a civilized society, you simply don't publish those things. Well, and you party consent. It's like revenge porn.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what Glenn Greenwald's was quite literally, which is why they successfully got it taken down on social media. It was neither, it was not newsworthy.
Speaker 0: Consent to
Speaker 1: it, right? It wasn't consensual. It was basically How
Speaker 0: was it even recorded?
Speaker 1: Take your guesses as to how that was recorded at least. But no, it's I I do think like there's something to be said about a fear of God, and whether or not one believes in God, I I believe there's always a camera rolling, so you know, you behave as though there's always someone So you don't, you don't, like, it's not even a question of being good just for the sake of not being caught being bad. It's, have a fear of some higher order that is always watching and is always judging, and if everyone saw this, what would they think of you? Well, we've all been very impatient. We've all lost our temper with with other people.
We've all said terrible things. And if someone happened to have that and just release it for the sake of releasing it just to take down a person, that's where it crosses the bounds of DC.
Speaker 0: It's it's like the law of non contradiction. Like, when they start shaming you for what they are, you know, and I can't get into it just quite yet, but it was like it was like, you ever you ever you ever what do you say to your wife in the bedroom? It's like, you don't want don't but you don't want to become but you don't want to become what your enemy is. Like Nietzsche says, you you don't, you know I don't remember if it was Nietzsche, but, you know, someone said, when you're fighting monsters, be careful not to become a
Speaker 1: into the abyss because the
Speaker 0: abyss stare back into you. And that's very, very I think it's more profound than people realize, but certainly Well,
Speaker 1: it's the argument that I've had in terms of the limits to which you will go to vanquish your enemies. And I have people saying like, there's no rules, no holds barred. Well, why would I ever ally myself with you if any given day you'll say, you turn on me, no rules, no holds barred. There has to be some natural law of what is acceptable and what is not in order to determine whether or not I can even trust myself with this adversary who's an ally right now. Oh, the public
Speaker 0: shame, when you're looking at there's a camera, you're right. It's like, don't do it because you might be shamed by the public. Do it because it's the right thing to do. But the public shame presupposes that there is some type of shared morality or shared virtue that the public has. In investigative journalism, there's this the the book is called the custodians of conscience where you're testing and affirming where is the line?
What is what is obscene and what is decent and what is right. And when you did that video, I I all I mean, 98% of people are like, dude, this is wrong. Why why do you think this makes
Speaker 1: Keith look
Speaker 0: bad? Not against you
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. No.
Speaker 0: For the publication of the video. People 98% of people thought I've I've read, you know, thousands of comments. It was very interesting to see the shared morality of people, and perhaps that morality comes from a place where they're like, I don't want that done to me. I don't want to be doxed. I don't right?
I don't I don't want maybe do you think that's where the outrage came from?
Speaker 1: Look, I say it's I don't want to pull the is not case law. People think it is all no obscenity when I see it, but look, we all know unfairness when we see it. Unfairness. It was unfair. And I didn't read the book that you just referenced, but I read your book, which I guess referenced it, American Muckrakers.
I did. I said, this is why I couldn't be a journalist because I wouldn't necessarily, this is why I say I couldn't have been, I had to leave the law. I felt bad destroying people even if they deserved to be destroyed. And so like you get into a deposition, you win a case, and I
Speaker 0: felt That wasn't your intent
Speaker 1: to destroy anything. Justice. Justice does involve people breaking people, and being a journalist would involve disclosing something that's going to ruin somebody's life.
Speaker 0: Which is a by product of
Speaker 1: the I'm not judging you. I'm just saying like it would be I you know
Speaker 0: What's the difference between justice and vengeance?
Speaker 1: One has to be based on I want to say it's circular. One has to be based on justice. One has to be based on underlying fairness. And and it can and I guess vengeance is get demanding more retribution than what is required, and justice is a question of getting that which is fair and proportionate.
Speaker 0: Say that again.
Speaker 1: I say vengeance is is going above and beyond what is what is required under the circumstances. Like like not just taking you know, if you're gonna execute someone, you don't need to torture them before and if you and justice is that which is warranted proportionate and fair.
Speaker 0: Do you have a source for that?
Speaker 1: No, that sounds like David just I've never
Speaker 0: heard that before.
Speaker 1: That's okay. Is you see, vengeance implies an injustice, justice implies righteousness. And so like but they could technically look like the same thing at some point.
Speaker 0: So justice is fairness, and vengeance is going above and beyond
Speaker 1: what it's retribution for, I would say, for one of the seven I was just looking at I the 70 see that. Of the individual.
Speaker 0: In what Matt is doing. He he and these individuals, they're trying to torture me and publish the girl or some girl.
Speaker 1: They're trying to make an example, they're just not only trying to destroy you, but also make an example of anybody who might do what it is that you did, It's which is the part and parcel of, politically, I'm trying to think of decent examples, Not just making an example of the individual, but setting an example for any To train other people.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Logan, Laura Logan said so poetically that it's like a little paper cut. It's like everyone thought that was ridiculous, but taken in totality when the system comes at you with little paper cuts or a little scandal it's not really a scandal, but you know what I mean. In totality, people just kinda go, oh, this guy can't have his shit. I've actually heard this said before.
O'Keefe doesn't have his shit together. This was many years ago, but you get the point. The system kinda just gives you little paper cuts, and then over time, people dismiss you. It's one of the things
Speaker 1: that happens. Well, let's let's take, like, an an example of vengeance versus an example of justice. What they did to Michael Flynn, what the system, what the regime did for And
Speaker 0: he's another guest that's gonna be on this program.
Speaker 1: He's he's an amazing guy. That was not only punishment for Flynn. That was a deterrent for anyone else who would have thought of associating with the Trump administration. Shot? His son?
They went for his son. Went What they did to everyone in Trump's orbit was a, vengeance on the individual for, you know, doing what they did and also setting an example for anyone else who would think twice about it. An example where they're gonna say that that's what's being done when it's not being done is what Trump is doing on the border. Making examples of illegals, though it might seem, grotesque to the people who wanna house illegal aliens, that's also supposed to serve as a deterrent for anybody else if they're thinking of being or remaining illegal. And so you have the same thing which could look the same to two different people, but which are different only in that one is predicated on an injustice and the other one is predicated on lawfulness or justice itself.
Speaker 0: I think it's really important distinction you're citing, and I think it's a distinction that matters in the hearts of men because if you're desiring to harm, if intent is to harm, then you may necessarily cross that line of adjudicating the administration of justice or fairness into just trying to hurt someone. And it's gonna color you know, and let me give you a less abstract example. A lot of times when I reach out to someone for comment, and this has happened recently, they'll say, What outcome do you want, Ms. O'Keefe? I say, the matter?
Do you notice how that's the soup that they swim in?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's it's about impugning intentions. What do you what what's why why are you asking
Speaker 0: I I think it's more than impugning intentions. I think they're trying it's like they're trying to negotiate. So of of course, a man of my profession, there's there is literally never a negotiation. If I reach out to you, I am trying to get the ascertain what the reality is. I'm I'm trying to report the truth.
So my intention is to I say, well, I want to know the truth. I'm like, no, but what are you trying to accomplish? I'm trying to accomplish What getting to the
Speaker 1: will happen will happen. What the Well,
Speaker 0: it's almost like they're trying to half the time, they're trying to get me into some type of blackmail attempt, which is not my intent. And the other half the time, they just simply don't they they can't fathom that the actual purpose of this exercise is to is to do a journalism story because they're not they're not in journalism. They're in business. They're in in business, you negotiate. How about we do a little favor?
You don't publish your story. I send you some money. I'll get you
Speaker 1: a I'll do sweetheart a Roth deal. Write a featured
Speaker 0: piece What's of the help with that line from Tom Clancy's novel? We'll do the Washington two step. This will never leave the room. And anyway but in the case of the blackmail, we have the the affidavit team. Let's pull it up.
We'll end with this. You're you you have been an attorney. I'd like your 2¢ on the affidavit. I every every week I talk about this, so let's pull up the redaction in the in Canada. Oh, do we have it?
This Here it
Speaker 1: is the affidavit in support of
Speaker 0: Yeah, the rain three on pages. Go to page 43, please.
Speaker 1: Woah, at least we know the date when
Speaker 0: Guys, scroll
Speaker 1: all the
Speaker 0: way down to page 43, please. The affidavit's a 100 pages, but the probable cause is what we want. Keep going, keep going, keep going. A Okay. Pause.
Speaker 1: It takes audacity to actually submit this to someone. This was after a four
Speaker 0: year report? No. This is this is the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, when the case is closed, they have to release the affidavit. Also, before you keep scrolling, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed amicus, and the ACLU filed amicus in this case demanding to see the affidavit. Why?
Because when you raid a newsroom in The United States Of America, the public has a right to know the justification. The justification, probable cause, in my view, outweighs whatever marginal concern the FBI has to protect their sources and methods. That's my view. So they might say, no, no. We gotta protect our sources.
Okay. Screw you. Whatever right you have to protect your sources is infinitely outweighed by the public needing to know the reason. If you're gonna point guns at journalists, we have to know why. So let's go ahead.
Can you when did you get that feedback? March 2000 and no. It's filed 02/06/2025.
Speaker 1: February. So this is in
Speaker 0: Look at look at this. Look at this, Veeva.
Speaker 1: Oh, this was right before the new administration.
Speaker 0: No. This is this is correct. Okay.
Speaker 1: So if a, this is unacceptable. B, I I I would I would obviously ask for the unredacted version, but I just don't What we have? I'm trying to think of,
Speaker 0: like Look at page 45. They even no. Behind you. Stop. They even redacted the little footnote above line 48, and then they didn't unredact the footnote on the this is a clown show.
The footnote on the bottom is unredacted, the the number, but the the little digit, number eight eighteen.
Speaker 1: On my training industry. I remember making fun of this. I have learned among other things that cell phones can make
Speaker 0: and receive calls. Yeah. That's an FBI agent
Speaker 1: writing that.
Speaker 0: So that's the extent of do you think so what do you think your theory is here? What's behind these black lines? Confidential informants? What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: It's a good I I try to read it and say what could be under those black lines that if it were revealed would be would make people laugh and say, no. Like, what's the worst that could be under it? I mean, it could be, we have no good reason to believe there's anything here. We're doing this as political reprisals. It was a setup.
Actually, Biden left it there on purpose. We know all of
Speaker 0: this No. I don't think that's
Speaker 1: we really wanna raid James. Don't think I'm trying to think of, what could be? What could possibly be there? Okay.
Speaker 0: Let me give you an example. Ashley Biden lying to the FBI. Something like it's let's for so let's say Ashley Biden told the FBI something that we know we know now is not true.
Speaker 1: But it it would be probable cause that you partook in a criminal scheme to get the diary. She allegedly left it at a halfway let's just even say she left it there on purpose, and she said to the FBI, I'm trying to sabotage my father. And they say, look, she told us she's trying to sabotage her father and that these were complicit in it, but we still reasonably believe that James didn't know this. I mean, therefore, I could see that being the drafting. But you have to assume that whatever's in there would be so damning or so preposterous outlandish that people would not only lose faith in the criminal justice system, they would realize that it's a criminal justice system Yeah.
And and revolt against it and whoever had a part
Speaker 0: in it. They would lose faith in the system if they saw what was behind
Speaker 1: the I think most people would already have lost faith, but they might, beyond losing faith, acquire vitriolic disdain for anyone and everyone involved in the process. Yeah. To the point of maybe being like social fabric tearing stuff. Or they had no basis whatsoever, blacking it all out will leave them to believe.
Speaker 0: The system is built right now on a house of cards, and if they were to reveal what's behind the proverbial black lines in any of these things, Epstein, it might make the house of cards topple completely down.
Speaker 1: I think if people understood how government actually worked, they would appreciate. We joke that it's a criminal organization, but you don't actually have the evidence yet. It's sort of like hyper hyperbole. Say, yeah. Sure.
It's it's the it's the the the it's a necessary evil yada yada. Yeah. That is laughably stupid, but that there's a footnote in that affidavit that says, in my experience, know that cell phones are capable of receiving sending. Are mentally challenged is would what have to suggest that. But those are the people who administer justice and use those batons of power to destroy people's lives.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's like they first of all, Logan said it was like a middle finger. It's like she just thought they were joshing with me to redact all that stuff. But, also, it's like, yeah, if they unredact that, then we would know how they machinate. We would know how the machine operates.
And further, if they take away those redactions, they would reveal themselves, and their entire raison d'etre is to protect themselves. They need to protect the system, and they have to they can't expose their own corruption. And Tom Tom Fitton, I think you mentioned this before the before the show that he has been I mean, he's in the business of exposing FOIA, and he's even I haven't seen it, but
Speaker 1: he's been frustrated. He's been expressing frustration with the current administration because it seems that they're maintaining redactions from Biden era documents on stuff that is if it were embarrassing to the Biden administration, you'd think they would be willing to show it. So then you can draw three conclusions. It's either embarrassing to the current administration, which I think is less likely. It's embarrassing to the entirety of the administration, possible.
Or you have someone who's just they're not doing their jobs, basically. And it takes harassing and haranguing through the legal courses to get them to do their job and unredact what they or, I mean, this is probably the most likely, you have, I won't say deep state, but you have partisan activist holdouts within the administration that are trying to sabotage the current administration.
Speaker 0: I think so, but I also think it goes back to what we talked about earlier about human nature, which is people just won't admit that they're wrong. And to take those black lines off those documents, you're gonna have people in the government, both right and left. They just it'll it'll show that they're wrong, and then they'll double down and attack you. And I've seen it in my own life. It's just humans are not able to practice contrition and apologize.
I don't know if it's always been that way.
Speaker 1: It's worse. Would say it's definitely, I don't know if it's always been this way, it's definitely gotten worse because now the apologies are weaponized on a whole new I think social media has made it worse. Yeah. It used to be most wrongs were done much more privately than they're done now. Correct.
And so apologizing remains between you and the person on a much more limited scale. Now it's a tribalistic and b, you know, reaches millions, and if you apologize, you know damn well they're gonna use that apology against you for the rest of
Speaker 0: your That's what the PV people feared. They fear, well, I can't apologize because if I apologize, then James' army of minions will come after me. It's like, well, that that's not my intent. Maybe they will. But do the right thing regardless of whether the minions everything is through a calculus of how I'm gonna be shamed, not just do the lost in all of this is any semblance of
Speaker 1: right and wrong. This I've had people tell me to do it. Don't apologize because they're just gonna use it against you. I and I apologize, I'm not apologizing for them. I'm apologizing for me.
Like, if I've done something wrong
Speaker 0: that would make you look better
Speaker 1: if you've done Well, that was the ultimate irony with the guy I who I made the false apologized publicly and I sent him a DM to apologize privately, and then one day he thought it's the ultimate gotcha to show my private apology
Speaker 0: Oh, he
Speaker 1: did? Which I would never, I would have loved to have shown.
Speaker 0: That's strange.
Speaker 1: It's strange, oh, great. So you show that I both publicly and privately apologized when I acknowledge I made a What was
Speaker 0: the reaction to this?
Speaker 1: Oh, was people were like yeah, great, great own there. They were being sarcastic. Yeah, were being sarcastic. But no, think the issue is that people fear that their apology is gonna be weaponized against them to discredit them in the future. As a matter of fact, think it's the exact opposite, but the bottom line is you're apologizing for yourself and for something bigger than the individual.
You're not apologizing for that individual. You're apologizing because you did something wrong to that individual.
Speaker 0: Well, we're running out of time. We could talk forever.
Speaker 1: I feel like we have
Speaker 0: to come back and we have to go into I had all these cases, but unfortunately, it's almost 03:00 on the East Coast and I've got to get back to doing my reporting, but I very much appreciate having you on. What was your I'm gonna I'm gonna steal gonna gonna attribute this to Michael Malice who what was your favorite part of our conversation today?
Speaker 1: I was thinking, when Malice does it, I was like, if someone asked me this, what am I gonna say? Exactly. Well, first of all, think it was Tabak Noush. It was the revelation about what was the revelation where you said, oh, about vengeance and justice. Yeah.
That was my favorite. Not materializing, but conceptualizing and putting into words the difference between vengeance and justice,
Speaker 0: I've which I think never heard that said that way.
Speaker 1: No, said no. And I'm thinking people confound the two because when it's their justice, when it's their vengeance, they they will convince themselves it's justice because they're too deeply In it. They're too in it to appreciate that, yeah, you want justice and a little bit more, which you might tip the balances to vengeance. That would be my
Speaker 0: favorite Thank you for saying that. And there's a fairness fairness is so That was the word that Justice Kavanaugh used in the hearing. Remember he said, This should be about fairness as they're attacking him and you know, Christine Blasey Ford is out there.
Speaker 1: We forgot we've forgotten about that. Remember that? Oh yeah, Did
Speaker 0: you witness that?
Speaker 1: I witnessed it. I was I was trying to remain mildly neutral.
Speaker 0: What
Speaker 1: could be the steel man arguments for why she waited thirty five years to report a gang bang at a house party? But then you see how they do it, and I didn't appreciate that it was so it rhymed so closely with what they did to Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You then you appreciate that these are people who are evil, who play the same tricks over and over
Speaker 0: of the fabric of just watching him sit there crying. Just just it was just the ripping of Oh, and remember making eyes.
Speaker 1: They made fun of him when he says, I like beer, and they're like, they made fun of him for that afterwards. Like like, they they ruin the guy. They try to destroy the guy. Then they mock him for breaking down under their abuse. Mean, it's it's It's narcissistic abuse.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Which is what which is what it was, and I and I just think I he used the word fairness in with justice, and I and I think there's a, sensibility to show the world for what it is for no other reason than to create a sense of justice and fairness in in the stories that you tell, in in defining reality so that other others may know. Why do we want them to know? We want them to know to be sovereign over their own identity, and the more knowledge they have, the more consent they have to make decisions that affect their lives. This is a concept so foreign to so many people who think, what outcome?
What are you trying to do here, O'Keefe? Are you trying to blackmail me? No. But that's a really interesting projection of yours, by the way, because that's the last thing on my mind, is to do that. But thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 1: James, it was fantastic.
Speaker 0: Thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: My pleasure. Thank you.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I chose to leave my law career and financial security to pursue the truth, prioritizing it over comfort. Through my platform, I've built an audience by simplifying complex legal issues, exposing censorship, and documenting significant events like the Ottawa Trucker protest, often at great personal risk. My journey has led me to explore profound questions about justice, power, and accountability. I discuss topics ranging from free speech to government corruption, emphasizing the importance of treating power with responsibility.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Viva Frei gave up a law career, financial stability, and even his home country to follow one principle: the truth matters more than comfort. He’s built a wide audience by breaking down complex legal battles, exposing censorship, and documenting events like the Ottawa Trucker protest in real time, risking his livelihood and personal safety to challenge government narratives and hold the powerful accountable. Along the way, he’s explored deeper questions about human nature, including the fine line between justice and vengeance. Highlights (0:00) Intro (1:21) Giving up Commercial Litigation/Discovering Youtube (2:02) Hate Speech on YouTube (7:40) “Law Tube” (19:01) Canadian Trucker Convoy (24:34) Canadian Quarantine Policy (32:38) Free Speech (41:03) Canada’s Corruption (49:48) Faux Patriotism (1:03:20) Treating Power Like Responsibility (1:12:52) Project Veritas Lawsuit (1:16:08) The Public’s Right To Know (1:38:08) Justice vs. Vengeance (1:46:10) Outro (2:00:06) @thevivafrei Listen & Subscribe to My Price Is My Life – Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@okeefemedia
Video Transcript AI Summary
Viva Fry contrasts justice and vengeance: “Vengeance is get demanding more retribution than what is required, and justice is a question of getting that which is fair and proportionate. Vengeance implies an injustice. Justice implies righteousness.” He outlines leaving big-law Montreal for independent practice and shifting to YouTube law commentary, where censorship—“the opaqueness is the feature, not the bug”—emerged after his Alex Jones/Sandy Hook deposition analysis. He recounts the Ottawa trucker protest, livestreaming for hours to counter media “inversion of reality.” He cites Nova Scotia’s ban on hiking, camping, and fishing with $25,000 fines, and notes the federal quarantine act enforcing fourteen days for unvaccinated entrants. In Quebec, defamation can occur even if statements are true if uttered to cause harm. He ends with, “What is your price? If your price is not your life, then you are for sale.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's the difference between justice and vengeance?
Speaker 1: Vengeance is get demanding more retribution than what is required, and justice is a question of getting that which is fair and proportionate. Vengeance implies an injustice. Justice implies righteousness. And so, like but they could technically look like the same thing at some point. People have always said, Viva, you don't have free speech in Canada.
You don't have free speech where hate speech is subjective to the to the person. Where hate speech, under the proposals that they were trying to put into law last year, you know, could could could land you in jail. But the no. So, like, that, you know, that was it. That was the first one.
I did analysis. It got taken down. I discovered all of the censorship on YouTube. I had friends and family saying at the time, don't touch anything Alex Jones. I had no idea.
You know, he was the biggest boogeyman in Canada throughout the world back then. The next big thing in the evolution of my life was the Ottawa trucker protest.
Speaker 0: Ottawa truckers.
Speaker 1: What actually spawned me even going in the first place was people saying, Viva, the media's lying. Because if you remember the early days, the first day they said there's a Nazi flag there. It's a swastika and a flag. It's a right wing extremist neo Nazi thing. They're they're defecating on the war memorial, which they called the cenotaph, and it was like, Viva the media was This is what the media this is what state funded CBC media was saying.
And people were like, Viva, they're lying. Come down and see for yourself. And I'm like, look, I don't know who to believe, so I'm gonna go down with my camera. And if there are people dancing on the cenotaph and and and relieving themselves on the cenotaph, the world's gonna see it.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale. Today on my price is my life, we sit down with Viva Fry. Viva Fry, who I've known for about five years, a man who gave up his law firm, his financial safety, and ultimately his own country of Canada to follow an unwavering belief that the truth matters even when it costs you. From defending civil liberties on camera to challenging government overreach in real time, Viva's story isn't just about content creation.
It's about courage, conviction, and the personal cost. Now I've known Viva because we have done you've done analysis from a car. It was a Subaru It was. With your dog, in the 2017, 2018, 2019 time frame, and you did a lot of analysis on some of the cases I was involved in, summary judgment cases, motion to dismiss in the New York Times, defamation lawsuit. I thought that was very well done, and I've and I've never actually seen anything like what you've done on the Internet.
So that's how I came to know you. And then there was the trucker protest in Ottawa, which you were reporting on, and finally, you moved to Florida in 2022.
Speaker 1: 2022, give or take. I I like when you say give up the law firm. It was like, I don't even wanna say it was like a bad dog that you wanna get rid of. I I say I got rid of it. I never loved the day of the practice.
So it was sort of something fun and spiritually uplifting to get rid of. But, yeah, the financial insecurity that comes with, you say, not lucrative, but a healthy legal practice, Winding it down took like two years, a year and a half where I wasn't taking any new clients, giving away clients, not paying myself. Commercial litigation. Commercial litigation. What type of commercial litigation?
I was doing landlord tenant disputes. I did some copyright intellectual property. Basically, when I left the big law firm, I was at a place called Borden Ladner Gervais, which in Canada was Borden one of Ladner Gervais.
Speaker 0: Gervais. G E R V A I S. From Montreal?
Speaker 1: Montreal, Quebec. You speak French? I studied I did my law degree at Universitatlaval in Quebec City.
Speaker 0: Really?
Speaker 1: All in French. I did one class. I did one exam in English. It was the worst grade I got. I don't know if the teacher didn't like me writing in English or whatever.
I said, I'd never do. I'm gonna write all my exams in French and studied in French, practiced in French, got a job straight out of law school, went from that big law firm on my own. And then at some point, I told my dad, I like, I hate this. I've got to get rid of it. I've got to do something else.
And then I sort of merged into it.
Speaker 0: You hated the commercial litigation.
Speaker 1: I hated every day.
Speaker 0: What did you hate about
Speaker 1: It would be a different thing on different days. When I was doing my internship, and I had just I was just about to get married. I said, look, if I hate it, if I don't like it after my internship, I'm gonna leave. Six months later, you know, we're married, we're looking to have kids. I say, I'll go another six months if I don't like it.
It's just like when you're a young lawyer at a big firm, you don't have any independence. You know, you go to depositions and you're taking notes. You're doing research. It's fun in and of itself, but you want independence that you don't have and will not have for years to come. And then I was sort of like, you know, they viewed me as a future partner.
My dad is a very well known lawyer in Canada, and I think they viewed me as partnership track. But I said, I hate it. I had my first kid, took some time off when the kid was born, went back to the office miserable. I said, I'm leaving. And then I was actually going to go study commercial photography.
I applied, and before I could get rejected after being on a waiting list, everyone's like, hey, Viva, was David at the time. They say, I hear you're on your own. How much do you charge an hour? Was like, I don't know, dollars 150 Canadian. And like, great, couldn't afford you at Bordenlander, now we can afford you, and I built that up so the independence of building my own business was great.
The tedious paper pushing of law, really thinking you're important, and maybe it's my own personal perspective, but feeling like you're not getting anything of value done in life. Five, six years of that is quite enough, and then I said, if I'm not gonna be happy making decent money, at least I'll be happy making much less money, but life is amazing in that Was it paying well? It was, I mean, I was not making a million bucks a year as a solo practitioner, and then we started our boutique litigation firm, but it was a healthy living, and it was fun. Associate. Yeah, was literally called Fryhite Legal.
My father left a big law firm in Canada called Steichmann, joined up with me, and then we had a couple of lawyers, a paralegal, our nice beautiful office. So it good, was healthy living, and so long as you don't screw up as a lawyer, you won't burn your practice down. But I did not like any day more than the last day, and at some point I said, I'm gonna be 50 years old, handcuffed into this practice and miserable.
Speaker 0: Golden handcuffs.
Speaker 1: Golden handcuffs.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that's the concern.
Speaker 1: So wound it all up, took me about a year and a half to give away the files, close the files, find lawyers to replace them, kept one or two clients that I really liked until about 2022, 2023, and then the world went crazy in COVID. I discovered YouTube.
Speaker 0: Did you do all this prior to COVID, wrap it up?
Speaker 1: Yes, I wrapped it up by 2018. I have to make sure I get the years roughly. I wrapped it up before COVID, but I still had a couple of clients. I had a nice two or three clients even throughout COVID, but you know, money that pays rent or pays mortgages. But when before COVID, niched down in the law, legal commentary,
Speaker 0: Yeah, and while we're talking, my team, if we have a video of Viva in the car with the dog, I
Speaker 1: mean, there's
Speaker 0: so many of these videos. This is from, like, six years ago.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be cringe.
Speaker 0: How did you get into the because when I was at Project Veritas, I would I would love to see your legal analysis videos. I'm kind of a nerd in in that I enjoy the nuances of law and the logic, and there's some interesting stuff when with the first amendment, and you dived right into it. But how did you go into commentary?
Speaker 1: So that's interesting. First of the day I knew that I made it was when I found myself in one of your Supercuts on Supercuts, YouTube, or something. Was like, whatever my I call it analysis, and I'm not trying to be lofty or pretentious, but whenever any of my commentary made it into the subject, like when Alex Jones started picking up on it, you, that's like, okay, now you feel not recognized, but valorized might be the good word for something that is value added. But it started, the YouTube channel back in the day was just random cooking family stuff. I was sort of aspiring to replicate Casey Neistat.
I don't know you know who
Speaker 0: he is.
Speaker 1: Casey Neistat is the New York guy, did a vlog every day, editing was beautiful, told stories, it's fun stuff. But then I would do like a day in the life of a lawyer because I was still practicing, and then people would be like, that's cool, do more of this. And so I prep a witness, prepping for a trial, then I did the breakdown of the deposition in Alex Jones' Sandy Hook deposition.
Speaker 0: That was 2018.
Speaker 1: 2018. And you know, the headlines at the time, don't know if you remember this, it was Alex Jones admits to suffering from psychosis, and then they play that three ten second clip, well, was sort of going through a form of psychosis back then.
Speaker 0: That's a pretty good impression.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've talked with him a lot, so, and I was like, okay, that's weird, just wanna go watch the deposition. It was three and a half hours long, and I watched the deposition, like, Alex Jones didn't look bad in this deposition at all. The lawyers looked like a bunch of hacks in this. Not Robert Barnes, his lawyer, the examining lawyer. So I went through this three and a half hour deposition.
I did a twenty minute breakdown of just the highlights to say, here's why the lawyer does not splice together exhibits for a deposition, because you don't make evidence as a lawyer, you adduce evidence. So I did this analysis. It started going viral on Twitter not Twitter, sorry, YouTube. Then they took it down. Or they demonetized it, then they took it Did it
Speaker 0: happen now?
Speaker 1: It was reestablished. They took it down, and they gave me a strike for hate speech. And like, a, nothing in the deposition was hate speech. B, nothing in my analysis was hate speech. That's when I discovered censorship on on YouTube.
Speaker 0: This is 2018.
Speaker 1: 2018.
Speaker 0: The world has changed a lot since then.
Speaker 1: And and my knowledge of the world has changed a lot since then. So you
Speaker 0: you did an analysis, and if we could pull that up as well,
Speaker 1: this is a pull up of the On the roof of my house.
Speaker 0: The Alex Jones this is regarding the Sandy the case involving Sandy Sandy Hook. Hook.
Speaker 1: Last week, someone had asked me what I thought of the attorney's conduct in the deposition of Alex Jones. For those of you who don't know, Alex Jones is being sued by six parents from the Sandy Hook shooting for defamation. In the months and years following that shooting, Alex Jones promoted a number of absolutely unsupportable conspiracy theory Pause.
Speaker 0: I don't even know what I'm looking at here. You've got no hair and no beard.
Speaker 1: They're the same human being? This is me on the roof of my house in in Westmount Montreal or Westmount Quebec, clean shaven. I've I've I've had after this one never to do vlogs and sunglasses again because I I I like you need to see the eyes of somebody. But yeah. So I did the on the roof of my own, this was before we redid it.
Speaker 0: This is impromptu.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I had cut the clips and then I just talked to a camera.
Speaker 0: Let's play let's play thirty seconds of this.
Speaker 1: In the months and years following that shooting, Alex Jones promoted a
Speaker 0: number
Speaker 1: of absolutely unsupportable conspiracy theories. First and foremost was that the parents were actually crisis actors. Six of the parents are suing Alex Jones for defamation alleging that as a result of the conspiracy theories that Alex Jones promoted, in addition to causing them anguish and pain that you can't possibly imagine, other people started harassing them, believing Alex Jones' conspiracy theories that they were actually crisis actors. Now I am only certified to practice law in Quebec, and the Quebec law on defamation is a little different than The US law on defamation. I did a video on this previously, which I'll post the link to now.
In The United States, in order to succeed on a claim of defamation, you have to prove that the statements that were made were false, that they were done maliciously with the intent to harm or out of negligence, and that harm was in fact suffered. In Quebec, we have a bit of a nuance in that the statements don't actually have to be false in order to constitute defamation. The statements can be in fact true, but if they are uttered for the purposes of causing harm, it can still constitute defamation under our civil liability system. And in virtue of the freedom of the press, the press generally benefits from a higher threshold of what they are allowed to publish, and the threshold is a little bit higher when it relates to celebrities who live in the public
Speaker 0: So so you're it's pretty impressive, by the way. Are you are you reading from a script?
Speaker 1: No. I I've I've never scripted. I cannot script. It's pretty incredible. It and I I edit out some of the hemming and hawing in between the sentences and if I get something wrong, but I can't script on paper because it doesn't come out naturally, and also it doesn't flow the But you're
Speaker 0: you're you're citing the elements of of the defamation law in The United States in Quebec without skipping a beat.
Speaker 1: No. Mean, it's so they're they're similar.
Speaker 0: When you Is that true in Quebec? You can I I heard you say that It can be true? If you're intending to harm somebody.
Speaker 1: Correct. There's there's one decision where they disclose think in other states, it might be more analogous to public disclosure of a private fact type thing.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: But Quebec is a unique province in Canada, and it has some unique case law.
Speaker 0: And and and it's some sort of, you know, original English law that the the greater the harm, the greater the libel. And I I've seen that as a through line to the work that I've done throughout my life. Is it it's almost like and there's a great line from the insider where Al Pacino says, the the more true it gets, the the worse it gets. I'm paraphrasing. But it's it's not that the stuff is is false.
It's that it's true. And the more true it is, the worse it is. It's kind of non American jurisprudence tends to approach libel that way.
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: I I mean, I don't from a legal perspective, no. Still has to be, generally speaking, false.
Speaker 0: False.
Speaker 1: But from a political perspective, truth. Like, the the lies are not what do the damage. It's it's the truth that does the damage. Yes. And so, like, that's why I said, like, people can lie about me.
No one's gonna believe some of the lies. And even from a human emotional perspective, someone lies about you. Who gives the sweet bugger all? It's when they it's when they say something that you feel to be true that you genuinely take the offense and sort of lash back out. But no.
So, like, you know, that was it. That was the first one. Did an analysis. It got taken down. I discovered all of the censorship on YouTube.
I had friends and family saying at the time, don't touch anything Alex Jones. I had no idea. He was the biggest boogeyman in Canada throughout the world back then, and I said, no, I'm doing it. I'm not gonna be scared of talking about a subject because people don't like the guy, but I discovered YouTube censorship. I also just found my niche to the extent that What did
Speaker 0: they censor you over?
Speaker 1: Well, took it down and gave me a strike for hate speech. What was Nothing. He didn't even talk
Speaker 0: I'm just trying to understand where they're coming from.
Speaker 1: The opaqueness is the feature, not the bug. I never got an explanation. The opaqueness
Speaker 0: is the feature.
Speaker 1: Like they're But
Speaker 0: they were all just explaining what the law is,
Speaker 1: right? Not even that, it's not even as though the video contained, the video sections of the deposition contained any inflammatory, offensive, or even graphic descriptions. It was just, know, defamation. And then I started fighting with YouTube about it at the time. Ultimately, it came back, and it was remonetized.
But you realize, like I said, someone's going to go to YouTube and see that I've had a video taken down for violating the terms of service as it relates to hate speech. Maybe these days, people could say my tweets are a little bit more offensive than anything I did back in 2018, but that's defamatory by implication. To take down a video of mine and say hate speech on YouTube, at the time, I was making an effort to be polite. Now I've sort of given up on that, truth over politeness every day of the week, but that's how I discovered it. Found my niche back in 2018, you know, what they call the Law Tube didn't really exist.
Speaker 0: Law Tube.
Speaker 1: Law Tube, there was Legal Eagle, I
Speaker 0: don't know any. I'm not familiar with any. Are there any others like you?
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, there's a lot. There's, let's say, Robert Govea, Nick Riccada, Joe Neerman, Good Law Tube.
Speaker 0: Okay, forgive me. I forgot Nick. He does some incredible work.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, He set aside does some incredible work. He's personal issues that he's dealing with, which he is going to overcome and touch wood, come back stronger than before. No, Nick Rakeda, Nate Brody, there's an actual, there's a lot of them legally.
Speaker 0: I have on the screen here. Legal bites. This is from you, what date is this guys? Scroll down so I can see the date. Oh yeah, this is Let's see the date, it's July 7, this is somewhat recently.
Speaker 1: Oh no, I keep giving, I won't stop picking at the soft censorship on YouTube, but now I'm down with Rumble exclusively.
Speaker 0: They're deliberately opaque. That's very true. They are deliberately opaque.
Speaker 1: And they don't you can't get humans on on No. You can't get human explanations. There's no explanation, there's just certain subjects that are off limits for some people.
Speaker 0: It's Kafkaesque, there's no individual that's responsible. It's like just a bot.
Speaker 1: Well, it's even it's it's what they're doing because it's off limits for some people. NBC, CBS, ABC, sixty Minutes plays the exact same clip. They're fully monetized with, like, premium ads. So it's it's only they do not want some people speaking about certain issues. Alex Jones was one.
Because if anybody ever found out and understood truly what judicial injustice Alex Jones went through, they might not think, they might realize that he isn't
Speaker 0: actually What is the greatest, for those who are not familiar, what was the greatest example of injustice in that case involving
Speaker 1: Well, the the that he never had a trial, and people think he had a trial. He was defaulted into a a liability finding in both Connecticut and Texas. There was never a trial on the merits as to the defamation or the intentional inflation of emotional distress, so they never even got to some legal questions, statute of limitations. They never got to legal
Speaker 0: summary judgment or how they get No.
Speaker 1: No. It was it was defaulted into a verdict, liability finding.
Speaker 0: In Texas The judge said
Speaker 1: in in Connecticut, then they piggybacked off that in Texas. They said he so defaulted on his discovery obligations that you don't need to have a trial. Liability. And but and and appreciate this. I say, like, in in Quebec, you know, having your lawsuit dismissed or tossed on a procedural basis, they say that it's sort of like the the nuclear weapon of of of loss of, legal remedies.
Like, you you you get your day in court, period. They could have defaulted him where he said you can't defend, but the plaintiff still has to prove their case. Plaintiffs never proved their case. They never got over certain of the legal hurdles, statute of limitations, actual malice for a journalist.
Speaker 0: Well, actual malice is something, you know, it's like you have to and what I found in my case against the New York Times, which is something else you covered, was that it's hard to prove mens rea or intent in the minds of the defendant if you can't go through discovery with them. So it's kind of a catch 22. You're supposed to file a motion trying to prove things that you can't yet prove in this getting around the hurdle of motion to dismiss. I'm talking about if you're the plaintiff.
Speaker 1: True, true. And then one thing that I've learned in covering legal stuff in The States is motions to dismiss in The States are granted, as far as I'm concerned, surprisingly often. In Quebec, you never get a motion dismissed because you have to get your day in court. Like, whether or not it's flimsy, it'll come out
Speaker 0: in What about when loser is there loser pay in Quebec?
Speaker 1: Not not in Quebec. No. In Ontario to and I'm on civil law.
Speaker 0: So it's tough for a defendant then?
Speaker 1: Oh, it it's it's tough for a defendant because you get sued, you're being dragged into it, and it's virtually impossible to get it dismissed at a preliminary stage. How about
Speaker 0: the legal cost in Quebec versus
Speaker 1: United States? I mean, everything's cheaper in Quebec, but everything's cheaper in terms of legal costs, but it's still an arm and a leg. Awards are much less in Quebec as well. So but no. I I think your audience will probably appreciate it, but it's not even that they said, Alex Jones, you don't get to defend.
You've to sit there in court with a smile on your face, they've got to present their evidence. The judge defaulted the plaintiffs into liability sorry, Alex Jones into liability vis a vis the plaintiffs. The only trial they had in Texas was on how much Alex Jones was gonna pay. And even then, they prevented him from saying he was innocent. They prevented him from saying that he was that he had apologized, that he had retracted.
They forbade him from say so the entire thing was a show trial to the point of literal show trial. They had cameras in the courtroom documenting this for a documentary series that I think the judge attended the premiere of. And so I discovered all that very slowly. But back in 2018, LawTube, there were only three, maybe four of us. It's blossomed into something amazing, and then the evolution over 2018, 2019 kept on covering stories.
Then 2020 happens, world goes crazy, I end up in my car because kids are kids are on lockdown. I got three kids in the house, two dogs. I can't
Speaker 0: get it quite as car videos, team. Defending a Subaru, and you're making law you Lawtube. I've never heard that before. We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail. They've awakened a sleeping giant.
We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors because we run from nothing. We hide from nothing. And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement of truth. You, we, are the media now. Lawtube videos, how I became a lawyer.
Let's take a look at this clip.
Speaker 1: Oh, this one's gonna be this one's gonna be cringe as well. We like cringe. You know, juice for kids. I popped the switch on the container and dumped 600 gallons of bug juice all over the Oh, this is what I did. I was a bad kid.
In my teens.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's one with a dog. Let's pull up the so you're you're you're making let's pull up another one team a little bit, maybe a year later because those are the ones I'm used to.
Speaker 1: Sitting behind the wheel of a car ranting and raving.
Speaker 0: You had a bumper, like a little musical thing and you did this LawTube, so you do this and then what happens?
Speaker 1: So COVID hits, that really is what changed everything because I'm stuck at home with three kids, two dogs. I have one kid who's very young, so I would drive him around so he falls asleep. When he fell asleep in the car, I would do a video. And so I did a video a day.
Speaker 0: He fell asleep.
Speaker 1: He would fall asleep because the kids whether or he has what is it when you need stimulation in order to relax? Like not hyperactivity, but he needed to be driven around in order to fall asleep. I was doing that, developed the niche. COVID hits were all locked down. I started doing longer format interviews periodically, and then the the the, you know, the I had met Robert Barnes.
Speaker 0: This is this is the one I'm now you're starting to
Speaker 1: go out in the West.
Speaker 0: You're starting to get you're on the path to long hair. Play it.
Speaker 1: Kitchen Gone Bad starring David Portnoy. Do you know who David Portnoy is? I would have cut that and up on a
Speaker 0: second shoot shorter. You cut all this yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. I I would I would shoot in the car, take it into the house, go edit, add some music, add some memes, post in the afternoon, tag, you know.
Speaker 0: Play another thirty seconds. I love these videos.
Speaker 1: Viva Fry, Montreal litigator turned YouTuber, and this is Winnie the Westie. You know, when the world seems to be falling apart every now and again, it's fun to get distracted by something as glorious as the worst moment of a deposition imaginable. Alright. I may be exaggerating a bit, but it is a great highlight nonetheless from the deposition of David Portnoy in the context of the Michael Rapaport defamation and breach of contract lawsuit against Barstool Sports. Now in order to truly understand and appreciate the beauty of what went wrong in this highlight of the deposition, one needs a little bit of context, which is going to make everyone smile even if you feel guilty about smiling about it.
Barstool Sports beats Michael Rapaport's defamation claims. A judge won't hold the bro network liable for tarring its former podcaster as a racist, a domestic abuser, and a D list actor with an STD. But in a wild 64 page opinion, the judge sends contract claims to trial. Alright. So the article
Speaker 0: So so this so Portnoy was suing somebody?
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. Portnoy was oh gosh, I forget. I just remember the Michael Rapaport. I don't want to laugh at people's misfortune, but yeah, I forget the details of this now, but I'll go back and rewatch it.
But just I would find a piece of news that interested me, get the, you know, to the extent get the pleadings, pull up some stuff and just put the videos together. Yeah. And it it started going. I built up a you know, I went from 50,000 to 80,000 I did YouTube. Yeah, on YouTube.
But during COVID, when I actually met Robert Barnes, not even realizing that Robert Barnes, who we now have our our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community, and we've become great friends, he was the lawyer in the Alex Jones deposition in the backdrop.
Speaker 0: Oh, really?
Speaker 1: I met Barnes through the Covington defamate the Covington kids defamation case where he was representing the Covington kids, not Nicholas I'm
Speaker 0: interject on that because I want to keep going, but the Covington case, that was the kid who was smiling with the Native American gentleman. And would always a question I had, maybe you don't know the answer to it, but why did they settle? Why did he keep going?
Speaker 1: I don't know. And Barnes didn't represent Sandman, so I've got no insider information. Name was the young man? Nicholas Sandman with two n's.
Speaker 0: His wife heard that there was a settlement.
Speaker 1: Yes, and I don't think it was for what everyone's, people think he made $100,000,000. No, I think, mean at some point you settle if you can get some sort of moral victory out of this because nobody was gonna be retiring off those funds.
Speaker 0: Right. But That was against the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: That was against Washington Post, CNN, I wanna say. I think CNN as well. And Barnes was representing the unnamed Covington kids who were not suing for 150,000,000. They were just suing for retractions and corrections. But, you know, this this is living through the evolution of how you discovered media has always been lying.
They've always been censoring. You can't trust big tech to even, you know you you can't trust them as a business. If you exist on YouTube, they can shut you down overnight. They can strike your channel out of existence. COVID hits, started doing long format interview.
Then, you know, the the next big thing in the evolution of my life was the Ottawa Trucker protest Ottawa which was two days after your event in
Speaker 0: In Fountain Blue. Yes. Oh, the way, people, this is the Project Veritas experience where I made made a kind of jukebox musical about my life. And you were there. By the way, there was a thousand people there.
Everyone was there. It was like the greatest collection of people. You were there. That was was that after? This was right before.
Speaker 1: So It was before. Yeah. It was two days before. So I'm in You went
Speaker 0: back to Canada.
Speaker 1: I was going well, I wasn't yet in Florida full time yet. Was just here. You
Speaker 0: were Miami, and
Speaker 1: you flew back to Ottawa. No, I flew back to Montreal. So as I'm at the event, everyone's like, Viva, why are you with James O'Keefe? There's a protest going on in Ottawa and you got and like, first of all, at the time, I had no idea. I don't think anybody knew exactly how big this was or how big it was gonna get.
So I was like, okay, guys, first of chill out. I'm here. Come back and I'll head to Ottawa on Monday. Did your event I mean, attended your event. It was fantastic.
Fly back to Montreal, drive to Ottawa on the Monday, and just start live streaming, unedited, walking the streets to see what was going on.
Speaker 0: I think we have some clips from the Ottawa. Team, let's pull up. I want to look at some of what you've done.
Speaker 1: This is sort of street journalism that you did there. I had never done this before. Like I'm always nervous about doing things live and doing things with people who might not want to be on camera afterwards or who might
Speaker 0: see very careful to ask one of the pedestrians,
Speaker 1: are you okay with being recorded? I've I've I've done it to everybody, but then at some point, you get a little more realistic. You can't do it with everybody when you're live certain but you can be pull
Speaker 0: up the one where he's on the street on the street in Ottawa. There's a couple clips. Let's take a look at some of the work that you did up there. Oh, yeah. This This was right after the Fountain Blue.
Speaker 1: This is This one was a few days into the trucker protest.
Speaker 0: Trucker protest.
Speaker 1: This was a a trucker that I was interviewing. I
Speaker 2: was born under a
Speaker 1: totalitarian regime,
Speaker 2: but I had no choice. Hold on.
Speaker 1: I'm getting close so people can hear this. Born under a totalitarian regime. Oh, definitely. I'm a
Speaker 2: communist under a totalitarian regime, but I had no choice. I made my choice not to die.
Speaker 0: Hard to hear.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because was I was just off my off my camera. Tell us some
Speaker 0: point. You did in the trucker movement.
Speaker 1: So I when I get down there, I what what actually spawned me even going in the first place was people saying, Viva, the media's lying. Because if you remember the early days, the first day, they said there's a Nazi flag there. It's a swastika and a flag. It's a right wing extremist neo Nazi thing. They're they're defecating on the war memorial, which they called the cenotaph, and then it like, Viva the media was lying.
This was the media this is what state funded CBC media was saying. And people were like, Viva, they're lying. Come down and see for yourself. And I'm like, look, I don't know who to believe, so I'm going to go down with my camera. And if there are people dancing on the cenotaph and relieving themselves on the cenotaph, the world's going to see it.
If there's a Nazi flag and far right extremists, the world's going see I go down there and stream continuously for, like, almost like three to five hours a day, and it was the inverse of reality. We appreciate I it
Speaker 0: like that. That's what I've always found. When you point your camcorder in any direction, it usually contradicts what CNN is reporting.
Speaker 1: It was literally like, the problem is it's so frustrating because you know it as sure as you've seen it with your own eyes. It was not just a lie. It was the inversion of reality.
Speaker 0: Did you know that prior to getting there?
Speaker 1: No. Said I'm gonna go down and people
Speaker 0: Did you intuitively know the media was lying?
Speaker 1: I intuitively knew that they were exaggerating, but I was prepared to get hate for showing what people might not have wanted me to show to the public. Like, I went down there, they said they desecrated the Terry Fox Memorial, I was like, okay, if they did, I'm sorry, no judgment people, I'm just gonna show I what get down there, the desecration of the Terry Fox Memorial consisted of putting a hat on his head and a Canadian flag in his arms. When when they do it for the gay pride and the the, you know, they they cover it in a two s LGBTQIA flag, that's not desecration. When they spray paint it for the Palestinian protest That's
Speaker 0: not desecration.
Speaker 1: That's not desecration. When they put a Canadian flag and a Canadian hat on it, desecration. So I go
Speaker 0: down All desecration is equal, but some desecration is more equal than others.
Speaker 1: I I would I would ordinarily agree, but they wouldn't even they don't even acknowledge that. There was a
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. We have the clip of This of is interesting. This is you. Let's just play it, and we'll pause it as we
Speaker 1: How you doing? Little bit more. Sorry. I should have asked. You don't you don't mind being on the interwebs?
Speaker 3: Let's do it.
Speaker 1: Are you part of the protest? Yeah.
Speaker 0: In Quebec, what's the you may not know the answer, but what's the consent law regarding recording? Is it one party consent?
Speaker 1: It would oh, no. Everything in everything in Canada is This one is Ontario. But it's it's one party consent throughout Canada unless I'm you do not need the permission of other people to record conversations. But
Speaker 0: you asked anyway.
Speaker 1: I asked, well, I didn't want her to, I didn't want to embarrass her, to tell the story behind this, her name is Trista Suk. I had no idea who she was.
Speaker 0: She's so well dressed in the wintertime.
Speaker 1: I have thought she was crazy, she comes down to the protest, she's got a guitar, know, she was on drugs or something. I just wanna sing. I was like, oh boy. And then she says, I'm gonna sing for you. I was like, this is gonna be embarrassing.
Let it roll and I was I held my breath and when you hear her voice Okay.
Speaker 0: Let's keep playing. This is the lady in Yeah.
Speaker 1: I am. And where where are you from?
Speaker 3: I'm from North Of Toronto.
Speaker 1: Alright.
Speaker 3: I came here yesterday. I actually came to sing a song on stage and, of course, to support the movement and honestly, to be around other people. That's the main reason. I just wanna be in a community and I wanna be together and I wanna see people's faces.
Speaker 1: It's very nice.
Speaker 3: It's another thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah? I I I I've I've I've hugged more people today than I've hugged in Oh, she's nice. She's going hard. She she's attacked you. Which way you had you're going down to the
Speaker 3: I'm just checking it out. I'm taking some videos I wanted to see for
Speaker 1: people. Was just looking for a tracker. Still wasn't sure if she was crazy or not. Skip to the part where she starts singing if It's you I think it's a three minute clip. I just say, like, occasionally I go back and watch this.
Speaker 0: Scroll through and see if she's she's on America Got Talent or something like that?
Speaker 1: She ended up auditioning for Canada's Got Talent, she sings Amazing Grace, it's one of the best songs ever written. She's got the guitar? She's got the guitar, but I still think of like, this is a woman who's, you know, I still thought she might be totally crazy.
Speaker 0: This is why I love going to these events, these protests, these things, because you end up meeting these people.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, no, everyone is, I never, I did not meet one bad soul at the Ottawa protest in the two weeks that I was there, but hear her voice, you'll hear it, it's
Speaker 0: Let's hear it,
Speaker 2: let's hear
Speaker 3: I'll just think like one verse, because my hands are gonna be
Speaker 1: so cold. No pressure. No pressure.
Speaker 0: How cold was it out there?
Speaker 1: Depending on the day.
Speaker 0: Right right then, was like twenty, thirty degrees or so. What is that?
Speaker 1: Fahrenheit. Yeah. Minus it was like minus eight, give or take.
Speaker 0: Minus eight?
Speaker 1: But that's in Celsius? Gonna be very I'm gonna get mocked on the Internet. I don't know which way it goes.
Speaker 0: It's okay. It's probably Celsius, but minus eight Celsius is is below freezing.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. It was below freezing. It was so cold. Some days you'd you'd have like the frost would freeze on my on my I
Speaker 0: chat GBT what minus you know, minus let's keep playing.
Speaker 1: Come on. Like this at this moment, realized it would she was not a crazy
Speaker 0: when she It's 20 degrees outside Fahrenheit. How
Speaker 1: about that?
Speaker 0: Very talented.
Speaker 1: Yeah. She's Wow. What are you thinking? I was like, thank goodness, she's got a good voice for this, and I remember in the chat, because I'm livestreaming, could see all the comments, everyone's like, beautiful voice, amazing stuff.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So you know, I did that for, I would go back virtually every day from Montreal to Ottawa. It was about a two and a half hour drive. I would park the car when everyone says you couldn't park. Traffic was but what is a backlog in all of Ottawa. I went and documented that.
It became the biggest moment the, call it, the era of the year. I mean, at one point, there were like 50 some odd thousand people watching some crazy man like myself walking the streets just talking to people, and it was the most beautiful thing ever. It ended the way it did, and we've since seen what happened in Canada. But that was a change in trajectory where we started doing some live streaming stuff but had that moment which which yeah. It's it's There's another one in a lifetime.
Speaker 0: Of, you know, a Rumble video where there was something involving a quarantine of your 12 year old daughter because they were unvaccinated and there's a video of you on Rumble where you're on the phone. Talk about that.
Speaker 1: Oh no, play it. Well, so this, I don't remember why we crossed the border. It might have been, I don't remember when, we came back to Canada. My daughter, we did not risk medical We didn't get my kid vaccinated. Were like, well, they're not what we did as adults
Speaker 0: You didn't get your 12 year old vaccinated.
Speaker 1: I didn't get any of that particular shot, but we did not get her vaccinated. So when we came back over the border, you had this app. You have to where you went and where you're going, where your address is. And then they said you had to quarantine your kid if they were not vaccinated. And I get this call from like, I don't want to judge the person on the other end of the phone because everybody's, you know, doing their Doing
Speaker 0: their job.
Speaker 1: A bureaucrat telling me, yeah, you gotta lock up your kid for five days. If you play it, I'll try not to get enraged, but
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was like, you'll
Speaker 0: Also a Canadian bureaucrat.
Speaker 1: This is a Canadian designated as a quarantine officer, I think. Just the woman sounds like she's 20 years old.
Speaker 0: Let's play it.
Speaker 1: It was it was a moment of rage. You'll hear it in my voice. I don't scream when I get angry. I this day. Who's this?
Speaker 4: I am would you like to continue this call in English or French?
Speaker 1: Let's go with English.
Speaker 4: And before we proceed, I need to inform you this call is being monitored for training and quality.
Speaker 1: Good. It's being monitored already.
Speaker 0: And you can record it. Federal quarantine act. Federal but but but just help me understand the circumstances. Why did they need to quarantine her? Because she wasn't vaccinated?
Speaker 1: She wasn't vaccinated.
Speaker 0: So anybody who is not vaccinated in Canada must be quarantined.
Speaker 1: Remember, they never told you that it would prevent transmission.
Speaker 0: But that's the law.
Speaker 1: That would that was there were no laws. This was we had
Speaker 0: a federal quarantine act.
Speaker 1: The federal quarantine act basically empowers the government to issue directives that designated officers then get to enforce. The the the Nothing in the law
Speaker 0: I see.
Speaker 1: Says that they get to tell you
Speaker 0: So they they were extrapolating a power Yeah.
Speaker 1: They they issue a directive. Like, right now, they say they can, in theory, under the law, if you're infected, direct you to be, you know, isolated. If you're infected.
Speaker 0: If she is if your daughter is infected.
Speaker 1: Infected, symptomatic, whatever. This and this this was only because she was getting disparate treatment because she wasn't vaccinated. But okay. Let's keep playing. Play it.
I'm I'm gonna try not to Yeah. Interrupt with Rage.
Speaker 4: She might be asking a few questions about Mira's quarantine to verify that she keeps in compliance with application, including a day one and a day a COVID test. This call should just take a few minutes.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. And sound
Speaker 4: Can you confirm that she arrived in Canada on Tuesday?
Speaker 0: We're gonna talk over it. Keep playing it.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. That was that was in that was confirmed. Yes. We arrived in Canada Tuesday.
Speaker 4: Okay. And our work had indicated Veschi is a unvaccinated trap entering Canada.
Speaker 1: Oh, she had been infected also. You're coming from Florida. I think so. Unvaccinated. Think we're looking at a place
Speaker 4: at this time. Entering Canada who do not meet the Canadian
Speaker 2: definition of fully vaccinated are required to be in quarantine for a minimum of
Speaker 0: What's the consequence?
Speaker 4: Is she under quarantine?
Speaker 1: She's under quarantine. Go go eff yourself is where she's at quarantine. In Virtue of what is she supposed to be in quarantine for fourteen days?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No. In virtue of what?
Speaker 5: You're a lawyer. A bureaucrat.
Speaker 1: No. But but what what that's no way to what you're saying. Yeah. You're It says right here.
Speaker 4: He means not your understanding of
Speaker 1: what you're What provision what provision of law are you suggesting requires my daughter to be in fourteen days of quarantine?
Speaker 4: She's under the federal quarantine act, sir.
Speaker 1: No. But what provision of law is it? Because I I I know sir. I know I've read the quarantine act. I've I've studied the quarantine.
Speaker 0: Sure. You have. Okay.
Speaker 1: What what provision of law? Because she tested negative. We've had COVID within the last hundred and eighty days.
Speaker 4: I understand that. So she's not required to
Speaker 1: be vaccinated. But then she's not fully vaccinated. This is insanity.
Speaker 0: That she's required to be quarantine
Speaker 1: for Under what provision of law?
Speaker 4: Sir, the international sir, the
Speaker 1: The international. What the hell was she about to say there? No. But I I'm I'm telling you The international what?
Speaker 0: That was a Freudian slip.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Or or she's reading a different directive. I've read the quarantine act. There is nothing in it that really is confirmed.
Speaker 4: Sir, the if you go on canada.ca/covid19coronavirus, you will see unvaccinated child that entering Canada are required to be in quarantine for fourteen.
Speaker 1: I I I I'm not sure that that I don't believe that's the the the law.
Speaker 4: Yes. Is. She's required to be
Speaker 1: You can stop here. Doesn't it doesn't go
Speaker 0: away She's with her saying that's the law. You're saying the law doesn't allow them to do that.
Speaker 1: She says go to the website and a website now dictates law overnight. Like, it's it's it's insanity, and it's insanity that Canadians still seem to be putting up with. I mean, you heard what's going on in Nova Scotia recently?
Speaker 0: I saw that, tell us about that. Not allowing hunting, or excuse me, allowing hiking.
Speaker 1: Hiking. No. Hiking. Then because Fishing. You you remember the forest fires from 2023?
Yes. It was blowing smoke down into New York. Yeah. I remember
Speaker 0: those fires.
Speaker 1: So those fires, I won't say all of them. The biggest fire in Nova Scotia's history of that summer was the arson. Whether or not it's exacerbated by climate crisis, which is what they want you to believe, horse crap, but it was arson, arson and poor forest management. Also, the fact that forest fires, firefighters had been fired or or kicked out of the forest because they were not vaccinated. So two years ago there were some bad forest fires.
This year there's some fires already, but they're saying it's such a crisis now that it's too risky to go into the forested areas, to go into the woods. Risky to humans. You might spontaneously combust. Start a fire. So Nova Scotia has banned hiking, fishing, camping.
Speaker 0: The entire province?
Speaker 1: In the entire province. Like Nova Scotia. I don't want to make it it's like, I'd say a million and a half people. I don't think it's very many people. It's like the most least densely populated place on Earth.
This guy, the premier Tim Houston, comes out and says, no, I know it sucks. No hiking, no fishing, no camping. You can't go into public forested lands. And it's the exact same pretext and the same sheep that sat down there like, didn't, you know, people are gonna say, Vivi, you didn't protest enough or you didn't go get arrested. Of course, I protested, I ran for office with COVID, with the COVID stuff.
And they say, Vivi, you played along because you wore the face mask and you were What
Speaker 0: was the outcome of your daughter thing? You just
Speaker 1: I never took a call from them again. I mean, when I saw What are
Speaker 0: they gonna do?
Speaker 1: They could have put me in jail for that. They didn't. No. Kept on calling and
Speaker 0: I Keep this up on the screen. We're gonna talk about Nova Scotia in a moment, but I think that what strikes me about what you did is a lot of people just tend to get afraid and they back down, and you didn't back down in that moment.
Speaker 1: Well, they were telling me to put my healthy daughter in quarantine for fourteen days. That's actual child abuse. And then during COVID, there was a place in Ontario called the Peel Region. They were giving directives that if a kid crossed someone who later tested positive because they're doing region? Call it Ontario for people.
It's a specific region. But Ontario, said if your kid came in contact with someone who subsequently tested positive because they were doing contact tracing, that kid needed to quarantine. And they said, as young as five. And I remember at the time, people were posting, or at least posting screenshots, tweets, Facebook messages. I hear my kid crying in the eye.
I know people who did this.
Speaker 0: Quarantine the show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it wasn't on us for five days, three days, put him in a room and slid food under the door.
Speaker 0: What percentage of Canadians do you think did not do it like you? Was it ten percent, twenty percent?
Speaker 1: No, I say not enough, not doing that, I don't know. You have to be a psychopath to do that to your kid, but the more vocal opposition, not enough Canadians were vocally opposed to this and too many were vocally in support of it. And if you see the relics of that today, Canadians are complacent. They're complacent.
Speaker 0: Why is that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think if I go back genetically to the country, you have America, which fought for its independence, and you have Canada, which has always been happy to be a subject of the crown. And they believe, you know, you have your rights that are given to you by the king and the queen, and in America, you fought tooth and nail, guns in hand, for those freedoms that are God given that no king or queen gets to decide when when and where you get them. And that history, that DNA sort of becomes a self fulfilling prophecy in that people who move to America appropriate that zeitgeist, typically speaking. They say like, oh, if you're moving to America and you're in Canada, you're going say, oh, Americans are brash, boorish, ignorant, whatever, the Wild West. So anybody who moves to America is going to be more amenable to that stereotype.
Anybody who moves to Canada, polite, although I think they're fundamentally not just impolite, but tyrannical. So you have this sort of self fulfilling stereotype that breeds out incoming people. But I mean, that's it. Hurts me to have the degree of resentment that I have towards the country. It's not towards the people, it's towards the government, and it's towards those who support that government.
Speaker 0: There's also mean, I get so many tips, as you know. I mean, I get we at some days, we get 10,000 messages. The the number the largest percentage of people that want me to go do a story are Canadians. So there's a lot of people in your country who reach out to someone like me and want me to go up there and do what of course, my response is, well, I might go to jail if I you know, not because I've broken the law, but just because that's that's the it's very tyrannical.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's You know? Insanely tyrannical.
Speaker 0: You guys don't have the same First Amendment that we have. Right?
Speaker 1: We do. I've been on the Internet now for
Speaker 0: a long about this.
Speaker 1: People have always said, Veeva, you don't have free speech in Canada. In 2016, when, I was covering the Jordan Peterson Bill C16, adding gender identity to aggravating factors for hate crimes in the criminal And I was like, Okay, no, I was sort of I was, A, polite, B, trying to be, I say, neutral in assessment. But now you don't have free speech where hate speech is subjective to the person, where hate speech, under the proposals that they were trying to put into law last year, could land you in jail, or tweeting something could get you a fine. You have free speech
Speaker 0: What is your quote unquote First Amendment in Canada?
Speaker 1: That there is a First Amendment. Not It doesn't include hate speech. Hate speech is that which is defined under the Supreme Court ruling as susceptible of fomenting disdain towards an identifiable group of people.
Speaker 0: Say that again.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sort of paraphrasing No,
Speaker 0: I'm paraphrasing. Susceptible of fomenting disdain.
Speaker 1: Disdain, hatred, contempt towards groups of people. And the amazing thing is, when I say, going back to Quebec, defamation doesn't even have to be false. You could say things that are truthful. It's gotten to the point where if you were to say things like statistical overrepresentation in certain types of crimes, statistical overrepresentation
Speaker 0: Which is statistically accurate.
Speaker 1: Statistically accurate, and it might be an inconvenient reality, but it's a reality nonetheless, one which you don't remedy, by the way, by outlawing it could be potentially criminal. But then the problem is you have Canadians saying, yeah, well, you know, feelings matter, and you don't need to say it. Why do you need to say this? Well, you is why I need to say it. Like, I I don't need there's a lot of things I don't need.
You don't get you don't need a car with six cylinders, but you don't get to tell me I can't have one unless it's a damn good reason.
Speaker 0: You were born in Quebec.
Speaker 1: I was yeah. Born born and raised.
Speaker 0: Montreal? Montreal. And yet, you sound like an American.
Speaker 1: Well, this is what I'm thinking. I'm discovering that referring to the American spirit is not a citizenship issue. It's like, I will take risky freedom over a safe prison any day of the week. What made
Speaker 0: you this way? I shouldn't have trusted these guys, but I did trust these guys.
Speaker 2: A lot of people thought there
Speaker 0: was
Speaker 2: malfeasance. I would prefer to say ignorant of those events. I didn't wanna know.
Speaker 0: Nonprofit boards of directors directors can can be be very, very, very very dangerous. Dangerous. Unfortunately, I have recordings and documents to back up everything I'm about to tell you.
Speaker 1: Employees were starting to bundle up and talk.
Speaker 4: If we're about to paint James as a criminal, it better be fucking good.
Speaker 0: They sent a pic of me nailed to a cross. They used these kids. Matt used them to further his agenda.
Speaker 1: The reason why James was bad was morphing.
Speaker 0: I never lived this lifestyle with black bars. He's a mean boss.
Speaker 4: The president of his girlfriend is not appropriate.
Speaker 0: I don't know that Jameson has a private club. James
Speaker 1: took a pregnant woman sandwich. These are people that we thought were people with integrity.
Speaker 2: Who on the board is in control?
Speaker 0: Turns out war members are taking money from donors. How
Speaker 2: much did you invest in which
Speaker 0: of the Nazi Men's companies?
Speaker 1: I don't think that's any of your business.
Speaker 0: We're at the pinnacle of Mount Everest.
Speaker 2: Are you refusing to answer the question?
Speaker 0: Yes. Only thing that has changed is that we broke the biggest story in our organization's history. If a board statement goes out, it's fucking over. We've laid everything changed. And it wasn't right.
It was the timing of it that was so suspicious.
Speaker 2: Is it fair to say that three of the four companies you've invested in, you would consider to be in the medical field.
Speaker 0: So what did the board think people were gonna assume?
Speaker 2: One of the companies could be sold to a big pharma.
Speaker 1: Like Pfizer. Like Pfizer.
Speaker 0: The board not think that people were gonna assume the worst? I wanna talk about your investments.
Speaker 1: I wanna talk about you.
Speaker 0: I'm a fighter.
Speaker 2: You're a cheat.
Speaker 0: I'm a warrior.
Speaker 1: You're a liar.
Speaker 0: And I will get my justice. Not revenge, but justice.
Speaker 1: Is it all about money? Too bad you can't afford that.
Speaker 0: Big difference.
Speaker 1: How do you define conflict of interest? Well, that's what I've been. I've always been you know, when we were talking earlier, a pain in the neck of a kid, which is I I don't like authority, and I don't like people arbitrarily creating rules and imposing rules as though they get to dictate what I can do and what I can think. It used to be your freedom ends at the tip of my nose type thing. And now it's like your freedom ends at the inside of my mind, which is insanity.
And maybe being the youngest of five kids, a family of lawyers my father didn't tell me, it's okay Dave, you know, no, it's like you say something stupid, you're gonna get chewed out by your father, my mother was more polite, you'll get chewed out by your siblings. And so you grow up with this don't go easy on me for saying something stupid, and also don't expect you to compromise on your pursuit of freedom from my own personal sensitivities. If I've got issues, I've got issues, and that's with me.
Speaker 0: So was your father that instilled something.
Speaker 1: He was a disciplinarian, but it was, my father's a litigator. He's not gonna let you get
Speaker 0: away with still works.
Speaker 1: He still works down. Now he's 80, 82. He's got good genes. How old are you? I am 46.
Speaker 0: 46.
Speaker 1: So he's always, but he's been tough but loving, like it's the type of father that you need. It's someone who's not gonna put up with crap and who's gonna not let you float through life like a beautiful snowflake that can't see the sunlight because you're gonna melt. And so we've gotten to a point now in Canada where people's feelings dictate what other people can say. If you can't deal with somebody's words well, I draw the line at violence, physical violence, like immediate proximate violence, not people saying, I get in trouble with this, but not even some of the laws that want to prohibit promoting of genocide. That's another one that they're trying to slap into law, which is if you advocate or promote genocide, you can get locked away for life in Canada.
And I'm like, okay, of nobody wants anyone running around saying death to Jews or death to blacks, but flip side, if you start saying trans are not real, well someone's going to say that's a call to genocide. Like you're denying the existence, they're going say this, of people with diagnosable mental illness, so that should be outlawed. And this is where you have to, I don't know when it happened, but you realize you've got to put up with that which makes you feel uncomfortable before they start taking away that which you need in order to live in a free society.
Speaker 0: Has the propensity to remove liberties from free speech gotten worse over the last five years in Canada or has
Speaker 1: it gotten Exponentially worse.
Speaker 0: It's gotten worse. Yeah, the Jordan Peterson fiasco.
Speaker 1: The Jordan Peterson was like, like he said, He tip of the was the cranberry So that's of coal worse. It has gotten much more restrictive. Much more restrictive. And they only wanna keep going further and further under the pretext of protecting kids on the Internet, literally. And like, first of all, that's not for the government to do.
That's for the parents to do. If you let your kids on the Internet, they're gonna see bad things. We I don't know. You were roughly the same age. Growing up with the advent of the internet, all the internet was for back in the early days were snuff videos.
That's what it was. I mean, maybe we all didn't grow up fine, and maybe kids shouldn't be, I don't say maybe, kids should not be viewing that. But it's the parents that are the ones who are responsible, not the government to protect the sensitivities, and I say exploit the sensitivities of kids strictly for their own power plays.
Speaker 0: So you have this Nova Scotia thing, this is your post yesterday.
Speaker 1: I'm going hard on this guy.
Speaker 0: Nova Scotia has formally prohibited hiking, camping, fishing and the use of the trail system to prevent wildfires under penalty of fines of $25,000. You know what's funny, I'm not going to do this, I just had an idea. What if I just went to Nova Scotia and went hiking?
Speaker 1: Well, was a guy who posted a video and it said, This path is off limits.
Speaker 0: This one's good. There's paths that are good? You can take
Speaker 4: certain paths?
Speaker 1: Apparently, they are doing the exact same thing they did during for
Speaker 0: prejudice and arbitrary, I mean, what's happened? Do you have any information on the ground there in Canada about what people are experiencing?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, are polite. People are abiding by this People are definitely abiding. There are no mass protests.
Speaker 0: What are gonna do? Arrest you? They'll they'll give you a
Speaker 1: fine like they did during COVID. Like, the amount of people who got
Speaker 0: $25,000?
Speaker 1: The fine for being on the path is the same for the is the same fine for burning. Like, it's it's it is insanity. For arson? For well, No. For for doing a fire.
Like, I can For appreciate forest fire. No open fires. Okay. Fine. That is
Speaker 0: the if they said a prohibition on campfires.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. They do that. I mean, they do that. I say absolutely, and then someone's gonna say, where's the line?
The line is one is logically correlated to the event. Fires start from fires. They don't start from fishing. They they don't start from hiking, and they don't start from take preventing people from using public lands that they paid taxes for. The irony is that, Tim Houston, the Nova Scotia premier, so called progressive conservative in Canada, which is like a flat mountain or a jumbo shrimp.
Speaker 0: Progressive conservative. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Speaker 1: Wait. Wait.
Speaker 0: He's he's a progressive conservative.
Speaker 1: He's a he's a conservative.
Speaker 0: Flat mountain. That's like fireproof coal
Speaker 1: Right. Or dry water. It's it's like a pregnant virgin, which I think has only happened once. I've never That could technically be true because Wait.
Speaker 0: Is who
Speaker 1: is this man? Oh, Tim Houston. Look him up. He's he's I spent five minutes on the Internet. I just you put it in words and scandal.
Put it in a guy's name and scandal. Tim Houston, what was his deal? Apparently, he worked in Bermuda. He was involved you remember the Paradise Papers up in Canada? It was the pay it was a a Bermuda offshore bank that somehow the papers leaked and you found all these prominent politicians who had offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes.
Apparently he had no malfeasance. So
Speaker 0: your country is so fascinating. Is really an interesting country.
Speaker 1: It is what happens when there's corruption but there's no pushback against the corruption.
Speaker 0: Look at this. For obviously dishonest, Premier Tim Houston repeatedly met with green hydrogen investor Trent Vichet, then failed to properly file his expense claims obscuring those meetings.
Speaker 1: He lived next to a billionaire Sobeys. I believe This is the premier from Premier of Nova Scotia, the one who gets on the internet and says,
Speaker 0: I know it sucks,
Speaker 1: but we have to keep it. By the way, you wanna have your mind blown? He said those who have properties with big forested areas, your own private property, they implore you to stay out of the forest in your own private property.
Speaker 0: I'd be curious to the extent there's any civil disobedience going on in Nova Scotia.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's, I would never encourage anyone to do it either, like I didn't go out and deliberately pull down my mask and get a ticket during COVID, but I did go document it and I did go protest.
Speaker 0: If I was an American citizen, to vacationing and I just went for a hike and they gave me a little piece of paper and said US $25,000 I just came back to The United States. What are gonna do?
Speaker 1: They actually, during COVID, was I have to I have to refresh my memory on this. They did nail a bunch of Americans who when they were driving from America to Alaska, they have to go through Canada. And at the time, said, you go to your hotel and you can't no sightseeing. And then they caught a bunch of these people at And what happened? I think got massive tickets.
I don't know what happened with the tickets at the end of the day.
Speaker 0: It's it's interesting.
Speaker 1: No. Canada is a it's a good look into the future. Like it's it's
Speaker 0: It's like California to the
Speaker 1: It's United worse. It is It's exponentially more progressive than California, but it's a good it's a good indicator as to what California could be if it really tried out.
Speaker 0: Are there any parts of like in The United States, we have, like, New Hampshire and Florida. Like, New Hampshire is the so called free state. Florida, they they call it the Free State as well. Is there is there a similarity in Canada for a province or
Speaker 1: a part of a province? Typically, they refer to Alberta as the Texas of Canada and not in a well, they they maybe mean in a derogatory way, but it's it's the Western it's the Western province, but not British Columbia, which is more progressive than Portland, Oregon. Yeah. So you got Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, which are sort of the the the heartland provinces. Alberta now, since the election, is really pushing a secession movement.
They wanna they wanna I don't know that it's gonna happen. I think the new three passport carrying globalist who are of a prime minister of Canada, Mark Jay Carney, is going to acquiesce to their energy demands, I think, or at least allow them to strike some deals either with America or internally or abroad, to provo to prevent that crisis. But there's been a strong movement from Alberta to secede. So as far as any independent province goes, it's it's more Alberta. Quebec, French Canadian province, votes liberal, and it has its own federal party, which is a separatist party called the Bloch Quebecois.
And then Ontario Ontario and Quebec dictate the political outcome of the country, which is why the West tends to hate the East because the East dictates the politicians who dictate the policy.
Speaker 0: When in The United States, have, like, the so called New York LA DC. So the equivalent in Canada would be Ottawa's DC. Where is your cultural capital?
Speaker 1: Culture would be Toronto. It would be Ontario, Quebec would be the New York
Speaker 0: And on the Maritime provinces, I'm a sailor, I know a little bit about this. You got Nova Scotia, you got New Brunswick, you've got Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Is there any red, so
Speaker 1: No, called not in any of those.
Speaker 2: Those are
Speaker 0: all more progressive.
Speaker 1: They I mean, Nova Scotia is the one that has the premier who's the conservative banning hiking. They had their maritime bubble during COVID where you couldn't even travel within you couldn't go into those provinces without there were some restrictions and you couldn't leave the provinces without no. There it's it's Canada is is I believe it might be beyond the event horizon of Really? Communism state is No turning back. I I don't know how you turn back now.
And even turning back now would be what? Having the conservative party come into power. They just lost the election where they voted unanimously in support of conversion therapy bans. Like, they they vote for progressive crap on par with the liberals. I mean, the the only the only I don't even know what the difference is, and I don't know what the future of Canada holds.
There has to be a populist pushback, which I there isn't.
Speaker 0: You know, an obscure thing that you you may not know, maybe you do, but when I was on federal probation for three years, and I was confined, and I couldn't leave without permission from a probation officer in The United States, article three courts, you're on a federal probation, My sister married a Canadian man. My sister married a man from British Columbia. So I don't remember the circumstances, but I I I wanted to go visit Canada. And and I and I couldn't leave New Jersey without, you know, getting all types of court orders and documents. And apparently, when when American citizens on federal probation, they can't go to Canada unless they get permission from the prime minister.
Did you know that?
Speaker 1: I did not know that. And and I remember
Speaker 0: that my probation officer said, you must get permission from the prime now at the time, that was 2010. It was
Speaker 1: a conspiracy know it in Harper. Steven Harper.
Speaker 0: Think. Steven Harper. So I couldn't go to Canada without getting permission from the prime minister. I don't know if that's the law. That was I I was told that was the law.
Speaker 1: Mean, entering a foreign country is a privilege and and not a right? And then
Speaker 0: But but this was a misdemeanor. This was like, you know, a class b misdemeanor, but nevertheless, it was federal probation.
Speaker 1: You you wanna like, see, that's how they'll deal with certain elements. Now Canada's offering asylum to two s l g b two q I eight folk from The States because The congruence
Speaker 0: of it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh, because because they they like, they've never been to Miami. Miami's got a massive gay population. The idea that anybody looks at Florida and says it's a tyrannical state or America is an anti two s LGBTQIA plus country, they're they're ill informed idiots that only listen to CBC. It's mad. It's it's it's but it is it's frustrating because I say, like, you you look I I mean, I don't know where I'm gonna be in three years.
I I might I I feel more American in my spirit as far as what it goes. I love Canada.
Speaker 0: And you come to Florida. When did you come to Florida?
Speaker 1: 2022, I got I got, you know, I had my my deal with Rumble, a contract with Rumble, which facilitated everything. But I I made the during COVID, I I I told my wife, it started off as a joke. I knew we were gonna have to leave because I a, I was never imposing that medical treatment on my kids. I was never living in a province where my kids gonna have to show a a a QR code to play sports, and it was not a place to raise a family. And I knew that we were gonna have to get out.
I started jokingly with my wife over the course of a year. She became aware of the fact that we would have to leave. We sold everything, got signed the contract, and got, you Are you happy here? I I mean, I feel guilty saying it, yes. Why do you feel
Speaker 0: guilty saying it?
Speaker 1: Because on the one hand, there's a lot of people who I know would wanna leave Canada if they have the opportunity and don't. Costs an arm and a leg, you know, it requires certain logistical legal technicalities that everybody can't.
Speaker 0: Not everyone can do it.
Speaker 1: Not everybody can do it and
Speaker 0: you And you're not just an American citizen.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not an American citizen.
Speaker 0: Would you like to be?
Speaker 1: I would, I feel like one in my spirit. We'll see what time holds but then I look back at Canada and I make the analogy often, It's sort of like looking at a girlfriend that you used to love, and now you hate this. Everything that you thought you used to love about her, now you hate. You hate the way she smells. You hate the way she looks because she's betrayed you.
And I say this, and I feel guilty just because it involves people who are not guilty of this, but the country, the government has betrayed me. I look back at the country like what I used to love about it, now hate. They give the coffee shops. Oh, yeah, they have their nice cafes and you get good coffee. Can't get good coffee in Florida, that pisses me off.
You have your good cafes, it comes at the expense of absolute tyranny.
Speaker 0: So you look at these coffee shops, you say, I love the coffee, but I hate what I have to give up in order
Speaker 1: to I love get the coffee, I love the downtown, but now they've turned it into like pedestrian only because of, you know, crisis. They've ruined everything about the country.
Speaker 0: So when you, you go back to visit?
Speaker 1: I haven't been back in a while, I'm gonna go back sooner, but I mean I go
Speaker 0: back It kind of makes you sad when you go back.
Speaker 1: It makes me sad and angry. I feel like I'm stepping into a flipping insane asylum. People are still wearing face masks, Construction is through the roof. Homelessness is through the roof. Where I used to live, there's an open air safe injection site a mile and a half down the street.
They've ruined the place that I called home.
Speaker 0: I know Gavin McGinnis, who co founded Vice with Shane Smith, and he was from Montreal.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, he was from Canada. I'm about
Speaker 0: ten years older than you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And he's Montreal. I don't know if he's from Montreal, but I know he's from
Speaker 0: They located in Montreal.
Speaker 1: Know James James. Steven Crowder is from NDG.
Speaker 0: Where is that?
Speaker 1: That's where my my the district where I ran for federal Notre Dame De Grasse, NDG.
Speaker 0: I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So he's he was from my riding where I ran for federal office.
Speaker 0: That's in Quebec?
Speaker 1: That's in Quebec. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So when I go back to New York, New Jersey, where I'm from, the New York Metropolitan Area, I think there's something similar. Yeah. I went back there and I just feel a little sad. But I grew up in the 1990s and the world was much different in every possible conceivable way. But it's almost like I've outgrown it.
And I don't just mean because I'm a little older, I'm a little wiser. There's some complicated factors there because it reminds me of my past. It's not what you're saying. There are things that happened in our previous life, previous company, previous people who I no longer associate with, but I I I when I go back to that place, I think I can't live here.
Speaker 1: No. No. But it's You know? Similar emotions for different reasons. Yeah.
But you you go back, and what used to make you happy makes you angry now, and and it brings back
Speaker 0: feelings of So
Speaker 1: not necessarily angry. Sadness. Like, you can be reminded. Oh, you're you're talking about project Veritas.
Speaker 0: I think it's well, I think it's in I'm I'm trying to relate to you, and I think it's like three or four things. You're talking about one of them, and there's no question. New York City is not 1994. Like, Rudy Giuliani cleaned that place up, the broken windows theory, the subway was clean. It was the safest place per capita.
Safest Manhattan was the safest in the world. When I was in third grade, I went to visit the World Trade Center, you know, and then the bombing happened and then nineeleven happened. I always say, I feel like the year February, everything just started to suck in New York. But the nineties were great. So I relate to a lot of what you're saying.
I think also for me, it's just you outgrow a place and everyone has migrated. It's the great migration to the free state. We're sitting in West Palm Beach, Florida. It's just there's a lightness in the air. There's There's no gun laws here.
You can just go buy a gun and shoot it.
Speaker 1: I unfortunately can't because I'm a non resident. I need to get a I I want a green card if for one reason.
Speaker 0: Are you allowed to shoot somebody else's gun?
Speaker 1: I can I can go to a range? Yeah. So you'll take me
Speaker 4: on.
Speaker 0: We can do that.
Speaker 1: But it's no. It it is you know, there's something to be said. I Florida is it's flat. The freshwater has alligators and brain eating parasites in it. The beach is beautiful.
Brain eating parasites. The parasites are more dangerous than the gators. People don't That's appreciate true. You moved out here and like, there's something to be said about the spiritual liberation of freedom. That's how I feel.
And go up to Canada, people are angry, they're bitter, you can feel it, and people are gonna say, I'm projecting, I'm angry and I'm bitter. No, I go there, people don't smile at you. They don't wanna come within certain vicinity of you on the street. Everybody's, you're dodging homeless people, companies are out of business, and people are still effing crazy.
Speaker 0: Do people recognize you in Canada?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, yeah.
Speaker 0: Does anyone ever curse you off?
Speaker 1: Not, I say touch wood, no, they save that for the internet and even on the internet there's not that much of it.
Speaker 0: They don't have the courage to say it to your
Speaker 1: face. No, don't think I say anything that deserves being told to go ask myself.
Speaker 0: Well, as someone who's a public figure, no one really ever does that to me. The worst they'll do is give you a kind of a frown.
Speaker 1: I got the middle finger by one person, but this was during the Ottawa protest where they were clearly wearing a mask and not of the proclivities of supporting the protest. But no, by and large, I don't know if I'm not controversial enough. Try not to pick personal fights for no Yeah. Good
Speaker 0: You're not really someone who's just bellicose, but does anyone come up to you ever in Canada and say, support what
Speaker 1: you're doing? That happens more. That is all that it happens not too often. I mean, the hair is hard to hide.
Speaker 0: A giveaway.
Speaker 1: It's a dead giveaway. But it happens. But it happens. You know, usually it's going through an airport where you interject when you cross more people's paths. But no, I've never had anyone say, like, how dare you say something about that in particular.
But what are they gonna what are they gonna say? Like, I'm wrong on the trans issue, men in women's sports is fundamentally wrong and fundamentally unfair and fundamentally contrary to the law? Who's going to disagree with that? Someone's going to say, yeah, I believe a 14 year old should get puberty blockers. I mean, I think it's genital mutilation.
Are you going to Hate me for that. But I think, you know, not controversial for the sake of being controversial, and I have not gotten Maybe I don't make as much of the hate that I do get like some people online, but no, I think touch wood. People seem to not hate me.
Speaker 0: Yeah, mean it's like I was up there the Thousand Islands on
Speaker 1: the July 4. So that's a beautiful, beautiful place.
Speaker 0: It's beautiful place. You ever been there?
Speaker 1: Only driving through to cross the border.
Speaker 0: I was there on Canada Day, which is July, what day is it?
Speaker 1: July 1. Did they let Canadians celebrate this year? Yeah.
Speaker 0: This year, July 1. Yeah, I mean I was there on July 1 and everyone was waving their Canada flag along. For those of you who aren't familiar with the area, there's only a couple miles separating Canada from The United States and the river. And yeah, was there on a few of those Canadian islands.
Speaker 1: It's a well off area as well. Financially well off. The houses are beautiful.
Speaker 0: Excuse me, this Ontario.
Speaker 1: Ontario. I mean, because it's island homes and it's it's it's gloriously beautiful.
Speaker 0: Had a very narrow shipping channel through So you have these tiny, tiny little island. I mean, of the islands are the size of this room and there's a house on it And and there's people with Canada flags I mean, I I was on a tiny little sailboat, and there were people waving their Canadian flag an American flag. And they were like waving their Canadian flags. Was like, maybe I should take down the American flag. I don't know if they're waving at me out of Canadian pride or waving it at me as a middle finger.
I don't
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's a question what what the Canadian flag means right now. The the I call it faux patriotism. A faux patriotism. Sorry.
Faux patriotism? Yeah. Because during the Ottawa trucker protest, you literally had the CBC saying that the Canadian flag was sort of like, you know, the the the calling cry of the far right. They literally said, like, the flag and freedom were the rallying cries of the far right. And now they now since Kearny comes in and they wanna pretend to be patriotic to stick it to America, now they start flying the the Canadian flag as a form of patriotism.
So I I do call it faux hypocritical and and virtue signaling patriotism because that flag, when the truckers were flying it, was a was a was a, you know, it was an act of hate against these people, same ones who are now flying it, but presumably as a as a sign of hate towards America. The the anti American sentiment in Canada right now is shocking, even among people who I think are smart and should know better. They they do blame America and Trump for everything that's going on in Canada.
Speaker 0: Well, appreciate you're willing to be so honest and and not sugarcoat it. I mean, lot of people, you know, they're very politically correct. Oh, they're nice people. But even, again, speaking as someone relating to what you're saying as someone from the Northeast, I find people in New York, I don't mean Upstate New York, I mean New York City Metropolitan Area, Westchester County, Connecticut, New Jersey, I just find them to be half of them are miserable and neurotic.
Speaker 1: They're just mean. Neurotic part I could relate to, but the miserable I'm joking.
Speaker 0: Wrong type of neurotic.
Speaker 1: I It's know what you mean, and when people say Canadians are polite, it's the I'm not gonna use a hyperbolic or offensive term. It's it's again, it's it's it's not even faux politeness. It's surface level politeness. It's subservience. And, you know, subservience is politeness right up until the time where someone else is not sufficiently subservient, then they become teacup tyrants.
Tyrants. Like, is Yeah. As they go, they're nice and polite. Hey. How you doing?
And then they see you in the park, they call westbound security because you're in the playground when you shouldn't be. Like, it's not politeness. It's subservience.
Speaker 0: You're in the parking lot outside the department store not wearing a mask, and the Karen becomes instantly, like, tight,
Speaker 1: like I was I went it was one of the videos that was fantastic. When they were enforcing the vaccine passport, you had to show your QR code to get into department stores. And I said, I got two shots for whatever the reason. I said, I'm not showing you a damn thing. And he says, well, you can't come in.
I was like, yeah, I can go to the pharmacy. You're not allowed denying me the right to go to the pharmacy. It was a Walmart. So then the guy's like, all right, I'm going to walk with you from the front door to the pharmacy. What do you need?
I said, I need a bottle of rubbing alcohol. They walked me, get it, and then escorts me out. So like, it's politeness when you follow the rules. That's fake politeness. Then oddly enough, the most polite people in Canada were the ones protesting, were the ones saying break unjust laws and defy these unjust leaders.
I
Speaker 0: I know I think I know the answer, but tell us from your perspective, at the end of the protest movement, it kinda just if my memory serves me correct, they cracked down using some emergency They
Speaker 1: invoked the Emergencies Act, which allowed them to use, basically, it allowed them to, for lack of a better word, suspend the constitution. I know Trudeau says, We're not suspending the constitution. We are just coming in with a militarized police force literally beating veterans, literally, jailing people, arresting them.
Speaker 0: And then the patriotic community did what? They dispersed?
Speaker 1: They They went home. That was they dispersed. Some of them got arrested.
Speaker 0: Wanna get beaten up and go into jail.
Speaker 1: Some some of them had their lives ruined. Mean, you heard what's going on with Tamara Leach and Chris Barber, the two supposed organizers of the protest. They were convicted on mischief and counseling mischief or counseling to defy a court order, and the Crown wants to
Speaker 0: lock Mischief. Them up
Speaker 1: Mischief. Nonviolent mischief. The Crown wants to lock them up for seven and eight years respectively. They submitted sentencing memoranda to have them locked up for seven and eight years. Literal rapists don't get that much time in Canada.
There was a guy who literally kidnapped someone who was later murdered. He got probation because he had already served a few years before getting a
Speaker 0: What does the Supreme Court of Canada say about this?
Speaker 1: They they're it's a political organization. It's not
Speaker 0: it's not It's
Speaker 1: not won't say it's
Speaker 0: not as corrupt as Not as bad as Brazil.
Speaker 1: It's not like corrupt in the demorais sense of like one man controlling the outcome of things, but it's it's a partisan it's it's the the judiciary protecting the governments. It's it's one big club, and we're not in it.
Speaker 0: The Emergencies Act of 1988 is a federal law that could be used by the federal government in in the end of the
Speaker 1: It did replace the Wartime Measures Act, And the only
Speaker 0: nineteen oh eight
Speaker 1: minute No, because it replaced an anti replaced an older law, was the War Measures Act, which oddly enough, Justin Trudeau's father invoked during the FLQ crisis of 'seventy eight. And so and oddly enough, the father abused to go after his political rivals. So they rebranded it the
Speaker 0: emerging Nothing on about that, it's human nature, right? Its power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Speaker 1: You know what's funny, I was on a space, a Twitter space with Andrew Dittmann, you know the guy who sounds exactly like Elon Musk on Twitter? Was it Elon Musk or Dittmann? Someone said it.
Speaker 0: I think I know who you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he said, I said that and he says no because you'll never know if someone is uncorruptible or not corrupted until you give them power. To not have power, you don't even get to use or abuse it. You need to give someone power to see if they are corrupt.
Speaker 0: Correct. I agree And with
Speaker 1: it's true, like, know, you get corrupt jackasses like Trudeau. Look, I haven't I've yet to meet a politician who has wielded the power in a non corrupt manner. I think, you know Very
Speaker 0: few, but it's rare.
Speaker 1: It's rare. And I say, me call me biased to think the Trump admin is not wielding the batons of power as freely as they could to go after the people who went after them, but set that aside. I agree with that. Yeah. Mean, I The
Speaker 0: Biden administration rated journalists. Yeah. You imagine the Trump administration executing search warrants? I'm just trying to give an example of a non legacy media, like a like a kind of the equivalent of James O'Keefe or whatever the crystal ball. I can only think of crystal ball or like the Daily Beast reporters.
Can you imagine? Well I mean
Speaker 1: you know, but it is funny now that you mentioned, was is Steve Baker, he was with he's with the Daily Beast. No. Is he with the Daily Beast?
Speaker 0: Baker's or the Blaze?
Speaker 1: The Blaze. I'm sorry. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Was with Glenn Beck.
Speaker 1: And they they went after Steve Baker, like, and they don't don't Like, the the left doesn't care. And if if the Trump administration had done a fraction of what the Biden administration did, and I you know, or what his DOJ did, they would have locked him up. It would be the end of everything.
Speaker 0: Going back to your, and we're gonna get to the FBI, I wanna talk to you about the affidavit, I wanna talk to you about the constructive termination thing, you were attacked for, silly enough.
Speaker 1: Well, watching your channel knows what happened with you, but the idea that they raided you for the Ashley Biden diary when, as far as I'm concerned, she deliberately abandoned it there to try to sabotage her father, but no element of criminality, no hint of criminality.
Speaker 0: But going back to the the absolute power tends to corrupt. I think you're right. I think if you wanna test someone, you give them power, and the the appropriate like, I found this true in my life that the if you have an appropriate level of character, you will treat power like responsibility, and it'll weigh on you. That that's to me I don't know how you feel, but that to me is is how I would approach power. It's like, now I have this power.
Now I have this we have this profound responsibility, and politicians tend to they view it the exact opposite way. You
Speaker 1: know? Well, it is not that I have any power, but I have a you know? It's the thing when every time you send out a tweet, it's not power. It's just it's reach. Many dollars do you have?
700 and some odd That's quite a few. No. And like, it would be my biggest concern is being unfair to somebody, like being I I once made an accusation of someone that was false. And like, and it's the question like, okay, I have the power to say F off and I'm doubling down whatever. And it is a question of how people respond to that power.
Some will say, never be held I never need to be held accountable nor do I ever expect to be, and so I never need to apologize versus those saying, I have this power, if I use it improperly, I say, like, what would my father think type thing. Seems that some people don't have either a fear of God or a fear of parents ingrained in their psyche. Well, you
Speaker 0: used the word accountability, and I think those who do have the kind of power where they feel that equates to responsibility, they're held accountable every hour of the day. It's very humbling, you know, to to have that kind of well, you have 700,000 followers. And if you don't mind me asking or if you're able to talk about it, what was that moment where you got something wrong or you
Speaker 1: Oh, it it was an anonymous account of a guy who accused Robert Barnes of having put out a tweet. Mhmm. And so then I go and I look for the tweet, and I can't find the tweet. Then I find the guy who said Barnes tweeted the tweet tweeted a tweet verbatim, and then retweeted it saying that it was it was the and that's like, you you met you put that together, you retweeted the tweet, and because it didn't get enough traction, then you accused Barnsley. No.
It turns out the tweet was out there. It was it was it was luckily innocuous and irrelevant, but it was I made an accusation of someone that was false. The person it's it's an anonymous Twitter account in any event, but, you know, I apologize. And when I put out the tweet about, Tim Houston calling out corruption, like, after I sent him, like, did I did I dot all my i's and cross all my t's? It's like, did I make a mistake?
Is there another Tim Houston who was in the Paradise Papers that I just accused? It's like you have the ability to do good, and you want to make sure that you don't use your powers to do bad or, at the very least, to do harm Mhmm. Unjustly and unnecessarily or wrongly, I should just say.
Speaker 0: Well, let's talk about I guess we'll go to the the constructive termination because this was interesting. You you had a comment about this. This was this was me being, well, I would say fired from project Veritas on February 10. And in the case, they actually brought up your name, and I I won't say where or who yet, but this was, I guess, some commentary you gave back in 2023. Team, if we can pull up that screenshot from the board minutes of this was 02/10/2023.
They're gonna pull up the image, 02/10/2023. And it was a case involving this is actually what the Veritas lawsuit is all about. I was fired from the company and definitely suspended without pay. They said, no. That that that wasn't firing you, and then they sued me.
And then because I started OMG sometime after February 10, they said you you breached your contract because you were still technically employed, and this is really what the case comes down to. So
Speaker 1: It was I would add, for those who may not be familiar, It wasn't just a question of ousting constructive dismissal. It was defamation. It was destruct. It was it was an evisceration of character in an attempt to undermine everything you've ever done and everything that you would ever do. It wasn't just a question of parting ways.
And and that struggle session, was it a was it a recording?
Speaker 0: February 6, six hour long word meeting.
Speaker 1: It was what they tried to do was steal Project Veritas and what you had turned it into to use it for their own political purposes for whatever those might be because it was it Projekt Veritas was James O'Keefe, and and I'm not trying to stroke your ego. There was no one you think Projekt Veritas, it's James O'Keefe and vice versa. No one's gonna come in there and
Speaker 0: It's almost like they resented the fact that it was me, though. Because a lot of people say that to me. You're one of 10,000 people that have said precisely what you just said, and I'm just asking you questions, but it seems as though they resented that. Didn't want that to be true.
Speaker 1: I think what what I think it was reprisal clearly for something Pfizer related, but they wanted to appropriate the reputation and branding that you had brought to Project Veritas in order to use it for their own jaded political purposes. That's my that's my underlying belief. And when they tried to force you, I would say, oh, you know, it's it's not it's not constructive dismissal. It's not firing. We're just you know, you're you're you're being suspended indefinitely unpaid.
I don't know what the hell else you would call that. But then to try to, like, gin up employee complaints to try to tarnish who you were as a person and then to accuse you of being disloyal by trying to solicit donations when I was following it at the time, and I think you were following good legal advice. They they don't appreciate that people will when you leave a if a law firm kicks you out, if you don't solicit the clients, it doesn't prevent the clients from going to you. You they nobody owns the clients.
Speaker 0: That that's what happened. The donors, they would allege that I was proactively disparaging them with donors. This is me February
Speaker 1: It was all it was all both.
Speaker 0: February 6 and February 20. Donors were calling me, and they were like, give me the phone number for the board, please, because I'm gonna call them and yell at them. I'm gonna call them and tell them the situation. What am I gonna say? No?
I say, here's the number. There's no disparagement. There's no but it was, you know, there's did we have a video of Veeva talking about this team? Is that what this is?
Speaker 1: Kyle Seraphin releases this video, Kyle Seraphin
Speaker 0: thing. Oh, god. I don't know. I don't know if you have the constructive termination thing, guys, but if we don't, we'll go to Kyle Seraphin.
Speaker 1: At all, let's say I will defend I will criticize when criticism is warranted, and I will defend when defense is warranted. The that was another part of it that I So think was a prolonged
Speaker 0: so so apparently, we've learned that that Matthew Tiramond provided Kyle Seraphin the video tape
Speaker 1: Of the bar the bar incident in
Speaker 0: provided this woman, this 20 year old girl who was she she had had some drinks, but I I think I think I I think I bought her one drink. But what was funny about the woman in DC, we we I don't know if the audience knows what I'm talking about, but they're this was a this was a videotape that Kal Seraphin, the former FBI agent, published of of me in a bar. And I said, we should turn the camera on. So this other guy turned the camera on, the iPhone on, and as as as sloppy as she seemed, she was like I don't know. She was Eastern European or something.
She worked for Chuck Schumer. And she's and I was like, So what do you tell me about your boss. And she's like, You know that I cannot talk about my boss. So she was, like, clever. I was like, Oh, you're, like, kind of overdramatizing how intoxicated you are.
Like, you know what I mean? Like, if she really was drunk drunk drunk, I felt like she would have I felt like she would have been more open looped.
Speaker 1: This look, if someone wanted to sabotage if there were a double fakie, sabotage, that that is one angle that this could have been. A Chuck Schumer at a bart how does someone working for Chuck Schumer not know who you are? I don't remember if she knew who you were.
Speaker 0: Well, a lot of people don't know who I was, but most of these people in DC by the way, I didn't intentionally go after this lady. She just happened to be I was at a wedding, and I was with the wedding party in this restaurant, and this woman starts hitting on this other guy who was a guest of the wedding. I mean I mean, hitting on him hard, saying things I don't even wanna say on on the air. And, you know, a lot of stuff that we record, we don't publish. We at Projie Veritas, the stuff that exists on our server, there's a lot of stuff I would never publish.
I don't publish people's sexual stuff that they talk about because I believe that to be an intrusion. I think there are certain facts that are not public.
Speaker 1: And not newsworthy.
Speaker 0: And not newsworthy, and I'm very careful to redact that. Like, I have hundreds of examples, but there was one example in New Jersey where a union official invited us to go up to her room and engage in a threesome. The individual in question is married. I'm not going to publish this.
Speaker 1: I say you're you're you're good to have it on camera because if you don't have the evidence on camera, in that particular case, I think you could have been easily accused
Speaker 0: of about the chylserafin, and keep guys, keep this stuff on the screen. My team is pulling up clip after clip. We don't get to it. Is that they published the stuff that I didn't publish, and they're trying to make the argument that that it's it's really weird. They're publishing it, and then they're trying to hold me culpable for doxing a lady, which I didn't dox because they published it.
I didn't. And one must understand, there is a difference between recording something and publishing it. And Seraphin, he didn't blur the woman's voice, so she was easily identifiable. And and and then the aggressor becomes the victim.
Speaker 1: Well, this is this is Seraphin, I I I follow him on Twitter. He's done he does some good stuff, and but he seems to have had a vendetta for you for whatever the reason, and I and I publicly addressed that. Steve Baker also, talking with him, he was not as quite as, you know, malicious against you, but they're like, you know, a man would have helped her, you know, call her a cab.
Speaker 0: Oh, the Blaze guy?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Was like, first of all first of all, like, you don't even know if that was a ploy to get James O'Keefe, like, to pretend to be drunk and try to make him look bad for it grab to
Speaker 0: grab her boob. Nothing good happens after midnight, I refused. I refused. She's like, grab my boob. And and I and I I was like I was like, you know, I mean, I know that this is being recorded and she's talking about all the plastic surgery she's done and, you know, I mean, this is just
Speaker 1: It could easily have been a setup.
Speaker 4: It could be.
Speaker 0: I don't that it was.
Speaker 1: No. But I say what was clear was the treatment wasn't fair of you. And so I'm look. It doesn't matter who
Speaker 0: it It was really remarkable to see all these other people. I I don't know what Seraphin's beef is, but we have a clip of Viva and Robert Barnes talking about a lawsuit against OMG. Let's play a a little bit
Speaker 5: of They're going a coup by bad faith, corrupt actors who wanted to silence James
Speaker 0: Oates This is Robert Barnes.
Speaker 5: And effectively shut down Project Veritas, people like Matthew Timmand and others, in terms of at least their populist direction. And now we see confirmation of that because they have confirmed in their lawsuit that their goal was to effectively mute him, to prevent him from doing anything. They suspended him. They now here's a little trick, by the way. They say they suspended him with pay in one section, and then a few set paragraphs later, they just say they suspended him a few days later, and they don't say whether he was paid or not.
Speaker 1: No. We know
Speaker 5: we the whole lawsuit, a reasonable inference is they paid him for like three days and then quit paying him.
Speaker 1: Forbade him from using the company credit card, forbade him from doing anything, but it doesn't He wasn't doing require
Speaker 5: his job. So like the what are they seeking? They admit that basically that that the whole along their goal was to gag James O'Keefe by the and that they had some sneaky lawyers who thought they had found a way to do it and didn't understand who and what James O'Keefe is. And so they, like so what are they seeking? They're seeking some of the most ridiculous remedies I've ever seen.
They are seeking to prevent, the federal they want a federal court judge to legally prohibit James O'Keefe from even contacting or talking to people he's known his whole life if they merely were a donor, prospective donor, employee, or contractor of Project Veritas.
Speaker 1: Man, just sit there and shut Okay.
Speaker 0: So yeah. So, guys, if we could please pull up on the screen the board minutes from February 10 I just sent you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So what's amazing is Barnes is more often than not very, very right and was right again there. By the I was I I remember I was at a hotel there, is why the Internet connection was glitchy.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So this is this is the board minutes from February tenth, indefinite suspension of Mr. O'Keefe without compensation, which I think you called constructive termination. That's just termination. That's just termination.
Speaker 1: The hell, constructive dismissal typically is they change the, I mean I guess changing your remuneration from something to nothing is constructive. But typically, it's like, I don't know, if you're an executive and they make you do secretarial work, they're not firing you, but they're changing the terms to If the you're point where a
Speaker 0: janitor, what Yeah, are
Speaker 1: but yeah, okay, so they suspended you without pay after having February subjected That that that
Speaker 0: That was after this February 6. So February 6 was the was the subjecting me to the six hour long struggle session, I call it.
Speaker 1: Six hours?
Speaker 0: And I six hours six hours long, and and the grievances and the you know, that I took a I had we had a driver and
Speaker 1: then You took the pregnant woman's sandwich, Chris.
Speaker 0: A pregnant woman's sandwich.
Speaker 1: Did she give it to you? I said I said, don't even know. She probably gave it to him just to be nice.
Speaker 0: What I believe happened was we were in court a year prior, half a year prior, and there was like a plastic bag of sandwiches from the cafeteria, and maybe someone drew the short straw. But what was most hurtful about that for me I mean, all this was my audience has heard these stories a 100,000 times. What was most painful about this whole dynamic was that I worked a hundred days a year on the road raising money to make sure all these people could feed their families. And I spent and I'm not a victim, I'm just explaining my reality I spent countless nights alone in hotel rooms very late at night, and that's the sacrifice that a leader has to make. That's what I signed up for.
But she, this individual, Julia is her name, was upset that there was one sandwich too few in the bag of lunch sandwiches. But can
Speaker 1: you imagine?
Speaker 0: Like, well, woman, you get to go home every night to be with your loved ones while I'm on the road half the year, and you're gonna make a federal case out of the fact there's two short and by the way, here's the other thing I'll say about human nature. They can't just say, I was wrong. Nobody can ever admit no one ever has contrition or introspection or humility. No, no. No, no, no, no.
They'll litigate this to a federal judge, which they did. They went into a federal courtroom after you guys sat down. They went to New York, and they tried to get a federal judge to shut my company down. OMG.
Speaker 1: James, it's first, the idea that of all of the things any bad boss could have done, that would have been among the top 10 that was That was the top 10? That that is it's insanity beyond insanity. The but the human nature to not admit that you made a mistake or to apologize on an individual level, I think one of the reasons is that people just you know that apologies get weaponized against you, so there's almost no incentive to apologize. On a professional basis, from a lawyer's perspective, can never do it. A, you you gave bad advice to your clients, you took money for what you shouldn't have done in the first place, you gotta double down, triple down, and then have it thrown up by court, when it happens to get thrown up by court, blame the court.
Speaker 0: Blame the judge. Absolutely. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But that yeah. Of all of the terrible things you did as a boss, anyone would remember that is is is insanity to me.
Speaker 0: But This is a tweet. I asked Julia Wood for comment. She evaded the the response to the pregnant woman who now denies I took her sandwich. So we actually reached out to the pregnant woman, and the pregnant woman denies I took her sandwich. This is actually something that we did recently.
Can you imagine?
Speaker 2: So
Speaker 0: then wouldn't I be the one being defamed? And then and then and then what happens journalistically is they they say the person that we reached out to is is is either miss she isn't knowing or she lied. This happened multiple times throughout this ordeal. So there was a fabrication or or or a grievance.
Speaker 1: But an an exaggeration. It might have been a joke.
Speaker 0: It might
Speaker 1: have been a joke at the time
Speaker 0: of kernel of truth. Like, maybe there was a bag and there was one sandwich too short, but somehow that becomes I stole that other woman's sandwich. So the pregnant woman says, no. No. No.
I bought my own sandwich. I don't need anyone to get me a sandwich. Dude, I'm telling you, this is this is so What's crazy about
Speaker 1: it is the the players involved in it
Speaker 0: This is like
Speaker 1: Like, Timurand going after you and and effectively, I don't know, he and others
Speaker 0: Now he attacked you too. We'll get to that later,
Speaker 1: but Please, you can judge your judge yourself on the enemies you've made.
Speaker 0: He attacks anybody viciously. I mean, I gotta give him credit because it takes a it takes a degree of, I would say, cleverness. He he viciously attacks anybody who supports me. So good for him on that. But the the the legal issues here, the constructive termination, what are you what are your thoughts legally?
Speaker 1: I mean, it was it was bunk from the beginning. The only my only real query is how and when and why. I mean, the the timing wise, it fit with the expose on Pfizer, and it's not I mean, this is all my you I know nothing. Right. That is I I know nothing confidential.
It the timing, you you it's either astronomically coincidental or it's not. So you you could draw your own conclusions there. What was clear is they wanted you out, and they wanted the goodwill and the the assets of Project Veritas not appreciated. I think the goodwill.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think that's that's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, because it it was a brand. It was a brand brand.
Speaker 0: Now there is a kind of special raison d'etre, to borrow a French word. How do you say that? Yeah. Don't say it like that.
Speaker 1: The reason for being.
Speaker 0: Reason for being. Raison d'etre. There is a special even this this, motto and the slogan that we have here, I think there's a special something in the in the, core values and the virtues of what we stand for. And it's, you know, it's a story about human nature, about ego, about pride, about greed, about it was a company, but it wasn't really it was a corporation, but it wasn't really a company in the traditional sense. It was a mission.
And when you get big, you know, these things happen.
Speaker 1: Well, when do what you do, which consists of taking down industries, government, officials, look, you go after Pfizer, you release this thing on Pfizer, and then a couple of weeks later, I don't even know what the timeframe It's was
Speaker 0: ten days.
Speaker 1: It's not
Speaker 0: angry at me for saying that, but that's a fact. It it it It's a fact that it happens ten
Speaker 1: days later. That everybody paying attention to it observed. It's and anyone wants to say it's just a coincidence. Okay. If you wanna believe it's a coincidence, that's fine.
Others don't. So, And those players, mean, Tim Ryan, I've never known him to do anything good. He's just a pain in the neck on Twitter. What's curious is just other people. Like, Steve Baker, I had him on my channel.
We had a good discussion about this. I disagree with his position there. I think it's a principled position. Principled, like, yeah, you should
Speaker 0: What did Baker say?
Speaker 1: He was the one that, you know, a real gentleman would have called her a cab and whatever, not Oh, with the Saraphan flip. Saraphan, I I know that he's taken good positions on other issues, and I just I'm curious as to what the issue was with you because I found that attack to be unfair. If it were right, I would you know, would've tried
Speaker 0: to you came out, I remember that video that you did. Team, if you want to pull up the Viva Seraphim video It's that pulled up a few moments
Speaker 1: not that you're a friend and it's bad. It's that it was unfair. There have been unfair attacks on Candace Owens. I don't think she's a friend, but it's like you just have to be fair in your attacks, and I will not
Speaker 0: Let's just play it by sixty seconds of your frustration.
Speaker 1: Kyle Sarifen releases this video, which James O'Keefe chose not to release, which would easily allow for the identification of the woman
Speaker 0: That's fine.
Speaker 1: Discloses alleged medical information of the woman if she needed an ambulance at the end of this. I'm curious to know if that in fact occurred. Right. Because from the suggestion, it was something to do with James O'Keefe's conduct that required an ambulance for her. If it's her drinking herself stupid, I presume it's not the first time and it's certainly not attributable to James O'Keefe.
Bottom line, provides a video which would clearly allow for the identification of the woman, discloses medical information, and in his tweet mentions that she knew what night he was calling her about. So he's soliciting information from this person in an attempt apparently, ostensibly to take down James O'Keeffe. Now recall the last time James O'Keeffe was taken down or attempted to be taken down. Remember the last time project Veritas was infiltrated and destroyed from within in close proximity to a certain Pfizer video that was released. It might have been a coincidence.
It might not have been a coincidence. We don't know. Those are the dots connecting with the wall. Forgot I had said this.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So, yeah, this is and and the truth be told, I
Speaker 1: didn't ply her with alcohol. But the the other
Speaker 0: half a drink in my presence, but the the one of the things that my adversaries try to do, this is I'm sure your adversaries do it, is they they'll say so things so confidently that aren't so. We don't you don't do that. I I I try I I don't think I've ever done that. In other words, they'll go out on a limb and make presumptions, and they'll state them as fact, like James plied this woman with alcohol. He got her drunk.
How can you say that? I did not do that.
Speaker 1: Worse still now, I remember I remember what I thought at the time where they said she required an ambulance afterwards. I thought you had done something like it the ambiguity for anyone who wants to So ambiguity. Is that you did something even worse to her that required an ambulance. I I forgot. The ambulance because she got too drunk.
First of all, what are you like, I got I get to it doesn't happen very often. You're not that person's father. She was clearly drunk before. It's the bartender's fault. She's totally Oh.
I don't even know
Speaker 0: how drunk she was. She was tipsy. She was acting overly drunk. It god.
Speaker 1: But it's it's gossip. It's gossip. But it was being used to try to discredit you on in ways that I thought were unfair.
Speaker 0: I love the fact that they published the video. And I and I
Speaker 1: think Did she get fired? Did she get fired?
Speaker 0: I don't know. I should do aware of they now. But I don't the poor woman, I I don't she didn't do anything wrong. It's why I mean, she hit on a die. She said some, please grab my tits and she said
Speaker 1: Don't do it, people. Think I did it. Think it was it was a honey
Speaker 0: I didn't do it.
Speaker 1: Yes. Didn't.
Speaker 0: In fact, if you see in the video, I'm literally going like this.
Speaker 1: No. Was not trying to suggest you did.
Speaker 0: A point you point you pointed I think it was you or Barnes that pointed this out. But the the bottom line is my reaction was some guy was filming on his phone, and I and I said and we looked through it to see if she if she did anything improper regarding the senator. And when we produced our videos, we would redact. But the bottom line is we thought this is not appropriate for the public to see this, a distinction lost upon mister Seraphin, and a point you pointed out. But we can we don't have to beat that dead
Speaker 1: horse. No. All I have to say is if a girl asks you to touch her boobies, don't do it. Had you not had it on video, I suspect you might have been facing charges of some sort of sexual impropriety.
Speaker 0: You know, I don't think first of all, fair enough. I don't think that would fly muster in in in in a in a court of law that treats the law equally. Because if a woman asks you to to touch her and she consents truth, she she actually is able to consent, there's nothing illegal about sexual activity.
Speaker 1: Set aside the court of the court, this court of public opinion.
Speaker 0: There's the court
Speaker 1: of The rumors would have been circulating, and she's drunk. You can't
Speaker 0: get Well, a and the other thing that Seraphin has suggested, which is bizarre, is that if you were if you're a Christian, you're not allowed to, flirt or or have sexual relationships with your partner. That's a whole other story for another day. Won't do the
Speaker 1: theological discussion today. I mean,
Speaker 0: are you are you you what are your religious views? Am curious.
Speaker 1: Well, I see. If I say I'm born Jewish, I'm gonna get accused of being anti Jewish. I'm I'm we're we're a Jewish family. We're we're kohanim, like, of tribes that descended from the kohens. But I can say that I'm I'm at a point where any spiritual leanings that I have are not affiliated or tied to any one organized religion.
And and the other reason why, like, I'm I'm born Jewish, nothing I can do about it. I people always tend to say, well, I'm Jewish, so therefore, I get to say certain things, and my opinions on these issues are more valid than yours, and you're not Jewish, so you don't get to say certain things, which I never do because my religious upbringing has never influenced my views and it does not allow me to say any views that I have are more valid than somebody else's who is not Jewish. Long winded answer to saying that, but if there's a God, gonna piss everybody off. You know? We like that.
I I appreciate the the teachings of the Bible, of the New Testament. It's impossible to look at a historical figure regardless of whether or you think he was God like Jesus and say, two thousand years after somebody's death, people are still praising and living moral lives by his standards. You cannot disregard that as a valuable thing to live by. But I eat a lot of bacon, and I just had bacon for breakfast today. All the way over here.
Bacon shellfish. I mean, this the most delicious stuff on earth.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm gonna read this in the context of Christian teaching in regards to the subject we were just talking about. A lot of people were outraged. And after you made this video there, I was looking at some of the comments, and and Serafin commented and others comment. I'm just gonna read this to you that you're putting they're addressing Kyle Serafin, not you, but they're commenting on your video. You, Kyle Seraphin, are putting good people who care about his work in a position they're they're talking about Seraphin publishing my private life stuff separate from this, to defend his personal sexual life, which subjects them to ad hominem attacks by any megaphone that wants to hurt his reputation.
Christian teaching emphasizes the importance of respect for the dignity of individuals even in the midst of conflict. Forgiveness and reconciliation are preferred means of dispute resolution. Public shaming, as you're doing, should be avoided as it undermines the dignity of the individual and could potentially harm the community. Look at the comments on your post, Kyle. Some people seem to think that's the intention the intention to shame.
And I find this interesting because they have a First Amendment right to do it, perhaps unlike other countries. But in journalism, I feel as though and I would like maybe we can finish this up by asking because I think this is important. The intention is the public's right to know. So if I'm a reporter, I want people to know information. But if I'm just trying to hurt someone and shame them and smear them even if it's, like, true.
Like, for example, I'm gonna report on how you talk to your wife in the bedroom. I don't know.
Speaker 1: It was, you know, funny, and I'm even reluctant to bring up these specific examples because you rehash these these public incidents. When they went after Crowder for a fifteen second video of him maybe being trite what's the word? Triter? You know?
Speaker 0: The doorbell camper.
Speaker 1: Was like, I said, I'm not I'm not gonna judge a man based on a fifteen second out of context clip. And and the other thing is like, if you get the someone recorded at their if you get the video of someone at their worst moment ever, anyone, it'll be it'll probably be pretty bad. We've all said things that you wish you could take back. You know, we've we've not all done things that you wish you could take back. I think, like, violence is something you can't really take back, and, you know, a a video of domestic violence is not something I would say, well, it was private.
No. Someone being rude, someone being impatient, someone, you know, having a bad day and blowing up on phone. Mean, yeah, this could be very embarrassing, someone being nude or engaging in whatever sexual proclivities they like to engage in. Think in the Glenn Greenwald incident. And people say, oh, yeah, it's newsworthy because it shows questionable judgment.
I don't want to know what you do in your bedroom. And I'm not saying this because I'm a freaky pervert. I'm probably in a very, very traditional married
Speaker 0: But any man married to his wife, what you say during sex is so outside the bounds of isn't the intentional infliction tort some of these torts, they talk about outside the bound I don't remember the words. You're good at this. But outside the bounds of a civilized society, you simply don't publish those things. Well, and you party consent. It's like revenge porn.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what Glenn Greenwald's was quite literally, which is why they successfully got it taken down on social media. It was neither, it was not newsworthy.
Speaker 0: Consent to
Speaker 1: it, right? It wasn't consensual. It was basically How
Speaker 0: was it even recorded?
Speaker 1: Take your guesses as to how that was recorded at least. But no, it's I I do think like there's something to be said about a fear of God, and whether or not one believes in God, I I believe there's always a camera rolling, so you know, you behave as though there's always someone So you don't, you don't, like, it's not even a question of being good just for the sake of not being caught being bad. It's, have a fear of some higher order that is always watching and is always judging, and if everyone saw this, what would they think of you? Well, we've all been very impatient. We've all lost our temper with with other people.
We've all said terrible things. And if someone happened to have that and just release it for the sake of releasing it just to take down a person, that's where it crosses the bounds of DC.
Speaker 0: It's it's like the law of non contradiction. Like, when they start shaming you for what they are, you know, and I can't get into it just quite yet, but it was like it was like, you ever you ever you ever what do you say to your wife in the bedroom? It's like, you don't want don't but you don't want to become but you don't want to become what your enemy is. Like Nietzsche says, you you don't, you know I don't remember if it was Nietzsche, but, you know, someone said, when you're fighting monsters, be careful not to become a
Speaker 1: into the abyss because the
Speaker 0: abyss stare back into you. And that's very, very I think it's more profound than people realize, but certainly Well,
Speaker 1: it's the argument that I've had in terms of the limits to which you will go to vanquish your enemies. And I have people saying like, there's no rules, no holds barred. Well, why would I ever ally myself with you if any given day you'll say, you turn on me, no rules, no holds barred. There has to be some natural law of what is acceptable and what is not in order to determine whether or not I can even trust myself with this adversary who's an ally right now. Oh, the public
Speaker 0: shame, when you're looking at there's a camera, you're right. It's like, don't do it because you might be shamed by the public. Do it because it's the right thing to do. But the public shame presupposes that there is some type of shared morality or shared virtue that the public has. In investigative journalism, there's this the the book is called the custodians of conscience where you're testing and affirming where is the line?
What is what is obscene and what is decent and what is right. And when you did that video, I I all I mean, 98% of people are like, dude, this is wrong. Why why do you think this makes
Speaker 1: Keith look
Speaker 0: bad? Not against you
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah. No.
Speaker 0: For the publication of the video. People 98% of people thought I've I've read, you know, thousands of comments. It was very interesting to see the shared morality of people, and perhaps that morality comes from a place where they're like, I don't want that done to me. I don't want to be doxed. I don't right?
I don't I don't want maybe do you think that's where the outrage came from?
Speaker 1: Look, I say it's I don't want to pull the is not case law. People think it is all no obscenity when I see it, but look, we all know unfairness when we see it. Unfairness. It was unfair. And I didn't read the book that you just referenced, but I read your book, which I guess referenced it, American Muckrakers.
I did. I said, this is why I couldn't be a journalist because I wouldn't necessarily, this is why I say I couldn't have been, I had to leave the law. I felt bad destroying people even if they deserved to be destroyed. And so like you get into a deposition, you win a case, and I
Speaker 0: felt That wasn't your intent
Speaker 1: to destroy anything. Justice. Justice does involve people breaking people, and being a journalist would involve disclosing something that's going to ruin somebody's life.
Speaker 0: Which is a by product of
Speaker 1: the I'm not judging you. I'm just saying like it would be I you know
Speaker 0: What's the difference between justice and vengeance?
Speaker 1: One has to be based on I want to say it's circular. One has to be based on justice. One has to be based on underlying fairness. And and it can and I guess vengeance is get demanding more retribution than what is required, and justice is a question of getting that which is fair and proportionate.
Speaker 0: Say that again.
Speaker 1: I say vengeance is is going above and beyond what is what is required under the circumstances. Like like not just taking you know, if you're gonna execute someone, you don't need to torture them before and if you and justice is that which is warranted proportionate and fair.
Speaker 0: Do you have a source for that?
Speaker 1: No, that sounds like David just I've never
Speaker 0: heard that before.
Speaker 1: That's okay. Is you see, vengeance implies an injustice, justice implies righteousness. And so like but they could technically look like the same thing at some point.
Speaker 0: So justice is fairness, and vengeance is going above and beyond
Speaker 1: what it's retribution for, I would say, for one of the seven I was just looking at I the 70 see that. Of the individual.
Speaker 0: In what Matt is doing. He he and these individuals, they're trying to torture me and publish the girl or some girl.
Speaker 1: They're trying to make an example, they're just not only trying to destroy you, but also make an example of anybody who might do what it is that you did, It's which is the part and parcel of, politically, I'm trying to think of decent examples, Not just making an example of the individual, but setting an example for any To train other people.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Logan, Laura Logan said so poetically that it's like a little paper cut. It's like everyone thought that was ridiculous, but taken in totality when the system comes at you with little paper cuts or a little scandal it's not really a scandal, but you know what I mean. In totality, people just kinda go, oh, this guy can't have his shit. I've actually heard this said before.
O'Keefe doesn't have his shit together. This was many years ago, but you get the point. The system kinda just gives you little paper cuts, and then over time, people dismiss you. It's one of the things
Speaker 1: that happens. Well, let's let's take, like, an an example of vengeance versus an example of justice. What they did to Michael Flynn, what the system, what the regime did for And
Speaker 0: he's another guest that's gonna be on this program.
Speaker 1: He's he's an amazing guy. That was not only punishment for Flynn. That was a deterrent for anyone else who would have thought of associating with the Trump administration. Shot?
Speaker 0: His son?
Speaker 1: They went for his son. Went What they did to everyone in Trump's orbit was a, vengeance on the individual for, you know, doing what they did and also setting an example for anyone else who would think twice about it. An example where they're gonna say that that's what's being done when it's not being done is what Trump is doing on the border. Making examples of illegals, though it might seem, grotesque to the people who wanna house illegal aliens, that's also supposed to serve as a deterrent for anybody else if they're thinking of being or remaining illegal. And so you have the same thing which could look the same to two different people, but which are different only in that one is predicated on an injustice and the other one is predicated on lawfulness or justice itself.
Speaker 0: I think it's really important distinction you're citing, and I think it's a distinction that matters in the hearts of men because if you're desiring to harm, if intent is to harm, then you may necessarily cross that line of adjudicating the administration of justice or fairness into just trying to hurt someone. And it's gonna color you know, and let me give you a less abstract example. A lot of times when I reach out to someone for comment, and this has happened recently, they'll say, What outcome do you want, Ms. O'Keefe? I say, the matter?
Do you notice how that's the soup that they swim in?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's it's about impugning intentions. What do you what what's why why are you asking
Speaker 0: I I think it's more than impugning intentions. I think they're trying it's like they're trying to negotiate. So of of course, a man of my profession, there's there is literally never a negotiation. If I reach out to you, I am trying to get the ascertain what the reality is. I'm I'm trying to report the truth.
So my intention is to I say, well, I want to know the truth. I'm like, no, but what are you trying to accomplish? I'm trying to accomplish What getting to the
Speaker 1: will happen will happen. What the Well,
Speaker 0: it's almost like they're trying to half the time, they're trying to get me into some type of blackmail attempt, which is not my intent. And the other half the time, they just simply don't they they can't fathom that the actual purpose of this exercise is to is to do a journalism story because they're not they're not in journalism. They're in business. They're in in business, you negotiate. How about we do a little favor?
You don't publish your story. I send you some money. I'll get you
Speaker 1: a I'll
Speaker 0: do sweetheart a Roth
Speaker 1: deal. Write a featured
Speaker 0: piece What's of the help with that line from Tom Clancy's novel? We'll do the Washington two step. This will never leave the room. And anyway but in the case of the blackmail, we have the the affidavit team. Let's pull it up.
We'll end with this. You're you you have been an attorney. I'd like your 2¢ on the affidavit. I every every week I talk about this, so let's pull up the redaction in the in Canada. Oh, do we have it?
This Here it
Speaker 1: is the affidavit in support of
Speaker 0: Yeah, the rain three on pages. Go to page 43, please.
Speaker 1: Woah, at least we know the date when
Speaker 0: Guys, scroll
Speaker 1: all the
Speaker 0: way down to page 43, please. The affidavit's a 100 pages, but the probable cause is what we want. Keep going, keep going, keep going. A Okay. Pause.
Speaker 1: It takes audacity to actually submit this to someone. This was after a four
Speaker 0: year report? No. This is this is the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, when the case is closed, they have to release the affidavit. Also, before you keep scrolling, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed amicus, and the ACLU filed amicus in this case demanding to see the affidavit. Why?
Because when you raid a newsroom in The United States Of America, the public has a right to know the justification. The justification, probable cause, in my view, outweighs whatever marginal concern the FBI has to protect their sources and methods. That's my view. So they might say, no, no. We gotta protect our sources.
Okay. Screw you. Whatever right you have to protect your sources is infinitely outweighed by the public needing to know the reason. If you're gonna point guns at journalists, we have to know why. So let's go ahead.
Can you when did you get that feedback? March 2000 and no. It's filed 02/06/2025.
Speaker 1: February. So this is in
Speaker 0: Look at look at this. Look at this, Veeva.
Speaker 1: Oh, this was right before the new administration.
Speaker 0: No. This is this is correct. Okay.
Speaker 1: So if a, this is unacceptable. B, I I I would I would obviously ask for the unredacted version, but I just don't What we have? I'm trying to think of,
Speaker 0: like Look at page 45. They even no. Behind you. Stop. They even redacted the little footnote above line 48, and then they didn't unredact the footnote on the this is a clown show.
The footnote on the bottom is unredacted, the the number, but the the little digit, number eight eighteen.
Speaker 1: On my training industry. I remember making fun of this. I have learned among other things that cell phones can make
Speaker 0: and receive calls. Yeah. That's an FBI agent
Speaker 1: writing that.
Speaker 0: So that's the extent of do you think so what do you think your theory is here? What's behind these black lines? Confidential informants? What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: It's a good I I try to read it and say what could be under those black lines that if it were revealed would be would make people laugh and say, no. Like, what's the worst that could be under it? I mean, it could be, we have no good reason to believe there's anything here. We're doing this as political reprisals. It was a setup.
Actually, Biden left it there on purpose. We know all of
Speaker 0: this No. I don't think that's
Speaker 1: we really wanna raid James. Don't think I'm trying to think of, what could be? What could possibly be there? Okay.
Speaker 0: Let me give you an example. Ashley Biden lying to the FBI. Something like it's let's for so let's say Ashley Biden told the FBI something that we know we know now is not true.
Speaker 1: But it it would be probable cause that you partook in a criminal scheme to get the diary. She allegedly left it at a halfway let's just even say she left it there on purpose, and she said to the FBI, I'm trying to sabotage my father. And they say, look, she told us she's trying to sabotage her father and that these were complicit in it, but we still reasonably believe that James didn't know this. I mean, therefore, I could see that being the drafting. But you have to assume that whatever's in there would be so damning or so preposterous outlandish that people would not only lose faith in the criminal justice system, they would realize that it's a criminal justice system Yeah.
And and revolt against it and whoever had a part
Speaker 0: in it. They would lose faith in the system if they saw what was behind
Speaker 2: the I think
Speaker 1: most people would already have lost faith, but they might, beyond losing faith, acquire vitriolic disdain for anyone and everyone involved in the process. Yeah. To the point of maybe being like social fabric tearing stuff. Or they had no basis whatsoever, blacking it all out will leave them to believe.
Speaker 0: The system is built right now on a house of cards, and if they were to reveal what's behind the proverbial black lines in any of these things, Epstein, it might make the house of cards topple completely down.
Speaker 1: I think if people understood how government actually worked, they would appreciate. We joke that it's a criminal organization, but you don't actually have the evidence yet. It's sort of like hyper hyperbole. Say, yeah. Sure.
It's it's the it's the the the it's a necessary evil yada yada. Yeah. That is laughably stupid, but that there's a footnote in that affidavit that says, in my experience, know that cell phones are capable of receiving sending. Are mentally challenged is would what have to suggest that. But those are the people who administer justice and use those batons of power to destroy people's lives.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's like they first of all, Logan said it was like a middle finger. It's like she just thought they were joshing with me to redact all that stuff. But, also, it's like, yeah, if they unredact that, then we would know how they machinate. We would know how the machine operates.
And further, if they take away those redactions, they would reveal themselves, and their entire raison d'etre is to protect themselves. They need to protect the system, and they have to they can't expose their own corruption. And Tom Tom Fitton, I think you mentioned this before the before the show that he has been I mean, he's in the business of exposing FOIA, and he's even I haven't seen it, but
Speaker 1: he's been frustrated. He's been expressing frustration with the current administration because it seems that they're maintaining redactions from Biden era documents on stuff that is if it were embarrassing to the Biden administration, you'd think they would be willing to show it. So then you can draw three conclusions. It's either embarrassing to the current administration, which I think is less likely. It's embarrassing to the entirety of the administration, possible.
Or you have someone who's just they're not doing their jobs, basically. And it takes harassing and haranguing through the legal courses to get them to do their job and unredact what they or, I mean, this is probably the most likely, you have, I won't say deep state, but you have partisan activist holdouts within the administration that are trying to sabotage the current administration.
Speaker 0: I think so, but I also think it goes back to what we talked about earlier about human nature, which is people just won't admit that they're wrong. And to take those black lines off those documents, you're gonna have people in the government, both right and left. They just it'll it'll show that they're wrong, and then they'll double down and attack you. And I've seen it in my own life. It's just humans are not able to practice contrition and apologize.
I don't know if it's always been that way.
Speaker 1: It's worse. Would say it's definitely, I don't know if it's always been this way, it's definitely gotten worse because now the apologies are weaponized on a whole new I think social media has made it worse. Yeah. It used to be most wrongs were done much more privately than they're done now. Correct.
And so apologizing remains between you and the person on a much more limited scale. Now it's a tribalistic and b, you know, reaches millions, and if you apologize, you know damn well they're gonna use that apology against you for the rest of
Speaker 0: your That's what the PV people feared. They fear, well, I can't apologize because if I apologize, then James' army of minions will come after me. It's like, well, that that's not my intent. Maybe they will. But do the right thing regardless of whether the minions everything is through a calculus of how I'm gonna be shamed, not just do the lost in all of this is any semblance of
Speaker 1: right and wrong. This I've had people tell me to do it. Don't apologize because they're just gonna use it against you. I and I apologize, I'm not apologizing for them. I'm apologizing for me.
Like, if I've done something wrong
Speaker 0: that would make you look better
Speaker 1: if you've done Well, that was the ultimate irony with the guy I who I made the false apologized publicly and I sent him a DM to apologize privately, and then one day he thought it's the ultimate gotcha to show my private apology
Speaker 0: Oh, he
Speaker 1: did? Which I would never, I would have loved to have shown.
Speaker 0: That's strange.
Speaker 1: It's strange, oh, great. So you show that I both publicly and privately apologized when I acknowledge I made a What was
Speaker 0: the reaction to this?
Speaker 1: Oh, was people were like yeah, great, great own there. They were being sarcastic. Yeah, were being sarcastic. But no, think the issue is that people fear that their apology is gonna be weaponized against them to discredit them in the future. As a matter of fact, think it's the exact opposite, but the bottom line is you're apologizing for yourself and for something bigger than the individual.
You're not apologizing for that individual. You're apologizing because you did something wrong to that individual.
Speaker 0: Well, we're running out of time. We could talk forever.
Speaker 1: I feel like we have
Speaker 0: to come back and we have to go into I had all these cases, but unfortunately, it's almost 03:00 on the East Coast and I've got to get back to doing my reporting, but I very much appreciate having you on. What was your I'm gonna I'm gonna steal gonna gonna attribute this to Michael Malice who what was your favorite part of our conversation today?
Speaker 1: I was thinking, when Malice does it, I was like, if someone asked me this, what am I gonna say? Exactly. Well, first of all, think it was Tabak Noush. It was the revelation about what was the revelation where you said, oh, about vengeance and justice. Yeah.
That was my favorite. Not materializing, but conceptualizing and putting into words the difference between vengeance and justice,
Speaker 0: I've which I think never heard that said that way.
Speaker 1: No, said no. And I'm thinking people confound the two because when it's their justice, when it's their vengeance, they they will convince themselves it's justice because they're too deeply In it. They're too in it to appreciate that, yeah, you want justice and a little bit more, which you might tip the balances to vengeance. That would be my
Speaker 0: favorite Thank you for saying that. And there's a fairness fairness is so That was the word that Justice Kavanaugh used in the hearing. Remember he said, This should be about fairness as they're attacking him and you know, Christine Blasey Ford is out there.
Speaker 1: We forgot we've forgotten about that. Remember that? Oh yeah, Did
Speaker 0: you witness that?
Speaker 1: I witnessed it. I was I was trying to remain mildly neutral.
Speaker 0: What
Speaker 1: could be the steel man arguments for why she waited thirty five years to report a gang bang at a house party? But then you see how they do it, and I didn't appreciate that it was so it rhymed so closely with what they did to Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You then you appreciate that these are people who are evil, who play the same tricks over and over
Speaker 0: of the fabric of just watching him sit there crying. Just just it was just the ripping of Oh, and remember making eyes.
Speaker 1: They made fun of him when he says, I like beer, and they're like, they made fun of him for that afterwards. Like like, they they ruin the guy. They try to destroy the guy. Then they mock him for breaking down under their abuse. Mean, it's it's It's narcissistic abuse.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Which is what which is what it was, and I and I just think I he used the word fairness in with justice, and I and I think there's a, sensibility to show the world for what it is for no other reason than to create a sense of justice and fairness in in the stories that you tell, in in defining reality so that other others may know. Why do we want them to know? We want them to know to be sovereign over their own identity, and the more knowledge they have, the more consent they have to make decisions that affect their lives. This is a concept so foreign to so many people who think, what outcome?
What are you trying to do here, O'Keefe? Are you trying to blackmail me? No. But that's a really interesting projection of yours, by the way, because that's the last thing on my mind, is to do that. But thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 1: James, it was fantastic.
Speaker 0: Thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: My pleasure. Thank you.
Speaker 0: What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
O’Keefe Media Group
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
youtube.com
reSee.it AI Summary
The border has always been largely unprotected, as I experienced firsthand with just a barbed wire fence when I arrived. I witnessed smugglers driving vehicles filled with contraband into the U.S. and ultralight aircraft making daily drops after 9/11. It's astonishing how much people can overlook when instructed to ignore the reality around them.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
“The border’s always been wide open. When I first got here, all we had was a three-strand barbed wire fence, and most of it was down.” Aaron Veckey, a 20-year Border Patrol veteran, recalls smugglers driving vehicles loaded with thousands of pounds of contraband straight into the U.S., and ultralight aircraft dropping loads “daily, post-9/11.” @JamesOKeefeIII adds, “It’s amazing what people will ignore when they’re told to look the other way.” LISTEN & SUBSCRIBE X: YouTube: https://youtu.be/Mo3mMe-bkj8?si=76PVW1PCHprzpi-N Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/162FNRzcG3Krog00AFzS8A?si=9b0d2ece9d3741bf Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-price-is-my-life-with-james-okeefe/id1728902125
Video Transcript AI Summary
The border has always been wide open, even post-9/11. Initially, there was just a three or four-strand barbed wire fence, often down. During the Bush era, vehicles with makeshift campers carrying 3,000 pounds of marijuana each would drive through, and ultralights would fly northbound towards Phoenix, largely unchecked. Directives were to simply "get eyes on" the ultralights dropping loads.
The first real fence erected could easily be lifted, with people choosing to lift it rather than cut through it to drive vehicles underneath. Contractors were only authorized to make repairs, not improvements, to the "shoddy" fence, creating a constant cycle of daily repairs. The speaker retired from the Border Patrol on June 27th after 20 years.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The thing is they've always the border's always been wide open. I mean, it's always been wide open. We had when I first got here, we had literally just a three strand or four strand barbed wire fence, and that was down in most of the places. You know, the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation, that's that's there's not a lot that we can do without a lot of special lawmaking wrangling going on. So they have barbed wire fence that's you know, down in where it used to be down in a lot of the places.
But you know, there were used to be drive through vehicles with drive through. So this is Bush Bush era stuff. Bush Bush era stuff, we would have vehicles driving through with makeshift campers and 3,000 pounds in each vehicle and multiple vehicles at a time driving up the road loaded with marijuana like no big deal. This is post nine eleven. Mhmm.
This is post nine eleven. They would drive up paved roads in the middle of the night at will and and they'd fly ultralights through northbound towards Phoenix and we would pretty much do nothing about it. And the ultralights, they'd tell us to do goofy stuff like, hey, see if you can go get eyes on it. Like, go get eyes on an ultralight flying around in the middle of the night, dropping loads of God knows what. Those were our directives.
And I remember one time talking about blowing the whistle on that because I thought it was highly offensive that every day we're having ultralight incursions post nine
Speaker 1: What's ultralight?
Speaker 0: Like ultralight aircraft. You know, a small aircraft flown by a person flying with you know, 400 pounds, 300 pounds, whatever they could carry and then flying up towards like say, Casa Grande and then pulling the lever and dropping it off into somebody's backyard, I guess, you know. And the only thing we could do was, you know, they want us to try to spot it, you know. And this this would happen nightly. And I always thought this is crazy.
You know, this is happening every night. Not every night, constantly daily. These these would be detected, but we weren't doing anything about it. I always thought it was just offensive that, you know, post 09:11, we've got people in Afghanistan. We say we're defending the homeland, you know, with all the and they've just put that fence up.
That was one of the first real fences they put up and they were cutting through that fence, lifting that fence up like crazy. They would lift the fence up to drive vehicles underneath and to run dope groups underneath the fence. It was I think I don't know what who built that first fence down in the port down in Lukeville, but the Lord Lukeville port of entry, the first fence that I saw go up, it was so easy to lift that fence that they would rather lift it in some places than cut through it or go over it. So they would call what we call popping the panels. They'd pop the panels and sometimes they'd even they cut the vehicle barricade on the other side and they drive vehicles underneath the fence.
Well, I asked a contractor one time like, why don't you preemptively because there was a way to stop them from lifting the panels. I said, don't you do this? Why don't you come out and do this? Well, we're not contracted to make improvements. We can only make repairs.
Well, imagine being a contractor coming down to Phoenix from or from Phoenix all the way to Lukeville. I mean, is a pretty good probably a great cash cow.
Speaker 1: Even not even that's not not allowed to make improvements, just repairs.
Speaker 0: Right, right. So they come down every day making repairs to this fence
Speaker 1: Making money off this.
Speaker 0: Which is a shoddy contract clearly because it's a shoddy fence. Yeah. Yeah. We
Speaker 1: had those little chicken grates and we noticed they were coming along and they were repairing them and
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah, it was basically just chicken grate, the same thing.
Speaker 1: So they're making money off this.
Speaker 0: Yeah. They're making repairs daily. It's a never ending you're,
Speaker 1: it's 2,005 and I'm just trying to get an overview because twenty years or how long were you in the Border Patrol?
Speaker 0: Twenty years exactly. You just retired like I retired on the date. Yeah, give me What date
Speaker 1: did you retire?
Speaker 0: Literally June 27, I was my old years? Yeah.
Page not found
open.spotify.com
My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe
Listen to James O’Keefe's My Price Is My Life With James O’Keefe podcast on Apple Podcasts.
podcasts.apple.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently learned that U.S. diplomat Daniel Choi admitted to not reporting a romantic relationship with the daughter of a Chinese Communist Party official, acknowledging the risk she posed. Instead of informing his government, he confided in a woman from a dating app, who also might have been a spy.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
ICYMI: U.S. diplomat Daniel Choi admits he defied federal regulations by not reporting a romantic relationship with the daughter of a Chinese Communist Party official, acknowledging she “could have been a spy.” Instead of alerting his government, Choi told a woman he met on a dating app… who also could have been a spy.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A US diplomat, Mr. Choi, was required to report any attempts by a foreign government to seduce him, but he consciously decided not to report an incident involving a woman because he felt it would be unfair. He thought that even if they broke up, the government would have her information forever.
Choi acknowledges the woman's father is a member of the communist party, raising concerns she could be a spy. Choi himself admits she could have been a spy.
Instead of reporting the incident as required, Mr. Choi concealed it and reported it to a woman he met on a dating app who also could have been a spy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You said you needed a Chinese girl? Yeah. Was supposed to sort of report what I knew about her. She could have been even. I don't even know.
I defied my government for love. I
Speaker 1: would do anything for love, but I won't do that. Federal regulations outlined that mister Choi was required to report, quote, within one business day in attempt by a foreign government to seduce a US diplomat. He consciously decided to not report it. His reason? He felt it would be unfair.
Speaker 0: I also thought that was, like, kind of unfair, like, we might break up, you know, and then, like, you know, the government still has
Speaker 1: her information forever. Choi surprisingly acknowledges that her father is a member of the communist party.
Speaker 0: So is there a concern that it could be related to CCP though? Yeah. Take I know my dad, like, he's like straight up communist party. I don't know. Could have been a spy even though.
Don't really know.
Speaker 1: Mister Troy concealed the incident and reported it to a woman he met on a dating app who also could have been a spy.
reSee.it AI Summary
I dated the daughter of a senior CCP leader, who could have been a spy. Her father was a high-ranking Communist Party official, but I felt it was unfair to report on her. I defied my government for love, choosing personal connection over duty.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
“I Defied My Government for Love”: US State Department Foreign Service Officer Dated Senior CCP Leader’s Daughter, Admits “She Could Have Been A Spy,” Refused to Report Her “Her dad was either a provincial or a federal minister of education. So he's, like, straight up Communist Party.” “I was supposed to, whatever, sort of report what I knew about her, but I always thought that was kind of unfair.” @StateDept
Video Transcript AI Summary
A U.S. State Department counselor officer in Seoul, Huju Choi, admitted to dating a Chinese woman he suspected was an agent. Choi, who vets Chinese student visas, revealed this to undercover journalists. Experts like Gordon Chang note the difficulty in vetting Chinese nationals, citing instances of undisclosed PLA or CCP membership.
While Stephen Orlins argues Chinese students fuel U.S. AI growth, Marco Rubio implemented stricter visa measures. The State Department fired staff, including Choi, who became "discouraged," making him a potential target. Choi admitted the woman's father was a CCP member and she might have been a spy. He failed to report the relationship as required, instead confiding in a stranger from a dating app.
Choi dated Joy Zhao for six weeks after she entered the U.S., sending her updates during a State Department trip. Experts state that Chinese nationals are obligated to commit espionage if asked by their government. The report calls for public servants to adhere to reporting rules regarding contact with potential spies and encourages whistleblowers to report corruption.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You said you needed a Chinese girl?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Was supposed to sort of report what I knew about it.
Speaker 0: I was really concerned that it could be, like, related to CCP though.
Speaker 1: I know my dad. But he's, like, straight up coming to party. She could have been a spy even though.
Speaker 2: I don't really know.
Speaker 1: I defied my government for love. I
Speaker 3: would do anything for love, but I won't do that. That was a current foreign service officer at the US State Department casually dropping a poetic and potentially traitorous line. Quote, I defied my government for love.
Speaker 4: My name is Huju Choi. I'm a counselor officer here at the US embassy in Seoul, Korea. My primary role as a as a diplomat is to is to engage, you know, with people in other countries and kinda just be myself and show, you know, show who Americans are and show what America's all about.
Speaker 3: That was mister Choi speaking on behalf of the US embassy in Seoul in 2019. Mister Choi revealed how far he's gone being himself while engaging people in other countries when he admitted to one of our undercover journalists that he dated a Chinese woman last year he suspects was an agent. Now, Daniel Choi has worked with the State Department for almost twenty years and is currently in charge of vetting all student visas from China, a program that recent arrests show have become less about education and rather perhaps a pipeline for infiltration and espionage. This pipeline is actively pumping agents of the communist party into the heart of American industry and innovation. And according to experts like Gordon Chang, the vetting process is already difficult, leaving critical loopholes that are being exploited.
Speaker 5: Well, right now, it is very difficult to vet a Chinese national. And in the past, we've had many Chinese nationals, when they apply for a visa, not disclose, for instance, their role in the People's Liberation Army or their Communist Party membership. There's so many things that we can't verify. And especially as the regime goes to even greater lengths to weaponize, Chinese traveling abroad, we have got to be extremely careful.
Speaker 3: There is a distinct balance, however, between national security and isolationism. According to Stephen Orlins, the president of the National Committee on US China relations, America's golden age of AI growth in Silicon Valley has directly been fueled by the over 80,000 Chinese students who are approved yearly to study in The United States. Mister Orland says revoking these visas will cut off the pipeline and create long term damage.
Speaker 6: Chinese investment in The US is a good thing. It creates jobs in The United States and makes the American people's lives better. But there are people in The United States who believe that academic cooperation between The United States and China is not an American interest. I fundamentally disagree with that. When I went to Silicon Valley and visited all these companies, you look around and it's people
Speaker 3: secretary of state Marco Rubio announced major changes to Chinese student visas, including an aggressive sweep to revoke visas from those with connections to the communist party. In July, 1,350 staff were fired by the state department, including 263 foreign service officers like mister Choi and 15 directly from his office of consular affairs. Now this has left mister Choi, a divorced diplomat, ashamed of his job and in his own words, discouraged and demoralized, making him a perfect target for seduction by a spy.
Speaker 1: For the state's parliament, there's a big cut coming, like, July 1. Sectors like five So some sections will be cut by, like, 50%. In general, like, it's very, very And not It's all depressing. It's all all depressing.
Speaker 3: It's It's His reason? He felt it would be unfair.
Speaker 0: You said you needed a Chinese girl?
Speaker 1: Work based on the So she got this work visa to, like, you know, work with this American company that they have a lot of research. They just Yeah. I was supposed to whatever. Yeah. Because I think I know the way it works.
So to report what I The inside? Knew about it. Like, if you're just dating somebody or just like Scotland. Again, like, if they're just a contact and you, you know, play cards with them or something. When they're from like Iran Korea or North Korea
Speaker 0: or Russia or China.
Speaker 1: And I really want get out. Like Makes it more frustrating. I also thought that was like kind of unfair like Like I think We might date, and then we break up, you know, and then, like Yeah. You know, the government still has her information forever. Right?
If I were dating somebody and we were gonna get married, then I would probably from one of these, like, state countries or whatever. Right. Then maybe I would Gal, but like report.
Speaker 0: That's totally valid because it's like, don't they keep a do they, like, they keep a record of you and stuff and
Speaker 1: playing with different because you're like you're the 2020 cycle, I was like China? In Beijing. In Beijing? Beijing. Beijing?
They're allowed to take, like, locals at all.
Speaker 3: It's here that Choi surprisingly acknowledges that her father is a member of the communist party and that she may have been a spy herself.
Speaker 0: Were they worried? Like, is there a concern that it could be, like, related to CCP though?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean They need to, like She could take I know my dad, like the Republican Party. Her dad was, like They've done nothing. Either a presidential or a federal minister of education. Yeah.
Yeah. Because he's, like, straight up coming to party. I don't know. She could have been a spy even though.
Speaker 2: I don't even know. You know
Speaker 1: the way they talk. I don't know.
Speaker 5: Maybe she could have been
Speaker 1: a spy even though. I don't really know. You know the way they talk.
Speaker 3: A sweep of China's limited public database of government officials reveals at least one senior CCP officer with the same last who has served in China's Ministry of Education and specifically student exchanges in the fields of science, technology, and engineering. Whether it was this communist party member or another Zhao that follows Mao, it doesn't change the fact that mister Choi was required to report these dates to the State Department, all part of his duty to defend The United States Of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Federal regulations outlined in Security Executive Agent Directive three and the State department's manual 12 f a m clearly state that mister Choi was required to report, quote, within one business day what he considered to be an attempt by a foreign government to seduce a US diplomat, especially if they are related to a senior member of the CCP. Instead, mister Choi concealed the incident and reported it to a woman he met on a dating app, a complete stranger who also could have been a spy. On these dates, mister Choi forgot that he was a US diplomat.
He became, in his words, a random person on the Internet.
Speaker 0: So nice to talk to you. It was a really breath of fresh air.
Speaker 1: I'm a random person on the Internet. A
Speaker 3: random person on the Internet with a top secret clearance and the golden keys for entry for every spy and student in Asia.
Speaker 1: I saw her, like, five times in monthly use. I had this trip. One. Right? It was partially a work trip.
The work portion of it was in Korea. Yeah. But then, like, I also talked on, like Great question. Cambodia, Thailand, and Japan.
Speaker 0: I know you had between here.
Speaker 1: So Quite quite a lot of home. What? Seems so, like, you're not too sure that she wanted to be dating. Right? Yeah.
And she So, you know, before I go on the trip, I'm like, you know, look. It's you know, if it's easier, you can just kinda, like, call it quits now, like, you know Or Right. We're still friends. Like, the water was booted. Cut it.
But she didn't wanna do that. And so she was like, no. No. I don't wanna do that. Like, I just wanna let's just let's just keep it the way it is.
Yeah.
Speaker 3: Mister Choi said he dated the alleged spy Joy Zhao for six weeks, began dating her the week she entered America in September 2024, and she broke up with him as he returned from an official state department trip to key nations in the Asia Pacific. All of which mister Choi made sure to send updates and photos to her in real time.
Speaker 1: You can tell that, like, she's kinda losing interest. Right? I'm getting into the end of my trip, and I'm like, oh, yeah. I'm gonna be I don't gonna be back this Sunday. Right?
And then her her one her one word reply was, oh. Buy it.
Speaker 3: The United States has entered a new era of great power competition, which includes what could be a century long struggle against the communist party of China.
Speaker 5: Article seven and fourteen of the 2017 national intelligence law in China requires every Chinese national and every Chinese entity to commit acts of espionage if they receive a demand from relevant authorities. But even more important, the Communist Party demands absolute obedience of Chinese nationals and Chinese entities. Every Chinese entity or national in our country is a potential threat. We know that Chinese students have been used by the regime to commit acts of espionage.
Speaker 3: Part of the struggle is ensuring that the men and women serving our government don't fall prey to seduction operations and follow the well established rules for reporting contacts and conversations with chemical spies. We demand more from our public servants. That and the truth will preserve us for generations to come. I'm sad to report to you that this is not the beginning. In fact, many people and many federal government agents in DC continue to behave this way.
We demand better, but stay tuned because soon we'll be going to Washington DC and revealing more at the highest levels. Now if you're on the inside of any government agency, NGO, federal, state, local government, and you see corruption, if you know the American people are being lied to, you know who to call, not Ghostbusters, but OMG tips at okeifmediagroup.com, or you can text us at (914) 491-9395, you already see it on the screen, and our journalism team will get back to you. We look for recordings, we look for documents if you have allegations, we can't report them without verifying them. But please reach out to us. We'll be releasing a story each week, every week here at OMG.
Stay tuned for more.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
While Vera talks about “justice and equity,” undercover footage shows a Director admitting the org tracks ICE activity and shares it using secret “notification systems” so illegal immigrants can “avoid the area.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Vera Institute of Justice, a criminal justice reform nonprofit, is expanding its immigration arm. According to Vera's associate director, Santiago Mouquet, they created notification systems to alert illegal immigrants of ICE agents and raids. Vera also stores databases of ICE trends, including locations where ICE keeps and moves people. Mouquet revealed that Vera is funded by foundations like the Gates Foundation and donors like Jeff Bezos's ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott.
Critics claim Vera's actions obstruct law enforcement and endanger ICE officers, potentially violating federal law. One such critic is Jessica Vaughn, director of policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. The Trump administration cut $5 million in funding to Vera, but Vera is suing to reinstate it. Vera denies tracking and notifying illegal immigrants about ICE raids or providing direct legal or social services, but admits to using an ICE database to track detention trends. They also claim their work has been mischaracterized.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you know when the ice raids are gonna hang
Speaker 1: up? And so my, organization runs a couple of, databases Mhmm. Where we can see, like, ice trends. Mhmm. Like, where they're keeping people, where they, like, moving people around.
We, like Yeah. Keep track of everything that's happening with ICE as much as, like, information as they'll give us. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: Sometimes we have to, like, sue them to get information.
Speaker 0: Who's your main donor?
Speaker 1: It's usually foundations, like the Gates Foundation Mhmm. Or Jeff Bezos or like some of these like huge philanthropists who like have millions of dollars.
Speaker 3: And Vera is proud of their work. Santiago Mucke candidly shared how Vera created notification systems to alert illegals of ICE agents and impending raids.
Speaker 4: These organizations, at worst, they could be setting up ICE officers to be put into dangerous situations where they are harmed.
Speaker 5: 10 people are facing charges for their roles in the shooting of an Alvarado police officer at an ICE detention center.
Speaker 2: Weapons, tactical gear, and graffiti, they say were part of a violent planned ambush at the ICE detention facility in Alvarado.
Speaker 3: Mass deportation of illegal immigrants has been one of president Trump's primary promises since his 2016 campaign.
Speaker 6: We will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came.
Speaker 3: Now under Tom Homan, president Trump's border czar, federal agents have been going city to city, from home depots to churches, detaining and deporting thousands of illegal immigrants. Now in response, a makeshift alliance from Silicon Valley to K Street, including activist judges, have intervened to provide everything from sanctuary to apps to help illegal immigrants evade law enforcement.
Speaker 4: The FBI has just arrested a Milwaukee judge accused of trying to help a man evade immigration authorities.
Speaker 7: Judge Hannah Dugan did make her initial appearance, this morning. She was charged with two federal crimes that includes concealing a person from discovery and arrest, and the second count is obstruction of federal proceedings.
Speaker 3: The worst offenders have been nonprofits such as the Vera Institute of Justice, named by progressive magazine Mother Jones, as one of the oldest, largest, and most prominent pro immigration nonprofits in the country. Founded in 1961, the Vera Institute of Justice focuses on criminal justice reform. And under the Biden administration, they industrialized the use of federal grants to empower illegal immigrants. And Vera is proud of their work. We know this thanks to their associate director of advocacy, Santiago Mouquet, who bragged to one of our undercover journalists about his fine tuning of their immigration department from crafting strategy to managing media engagement and even shaping public policy.
Speaker 0: What have you experienced in regards to that? With the foundation that you work for, the nonprofit? Yeah.
Speaker 1: You used to
Speaker 0: think tank rain.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's it's called the Vera Institute of Justice. They mostly do criminal justice reform. Mhmm. But also, like, now they're growing their immigration arm, that's why they like bringing me on, and it's been pretty great.
Speaker 3: Mister Mouquet candidly shared how Vera created private group chats and notification systems to alert illegals of ICE agents and impending raids.
Speaker 0: Do you know when the ICE raids are
Speaker 1: gonna happen? We know which states are being targeted, and there's been some really great work that has been done to create notification systems and things like that where if you see someone Mhmm. You can, like, text the group and then, it'll go on the website and things like that so people can avoid the area. There's a there's a website where you can find them.
Speaker 0: And then you guys have this website. You need to people off and everything.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Now mister Muquet says Vera is actively notifying illegal immigrants where ICE is operating, a potential violation of title eight US code thirteen twenty four, which states it is a federal crime for anyone to knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield from detection an illegal immigrant. Mister Mouquet also revealed that there is storing databases and trends locations. These databases directly include where ICE keeps, moves, and even detains illegals, leaving officers exposed to potential ambushes like the foiled assassination plot in Alvarado, Texas on the July 4.
Speaker 1: And so my organization runs a couple of databases
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Where we can see like ICE trends. Mhmm. Like where they're keeping people, where they like moving people around. We keep track of everything that's happening with ICE as much as like information as they'll give us.
Speaker 2: Sometimes we have to like sue them to get information.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Various strategies have been mirrored by other pro immigration groups like Catholic Charities USA, which was recently caught coaching illegal immigrants how to dodge ICE raids and evade federal agents. Vera's time operating in the shadows may soon be coming to an end according to Jessica Vaughn, director of policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. Now Jessica has thirty years of experience advising on immigration policy.
Speaker 4: I think that the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi and the Trump administration is already on to the Vera Institute since they have pulled back about $5,000,000 in their funding. You know, the Vera Institute should be on their radar for a number of different reasons, but in particular, because they seem to be sympathetic to and willing to encourage people who are actively resisting ICE. It's wrong to characterize harboring illegal aliens from immigration enforcement as some kind of, like, underground railroad type of activity. These organizations that are encouraging people to resist ICE are setting it up so that the law is gonna come down harder on the people who are resisting. But at worst, they could be setting up ICE officers to be put into dangerous situation situations where they are harmed.
Speaker 3: Despite claims by immigration experts like missus Vaughan and president Trump's border czar Tom Homan, Joshua Aaron denies his app has been used to dox or obstruct federal agents. This is the developer of the ICEBLOC app used to show the location and vicinity of ICE agents.
Speaker 0: Does the app encourage anyone to do anything illegal?
Speaker 8: Absolutely not. Our whole thing is inform, not obstruct. In fact, multiple times throughout the app, it says for informational purposes only. At no time are we encouraging violence. At no time are we encouraging any kind of interference with law enforcement.
So to those who say this app is doxxing somebody or this app is going to cause violence against law enforcement, there's literally no way to do that. Right? So there there's no way to dox somebody in the app because the term doxing is, you know, to reveal personal information about somebody. This is tap on the map. It brings up a report, a sighting sheet already filled out for you.
You tap the continue button, and you're done.
Speaker 3: How does Vera fund these potentially illegal activities and mister Mouquet's salary? Well, though their donations are private, mister Mouquet revealed at least two of their top donors, billionaire Jeff Bezos and the Gates Foundation.
Speaker 1: So we're no longer funded by any government. Right. Now it's just private funding or just kind of like the money that the organization, like donations and things
Speaker 0: like amazing. Who's your main donor?
Speaker 1: It's usually the foundations, like the Gates Foundation Mhmm. Or Jeff Bezos or like some of these like huge who, like, have millions of dollars.
Speaker 3: Now in a statement to OMG, Vera denies Jeff Bezos is a donor, but his ex wife, on the other hand, publicly revealed she donated to the Vera Institute of Justice in an article published in March 2022. And on Vera's nine ninety tax form for that year, it includes the largest single donation of over 188,000,000 from an anonymous person, but the person is not named. Scott received 38,000,000,000 in Amazon stock on the divorce and has since given away $19,000,000,000 to progressive campaigns and nonprofits. Now as for the Gates Foundation headed by billionaire Bill Gates, their website reveals Vera received a $4,000,000 grant in 2023. Despite this admission, Vera denies that any of those funds go towards their immigration work.
During the Biden administration, Vera kept a cozy relationship with the US government, resulting in a total of 350,000,000 of taxpayer funds being granted to help illegals resist deportation. President Trump's attorney general Pam Bondi cut Vera's funding in April, slashing $5,000,000 from their budget. The DOJ says Vera, quote, no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities. Vera is currently suing the Trump administration to reinstate their federal funding. Despite the director's statements to the contrary, when reached out for comment, Vera denied tracking and notifying illegals about impending ICE raids or providing direct legal or social services, but happily admitted that they do use an ICE database to track detention trends and that other unnamed organizations like them have tipped off illegal immigrants, something that Tom Homan and others say put federal officers in danger.
Speaker 9: The job's already dangerous. But when you're out there tracking ICE movements and and giving people heads up they're coming, that just puts the the danger at a whole new level.
Speaker 3: Vera also claimed our story based on direct quotes that came from the guy's own mouth, their director of advocacy, quote, duplicitously and unethically mischaracterized their work. We have no idea what that means. We don't believe anything about this report, his quotes, us reporting what he said, reaching out to them for comment, and putting both sides' opinions does any duplicitous or unethical mischaracterization. This is a breaking story. We look forward to reporting more.
And if you're on the side of any government agency, NGO, federal, state, local government, and you see corruption and you know people are being lied to, reach out to us at tips@o'keefemediagroup.com. Text us or call us, (914) 491-9395. That's (914) 491-9395. An OMG journalist will get back in touch with you. Stay tuned each week, every week for a new undercover investigation from the American swiper program.
And stay tuned every Thursday for our show, My Price is My Life, where each week, every week, we have a brand new heroic individual with integrity, including a United States border patrol agent who blows the whistle, a professor who's fired, a neuroscientist, a NASA analog astronaut. These are incredible stories from real people with a lot of integrity. You don't wanna miss it. Every week, breaking. Subscribe on Spotify and anywhere podcasts are found and call in as a subscriber to OMG.
We wanna hear from you. Ask these guest questions. Stay tuned.
@verainstitute - Vera Institute of Justice
#ListenNow: Santiago Mueckay, associate director for Vera’s Advancing Universal Representation initiative recently joined Dr. Elizabeth Aranda and Dr. Lorena Ávila on “Im/migrant Lives”. Check out this important conversation about immigrant detention and deportation, the importance of legal representation, and potential policy solutions that would ensure justice and equity within our immigration system. https://rss.com/podcasts/immigrant-lives/1662106/
“Immigrants and the Right to Legal Representation” | Podcast Episode on RSS.com
In contrast to the criminal justice system, immigrants who come before a judge in civil immigration court are not guaranteed the right to legal representation should they be unable to afford it, yet in some cases they face consequences as severe as those applied in criminal cases. In this episode, we discuss whether immigrants facing detention and deportation should have access to the right to counsel by evaluating some of the research on the consequences of lacking legal representation and potential policy solutions.
rss.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I returned to campus after family leave and found that DEI had turned into a means of controlling thoughts and language. I faced criticism for using terms like "you guys" and "ladies," which were deemed non-inclusive or even harassing.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
“It’s not about diversity. It’s not about equity. It’s not about inclusion. It’s about a cudgel to control your thoughts and your words.” @RickAddante returned to the FIT campus from family leave, only to find a university where DEI had become a tool of control, even policing how professors addressed students: “I said ‘you guys," they told me that wasn’t inclusive... I said ‘ladies,' they said that was sexual harassment.” @JamesOKeefeIII
Video Transcript AI Summary
Upon returning from family leave, the speaker was surprised by the overt political environment at the university, particularly regarding DEI. Professors were upset that the university president wouldn't publicly support DEI efforts due to fear of losing funding, despite encouraging them privately. The speaker notes the psychology group was the most involved in DEI-related activities, including teaching critical race theory.
The speaker believes DEI is used as a weapon, particularly through Title IX, to control thoughts and words. They cite instances where addressing a class as "you guys" or "ladies" was considered inappropriate or even sexual harassment. The speaker concludes that DEI is not about diversity, equity, or inclusion, but rather a tool for thought and speech control.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I mean, just give give the audience a background into the whole DEI situation broadly and specifically at the university, because we saw the clip where he's talking about getting around it, fighting DeSantis. But what what is some background here on this whole situation, which led you to do this extraordinarily heroic thing in my view. But but what about it enraged you so much or enlightened you so much?
Speaker 1: Well, it's it's sort of a nuanced answer I suppose I would give to that, which is that I hadn't been at the university for much of that year. I'd been on family leave. I had a new baby that had just been born. So I hadn't been around a lot. I wasn't thankfully, I wasn't there during the election season.
I was in and out of delivery rooms and hospitals and things like that. So I wasn't really aware of what was was not going on politically. We're not a very political school. We're not Berkeley. We're not University of Michigan.
We're not a Northeastern liberal arts college. So it was strange to see these kind of overhanded pressures to undermine the laws and the policies for for DEI when I returned back from leave. And this might have been the first of the monthly meetings that I attended in that respect and I attended and people were outraged. They were mad at president Niccolo, like I said. They thought he was being a coward because he wouldn't wouldn't publicly back the message he was telling people privately which was to continue doing DEI and they're mad at him for it.
And I was surprised cause I'm seeing people outraged, yelling, they're crying in meetings at times about this. The professors? Professors, yes.
Speaker 0: The professors who were anti DEI or
Speaker 1: Oh, no. There are no professors. They they they were they were mad at the implications of the Trump administration policies. And and then then they were mad that the university president wouldn't write a policy to oppose the Trump administration because other presidents are. There's litigation.
And that's what I'm saying. There's a normal pathway that has existed since time immemorial of challenging policies you don't agree with. So no big deal on that.
Speaker 0: Well, I think interesting that the president was not willing to say this stuff kind of publicly and he wasn't willing to put it in writing. Of course. Yeah. Course. That's unfortunate we have to say of course, but so you observed that.
Speaker 1: He explained that because he said he didn't want to lose the funding, but he wanted to continue to do the DEI activities, which to answer your question, we're not a big political university. We're a technical school, Or we were. I guess I'm not there anymore. So aerospace engineering, I was also in the biomedical engineering group. So this psychology group is kind of like the stepchild on campus.
They like to wear a STEM costume at times and pretend that they do STEM science, but for the most part, it's not. This it's really one of the only groups that is involved in this what you'd think of as this DEI kind of discriminatory material of teaching critical race theory, those kind of things. And so it was a little bit of a surprise because I wasn't used to having an overtly political environment always. I had been away for some time. And they were crying at the prospect of having to hide it.
And that was surprising. But it is a pervasive discriminatory thing that happens on campus because sometimes people worry or wonder about, well, what is it about the DEI that could be problematic or what have you? And what I've seen personally witnessed through my time in academia working at these institutions that are governed by things like Title IX, where they use DEI as a weapon, and they weaponize it. How do they do that? Basically, by the permissions granted them through the regulatory framework of Title IX.
And they will become the thought police and the word police. If you I've literally I've been told on one hand at times when I addressed a classroom as you guys, I told that wasn't inclusive. I can't call a room of mixed As Florida Tech? Oh,
Speaker 0: yeah. You guys?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And so I I so on another time, I addressed a class as 18 out of 20 of the students were women, and I said that I addressed them as ladies. And they said that was sexual harassment in Title IX regulatory framework for addressing a group of women as ladies. I'm like, I can't call them guys. Can't call them ladies.
What they
Speaker 0: They? Them? You All of you?
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous. Y'all? It's ridiculous because the truth of the matter is and this is the answer to your question, James, about what is some of the core level problems of DEI is that it's not about diversity. It's not about equity. It's not about inclusion.
It's not about any of those things. It's about a cudgel to control your thoughts and your words. Because anything can be a problem that you say.
reSee.it AI Summary
I reacted to James O'Keefe's latest footage showing how the Vera Institute uses notification systems to alert people about ICE activity, allowing them to avoid it. I believe this directly undermines the will of the American people, is anti-democratic, and must be stopped.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Steve Bannon reacts to @JamesOKeefeiii’s latest undercover footage revealing how the Vera Institute uses "notification systems" to tip off people about ICE activity so they can “avoid the area.” “This is a direct thwarting of the will of the American people… It’s anti-democratic and it’s got to be stopped,” Bannon says on @Bannons_WarRoom.
Video Transcript AI Summary
James O'Keefe claims that mass deportations will not occur until a certain problem is resolved. He mentions notification systems that alert people to avoid certain areas.
O'Keefe believes that an individual in a video, along with their superiors and those who financially supported them, should be arrested, including Mackenzie Bezos. He intends to contact his network to initiate interviews.
O'Keefe asserts that NGOs are thwarting the will of the American people and that this is antidemocratic and must be stopped.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: James O'Keefe, you are basically telling the justice department and DHS we're not gonna have mass deportations until this problem's taken care of. There's some really great work that has been done to create notification systems and things like that where you can, like, text the group, and then it'll go on the website and things like that so people can avoid the area. That guy in that video should be arrested this afternoon and his superiors and the people that wrote him a check. They ought to go perp walk. If it's Bezos' divorced wife, Mackenzie, they gotta go per you know, she's in between husbands right now.
They gotta go perp walk her. I will make sure as soon as I'm off the show, the people, the contacts I have, you've got to be talked to interviewed. This thing with the NGOs and being supported, this is a direct thwarting of the will of the American people what they voted for. This is antidemocratic, and it's gotta be stopped.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that the Vera Institute of Justice should face serious consequences for allegedly using secret systems to alert illegal immigrants about ICE activities. Steve Bannon and James O'Keefe are calling for arrests, claiming this could violate federal law. Is this obstruction of justice?
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
“That guy should be arrested THIS AFTERNOON, along with his superiors and the ones writing the checks," says Steve Bannon on OMG's latest investigation into the Vera Institute of Justice. @JamesOKeefeiii joins @Bannons_WarRoom to expose how the Vera Institute is allegedly using secret “notification systems” to tip off illegal immigrants about ICE activity—potentially violating federal law (Title 8, U.S. Code 1374). Do you think this is obstruction of justice?
Video Transcript AI Summary
A notification system alerts people to avoid areas due to potential ICE raids, which is claimed to be a violation of federal law (Title 8, US Code 1374) and an obstruction of justice. One speaker insists that individuals involved in creating and funding these alert systems should be arrested immediately. They believe this activity thwarts the will of the American people and is anti-democratic, and must be stopped. They intend to contact people to investigate the NGOs and their support.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Been some really great work that has been done to create notification systems and things like that where you can, like, test the group, and then, it'll go on the website and things like that so people can avoid the area.
Speaker 1: This appears to be a violation of federal law, specifically title eight US code thirteen seventy four. So they're actually deploying alert systems to notify them of approaching ICE raid. Now they're gonna say, well, they're just informing people, but that's the issue. It's an obstruction of justice issue.
Speaker 2: James O'Keefe, you are basically telling the justice department at DHS, we're not gonna have mass deportations until this problem's taken care of. That guy in that video should be arrested this afternoon and his superiors and the people that wrote him a check. They ought to go perp walk If it's Bezos' divorced wife, Mackenzie, they gotta go per you know, she's in between husbands right now. They gotta go perp walk her. I will make sure as soon as I'm off the show, the people the contacts I have, you've got to be talked to, interviewed.
This thing with the NGOs and being supported, this is a direct, thwarting of the will of the American people what they voted for. This is antidemocratic, and it's gotta be stopped.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Elon says he “almost went to the hospital" because of the COVID vaccine. A J&J lead scientist now admits their COVID vaccine was “not safe and effective.” How many were injured while they stayed silent? https://t.co/jbGgBbPqT2
Video Transcript AI Summary
A lead regulatory scientist at Johnson & Johnson, Joshua Rees, allegedly admitted the company's COVID vaccine was "not safe and effective" and that they wanted to "just throw the vaccine creation to the wind and see what happens."
According to the scientist, the federal government pressured pharmaceutical companies to quickly create the vaccine, prioritizing speed over safety and efficacy. He stated that typical clinical trials were skipped, and testing was limited to lab models. He also stated that the government made a deal with pharmaceutical companies to solve the problem.
The scientist discussed side effects, stating that the question was whether the benefit outweighed the worst possible side effect, using cancer patients as an example where quality of life is prioritized.
The CDC has pulled the J&J vaccine due to declining use and the company's strategic shift. The scientist was approached for clarification but denied his identity and evaded questions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you have any idea of the lack of research that was done on those products?
Speaker 1: Why did it say that it's safe and effective? But, like, he didn't know.
Speaker 0: There's no proof. I mean, none of that stuff was safe and effective. Wanted it. We gave it to them. It's like, alright.
You know what? Cancer patient's gonna die anyway. I'm sure somebody's
Speaker 2: gonna get sued for that stuff eventually.
Speaker 3: Hi, Josh. Are you Josh Rice from Johnson and Johnson? You're you're gonna deny your identity?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir.
Speaker 3: And you said that your vaccine was not safe
Speaker 4: and effective? You said that. Deep inside Johnson and Johnson's global machine is a scientist, a lead scientist whose very approval or disapproval of J and J products can change millions of American lives. Meet Joshua Rees, a lead regulatory scientist at Johnson and Johnson. Joshua, in his role, leads the creation and execution of regulatory strategies for new and existing products across Johnson and Johnson.
Speaker 0: We run the whole soup to nuts, like not only we're working on the products, but everything that has to do with the drug. We have to make sure that you understand how to use the drug, how to be able to, you know, prescribe certain pieces of information, how to communicate that to the patient.
Speaker 4: Now according to a Johnson and Johnson press release from December 2021, the safety and well-being of those who use the Johnson and Johnson vaccine continues to be our number one priority. Now for the first time ever, an official from Johnson and Johnson admits to our hidden cameras that the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine was, quote, not safe and effective, unquote. And the company wanted to, quote, just throw the vaccine creation to the wind and see what happens, unquote.
Speaker 1: You know, they're like, Joe Biden says that it's safe and effective, but, like, he didn't know
Speaker 0: There's no proof. I mean, none of that stuff was safe and effective. We didn't do the typical test. Like, the typical process that's why it takes so long to get a product on market. Typical process is all this clinical trial testing and stuff in a small population.
This was just let's test it on some, you know, lab route models, analyze and see if it works and stuff like that, just throw it to the wind and see what happens. Are people gonna know that?
Speaker 4: Like, the
Speaker 0: patients do. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I'm sure somebody's gonna get sued for that stuff eventually.
Speaker 4: The lead regulatory scientist for Johnson and Johnson went into detail about how the federal government applied heavy pressure on big pharma in order to hastily create the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine, encouraging speed over efficacy or safety.
Speaker 0: Do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products? Like, are you you shouldn't be surprised that this happened. It was pretty much the government kinda made a deal with pharmaceutical companies and kinda pressured the pharmaceutical companies because we're we're not gonna say no to help, like, the government. Like, the government's like, yo. These three big ass companies, we need help.
We need to figure this out. You're you're solving this problem.
Speaker 1: Was that operational warp speed?
Speaker 0: I mean, we basically just had a race to figure out who could solve it best. People wanted it. We gave it to them.
Speaker 4: The CDC has previously announced they're pulling the j and j vaccine from use in The United States. J and J claims this is due to the vaccine's declining use and the company's strategic shift away from the vaccines. But as you just heard, J and J's own regulatory scientist was well aware of the ineffectiveness of their own COVID vaccine.
Speaker 0: There's something side effect that's gonna happen. It's more or less, alright. What's the worst side effect that's gonna happen? And is that better than the benefit that the consumer's gonna get? It's like that's that's the interesting thing that I found about it because it's like, alright.
You know what? Cancer patients gonna die anyway. So quality of life is the question in that instance as opposed to whether you're curing something. You're not curing anything at that point. It's just, alright, are you gonna have a nicer six months?
Speaker 4: Now I caught up with Joshua Rye in Toms River, New Jersey on the Jersey Shore to get clarification on what he meant by his comments on hidden camera. What led him to say this? What led him to tell a total stranger that his product was not safe and effective? Here's a little sneak peek of how this went. This is one of the most extraordinary interactions ever, maybe rivaling the one that I had with the other guy inside Pfizer back two and a half years ago.
Speaker 3: Are you Josh Rice from Johnson and Johnson? You're you're gonna deny your identity?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir.
Speaker 3: And you said that your vaccine was not safe and
Speaker 4: effective. You said that. You know?
Speaker 3: Where is he going? He's gonna run away. He's going in the women's restroom. Are you confused?
Speaker 4: I I am a human man. I am allowed to take a pee in the man's restroom. You shouldn't be surprised that this happened. We have no idea people get some of pee I got it from your mouth. No.
No. No. No. Stand behind what you said and explain to us what you meant by it. Undercover investigations like these carried out by our OMG undercover journalists are pulling back the veil on the corruption and lies in our government, in our corporations, in the pharmaceutical industry.
Remember, sometimes sixty, seventy, 80% of revenue for cable news organizations and other organizations in the news business come from big pharma. The last time we did an undercover investigation into big pharma, like Pfizer, just a couple weeks later, I was indefinitely suspended from the organization I created. But we are going to report the news and tell the truth without fear and without favor. But we need you to reach out to our tip line at tips@okeifmediagroup.com or send us a message on our signal, that's (914) 491-9395. You can even connect with me on Menekt, the app, and ask me James O'Keefe a direct question.
I'll get back to you. One of our reporters will get back to you at the other tip lines. Thank you and stay tuned.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
The FBI just closed its investigation into Prince Andrew’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein. No charges. Meanwhile, we LITERALLY have his trusted advisor, John Bryan, on hidden camera saying, “He [Andrew] was f**king underage girls.” And the DOJ did nothing. https://t.co/hjwKT4Vhyk
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker was angry because someone lied to them about Epstein. The speaker then publicly stated in the Daily Mail that they believed David, but later discovered David was lying.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was really pissed because he lied to me. Lied about what? Epstein. And then I did a big thing in the Daily Mail saying that I believed David, and then I found out he was lying. I was
reSee.it AI Summary
I caught a Nevada DHHS specialist on camera admitting to bending the rules to provide benefits for illegal immigrants. They mentioned approving emergency medical benefits for 12 months and confirmed they can still get undocumented individuals from Mexico assistance.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
“I Will Twist and Turn Our Provisions”: Nevada DHHS Specialist Caught on Camera Admitting to “Bending the Rules” to Provide Benefits for Illegal Immigrants “I get them emergency medical all the time… I just approve them for 12 months because I can. “ “Even undocumented people from Mexico and things; I can still get them benefits.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Deshaun Mack, a Nevada DHHS family services specialist, was recorded saying he helps undocumented immigrants get medical help and stay in the country, providing benefits to those from Cuba and Mexico. He stated he approves emergency medical care for a full twelve months instead of the required month-by-month basis, saying, "I make it so" and that he "bends the rules a lot."
When asked if this conduct was subverting the law, Deshaun said, "I do that a lot," and that he will "twist and turn our provisions to fit the way that I want them to," and "I don't care." This could be a violation of misappropriation and falsification of accounts by a public officer and the Nevada False Claims Act.
When confronted, Deshaun initially denied his statements, claiming everything he said was false and that he lies all the time, and then stated his lawyer would reach out.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So would that technically be subverting a law at
Speaker 1: all at that point?
Speaker 2: I do that a lot. I will flip
Speaker 3: I will twist and turn our provisions to fit the
Speaker 4: way that I want them to.
Speaker 3: So whether it's a law or not, I
Speaker 5: I don't know because I
Speaker 0: just Or care?
Speaker 6: Or I don't care at work.
Speaker 7: Deshaun Eli Mack is a family services specialist at the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services. Now his job is to help American families get support like health care, financial aid, and counseling. But he told our undercover journalist that he helps illegal immigrants stay in the country and get medical help, quote, all the time. While on what he thought was a date with our reporter, Deshaun said that he gets benefits for illegal immigrants from Cuba and Mexico. He says he gets them, quote, emergency medical all the time just because I want to, close quote.
Speaker 0: So are you able to help undocumented people, like, with assistance to stay here and, like, get medical help and all that stuff?
Speaker 2: Do it all the time.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, after Trump got elected, we had a sharp decline in Cuban clientele, and our undocumented clientele, but just one time we had.
Speaker 0: Because they didn't wanna get found out?
Speaker 3: Correct. And a few times, we and my coworkers have actually claimed to them, we would never call us. We do not vote with them ever. And I believe that is something we have on the books. We do not call Oh.
A celebration ever. Oh, okay. I just approved that, but
Speaker 8: Mhmm.
Speaker 3: Oh, Cuban passport. Thank you. There you go. Even, like, undocumented people from my Mexico things, I can still get the benefits. I've been to all the time just because I want to.
Speaker 7: Deshaun explained that illegal immigrants are supposed to apply for emergency medical care on a month by month basis, but he approves them for a full twelve months just because he can.
Speaker 8: Even though it doesn't cover anything,
Speaker 3: still likely for emergency medical emergency medical is a month by month basis, and it's supposed to be used for undocumented people if they, like, they get hospitalized or something. So that they're not putting the bill, Medicaid can cover some
Speaker 8: of those expenses. But they're supposed
Speaker 3: to, like, apply every month, such as improvement for 12 because that's more.
Speaker 7: When our undercover journalist asked Deshaun if this was allowed, he responded, quote, I make it so. He admitted that he, quote, bends the rules a lot.
Speaker 0: Oh, is that, like, allowed technically? Or I make it.
Speaker 3: Nice. So I've been in the wolf a lot because I want I don't know. If you come see me, I'm gonna use it at both.
Speaker 8: That's just how it works.
Speaker 0: Like, no matter who you are pretty much?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm just giving you benefits because the furrow on my tax money. Oh. So to the extent that I'm able to, but I've been the ones a lot.
Speaker 0: I'm just I'm sure there's many ways to flout the system in Yeah. In every department, I'm sure.
Speaker 3: Correct. It just takes certain people to do it.
Speaker 7: When Deshaun was asked if the conduct was subverting the law, he responded, quote, I do that a lot.
Speaker 0: So would that technically be subverting a law at
Speaker 1: all at that point?
Speaker 2: I do that a lot. I will flip
Speaker 3: I will twist and turn our provisions to sit
Speaker 4: the way that I want them to.
Speaker 3: So whether it's a law
Speaker 5: or not, I is I don't know I just Or care?
Speaker 6: Yeah. I don't care after.
Speaker 7: Now what are the laws that Deshaun is subverting? Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by a public officer. The statute prohibits public officers from knowingly keeping false accounts or making false entries related to public funds. Deshaun's approval of ineligible individuals for extended Medicaid coverage could be a violation, as well as the Nevada False Claims Act. This prohibits the submission of false claims for payment to the state of Nevada, like knowingly approving benefits for individuals who are not eligible.
It appears in this video that Deshaun Mack is violating federal and state laws that our hidden cameras caught him saying he was subverting, he was bending the rules, he was doing things he should not be doing. Mister Mack, the family service specialist at the Nevada DHHS could potentially base jail time for what O'Keefe media caught him doing and these alleged violations.
Speaker 8: Hello?
Speaker 9: Hi. Is this Deshaun?
Speaker 8: Who's calling?
Speaker 9: Hey. This is from O'Keefe Media Group. How are doing?
Speaker 8: I don't know who this is.
Speaker 9: You said this is your quote. You're on a date with an undercover journalist. You said emergency medical is a month to month by basis. Right? Then you said, well, Medicare can cover some of those expenses, but they're so supposed to apply every month.
You said I quote bend the rules a lot. I'm quoting you. These are your words. I'm just giving you benefits. That's where I want my tax money to go.
So it seems like you're taking this position that you just don't really care.
Speaker 8: Nope. I definitely care.
Speaker 9: How do you care?
Speaker 8: I don't know. You tell me.
Speaker 9: I'm asking you, and I'm quoting you, Deshaun. Deshaun.
Speaker 8: You are quoting me.
Speaker 9: I am
Speaker 3: quoting you.
Speaker 9: And do you stand by your quotes?
Speaker 8: Was I aware that I was being recorded?
Speaker 9: It's a one party consent state, sir.
Speaker 8: Oh, that's nice. Now how do you know I said anything that I stand by?
Speaker 9: Because I have you on video and your lips are moving. That's why.
Speaker 8: Sounds good. Yeah. So Senior O'Keefe Media Group?
Speaker 9: Yes, sir. Do you stand by your comments, Dushan?
Speaker 8: I told you everything I said was false.
Speaker 9: Do you stand by them, or are you denying everything you said? Are were you lying to the journalist? Deshaun?
Speaker 8: I see a lot of things that I don't absolutely lie all the time.
Speaker 9: So you it's so specific. It's so interesting that you're so specific, Deshaun. Mhmm. And why did you say this? Were you trying to impress a date, I'm assuming?
Absolutely. It's a little bit weird. I don't really care. It's a you don't care. You don't care that you're breaking provisions and bending the rules and twisting and turning provisions.
Is that right?
Speaker 8: Nope. I never said that.
Speaker 9: Do you think that what do you think the Department of Health and Human Services will think of your words?
Speaker 8: I don't know. How do you know they're true?
Speaker 9: Because you said them, and you work for DHHS. True. Well, we gave them the quotes, so they'll find out and probably talk to you, I'm assuming. Right? Uh-oh.
So let me ask you this. Do how long have you been just giving out emergency medical benefits for twelve months for illegal immigrants? Do you vet these people?
Speaker 8: Something to you.
Speaker 9: Go ahead, Deshaun.
Speaker 8: What do you think we what do you think we do? Do you think we vet them? Yes or no?
Speaker 9: You told me that it looks like you don't. You just give out you said, quote, I just approved them. Oh, Cuban passport? Thank you. Here you go.
Even undocumented people from Mexico and things, I can still get them benefits. So you're just giving out people or giving out health benefits to people per year when it's supposed to be month by month basis per the Nevada state law. Is that correct?
Speaker 8: Is that the Nevada state law?
Speaker 9: I'm asking you your comment I don't know. On those things. You said I bend the rules a lot. I twist and turn our provisions. You said I don't care.
So I would just wanna know if you actually stand by your words.
Speaker 8: None of those words I said were true. So
Speaker 9: Well, thank you very much, Deshaun. We're gonna be publishing this, and we'll be publishing your video, tomorrow. So we will send this to you, and I will send it.
Speaker 8: I'll let my lawyer reach out. Have a good day.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Deshaun.
Speaker 7: Unfortunately, I have recordings and documents to back up everything I'm about to tell you.
Speaker 0: If we're about to paint James as a criminal, it better be fucking good.
Speaker 7: They sent a pic of
Speaker 0: me nailed to
Speaker 7: a cross. They used these kids.
Speaker 8: And it wasn't right.
Speaker 7: It was the timing of it that was so suspicious.
reSee.it AI Summary
I reached my breaking point after years of media smears and betrayal. Many in the industry have “sold their souls.” We must recognize that everything we care about is slipping away, and we have a short window to fight for it. Let's stop seeking approval from corrupt institutions and stand together.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
.@laralogan describes her breaking point after years of media smears, false narratives, and betrayal. She says many in the industry “sold their souls,” and warns, “Everything we care about is slipping through our fingers… we have a very short window of time to fight for it.” She calls on others to stop seeking the approval of corrupt institutions, and to stand with those who refuse to be bought. @GoingRoguewLara
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss media dishonesty and its declining influence, particularly after Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, which Speaker 0 believes struck a "death blow" to their "information dominance." They criticize legacy media for prioritizing mendacity and innuendo, exemplified by a *Washington Post* article that won a Pulitzer Prize.
Speaker 0 questions why people seek approval from dishonest sources, while acknowledging the innate human desire for acceptance and community. They emphasize the need to create their own platforms and awards, as existing institutions have become compromised. Speaker 0 recounts instances of media figures lying and prioritizing self-righteousness over the safety and well-being of trafficked children.
Both speakers stress the importance of focusing on the present and fighting for what they believe in, rather than seeking validation from untrustworthy sources. They acknowledge the difficulty of finding allies who are unwilling to compromise their principles, but Speaker 0 suggests that recent setbacks may be a form of divine intervention, "cleaning the ranks" of traitors and the weak.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's been so frustrating for me to watch the dishonesty of the media over the last, you know, more than ten years. So there's I I know the things that need that I need to to expose.
Speaker 1: Report on.
Speaker 0: You know, the Russia collusion thing is gonna drive me nuts. It's just gonna drive me nuts Yeah. Until we have people held accountable for that. Because it was so frustrating that you could say that, look, the Steele dossier is nonsense. Oh, you're a right wing Trump supporter.
What? How did I go from here to here? This document is fake. Yeah. You know what I mean?
And and who paid for it? Oh, wait. These people paid for it. Okay. Wait.
Well, that's wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean But things seem to be changing. Like, legacy media doesn't seem important as it used to be. Like, when I started fifteen, sixteen years ago Yeah. Like, I go back to this concept with the give them your pound of flesh. There was shame.
You could you could you could shame people away because you got tarred and feathered by the Washington Post. The Washington Post, the huge hippies on me in 2017, I'll never forget it, it was devastating. Yeah. They said that I had tried to plan a fake story about a rape thing to get undercover, and it wasn't it was half truth in you
Speaker 0: That's the tactic they used to get invalid from Sound of Freedom, by the way.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Same kind of thing.
Speaker 1: So mendacity and and innuendo, and like it was like a very nuanced innuendo. It was like he tried to plant a fake story. I didn't want to plant a fake story in the post. I was pretending to be something so I could get a meeting with somebody. And and the Washington Post ran a front page hit piece, and it and it influenced people.
I don't know if they do they I don't think they have the same degree of influence.
Speaker 0: Do you remember when we first met, I told you a term, information dominance?
Speaker 1: That's they Remind me.
Speaker 0: They had information dominance.
Speaker 1: But do they have it today?
Speaker 0: No. That's what's changed.
Speaker 1: When did that change?
Speaker 0: Well, it changed in a a profound way with Elon Musk. The person who chipped away at it most effectively before that was Rush Limbaugh.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk purchased a Twitter, is that what you're
Speaker 0: saying? Yes. Yeah. I mean, because Twitter was so vast, it had such reach.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And so it was a death blow to their information dominance. And it really opened the way, you know, because remember when, you know, when you were not being when when those papers turned their back on you and they were no longer reporting on your investigations, you didn't really have a voice. I mean, you did, but it was it was limited.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And so you were trying to get back
Speaker 1: It's not local media that that I I I Andrew Breitbart would say to me, I didn't realize you could leverage local media. I found in between 2011 and 02/2016, most of my stories were state state
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Report. And it got on the front page of these state newspapers.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: That's what I was doing in that in the wilderness.
Speaker 0: And then and then when you once, you When
Speaker 1: Trump came on the scene
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Things changed a little bit too. I did those Bob Kramer videos. But I know what you mean.
Speaker 0: Shifted in a meaningful way.
Speaker 1: But what we talked about in Mamaroneck in that French restaurant is you're talking about, you know, the approval that we all tacitly seek, even
Speaker 0: if it's
Speaker 1: 5%
Speaker 0: of our
Speaker 1: And
Speaker 0: it's seeking their approval.
Speaker 1: I remember you said stop seeking their approval. Stop giving them power.
Speaker 0: Don't stop giving them that power over you.
Speaker 1: The meaning, stop caring what The New York Times thinks Yes. About you.
Speaker 0: How many times do they have to lie and you're still you know what I mean? It's like I it's like going to the Nazis at the you know, as a Jewish person in the middle of the war and saying, well, how about now? Do you like me more today? Can you just give me a stamp of
Speaker 1: Well, you want that
Speaker 0: Pulitzer want
Speaker 1: those Emmys and those Peabodies and But they're awful.
Speaker 0: Proverbially they're awful. They're awful. They give people awards for stories that didn't even happen.
Speaker 1: Common folk, if you walk down the street in rural Michigan, oh, you won a Pulitzer Prize. It's it's got a it's got it still has a brand to Of course. You know?
Speaker 0: Of course. But that's why we have to create our own.
Speaker 1: We have to create our own.
Speaker 0: Because it doesn't mean once you give someone a story, an award for a story that didn't actually happen.
Speaker 1: Oh, with the
Speaker 0: The award is not
Speaker 1: the
Speaker 0: the
Speaker 1: Russia gate. Yes. Which is a point that he
Speaker 0: won point And not just one year, but two years. Three years in
Speaker 1: a row. But the Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize in that article about me. In other words, they won a Pulitzer Prize reporting this mendacious thing that was sort of a half truth.
Speaker 0: So they get rewarded for lying.
Speaker 1: They got a Pulitzer Prize.
Speaker 0: So we have to ask ourselves Or
Speaker 1: lie by omission too sometimes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. But why do we seek the approval of people who have consistently proven themselves to be profoundly dishonest?
Speaker 1: That's a rhetorical question. I mean
Speaker 0: I don't.
Speaker 1: You you're a very unique soul. I hope you understand. You're a unique human being. Why do we seek the approval?
Speaker 0: Maybe That's a big question. Maybe it's different for me because I've already have it. I have a DuPont Silver Baton, which is the Pulitzer of television journalism. I have, you know, I mean, everything from Emmys to, Walter Cronkite Awards, the Overseas Press Cup Awards. I mean, have a plethora of them.
And so maybe I I got that already.
Speaker 1: We seek seek acceptance. We seek community. We seek to be liked.
Speaker 0: We do. We we Because we go back to the animals in the wild.
Speaker 1: Well
Speaker 0: Because that's what animals do. That's how they survive. When you see animals in the wild Yeah. What do they do? The flock or the herd?
They move together because there's safety in numbers.
Speaker 1: What Rush Limbaugh said when I my favorite quote from Rush Limbaugh, and I met Rush Limbaugh, and I was on his show for my first book, is he said, being hated is one of the most difficult things to psychologically accept. Being hated by and these are my words, I'm paraphrasing, by all the people that you wanna be liked by. And that and that's a very difficult thing to be to be just to to accept being being hated and smeared. Yeah. And and, you know, it's one thing, you know, I have your teenage your teenage angst.
You're 17 years old in the morgue. I mean, I was 18 years old at Rutgers making videos in undercover. And then you have this sort of as a child, you want you want safety and comfort in in your childhood bedroom. As a teenager, you angst, change the world, power to the people. And now I'm 40, and I'm like, sometimes I just want peace.
But to be smeared and and and tarred and, I mean, targeted
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: This is this is difficult.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But we gotta get over it.
Speaker 1: You know what We gotta get over it.
Speaker 0: We gotta get over it. It's done. I mean It's done. It's done. It's like, you know, if you were to watch a a baby with a with a a babysitter who was abusing that baby, and then after they beat the baby, the baby comes back because they got nowhere else to go.
Don't be that you know, that's a baby doing that that instinct. It goes
Speaker 1: back You mean get over wanting peace or get
Speaker 0: over Get over wanting recognition and approval and
Speaker 1: all of Approval.
Speaker 0: Of of bad people. They're not worth They they literally are not worth it. They knew. They lied about Hunter Biden's laptop. Right.
They've lied about how many things. These people say that they care about immigration because they care about people. They take the moral high ground, but they don't care that hundreds of thousands of children, like that little girl in your film, like all of those young teenagers, were brought over the border and the vast majority of them never went to a family member. They went to people who raped them or sold them or abused them. I mean, there's a little boy.
His body was found in Illinois. You know, he was raped to death, and next to him was the guy passed out who raped him. That was an MS thirteen home that he went to. They didn't care when people when whistleblowers get oh, by the way, whistleblowers who you exposed, thanks to you and Project Veritas, Aaron Stevenson, when he came out of, and said, we're giving gang members we're taking them off the transnational criminal list so that they can sponsor children, and no one cared. These people didn't say a word.
They didn't care. Mhmm. And then when Tara Rodis, another whistleblower, gave he said who was a case manager down at the border said, hey. We've got MS 13 people and other criminals sponsoring kids. They didn't care.
And now, there's now there's an actual an actual documented case of a boy who 11 year old boy who went to the home of an MS thirteen gang member who was raped to death. His body showed up in Illinois next to the man who killed him. Mhmm. Okay. These people are not worthy of your time.
You don't need their respect. You don't need their affection. You don't need their recognition and you don't need their goddamn awards. That don't mean a thing at this point. They can shove it up where the sun don't shine.
I couldn't care less. They don't bother me one bit anymore because I don't look to the worst people in our society for approval Revalidation. When you don't care. You know what James? You know what gets me?
What gets me is you you had that little girl, I had a little boy this size. Lift up the corner of his shirt and there's a phone number. I called that number various times for two years. No one ever picked up. Do you know do you know what happens to children who are trafficked, who are sexually tortured until they die every single day of their lives?
I mean, this is unspeakable what we have done. It is unspeakable how many others are dead. So these people who wanna be self righteous and moralizing and lecturing about the fact that you're splitting families, do you know what happens to an American family when the parent is arrested? They're split. You think you get to take your kids to jail?
No. Families get torn apart in this country every single day. Does it break my heart? 150000%. You think I could sleep at night coming back from the the border to some horrible little motel?
I don't care about these people because they're they mean nothing to me. They have shown themselves to be the worst kind of people. What happens to them is out of my I don't care.
Speaker 1: It's your it's your lived experience in your life, everything that you know, and there's a difference between okay. I I meant to say everything that your your wisdom. You have wisdom, first of all, what God gave you, but also from your experience in life that taught you these things. You have won what was it called? The the TV award?
Speaker 0: The the DuPont. DuPont. Silver baton.
Speaker 1: Silver it's it even sounds ridiculous. DuPont Silver Baton? Yeah. There's a difference in a Peabody? Is it a Peabody for television?
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. The Peabody is for television.
Speaker 1: Emmys? Yeah. I mean I mean, it sounds a little absurd. But DuPont Silver Baton.
Speaker 0: Columbia DuPont. That's where it comes from. Old Connecticut, the Columbian journalism school. And you know, they when they had a guy who was lying about me, lying about my reporting, I called the dean of Columbia Journalism School. Mhmm.
I knew him. I'd interviewed him. I liked and respected him. But he worked for The Atlantic. I should've known.
You you And I said to him, you've got a professor that's lying. He's blatantly lying about my reporting. And he said, well, know, we we take the free speech rights of our professors very seriously. I said, even when they're lying. I mean, guy was said when I went to Liberia and covet Ebola at the height of the epidemic and went through all of that, and he said I didn't interview any black people and, you know, one of and I, of course, I did.
I did. I had dozens and dozens of interviews with black people. They didn't end up in the story. They didn't make the cut because they weren't the most powerful interviews that we had. You know?
But he's gonna try to I mean, this guy from the safety of his New York apartment while I'm on the front line.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: In graveyards surrounded by dead people watching people die. You you little jackass, you're gonna sit you're gonna go off to your little job at Columbia Journalism School and you're gonna opine. Who by the way, when you were a correspondent for The New York Times in Africa and there was an Ebola outbreak, you know what he did? Ran for his life.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Ran for his life because he was a pathetic little coward.
Speaker 1: And I wrote the I wrote the train of death in Mexico, like Oh, yeah. With the Venezuelans.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's weird. Had an American Times reporter throw shade on me. It's like, I'm in the train of death with Venezuelan who, by the way, I'm giving water and pizza to these Venezuelan children. And they're they're it's kind of a pro immigrant movie. It's an anti system movie, but I get your point.
You've lived though the wisdom that you have. The wiz I would call it there's a difference between wisdom and knowledge. Yeah. Those guys at the New Yorker magazine, I don't doubt they don't read a lot of books. Probably read all about history, but I think you have some wisdom in you from your lived experience
Speaker 0: James, they sold their souls.
Speaker 1: They sold their souls.
Speaker 0: That's that's it. They sold their
Speaker 1: souls. A lot of people do that. A lot of people do that. A lot of people do that.
Speaker 0: I don't worry about that.
Speaker 1: I just don't worry about that. Well, because you can't control it.
Speaker 0: And there's no time.
Speaker 1: There's no time.
Speaker 0: There's no time. We have a short window.
Speaker 1: Gotta focus on the people who are willing. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 0: I just everything we care about is slipping through our fingers, and we have a very short window of time to fight for that. A lot of it is gone already. I don't know what it looks like in the end, but you know what? My daughters, my children are not gonna grow up wearing abayas and having no rights and reciting But but but the Quran. But And they're not gonna grow up as slaves.
Speaker 1: Forget the the Pulitzer people and the Columbia people and the CBS people and all.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Like, the first question Rush Limbaugh asked me, it wasn't about tell me about the escapades as a pimp or what it was like in a New Orleans prison. You know what he asked me? Number one and Rush Limbaugh is a very smart man.
Speaker 0: What?
Speaker 1: You would agree. Right? He says, why is it that conservatives don't have your back more? That's the first question he asked you.
Speaker 0: What'd you say?
Speaker 1: I quoted him. I said, liberals liberals circle the wagons and conservatives circle the firing squad at the time. This was in 02/2013. Progressives tend to stick together and conservatives tend to run for the hills. That's what I had that's what he had said, and I was quoting him back to him when he when he asked me that question.
And the betrayal is the thing that's hurt that's been hardest for me to to handle, which is why I said to you, a lot of people have sold your soul, you said, don't worry about it. Well, for me, we have to find people who are not willing to sell our souls
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: To fight alongside of us.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 1: And those are difficult people to find. No?
Speaker 0: Sure they are.
Speaker 1: Very difficult.
Speaker 0: But remember what I said to you when they were when they was taking Project Veritas away from you. I said, God is cleaning the ranks for you. True. He's getting rid of all the traitors
Speaker 1: Very true.
Speaker 0: And the weak.
Speaker 1: And he did that. Mhmm. Hopefully. What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
RETRACTO #4 & #5: Mediaite and The Daily Beast FORCED to RETRACT False Claims O’Keefe Arranged “Attempted Gotcha Meeting” on AG Pam Bondi https://t.co/hRKvxsc12e
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker presents two retractions from The Daily Beast and Mediaite regarding a story about Attorney General Pam Bondi. The Daily Beast initially reported Bondi was caught on hidden camera at brunch talking to a woman hired by James O'Keefe to pose as a nanny, implying O'Keefe targeted Bondi. O'Keefe says this was false, as they didn't hire the woman. The Daily Beast changed the headline and included additional information. Mediaite described the video as an "attempted gotcha arranged by James O'Keefe," which O'Keefe also denies, stating the video was sent by an anonymous source. Mediaite issued a retraction, changing the description to "video published." O'Keefe emphasizes the importance of sticking to facts and avoiding assumptions in reporting. The reporters involved will receive a "Retracto" stuffed animal.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello everyone. Welcome to the infamous wall of shame where journalists are forced to print retractions and corrections in articles questioning our journalism ethics. Today's retraction, there's actually two for the price of one, goes to The Daily Beast and Mediaite, both printing retractions in regards to the story we did regarding attorney general Pam Bondi. Cue the Retracto theme song. Now, for those of you who not aware, we give out these little retracto stuffed animals to people who lie about us.
You want one, but you don't get one because you're not a media shill. Let's talk about these two organizations, the Daily Beast, which wrote the headline, quote, Pam Bondi spilled Epstein's secrets to bogus nanny at brunch. Subhead, the attorney general was reportedly caught in a hidden camera talking to a woman hired by James O'Keefe to pose as a nanny. Now you recall the video featuring Pam Bondi. This was her in the restaurant talking about there are tens and thousands of videos and it's all with little kids, little kids referring to all of these child pornography videos related to Jeff Epstein.
So you know the story but the Daily Beast, they said talking to a woman hired by James O'Geeffe, it isn't in fact true that we hired this person to pose as a nanny with Pam Bondi. We did not hire someone to go after Pam Bondi. In fact, this person was apparently doing something else. But the Daily Beast made an assumption. They just made an assumption that wasn't true.
They reported this as fact. The reporter, Yana, Yana, Jana, Jana. The question, is it Yana? Yana, Jana, or Jana? I have no idea.
So this person writes this article. So we write an email and we say, we read your article from the Daily Beast about our tape on Pam Bondi. You mentioned your byline quote. The attorney general was reportedly caught at a hidden camera talking moment hired by James O'Keefe. This is a writer's self described nanny.
We are asking you to issue a retraction because your statement is false and inaccurate. Please issue retraction. They do so. They change the headlight. You see the previous one there and then you see this one random stranger at brunch.
MAGA provocateur. What does it mean to be a what does it mean MAGA provocateur? This is journalism operating without fear, without favor. We didn't target people. We got information sent to us.
I don't know what they mean by MAGA provocateur. James O'Keefe shared hidden camera. Okay. That's that's more accurate. We shared the footage of the encounter.
Thank you, Daily Beast. Held accountable because of an alpaca. At the bottom of the Daily Beast, it says this article has been update is updated, updated, updated to include additional information from OMG. There you have it. Now retraction number five at OMG.
This is Mediaite. Attorney General Pam Bondi was secretly recorded in attempted gotcha. Gotcha. I attempted to gotcha. I made the attempt.
What does that mean to make an attempt? What does that mean? If you hear the banging in the background, that's because we're rebuilding our operation. Clinkity bang, clink, clink, clink. It goes back there where they're assembling desks, they're assembling furniture.
We're growing at OMG. We're growing the organization. Why? Because we don't do attempted gotchas. We do investigative reporting and we're very successful at it actually.
We don't attempt to do it. We do do it. So I don't what they mean by attempted gotcha arranged by James O'Keefe. I didn't arrange this, I didn't intend this. Much of the material that we receive comes to us not by design.
We don't choose the story. The stories come to us. This is lost on organizations like Mediaite because they don't do that. They do attempted gotchas. Like this right here is an attempted gotcha.
Now this is the guy who wrote it. I don't know what the we couldn't find a single photo of this guy anywhere online except this. It looks like FBI's most wanted. Like, I mean, this is the is this the only photo we can find? Wow.
Looks like it's from, like, 1981. Charlie Nash, at least we can pronounce his name. We won't email to him. You are also mentioned that this was a gotcha meeting arranged by James O'Keefe, which is false and inaccurate. This was sent to us by an anonymous source and was not arranged by James O'Keefe or RMG's reported.
And they were forced to print a retraction. Here you have before attempted gotcha and here you have after video published. That is in fact accurate. So this is all of this can have been avoided if you just stuck to the facts, if you didn't make assumptions in your reporting, Charlie Nash and Jenna Broccoli. By the way, the story has been updated updated aka retracted to reflect the fact that OMG merely published the undercover video sensed to them by a source, and did not arrange the meeting.
That's right. Thank you very much. We appreciate your honesty. Now all of this could have been avoided if you just stuck to the facts, but you don't. So now you're gonna get a little alpaca.
So we'll mail these to the reporters, make sure this happens and you could put this on your shelf along with your Pulitzer Prizes and your Emmy Awards. See, there will be no Peabody Awards or Emmy Awards here at OMG, But there will be justice. There will be real journalism, including into the media. Hint hint, coming very soon. Stay tuned.
reSee.it AI Summary
The Truth Inside Veritas reveals the internal conflict that led to my ousting from Project Veritas, starting with my Pfizer exposé. Using secret recordings, testimonies, and court depositions, the film uncovers a narrative filled with betrayal and ambition. As tensions escalate, private deals and backchannel maneuvers culminate in a dramatic boardroom showdown. This story goes beyond mere office politics; it’s a battle for control over the truth, with reputations and millions at stake.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
The Truth Inside Veritas (2025) - Official Trailer | James O’Keefe The Truth Inside Veritas exposes the internal power struggle that upended Project Veritas. It begins with James O’Keefe’s Pfizer exposé and ends with his ousting from the organization he founded. Through secret recordings, testimonies, and federal court depositions, The Truth Inside Veritas uncovers a story of betrayal and ambition. As tensions boil over, private deals and backchannel moves lead to a dramatic boardroom showdown. With reputations and millions of dollars on the line, this is more than office politics, it’s a fight to control the truth.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 claims to have recordings and documents exposing malfeasance within a nonprofit, alleging board members took money from donors and used children to further an agenda. Speaker 1 denies knowledge and deflects, objecting to questions about investments in companies, some potentially in the medical field and possibly sold to big pharma like Pfizer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of conflicts of interest. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being a cheat and a liar. Speaker 0 vows to get justice, not revenge. The timing of events is deemed suspicious, and a board statement is considered a critical turning point.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I shouldn't have trusted these guys, but I did trust these guys.
Speaker 1: A lot of people thought there was malfeasance. I would prefer to say ignorant of those events. I didn't wanna know. Nonprofit boards of directors can be very, very dangerous.
Speaker 0: Unfortunately, I have recordings and documents to back up everything I'm about to tell you.
Speaker 1: Employees were starting to bundle up and talk. If we're about to paint James as a criminal, it better be fucking good.
Speaker 0: They sent a pic of me nailed to a cross. They used these kids. Matt used them to
Speaker 1: further his agenda. The reason why James was bad was morphing. I never lived this lifestyle with black cars. He's a mean boss. Is not appropriate.
I don't know that Jameson has a private life. Objection. James took a pregnant woman sandwich. And these are people that we thought were people with integrity.
Speaker 0: Who on the board is in control? Turns out war members are taking money from donors. How
Speaker 1: much did you invest in which
Speaker 0: of Matt's here men's companies?
Speaker 1: I don't think that's any of your business.
Speaker 0: You're at the pinnacle of Mount Everest. Are you refusing to answer the question? Yes. The only thing that has changed is that we broke the biggest story in our organization's history. If a board statement goes out, it's fucking over.
Week later, everything changed.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't right.
Speaker 0: It was the timing of it that was so suspicious. Is it fair to say that three of the four companies you've invested in, you would consider to be in the medical field? So what did the board think people were gonna assume?
Speaker 1: One of the companies could be sold to a big pharma.
Speaker 0: Like Pfizer. Objection. Did the board not think that people were gonna assume the worst? I wanna talk about your investments
Speaker 1: talk about you.
Speaker 0: I'm a fighter.
Speaker 1: You're a cheat.
Speaker 0: I'm a warrior.
Speaker 1: You're a liar.
Speaker 0: And I will get my justice. Not revenge, but justice. Is it all about money?
Speaker 1: Too bad you can't afford that. Big difference.
Speaker 0: How do you define conflict of interest?
reSee.it AI Summary
I revealed a shocking tape that exposes Prince Andrew's sexual relations with underage girls and his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. This is a world exclusive that sheds light on serious allegations against him. Read the full article for more details.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: 'Prince Andrew Was F*ing Underage Girls' — Tape of Royal Family Advisor Exposes Prince Andrew’s Sexual Relations with Minors and Deep Ties to Jeffrey Epstein
Video Transcript AI Summary
John Bryan, a confidant of the British royal family, claims he raised Sarah Ferguson's children, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and maintained a friendship with Prince Andrew. He states he lived with Ferguson for seven years after she separated from Prince Andrew and raised her children.
Prince Andrew's connection to Jeffrey Epstein became public in 2010. In 2014, Virginia Dufres alleged that Epstein paid her to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17. She reportedly died by suicide recently. Prince Andrew denied these allegations in a 2019 BBC interview, which was a PR disaster.
Bryan says he advised Prince Andrew after the interview. He claims Prince Andrew lied to him about Epstein. Bryan had previously stated he believed Prince Andrew was innocent, but now reveals Prince Andrew did have sex with underage girls.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For Daniel, he was in the navy. It was two hundred and fifty days at the scene. Never saw it for me. I was really pissed because he lied to me. Lied about Epstein.
And then I did a big thing in the Daily Mail saying that I believed David, and then I found out he was lying. I was so pissed. No. He was boundering curls. That's not cool.
Speaker 1: John Bryan has been a close confidant to the British royal family for a long time. He worked for Queen Elizabeth the second, was, quote, best friends with Princess Diana, and had a long term intimate relationship with the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson. According to Bryan, he practically raised Sarah Ferguson's children, the princesses Beatrice and Eugene. And Brian said that he maintained a friendship with Ferguson's husband, the Duke of York, Prince Andrew.
Speaker 0: Tell me, like, your story. Show my story. You want me to what I'm talking What? Like, I've been so famous Okay. That's prince Andrew's wife.
They were separated. And so that I of fell in love. And we lived together for, like, seven years And my house knew one. And I raised her two little children for some reason. Wait.
Princess Eugenie. And Eugenie. Those were my children. Those were my kids. I raised those kids.
That's a great day to day raise. I was father of the Lord.
Speaker 1: Prince Andrew's connection to Jeffrey Epstein emerged in 02/2010 when photos showed them walking together in New York's Central Park. Epstein had already been convicted in 02/2008 of procuring a 14 year old girl for prostitution. In 2014, a woman named Virginia Dufres alleged in a Florida court filing that Jeffrey Epstein paid her to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17, a minor. On April 25, a few weeks ago, Dufres died by, quote, suicide. Prince Andrew denied Dufres' sex abuse allegations a now infamous 2019 BBC interview.
Speaker 2: She said she had sex with you three times. Once on his private island in a group of seven or eight other girls.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: No to all of it.
Speaker 0: All of it. Absolutely no to all of it.
Speaker 1: The interview was a public relations disaster for the royal family and prompted the queen to strip prince Andrew of his royal duties. In the aftermath of that interview, the prince sought advice from a long time royal family confidant, John Bryan.
Speaker 0: We go have dinner at his house. We have dinner at my house to see his kids. So then we're we go to. We sell to France, and I get a big property, like, 10 Okay. Right here in Central Bank.
Right? You know, nobody has 10 acres. I'm on the biggest property here in Blouse. Okay. And I rent it so that we price.
Right? Because there's paparazzi everywhere there's.
Speaker 1: Two weeks after prince Andrew's BBC interview, John Bryan was brought to the Royal Lodge where prince Andrew lives to offer crisis management advice. According to the Telegraph, the meeting was conducted discreetly. At the royal residence, Bryan observed that Prince Andrew was visibly distressed and struggling to focus, reportedly unable to concentrate for more than forty minutes at a time due to the strain he was under. As reported in the Daily Mail, John Bryan constructed a five page document emphasizing that Prince Andrew should publicly show empathy for Epstein's victims. Back in November 2022, Brian publicly stated that he believed Prince Andrew was innocent of the claims made against him related to the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scheme.
Now, in our exclusive hidden camera undercover footage, John Brian reveals for the first time that Prince Andrew did in fact have sex with underage girls.
Speaker 0: I was so pissed about that. I was really pissed fine. I was really pissed because he lied to me about it. Lied about? About Epstein.
Yeah. No. I knew he saw him.
Speaker 1: Now our newsroom has some concerns about where this investigation is headed and who may be implicated, but our only motivation in doing these stories is the public's right to know. And if this report and our subsequent reports shine a light into darkness and expose evil, then we are willing to take the risks. At the end of the day, child victims of Jeffrey Epstein need to be protected, and the people involved need to be held accountable by law enforcement immediately. Without accountability, our notion of freedom is just an illusion. We're gonna be breaking our next stories exclusively at okeefemediagroup.com.
You may see this project Veritas sign behind me. Stay tuned for next week.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Read the Full Article at https://okeefemediagroup.com. Support the Mission, Join the Movement: https://okeefemediagroup.com/get-full-access/
O'Keefe Media Group
We train and equip fearless citizen journalists and expose corruption in real-time. We don’t just report the news. We uncover the truth.
okeefemediagroup.com
Get Full Access - O'Keefe Media Group
Join the movement. Expose the truth. https://okeefemediagroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ab8338f2-f309-43cd-97b5-5456b8082e2b.mp4 Join Team OMG — unlock your Full Access Pass and help fuel fearless investigations the legacy media won’t touch. JOIN NOW You ARE THE MEDIA NOW. Mainstream Media is DEAD. Join James O’Keefe in helping expose the truth with thousands of Citizen Journalists. JOIN TEAM OMG Save 33% with […]
okeefemediagroup.com
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Under Melanie Krause's lead as IRS Commissioner, IRS Whistleblower David Nelsen was placed on leave for exposing the agency's "antiquated systems." He risked his career to help the American people. Shouldn’t we be supporting those who blow the whistle on government inefficiencies?
Video Transcript AI Summary
An individual stated they have not heard from the IRS after speaking out, but prior to doing so, they heard that people within the IRS were nervous about their plans to speak publicly, as it is strongly discouraged. They describe the IRS's IDRS system as antiquated and question who benefits from it remaining an analog system from the 1960s. They ask anyone with information about why the system hasn't been updated to contact them, suggesting this reason is why changes haven't occurred. They express hope for future changes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Have you heard from anybody within the IRS today after after what you've done? No. Beforehand, I heard that people were were very nervous about the shenanigans I'm getting up to. They were nervous what does that mean? They were nervous about shenanigans?
Nervous that you're gonna speak publicly. Yes. Because it is very strongly discouraged. This IDRS system, it's a very antiquated system. I I wanna know who stands to gain from it staying that way.
Who's gaining from being an analog system from nineteen sixties? And if anybody listening to this program knows the answer to that question, reach out to us. Because I think that's one of the reasons why things aren't gonna get changed. Well, hopefully, will get changed, but that's the reason why they haven't been changed.
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a shocking hidden camera video featuring James Welch, a genetic counselor at NIH, where he advises researchers to change terms like "race" to "ancestry" in grant applications to avoid scrutiny from the Department of Government Efficiency. He reveals the manipulation of language to bypass federal restrictions and expresses troubling thoughts about firearms and retaliation against NIH individuals. The NIH has since responded, stating they will terminate funding that doesn't align with their priorities and reaffirming their commitment to evidence-based science.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
CAUGHT ON HIDDEN CAMERA: @NIH Genetic Counselor Tells Researchers to “Change ‘Race’ to ‘Ancestry’” in Clinical Trials to Evade @DOGE and Secure Funding; Admits to Wanting to Shoot People at NIH “My mom told me today not to shoot anybody… but they won't let me close enough to these f*cking people.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
James O'Keefe reports on James Welch, an NIH genetic counselor, who appears to be manipulating language in research applications to circumvent government oversight, specifically from "Doge." Welch is allegedly coaching researchers to avoid using "banned words" like "women," "men," and "race" in grant applications, suggesting alternatives like "ancestry."
Welch claims NIH intramural research can "basically do anything" if they have the money. According to O'Keefe, a senior administration official stated there's no specific policy regarding racial preferences in health, suggesting Welch is creating this algorithm in his own mind. O'Keefe alleges this circumvents the will of President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Welch also expresses disdain for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his boss, and suggests replacing Trump's portrait with Putin's. He mentions potential NIH job cuts and jokes about buying guns, stating "they won't let me close enough to these people." O'Keefe calls for transparency and accountability within government institutions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Approving a protocol, a really interesting protocol of using this microdialysis and to test cortisol levels. One of our investigators wants to test it in women, black women, and white women. I I had to go and look at, like, what was leaked as far as the banned words that he was just, like, control f searching for. So I was trying to help her, like, suggest wording. I had suggested, like, I can see your ancestry instead of race.
Speaker 1: James Welch is caught on our hidden camera talking about manipulating language to circumvent government oversight, specifically Doge oversight.
Speaker 0: Our grants aren't getting canceled. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: We're intramural, so we get to do
Speaker 0: basically whatever we approve Yeah. And we get to do
Speaker 1: certain experiment's happening within the walls of NIH's own buildings. They can do basically anything as long as they have the money. My mom told
Speaker 0: me to lay that shit. Like,
Speaker 3: you guys have
Speaker 0: been buying guns. They won't let me
Speaker 4: be close enough to these people.
Speaker 1: The NIH genetic counselor within the NIH tells us on hidden camera that his mother told him not to shoot anybody.
Speaker 0: Well, why not be prepared?
Speaker 5: I just wanna go down like a What are
Speaker 0: your views on it? You're asking me a lot of questions. I have not got a chance to ask your your questions. I was just thinking it'd be funny if you were, like, a government spy just like, what are we planning, James?
Speaker 1: I'm James O'Keefe. You work with the NIH. This is you on camera. I heard you had a really bad day. You're about to have a worse day.
I'm James O'Keefe here outside Washington DC standing outside the headquarters of the National Institute of Health, NIH. It's within this building that a man named James Welch works. He's the genetic counselor and research coordinator for NDDK. That's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. It appears in this undercover video that Welch and the PI, that's principal investigator he's working with, is counseling are seeking allowance on a clinical trial regarding using microdialysis to test cortisol levels in black and white women for research.
Speaker 0: I work both with the patients and then also with, like, the the PIs, the the principal investigators writing their studies, running their studies. For our institute, I'm one of the people who approach both. You know? Yeah. Like, oh, this is a good study.
Like, yesterday, I was approving a protocol, a really interesting protocol using this microdialysis to test cortisol levels. One of our investigators wants to test it in women, black women, and white women. People are stratified by whether you have metabolic dysfunction and whether you're African American or Yeah. A a white woman.
Speaker 1: Where things get interesting is the political bias that James Welch, genetics counselor, appears to be injecting into the process to circumvent government oversight, specifically Doge oversight. He specifically calls out Doge, says that DOGE is cutting grants for research that includes certain keywords.
Speaker 0: There are banned words that they're that they're cutting grants for any research that has. Two of the words are women and females cutting grants for any of the DDI research. Some of the suggestions are adult girl Uh-huh. X x. Like, how do
Speaker 2: you you can't there's no
Speaker 0: there's no way around that. Yeah. Woman is a ban. Man, male, men is a ban. Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Here, the NIH counselor, James Welch, is coaching the applicant to change the wording of this application within NIH to avoid triggering what James Welch thinks is some type of algorithm, intentionally guiding the application process within NIH to circumvent government oversight. The problem, of course, with manipulating the language is this has nothing to do with science or technical excellence.
Speaker 0: So I was trying to help her, like, suggest wording. Like, approved it, but we're like, maybe because our grants aren't getting canceled. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: We're intramural, so we get to
Speaker 0: do basically whatever we approve Yeah. And we get to do We have the money.
Speaker 1: Intramural research refers to certain experiments happening within the walls of NIH's own buildings. Now James Welch says they can do basically anything as long as they have the money if it's intramural.
Speaker 0: She's taking out the stratifying by race. And I'm like, yeah. So I I had to go and look at, like, what was leaked as far as the banned words that Doge is just, like, control f searching for Mhmm. And figure out what the suggestions that she used.
Speaker 1: We spoke with a senior official in the administration regarding Doge. They've told us there's no real policy there except general prohibitions on racial preferences. We haven't been able to find or ascertain anything specifically regarding racial preferences in health. So this official within NIH appears to be conjuring this up or creating this algorithm in his own mind. Remember, the NIH is an executive branch agency.
It's the US Department of Health and Human Services. This is an executive branch agency, and some say here he's circumventing the will of president Trump and Robert f Kennedy.
Speaker 6: After experiencing four years of a volatile economy, America is facing record inflation and a massive threat to the US dollar. Experts are warning the stock market could crash, and we could be facing a recession. In these uncertain times, I recommend gold to my audience, and I trust Fisher Capital as my official gold partner. Not only have my friends at Fisher delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in gold to their clients, they've also proven to be vigilant and right on the front line supporting causes that make our country stronger and better. Fisher Capital is the largest corporate partner for Turning Point USA, close friends of OMG.
We appear at their events every December and continues to make sure the new administration is successful. Based on my experience and client testimonials, the team at Fisher Capital consists of some of the most caring and compassionate individuals in finance today. And when you click the link, you will qualify for an exclusive offer only available to my listeners, where you can get up to $20,000 of free silver with your qualifying purchase. When you speak with Fisher, make sure to mention that James O'Keefe sent you. Our portfolios are too important to trust to stocks and bonds alone.
Protect yourself with gold today, and get it from Fisher Capital. Go to Fisher0mg.com. That's Fisher0mg.com. Fisher 0 m g Com.
Speaker 1: Referencing his conversations with this principal investigator at NIH, he says that they are changing the words from race in the application to ancestry. Of course, the problem with that is a matter of science was this was a racial study.
Speaker 0: I'm like, just make it not the primary objective. Mhmm. Make it a secondary objective and change the word race to I suggested, like, if you see your ancestry instead of race.
Speaker 1: Ancestry is not a criteria in the clinical research protocol. So that change that Welsh is proposing with his PI is misleading, some would say unethical, some might even call it a violation of the Hatch Act because it's introducing bias and political bias in what should be science.
Speaker 0: Any discussion of side effects is like, you're you're you're an RKJ. You know what I mean? It's like, no. These things are affecting the body. Yeah.
Not How do you feel about him taking over? His family will tell you he's the weird one.
Speaker 5: Mhmm. You know?
Speaker 1: Now this NIH official who doesn't hide his disdain for Doge also doesn't hide his disdain for his boss, Robert f Kennedy junior.
Speaker 0: You know how he was always the weird cousin? Yeah. He's the weird cousin. Mhmm. The Kennedy's our core.
They'll tell you that he's weary. He's not very far in charge of meditate.
Speaker 1: He also says they should pull down president Trump's portrait within NIH and replace it with Russian president Putin's face.
Speaker 0: They put up portraits of Trump's vance and RFK in the clinical center.
Speaker 6: Somebody tore
Speaker 0: him down immediately. Then they they hung them on the other side of the building near the Starbucks off of Boca TV, so they're too high for people to get to. Yeah. And so somebody, like, printed out rapist with an arrow and posted it next to Trump. And I was thinking that I should I should put on a portrait of Putin and put it upstream of Trump.
Yeah. You know what I mean? Because it's clearly, like, Trump. Right? It's like this, like, hierarchy.
How do you feel about with what Doge is doing and with the job cuts and everything? Yeah. So at NIH, it's gonna be 1,212 hundred. Which is devastating. I mean, it's crazy to fire future people, but it's, like, it only makes sense if they're doing whatever Putin wants.
You know, it's just it seems to be very much Very, like against it's just against the best interests of our country.
Speaker 1: The NIH genetic counselor within the NIH tells us on hidden camera that his mother told him not to shoot anybody, and Welch told our undercover journalist, quote, they won't let me close enough to these people at work at NIH.
Speaker 0: Has anyone retaliated? Any any plans on retaliating? I appreciate that concept, and I tend to agree. My mom told me today that she were like,
Speaker 3: you guys have
Speaker 0: been buying guns. Uh-huh. But I'm like, they won't
Speaker 4: let me close enough to
Speaker 0: these people. Why are you buying guns? Just thinking about, like, worst case scenarios and being like, well, why not be prepared? You know
Speaker 5: what mean? I just wanna go down like a bitch.
Speaker 6: In recent months, many of our fellow Americans experienced unprecedented natural disasters and damaged infrastructure, making access to health care essentials impossible at the very moment it was needed. When disaster strikes, being prepared is your best defense. And now I'm excited to share with you the brand new field emergency kit from our friends at The Wellness Company. The ultimate survival kit for any situation where medical help is not an option. Inside this rugged waterproof case, you'll find essential medications that cover over 60 conditions that you can encounter along with a detailed 85 page doctor written guidebook.
This ultimate kit includes amoxicillin, an essential for treating bacterial infections and antivirals and antiparasitics like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, medications that are critical in situations we are exposed to respiratory viruses or parasites. And for those facing potentially life threatening allergic reactions, the field kit includes epinephrine, the generic EpiPen, along with vital first aid supplies such as tourniquet and wound and burn treatments. Natural disasters are happening at record rates, so I urge everyone to get the ultimate field emergency kit from our friends and supporters at The Wellness Company by going to TWC.health/OMG TWC Health / OMG that's twc.health/0mg. And now you can save 50% just by using code o m g at checkout.
Speaker 1: So reporting outside this NIH facility in Bethesda, Maryland, this is James O'Keefe with o m g. If you're on the inside of these institutions, we wanna hear from you, who'll protect you, who'll tell your stories, it's important to have transparency and oversight within government to reform the government, who want accountability. And without accountability, our notion of freedom is just an illusion. Stay tuned.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
“I had to go and look at what was leaked as far as the banned words… and figure out what to suggest and choose,” admitted James Welch, a National Institutes of Health (@NIH) genetic counselor, revealing the extent to which he is coaching researchers to manipulate grant applications in order to bypass federal restrictions. Welch, who works at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (@NIDDKgov), was caught on hidden camera explaining how he helps principal investigators (PIs) at the NIH adjust their wording to avoid scrutiny from government oversight bodies, including the Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE). "There are banned words that they're [DOGE] cutting grants for… Two of the words are ‘women’ and ‘female,’" Welch revealed. Welch detailed how he actively advised a researcher to alter the language in a study on cortisol levels in Black and White women, ensuring it would not trigger red flags in the grant approval process. “Just make it not the primary objective, make it a secondary objective, and change the word ‘race’ to ‘ancestry,’” he advised. Welch also acknowledged that NIH’s intramural research programs face fewer barriers than extramural projects funded at universities, stating, “We can do it [microdialysis] if we have the money,” highlighting the power NIH insiders wield over approving their own research. Welch also made comments about purchasing firearms and potential retaliation against individuals at the NIH. “My mom told me today not to shoot anybody because I’ve been buying guns,” he remarked. When pressed about why he was purchasing firearms, Welch responded, “Just thinking about worst-case scenarios and being like, well, why not be prepared?” OMG has reached out to the NIH for comment regarding Welch’s statements. @ElonMusk
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe
JUST IN: OMG has received a statement from the NIH addressing James Welch's comments on advising researchers to manipulate grant applications to bypass DOGE oversight: "NIH is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities. We remain dedicated to restoring our agency to its tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science. As we begin to Make America Healthy Again, it's important to prioritize research that directly affects the health of Americans. We will leave no stone unturned in identifying the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic as part of our mission to Make America Healthy Again."
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
The @LATimes just covered O'Keefe Media Group's "LA Wildfire Tapes," exposing a State Farm VP admitting to "orchestrated" rate increases, making shocking remarks about California homeowners, and revealing racial bias in hiring. Read the full article here: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-03-07/state-farm-executive-haden-kirkpatrick-fired-after-saying-rate-hikes-are-orchestrated @ldarmiento
State Farm executive fired over comments about rate hikes
Haden Kirkpatrick, a top State Farm executive, said he was fired after being recorded in an undercover video making disparaging remarks about Pacific Palisades homeowners.
latimes.com
reSee.it AI Summary
On the latest episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience," I discussed O'Keefe Media Group's investigation where U.S. Treasury Policy Advisor Nathaniel Johnson admitted to an undercover journalist that some officials "don’t do their jobs" and highlighted a culture of defiance against DOGE, stating, "No one's quitting because everyone's dug in their feet."
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
On the latest episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience," @JoeRogan and @adamcurry discussed O'Keefe Media Group's latest investigation where U.S. Treasury Policy Advisor Nathaniel Johnson admitted to an undercover OMG journalist that he knows officials who "don’t do their jobs," and exposed a culture of defiance against @DOGE, revealing, "No one's quitting because everyone's dug in their feet."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thank God for James O'Keefe, he's done some interesting things over the years. It's amazing how many people open up when they think they're on a date with someone attractive. They'll admit to anything, like "Oh yeah, we did this because we hated Trump." These people need to learn to shut up. O'Keefe just released another video today about people trying to bypass the system to continue their work.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank God for James O'Keefe too, man. He's he's done some interesting stuff over the He
Speaker 1: certainly has.
Speaker 0: Over the years. You know? He he, like, gets people to it's amazing how many guys will open up when they think they're on a date with a hot chick or a hot guy, whichever whichever one that happens to be. And, like, oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, Ben.
I'm doing all this. Yeah. We do oh, we don't care. We we just hated Trump. And, you know, it's like, woah.
These people, they need to learn how how to shut up.
Speaker 1: I think he just got another video that he released today. Oh, yeah. There was another video today about people going around the Doge system to try to, like, still still do the same work.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
PODCAST No. 4: @JamesOKeefeIII and Journalism Prof. Jason Watkins Discuss Character Assassination Against Truth-tellers.
reSee.it AI Summary
I confronted Byron Cohen, a White House advisor, about his admission that "the deep state is real," which was captured in undercover footage. When pressed on his comments regarding the bureaucracy's role, Cohen became defensive and expressed disinterest in continuing the conversation. I pointed out that he had already discussed these issues on tape. He maintained that the bureaucracy should implement elected leaders' policies while advising them. As he attempted to leave, I reminded him and others in Washington that we will be watching and recording.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
DEEP STATE OFFICIAL WADDLES AWAY: Top White House Advisor Confronted By O’Keefe for Admitting on Tape ‘The Deep State Is Real’ @ByronCohenMA looks back in bewilderment at the American Swiper before frustratingly exclaiming, “I'm not really interested in having this conversation.” “No one denies that the bureaucracy exists.” “Are we done here?” —— Support Our Partners @OkeefeMedia has partnered with Fisher Capital to offer you $20,000 in free silver from America’s top-rated precious metals retailer! Support our journalism and see if you qualify at http://FisherOMG.com.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I spoke with Byron, a White House adviser, who acknowledged that the deep state exists. He explained that bureaucracies often create commissions to delay action, which can hinder incoming leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential target for bureaucratic resistance. Byron mentioned that the bureaucracy should implement elected leaders' policies while also advising them. Our conversation revealed insights into how the bureaucracy operates, and I recorded it all. Byron seemed surprised but engaged. This highlights the importance of transparency in government, and we will continue to investigate and report on these matters.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Byron? Hi. Hi. I'm James O'Keefe, investigative reporter and muckraker. You're an adviser to the White House, aren't you?
I see, I've been in disguise as you were talking to my colleague for a hidden camera, And I've been listening to your conversation about how the deep state is real.
Speaker 1: People joke about the deep state, but, like, to some degree, it's real.
Speaker 0: Tell me more about that.
Speaker 1: No, honey. Have a good night.
Speaker 0: So you mentioned that one of the ways that the deep state operates, the bureaucracy, is that it creates commissions?
Speaker 1: One of the ways you can slow things down, in a bureaucracy is to sort of put together, like, a commission to study something, and then years will pass and nothing has happened.
Speaker 0: You said all these things, you recorded, so if you could just elaborate a little bit more about what that means. Byron?
Speaker 1: I'm not really interested in having this conversation.
Speaker 0: Well, you've already had the conversation. Yeah. I have it all recorded. So Lovely. So if you could just clarify for the American people, because people are really interested to know more about how the deep state operates.
You clarified quite a bit. I have you on hidden camera. In fact, I was standing next to you Yeah. The whole time. It's so creepy.
Well, I think it's really creepy that the deep state is operating the way that you describe it. Bureaucracies creating commissions to slow things down. You even mentioned the word crushing, incoming leadership.
Speaker 1: RFK Jr. Is very bad a very bad pick for HHS. There's a good chance that the bureaucracy just crushes him.
Speaker 0: Do you recall you saying that?
Speaker 1: You guys hired someone to go on, like, fake dates with me.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's investigative reporting. That's
Speaker 1: definitely not a credit to you, but okay.
Speaker 0: What do you what what about the deep state? What what look.
Speaker 1: No one denies that the bureaucracy exists.
Speaker 0: Do you think it's a good thing? That the bureaucracy exists. Do you think it's a good thing for the bureaucracy to do what you were describing?
Speaker 1: I think that, in general, the bureaucracy ought to implement the policies of the elected leaders. I also think the bureaucracy has a responsibility to advise our elected leaders as best they can. Mhmm. There's a reason we don't have politicals throughout the civil service. It's only the top.
Speaker 0: And what exactly is your role at the White House or the adviser to the White House?
Speaker 1: I'm I advise on research and development policy.
Speaker 0: Mhmm. I see.
Speaker 1: Are we done here?
Speaker 0: I don't know. You tell me.
Speaker 1: You're gonna follow me into the subway?
Speaker 0: I will not be following into the subway. But I'm fascinated. The American people wanna know how this bureaucracy operates, and I think you've provided some clarity. So I thank you very much for that.
Speaker 1: Have a nice night. You too.
Speaker 0: Byron, adviser of the White House, very much shocked. Have a good evening, Byron. There he goes, shuffling along. Yeah. Some very interesting reactions on the streets of Washington, DC, Byron at the White House.
Just sort of slowly, he goes he's sort of waddling along. And, you know, I think he was surprised at first, but he kinda talked to us a little bit. I think he's just in a state of total shock. And you know what? Bureaucrats in Washington, you're on notice.
Okay? You are on notice. You either say these things openly and publicly and transparently or we catch you on tape, also known as investigative journalism. It is the nadir of immorality to hide these things from the public, and that's why we record you. We're gonna be recording you en masse.
Stay tuned. Reporting from the streets of Washington DC. This is James O'Keefe in disguise. They never recognize me.
Fisher Capital | Endorsed by James O'Keefe
Fisher Capital was founded with the objective of helping as many families as possible safeguard their retirement savings from downturns and crises. Let us help you now.
fishercapitalgroup.com
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
"You are on notice. You either say these things openly and publicly, or we catch you on tape," asserts @JamesOKeefeIII while confronting Byron Cohen (@ByronCohenMA), an advisor at the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, after @OKeefeMedia released undercover footage showing Cohen admitting that ‘the deep state is real.’ O'Keefe pressed Cohen to clarify his earlier comments about the bureaucratic structure, which Cohen claimed operates by "creating commissions" to protect “its own interests.” Cohen responded defensively, saying, “I’m not really interested in having this conversation.” O'Keefe replied, “You’ve already had the conversation. I have it all recorded.” Despite Byron’s attempt to deflect, O'Keefe continued questioning his views on the bureaucracy. O'Keefe asked whether it was a “good thing” for the bureaucracy to operate as Cohen had described, to which Cohen responded, “In general, the bureaucracy ought to implement the policies of the elected leaders.” He added that the bureaucracy also has a responsibility to “advise our elected leaders as best they can,” noting that only the “top levels” of the civil service were political appointees. O’Keefe concluded, “I think you’ve provided some clarity, so I thank you very much for that.” Cohen, visibly shocked, began to waddle away, but O'Keefe made a final remark: “Bureaucrats in Washington, you’re on notice… We’re going to be recording you.” @realDonaldTrump @POTUS @RobertKennedyJr @HHSGov @HorizonIPS @karolineleavitt
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a leaked audio recording of Marana High School Physics teacher Les Beard, who defied a Trump executive order by teaching students about the existence of more than two genders. During the lesson, he discussed androgen insensitivity syndrome, explaining that individuals with this condition can have XY chromosomes yet appear female. He dismissed the executive order by asking students, “Are these guys?” and made a sarcastic remark about Trump’s stance. I reached out to the school for comments, but the response was unhelpful and dismissive.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
LEAKED AUDIO: Tucson High School Physics Teacher Defies Trump Exec. Order, Misleads Children By Teaching There Are More Than Two Genders: “All of These Women Have XY Chromosomes” “Are these guys?” “Mr. Trump says so.” https://t.co/wspqp9N2Ek
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
"It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality," declared @realDonaldTrump, in an executive order implemented to restrict the teaching of a concept known as "gender identity.” An exclusive audio obtained by the Citizen Journalism Foundation (@TheCJFdn) reveals Marana High School (@MaranaHS) Physics teacher Les Beard openly defying the Trump-era executive order by instructing students on the existence of more than two genders. During the class, Beard introduced androgen immunodeficiency syndrome (AIS), stating, “all of them [individuals with AIS] have an XY chromosome.” He went on to explain how traditional males “have an XY chromosome,” and continued with, “all the females have XX chromosomes.” According to the NIH, "Complete Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a rare disorder affecting 2–5 per 100,000 genetically male indivuals," with Beard misleading students by contradicting the NIH and referring to people affected by AIS as "women." Beard further explained, “If you're not sensitive to androgen, the male organs will not develop, and the female organs don’t quite develop either, but usually all of these women will have female sex organs,” he detailed. He added, “They do have male sex organs as well, in their body. So if you take an x-ray of them, you'll see what guys have. But if you were to look at them, they look quite ordinary [female].” Beard explicitly brought political rhetoric into the classroom, asking students, “Are these guys?” before jeeringly remarking, “Mr. Trump says so,” overtly dismissing the President’s executive order. CJF contacted Marana High School for comment and spoke with Alli Benjamin, the Director of Public Relations and Community Engagement. Benjamin responded curtly, stating, "I don't have a comment at this time." When asked if she could provide a statement by the publication deadline, she replied, "Happy to provide something on my timeline," suggesting that she was being inconvenienced. Benjamin then proceeded to hang up the phone. @POTUS @JDVance @VP @Linda_McMahon @usedgov
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
@realDonaldTrump See below the full recording of Marana High School Physics teacher Les Beard instructing his students on the existence of more than two genders, in defiance of a Trump executive order: https://t.co/4rXu6sdoiO
Video Transcript AI Summary
All of these women have XY chromosomes and a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome. Typically, women have XX chromosomes and men have XY. In this condition, if the body is not sensitive to androgens, male sex organs do not develop properly, and female organs may also be underdeveloped. Despite having male organs internally, these women appear outwardly female. Most do not discover their condition until adulthood, often when they realize they haven't started their menstrual cycle like their peers. A doctor's examination, such as an MRI, reveals their genetic makeup, leading to confusion as they have identified as women throughout their lives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And and and all of them all of them, have a condition called called androgen immunoeficiency syndrome. And and all of them have an x y chromosome. Now now women, probably everybody in here, all the females have x x chromosomes and all you guys have x y chromosomes probably. But all of these women have x y chromosomes. And what happened was when they were babies, fetuses I guess, this this condition that's supposed to androgen, there's If your body is sensitive to androgen and you've got x y chromosomes, you develop male sex organs.
And if you're, x x and, you develop female sex organs. But if you're not sensitive to androgen, the male organs will not develop and the female organs don't quite develop either. But you usually all of these women look have female sex organs. They do have male sex organs as well in in their body. So if you take a if you take an x-ray of them, you'll see you'll see what guys have.
But if you look if you were to look at them, they look quite ordinary. So what are they? Are these guys? Mister Trump says so. None of them found out until adulthood.
Usually don't. You usually don't find out that you're an x y chromosome person until until you're an adult and all your all your friends in high schools have started menstrual cycles and you never have. And so you go to the doctor and you ask why and why have I not started a menstrual cycle and and then they give you a MRI and they find a surprise. And and they tell you, well, you're really a guy. But none of them really believe it.
They've been women all their lives.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Two years later, the truth keeps marching forward. @JamesOKeefeIII’s resilience and vision have paved the way for something greater. At OMG, we’re proud to stand with James and continue the fight for transparency and accountability. Onwards and upwards!
reSee.it AI Summary
I received an update from Alli Benjamin, the Director of Public Relations and Community Engagement for Marana Unified School District, regarding the leaked recording of Marana High School Physics teacher Les Beard. Benjamin emphasized the district's commitment to providing challenging academics and a supportive learning environment. She outlined policies that guide teachers to focus on state standards and maintain neutrality without sharing personal beliefs. The administration is dedicated to ensuring these expectations are clear and upheld by all staff.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
UPDATE: @TheCJFdn has received a statement from Alli Benjamin, Director of Public Relations and Community Engagement for Marana Unified School District, regarding the leaked recording of Marana High School Physics teacher Les Beard defying a Trump executive order by teaching students about the existence of more than two genders. Benjamin stated: "We are proud to provide our students with challenging academics, full extracurricular offerings, and experiences that enhance their personal growth and development. To help provide optimal learning environments for all students, we have adopted policies that provide guidance and expectations for teachers and staff, including: 1. Teaching to the state standards that are focused on course content. 2. Providing a learning environment where teachers remain neutral and refrain from sharing their personal beliefs and opinions. Our district is committed to making sure these policies are clear and honored by all staff. The administration will follow appropriate guidelines detailed in district policy to ensure all staff fulfill these expectations."
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
UPDATE: Per an update to @ByronCohenMA's LinkedIn, he has parted ways with the White House, and is now solely a "biosecurity fellow" for the Horizon Institute for Public Service (@HorizonIPS). https://t.co/zokeGYjfTv
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
BREAKING: @JamesOKeefeIII Confronts BlackRock Recruiter who Denies His Own Words and Hides in Police Station After Questioning https://t.co/tEkskzUp0y
Video Transcript AI Summary
Is this seat taken?
Actually, that person works for me. Live from the Bronx, I'm James O'Keefe with OMG. You work for BlackRock, right?
Yes, but I don’t consent to being recorded.
You don’t have to; it’s a one-party consent state.
I’m not interested in talking if you’re recording.
You mentioned that BlackRock buys politicians.
I didn’t say that. I’m just a low-level employee.
But you did say it on video.
No, I didn’t.
You said it’s not about who the president is, but who controls the wallet.
I’m nobody. I was just trying to impress someone.
We’ll expose more people at BlackRock.
I’m going to the police station to ask them to stop you from following me.
James O'Keefe here, outside the police station, where the BlackRock executive is discussing my presence and denying his previous statements about Ukraine and buying politicians.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey there. Is this seat taken? Someone's gonna come back, but, what's up?
Speaker 1: Well, that person actually works for me. Live from the Bronx. This is James O'Keefe with OMG. My name is James O'Keefe,
Speaker 0: and I'm with, OMG. You work for BlackRock. Is that right? Yep. That's true.
Okay. First of all, I don't consent it to mean you're recording the movies.
Speaker 1: You don't have to. This is New York. It's a one
Speaker 0: time state. No. I know. But yeah. But, well, okay.
But you asked me some questions, but please don't record me right now.
Speaker 1: I can't agree to that.
Speaker 0: I mean, you work for
Speaker 1: a very powerful institution.
Speaker 0: Then I will not talk to you. Well, just let's take a look at what you say here. They buy they buy politicians a big
Speaker 1: ton of money, you're saying? Like, you
Speaker 0: can take this big ton of money, and then you can start to buy people.
Speaker 1: Ukraine is good for business. War is good for business.
Speaker 0: Ukraine is good for business. You know? Right? War is real. Business.
My first question is,
Speaker 1: who have you bought?
Speaker 0: I haven't. I'm I'm just, well, to to first to clarify, I'm like a low ladder person. I'm like a nobody. I don't wanna be interviewed in any way. Well, you've already been interviewed.
How does BlackRock control the wallet of the president? BlackRock does not. That's what you said.
Speaker 1: Not your words. It came out of your mouth.
Speaker 0: 3rd. No. I did not say that.
Speaker 1: Yes. You did.
Speaker 0: Let me tell you, it's not who's the president is. It's who's controlling the the wallet. I am I'm actually I'm a nobody. I'm literally a nobody.
Speaker 1: But you just said you just said you didn't say the thing that you're on video saying.
Speaker 0: Yes. I did not say that BlackRock does. Yes. You did. And who is that?
The hedge funds. BlackRock, the banks. These guys are not bad. I'm literally I'm a nobody. I'm literally a liar.
You don't even know my position at this. I was trying to impress a person on
Speaker 1: a date. What's your name? Right. But did you
Speaker 0: see my LinkedIn profile?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We sure did. We're putting it in the video. We're gonna go after people who are bigger than you throughout BlackRock. You're just one of many.
Speaker 0: No. No. I I You're exposing.
Speaker 1: Just don't touch me. Okay?
Speaker 0: Oh, oh, no. Sorry. I'm not touching you. I'm not trying to personal stuff. I'm trying to get through.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So why is it exciting, though? Why is it exciting?
Speaker 0: It's exciting when goes wrong. Right?
Speaker 1: Tell me why war is exciting. Right? Sir? Where are you going?
Speaker 0: I'm going there.
Speaker 1: You're walking into the police station?
Speaker 0: Do you like to follow me?
Speaker 1: I'll stand right here.
Speaker 0: No. No. Come on. Come on. Come on.
You want
Speaker 1: me to follow you into the police station?
Speaker 0: Yes. What are
Speaker 1: you gonna do with the police? What are you gonna say to the police?
Speaker 0: I'm gonna ask them to make you stop following your people. Have no expertise on anything that you're asking me.
Speaker 1: K. What is your expertise?
Speaker 0: Just just recruiting people. That's it. Where do you work? Okay.
Speaker 1: Where is he where is he go? He's going in the police station? He literally walked from the restaurant into the police station.
Speaker 0: Were they gonna arrest?
Speaker 1: I I I maybe him. Maybe they're gonna arrest him. He's handed himself into the NYPD folks. James O'Keefe here standing here in The Bronx, The Bronx, New York at the corner of Kingsbridge Avenue and 200 and 36th Street. I'm standing outside the precinct.
The Black Rock executive is inside the 50th precinct talking to the police about my presence here on the streets of New York with a microphone and cameras, asking him questions about what he said regarding the Ukraine war, buying politicians, recruiting people to work at BlackRock, an institution that manages 10, $20,000,000,000,000 in his words. I wanted to ask him what he meant by that. He told me that he's a low level guy, that he just recruits people at BlackRock. He he also denied saying the things that he said. He denied using the words that he used, suggest I was taking out a context.
I asked him what he meant by that. When he walked into the police station, the police kinda gave their shoulders a shrug like, oh, it's journalists live from the Bronx. This is James O'Keefe
Speaker 0: with OMG.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m excited to share that James O'Keefe is hosting a webinar to empower us in exposing corruption and fighting for the First Amendment. He’s dedicated to teaching others how to shine a light on the truth through impactful storytelling and video production. This is a crucial moment for our country, and we need to unite as citizen journalists to stand up to power. Join me this Wednesday at 7pm EST to learn the fundamentals of getting a story. Reserve your spot now!
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
What you’re witnessing NEEDS to be exposed and James O'Keefe will teach you how. Learn how to fight for the First Amendment and gain the confidence to speak truth to power. James is focused behind the scenes on teaching hundreds of others how to expose the corruption, write headlines, and produce videos like he has. The truth is at stake; The entire country is at stake. There is only one truth and it can’t be hidden. Exposing corruption requires standing up to power because power hates sunlight. They have awakened a sleeping giant. They can’t ruin us all. There is strength in a community of citizen journalists coming together, having each other’s backs and acting courageously as a team with hundreds, thousands of people doing what we do. There is no time to waste, the time is now. This Wednesday, James O'Keefe will teach you the fundamentals of getting a story. Wednesday @ 7pm EST Reserve YOUR spot now: http://www.OKEEFEWEBINAR.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
You need to invest in this movement. Everyone has a story to tell, and I receive countless ideas daily. My next step is to clone myself by teaching others how to expose corruption and create impactful content. The truth is at stake, and exposing it requires courage and community. Power hates sunlight, and together, we can stand up against it. This Wednesday at 7 PM, I will teach the fundamentals of storytelling at o'Keefewebinar.com. Join us as we build a movement that expands into every state and community. We the People are coming together to hold the corrupt accountable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You need to invest in me. You got a great idea. They need empowerment to get In Puerto Rico? I could change you. You could give me a lot of information.
Yeah. I wanted to advocate not not so much for a school board or anything like that that I know about, but one of a friend of mine. Because I mean I mean, every day I get sent a 100 ideas. How how do I choose which ones to do? Everyone has a a story to tell.
Everyone needs me to expose something. Every single person that's come up to me just now Yeah. Wants me to help them. What is James O'Keefe's team going to expose next? I'll tell you what I'm going to do next.
I'm going to clone myself. That's right. I'm focused behind the scenes right now teaching hundreds of other people how to do what I do, exposing corruption, writing headlines, producing videos, the ones that you've watched and liked while I'm teaching other people how to do it. You see, the truth is at stake. The entire country is at stake.
And there's only one truth, and that truth can't be hidden. Exposing corruption requires standing up to power. And the one thing I've learned about power is it absolutely hates sunlight. They've awakened a sleeping giant of people who want to do something, people like you. And while they can try to ruin me, they can't ruin all of us.
There's strength in numbers, in a community of people banding together, having each other's backs, and acting courageously as a citizen journalist team. And as a community, 100, thousands of people doing what it is that I do. And there's no time to waste either. The time is actually right now. This Wednesday, I will teach you the fundamentals of getting a story.
7 pm, o'Keefewebinar.com. Sign up now. And in the coming months, you will see this army that we're building expanding into every state, every state house, every city council, every school board meeting, all of you are unnoticed. You're being watched. We The People, empowered through OMG, we're coming after you, you corrupt bastards.
Exclusive LIVE Webinar | O'Keefe Media Group
Master the Art of Investigative Journalism with James O'Keefe
okeefewebinar.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I just watched the live premiere of "Line in the Sand" featuring Tucker Carlson and James O’Keefe in Fort Worth, TX. O’Keefe's debut film, streaming exclusively on The Tucker Carlson Network, dives into the hidden realities of the U.S. border crisis through his signature undercover investigations. It's a powerful call to support whistleblowers who bravely expose corruption. If you're interested in helping, there's a donation link available for the Citizen Journalism Foundation.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Tucker Carlson and James O’Keefe: “Line in the Sand” Trailer Premiere LIVE from Forth Worth, TX @JamesOKeefeIII takes the stage with @TuckerCarlson to announce the premiere of his debut film, Line in the Sand, streaming exclusively on The Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork). O’Keefe exposes the hidden realities of the U.S. border crisis, brought to light through his renowned undercover investigations. To support courageous whistleblowers who risk it all to expose corruption, visit https://secure.anedot.com/citizen-journalism-foundation/donate.
Video Transcript AI Summary
James O'Keefe joins to discuss his upcoming documentary, "Line in the Sand," premiering on TCN on October 10th. The film follows his journey with Venezuelan migrants, capturing their experiences and the complexities of immigration. O'Keefe embedded himself with the migrants, documenting interactions with cartels and revealing the financial motivations behind human trafficking. He highlights the struggles of border patrol agents, some of whom are now whistleblowers, expressing their frustrations with the system. The documentary aims to shed light on the realities of immigration and the systemic issues at play. O'Keefe encourages support for whistleblowers and the Citizen Journalism Foundation, which aids those exposing the truth.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wanna bring on the first of a couple guests tonight. I wanna bring on a man called James O'Keefe, whom I've known here I'm, like, bragging. I knew James O'Keefe before he started shaving. He may have shaved, but I've known him a long time. And James O'Keefe is a very talented man.
And so when we left our old world of subscribe to TV shows and sit there and watch them into the new world, which you now occupy and are really enjoying, and created our own network, TCN, we thought, you know, we should do long form programming. And one of the first people we decided to partner with was James O'Keefe. And he has created a film that, that's gonna air on TCN on October 10th, a line in the sand, that I think is a pretty amazing film. And what sets it apart from most of the documentaries you see on topic including immigration is that James O'Keefe, being James O'Keefe, actually went down and got on top of the migrant train and rode with the Venezuelans. Here's the trailer to the movie, and then talk to him about it.
Speaker 1: We got a unaccompanied minor right here, guys. This is heartbreaking right here. Those those criminals are being caught with the kids? They're fighting the criminals with the kids. Does sacrificing your value system and integrity to feed your family make you a bad person?
Stop the car. Stop the car. You're you're very upset.
Speaker 0: Stay right there.
Speaker 1: Get down. It's not about people. Follow the journey of the immigrants. It's just all about money. The journey of the children and the journey into human nature.
Speaker 0: I I should say one thing I love about not just James, but all people and all my friends have almost all have this in common. You know, life throws you stuff and kinda knocks you off, and the people who get up and keep going are the ones that I respect. And, Mike Tyson has a great quote about this. Everybody got a plan till you hit in the face, and, James and I have been both hit in the face recently, and he's still making great art, I think. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tucker. Hit in the face a lot. Yes.
Speaker 0: So so tell us, just give us the outline of what you did to get the story because it's amazing.
Speaker 1: This is the most insane movie you'll ever see documentary. We we actually embedded with the illegal immigrants and follow their journey from South Mexico to their final destination. We were with the cartel that the film opens with the cartel cutting through the fence, and then cursing me off. We put audio recording devices to record everything. Moments that you wouldn't even believe that are real, we captured on video.
I wanted to show people what's the true reality, which is a lot more complicated than people think. And we went to New York City. We got the fake residences, the fraud, all on hidden camera. And we're releasing it with you, Tucker. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: So well, we're honored we're honored to do it, but the reason I haven't done it is because I don't wanna get killed. So, like, can you just do that? This is a business. It's a business human trafficking run with the help of the Biden administration, but by the cartels.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We we almost died. We one of my colleagues got kidnapped by the cartel, Anthony. They destroyed all of his cameras. I was detained by the Mexican National Guard and Mexican immigration, and I was wearing a hidden camera in my watch, and I recorded all of it.
So
Speaker 0: Wait. Can I ask, I mean, once they found out they were holding James O'Keefe, that's kinda like an obvious peril? Right? Did they know who they had?
Speaker 1: I don't think they realized what was happening, but they eventually realized that I was an American, and they were afraid of what I had captured on video. So this is a remarkable I mean, there's one moment when their cartels cutting through the fence, and they tell me in Spanish, they said, you need to let us finish our work. As a border patrol agent just stood by and watched. And the film is called Line in the Sand, because in our country right now, people are facing a crisis of conscience. People are having to do things they don't want to do in order to feed their families.
And I heard that a lot in this film. I'm just doing my job. I'm just doing my job. Police officers, federal agents, and and but they're conflicted inside. They're torn inside.
Until the film, we get to the part where there are whistleblowers. In this film, people in the federal government blowing the whistle and nobody knows that yet until it premieres on your site.
Speaker 0: Let's let's let's see a clip.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We have a clip here of me, to set this up. I got on the beast train in Iraquato, Mexico. I climbed aboard a freight train with Venezuelans and rode it. So a little scene from the film here if we can put that up on the screen.
Yeah. Tie up her shoes because when you get off a big train, you don't wanna get the laces tangled up in there. The Theramex train conductor signaled to the immigrants not to take this train, but the next one. This is a good one. This is a good one.
This is
Speaker 0: the best one to travel. Oh, is that it down there? We gotta run. Let's go.
Speaker 1: No. Oh, they're fine. Get. That's us. So So that might I think that's the chain right in front of us.
Next one. Next one down. Next one down. Oh, yeah. Go.
You got this, brother. Come on. Yeah, Marty. You got this. You got this.
Look. It's alright, buddy. Oh, right here. What is this? It's coal.
Coal pellets. We barely did that. It was moving. We're just we barely did that. Did that just happen?
Holy shit. Just that just happened? I guess it didn't. America, we made it. We made it.
There's actually people waving at you the entire way, and they're cheering you on, and they're excited to see you. You got shantytowns right here. They wave at you. Everyone is so nice. Line in the sand.
Speaker 0: So amazing. I I I just want your top line conclusion about what we're watching here. So we've had tens of millions of people come into our country, and if you watch the media and change the country forever, totally destroyed huge parts of the country. That's true. I've just seen it, and those who live here know what I'm talking about.
But the way that it's explained to us is that you have sort of people from around the world showing up looking for better opportunities, which I'm sure is true on some level. But it sounds like you found a business run by like devil worshiping drug gangs.
Speaker 1: Yeah. In short, it's like that old adage, follow the money. What I discovered is that everyone is making money off this. And I think we kind of already know that, but it was shocking. I mean, so shocking.
Everybody is being paid off. The federal government is giving 1,000,000,000 of $1,000,000,000,000 from health and human services to fund places here in Texas that I snuck into, secret child encampments here in the state of Texas to house half a 1000000 unaccompanied children. And everybody is talking about how they're making all this money. That's what it came down to. That's what I saw.
Even the cartel said, we've got to get paid. You gotta let us finish cutting this steel beam. We put audio recording devices on the beams to listen as they traffic people across. So this is an opportunity for you to actually see it. A lot of documentaries talk about it.
People think about they know, but you actually are immersed in it. And it is so shocking. I, you know, I I was actually there's a scene where I'm visibly blackpilled because the border patrol agent, why did they watch it? And they just shrug their shoulders, and they say we can't do anything about it.
Speaker 0: You know, when you feel for them, I mean, I I know a lot of them, and I think they're decent people that there isn't anything they can do because the politicians are refusing to do anything about this. And the reason that I'm so excited about this film is because the people who are supposed to be representing us, especially in this state like, what does Dan Crenshaw say to this? Like, honestly, why aren't why isn't anyone stopping this? No. I'm I because they can't deny it when they see this.
Speaker 1: I I have a a positive thing to say, and there's a man in this film. I'll I'll give you his first name. His name is Zach, and he's watching it right now. He's a border patrol agent in this film who decided to blow the whistle on the Department of Homeland Security, and and he he's giving he's giving an interview in his vehicle, in his uniform. He's a hero.
And you contrast all the feckless, morally weak people in this country who are not willing to take a stand with the ones who are. And I found out, Tucker, that just 2 days ago, the border patrol sent a cease and desist letter to him for appearing in this film. And as a result of that, I got wind over the last 24 hours that 5 more border patrol agents are going to blow the whistle as a result of this film. And one more thing. And so naturally, the the investigative reporter, I go, this guy is actually on the Canadian border.
I didn't even realize the Canadian border was overrun. It is. Oh, yeah. You're you're from Maine. I was in Vermont.
So I go up there this weekend to get comment like I do, and the state police detain me for trying to ask questions of the border patrol agents. So this is a giant system, and I mark my words, I promise you, there are going to be dozens of federal whistleblowers coming forward in the next few weeks. And the question for you is, are you gonna have their backs?
Speaker 0: You are doing what our media establishment should be doing, required to do and is refusing to do and bless you for it. And when you find that, I will be honored to air all of that. James O'Keefe.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tucker. Thank you. If you support portal patrol agents like Zac, please support us at Citizen Journalism Foundation. We provide funding to help these brave whistleblowers and legal defense funds. Here is the information for Citizen Journalism Foundation, and stay tuned for the movie, Line in the Sand, premiering October 10th on the Tucker Carlson Network.
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a shocking undercover video where a National Security Council advisor claims Joe Biden can't speak coherently. Henry Appel, a former spy, expresses concern about Trump targeting them. He also mentions the emotional toll they've experienced, saying, "We're trauma-bonded... there were a lot of tears."
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
SHOCKING UNDERCOVER VIDEO: ‘Joe Biden is Dead;’ National Security Council Advisor Inside the White House Details Biden "Can't Say a Sentence." Henry Appel, a former spy who currently works at the Intelligence Programs Directorate for the NSC, reveals: 'We’re concerned about Trump coming after us.’ "We're trauma-bonded... there were a lot of tears."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Henry Appel, an adviser at the National Security Council, shared anecdotes about President Biden's confusion during calls and meetings. In one instance, Biden mistakenly called the NSC office looking for Jake Sullivan, not realizing Sullivan was on the same trip. Appel noted Biden struggled with basic words in briefings, leading to misunderstandings. He mentioned the emotional impact of Trump's victory, stating his team felt "trauma bonded." Appel expressed concerns about the incoming Trump administration potentially targeting them for past actions. He humorously revealed that his dating profile highlights his tendency to overshare. Lastly, he discussed feelings of being sidelined by Kamala Harris during the campaign.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, here's the tea. Joe Biden is, like, best gay. She's, like, Kim, just say this. She's, like, really, like, progressed. It is old age.
Yeah. Everybody
Speaker 1: recognized. Baby. Everybody
Speaker 0: recognized. I can't believe it wasn't a bigger scandal. He'll be dead in a year.
Speaker 2: Meet Henry Appel, an adviser for the National Security Council. Henry Appel shared that president Biden had called the NSC White House phone while on a foreign trip looking for NSC advisor, Jake Sullivan. Henry told the president that in fact, mister Sullivan was not at the White House, but on the same foreign trip as president Biden.
Speaker 0: My boss was on an Internet with him, like, 0 or something. The phone rang in the office, and I was like, oh, mister president. I was wondering, they were like, he was like, you stayed there. He's like, no. He's he's traveling with you.
He's on the same trip as you are. In
Speaker 2: another encounter with president Biden, Henry Appel from the National Security Council revealed a phone call exchange. On the call, Biden was asking for NSC adviser,
Speaker 0: I was, like, the last one in the office. I'm gonna be a call for my boss. And so I picked up and said, love is present. Like, this is Henry on Jake's phone. He's up for the day, but I can try to get later, same thing.
I picked up again. I was like, how's the hi, Ian. It's Henry. She was like, is she there? I was like, no.
You called the same office.
Speaker 2: Henry Appel stated that president Biden did not understand basic words in meetings at the White House.
Speaker 0: Another time my boss went in to brief him, I heard the time points. I said, like, oh, this is like a novel phenomenon versus a thing. It's like it's new. Like, it hasn't been done before.
Speaker 2: Henry even goes on to say, on his dating profile, his greatest strength is quote, oversharing on the first date. You can't make this shit up. Henry Appel states that we, referring to his team at the National Security Council, were crying the night of Trump's victory, claiming they are all, quote, trauma bonded.
Speaker 1: So everybody's probably, like, We shared trauma. Yeah.
Speaker 3: It's the thing. Traveler bond.
Speaker 0: We're trauma bond. We're trauma bond.
Speaker 1: Yes. What was it like?
Speaker 4: But he might just found out.
Speaker 0: There were a lot of tears the next morning. Care. Take I gotta find a new job. New job.
Speaker 2: Then Henry Appel shares, to our undercover journalist, White House officials and national security officials are concerned about the incoming Trump administration coming after them for things they may have done wrong.
Speaker 0: We're also, like, concerned about, like, Tim coming after us.
Speaker 1: Yep. That's awesome.
Speaker 0: Say, like, in the CEO, say, whatever.
Speaker 2: In recent months, many of our fellow Americans experienced unprecedented natural disasters and damaged infrastructure, making access to health care essentials impossible at the very moment it was needed. When disaster strikes, being prepared is your best defense. And now I'm excited to share with you the brand new field emergency kit from our friends at the wellness company, the ultimate survival kit for any situation where medical help is not an option. Inside this rugged waterproof case, you'll find essential medications that cover over 60 conditions that you can encounter along with a detailed 85 page doctor written guidebook. This ultimate kit includes amoxicillin, an essential for treating bacterial infections and antivirals and antiparasitics like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, medications that are critical in situations where you're exposed to respiratory viruses or parasites.
And for those facing potentially life threatening allergic reactions, the field kit includes epinephrine, the generic EpiPen, along with vital first aid supplies such as tourniquet and wound and burn treatments. Natural disasters are happening at record rates, so I urge everyone to get the ultimate field emergency kit from our friends and supporters at at the Wellness Company by going to twc.healthomg. That's twc.healthomg. And now you can save 50% just by using code OMG at checkout. Meet Henry Appel, an adviser at the intelligence programs directorate for the National Security Council.
Within the NSC, Henry Appel works within the intelligence programs directorate. According to multiple government websites, the division is responsible for overseeing and coordinating intelligence activities across various US intelligence agencies, providing the NSC with crucial intelligence analysis to inform national security decision making, essentially acting as the primary point of contact between the intelligence community and the National Security Council on intelligence matters. Henry met our OMG American Swiper on a dating app in Washington DC, and spoke more in-depth about his NSC job and his background, even mentioning he was a spy at one point in his career.
Speaker 0: We're it's an awesome career working, like, intelligence. So I work in the intelligence programs director of the street council. Help. So we give, like, all of the senior policy makers, like, all the secrets. Yep.
It's like diplomacy and international relations, like, for the core operating. My office is, like, super involved there.
Speaker 1: Making the a How was that drawing?
Speaker 0: Careful.
Speaker 1: I'll see that
Speaker 0: for a while. I thought I was gonna be a spot.
Speaker 1: I thought I
Speaker 0: was gonna be a spot. I don't think so. And I did that for a little while.
Speaker 2: Prior to the undercover meeting, Henry
Speaker 0: Biden is is,
Speaker 1: like, not a letter. But
Speaker 0: He, like, can't just say his that he really? He's, like, really, like,
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. On the call, Biden was asking for NSC advisor Jake Sullivan. Henry told Biden that Sullivan had left the office for the day. Biden stated he would call Sullivan's personal phone. Instead, Biden called the same office 10 seconds later asking for Sullivan again.
Biden asked, is Jake Sullivan there? To which Henry stated, no. You called the same office, mister president.
Speaker 0: A couple weeks ago, I was like, the last one in office. They made me call from my boss.
Speaker 1: Right. Just
Speaker 0: And so I picked up and said, well, I was president, like, Henry on Jake's phone. He's up for the day, but I can try to get it. I have one for you.
Speaker 1: You don't
Speaker 0: And he, like, asked me some questions. I was like, I don't know, like, when we get the, keep track of your doubts. And I'll call the secret service detail, and I'll
Speaker 1: send him Probably not.
Speaker 0: I know it's okay. I'll, like, call his, like because he called me on the classified phone. So it's like, I'll I'll try his, like, unclassified phone, like
Speaker 1: What's the it's a stat.
Speaker 0: And then he called, and then I was like, okay. Well, let me know if you have any trouble. And then, like, 10 seconds later, same hour, these now for you. No. And I did.
Speaker 2: In another encounter with president Biden, Henry Appel shared that president Biden had called the NSC White House phone while on a foreign trip looking for NSC advisor Jake Sullivan. Henry told the president that, in fact, mister Sullivan was not at the White House, but on the same foreign trip as president Biden.
Speaker 1: Another time. This is the last week,
Speaker 0: high box was on an Internet for Skype with him, like, 0 for some date. And, the phone rang in the office, and I picked it up. And I was like, oldest president. Henry, he was like, you skate there. He's like, no.
He's traveling with you. He's on the same trip as you are.
Speaker 1: I don't
Speaker 0: know. That was, like, a year He'll be dead in a year, or he'll be like out of public life.
Speaker 2: Henry Appel from the NSC even stated that president Biden did not understand basic words in meetings at the White House. Here's another experience he had with president Biden. Take a look.
Speaker 0: Another time my boss went into briefing, I heard the talking points. And,
Speaker 1: I What?
Speaker 0: I said, like, oh, this is, like, a novel phenomenon person. Like, it's, like, it's new. Like, it hasn't been done before. My boss said it, said, like, piece of notes, and I was like, like, no. I'm like, what do you mean by upload?
Leave me not.
Speaker 1: What's You didn't know the matter?
Speaker 0: I guess. Well, just like the word, like, the true meanings of the word not really, like, he was lost
Speaker 2: there. Henry Appel states that we, referring to his team at the National Security Council, were crying the night of Trump's victory, claiming they are all, quote, trauma bonded because of Trump's victory. I gotta find a new job. Okay. Just to
Speaker 0: so everybody's caught it, like, people
Speaker 1: We shared
Speaker 3: trauma. It's the thing. Traveler.
Speaker 0: We're trauma
Speaker 1: bonded. Yes. What was it like
Speaker 4: when you guys found out?
Speaker 0: There were a lot of tears the next morning. The first one there.
Speaker 2: Then Henry Appel, National Security Council shares to our undercover journalist that White House officials and national security officials are concerned about the incoming Trump administration coming after them for things they may have done wrong over the next 4 years.
Speaker 0: We're also, like, talking about, like, Tim coming after us. They have
Speaker 1: to have lots of money if they would. Of course. She's hurt. Like, how the, like, the alien children. Chris?
What would that They make up like a fake scandal.
Speaker 0: And just
Speaker 1: like, like, even jail.
Speaker 0: No. Not in jail. Yeah. They're like in my CEO, so whatever.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe the new administration should come after this national security adviser. After all, he is in the National Security Council, and he's sharing secrets and spilling tea to a stranger in a restaurant. Henry even goes on to say that on his dating profile, his greatest strength is, quote, oversharing on the first date. You can't make this shit up. Our OMG American Swiper asked Henry Pell if they thought Donald Trump would win the 2024 election.
Henry also went on to mention that Biden's team felt like they got pushed aside by Kamala Harris during the presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: I do think,
Speaker 4: turn the
Speaker 1: fucking boom. Oh, shit.
Speaker 0: So that's Kamala rant. Terrible campaign. She could
Speaker 1: call us. She doesn't believe in anything. I'm
Speaker 0: my god. I know that, like, Biden and his son, like, fell close to me to not like that they got pushed aside.
Speaker 1: Oh, like, wait. So
Speaker 2: In the last meeting with Henry Appel, Henry showed up to the restaurant, but he didn't find his date. He found me outside of the restaurant waiting for him. Here's part of that conversation. Hi. Hi.
Henry? Henry Appel? National Security Council. Hi. I gotta ask you a question.
What the hell is the guy who's an adviser to the National Security Council doing spilling the quote tea to an undercover journalist? Stay tuned for that full interaction with Henry to see how he responded. And if you're on the inside of the White House or any government institution and notice corruption or lies hidden from public view that you want us to disclose to the American people, please email us tips at o'Keefemediagroup.com or text us at this phone number here, 914-491-9395, and our journalism team will get back to you. Thank you, and stay tuned.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently came across a statement from Raja Cholan, the NIH Chief of the Health Data Standards Branch, where he expressed skepticism about COVID vaccines. He mentioned that he hasn't received the latest shots and questioned their effectiveness, stating there's mixed evidence regarding their benefits. He also raised concerns about the risks for younger individuals, asserting that he doubts the vaccines actually prevent COVID.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
ICYMI: "I PROBABLY SHOULDN’T BE SAYING THIS OUT LOUD;" NIH Chief Says COVID Health Initiatives Were "Made Up" Raja Cholan, Chief of the Health Data Standards Branch at the NIH, admitted to doubts about COVID vaccines: "I haven’t gotten the latest COVID shots, and I’m not going to... there’s mixed evidence about if it really does anything." He also raised concerns about risks for younger individuals and questioned their effectiveness, adding: "I don’t even know if these vaccines stop you from getting COVID. They don’t."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Raja Chohan discusses concerns about the NIH's funding of research in Wuhan, China, and the accelerated approval process for mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. He expresses skepticism about the safety of these vaccines, particularly regarding myocarditis, suggesting that the true implications may only become clear later. He critiques the arbitrary nature of guidelines like the six-foot social distancing rule, indicating it lacked scientific basis. Chohan believes that having a Democrat in office might be better for the NIH, hinting at the complexities of political influence on health institutions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Raja Chohan is with the National Institute of Health. What do you think about the NIH now that you were working there? Probably shouldn't be, like, saying this out loud. They might have funded Wuhan a lab in Wuhan, China to, like, make and Pfizer and Moderna, I was getting a bunch money from it from all these vaccine mandates. For other vaccines, like measles or whatever, you have to go through several rounds of approval, but these were accelerated through the approval.
Do you think that those like, the mRNA vaccines faint? Because it's, like, really fucked up with the myocardial stuff. Well, I think we're all gonna learn when it's too late. Like, the 6 foot rule. Remember that?
Like, that wasn't, like, based on any real evidence that that did anything. It was completely made up. I don't put it up. I'll put it up. I'll have people speak or be real with I think it would be worse for the NIH.
I think it would be better for a Democrat to be in office. We sometimes fly under the radar. That's not recorded. Right?
reSee.it AI Summary
In Bethlehem, PA, I discovered an election judge alone in a room handling ballots, which violates Pennsylvania law requiring a team of officials for tabulation. When I arrived to ask questions about the process, another official quickly joined the judge, indicating potential misconduct regarding the oversight of ballot counting.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
Bethlehem, PA, 11:30 PM - Pennsylvania Election Judge Found in Room Without Required Oversight for Ballot Tabulation In Pennsylvania, 25 Pa. Code § 301.13 prohibits a hand count of ballots by a singular election judge, stating, "The tabulating of ballots shall be conducted by a team of election officials." However, in Bethlehem, PA, an election judge was found alone in a room, seemingly handling ballots without the required oversight. When OMG showed up to ask questions and inquire about the process, the judge was quickly joined by another official, suggesting that the original setup may have been in violation of state law.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where people are waiting hours to vote. At Lehigh University, students are gathered, and there's an official counting votes. It's important to refer any media inquiries to Becky Bartlett from the public information office.
There are concerns about the legality of a hand count being conducted by a single judge, as Pennsylvania law requires a team of election officials for this process. Initially, it seemed one judge was counting alone, but after our arrival, it appears there are now two officials present.
In Allentown, factories are closing, and in Bethlehem, people are filling out forms and waiting in line. We're reporting on these developments to ensure compliance with election laws.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're here in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. People waiting for hours and hours to vote. Lehigh University throngs of students. We still got an official on there who's doing some vote counting here and Becky Bart. If if media arrive at your phone location, please refer them to Becky Bartlett, public information office.
Is there is there supposed to be somebody else with you? No. Just you? Is that the state law? I told you to call me back.
I tried calling the numbers, but they're not picking up the phone. Can you Pennsylvania state law 25 PS section 30113 does not permit a hand count of ballots by a singular judge. So if the election judge is all by himself doing a hand count, that's like likely a violation of the law in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. But now, after we've showed up here, we talked to the guy, I thought he came. Now there's 2 guys in there.
Because we showed up, the guy there in the black sweatshirt is saying, he's in there all alone, and he ran in there. So we don't know what the issues are here, but we're reporting the law. If they are counting hand count ballots by a singular judge, tabulating equipment must do it as a team of election officials. This guy all alone here in Bethlehem. When we We're reporting what's going on.
Sitting here in Allentown, and they're closing all the factories down. Bethlehem, they're killing time, filling out forms, and standing in line.
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm live from Mt. Laurel, NJ, where voters are facing over four-hour wait times. Many are calling this situation a disgrace. I've been speaking with frustrated individuals who have been standing in line for hours without any updates or explanations for the delays. This lack of information is affecting their ability to vote, and they are eager for clarity on the reasons behind the long wait.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
LIVE from Mt. Laurel, NJ - Voters Waiting in 4+ Hour Long Lines, Voters Are Calling This a "Disgrace" @JamesOKeefeIII is on the ground in Mt. Laurel, NJ, speaking with voters who have been waiting in line for hours with no clear explanation as to why the process is taking so long. Voters are expressing frustration, as they’ve been standing in line without receiving updates or information. The delays are impacting people’s ability to cast their votes in a timely manner, and many are seeking clarity on what’s causing the holdup.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Long lines in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, have led to significant wait times for voters, with reports of waits reaching up to four hours. Many voters expressed frustration over the delays, citing issues with voting machines that were down earlier in the day. Some individuals returned multiple times, hoping to cast their votes, while others left the line, unsure if they would return. Despite the inconvenience, many remained determined to vote, with some bringing chairs and water for the long wait. The situation has drawn attention to the need for improvements in the voting process to accommodate the high turnout.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You've got a 4 hour long line in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. We got a lot of complaints about the lines here.
Speaker 1: Not working
Speaker 0: at all.
Speaker 1: How
Speaker 0: long you guys are waiting in line?
Speaker 1: I've been But that's what what's not been
Speaker 0: Half an hour just to go about yeah.
Speaker 1: Just 30 minutes. Yes. A half an hour. That's all. And
Speaker 0: then you've got another 2 hours to go. Are you gonna wait that long? Hopefully. Waiting a long time. How are you doing?
Nice to see you.
Speaker 1: Oh, gosh. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You brought the car the the chairs here?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. We we didn't know. We came and saw the mark, went back to Walmart and saw the chair.
Speaker 0: You came first. You came back.
Speaker 1: Nice.
Speaker 0: A number of people have come back multiple times. How long have you waited here?
Speaker 1: Not too long. About half an hour. Half an hour.
Speaker 0: How do you feel about the process?
Speaker 1: Well, we wish there was no thanks to Esther, but You gotta do what you gotta do.
Speaker 0: You gotta do what you gotta do.
Speaker 1: And it's nice to see all these patriotic people.
Speaker 0: Yes. It's very nice.
Speaker 1: Coming out to
Speaker 0: How long do you anticipate waiting
Speaker 1: to go? Working for the clock. Well, we're gonna wait as long as we can.
Speaker 0: Long as it takes.
Speaker 1: What's the
Speaker 0: what does it close here?
Speaker 1: 8 o'clock.
Speaker 0: 8 o'clock. So you could be waiting 2 to 3 hours to go. You're okay with that?
Speaker 1: Well, it'd be happening.
Speaker 0: Did you bring water, food, or anything like that? No. No. No. We get the forest in case we need to go to the bathroom.
That's what I did. Because we've been running around.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you. I see you.
Speaker 0: I look to Bergen County, but we've been going around. So how do you feel about this process?
Speaker 1: Go to the log jam.
Speaker 0: Log jam? How long do you expect to wait? So we're
Speaker 1: we're being told 4 hours 4 hours. From back there.
Speaker 0: So So just get that shot again. That's 4 hour long lines here in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. Yep. And, did you come earlier or is
Speaker 1: this your It's my 3rd time here. 3rd time here today? You said you said you're 3 times 3 times.
Speaker 0: 3rd time's a charm. Yeah. Hopefully.
Speaker 1: Hoping it was gonna move a little quicker, but back to square one and waited longer than, you know, we were way to go. So
Speaker 0: And and, and heard hear anything in happening inside? Have you heard any stories or reports of it?
Speaker 1: So they just I guess they had ordered up a 4th, voting machine Mhmm. That came and was programmed along the district. The state is not gonna shut down that night.
Speaker 0: Voting machines. Yeah. We heard something about Dominion people being here, so that's interesting.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Let us know if you hear any more about that. Good morning.
Speaker 1: Good morning. This is John.
Speaker 0: John, nice to see you.
Speaker 1: Yes. Constantine, guys. Nice meeting you. Nice to meet you.
Speaker 0: Right. We're we're standing here in, James O'Keefe. We're standing here in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. If you're just tuning in, we've got long lines. How long have you been waiting here?
Speaker 1: We're an hour here. They said about 5 hours.
Speaker 0: Last hour?
Speaker 1: Morning. The machines were down from 6 to 9 this morning.
Speaker 0: 6 until 9. The machines were down. 6 until 9.
Speaker 1: Hour backup.
Speaker 0: 3 hours.
Speaker 1: That's disgusting. Right? How long
Speaker 0: have you been waiting here? An hour. An hour. And how long do you
Speaker 1: anticipate waiting? Another 3
Speaker 0: and a half hours.
Speaker 1: Another 3 hours. That's what
Speaker 0: they're telling me. That's why people have chairs here, and and,
Speaker 1: how does it make you feel? Oh, it's here. Good times. Thank you. Thanks.
Wow. I I I you're
Speaker 0: about you're about to get on the line. Yes. So you're about to wait 4 hours to go.
Speaker 1: Yes. How do you feel about that? I it's my duty.
Speaker 0: It's your duty. Yeah. To bring food?
Speaker 1: No. I already ate.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. They're eating the legs. The end of the line. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I served this country for 8 years. Really? About to pick mine with a person.
Speaker 0: Well, it closes at 8 o'clock and 6 o'clock. If you're in line. Oh, if you're in line, they'll let you know. Okay. How are you feeling about this?
You feeling
Speaker 1: good? Yeah. Feeling pretty good. Just neck and neck.
Speaker 0: Hey. Hey. Have you heard anything about the machines inside? They're saying
Speaker 1: they're coming in. Okay. Here. Yeah. It's a different machine than what we're used to, they said.
Okay. But it's a different machine, they said. How? Do such a dull machine. Such a dull machine.
Or you're used to to press the you're used to have x and so forth. Now it's like a computer screen from what I hear. What do you
Speaker 0: think about that? I think it's better. I think it's better.
Speaker 1: Because then it's more secure, I believe. Mhmm. That way, they they can't In Any complaints? It's what I found is they find fraud because they're found out. Mhmm.
I mean, they find fraud because it works. Where did you serve?
Speaker 0: I do. Sir, great here. Where?
Speaker 1: Yes. The army. The army.
Speaker 0: Let's not let's not disrupt the voters, guys.
Speaker 1: Who's the army? Oh, Great.
Speaker 0: Thank you for talking to us.
Speaker 1: Oh, you're welcome. 4 hours. 4 hours. 4 hours.
Speaker 0: It's ridiculous. Was it worth it?
Speaker 1: Oh, are you debiting me or filming?
Speaker 0: We are. We are. We're we're in the news, so we're on a livestream thing here.
Speaker 1: It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace. I don't have people that are older like myself wait in line this long. It's a disgrace.
Speaker 0: Did you, did you have a new machine or something?
Speaker 1: Half hours. At least 4 and a half. And one machine is in there broken.
Speaker 0: The machine, they're broken.
Speaker 1: One's broken. Way to go. Sitting in there. It's too simple. It's too simple.
Pleasure. Yeah. It's a disgrace.
Speaker 0: Wow. Disgrace. We've heard a lot a lot. Well, thanks for talking to us. Sorry.
Thank you.
Speaker 1: You were in the news then. What what paper? Hey, Keith. Oh, Keith. James of Keith.
Yeah. Is that a
Speaker 0: It's a we're investigative reporters. We've been in Philadelphia most of the time Wow. Exposing the the, noncitizen towing. So so yeah.
Speaker 1: And just really upsetting.
Speaker 0: I've heard that this is a very, like, republican area. Is that
Speaker 1: No. To the contrary.
Speaker 0: No. To the contrary. Okay. Some think. Someone told me this is a very red area.
Speaker 1: Oh, really? I'm not like that.
Speaker 0: And is this your were you here for 4 hours in a row?
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 0: So you got here at, like
Speaker 1: I can tell you they're coming out now.
Speaker 0: I will talk to them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well, thanks for talking to us. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Flag? 4 hours and 20 minutes. 4 hours
Speaker 0: Yep. 20 minutes. From the
Speaker 1: stop side, I got here 1:30.
Speaker 0: 1:30. Yep. 420. Yep. Also smells like pot over there.
It really smells really bad, like disgusting marijuana, like the really foul stenting with the mix of manure, and it's 4:20. 4 hours and 20 minutes. You had to wait. So if you look at this door right here, this is the exit area where we're allowed to get real close, but we can't get close to the enter area or something.
Speaker 1: We're just gonna talk to these people. They're made 4 hours to vote in Mount Vernon,
Speaker 0: like, post traumatic stress disorder. Very frustrated New Jersey people. Alright. Here we go. How long did you have to wait?
How long did you have to wait to vote?
Speaker 1: So, it's just over 4 hours. Got here at 1:45. How are
Speaker 0: you feeling?
Speaker 1: Alright. So we're going, buddy.
Speaker 0: Okay. Alrighty. Good. It's the same kind of comment. I don't know if this is typical or unusual or, an anomaly.
Lord knows. But we're gonna just stay for a few more of these guys and talk to them. It's quite fascinating. And, yeah, try to get some information about what's happening with the machines here
Speaker 1: in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.
Speaker 0: She's tired. Can't hear the
Speaker 1: That's good.
Speaker 0: How long do you have
Speaker 1: to go to the boat? Pardon? How long do you have to reach the boat? 4 and a half hours.
Speaker 0: 4 and a half hours? Yep. Wow.
Speaker 1: It's going right down. How are you feeling? Good. Good. Good.
I think it's a shame. Some people earlier Yep. That were leaving because the line was just too long. They thought they're gonna come back. So whoever is running this here, there were problems earlier, I think, and then they had to get another boost in, and they really should Wow.
Should definitely be something to accept because some people couldn't vote, and their boat is avoiding.
Speaker 0: Some people couldn't vote. They left the boat.
Speaker 1: They left, and they think they're gonna come back, and I don't know. It's not as much longer. So 4 and a half hours. So get out and vote. Four and a half hours on some people
Speaker 0: leaving the line and saying they're gonna come back. Some people did come back, and some people did not come back.
Speaker 1: Some people come back.
Speaker 0: All of town.
Speaker 1: Very red. Very red.
Speaker 0: How long do you have to wait to vote?
Speaker 1: 4 hours long. It's ridiculous. But where I was at, they only had 2 ladies taking in everybody, but 8 voting stations. So you really only get 2 people at a time.
Speaker 0: Why do you think that's happening?
Speaker 1: Some people might be afraid as a part of the process. They're afraid. Why do you think it's taking such for so long to supposed to happen? I think there's gonna be record numbers this year. Record numbers.
So that's gonna add to it. And, also, well, I challenged last election, but it is what it is. And so if there's any of that this year, then that may head to the next. Alright. Rick.
Rick. Thanks. Nice to see you. I hope some people walking out the circle. Where's your phone today?
It's 5 minutes. 5 minutes? Because my desk room didn't pass. I'm not sure when I got here.
Speaker 0: So He's been here for 4 hours.
Speaker 1: I know. How long how long do you guys wait to rent both mine quantity blue line broke? I got here a quarter of 2. A quarter of 2? Yes.
You were there.
Speaker 0: So I
Speaker 1: was at this point. Yeah. Let's He's not he's not my car right here. 5 hours. 4 hours.
4 and a half.
Speaker 0: 4 and a half hours. 4 hours worth it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, no. He was that's why we're here. That's good. How's it gonna be?
Speaker 0: 4 hours, 4 and a half 4 and a half is the most amount of hours that we've heard people have had to wait to vote here in mountain. But I think we think we got enough stuff, and we should go to the next location and keep reporting on what we're doing. And for those of you watching, I guess, again, I appreciate you. We were trying to do this live. It's insane.
Pretty wild. But I think we move on to the next location. Scott, pick it up again. We'll be back with you soon.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a recent discussion, I shared how the inspiration for "Line in the Sand" came from following a bus, which led me to uncover an NGO in Phoenix profiting immensely. This project isn't about political sides; it's about exposing the exploitation happening around us. Partnering with Neil Patel and the TCN has amplified our message, focusing on untold stories that highlight human tragedy and corruption. After six months of post-production and over 1,200 hours of footage, we aimed to challenge viewers with uncomfortable truths. The film is now available on the Tucker Carlson Network.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
James O’Keefe and Neil Patel Discuss Line in the Sand with TCN Mar-a-Lago | Red Carpet Premiere When asked about the inspiration for "Line in the Sand," @JamesOKeefeIII shared, “A ticket agent told me, ‘Follow the bus, O’Keefe.’ So I did, and it led to an NGO in Phoenix making hundreds of millions of dollars. I tweeted it, Elon Musk retweeted, and I thought, maybe I should follow these buses wherever they go.” “It’s not about left or right,” O’Keefe notes, “it inverts the narrative…people are being taken advantage of, literally trafficked. It makes you rethink the way the world is.” Partnering with @NeilPatelTDC and the @TCNetwork has brought the film into the spotlight. “This project is exactly what we want to do—tell the truth and tell important stories that the media should be covering but isn’t,” Patel adds. “It’s a real story of tragedy and graft, and James told it in a way that brings out the humanity at the center.” From six months of post-production to over 1,200 hours of footage in seven languages, O’Keefe and his team spared no effort in creating a powerful piece that challenges viewers to face uncomfortable truths. "Line in the Sand" is available now, exclusively on the Tucker Carlson Network. Visit https://tuckercarlson.com/lineinthesand to watch!
Video Transcript AI Summary
The idea for the film sparked when I followed a bus from the Phoenix airport to an NGO, discovering financial exploitation of immigrants. Partnering with Neil again is great, as we aim to tell important stories that mainstream media ignores due to bias. The film reveals the harsh realities faced by vulnerable children, highlighting the trauma they endure and the government funding that supports this crisis. It’s emotionally overwhelming, and I believe it will resonate with audiences and drive change. While I’m focused on this project now, I’m open to future topics, but for now, I’m just grateful to have completed this film.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back. On all the red carpets.
Speaker 1: On all the red carpets here just for you and just for this movie. Let's start off with one thing. Tell me what sparked the idea of this film? Like, what is the initial moment?
Speaker 0: I was in Phoenix airport going to Charlie Kirk's event and a ticket agent, American Airlines said there's a bus outside. Follow the bus, O'Keefe. So I followed the bus to an NGO in Phoenix. I looked at tax return. They're making, like, 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars.
I tweeted that out. Elon Musk retweeted it. And I thought maybe I should follow the buses where they go. And I said maybe I should just go to Mexico and follow the entire journey of the immigrants. And that's what we did.
Speaker 1: Destruction there. Perfect. And how do you feel about partnering with mister Patel here on Tucker Carlson Network?
Speaker 0: I've known Neil actually since the daily caller, like, 5th 14 years ago. Like
Speaker 2: Long time.
Speaker 0: Like, when Andrew Brightfort was alive and and he they published some of our videos. So I the NPR video in 2011 was a big partnership. So it's great to be working with Neil again and I'm very blessed to to have Tucker as a association of Tucker on this because it's such a he's such a big presence in the world and and, we are very very aligned on many things.
Speaker 1: This kind of feels a little bit like bucking the corporate narrative. Tucker, pairing with you, you've been a big supporter on independent work, kind of going out there and doing stuff yourself. Do you feel like this is the right direction for where independent news and kind of news in general can go?
Speaker 0: Well, I think what makes this particular project so unique is that on the left right dynamic, I don't think this film falls into that dynamic. It kind of inverts the narrative because people say it's about the humanity of the people, but what we exposed in the film is the people are being taken advantage of. Literally traffic, children are being put in these organizations and given to sponsors, and churches in New York City are monopolizing them and stealing money from them. So it kind of inverts the entire narrative, make sure we think the way the world is. And I think Tucker's done that in his career very well with what he's doing.
So I think it fits quite well with his brand.
Speaker 1: Do you feel like you could've imagined this is where you would end up with all these years just starting out at Daily Caller and now it's grown into this?
Speaker 2: You know, I don't know what I would've imagined, but it's it's really so needed. And what James did with this movie is exactly in line with what we wanna do, which is tell the truth and tell important stories. Important stories.
Speaker 1: Stories that
Speaker 0: the media
Speaker 2: the rest of the media should be covering, and they're just not because of their own bias and corruption. And he told an amazing story. And as he said, it's not even that political. I watched it with my daughter. It's not a very political person, and she was blown away.
It's a real story of tragedy all around and also graft all around. And that's the kind of stuff we wanna do is just tell these stories that should be being told by, you know, every other media company.
Speaker 1: And just a little bit to bit on the film as well. There's a moment in there where you follow the kids because they're being taken into a van. They won't tell you where. Do you feel like that there is some way within the next election that these kids could be found, they could be saved? We kind of don't know where they are.
Like, there's
Speaker 0: really incredible moment in the film. It's emotionally overwhelming for people when you see the little girls all alone in the desert. We're just standing in the wall and there's just 9 year old girls, clothes tattered, drugged. I think that people are crying in the theaters and it's I didn't even show the worst things and people were just emotionally over just by the sight of that 9 year old girl. So I think the solution is I don't think people realize this is happening and if we just need to keep showing them and hopefully, congress or whoever is in charge of things does the right thing.
That is not my job as a as a as a filmmaker is to expose it in a way that affects people. But it was surprising to me to see how how just that one girl affected people so much. Just wandering. I mean, how scared she must be. And and you could see that she's been through trauma and she will go through trauma.
And the government's funding it. Our taxpayer dollars are funding this crisis. And I think that's a lot for people to to handle. This is a very emotionally overwhelming film and it highlights the absurdity and the irony of our circumstances. In a way only really a movie can.
So I I believe it will go mainstream and I think it'll change things.
Speaker 1: Any plans for our next film part 2? Okay.
Speaker 0: Let me get through this here. Let me get through all this. Look at all this. This is a lot to handle here. Yeah.
It's a lot of work. I mean, it was 6 months of post production. I can't it was beyond I mean, I directed it so I was not I was in the room for 6 months, 7 foreign languages, 1200 hours of footage. It was a lot of work. And and and if you want a really great product that's that's what you have to that's what you have to do.
Speaker 1: If you could if you could dream of anything next coming, what would you want to touch on? Oh, man. I I anything next coming, what would you want to touch on?
Speaker 0: Oh, man. I I don't know. I I got lucky that I kinda survived this one. Like, we we I have like 9 the cat has 9 lives and the train and the cartel and all that. I mean, eventually, the luck will run out maybe.
Speaker 2: So Hailey, the the truth is to answer that, he'd have to tell you where all his secret cameras are right now.
Speaker 0: He's not gonna tell you that. I can't I can't answer certainly. It's okay. Do you
Speaker 1: feel like you could've imagined this is where you would end up with all these years just starting out at daily caller and and now it's grown into this?
Speaker 2: You know, I don't know what I would have imagined, but it's it's really so needed. And what James did with this movie is exactly in line with what we wanna do, which is tell the truth and tell important stories. Stories that the media the rest of the media should be covering, and they're just not because of their own bias and corruption. And he told an amazing story. And as he said, it's not even that political.
I watched it with my daughter. It's not a very political person, and she was blown away. It's a real story of tragedy all around and also graphed all around. And that's the kind of stuff we wanna do is just tell these stories that should be being told by, you know, every other media company.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, perfect. Thank you so much, you guys. It was wonderful talking
Speaker 0: to you.
Speaker 1: Have a great night.
Speaker 0: You are a bully bomb. You fake address? Because you are a bunch of thieves of criminals. You are still children.
Speaker 3: Every single agent knows Deepen is hot. What's going on is wrong. Children get in traffic every day. We don't take their biographical info. We're very busy up there.
We're over land, and a lot of the times, we outline people on the street to court people never show up to with children
Speaker 0: we can't keep track of. We've got a car on the Mexican side right in front of us. Do you see the lights? Those might actually be pickup vehicles. We are actually witnessing human pickup vehicles in the American side.
There's a ladder. There's a ladder. There's a ladder. Oh,
Speaker 2: shit. Oh,
Speaker 0: No. Get the ladder. He's got the ladders. There's a car right there. Look.
They're hold. They've got ladders, and he's running through the shrubs. He's running. Why don't you over there?
Speaker 2: I can't wait. What? They
Speaker 0: were threatening us, telling us that we're interrupting their work.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing the story of Aaron Veckey, a Border Patrol agent with 19 years of experience, who is speaking out about the dire conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border. Inspired by another whistleblower, he reveals human rights violations, describing scenes of freezing families and chaotic struggles for basic needs. Veckey highlights the pressure from cartels and bureaucratic forces to remain silent, even after filing reports with the Office of Special Counsel. He prioritizes his conscience over his pension, choosing to expose these injustices.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
BREAKING: Second Border Patrol Agent BLOWS WHISTLE on Border Crisis: ‘My Conscience Will Be Clean, That’s Way More Important Than My Pension’ "The cartels run the border down here,” says Aaron Veckey, a United States Border Patrol agent with 19 years of service, stepping forward to expose the horrific conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border. Inspired by fellow whistleblower Zachary Apotheker (@ZachApotheker), featured in “Line in the Sand,” Veckey brings OMG onsite to his Customs and Border Protection patrol station in Ajo, Arizona, to reveal the disturbing truth. “Where I first saw it [human rights violations] was here, underneath that canopy there,” Veckey shares. “It was just men, women, and children… They were freezing. It was at least 40 degrees.” He describes another instance of extreme conditions, adding, “You got 50 Muslims, 50 Sikhs, 50 Christians, 50 whatever, and they're fighting over shade.” “If they have a thousand bodies for us, as fast as they can bring us bodies, we pick them up as fast and we push them all into this parking lot.” He adds, “They have pushed us around through fear, through browbeating us. They've ordered us to do stuff,” highlighting how U.S. Border Patrol agents are often forced between cartel operations and bureaucratic pressure to keep quiet. Bringing these atrocities to the attention of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), Veckey filed reports detailing the violations, only to be met with a cease and desist letter, ordering him to stay silent. Despite being ordered to remain silent, Veckey is sacrificing his future for justice. Watch “Line in the Sand,” releasing October 10th, only at https://tuckercarlson.com/lineinthesand.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
@JamesOKeefeIII's response to @SGraceClark's request for a statement. https://t.co/UV5SaTCnfh
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently learned from Dakota Leazer, a Google Growth Strategist, that Google has been manipulating its search engine ads to favor the Kamala Harris campaign for the 2024 election. During an undercover conversation, he revealed that Google promotes pro-Kamala rhetoric disguised as legitimate news, misleading users into thinking they are reading unbiased reports. Leazer explained that Google's focus on generating ad revenue drives this bias, as they believe the left represents a more fearful demographic, ultimately prioritizing profit over political neutrality.
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
BREAKING: Google Growth Strategist Exposes Google’s Search Engine Manipulation for Kamala Harris Campaign, Revenue-Driven Political Bias "Google was essentially promoting through its ads rhetoric that was very pro-Kamala,” admits Dakota Leazer (@dakotaleazer), a Growth Strategist at @Google, during an undercover date with an OMG American Swiper journalist. Leazer reveals that Google has been actively coordinating with the Kamala Harris campaign, manipulating its search engine advertisements to favor her in the 2024 election. He explains, “It seemed to link out to legitimate news publication sites. So, it seemed like it was an ad from PBS, but it was really an ad for the Kamala campaign,” making users believe they were reading unbiased reports from reputable sources. Leazer also confesses that Google’s primary objective is to generate ad revenue through fear-based content, explaining, “I think whatever demographic is most fearful is going to be most profitable.” According to Leazer, the left currently represents the most fearful demographic, which is why Google has been pushing pro-Kamala narratives for profit, explaining “I think right now the left is more fearful than the right is.” He further states, “It's all about the share of the stock price,” revealing that Google’s liberal bias is not just political, but tied to financial gain. He adds, “I think Google has a belief that one side will allow them to make more money,” revealing Google’s profit motives through driving political manipulation. Leazer’s admission mirrors past media motives, including CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester’s claim that “fear sells,” reinforcing the role of big tech and media in shaping public perception through fear and bias. @KamalaHarris @VP @KamalaHQ @TeamTrump @TrumpWarRoom
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
BREAKING: O’Keefe Media Group Uncovers Potential MASSIVE Money Laundering into Political Campaigns #FollowTheMoney https://t.co/MiNS63G2rI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senior citizens in the US are donating thousands of times a year, raising questions about potential money laundering schemes. A group of citizen journalists investigated these donations, finding individuals who allegedly made numerous contributions. They visited some donors, like Cindy Ngo, who denied making such large donations. Another donor, Garland Riggs, also denied making thousands of contributions. The investigation aims to uncover whether these donors are victims or participants in a possible scheme. The journalist encourages others to investigate by knocking on doors and asking questions. The data was provided by citizen journalists from Election Watch in Maryland.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: FEC data shows that some senior citizens across the US have been donating thousands of times per year. Some of these individuals' names and addresses are attached to over $200,000 in contributions. We went and knocked on a few of their doors to corroborate the data that we received from a group of citizen journalists called Election Watch in Maryland. This is James O'Keefe with OMG. I'm here in Annapolis, Maryland as an individual who has donated a total of $217,000 made through 12,000 different contributions in a 3 year period of time.
Now sometimes these contributions have been made in variations of his name and variations of his address. You see this chart here? This chart shows a breakdown of the committees that were earmarked to receive the donations made through ActBlue, and this is all FEC and state data. We're wondering if these donors are victims of what appears to be a money laundering scheme or these residents actually participated in the scheme or making phone calls or knocking on doors. These are things that you can do.
We hope you do that. Follow me along and see what happens. This is something that you guys can do. Very easy to do. A lot of homes with bizarre amounts of data showing tens of thousands of contributions made through different, different contributors here.
So with a lot of questions, and we hope the Citizen Journalism Army at OMG can answer them. This is an easy thing to do. Knocking on doors, asking questions, get yourself a little microphone, get yourself a camera. You can use an iPhone. What we're gonna do as citizen reporters is go back to the car and call them.
Right? We're gonna call them. Got a few numbers to call. Contributed 3,000 contributions for $32,000. We the FEC records indicate that you donated $32,000, 3,000 additional different contributions people made at this address in your name.
Are you aware of that happening? No. You're not aware of that happening?
Speaker 1: Talk to Donald Trump.
Speaker 0: Talk to Donald Trump? Well, how would Donald Trump help me answer that question? Hit him with a bat. Hit hit Donald Trump with a bat? No.
Put him in a hit. How would that help me answer this question? It would certainly get you in the news. To do with it see a a scar on his fucking head. Now stop fucking with me.
Woah. Woah. Cindy Ngo of Annapolis, Maryland who in the year 2 1022, allegedly contributed over 1,000 times to ActBlue, totaling $18,849 and 77¢. That means Cindy would have had to donate 3 times a day, every day for the whole year. Hello?
Hey there, Cindy.
Speaker 2: Come on.
Speaker 0: My name is James O'Keefe, and we're doing a story on, the amount number of people that have donated with your address. Did you donate to ActBlue political cause? How many times a month do you donate to ActBlue?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know how many times. I don't understand why why, I'm getting this.
Speaker 0: Well, the question is, you did donate to AdBlue. Right?
Speaker 2: Yes. Once in a while. Yes.
Speaker 0: Did you donate a 1,009 times?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean, I made once in a while, I donate 5 or or so dollars or something like that during election year.
Speaker 0: What about $18,850? I doubt that. Not that many donations.
Speaker 2: No. I don't think so.
Speaker 0: What what would the federal election commission indicates that that much money was donated to ActBlue and Biden for president.
Speaker 2: I wish I I wish I could have donated $18,000 to Biden's presidency.
Speaker 0: How much did you donate?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 0: Order of magnitude.
Speaker 2: I I like I said, I donate $5 once in a while to because I have various charities I like to give to.
Speaker 0: Do you know people are using your address?
Speaker 2: I don't think so.
Speaker 0: So interestingly enough, she said she donates something like $5 a month. But, we're getting kind of a pattern of reactions here as we as we do this. The woman was very nice lady. She talked to us. So interestingly enough, it's even in a even a 2 party consent state like Maryland with the camera out and the open people are still being honest.
This is sort of new to me. Usually, we use the covert cameras, but maybe the camera's a truth serum.
Speaker 1: But does it sound about right? There's been 18,000 contributions Absolutely not. For the Absolutely not.
Speaker 0: In the
Speaker 1: amount of, like, $170,000? Absolutely not. Really? Yes. Okay.
So that's not you doing that? No. It's not. But but but does does does the frequency ring
Speaker 3: a bell that you're donating that much every, like, 10 times a day sometimes? No.
Speaker 1: No? No.
Speaker 3: Do you think someone is maybe fraudulently, debiting your accounts or something? The one
Speaker 1: AdBlue is the one I use for collections Right. Yep. Donations. And I do not make that kind of a political donations. Right.
So right here, yeah. It's 18,672 different contributions that total an amount of $170,000.221. No. No. No.
No. No. No.
Speaker 0: So I'm about to call Garland Riggs. He's the excessive small amount donor. 31,073 individual contributions were made, under his address. He's 80 years old. He lives on the outskirts of DC.
So many people across the country, I'm gonna call him and see if I can make a contribution in his name. And see how he responds. He's either a victim of some type of conspiracy or he's a culprit himself. A lot of these phone numbers are available on white pages, on Google, and other apps where you can find people's phone numbers and information. Hey there, mister Riggs.
Yeah. James O'Keefe. Just asking about those contributions we spoke on the phone. Have you donated to ActBlue in the past? I don't believe so.
You there you're listed as someone who's given, over 31, 1,000 individual contributions to to various causes for a total of $230,000 using your name in this address.
Speaker 1: No. That's that's not us.
Speaker 0: That's not you? Nope. Have you ever donated to to ActBlue?
Speaker 1: Or I think my wife has, but but nowhere near.
Speaker 0: Are you aware that people are using your your name? No. Have you donated to ActBlue in the past?
Speaker 1: I don't believe so.
Speaker 0: You there you're listed as someone who's given, over 31,000 individual contributions to to various causes for a total of $230,000 using your name in this address. How much did you donate to ActBlue?
Speaker 1: So would you say a 1000
Speaker 2: a year? Probably not. Not a thousand.
Speaker 0: Not a 1,000?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I I'm not sure.
Speaker 0: Would the FEC records say that you've given $230,000? No. It it appears that someone else may be committing a crime using your address. I'll email you that information, the FEC records. Well, do
Speaker 1: you think you can find at least some of these individuals?
Speaker 0: That's what I do, sir. So when you do these and you walk up to the home, you wanna say the person's name, let's call them Smith. Smith, did you donate to act blue or Biden for president? Do you know how many times donations were made in your name? Follow-up question.
Did you donate 3,000 times? Right? You asked those questions in that manner in order to elicit honest responses. We have dozens of other homes just in the state alone, but hundreds across the country that match his profile. You can do the same thing, knocking on doors, asking questions, and follow-up.
We can also ask him for comment before we publish the story. We will do that too. This is James O'Keefe reporting on the ground in Annapolis, Maryland for OMG. We received this fact based data from one of our first group of amazing citizen journalists over election watch in Maryland. The Gibson Group and Maryland 2020 Watch have submitted a lawsuit to the US District Court of Maryland com, and we'll make sure you have the information you need to do this important story.
This is James O'Keefe with OMG.