reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @StephenGardnerX
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump during a rally in Pennsylvania, where he appeared to be shot in the ear. Evidence suggests there were two shooters involved. As gunshots rang out, Trump reacted by grabbing his face, and blood was seen on his cheek, causing chaos among supporters. Despite the situation, he raised his fist to reassure the crowd that he was not seriously hurt, while Secret Service agents swiftly escorted him from the stage.
@StephenGardnerX - Stephen Gardner
🔴BREAKING: Two Shooters Evidence Emerges | New Trump Shooting Narrative Taking Shape Stephen Gardner and Dr. Chris Martenson review evidence of two shooters at Trump shooting assassination attempt in Butler, PA. Follow Chris here: @chrismartenson and check out https://peakprosperity.com/ Donald Trump appeared to be shot in the ear as gunshots were fired at the former president at a rally in Pennsylvania. Trump grabbed at the side of his face and blood spattered across his cheek as several popping sounds were heard, sending supporters running for safety. The former president quickly pumped a fist at the crowd to show he was not severely injured, as Secret Service agents raced to the stage to hurry him away.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Service is under scrutiny regarding the Trump assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. Doctor Chris Martinson discusses inconsistencies in the narrative, particularly surrounding the shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, and the circumstances of the shooting. He highlights the unusual proximity of the shooter to Trump, questioning how a 20-year-old with limited connections could execute such a plan. Martinson analyzed raw audio from the incident, noting distinct differences in gunfire sounds, suggesting multiple shooters. Eyewitness accounts indicate emergency service personnel were present but did not act. The investigation raises further questions about the security detail and the actions of those involved. Martinson urges anyone with relevant footage to share it, emphasizing the importance of citizen journalism in uncovering the truth.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Service is being grilled on Capitol Hill. She's already confirmed several key details, which we're gonna go through regarding the Trump assassination shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania. To go through all of this, I have doctor Chris Martinson with me. Doctor Martinson, thank you so much for joining me.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Steven. It's good to be with you and all your listeners today.
Speaker 0: So, you've you've gone viral, on Twitter and other parts of the Internet where you are able to show that based off of the raw audio footage, it appears that Thomas Matthew Crooks was not acting alone. And so I want to I want to get into that with you. We're also receiving information from nearly a dozen witnesses that there was somebody up on the water tower. There's there's so many things going on, but I I wanna mostly focus on the evidence we do have, which is in those those bullets ringing out. And so we'll we'll jump in there.
What what made you first want to look into the the gunshot sounds and see if there was any difference in the the level, the echo, any of that? What what got you started on going down that route?
Speaker 1: Well, Steven, it it was very simply this. The inconsistencies in the idea that this 20 year old kid was noticed and then noticed again and somehow, you know, brought a rifle up onto a roof within a 140 yards of a president. I'm I'm a shooter. I've been shooting for 40 years. I reload my own ammo.
I'm a bit of a bit of a geek, all different calibers, rifles, all that. And and and so the first thing I did was I called some friends of mine who are in protective services, and I said, what just happened? And they said, we don't know because a 140 yards is they would never have left that outside of their their bubble. That wasn't they were like, oh, that first thing. This was law local law enforcement, and they said that's that's not true, that you would never do that.
Their typical, protective buffer, they told me, was 400 to 500 yards. And then outside of that, sure, have cops, you know, municipalities helping out and they're doing, you know, first layer of defense, traffic, stuff like that. But a 140 yards for somebody who knows about shooting, that is a chip shot. You would never leave that undefended. So it was just it was that bizarre moment.
And I said, well, that's really a sour note. What else do I have to begin to think about? And that led me straight into the path of saying, I gotta go straight to the source data here. I can't trust a single thing that I'm being
Speaker 0: told. Yeah. No. I I mean, that's the number one thing that people keep asking is, like, how did this 20 year old boy, with no social media presence, but 2 cell phones and, no real connection to, like, the business world, but 3 international encrypted bank accounts. You know, not a lot of friends, not well known.
He's in a BlackRock commercial as an actor. Like, there's a lot of things not adding up. How did the how did he get in with a ladder? How did he get in with a high powered rifle? How did he get in with a drone to map the whole thing out?
How did he know to pick, you know, the the pie chart area where supposedly, secret service was like, well, that's the perfect shot. Let's leave that vulnerable. So many things are just not adding up, And now we're we're learning that, representative Sheila Davis, who was a very rabid Trump hater, she was over his security detail. She suddenly randomly dies, within 6 days of the shooting. We're finding out that, you know, they took Trump's regular team and shifted it over to Jill Biden.
You know, there's just a a lot of things. Alejandro Mayorkas and Kim Cheadle both said that the Trump the the Trump reelection team had not not requested additional secret service. Now we have the paper trail that they had, in fact, for months been asking. Then we find out that that Trump is the the sole target of an Iran Iranian, assassination plot, yet they thinned his secret service. So there's a lot of mystery, going on, but how how did you get your hands on the the the raw audio, and then how did you, start to analyze that?
Because that's what you do professionally. You're a a professional analyst, and and so tell us tell us about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I always begin let me tell you my methodology. It's it's data. I only start with the data. So I saw a lot of people starting with a hypothesis, which is or or presumption, which is, oh, this kid took the shots, and then they start trying to back solve.
I'm not even starting with that until it's proven where those bullets came from. So the only hard evidence I could get my hands on was the actual audio. That's the first we didn't have any pictures, Steven. We'd, usually, you get the picture of the dead body. They blur it out a little, but there's brass lying all around so you can start counting and and understanding.
You know, you understand what kind of rifle it was, what kind of scope or optics it might have had on it, things that you can start to work with to begin to understand what might have happened. We didn't have any of that. So audio was the best place to go. And I had a lot of people feeding me things, but, also, it's just Twitter x. You know, it it's astonishing how much I would not know if I did not have that.
It's it's really the place I go. And I have a lot of sources and feeds, so people were sending me stuff and and, we got on it pretty quick. So then what I did was I would take the video feeds, pull them down in the highest resolution that was available, and then I would strip out the audio file again at the highest resolution I could, and I feed that into an audio analysis program so I can look at it. And some stuff jumped out right away, when we go into that. Now, again, there's things we don't know.
There's more depth we can we can put in there. But the first thing we could do is just understand that those first three shots sound just so different from the next five if you're standing in a certain spot, which I think gives us a clue. So, can I show a picture here real quick? Would you mind if I'm? I just wanna I just wanna orient everybody, to say this.
So this is the site here. And what we can see here, this is the stage, obviously, that Trump was standing on that little red square right there. These are the stands. And we had 2 victims down at this end where my little red dot is, and then we had the death of, Corey Compartore here. And so the idea is the shots came from right here is exactly where we would have seen Crooks's body afterwards.
And then, mysteriously, we now have reports that very explosively came out yesterday that that one of the eyewitnesses, the that red haired gentleman, his name is Greg Smith, he said that he saw, emergency service unit guys, he called them snipers, in this building looking down at crooks at the time of the shooting. So this gets a little weird. Now I have 2 separate audio recordings we're gonna go over. 1 is taken from here, and this is in direct line with these buildings. These next two over here are very distinctive, Steven, because they are off to the side of this building.
And if we are to believe, and this is what I want people to listen for, is this idea that potentially, if there were 2 shooters, where would that other shooter be? Everybody I've talked to is a pro in this business. You know, there's a lot of people I know who are operatives. They said, well, they he he or she would be in the building, one of these two buildings. So then you would expect the sound to be different.
Right? It might be a little muffled. So that's the setup. We have a recording from right here, and then we got 2 recordings from off to the side here. And and the challenge, the opportunity here is just for people to, listen to this and and see for themselves.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let me clarify one thing before you you do that. When you say we have recordings from, you're saying, like, you got, like, somebody's cell phone recording that we know for a fact they were stand okay. Just making sure I understood what the blue dots were. Okay.
Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Fantastic. No. Great clarification because this is really important that once we have them located, we know we know where we're at. So the first one I wanna talk about is this one here.
This blue dot right here, this is as close as I can locate this particular recording, and it's this recording right here. Here's the sound that I pulled out so we can listen to it separate. But first, just to orient, this is what it looks like and sounds like. Okay. Now did you hear that?
Did that all all make sense?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yep.
Speaker 1: So now we're just gonna listen to us. Now we have the orientation. We can see that the camera itself was pointed this way. It's held in horizontal mode, and it swings over a little. But, otherwise, the camera's in pretty it's not like rotating through space, so we can't say the the microphone's pointing in wildly different directions.
Plus, when a cell phone is in video mode, it tends it has 2 mics in it. One's for when you're making a phone call. It's very directional, and you want that when you don't want other sounds. But when it's in video mode, it switches to what's called an omnidirectional mic, so it's picking up from a wide range. So the first opportunity here is to listen if the first three sound different to you from the next 5.
Plus, there's one last one here I'm calling 6. You'll hear it right at the end, Steven. Totally different sound. And that last one.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: So what what did tell me, what did you hear in there?
Speaker 0: So I hear, what what sounds like, you know, maybe half a second apart, boom, boom, boom, and then screams, and then and then something that could fire faster, and then and then a pause, and then but it almost sounded almost like a slap versus a gunshot or or something. Like, that 6th noise to me sounded very different, but then the 3 and the 5, they also sound very different from each other.
Speaker 1: Right. So that that's that last one, that final I'm not sure what that is yet. That could be an, suppressed round from Secret Service coming in from a long distance, and that's the one that took them out. There's another sound a lot like that that's 15 seconds later. That's the final click.
And so that one, I'm pretty sure though that is actually the secret service round because Trump's mic was still hot and running at that point in time.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: And we have the sound of that round going straight over his microphone at that point in time. And then point 227 seconds later, we have an inbound thunk sound on at Crooks' area. And that's a perfect length of time, point 227 by a 308 round or 300 Win Mag traveling, say, 26 100 feet per second. That would give you about 600 feet, which is exactly where the second sniper nest was that was behind Trump on those 2 red barns. So I'm pretty confident with that one.
So this last one we're hearing in this string has to be a different gun. Possibly, it's local emergency services unit getting a shot on him, but now they would have to explain, Steven, how they were in position to take a shot because what that only place to do that is from that second floor where the eyewitnesses were yelling and seeing them standing there looking at the shooter and not doing anything. That would be the story.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I don't know if you've read this or how are are the those upper windows from the building behind where the the other shooters were, wouldn't they have seen Thomas Matthew Crooks looking towards the backdrop?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So we have to can I talk about that real quick? Yes, please. Yeah. So this is fascinating.
So this is the picture we're talking about. Right?
Speaker 0: K.
Speaker 1: And Justice Coyote on Twitter, reached out to me and said, hey. I think I can place that for you. It turns out there's only one retaining wall. So what we're seeing in this picture is he's on a concrete wall and to his right is grass and to his left is darkness, so that's standard retaining wall where you'd have a higher ground side on the right. It's got grass on it and something lower.
Turns out in that whole American Glass Research Facility, the AGR facility, there's just one retaining wall there that fits the bill, and it's located right there under the window on that second floor of the second building. So Thomas Crooks' body was found here, and that picture was taken right there
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: Out of that. And we can see it more clearly here. Here's that retaining wall on Google Earth. And you have to squint through the tree, but I think you can see it even more clearly if you're willing to squint. And, by the way, just for kicks, when his body was there and there was a helicopter that showed his body on the roof, this window was wide open.
And it swings to the right, and this would have been about you could have shot with your eyes closed with a pistol and hit him because Crooks' body was right here. There was somebody in this room taking pictures of this kid from that window and that raises a lot of questions.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Raises them for me. Wow.
Speaker 1: I hope it does.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I I mean and I I just you know, the the revelation comes out that there was another team there, and and their perched position happens to look right where the shooter is. I don't know. It it it's really weird.
So okay. A a couple things that I wanted to to share with you and the audience that I just looked at is director Kimberly Cheadle. Mhmm. She is refusing to confirm whether there was a second shooter. So, representative Andy Biggs asked her, and she would not.
The other the other thing that I'm reading right now is they are saying that according to their logs, there was only one shot, one single miracle shot from the counter sniper team. So we only have to try to find 1 bullet from the opposite side. So what are all of those other gunshots that we're hearing?
Speaker 1: Well, there is one other thing. The the DA out of Pennsylvania a few days ago said that, that one of the emergency services unit guys took a shot and is currently on administrative leave. So we have one shot that we know about from Secret Service, one from the local emergency services unit that are on record as saying those happened.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So we have those 2, and then we have the 3 and the 5 that we have to worry about. My best guess again is that given the sharpness of that and and let's just listen to it again. So if I'm right and, again, this is speculation. And you know what, Steven? We shouldn't be doing this.
This should be somebody else, doing this kind of a thing for us, but here we are. And, let me get my my clicker back so I can make this this is that last shot we're talking about way out here. Get off it. That last one is a very close rifle shot is what it sounds like to me one last time. Again, those first three, very muffled.
And that last one, obviously, very, very different. So the theory we would have there is though those first muffled ones, if I was gonna guess, the first thing I'd be looking at very closely if I were in charge of this investigation or on it is those sound like they're shot in the direction of Trump. We know that first bullet went grazed his ear, pinged off of a railing in the back. There was another shot that was really close. That second shot, it actually hit, David down at the other end.
And then there was a third shot, which seemed to possibly have struck him again. He has 2 injuries, but, also, there's another gentleman down there who was injured at the same time. So those first three shots were all on target, very, very close.
Speaker 0: Who who was hit twice?
Speaker 1: The fireman? Dave. No. The fireman was was, killed in the last in that last string of 5, those 5 fast pops. Yep.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: So so but let me tell you something about the those last 5 shots were all very much on target, and this is one other thing that I think people need to be aware of and look into. Okay? And and it's this. Those 5 shots, when we measure them from beginning to end, there's the time signatures of them off of that video we were just listening to. It's only 0.775 seconds from beginning to end, and these are what are called splits in the business.
If you're out shooting, your split is the difference between shot 1 or a pair of shots. So if we said the first shot came out at 0 seconds because that's the start of this whole thing, the next one was only a quarter second later at 0.256 seconds, but then we have a point 188, a point 175, and a point 156. Steven, these are the these people at my gun club who shoot competitively do not pull off splits like this. These are really good. Like, this is this is the splits you see on Super Pros.
Okay? Plus, look at the fire discipline. First one, quarter second, but then that's 1, 2, 3, 4. Now I could live with that if it turns out that, those shots were just all over the place. Right?
Because it's very hard to maintain muzzle control while you're firing that quickly. All of those did a lot were downrange, and we picked all of those up on Trump's mic in terms of a a snap. They're coming over, so they're within range of that mic, which means that's not something I would associate with a 20 year old who didn't go to the range that much, who wasn't let on his school's team for being such a bad shot. I'm telling like like, it's this is gonna be a little sophisticated for you, but those splits that time, I would take that and show that to to the best people I personally know who shoot, and they would go, wow. That's some good stuff right there.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Like, I'm I'm trying to, like, think of something bigger. Right? Where, like, let's say, like, barrel racing with a horse. Right?
And you have, like, professional professional barrel racers. They can get from 1 barrel down, loop around, and back, and and you time that. And then someone who's, like, the best in the game sees somebody else do it really quickly, you'd go, wait a minute. Something's really off. Right?
Like, that's how my my brain tried to make it bigger to understand, like, okay, like, though those distances, those collapsing distances would be really hard to do. The other thing that I thought of, Chris, was, you know, unfortunately, I I started having, heart issues after getting delta COVID twice. And so I I've seen my cardiology, echogram, and those those shots reminded me of them pointing out, like, hey. The distance here means this. The spike means a certain thing.
And and so you can see, or at least I clearly see, the first three look like a different heartbeat than the second the second set of 5. And you would go, wait a minute. These look like 2 different hearts. Like, did you introduce adrenaline? Is this 2 different people?
Like, what is going on? And so, anyway, that that's where my brain went is just the sound wave looks very different.
Speaker 1: It it's it's such a great point. I'm glad you put it that way. So so look at this. This is the first group of 3. Right?
And I I'm doing some measurements here to show how how I would go about doing this, and and here's the impulse of the bullet traveling over Trump's mic. So this is a recording from Trump's mic down here. This is a recording from the cell phone near the building we were just listening to. This is an this is an audio track from out in the audience. So we're just lining them up to say, okay.
What are we looking at? And so you have the shot that gets recorded as a snap right over Trump's microphone, and then you have this is the sound eventually of the gun arriving because the bullet travels supersonic. So it comes first. A little bit later, the sound arrives. So that point 22 seconds allows us to tell how far away the gun was because we know the speed of the bullet.
We know the speed of sound. It's a little math. Very simple. So the first three just lined up perfectly. But to what you are saying, Steven, it's such an important point.
This again speaks to trigger discipline because this is somebody who's shooting on a cadence. Normally, you would only see that in somebody who's got a lot of training and who has, who has I mean, because can we be honest about this? I I gotta imagine that that shooting at a president is gotta be a little bit of a nerve wracking thing. Maybe you're gonna be a little jangly. I don't care.
Maybe, you know, you're on some kind of benzos or something, but you're 20 years old is the story, and you're just gonna be taking a shot at the president. To have measured trigger discipline, okay, it's not likely, though.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Like Boom. Boom.
Speaker 0: Even Olympic shooters, as practices, they are they still miss and, you know, like but that that rhythm that you're talking about is like this seems like someone who's very in control of a gun versus a young person who's, like, angry at the world or blackmailed or but, you know, whatever the backstory ends up being, yeah. Something is not lining up just, again, based off of the data that we can see with our own eyes.
Speaker 1: Well, in in all my gun training that I've done, and we do a lot of things where you set up situations and it's you know, they get the the goal is to get your heart up as fast as possible. And the reason, Steven, is that my my instructor tells me that if you actually get in a situation where you actually have to use a gun, you're gonna lose 50% of your training. So you wanna make sure your training wall is as high as possible so that when you fall back to half of it, it's still there. What I'm seeing here is 3 perfectly measured shots and then 5 exceedingly accurate, very measured shots. So whoever was taking those as my theory was falling back to, their level of competence in training.
And or this wasn't their 1st rodeo, and they've been on the on the business end of of this story before. So so it's just it's a little much, but the whole idea that this kid was photographed and they didn't see him and he's on the roof for 2 minutes and there's people everywhere. So I put the beginning of that video and they're like, he's got a gun. Right? You would think that if you yell that anywhere within a 140 yards of the president, they get him off the stage.
Like, he's gone. Like, they, like, they don't Secret Service doesn't ask permission. They don't come up and say, mister president, would it be okay if we remove you? They don't do that. That's they walk up, grab you under the armpits, and you're gone.
And, you know, you get to hear about what happened later. So I don't understand what happened here on any level. It just it just doesn't add up. But I think the audio evidence gives us very clear sign, 2 weapons. And they were and at least one of them or maybe both were fired by what is consistent with professionals.
Speaker 0: Okay. I mean, my my first thought from just what you said right there, the the first three seem very controlled, and then the second set of 5 is is a little bit, less less controlled, but still fast. Right? It almost it almost makes me think of, like, hey. Once you start hearing the bullets, now you start shooting too.
Right? If there was coordination between the 2, and the the real sniper is the one that goes first and the Patsy or the other person is just, you know, I I don't know. I it just like, the the fact that, one of them is very controlled and has spacing, and then the other one is just so I I don't know. I I know you don't have a full answer. I don't have a full answer, but the the information in that data is very, very clear.
Speaker 1: What
Speaker 0: I I know in another video, you talked about how it also could have come from different locations based off of echoing or or something like that?
Speaker 1: Well, we we have, we're doing a fuller audio analysis. There's a whole team of people. We're I'm running a citizen's investigation on this now. So people are sending in leads. I only know how to do limited stuff.
So we're we've got all these other experts. There's somebody's building a full blown three d model. I know there was one out on the net, and everybody was like, oh, look at this. It's got millions of views, but they didn't tell us, Steven, how they got their elevations. Right?
Everything matters. Like so what we really need to know because if we do this really precisely, you can draw a line from Trump's ear to where that bullet glanced off of the railing and just draw straight back, and it'll it'll point to something. Yeah. So to do that accurately, though, we have to know the actual elevation that the one out there right now assumes it's on a football field. It's a flat plain.
Is that true? Does I know it's pretty flat ground out there, but does it even sink a foot or 2 over a 140 yards? Yeah. Did they grade the building and put that, you know, bulldoze dirt around and sink it? I mean, there's anyway, accuracy is gonna matter.
So we have somebody working on that. And we're fully audio analyzing. We're also video analyzing because it's really interesting. We only have a few frames to work with. But the very first shot that allegedly is taken, you can see crooks on the roof, and he's got a gun against his shoulder.
There's no motion that I can see. It's like the it's like pow. No. There's no kick. Now 223 doesn't kick a lot, but you would think there would be a little something something there, and it looks dead still.
But, again, it's a for 3 more frames. You know? We'll we'll work with what we got. And then, we're doing a full reconstruction as well of all of his movements and all that. But you know what I really want?
I need somebody who can get in there. If we could get cell phone data from everybody, assuming those people who are on the 2nd floor, if we can show there's people on the 2nd floor at the time we have that eyewitness saying, I was watching them watch him, and we're trying to get their attention. If we could get that information and say, well, what what was going on, guys? I mean, how are you possibly staring out a second floor when there's a guy down there for 2 minutes? Right?
With people yelling. Right? It it just doesn't add up at all.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I asked another guest, do you do you think that they will do a Boston Marathon bomber like investigation where they started pulling cell phone video from everybody in order to get an a picture from all the different angles, and that helped them, you know, figure out who the person was, when they came in, when they dropped the the backpack with the pressure cooker in it. Like, I have to imagine some of that is out there. Somebody has footage of this guy walking around. They just don't know it.
Mhmm. And and so I I think that that will come out. I know it's early in the, congressional grilling of Kimberly Cheadle. What any predictions on what might come out of this other than her being incompetent?
Speaker 1: Well, I I think we got a taste of it when she tried the it was so lame, the whole oh, that roof was too sloped. You know? That was so embarrassing because that that's a 1.1512 pitch. Like, literally, me and my buds, back when I was in construction, you know, we would we'd play Frisbee on that roof. It's a anyway, so that was dumb.
But but we have some the the real questions don't need to be asked of her. We now finally learned just this past week that the special agent in charge, the SAIC, was a guy named Tim Burke. Now very hard to find information on this guy. I've got a couple pictures, but just a guy. And we now have reports of a mystery guy in a gray suit who apparently climbed up to the the ladder to the crime scene, demanded that all the local law enforcement send him their pictures.
And it turns out this guy isn't secret service. He he there's questions. Was it the SAIC? Was it a guy from ATF? Senator Johnson's on that right now.
I think Maria Bartiromo just, reported on that with him. So we have some mystery characters that showed up. We don't know who they are, but here's the big question. Like, if I was gonna ask one thing of 1 person, not her, the SAIC, if this is Tim Burke, Tim, why did you put both snipers a 100 feet away from each other right on top of the president? Because I was talking with all these guys who set up these teams.
They've done professional, corporate, also military, and also, civilian, politician protection. They say, look. The way it works is you have a a core ring of people who are around the protectorate themselves. Right? So these people all have pistols and body armor and stuff like that.
Then there's another layer out, close quarter combat weapons, but these are your first 100 yard people. They're out there. They're watching. Your snipers are at least 250 yards away, and they're they're in different spots because these guys have 1,000 yard range. You don't want them overlapping too much.
They put these 2 teams so close that their effective range was overlapping by 90%. So why would you do that and then say, oh, we were under resourced. We couldn't manage this, you know, pie wedge building carve out, which is the only other thing you would have to protect. If you put a team on that roof of that second building, it's the most obvious spot. You have complete 360 line of vision.
You can see every part of that complex. You can see everything. Why not there? So I would wanna be asking the agent in charge, tell me exactly why you made this decision at this time. But to back up further, I had a guy who who who went who knows this really well, Steve.
Hey, Steve. Thanks for this. He said, I never would have picked that spot in the 1st place. It's unpredictable. It's a very bad spot.
And it was it was, whoever picked that or allowed that to go forward said he would have fired him for incompetence.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh my gosh. Wow. Yeah. I I I had read, or maybe seen.
It's all kinda becoming a blur just a little bit. But, that yes. Somebody came in a gray suit. They believe that they were ATF demanding all of this information, and then they just, like, disappeared. So we're I I mean, this the mystery keeps growing, which means the conspiracies theories start to grow.
And now, you know, it's like citizen journalists like you and me that are are digging in and and trying to find out. I know that senator Josh Hawley went there. The FBI told them to get the heck out of here. You can't you don't have the authority to question us on this stuff. Yeah.
And, so, okay. Are are there any questions I haven't asked you or anything that you wanted to show my audience? I I feel like I I I don't know what I'm missing.
Speaker 1: Well, there is just this this one last thing that I thought was the most explosive thing. Okay. And and apologies for the for the language I'm implying, at the top of this. But this was a, Gateway Pundit article that came out yesterday, and you they were talking with this gentleman. I'm sure we all saw this guy, interviewed the day after or the day of.
Right? So he tracks this guy down. This guy's name is Greg Smith, tracks him down, and he says here that the snipers in the second floor section of the AGR building were watching the rooftop shooter as the shots rang out and did nothing. He said right there, I was looking at him. His eyes were on him.
Eyes on. And so in a in a better world, Steven, this is big news. Like, this this person, Greg Smith, now should be on every major news channel. They ought to be saying, what did you see? Tell us more about this.
And he described explicitly that there was a guy that that he couldn't couldn't identify him, but he saw that this guy had a a tattoo sleeve. K? He saw that that much was clear. Right? And watch And so, you know, we've all seen the picture.
Right? You see this guy with the big sleeve right here?
Speaker 0: Let me zoom in on that.
Speaker 1: So this these were the the shots just been taken. Crooks is dead on the roof. There's 4 guys, 2 in the black, uniforms, 2 in in the emergency services uniform. These are locals, and there's a guy there with a sleeve. These would have been the guys who would have been up in in that room.
And so, obviously, this would be like some people you have a lot of questions of right away. I would imagine, like, how you okay. We know you took the picture from up there because we have the picture. So you were looking down from that. When did you leave the room?
And when you heard there was a guy on the roof, how long did it take you to get back into that room? And who was it actually that fired the shot that we hear at the end of that to to to to to crack? Who's the crack? Right? Yeah.
Pretty sure it's one of these guys, but, just guessing. So there's a lot of questions there. And if we were having a proper investigation, we would already know answers to these things. But they won't even let Josh Hawley on the site, so that I have no confidence that the FBI is gonna do a credible job on this. And and I'm I'm very worried.
That's why I'm digging into the data so hard and capturing it all because I learned my lesson. This data tends to evaporate into a hole and go away, and then you can't get it. And so I think it's very important what we're doing as citizen journalists. Very important. Yeah.
Somebody has to.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Greg Smith. If you're watching this, come on my show. I will give you a very fair interview Just just so that my audience knows, our our private investigator has tracked him down. We've got his number.
We know we I'm not gonna share anything, because I I wanna be respectful, but we we know everything. And, we've been in contact. We've been told 2 or 3 times, that he does not want to do an interview. My worry is maybe somebody's gotten to him or he's hired legal counsel that is telling him, stay out of this. This is a nightmare.
But, anyway, we we know a lot about this guy. I've been trying to get him to come on. Also, the woman in the black hat behind Trump that is really calm, our private investigator. We know everything about this person. She is also invited to come on and give be given a very fair interview.
Also does not want does not want to come on. And and so we're being respectful, but at the same time, like, if you have answers, we need them. This is a big deal, and and we we want to get to the the bottom of this. Doctor, I I would like to have you back on. I know that you and I share, similar interest in the election situation.
I just had somebody on from Georgia that walked through all of the data that they've now proven. That was a great show. You and I, I believe, have similar stance on big pharma and the miracle shots. So I would love to have you on, but let let's let's let this be the, Trump shooter situation Yep. In in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Any closing words that you wanna say?
Speaker 1: Yes. If anybody has any information, anybody listening to this, if you happen to have a a cell phone video, you were there. You think maybe it doesn't have something on it or it's it's not important. It is totally important. And absolutely make sure you upload that to Twitter or some other place or or send it to me, info@peepprosperity.com.
We're collecting all of this. That way, never ever give your phone over to somebody who says we need to take this as evidence without first downloading those videos because it will come back scrubbed. So that would be my advice.
Speaker 0: Okay. Excellent. Excellent advice. Thank you so much for coming on. If people want to follow you online, where where should I push them to follow you?
Speaker 1: Peakprosperity.com is my website. We got a large community people. We're chewing on this currently. We we we go through COVID, stuff like that. And my name at Chris Martinson on Twitter, and, I'm there all the time.
And, also, I've got a YouTube channel, which is still up for reasons that are mysterious, but it is.
Speaker 0: Great. K. I'll I'll push to all of those. Thank you so much for coming on and helping my audience understand this. I feel like we're gonna get to the bottom of this, but it might be the citizens that get to the bottom of it, not the people that are actually paid to get to the bottom of this.
I appreciate you taking time out of your day, and I hope you have a great rest of your day.
Speaker 1: Thank you. You
Peak Prosperity – Information you can't afford to live without
Information you can't afford to live without
peakprosperity.com
@StephenGardnerX - Stephen Gardner
🚨BREAKING🚨Deep State ALREADY RIGGING The Election Against Trump Explained! https://t.co/NDLrH050PA
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mike Benz, a former State Department official and cybersecurity expert, discusses how the US government has weaponized its power to control media and censor citizens. He explains that the foreign policy establishment, including the State Department, CIA, and Pentagon, has historically used these tactics against foreign governments but has now turned them on the American people. Benz outlines the chronology of how the government established censorship centers within agencies like the Global Engagement Center and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to control social media and suppress populist political movements. He also raises questions about the government's role in COVID-19 censorship and the origins of the virus.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Next to the US border crisis, one of the top things in people's minds are, you know, are our elections free and fair? Also, are we being censored by our own government? If you live in Brazil, the answer is yes. If you live in the United States, I don't know. That's why I have special guest Mike Benz with me.
Mike, thank you so much for joining me today. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 0: So just some brat some, background on you. You're a former state department official with the Trump administration, cybersecurity expert. You've been interviewed, by Vivek Ramaswamy, Tucker Carlson. I believe you just crossed 34,000,000 views on that. What what I wanna know as a as somebody who specializes in cyber, help my audience understand how the government is being weaponized against us and specifically against, conservatives?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, this basically the the story here is about the US government's foreign policy establishment turning the powers that it has to be able to control media abroad, basically towards the citizens of the homeland. So we in the US since World War 2 have had a foreign policy establishment deputized with a department of dirty tricks power to be able to do things to foreign governments and foreign citizens that they're not allowed to do to our own citizens because, ostensibly, it's for the benefit of us living here. For example, the Central Intelligence Agency has a power, to to overthrow governments, to bribe foreign media organizations, to set up its own media organizations. This is this is a power they've had for a very long time.
There's there was Wizzner's Wurlitzer, you know, so called in the 19 forties fifties, which Frank Wizzner got, you know, sort of godfather of the CIA bragging that there were 800 different proprietary news outlets that the that the Central Intelligence Agency was able to play like a Wurlitzer, like an organ to create a symphony of news cycles in whatever region of the globe they want to pipe in. We established things like Voice of America, Radio Free Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, to have, you know, state department and CIA news propaganda piped into other countries around the world. And it's the job of the US state department to essentially put its thumb on the press of every election around the world so that the right parties rise to power to advance US national interests so that we can pry open their market so that our companies, so that Coke and co yo, so that Coke and Pepsi can export there, so that we can have our own oil and gas companies, you know, exploit the, the shale in the region. Same thing, you know, with the the rare earth minerals, with the precious metals, with, you know, the copper, the aluminum, everything that it takes to make a modern economy, it requires the plots of dirt that exist, you know, primarily outside the US.
So we have this empire managerial class in this in this country. The Pentagon, the state department, and our intelligence services. They face outside. They're not supposed to face in. And they're deputized to be able to do these nasty things to foreign countries for the greater good essentially of the Americans who live here, so that we have cheap gas, so that we have lots of jobs because our multinational companies are are have favorable operating conditions because foreign governments essentially do their bidding because they can sick the state department and Pentagon and CIA on them essentially.
The issue was is the 2016 election created a crisis in the foreign policy establishment. Now it goes back a little bit before that. Really, this goes back to the Crimea annexation and the state department orchestrated overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014. The state department, the CIA, the DOD, all backed the Maidan coup against the Ukrainian government, but they were not expecting the countercoup when the Donbas broke away in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea broke away and declared itself in an in a referendum voted for by its own people to join the Russian Federation. NATO was not prepared for that counter coup.
And at that point, they despite piping $5,000,000,000 worth of US taxpayer money into Ukrainian CIA and state department cutouts, it was still not enough to sway the hearts and minds of people in Eastern Ukraine to join NATO rather than to join Russia. And this this was also a pattern that was playing out across Central and Eastern Europe from Germany through Moldova, through through Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. And in 2014, NATO declared a basically new doctrine called the hybrid warfare doctrine that basically said control over the media is now a very important military concern because the media determines elections, elections determine the military posture of a country. And so, basically, the military needs to make a much stronger move into the media. And that was something that was not all that controversial at the time in the United States because it was Central and Eastern Europe.
It was as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, you know, and, Germany who the c you know, was was the the central pivot point of the Cold War. If you if you recall, the sort of spy versus spy of control over Germany. The issue was when Brexit happened in June 2016, Western Europe then became you know, the the threat was now the hybrid warfare doctrine has to extend into Western Europe. And then when Trump won the 2016 election, in November 2016, it was it became a sort of fait accompli that the US government needed to move into control over social media because now elections were being determined not by legacy media outlets picking the winner winners or losers, with those legacy media outlets having essentially a backdoor relationship with the intelligence services, with the state department, with the Pentagon. But I can go over the history of that if you're if you're curious.
But essentially what happened was is in there there's there's 2 things that deter that determine news. There's there's propaganda, there's saturation of our message, and there's censorship, which is the suppression of counter messages. When the power for censorship was discovered essentially in 2016, 2017 through the use of artificial intelligence technology, like natural language processing, these AI censorship techniques, and the ability to just hire tons and tons and tons of these content moderators, especially starting in Europe where it was not all that controversial because they don't have a first amendment. The foreign policy establishment established a plan to basically create a censorship center nerve center within the United States to be able to quarterback censorship to stop the rise of populous political movements all across NATO, here in the US with the Trump movement, also with the Bernie Sanders left in 2016 because left wing anti imperialism is also something that's, you know, they can they can be flanked from both the right and the left, but the the populist right has been much more ascended electorally. But basically, this this censorship, this government censorship apparatus was installed by the foreign policy establishment to stop Trumpism in the US, to stop the Brexit folks in, in the UK, to stop Marine Le Pen in France, to stop Matteo Salvini in Italy, to stop the Vox party in Spain.
It's all across NATO. And the issue is is they thought that if they continue to lose elections, the entire international rules based order would fall apart. And so it became a national security imperative to kill free speech on the Internet.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: And I can go through the chronology if you want of of of of agency by agency how this all happened, if you want.
Speaker 0: Yeah. My brain my brain is trying to understand all of this because, you know, as as I've covered the Russia, Ukraine war, I I've seen more and more how the United States uses NATO to really control these other European countries. But the the infiltration through social media companies, this is new to me. Yes. I I would love from myself and the audience to better understand the chronology of that.
Speaker 1: Right. So what they wanted was an ability to kill social media parties and social media movements and proxies in election here in the US, there is really only one government agency that had a license to do something similar, and that was something called the Global Engagement Center out of the state department. So, again, the the the job of the state department is to rule the rest of the world. That is to now the so, again, when you think about the state department, always think about the the interagency. The the the state department is inseparable from the CIA.
It's inseparable from the DOD. Those 3 nodes always move together. They're coordinated through an interagency process. And so because the state department, the ambassador there, and the senior staff at for over for the desk of a particular region, they represent the overt side of US diplomacy. They're the ones who are doing the negotiations.
They're the ones who are threatening, sending a delegation to threaten the government or to offer incentives to the foreign government. They're the ones they that's the that's the oversight of the iceberg, so to speak, our overt diplomacy. But we have covert diplomacy. We have covert action that's that's going on in the region. And the state department has to be able to to quarterback both the overt and covert roles, and those covert roles are delegated to the the Central Intelligence Agency with support from from the Pentagon.
So we created a censorship capacity within the US government in the state department in 2014 through something called the Global Engagement Center, engaging globally, in in the tech space. Initially, under a national security predicate, around the around the time that ISIS was said to be recruiting on Facebook and Twitter. This was this was supposedly this novel threat on social media that ISIS was on the rise, and they were recruiting impressionable young Americans. This was, you know, we had the first homegrown ISIS attack, Garland, Texas, if you remember.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: 20 2015. And, you know, there was a lot of there's a lot of strangeness about that event, by the way, that that came out that I'll just leave as as an aside. But, essentially, the the state department was permitted to be able to liaise with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and all the other platforms to advise them on the different accounts that they should censor and take down, the different narratives that should be suppressed, the different word key keyword databases that should be algorithmically throttled, because they were leveraging a DARPA technology. It was called natural language processing. There had been 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars poured into the r and d on this AI censorship technique, which involved network mapping, social media interlinkages.
So you may have seen, for example, just in the news or in various reports, what some of these social media network graphs look like, where it'll have, you know, a circle and it'll have someone's name on it, someone's account, and then it'll have a line to 3 different circles that that person connects to, and that will have those will all have lines to 10 other accounts that they connect to. And it'll look like a big spherical ball with with nodes and links that describe the the social media network map of a particular movement. Now at the time, this was this was developed by the Pentagon for use by the state department to be able to then tell the social media platforms everyone in this network gets nuked. That was 2014 to 2016. The problem was when the foreign policy establishment decided and declared effectively that this tanks from tanks to tweets doctrine, this was the NATO doctrine.
They formally call this from tanks to tweets, that NATO was extending its mandate from tanks to tweets. And when when that when that was set in motion, that technique of network mapping narratives and and, terrorist groups was then set about on political groups and domestic political groups, populous groups in Europe and and the Trump movement here in the US. So it's it's it's really not so much about conservatives and the GOP because there's a civil war that broke out with the 2016 election. It's important to keep this in mind. Trump did not just defeat Hillary Clinton.
He didn't defeat just the Clinton dynasty. He defeated the Bush dynasty. And the Bush dynasty had been the dynasty, you know, that had lorded over the GOP for multiple Bushes. Right? I mean, we had 8 years of of, you know, of George w.
We had we had basically 12 years of of George senior because not only was he the president of the United States from, you know, 88 to to 92, he was the vice president for from from 1980 to 1988, and he was the CIA director before that. And this this foreign policy and what he what was he doing at the CIA before he was the CIA director? He was the CIA oil intelligence liaison to Latin America and to Saudi Arabia. So so there's this GOP power base extending from the military, the energy to the Chamber of Commerce spheres that the populist right went to war with when when nat populist nationalist conservatives rallied around Trump and said, we care more about America first than than about essentially what we're doing around the world and what the rest of the world is doing. Now at the time, they didn't really understand the trip wire they were setting off, which was which was how much of a threat that concept of focusing on domestic priorities over foreign policy truly represented, which is why there became an immediate alliance between the Bush blob wing of the foreign policy.
Now the blob is is the sort of the Obama administration's moniker for the foreign policy establishment.
Speaker 0: So if
Speaker 1: you hear me use that term, that's what blob means. It just means the foreign policy establishment.
Speaker 0: K. But, but, you
Speaker 1: know, so what happened was is, for example, in the in the so the the groups that that were the the primary consensus builders for how to establish a government role in US censorship because they they recognize the size of the task that this would involve what they call the whole of society effort that would tie together 4 different categories of institutions. Government institutions, private sector institutions like the social media platforms, civil society institutions, which is the NGO swarm army, the university centers, the nonprofits, the foundations, and all the different community and activist groups they need to onboard, as well as the media institutions. So, again, whole society means 4 different categories, government, private sector, civil society, and media. And what they what they what they said early on in their own internal meetings, which I've I've put a million times and is all over my my Twitter account, is they constructed this idea that in order to get a whole society in motion, they need to have a government quarterback. A they wouldn't you know, the Stanford one of the one of the main universities associated with the censorship apparatus.
It doesn't have the clout on its own to go into a $1,000,000,000,000 corporation like Google and tell them what policies to to do. They don't they can't just march into the media and get news cycles there. But they're very good at, you know, network mapping and being able to do some of the the the technical, you know, you know, construction of that sphere, for example, that that they want Google to censor and Facebook and YouTube. They all have their own roles. But that quarterback role, only the government would have the clout to be able to do that herding of cats process.
So in so in early 2017, they set about in these stakeholder meetings the question of how they could actually pull this off within the US government given that there is a first amendment. And given the restrictions on the foreign policy establishment institutions that they had under their control. So they were contemplating, well, you know, the best place would be the state department's global engagement center. We already have the network there, but they said, oh, that's foreign facing. We couldn't really we couldn't really park it there.
So then they they they considered the parking it at the Central Intelligence Agency. But not only does that have a foreign facing predicate and you can't just sic the CIA on domestic tweets about mail in ballots, but, also, doing this as a clandestine operation is is is is very, very difficult. In the 19 eighties, the intelligence community developed a technique for using front companies and and public facing NGOs to serve as the liaison point to be able to greatly expand the scale of a clandestine action. Because if you are, say, running a color revolution and you need hundreds of thousands of people to take to the streets in order to overthrow their government. For example, with the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia and, you know, this is this is our our tried and true tactic.
You do need 100 of thousands of people involved. Those people can't all have security clearances. Those people can't, you know, all have top secret special compartmentalized information, you know, sort of, you know, buying on a need to know basis about their particular role in it. So these pro democracy groups, and these pro democracy NGOs popped up and were capacity built by taxpayer funded state department funds to be able to create these pro democracy NGOs that would serve to you know, as a sort of open sourcing of what at root was a CIA or state department, you know, classified initiative. So in this case, you know, they said, well, we can't really make this in a classical sort of intelligence type thing because it's going to involve Facebook, Google, Twitter, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Poynter Institute fact checking network.
It's gonna involve all these so we we need it to serve the above. So I said we can't do as a CIA thing. They said, well, you know, the FBI would be a great place to park this because the FBI has a domestic it is a domestic intelligence agency, but the issue is the intel the the FBI is the intelligence arm of the justice department. And what we're what we're targeting here is not law breaking. It's not illegal to tweet, you know, about about, your your support for Donald Trump.
So he said there's only one other domestic intelligence equity in the US, and we have 17 intelligence agencies. Only 2 of them are domestic. The other one is DHS. So they said, perfect. DHS has has a real we can do a really cute thing out DHS, which is we can combine the foreign facing classical type of media control, activities that are that are delegated to the CIA with the domestic jurisdiction of the FBI because DHS is not attached to the justice department.
It's its own independent intelligence agency. And so in 2018, they established an office within within DHS called CISA. The now they gave it they didn't call it the censorship agency. They did a very, very dirty, dirty, dirty trick that frankly they should never be forgiven for, and frankly they should be wholly disbanded on the basis of. Because it's one of the craziest scandals in American history.
What they did is they by giving themselves this dull, boring name, CISA, the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, which its founder Chris Krebs said, you know, we we called it that because we just we we just care so much about security. We put it in in our name twice. It had nothing to do with that. What they did is they said because at the time, there was no offensive capability in the online realm to be able to censor. The only cyber capacity that had any legitimacy, that had any funding, that had any legal mandate in this country was cybersecurity.
That was all you could do online as a government agency. That was the only offensive action you could take. So they said, well, you know, we can't just call it the censorship agency. We're gonna call this cybersecurity, but we're gonna do a couple of cute things in the definition in order to in order to get away with it. We're going to say that misdis and malinformation on social media is a cybersecurity attack on US critical infrastructure.
It's cyber because it's online, the social media posts, and critical infrastructure. Our elections are critical infrastructure, Public health, so we can censor whatever you say in an election cycle. Public health is critical infrastructure. We so we can censor whatever you say about COVID 19. Do you oppose vaccines?
Do you oppose masks? Do you oppose mandates? Are you casting conspiracy theories on Tony Fauci that undermine public faith and confidence in in our in our public health regime? Well, that's an attack on the critic that's a cyber attack on the critical infrastructure of our public health. So they did this with every issue, and it ballooned into saying, well, you know, if you if you talk about the open border, well, now you are, you know, you're jeopardizing you know, this is a cyber threat to you to US critical infrastructure, on on on immigration issues, on energy issues, on the Ukraine war.
It became this Eldorado gold mine, a god button to be able to control the rise and fall of political movements. And so it started at DHS. And when DHS got away with it for 4 straight years from 2018 to 2022, they got overconfident and they started being more and more explicit about it. And this is where they they they rolled out the disinformation governance board. If you remember at the time, they they were saying, well, it's not it's not, you know, it's not the censorship agency, and that's that's true.
It was not the ministry of truth. The the Ministry of Truth was CISA, but but this but CISA and and the and the other DHS, it's called INA, intelligence analysis. The other, intelligence equities at DHS had sprawled and spawned into such a Leviathan monster with so many touch points into so many different whole of society actors that it by 2022, they needed a management board for the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Truth that had already existed for 4 years there. That's what the disinformation governance board was, by the way. Anyway but at by that point, they they the whole society expanded to whole of government.
So the FBI set up censorship offices, the state department, the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation, issue by issue, HHS did, FDA did. It became something that was said to be necessary to control to censor social media in the name of democracy, which is basically a CIA watchword for for, regime change of a government. So I know that's a lot there, and I'll so I'll just stop.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. This is, like a fire hose. Couple of things. Number 1, everything you just said, you you just, like, described my entire channel, which leads me to believe I'm probably being censored and and monitored by the government because of the topics I cover.
And number 2, wasn't Chris Krebs and CISA the the the group and the person that said the 2020 election was the most safe and secure election in American history?
Speaker 1: Yes. And there's a lot of nastiness there. Because think about the conflict of interest there. On January 6, 2017, the last act of Obama's outgoing DHS secretary, Jeh Johnson, was to federalize national elections and put their administration in the hands of DHS. This is the executive order passed 2 weeks before Trump was inaugurated.
And then tragically, the Trump administration ratified that order under under John Kelly in March 2017 even though all 50 states had opposed it because it was usurping the traditional independence the states have, over over their independent administration of elections. But DHS was basically given federal control over over election administration, And they were the ones who were supposed to be safeguarding the, the US from election fraud. And they were simultaneously put in charge of censorship of tens of millions of of of tweets and and YouTube videos and Facebook posts, Discord, Twitch, they went after 15 different social media platforms. By their own math, 22,000,000 tweets were, were targeted for censorship, under under CISA just in the 5 months, lead up to the 2020 election. 22,000,000.
That's just that's just tweets alone. And then add in all the the 14 other platforms, you know, which included major forms like Reddit. So the same agency that was supposed to be guarding the hen house was the executioner of anyone who had questions about the about what happened inside the head the hen house, so to speak. Now this is particularly nasty because what what what CISA, what DHS did, what Chris Krebs' office did is they rung the necks and threatened government pressure and crisis PR and advertiser boycotts, using essentially this whole society model as as the threat behind it on all the tech platforms, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. And they sent these attack dogs called the election integrity partnership on them as well as as well as many others that I I can get into if you're curious for more detail, To to threaten them to all in lockstep install a brand new terms of service violation policy in the run to 2020 called delegitimization.
So and what delegitimization meant is that any information that anyone posted on social media for 5 months in the run up to the to the 2020 election that delegitimized a hypothetical upcoming red mirage blue shift event. That is a an event where Trump appeared to win on election day, the red mirage, but it would shift blue in the in the subsequent days because of mail in ballots. They knew that that would look illegitimate. Nothing like that had ever happened in this country. This country's never used mass mail in mass mail in ballots like that.
It had been a contentious issue since the civil war in 18/62. You know, it it was an election, you know, an election year scandal around mail in ballots. The the democrats had been highly, you know, opposing them for for years. But then suddenly, that became, that became the way that we were going to vote starting basically in between April June 2020. And what DHS did is is they said, well, listen.
If Biden's gonna win, it's going to be through this red mirage blue shift. It's gonna look really, really fishy at the time. And there's and the perceptions of illegitimacy are going to be a nightmare, to to litigate. It's gonna be a a nightmare, you know, shadow hanging over the the the Biden government. It's going to what happens in the in that, you know, inter month period of if there if there is a crisis sense of of perceived illegitimacy is going to potentially get out of our control.
And they know this because the foreign policy establishment's job is to induce election crises when when it orchestrates color revolutions abroad. You know, when we declare when we say, you know, you know, Lukashenko didn't really win the the election. Even though he got 85% of the vote on paper, we declared our CIA backed candidate during the summer of 2020 20 in Belarus. We said, oh, our our candidate actually won, and then we used our NGO blob, our swarm army, our paid army to take to the streets to try to overthrow the government. This is how we overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014.
You know, we, you know, illegitimate government, take to the streets, yada yada. So what they did is they precensored 5 months ahead of the 2020 election any social media post that that that, quote, delegitimized the idea of mail in ballots not being safe and secure, that delegitimized the, you know, leaving leaving, early voting drop boxes open for 6 to 8 months, that delegitimized any questions about the administration of electronic voting machines, that any any questions about ballot tabulation issues. So the same the same DHS nucleus, which which was staffed to the gills with CIA and NSA and DOD folks, that was that was basically the mind creation of this of the foreign policy establishment's response to losing the 2016 election was put in charge of the technical administration of the voting machines, the the technical administration of the of the 50 state, you know, sort of administration of the of the election. And in protecting the legitimacy at the tech and administering the legitimacy at the technical level, we're in charge of censoring any questions about their administration of the election. I mean, that is that is the perfect, you know, blank check for stealing an election that you could ever conceive of.
So I don't know. I'm not as technically versed on what, you know, what happened. There's a lot of open questions on the on the technical fraud issues. So I but my domain is on the censorship one, but there's so much smoke from the censorship side that it, let's just say, it begs a lot of questions.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, even even now, I I was told through Facebook that anything that I put up about the election might be taken down between now November, that they're not going to boost any posts about politics. They and now they do this in countries around the world. Then you have Mark Zuckerberg randomly handing over $400,000,000 and most of that ends up over 90% of it ends up in the hands of people getting Joe Biden elected. So there there's just, like and, the COVID thing.
You know, none of us were allowed to openly talk about COVID, have no opinion on COVID. If you wanted to, you know, promote something that fit the narrative, it's almost like you would be boosted, but I had videos that were demonetized. I had videos that I can see right in the analytics that they didn't show me to people, and, like, there's nothing I can do about it except for just in my heart know that I'm being screwed over because they're trying to control the the truth that I'm able to share with my audience.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The government put its boot on the neck of the tech platforms to do that, and the wing of the government is the nastiest wing. It's the it's the it's the it's the sections of the US government that for 80 years in this country has had a license to do crimes, a license to do dirty tricks, a license to rig elections, a license to rig media. This is, you know, the the foreign policy establishment is able to do that to, you know, to to foreign countries. And, essentially, after the 2016 election, they they simply imported it here.
And that was exactly those sections that that did that for COVID censorship. So, you know, a great example of this is is who was it who was doing this network mapping, for misinformation communities and and getting the social media companies to take that all down. Well, you know, one of the chief actors in the space was a group called the Virality Project, which was the literally the the second name of the Election Integrity Partnership. It's the it's the same institutions, Stanford University's, the Stanford Internet Observatory, which was, you know, the technical operations there came came from the CIA. And and the head of the department was, Obama's state department ambassador to Russia.
You know, just to understand how these ops are are interconnected. You know, the University of Washington Center For Informed Public, which was, you know, run by someone who basically, had serviced the Pentagon for social media network mapping, for crisis informatics for for, the whole career there. The it was the Atlantic Council, which is 7 CIA directors on its board and gets annual funding every year from the Pentagon, the state department, and CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy. And it was Graphica. And Graphica got has gotten $7,000,000 in Pentagon contracts.
They do social media network mapping for the Pentagon to be able to suppress the rise of insurgent groups in places where the Pentagon's operating. And they came straight out of the Minerva Initiative, which is the Pentagon's Psychological Warfare Research Center. So you literally had all 4 of these institutions were CIA, Pentagon, state department controlled, civil society cutouts. And, you know, it begs a lot of questions about the role of those same agencies in the COVID origin story. There's a lot of very strange aspects of the role of the DOD and CIA in in the COVID origin story.
Avril Haines, for example, was one of the stars of event 201, which was the simulation jointly held by the Johns Hopkins. You know, Saint Johns Hopkins is is a is a huge attache is at the university level of the of the defense department, and it's jointly held by them, though, the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And it brought together the head of Chinese intelligence. It brought together Avril Haines, who at the time was deputy director of the CIA under Obama, and she's now the boss of bosses at the CIA. As she's the ODM she's the director of National Intelligence.
So yeah. And, you know, what she was doing at a coronavirus simulator with a segment on how to social how to censor social media conspiracy theories about the outbreak of a of a China based bat coronavirus in October 2019, just 2 months before said virus from said region, from said origins. You know, what was the CIA director doing, you know, coordinating a whole society censorship response to the outbreak of a virus that wouldn't break out for for 60 more days? What was USAID, which is one of the classic conduits for CIA clandestine activity? Why was USAID giving a $53,000,000 grant to the Wuhan lab?
What was DARPA doing funding the the sub, you know, technology for the for the spike protein virus that ends up being the main thing that gives COVID its damage. You know, what was the Rocky Mountain Laboratory doing, you know, as the as the precursor conduit to that when the Rocky Mountain Laboratory was basically you know, is is there's a lot of credible evidence around that very same lab in in Montana having a very strong role in the in the construction of tick borne viruses, in that were that were souped up through through gain of function and deployed on on Cuba in the 19 sixties and in the Korean war in the 19 fifties. I mean, the the the Pentagon fingerprints over the over the COVID origin story looks very bad when you when you see that actually the censorship of COVID came from them as well. It looks looks like they're covering up their own crimes. And just one last thing I'll say on that, who were the first movers of of COVID?
What were the very first institutions to censor COVID origins? Graphica, this firm I just described to you, chief strategy officer, 25 years in the CIA, $77,000,000 of Pentagon funding coming coming into COVID. And they they literally were formally in house at the Pentagon Psychological Warfare Research Center. This same firm began sent began writing white papers and memos and doing work to censor social media narratives about COVID origins on December December 16th, 2019. That's just 4 days after the pneumonia like symptoms broke out.
Now when I broke that story, they responded and said, actually, we started in January 2020. We had a 30 day look back. Now they didn't provide any receipts on that, but that's still even by their own words. This is before coronavirus was even called is it it's wasn't even called COVID 19 yet. It hadn't come to America yet.
It was this was still just 1 month then. Within 1 month, the Pentagon's psychological operations warfare unit is deployed to create these vast sprawling network maps of who on social media is asking inconvenient questions about about a lab origin? What the hell is the Pentagon's SIOP center doing deployed like a like a white blood cell to censor first amendment protected speech by the by the citizens funding the Pentagon about what the Pentagon was really doing.
Speaker 0: You're blowing my mind. I know I know I know you have to jump on to an another interview, but, yeah, go go ahead. I this is
Speaker 1: I was gonna say and you know who GraphQL was partnered with on that? The NATO Center of Excellence, which was the exact hybrid warfare group set up remember when I told you when NATO declared the tanks to tweets doctrine? Well and they set down all this censorship institutional infrastructure to coordinate with Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and all those those private sector, tech social media companies after the Crimea annexation in 2014. They set down all these centers of excellence across NATO. Well, Graphik was partnered with the NATO Center of Excellence.
You know, when it was when it was doing this work. And this is, and again, that was a psychological warfare. The center of excellence, the center of excellence in strategic communications, in in control over the communications infrastructure in NATO NATO countries. This was it was explicitly set up as a censorship center to be able to censor Russian propaganda over hearts and minds in Eastern Europe so that we could fold them into NATO. But that exact same psyops center for the for the Ukraine war and for for controlling the the fate of elections and European parliamentary elections to stop the rise of populist groups.
Those are the same centers running COVID, the military centers.
Speaker 0: Oh my gosh. Okay. We're gonna have to have you back on, Mike. I know you've gotta jump. I only got to 2 of my 8 questions, but this this has been mind blowing.
I hope my audience appreciates all the research you've done. If Trump can get back into the White House, are you gonna be a part of his administration?
Speaker 1: We'll see. You know, my my role is, you know, as a political appointee, I you know, what what they're doing to Trump is absolutely is absolutely criminal, and in history, we'll remember. You know? Hopefully, we you know, there's a there'll be accountability for for what's been done. You know?
I consider myself to be fundamentally, you know, apolitical on on on this and that, you know, my job is to fight for the principles of free speech on the Internet and, you know, my foundation, Foundation for Freedom Online. So everyone you can best place to follow me is on Twitter, you know, at x@mikebencyber. That's all one word, at mikebencyber. Also have a Rumble channel, Mikebencyber. I'm I'm highly active there.
If you want my daily thoughts on on all of this and all the receipts and and things, stories that I post, just at Mike Ben Cyber on, on Twitter.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll put that down. I know you gotta get on to another show. Thank you so much. I hope you have a great rest of your day.