reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker holds nothing back, compares the Biden family to the Hussein dictatorship in Iraq https://t.co/PLkFn8615A
Video Transcript AI Summary
Living in a non-democratic country often means facing the wrath of those close to power, like Uday Hussein in Iraq. In the U.S., parallels can be drawn with the Biden family, particularly Hunter Biden, who has faced no legal repercussions despite his troubled past and questionable business dealings. His lawyers have demanded that those who criticize him, including the owner of a repair shop where he left a laptop, face imprisonment. They claim the laptop is his property, yet they also argue its existence is uncertain. Hunter's failure to reclaim the laptop, due to personal issues, led to its current ownership status. The situation highlights the disparity in power and accountability, with Hunter Biden benefiting from his father's political connections while others face potential legal consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Living in a non democracy when it's dangerous to displease the ne'er do well children of the supreme leader. If you were for example at a red light in pre invasion Baghdad and Uday Hussein came screaming up behind you drunk in his Lamborghini, You got the hell out of the way and you did not complain about it. And you didn't complain about it because Uday's dad ran the place and you did not want to make him mad. You might wind up like the members of his personal soccer team who dared to miss penalty kicks. That's what third world countries are like.
All citizens are not equal in countries like that. Power derives from proximity to power. That means the second most powerful people in a country like that are the children of the president. Very often they don't have jobs and are addicted to something. That's the way it works in places like that.
And for a long time, that system seemed very foreign to most Americans. They were used to living in a democracy. They could barely even imagine it. But then during the last presidential campaign, Joe Biden's daughter abandoned her somehow in a house she was staying at in Florida after she got of rehab and in that diary Ashley Biden recounted how her father had taken showers with her when she was young and she attributed her later sexual compulsions to that experience with her father. So by any standard that seemed like clear evidence of abuse and yet no law enforcement agency so far as we know ever asked Joe Biden about it.
Instead, once Joe Biden became president, his FBI raided the home of journalist James O'Keefe and seized the evidence. Ashley Biden's diary was taken by force and has never been seen again. So the message was unmistakable. When Uday Hussein blows Biden's Lamborghini, get the hell out of the way, peasant. Princelings have power.
You do not. By the way, Hunter Biden's whole life has been a monument to that message. Despite a decades long drug problem and no record of legitimate achievement of any kind. Hunter Biden has managed to accumulate the highest possible academic credentials. Georgetown and Yale Law.
Don't try that at home as well as what appears to be 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 of dollars. How did he do that? You couldn't do it, but then you're not Joe Biden's son and that's how he did it. He cut business deals with the corrupt countries that his father was conducting diplomacy in as vice president of the United States. And then we know from evidence that he apparently planned to kick back some of that money to his father as part of the deal.
10% for the big guy. Now that's completely illegal. And yet neither Hunter Biden nor his father Joe Biden have ever been indicted for doing that. Instead, and here's the best part. The real criminals we learned yesterday are the people who dared to talk about it.
Yesterday, Hunter Biden's legal team released a letter demanding that Joe Biden's friends imprison anyone who criticizes Joe Biden's son. So these letters call on the Department of Justice, Joe Biden controls and Delaware attorney general Kathy Jennings from Joe Biden state to file criminal charges against Republicans who dared to possess and share the contents of his son's now famous laptop. And that list would include among others, John Paul McIsaac, the owner of the Mac repair shop where Hunter Biden abandoned said laptop. According to Hunter Biden's high paid lawyers, John Paul McIsaac should be in prison for doing this. Quote, Mister McIsaac chose to work with Donald Trump's personal lawyer to weaponize mister Biden's personal computer data against his father Joseph r Biden.
In other words, John Paul McIsaac didn't want Joe Biden to become president and apparently that's now a federal crime. But wait a second. Back up a sec. Does that mean we can now say with certainty the laptop is real? If we can say that, that means that Adam Schiff is now running for senate in California had better issue a statement pronto correcting his previous categorical claims about the laptop.
Here was Adam Schiff in October of 2020 when he chaired the House Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: Does it surprise you at all that this information Rudy Giuliani is peddling, very well could be connected to some sort of Russian government disinformation campaign?
Speaker 2: Well, we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden, comes from the Kremlin. That's been clear for well over a year now that they've been pushing this false about the vice president and his son.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh. We know this comes from the Kremlin, Adam Schiff said. And of course, Adam Schiff would know since he unlike you had access to top secret information. You weren't allowed to see it. He did see it on the basis of that knowledge told you it was from the Kremlin.
And it's exactly what dozens of former intel officials told you. They saw the evidence and this was from Russia. So now it looks like they were all lying. According to Hunter Biden's lawyers quote, Mr. MacIsaac unlawfully shared Mr.
Biden's property with third parties. His property. He owned it. It was his. Yes.
The laptop according to Hunter Biden's lawyers belonged to Hunter Biden. Did not come from the Kremlin. That's settled. Except wait. No.
It's not settled. Because today we got yet another statement from Hunter Biden's lawyers and they seem to revise the first statement. Here's today's statement and we're quoting. These letters do not confirm mick Isaac's or others versions of a so called laptop. They address their conduct of seeking manipulating and disseminating would they alleged to be mister Biden's personal data wherever they claimed to have gotten it.
So in other words, we believe the government should send these people to jail for possessing stolen property that belong to Hunter Biden, but that so called property may not actually exist and may not even belong to Hunter Biden. That's their argument. It's a novel legal theory actually. In fact, it's so novel. It's totally incoherent.
It's like prosecuting somebody for stealing your imaginary car. But even if we can agree that the laptop is real and not a deep fake produced by some diabolical Russian AI program and again neither Hunter Biden nor his lawyers have conceded that yet Maybe they will tomorrow. But even if we could all agree on that, there is another more fundamental problem. And it's this. Hunter Biden signed an agreement acknowledging that if he left his device at John Paul McIsaac's repair shop in Delaware for more than 90 days, if he didn't pick it up, he would forfeit ownership of it.
He wrote that no one disputes that he did. And then Hunter Biden violated the contract that he signed. And he violated it because he was a crackhead who was having an affair with his sister-in-law, at least 3 of his employees and countless strippers and hookers while at the same time trying to execute an illicit business deals with the Chinese. So he just didn't have time to return for his laptops. That makes sense.
He was very busy. John Paul MacIsaac meanwhile, being the small business owner called Hunter Biden again and again and tried to give the laptop back. But Hunter Biden was so busy, he ignored John Paul MacIsaac. Watch.
Speaker 3: He sort of disappears on you. So he disappears and never comes for that external hard drive that now maintains the data.
Speaker 4: So now I'm in possession of his laptop, a backup of his laptop's home folder on an external drive that he provided, and no sign of Hunter. I think I called him again the following weekend or right before the end of the month. I always call customers at the end of the month to collect on out of, delinquent bills. And then, I think I called him a couple more times over the next month after that. So just no response.
Speaker 0: Kept calling him. Kept calling him. He was smoking too much crack with too many hunkers. He didn't call me back. That was John Paul McIsaac's explanation.
So it's kind of hard to blame John Paul McIsaac for this. He tried his best to return the laptop. And yet they are blaming him. In fact, Hunter Biden is demanding the Delaware attorney general Kathy Jennings put that guy John Paul McIsaac in jail for what he did. On what grounds?
Hunter Biden is the president's son. If he smokes too much crack to follow the terms of the contract he signed, that's not his problem. It's yours. Now in a normal country, a normal prosecutor would laugh at an argument like that, But Hunter Biden is betting that Delaware attorney general, Kathy Jennings, will take that argument very seriously, and he has reason to believe that she will. Because Kathy Jennings is not just the attorney general.
She is a long time party hack audio log who can be counted on to faithfully do the bidding of Democratic leaders and donors. And even better even better than that, Kathy Jennings is a longtime friend of the Biden family. In fact, she once worked for Hunter Biden's brother, Beau Biden, and she works worships his father, Joe. We're not guessing. Here's a Facebook post from the now attorney general of Delaware, Kathy Jennings, dated April 25, 2019.
We're quoting. I've known Joe Jill and the Biden family for most of my life. Joe is one of the kindest most genuine people I've ever known. Democrats are blessed with many excellent candidates this year and I am proud of those choices and what they say about our party. I'm choosing Joe because nobody understands more what it means to heal And right now, that's what America needs.
Well, right now, the Biden family needs something very different. And Kathy Jennings may be willing to provide it. Again, this is the person that Hunter Biden's lawyers are calling on to send John Paul McIsaac to jail, and she very well may send him there. Doesn't seem like a fair fight, really. So here you have John Paul McIsaac, a small business owner who lives in a small corrupt state controlled by the Biden family.
He's the peasant in this scenario. And then you have Hunter Biden is the princeling. So with no obvious means of support, Hunter Biden has been living in a $20,000 a month
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson: "NPR is US state-afilliated media." https://t.co/WvmsyPvFwe
Video Transcript AI Summary
Twitter recently labeled National Public Radio (NPR) as "state-affiliated media," similar to outlets like Russia Today. This designation highlights NPR's reliance on federal funding, which has been a point of contention for years. Despite NPR's claims of independence, its content often reflects the interests of the political establishment. NPR's response to the label included outrage and a request for its removal, while a White House spokesperson defended NPR's journalistic integrity. Critics argue that NPR has a history of ignoring significant stories, such as the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, and instead focuses on niche topics that cater to its audience. The recent layoffs at NPR have also sparked internal conflict, revealing tensions within the organization. Overall, the label serves as a stark reminder of NPR's funding sources and its alignment with government interests.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight. On Tuesday, 2 days ago, Twitter slapped a warning label on all tweets from National Public Radio. Going forward, NPR will be identified for users of Elon Musk's social media site as quote, state affiliated media. That is the same category as Russia today or China Central Television. It means that NPR is not that different from the Tehran Times with the exception, of course, being less accurate and more anti American.
Speaker 1: So So
Speaker 0: it happened on Tuesday. Why are we telling you about it? With all the momentous changes underway around the world, why would we open a show with a story about Twitter recategorizing NPR as state media? Well, because it's true. That's the reason.
Finally, thankfully, somebody in authority has told the truth about something and that is thrilling to see on its own terms. In a world defined by lies from our leaders, this seemed like a rare sign of hope and progress. Telling the truth is the most revolutionary act of all, far more than taking up arms. And yet, you rarely see it. Human beings created language in order to describe the world around them more precisely than they could with say, grunting or sign language.
But unfortunately, it's been subverting our own creation ever since. But not tonight. By calling National Public Radio what it is, Elon Musk has used English as it was intended to be used in order to tell the truth. Of course, NPR is state media. Have you listened to it?
It is all the hallmarks. Repetitive dishonesty, authoritarian politics, unwavering devotion to the party in charge. Of course, that could describe virtually all media in this country. The difference is the state actually pays for NPR. NPR was created more than 50 years ago by a law signed by Democrat Lyndon Johnson.
It was called the Public Broadcasting Act. And from its very first day, NPR was wholly dependent on tax dollars in order to exist and it still is. Federal funding is essential to NPR explains NPR's own website. So there's no factual debate about that fact, but there is a great deal of lying about it. Every year, NPR lobbyists head to capitol hill to demand more tax dollars.
Democracy can't exist without us, they screech. While simultaneously at the very same time telling you at high volume that NPR takes virtually no tax money. So we don't need federal subsidies don't even want them really, but you have to increase them. That is NPR's line and has been for decades under the political leadership of both parties. And it's essentially unchallenged by anyone.
It just stays. Wars and recessions come and go, but NPR funding remains. But after more than half a century, it is very clear that there's nothing public about National Public Radio. NPR is the radio station of permanent Washington. That's who pays for it.
That's who benefits from it. By adding three simple words to NPR's tweets, Elon Musk exposed that forever to the world. Such is the power of truth. It exposes and of course, it infuriates those who are exposed. So NPR howled an outrage, but with its signature purse lipped fussiness.
Here's a direct quote from a piece on NPR's website which really does belong in the Museum of Uptight Liberalism. Quote, NPR officials have asked Twitter to remove the label. They initially assumed it was applied by mistake, NPR spokesperson Isabelle Lara said. We were not warned. It happened quite suddenly last night, Lara said.
In response to an NPR email for the story seeking comment and requesting details about what in particular might have led to the new designation, Twitter's press account auto replied with a poop emoji. What's just so perfect you couldn't improve it? Hey, Twitter, stop calling us what we are. Okay, NPR. Here's a scat cartoon.
So you can forget the rockets and the electric cars. Elon Musk is a hero for this alone. But NPR wasn't finished. It still had fight. National Public Radio was so angry, so enraged to be called state media that its supporters enlisted the help of the regime's top spokeswoman to claim otherwise.
Stop calling it propaganda, said the propagandist. Again, it's an irony free zone and just too great. Watch this.
Speaker 2: There's no doubt of the independence of NPR's journalists. And, it has been if you've ever been on the receiving end of their of their questions, you know this. You know that they have their independence in journalism. NPR journalists work digitally to hold public officials accountable and inform the American people. The hard hitting independence nature of their coverage speaks, speaks for itself, and so I'll leave it
Speaker 0: there. That is so Baghdad Bob. It's unbelievable. Here she is reading a press release for NPR that tells us they're famous for hard hitting independence, which speaks for itself. Really?
How many tough questions have they asked you, Karina Jean Pierre? Not a single one. They're fluffing her every day. She's so smart. And so she pays them back.
Hard hitting independence. This is the same radio station in the final days of the last presidential campaign took a look at the biggest political story in years, the New York post story on a Hunter Biden's laptop and then ignored it completely. And not only ignored it completely, but because they are fussy and self righteous to their very core, they bragged about how they were ignoring it completely. We don't wanna waste our time on stories that are not really stories, said NPR's managing editor, Terrence Samuel. We don't wanna waste listeners and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions.
Alright. 2 weeks before our presidential campaign, we find out the democratic Canada has been taking money from a foreign adversary, but that's just a distraction. So whatever happened to Terrence Samuel? What did he get in return for helping Joe Biden become president at the state affiliated media network he serves? Well, Terrence Samuel has been promoted to NPR's executive editor.
But he still has time to spare because it's not that hard to put morning sedition on the air. She know what he does in his spare time? Terrence Samuel host seminars on, we're quoting, disinformation and democracy. It's something called American University. And no, we're not making any of this up.
Nor are we fabricating NPR's report from just last month that informed us, male athletes have no inherent performance advantages over female athletes. None at all. That is a fact, ladies and gentlemen. Men and women are physically the same size. They have the same muscle mass.
There is no difference whatsoever in their bone structure. We checked with experts. So as you know, NPR is famous for its widely respected science coverage. But that's not the only reason that NPR is now the go to news source for unhappy female attorneys over 50. No.
There's more to it than that. They're the lifestyle pieces, the features as they used to say in the newspaper business. Here's a piece for example, on how one African American Barbie doll, ahead of its time in the toy industry, changed the life of a Latinx girl forever.
Speaker 3: I remember this one Christmas, my cousin's father gifted us all Barbies. And when everyone was unwrapping, you know, the excitement, they'll tape, the paper. And I opened up the Barbie and my Barbie was black, you know? And everyone kinda, like, looked at my Barbie, and I looked at their Barbies, and I could kind of, like, identify to their Barbies too. And I wasn't this kind of, like, as melanated as this Barbie, and I was like, oh my gosh.
I am different.
Speaker 0: Unhappy middle aged ladies talking about themselves. The narcissism pipe directly into your outie. That's NPR. You gotta say they know their audience. They don't only serve their audience.
They put their audience on the air. So it's kind of a continuous loop. The snake eating its own tail. So you probably shouldn't be too surprised that with an audience like it's desperately unhappy barren personal life audience, The NPR is all in on the question of romance novels. Watch.
Speaker 1: I'm like really big in the sci fi ones. Well, the books was a gay couple and one
Speaker 4: of them was a kraken.
Speaker 1: And I didn't want that to unlock something in me. Unfortunately, it did. Before I knew what was happening, Cyrus was carrying me, the muscular lengths of his tentacles supporting our combined weight and shuffling us towards the stall without breaking our kiss. I knew he was strong, but I didn't think he was that strong. You like that Rollins?
He asked. As his tentacle slammed the door to the shower stall open, and we stumbled on its side.
Speaker 0: Well, so it's tentacle porn. Okay. Yeah. I mean, technically, it is tentacle porn, which is its own subgenre, and we're not gonna pollute your mind by telling you any more about it than that. But what it really is is narcissism.
Because here you have an upper income Oberlin graduate talking about what would he be talking about? Well, himself, of course, because that's what NPR listeners want to hear about themselves. And that's the real journalism, the hard hitting independent journalism, Karine Jean Pierre was touting from the White House briefing room. And NPR didn't just start doing it after they got Joe Biden elected. They've been doing it for generations.
Their health coverage in particular stands out. Any news organization can run a piece on how to be more healthy. But only NPR dared to affirm the snack habits of its listeners by telling you, yeah. Go ahead and be fat. Here's a anti diet dietitian.
Speaker 4: So diet culture is this overarching system of beliefs and values that's really endemic to western culture at this point in history. Christie Harrison is an anti diet registered dietitian with a masters in public health.
Speaker 0: We've been trying to get Christy Harrison, the anti diet dietitian on our show for years now but we're not NPR so no luck so far. But if you're looking for coverage of LGBTQIA z plus issues, well, you've come to the right place. Because it's not just the conventional stuff, gay marriage or trans issues, they've taken it to another level as befits a cutting edge totally independent news channel like National Public Radio. Here they are reporting on trans dinosaur experts.
Speaker 5: Many people who are queer, whether they are trans or some other form of gender queer or whatever it is, we love dinosaurs. Along with being a dinosaur expert, Riley is, herself, transgender. And according to Riley, there is a whole community of genderqueer dinosaur enthusiasts online. We had no idea. So we checked it out.
Sure enough, they're there. We found dozens of paleo artists online that identify as queer.
Speaker 4: Type dinosaur into the LGBT subreddit, hundreds of results with pride dinos, rainbow dinos, dino moms, dino dads, and a lot of puns. Like allysaurus.
Speaker 5: Transceratops.
Speaker 0: Transceratops. Transasaurus Rex. Now, a lot of people say if the topic of NPR comes up in conversation, Yeah. I'm all for National Public Radio and I'm happy to work an extra day a year to pay for it. But I'm not a trans dinosaur.
I'm not. So what's in it for me is a non trans dinosaur that seems a little niche and that's a common misperception about National Public Radio. As long as you're talking about yourself and doing so in a self satisfied completely out of touch way, NPR is the station for you. In other words, they're interested in all forms of diversity. Back in 2021, NPR discovered a trendy new television show.
Why they like it? Well, here's why.
Speaker 2: Well, Kumari, what TV show were you binging this year?
Speaker 1: I was watching We Are Lady Parts. It's a musical comedy about a punk band in London that is made up of all Muslim women.
Speaker 0: What are you watching? That's that's a hard hitting news coverage that makes the difference between democracy and tyranny. What are you watching? Self satisfied, fuzzy people with nose piercings talking about what they're watching in tied their tiny little apartments in Brooklyn. Well, I'm watching a musical in all Muslim trans musical, a punk band.
It's great. So that's NPR in 2023 and the truth is NPR has always been kinda awful, kind of unbearable, kinda cringey as they say. But now, you can't even listen to it because the people who work there are deranged. They're ideologues and ideologues, of course, in the end go crazy and start attacking each other. The revolution inevitably eats its own.
And we're seeing that on display now and frankly kind of enjoying it. So after NPR laid off 10% of its staff recently, 1 NPR show called Louder Than A Riot. Louder than a riot? They love riots in NPR. Tweeted this and we're quoting.
The hardest part is that our Szen, Szen, if you're not Hungarian, you probably know what that means. We certainly don't. Our SZN is about queer trans black women face in hip hop. Yet within NPR, the majority impacted in these layoffs were queer POC staff and programs. In other words,
Speaker 2: racist.
Speaker 0: By the way, miss Jenwar in case you aren't up on your NPR speak has something to with bigotry against women who are black not that NPR bothers to define any of those terms. Anyway, it gets better because once you put crazy people in charge of your newsroom, well, crazy things happen. So they try to call an all hands meeting to explain why people are being fired. The real reason of course that no one wants to listen to this crap. But an NPR executive had to get out there and try to speak slowly and tell these people why they were fired and people start screaming at him.
So he called for civility and then one employee said, you need to read this piece quote, when civility is used as a cudgel against people of color. That's NPR ladies and gentlemen on the inside NPR by the way we told you at the outset is now officially state media and honestly that tells you a lot about the state
@alx - ALX 🎃
Hillary is on CNN ranting about how Trump supporters are all racist, sexist, and everything else in the book: “Maybe they don’t like migrants. Maybe they don’t like gay people or black people or the woman who got the promotion at work they didn’t get”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Despite numerous indictments, civil fraud cases, and sexual transgressions, the person who defeated me in 2016 continues to thrive. This is because he appeals to the emotional and psychological needs of a portion of the population, particularly the Republican Party's base. They see him as their spokesperson and remain loyal, attending his rallies and wearing his merchandise. His negative and divisive politics resonate with them, possibly due to their dislike of migrants, gay people, black people, or those who have achieved success they desire. "Make America great again" symbolized a desire for a return to a time when people felt empowered and could freely express their opinions, even if it meant insulting others. Breaking this cult-like following is crucial.
Full Transcript
What goes through your mind and particularly how do you process that this person who defeated you back in 2016 is still at it given all that you've said? 91 indictments, you know, civil fraud, sexual transgressions according to the courts. How is this still happening? It's the classic tale of an authoritarian populist who really has a grip on the emotional, psychological needs and desires of a portion of the population. And the base of the Republican Party, for whatever combination of reasons, and it is emotional and psychological, um, sees in him someone who speaks for them and they are determined that they will continue to vote for him, attend his rallies, wear his merchandise, because for whatever reason, he and his, you know, very negative, uh, nasty form of politics resonates with them. Maybe they don't like migrants. Maybe they don't like gay people or black people or the woman who got the promotion at work they didn't get. Whatever the reason, you know, make America great again was a bid for nostalgia to return to a place where, you know, people could be in charge of their lives, feel empowered, say what they want, insult whoever came in their way. And that was really attractive to a significant portion of the Republican base. So it is like a cult and somebody has to break the, uh, break that momentum.
@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson
Hillary Clinton goes on unhinged rant about MAGA on CNN: “Maybe they don’t like migrants? Maybe they don’t like gay people? Or black people? Or the woman who got the promotion at work they didn’t get?!"
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Republican Party is currently being influenced by extreme factions, many of whom take their cues from Donald Trump. Trump has lost credibility due to his involvement in legal actions, but he remains the party's leader. To address this, there needs to be a deprogramming of cult-like members and a defeat of Trump and his followers. The goal is to empower the right people within the Republican Party and focus on the future. Nancy Pelosi was successful in uniting her caucus and passing important legislation, while Kevin McCarthy struggled to do the same. Trump's appeal lies in his ability to connect with a portion of the population who resonate with his negative and divisive politics. Joe Biden is expected to defeat Trump and hopefully bring an end to this divisive era, allowing Republicans to focus on responsible and accountable leadership.
Full Transcript
And we had very bitter battles over all kinds of things, gun control and climate change and the economy and taxes. But there wasn't this little tale of extremism waving, you know, wagging the dog of the Republican Party as it is today. And sadly, so many of those extremists, those mega extremists, take their marching orders from Donald Trump, who has no credibility left by any measure. He's only in it for himself. He's now defending himself in civil actions and criminal actions. And when do they break with him? You know, because at some point, you know, maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members. But something needs to happen. And how do you do that? Because you said you have to defeat them by defeating their leader. Their leader is Donald Trump. Even you have said that you expect him to be the Republican nominee. How does this change at all? At this point, I think, sadly, he will still likely be the nominee and we have to defeat him and we have to defeat those who are the election deniers, as we did in 2020 and 2022. And we have to, you know, just be smarter about how we are trying to empower the right people inside the Republican Party. You know, Nancy Pelosi had a majority of five votes when she was speaker. Kevin McCarthy had a majority of five votes. Nancy Pelosi passed consequential legislation and she clearly had members within her caucus who, you know, ranged across a spectrum of political beliefs and ideology. And she kept everybody together and she kept everybody focused on the future. He couldn't do that. And so he paid a price. But more importantly, the country paid a price. And so when you see another matchup between potentially Trump and President Biden, what goes through your mind and particularly how do you process that this person who defeated you back in 2016 is still at it, given all that you've said? Ninety one indictments, you know, civil fraud, sexual transgressions, according to the courts. How is this still happening? It's the classic tale of an authoritarian populist who really has a grip on the emotional, psychological needs and desires of a portion of the population. And the base of the Republican Party, for whatever combination of reasons, and it is emotional and psychological, sees in him someone who speaks for them and they are determined that they will continue to vote for him, attend his rallies, wear his merchandise. Because for whatever reason, he and his very negative, nasty form of politics resonates with them. Maybe they don't like migrants, maybe they don't like gay people or black people or the woman who got the promotion at work. They didn't get whatever the reason, you know, make America great again was a bid for nostalgia to return to a place where, you know, people could be in charge of their lives, feel empowered, say what they want, insult whoever came in their way. And that was really attractive to a significant portion of the Republican base. So it is like a cult and somebody has to break the break that momentum. And that's why I believe Joe Biden will defeat him. And hopefully then that will be the end and the fever will break. And then Republicans can try to get back to, you know, fighting about issues among themselves and electing people who are at least, you know, responsible and accountable.
@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson
🚨Hillary Clinton SNAPS after INTERRUPTED mid speech over refusing to call out Joe Biden for getting us into WWIII https://t.co/52Z8d1Uq0O
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 criticizes the hypocrisy of the speech and accuses President Joe Biden of warmongering by allocating $100 billion in funding for Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine. Speaker 1 tries to calm the situation and encourages a conversation after the event. Speaker 0 insists that the American people's voices need to be heard and claims that the president does not represent them. Speaker 1 disagrees and states that Speaker 0's opinion is not the only one. Speaker 2 joins the conversation and supports Speaker 0's view. Speaker 1 argues that Speaker 0's actions disrupt others' opportunities and claims it is not free speech. The discussion becomes heated, with Speaker 0 mentioning historical events and Speaker 1 dismissing their relevance. The conversation ends abruptly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By the hypocrisy
Speaker 1: of the 2 more
Speaker 0: people to hear from I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: You have a chance well, I'm not sorry. Just sit down.
Speaker 0: I know you're not sorry. That's the point.
Speaker 2: The hypocrisy of this speech. The hypocrisy of the
Speaker 0: fact that what
Speaker 1: what is Can you please is a leading president of president
Speaker 0: Joe Biden's
Speaker 2: speech. This is a clearly
Speaker 0: warmongering speech. President Joe Biden is calling for a $100,000,000,000 of funding for Israel, Taiwan, And Ukraine? And we're supposed to just bundle these together and pretend like we're gonna rush to World War 3, and we're all just gonna let Hillary Rodham Clinton sit here. Okay?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. You know Yes. This is not this is not the way to help make conversation. If you wanna have a conversation, you're welcome to come talk to me afterwards.
Speaker 0: Sit here. Okay. You're right. You're gonna you're gonna you're gonna wait for me. Right?
Speaker 1: I believe I don't I do not follow you. Listened to you. I will respond to you.
Speaker 0: Not believe you. Respectfully, I do not believe you. And the fact of the matter is that the American people's voice are what need to be heard. Yeah.
Speaker 1: They are being heard.
Speaker 0: Because our president
Speaker 2: is not speaking
Speaker 0: for the American people.
Speaker 1: And neither are you. That's your opinion. That's your opinion. Yeah.
Speaker 2: That's my opinion.
Speaker 1: But well, that sit down, we've heard your opinion. Thank you very much. Now we're gonna turn the people down.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna stop it.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna stop working. Not be happy. Human rights.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna exercise my free speech.
Speaker 1: But it's not it's not free speech when you are disrupting everybody else's opportunity.
Speaker 2: It is
Speaker 0: free speech. This is free speech. Everyone. This is free speech. That is not free speech.
This is people to constructing narratives that are openly hypocritical. I'm sorry. You the the incredible hypocrisy.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe you
Speaker 0: could ask Douglas went with Eleanor Roosevelt to bring the Declaration of Rights of Man. John Foster Dulles Was involved with the CIA.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Well, you're brilliant in your historical picture of the cake.
Speaker 0: The Pinochet the Pinochet regime.
Speaker 1: Please, could you
Speaker 2: please inform me about the United States
Speaker 1: and all these historical things? We're going to move
Speaker 2: on. Listen. Listen.
Speaker 0: We'll use them now. Don't buy them.
Speaker 1: You are from Uganda,
Speaker 2: and
Speaker 1: The world's war free. Do you
Speaker 2: understand? It's
Speaker 0: not about Israel's Palestine. It's not
Speaker 2: about it's not football. This isn't football. It's not
Speaker 1: team America. Well, I'm sorry, but some of us are on team America despite our flaws and
Speaker 0: You have
Speaker 1: to sit down. Wait. I'm just saying, but every person on this stage has wished their right, Their income, their reputation, their careers, and what have you done Other than against you any day of the year. Okay? I was done.
Speaker 0: What I have done is I have asked Hillary Rodham Clinton to denounce the president's Openly warmongering, suicidal, idiotic
Speaker 1: speech. And I will give you an answer. I will not have done. So that's the end of our conversation, but I'll still meet you outside. But you're done.
Speaker 0: Right now.
Speaker 1: Okay.
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
Ex-Congressman Adam Kinzinger says Tucker Carlson is a traitor. Bill Kristol says Tucker shouldn't be allowed to return to the U.S. They praised Barbara Walters, so why are they so afraid of this interview with Putin? https://t.co/ggSExqlGdg
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
Tucker Carlson is currently in Moscow, Russia to interview Vladamir Putin and the media is in panic mode. They're losing control of the narrative. https://t.co/AgnezZ8Xx3
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
The U.S. government spied on Tucker Carlson to stop him from interviewing Vladamir Putin. https://t.co/6VTQpJhBUf
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was surprised to learn that someone had hacked into my Signal account. It turns out it was the NSA, as they admitted it when they contacted me. They knew about my plans to visit Putin, which I hadn't shared with anyone, not even my family. When I asked how they knew, they explained that they had accessed my text messages with the person I was communicating with. I was shocked by this invasion of privacy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Say broke into my signal account, which I didn't know they could do. How do how do you know the NSA broke into your signal? Because they admitted it. I got a call from somebody in Washington. It's like, are you planning a trip to go see Putin?
And I was like, how would you know that? I haven't told any I mean, anybody. Not my brother, not my wife, nobody. How would you know that? Because NSA pulled your text with this other person you were texting.
How did you know?
reSee.it AI Summary
The state propaganda media is fearful of Tucker's interview with Putin, as evident in their voices. They are afraid of losing control of the narrative. This is the same media that criticized Tucker for interviewing Putin. These journalists were involved in peddling Russian disinformation and sowing chaos in our elections.
@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker
The state propaganda media is terrified of Tucker's interview with Vladimir Putin. You can hear it in their voices. They are truly afraid of losing control of the narrative. https://t.co/O88aNLijP0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson, a right-wing media figure, is in Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin. Critics argue that Carlson is not a journalist and instead spreads misinformation on behalf of the Kremlin. They believe his work is biased and not aligned with the facts. Some compare his interview with Putin to watching a scandalous show. Furthermore, there is concern that the Republican Party, including Donald Trump, is doing Putin's bidding. Although some see this as Republicans supporting Putin, others believe they are actually supporting Trump, who in turn supports Putin.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Am I
Speaker 1: allowed to say his name?
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. I'm just
Speaker 1: His name is Tucker Carlson, and he is the only American journalist who has been able to interview Putin since the invasion in 2022. Tucker Carlson is not a journalist, not even close. He kind of just walks right into Moscow And presents himself on a silver silver platter to the Kremlin, doing the Kremlin's job of misinforming, disinforming the American population.
Speaker 3: His explanation of why he's doing it, that he's a journalist and he needs to inform people, he can call himself whatever he wants. I think, his work is demonstrable as not being just about giving people information. He has a point of view and often it's It's not aligned with the facts.
Speaker 0: Putin talks to an American friend. The Russian president turning to right wing conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson. And it comes as Kremlin propagandist Tucker Carlson, a leading voice of the right wing disinformation campaign is in Moscow. Ironically, he is there in the name of keeping Americans informed, sitting down for an interview with Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 3: Tucker Carlson is neither a journalist, nor a reporter, but he has played one on TV.
Speaker 4: Tucker Carlson still doesn't have a job. He's in Moscow house hunting, I hope. But, no, actually, Tucker is there to interview Vladimir Putin, which is so overtly ridiculous. Tucker Carlson interviewing Vladimir Putin, may not be, mean much to you, but for Trump, this is like watching OnlyFans. This is insane.
I
Speaker 3: You've seen sharp relief A Republican party that is now doing Vladimir Putin's bidding. Donald Trump always did. Yeah. And somebody that we know, that we used to know, going over, doing Vladimir Putin's bidding.
Speaker 2: It was striking again yesterday To see Republicans across the board, and maybe some of them are doing Vladimir Putin's bidding, but really they're doing Donald Trump's bidding, which is Vladimir Putin's bidding.
@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker
Same vibes: https://t.co/JLAtIUL6vI
@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker
These are the same "journalists" aka "useful idiots" who did Putin's bidding by peddling Russian disinformation in the Clinton Dossier and sowing chaos in our elections https://t.co/B6ZdZ2iCxt
@LarryTaunton - Larry Alex Taunton
It’s rich when actual traitors who have sold out the people of the United States to a globalist — thus, by definition anti-American — agenda are calling #TuckerCarlson… …a traitor. https://t.co/gfbCjT526f
@Breaking911 - Breaking911
Tucker Carlson is ‘un-American’ for interviewing Putin! Meanwhile, CBS News sits down with Hamas terrorists. https://t.co/zpEveJrOXt
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Hamas commander in the West Bank recruits young fighters, justifying violence as reclaiming their land from Israel. Despite casualties, he believes in armed struggle. An Israeli negotiator warns that attacking Hamas only strengthens them, suggesting peace and sharing the land as a solution. The cycle of violence will end when Israelis leave, but Palestinians also deserve freedom and rights for a new beginning.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We met a Hamas commander at an undisclosed location in the West Bank. Are you a wanted man?
Speaker 1: I am. Indeed.
Speaker 0: Calling himself Abu Abed, he joined 9 years ago when he was just 16. Almost half that time was spent in jail. Now he is a Hamas recruiter. Are you seeing more young people joining Hamas here in the West Bank since October 7?
Speaker 1: For sure, all the Palestinian people are standing by Hamas. I give the fighters guidance. When Israeli forces enter, I tell them what to do and how to open fire.
Speaker 0: On October 7th, women and children were murdered.
Speaker 1: We see death every single day. Israel lost what? 1000 or 2000 people killed? That's nothing.
Speaker 0: But it doesn't make it right to kill women and children.
Speaker 1: This is my land. My land. We repeatedly told Israel to get out peacefully, and they refused. So it's only normal that we take it back by force.
Speaker 0: He blindly repeats the blatant lie that no civilians were killed by Hamas on October 7th.
Speaker 1: We don't fight civilians. We have always fought against the army.
Speaker 0: Nor is there remorse for the more than twenty 8,000 Palestinians killed, nearly 2 thirds of them women and children in Israel's bombardment of Gaza. You had to have known that that would have been Israel's response, that Palestinians would suffer as a result. So is there any regret?
Speaker 1: We are not pleased with that, but this is the path of the armed struggle.
Speaker 0: Gershon Baskin is a veteran Israeli hostage negotiator. He knows Hamas well.
Speaker 2: The more that Israel hits Hamas, the stronger Hamas will grow.
Speaker 0: And as for Netanyahu's repeatedly stated aim of eliminating Hamas
Speaker 2: There is no elimination of Hamas. Israel can defeat Hamas militarily, but the only way you you defeat an idea and an ideology is by providing a better idea and a better ideology.
Speaker 0: Baskin points out that for decades, Palestinians have been living under the boot of Israeli occupation October 7th, but allowing Israelis to believe the state's October 7th, but allowing Israelis to believe the status quo could remain.
Speaker 2: He convinced the Israeli people and the world that Israel can occupy another people for 56 years and expect to have peace or lock 2,200,000 people in a territory like Gaza with 80% poverty and expect to have quiet. You can't have it all. We gotta share this place.
Speaker 0: So where does this all end? All this killing, all this suffering.
Speaker 1: The killing and the suffering ends when the Israelis walk out of our land. But if they decide to stay, we shall continue to fight. And if I die, somebody else will take my place.
Speaker 0: Basquin told us he finds it hard to believe Hamas will continue to run Gaza after the war, but asked the same question, where it all ends, when Palestinians are also seen as people with hopes and dreams.
Speaker 2: They're not different from other people. They deserve to live in freedom too. The same right to the same rights. That's the basis of a new beginning. The the same right to the same rights.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson says the 2020 Election was "100% stolen" from President Trump. https://t.co/hd2eHBb1yU
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes the election was rigged due to COVID changes in voting. Censorship of COVID discussions is seen as undemocratic. In a democracy, people need all information to make informed decisions during elections. Without access to all information, there is no true democracy or free elections.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was a a 100% stolen. Like, it was rigged to that large of a Yeah. They they completely change the way people vote right before the election on the basis of COVID, which had nothing to do with that way it was rigged. Meaning sick. And then Manipulated.
Then you censor the information people are allowed to get. Anyone who complains about COVID, which is like by the way, it might have hurt Trump. But, I mean, it's like whatever. I mean, you could play it many different ways. You can't have censorship in a democracy by definition.
Here's how it works. The people rule, They vote for representatives to carry their agenda to the capital city and get it enacted. That's how they're in charge. And then every few years, they get to reassess the performance of those people in an election. In order to do that, they need a they need access, unfettered access to information.
And no one, particularly not people who are already in power, is allowed to tell them what information they can have. They have to have all information that they want. Whether the people in charge want it or don't want it or think it's true or think it's false, it doesn't matter. And the second you don't have that, you don't have a democracy. It's not a free election.
Period.
@LibertyLockPod - Clint Russell
Best part of the interview by far as Tucker Carlson absolutely eviscerates the Clintons, Condoleezza Rice, Victoria Nuland and the refusal to accept Russia into NATO. I'll repeat the questions he asks at the end... tell me how he's wrong https://t.co/iChL7zSV80
Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia attempted to join NATO in 2000, indicating NATO's role in containing Russian expansion was effective. The rejection of this proposal was surprising. Later, Russia suggested aligning against a common enemy, Iran, but this idea was dismissed by the U.S. leadership, which seemed counterproductive. The situation escalated when Kamala Harris publicly encouraged Ukraine to join NATO, despite clear warnings from Russia about nuclear threats. This led to Russia's invasion shortly after. Critics argue that NATO's reluctance to accept Ukraine and the push for conflict suggest ulterior motives, benefiting certain interests financially. The complexity of these geopolitical dynamics raises questions about the true intentions behind U.S. foreign policy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Or they could be Russia tried to join NATO in 2000. That's a that's a fact. Okay. They tried to join NATO. So just think about this.
NATO exists to keep Russia contained. Mhmm. Exists as a bulwark against Russian territorial expansion. So if Russia seeks to join NATO, it is by definition a sign that NATO's job is done here. We can declare victory and go home.
The fact that they turned him down is, like, so shocking to me, but it's true. Then he approaches the next president, George w Bush. That was with Bill Clinton at the end of his term in 2000. He approaches the next president and said, let's in our next missile deal, let's align on this, and we'll designate Iran as our common enemy. Iran, which is now, you know, effectively linked with Russia, thanks to our insane policies.
But and and George w Bush, to his credit, is like, well, that seems like kind of an innovative good idea. And Condi Rice, who's like one of the stupidest people ever to hold power in the United States, if I can say, who's like monomaniacally anti Russia versus because she had an adviser at Stanford who was or something during the Cold War. No. We can't do that, and Bush is just weak. And so he agreed.
It's like, what? That is crazy. If you're fighting with someone and the person says, you know what? Actually, our interests align, and you've spent 80% of your mental disk space on hating me and opposing me or whatever, but actually we can be in the same team. If you don't at least see that as progress, like, what?
Why would you if if your interest is in helping your country, what would be the what's the counterargument? I don't even understand it, and no one has even addressed any of this. The war of Russian aggression. Yeah. It was a war of Russian aggression for sure.
But how did how did we get there? We got there because Joe Biden and Tony Blinken dispatched Kamala Harris, who does not freelance this stuff, okay, fair to say, to the Munich Security Conference 2 years ago this month, February 2022, and said in a press conference to Zelensky, poor Zelensky, we want you to join NATO. This was not in a backroom. This was in public at a press conference knowing, because he said it, like, 4000 times, we don't want nuclear weapons from the United States or NATO on our western border. Duh.
And days later, he invaded. So, like, what is that? And if you even I raised that question in my previous job, and I was denounced as, you know, of course, a traitor or something. But okay. Great.
I'm a traitor. What's the answer? What's the answer? These are not into you know, Troy Nuland, who I know, not dumb, hasn't helped the US in any way, architect of the Iraq war, architect of this disaster, one of the people who destroyed the US dollar. Okay.
Fine. But she's not stupid. So, like, you're trying to get a war by acting that way. What's the other explanation? By the way, NATO didn't want Ukraine because it didn't meet the criteria.
So for admission, so why would you say that? Because you want a war. That's why. And that war has enriched a lot of people to the tune of 1,000,000,000. So I don't care if I sound like some kind of left wing conspiracy nut, because I'm neither left wing nor a conspiracy nut.
Tell me how I'm wrong.
@pepesgrandma - Bad Kitty Unleashed 🦁💪🏻
Catherine Herridge and Tucker Carlson shoot the breeze on Biden. Obviously they feel her firing was due to Hunter Biden reporting. https://t.co/mTUu17z3sT
Video Transcript AI Summary
One son asked if I would go to jail, reflecting on the state of democracy and press freedom. The media's reaction to Biden's debate performance surprised many, despite prior indicators of his decline. There's a need for transparency in releasing interview transcripts to assess his fitness for office. The press should hold powerful entities accountable, and the lack of diverse reporting is concerning. Independent journalism is flourishing, as audiences seek credible information. The Press Act aims to protect confidential sources, essential for investigative reporting. My recent work focuses on military accountability regarding health issues linked to vaccinations. The landscape has shifted, and there's a hunger for honest journalism that serves the public interest.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of our sons asked me, mom, are you gonna go to jail? And I wanted to tell him that in this country where we say we value I could get a little choked up when I think about it, but, you know, in this country where we say we value democracy and we value a vigorous press, that it was impossible. But I couldn't offer him that assurance.
Speaker 1: I was shocked that they fired you. And when I reflected for a moment, I was not shocked at all. From my perspective, super obvious they're taking you out before the election because you're reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop. 10 days ago ish, there was the debate. I've known Biden for over 30 years, and I thought that's not the guy I know.
I mean, he's just completely different. If conspiracy nut, I would think he was a body double because it's that different. I'm so glad you're back here.
Speaker 0: I'm so glad to see you.
Speaker 1: You are not far away.
Speaker 2: It's it's good. Far away.
Speaker 1: We work together. We live near each other. It's all in many places. Amazing. How are you enjoying your new life?
Speaker 0: Pretty well. It's, good. It's been an adjustment. I've had an energetic few months.
Speaker 1: I knew you would. I knew you would. Okay. So I just have to ask you because you're I was in television a long time also, but you were in the the news side of television preparing interviews and packages and every day for decades. And given your extensive knowledge of that, I'm just a little bit confused by how the media people in our business, form of business, could look at the last debate with Biden and Trump and say, I just can't believe that there's something wrong with him.
That he's neurologically compromised or ill or senile or whatever, that he's not operating the way that he used to. How could this be news to people who've interviewed him before?
Speaker 0: Well, I think this is a real opportunity to gather more data and to take an investigative lens and look at this issue of president Biden and his decision to seek reelection. We've got some data points already. We have the debate Yeah. That you've just referenced that people were so surprised Yeah. His demeanor.
And we now have this ABC interview and the full transcript. I think it's a moment where other media organizations who've done interviews with the president over the last couple of years could release the full transcripts from those interviews. I think it makes sense because we'd have broader data points to assess was this a one off, as the White House says, or were there indications of decline earlier on? Were they obvious and apparent, or were they subtle and missed? And and if they were obvious, why was it that they seemed to end up on the cutting room floor?
I think that having this broader dataset for an independent review would really inform the public discussion about the president's decision to stay in the race.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of data to look at. I mean, I've known Biden, watched Biden, been around Biden a lot for over 30 years. And I remember my reaction in 2019 when he decided to run, once again for president for the 4th time, I think. I thought that's not the guy I know. I mean, he's just completely different.
And then his sister told a friend of mine, actually, we're very upset because he's in cognitive decline. He's got some neurological illness, and we don't want him to run for president. So I immediately said that on Fox News.
Speaker 0: So you reported that at the time?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah. And then I showed the tape. Like, look at this guy. And was attacked, of course, and ignored.
So that was 5 years ago. I wasn't shocked by his performance of the debate, especially. But then other journalists were. They seem to be. Were they pretending?
Or, like, what I don't understand how someone who did an interview with him, like, 2 years ago wouldn't have been aware that there was something wrong.
Speaker 0: Well, I think it's an opportunity to provide this broader data set so there can be this independent review by the public.
Speaker 1: What would that data look like?
Speaker 0: Well, let's look at the what the transcript show. Do they show someone who is, you know, very consistent, very focused, very deliberate in their answering of questions, or does it show someone who's maybe struggling to stay on track or is lacking?
Speaker 1: Do we have that case?
Speaker 0: Well, media outlets who've conducted interviews with the president should have those transcripts. I mean, it's it's not standard to release video outtakes from an interview, but you could release the transcript. And I say that as someone who released the transcripts of my interview with president Trump back in 2020. Releasing a transcript, I think, is about transparency so you can have a broad overview of the interview. I think it makes sense because there are other headlines in the interview that maybe you your news organization is not gonna look at Right.
Per se. You know, just sort of separately, I think you have a tremendous responsibility when you sit down with the president of the United States, probably the ultimate newsmaker, to ask questions that are of interest to your news organization, but also to others. Right? And then finally, I think a transcript, allows you to stand behind the edit that you either post online or that you broadcast. Right?
Because then the public can see the sections of the interview that you, you know, condensed or you made edits for clarification.
Speaker 1: Right. So I know that in, I haven't thought about this enough, but I know that in 2015 or 2016, the New York Times editorial board sat down with Trump, and they released a full, apparently, unedited transcript, which was chaotic. His speaking style tends to be a little discursive.
Speaker 0: Nonlinear. Word, discursive.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It is nonlinear. But, you know, that's that's well known. I think he's much better on camera than he is, you know, in transcripts, but but whatever you think of it, that they put that out there. I don't remember in the last 4 years any news organization interviewed Biden, and there have been some releasing a transcript of the interview.
Do you?
Speaker 0: I, you know, I I don't I can't recall, but I don't really I haven't gone back and looked at all of them. But But
Speaker 1: so, like, what would be the so I guess what bothers me is that everyone acts like this is a shock. It was not a shock to me. I have no special knowledge. I'm quite some special knowledge, but I which I revealed immediately. But it was, like, super obvious every time I saw him, there's something wrong with that guy.
How could the journalist be shocked? Well, why don't they just release immediately?
Speaker 0: Well, they could. That's that's what I think makes a lot of sense right now to do that. That's ultimately up to them, but I think it just goes to transparency. I think it goes to informing the public discussion right now about the president's, fitness for office and to seek reelection. And I think it's also about standing behind your work.
Right? Like, you decided to make edits in the process, for for clarity, for time, what you know, whatever the issue is.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 0: And so you can really you can really stand behind that. I think that's that's important.
Speaker 1: But so, again, you were in this business for so long and me too and at a time, you know, pre Internet, pre streaming where you have a very small chunk of time, 3, 5, 6 minutes for the long ones, and then you you just can't use the rest. But now news organizations should just put the whole thing. I mean, that's what we do. I do this interview is not edited in any way. And if, you know, we'll just let viewers decide what they think of Katherine Harish or me or whatever.
Speaker 2: Why is this?
Speaker 1: Harris. Was that you know? But so what would be the excuse that, say, NBC or CBS or ABC or Fox or anybody would have to not put the full thing online now?
Speaker 0: I mean, I can't speak to what their rationale would be. I just don't in my case, I felt it was important to to release a transcript Yeah. To allow people to see the work, and to also I mean, it's hard to look at your own transcript because you you look at it and you say, oh, that question could have been more focused, or I should have followed up more, or I missed that little piece of news. I should have drilled down a little further, or I interrupted there when I really shouldn't have. I mean, it's a really kind of warts and all process that you're looking at, but it's it's about sort of the raw integrity of the interview.
You know, when you make edits in an interview, you do it for clarity. Sometimes you do it because you have to condense things because you only have a certain amount of time on a broadcast. But it's a real fine line and a balancing act, and you don't want, you know, seeking clarity and brevity or condensing it to cross the line into, you know, a cleanup on aisle 7.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what it feels like, though. It does feel like and I don't wanna be too judgy. I was telling you at breakfast this morning, I edited something out of an interview once with somebody. I can't remember ever doing that before since, but and I would not do that now. But several years ago, someone said something so bizarre in the interview that I didn't wanna follow-up on it because I don't wanna I mean, what the hell are you even talking about?
Mhmm. And so I asked the editors to take that out just because I didn't think it was relevant to the conversation. It was weird. Mhmm. So whatever.
I did that. I'll say that I did that. But if you're interviewing someone, and he seems, like, bizarre through the whole interview, and you find yourself trying to cover that up, then maybe you're a liar. Mhmm. Do you think?
Speaker 0: Well, I think the I think the instinct when you sit down with the president of the United States is this is your president. You want them to look their best. I mean, I under I understand that.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: But if there were indicators, and I don't know there were, but if there were indicators that he was in decline or he was really struggling to answer a series of questions, I mean, that's news. Right? I mean, that's a news headline.
Speaker 1: Well, and the opposite of news is, of course, you know, censorship and deception. So if you're hiding that, then you're committing, well, a moral crime, but you're also committing an offense against the profession that you chose whose purpose is to inform the public of what reality is. Right? And you're hiding things rather than exposing them. And that I mean, that that's pretty clear violation, isn't it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I again, I think it's an opportunity to build the dataset, to better understand what's happened over the last couple of years and, you know, really apply that investigative lens. You know, I I find it so hard to take off my, like, investigative reporter. Right. But that's that's sort of how I see it right now.
I'm curious. I'm genuinely curious to see what those transcripts may reflect.
Speaker 1: Well, in 2016, you know, NBC went and back into its archives and found an outtake of Donald Trump saying something vulgar to Billy Bush, the host, about women and grabbing them and all this stuff. And then they leaked it to David Fahrenthold. I think I'm remembering this correctly.
Speaker 0: Can't remember that exactly, but it came out public.
Speaker 1: If I say if I've gotten that wrong, pardon me. But they leaked it to Washington Post reporter who had been a college friend of an NBC executive, and then it became this huge thing that, you know, almost derailed Trump's campaign. And that's why they did it, of course. So there's precedent for showing us the outtakes. Mhmm.
Do they have an excuse not to show it to the Biden outtakes?
Speaker 0: I mean, I I can't really speak for them. I I'm sorry to sort of be a little evasive about that. I just I just would advocate for it. I think that it's an issue of such import to the country, and it really informs the discussion and the discourse surrounding this this issue. And it and it goes to accountability with the White House.
Was it really a bad night, or was was there a broader trend that had been developing?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I'm I feel totally qualified to pass judgment on that question.
Speaker 0: I'll over to you.
Speaker 1: Well, since I knew the guy, that's not Biden. Like, that's not the guy I remember who and I mean this. I always I never agreed with him, but I'm a I'm a shallow person, so is he. So I always kinda liked him because he's throw you know, Irish guy throw his arm around. How are you doing, buddy?
You know, rub your chest. Maybe sniff maybe he sniffed me. I don't care. I like sniffing. And that's just not the guy on TV at all, like, at all.
And really, I mean, if that was a conspiracy, now they would think he was a body double because it's that different. So anyway. Alright. In your long and varied career working in a bunch of different big media the biggest media outlets in the country, Did you see people's political or social agendas shape news coverage a lot?
Speaker 0: I I the short answer is is is yes. I think it's difficult for people to step back and do what I like to say I do is which is balls and strikes. Right? People have their own personal lens through which they see stories, but I think you have to really park that at the front door when you go to work because I think that's when you have the most transparent, credible, authentic journalism.
Speaker 1: I agree with that. Do you feel like the composition of newsrooms has changed from when you started in the business? It feels like there was a greater, like, actual diversity of life experience back then, 30 years ago.
Speaker 0: Hard to say. I started my career at ABC in London. Yeah. And that was, an extremely rarefied atmosphere in a lot
Speaker 1: of That's right.
Speaker 0: These are very we're very experienced people. A lot of the correspondents came out of Vietnam.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: You know, very, very deep experience, and I was very fortunate to learn in that environment. I haven't This
Speaker 1: is when Jennings was so forced there.
Speaker 0: Jennings had just left London by the time I had arrived, and, I I wanted to be a foreign correspondent. You know, when you're that young, you have ideas. I I just it's like it looks so exciting to me. Totally. And some of the correspondents in the office really took me under their wing and taught me how to write a story by looking at the interviews, the strongest elements of the interview, the sound bites, and then they trained me to really sit down and look at the video and identify the strongest video, and then the natural sound, which really can be such an important technique.
Speaker 1: That sound.
Speaker 0: That's right. When you're when you're editing a a piece together because it's really like this mosaic, the strongest sound, the best video, and the natural sounds. So this was a really rarefied environment. Have I been in in a newsroom like that since? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: What was the difference? Was it smarter, more serious?
Speaker 0: I I just felt with with that cohort of reporters, they're just it was all about accountability journalism. I mean, to me, if that's part of my DNA, it's it's What does that mean accountability? Accountability journalism is when you're you're curious and you seek the facts, and then you try and figure out where the buck stops. Right? And it's not a question of, well, it's this party or that party.
It's whatever entity is responsible. Right. And accountability journalism is, you know, like they say, speaking truth to power on both sides of of the aisle.
Speaker 1: So power is the key though. I mean, accountability doesn't necessarily mean, you know, hassling poor rural whites with diabetes, you know, the weakest, most despised people in our society. It means, like, you know, asking questions about BlackRock and the National Security Council and the people who actually have all the power. It it felt to me 30 years ago like that was implied. Like, everyone sort of thought that your job was to hold the powerful accountable, not the weakest.
Speaker 0: I still feel that way.
Speaker 1: I do too. Yeah. I do too.
Speaker 0: We have that in common. I I
Speaker 1: do too. Did you see that change?
Speaker 0: Boy. You know, I I used to say to people that, you know, technology was supposed to really improve our ability to do journalism, but I sometimes felt that the technology has never been better, but the reporting's never been worse. And and I I don't know why that is except
Speaker 1: Is there a connection?
Speaker 0: I've never
Speaker 2: thought of
Speaker 0: I think sometimes what we're missing is that boots on the ground, person to person contact
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: In reporting. Years ago when I did a journalism degree at Columbia, I had this professor, Dick Blood. That was his name.
Speaker 2: Dick Blood.
Speaker 0: Dick Blood. And he was sort of a legend in New York City newsrooms, and he used to always say to me, detail matters and good reporting. You know, if you go to a crime scene, you wanna count how many bullet holes are in the windshield. So I think there's that kind of on the ground, sort of real traditional investigative feel sometimes that's that's missing in that person to person context.
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, I agree with that. I remember going to a murder scene and looking down, there was blood all over my shoes. Mhmm. I didn't put that in the story.
But I remember thinking, wow, you know, that actually is shoe leather reporting. You get a real sense of things when you can smell them.
Speaker 0: You know, when you think back to major events, I I was in New York on 911, and we were down near, the World Trade Center in the days right afterwards. And I I saw someone who was collecting, ash off the top of the cars. And at that point, we'd realized that all of the abandoned cars in downtown Manhattan belong to people who had been killed in the towers. And I stopped this woman, and I asked her what she was doing. And she said, my sister was wasn't, the the windows on the world at the top of the World Trade Center.
She didn't survive, and I wanna have something to bury for my family. So the ash is what I'm collecting.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: And that was the moment that I realized that so much of the ash that was spread around the city was really
Speaker 1: People.
Speaker 0: People and the buildings. And that kind of tactile feel to the reporting is the kind of reporting that really impacts people and stays and stays with them. And I don't know whether it's the technology or whether it's sort of the immediacy of all these deadlines, but the ability to do that, is much harder now than it used to be.
Speaker 1: No. No. I and I I think that's really smart. And technology gives you the illusion that all the information is on Google or a text away when actually talking to people makes all the difference. Right.
So one phenomenon that I noticed well, that I actually didn't notice until I was in middle age, but came You're
Speaker 0: in middle age?
Speaker 1: I'm well, that's what they claim. Okay. Actually, I'm way past middle I'm not gonna live to. I'm not good at math a 110. So I guess I'm in late life now.
But there are beat reporters, people who've, you know, covering federal agencies, particularly in Washington, who become captive to those agencies, to their sources. You know, not in a literal sense or not held in the basement in chains, but they're I mean, they are sort of puppets of the people they cover. I really noticed that I'm thinking of one specific person who I'm not gonna name, but I would just say a female national security reporter in Washington who and I would watch these, you know, stories come out. I'd be like, that well, that that's a lie. You know it's a lie, and you're doing it on behalf of the people who feed you these lies.
Mhmm. Have you seen a lot of that?
Speaker 0: I think that the danger is that people become sort of so friendly with the the press offices that work in in these big, agencies that they they find it hard over time to really challenge them.
Speaker 1: That was never a problem for you, I noticed. Should stay for we work together. For people who don't know, Catherine Herridge, one thing I've always loved about you, I don't even know who you vote for, and I mean that. But I did notice that a lot of the didn't like you, so I always thought that was a good sign.
Speaker 0: You wanna you wanna have the ability to really operate outside the ring. I used I used to say that, one of the advantages to doing reporting as long as I've done it is that you start to build a network of contacts so that that's really where your your stories are coming from.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And that the public affairs office and a major government entity is really the last stop for you. Right? That's where you're trying to get some response. And I really believe in in giving these offices ample time to respond. I did a story recently where we engaged with, the Department of the Army and the National Guard for 2 weeks.
I mean, we really gave them time because we wanted to understand their position and what had happened in a particular case. But sometimes the danger is that people become too close. That's why I think it makes sense in in some cases to really rotate reporters so that you don't spend so long on a certain beat that you start to lose your context sort of outside of that circle.
Speaker 1: That's exactly or you become a tool of of lies, which some, Pentagon reporters have become, I would say, one in particular. But what's the mechanism for for pulling that person back and putting that person on another beat or for fixing that?
Speaker 0: I can I I when I worked overseas,
Speaker 2: I saw this with some of the British news organizations, that
Speaker 0: they would rotate people into the United States that they would rotate people into the United States for a few years and then they would take them back to Britain? So they would be there an election cycle, let's say, they'd be there long enough to build contacts, and then they would go back overseas, and someone else would come in. So you'd have a fresh set of eyes and ears.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And I think that that makes a lot of sense. It can be a little frustrating for a reporter because on some beats it takes you a decade or more to really start to build the contacts and the reputation with individuals. But I do think that you have to check yourself. You have to ask yourself, am I really checking it out to the degree, that I need to be? As professor Blood would say, just because your mother says she loves you, doesn't mean you should not
Speaker 2: check it
Speaker 0: check it out. Right?
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 1: I I learned that firsthand. Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's a that's a different conversation.
Speaker 2: It
Speaker 1: sucks. No. Totally kidding. It's so dark, but it is funny. So if you're paying any attention at all to what's going on in the world, you probably asked yourself, what would I do, not just for myself, but for the people who love me and I'm responsible for my family?
What would I do if things really went south, either for a short period or a longer period? If there was an emergency, how would I respond? Of course, you need food and water. You need security, some way to protect yourself and your loved ones. You probably have taken care of all of that.
But one problem you may not have addressed is what do you do about medicine? If there's a medical problem when there's not readily available medical care, what do you do for your family? And that's a tough question to answer, actually. But now there is an answer, and it comes from Jace Medical. It is a personalized emergency supply of medicines you might need, antibiotics, other life saving medicines to treat a long list of problems you could have, bacterial illnesses, respiratory infections, skin infections, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Things that could come up and happen when you can't just drive over to the doctor. This is preparation, and for its cost, probably well worth it, but find out for yourself. Go to jacemedical.com to get emergency stock of common medicines for yourself and your family. It'll all be reviewed by a board certified physician and dispensed by a licensed pharmacy at a fraction of the regular cost, not crackpot stuff. It's essential.
I have it. You should too. Use the promo code Tucker at checkout for an extra discount, but don't wait until you need it. It's worth doing now. Jacemedical.com.
I wonder since you spent, you know, you're at ABC, Fox News, CBS. You just left CBS pretty recently, the spring maybe?
Speaker 0: This February.
Speaker 1: February. Okay. Like, you spent your whole life at and I have too at these huge news organizations at and toward the end, you know, independent journalism, digital journalism is on the rise. Like, what was the view of that from inside the big news organization?
Speaker 0: Well, I think within, big corporate media, there was still a sense that they were sort of the the the final word on things. Really? Yeah. Or, you know, sort of and maybe it's not the best phrase, gatekeepers Yeah. For information.
But after I lost my job in February, I took a couple of months to really educate myself about the marketplace, and I was surprised at how much the media landscape had really changed just
Speaker 1: Isn't that crazy that you wouldn't know that? I didn't know it either. I mean, I'm not criticizing you. I mean, I but isn't it weird that you can work? I'm in the news business, but you really don't know what the news business is.
Speaker 0: I think you're very focused on what you're doing day to day, and you're not sort of looking at the bigger picture. But I took some time to to try and understand how the landscape had really shifted, and I was surprised at how much it had really evolved in the four and a half years that I was at CBS News. And I say this as someone who spent my entire career working with big corporations, and I was and I was grateful for those jobs. I don't wanna minimize that. Yeah.
But what I see now is that those entities are really shrinking and contracting, and the audiences are getting older. And the real explosive growth is with, smaller independent operations and smaller independent newsrooms.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that is though? I mean, if you're someone like Matt Taibbi, who also worked, you know, for Rolling Stone, you know, big worked for a big company, But then went out completely on his own. He has a substack, and then he creates his own news organization. But it's just one guy. And if you look at his growth and revenue, it's so much higher than, like, people with the backing of these huge corporations.
Like, why how could Matt Taibbi get a bigger audience than Nora O'Donnell or whoever's hosting the show? I don't even know who's hosting them anymore, but, like, how did that happen?
Speaker 0: I think I think the the public is really hungry for credible, reliable information.
Speaker 2: So I
Speaker 0: don't think it's more, complicated
Speaker 1: I agree with you.
Speaker 0: Than that. And I'm not here to sort of take shots
Speaker 1: I get
Speaker 0: it. With employers, but I I just that's what I came away from.
Speaker 1: But what's so interesting is, like, if you have like, if you're, you know, General Motors and you have a sort sort of monopoly on your on your area, and all of a sudden, some guy starts building cars in his garage, and, like, they're more popular than you Mhmm. It's kind of an indictment of you, isn't it?
Speaker 0: I think the speed at which things have have evolved has really surprised people. I mean, when you start to look at the I think we're at at an inflection point.
Speaker 1: For sure.
Speaker 0: You start to look at, the numbers. You know, for example, you did some interviews that related to the Biden investigation. Yeah. And these were, you know, 90,000,000 views or, you know, sometimes higher, but these are these are big numbers. And when you compare that to what an evening news broadcast is, you know, 4000000, 7000000, 6000000, I mean, you're just reaching a broader, larger global audience.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And I would argue, and I don't have the benefit of all the data, but it's also a younger audience. And it may be an audience that's really engaged in gathering information.
Speaker 1: Because if
Speaker 0: they're on these platforms, they're checking multiple times a day for for headlines, for new video, for new content. So these are real, voracious consumers of information.
Speaker 1: I think that's all absolutely true. But it leaves an answer to the question, how did this happen? How did, you know, penniless upstarts beat, you know, the entrenched monopolies? And I just know in my own life, the only moments of growth that have ever occurred for me, the pivot points of my life have all been those moments from, like, wow, I really suck. Like, I really made bad no.
For real. Mhmm. You know? I drink too much, or I got caught lying, or I'm just kind of a rotten person. I have to change.
Mhmm. And I got fired once for, basically, I was just lazy and not taking my job seriously. I stopped being lazy. I started taking my job. So you notice, like, it's really important to realize how much you suck.
Speaker 0: Well, there's a forcing function.
Speaker 1: Yes. That's what it is. Long winded question. Do you see that process playing out at in corporate media?
Speaker 0: I can I can speak for myself right now? If, you know, I lost my job in February. You
Speaker 1: just lost it? Like, you forgot where you put it?
Speaker 0: No. I I I didn't actually lose my job. I I
Speaker 1: I had a few drinks and lost my job along with my car keys and my cell phone.
Speaker 0: Looking around for it. You know, my job was terminated. That was a very public thing.
Speaker 1: I know. I'm not the people I put I was fired too.
Speaker 0: I lost my company health insurance. That was a very big deal for us because we have a son who's a transplant patient. He's got chronic medical condition. And then I had my record seized by my employer, which was a red line I thought should never have been crossed. And then I was held in contempt of court.
So February was a very, very big month for me. But I made a decision once I'd educated myself about the marketplace, which I would never have done if there hadn't been that forcing function, that for now I was gonna go independent. I'd had some opportunities from generous opportunities to sort of go back to a large corporate media outlet, but I decided that I would go independent and I would tell the stories that I couldn't tell before because I was at a point in my career where I had built up a network of contacts, and I felt now is the time. If it's not now, then then when?
Speaker 1: Amen. I I couldn't agree more. So since you, brought up and I'm and I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make fun. I know it's it is traumatic to have your life turned upside down in a day.
I just think you're gonna be so much happier. But let's talk about that. Like, so you get hired. You were at Fox News where we worked together, and I really enjoyed that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I enjoyed it too.
Speaker 1: I thought you were really
Speaker 0: You're very well behaved. Honest person.
Speaker 2: I thought
Speaker 0: the guy was a good moderating influence when we sat down to
Speaker 1: I loved it. But then you left and went, to CBS News, which is a, you know, a huge channel with a storied past in decline in decline. This is my assessment because they weren't doing what they're supposed to do, which is, like, tell you interesting stuff that you didn't know and be honest and brave. You are honest and brave, and you specialize in interesting stories. So I thought, wow.
This is so this is great. I mean, CBS is a little smarter than I thought they were. And you did break a bunch of stories, and you were the most memorable person on their air, the one doing the fiercest journalism. This is again my assessment, and then they have cutbacks because their business is failing, and they fire you. I'm like, wait.
What? Did you see that coming?
Speaker 0: I didn't see it coming. Yeah. I didn't. It wasn't a performance issue. I am so proud of the work that we did there, especially the work with veterans.
I mean, we really helped be a catalyst for legislation that impacted a 1000000 veterans and civilians for for the better. Yes. I mean, I feel very proud of that. But, that's that's their choice. Whether I work there or not.
It's not my company.
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 0: But the the seizing of the records was, a terrible red line
Speaker 2: that was crossed.
Speaker 1: If you don't mind, I know this has been written about, but I just wanna get a record on video of what exactly happened. So how how did this unfold? Like, what kind of warning did you have, and what happened?
Speaker 0: Well, I testified to congress, about this as well. I was, laid laid off on a Zoom call. I was told my job was terminated. And, Could you
Speaker 1: explain why?
Speaker 0: No. Not beyond saying that they were they were making cuts. And, I was, locked out of my email and locked out of the office. And, a couple of days later, a courier came to the house with just a couple of boxes of clothing and, some books and, you know, a few awards. And I said, where are all my investigative files and my research and my reporting notes?
And she said you're just gonna have to talk to human resources about that. And I got the union involved, SAG, AFTRA. I'm not gonna go into all the details, but there was a very vigorous back and forth about returning the records. What
Speaker 1: were the records, like, interview notes?
Speaker 0: You know, what I would say is that there were interview notes, research, reporter notes, contact information. And, when I had left other major organizations, ABC and Fox, it was completely different. There was an understanding that you would go through your materials, you would take with you what was essentially your reporting materials, and you would leave what belonged to the company. And I knew from people at CBS that that what was happening to me was not standard. One person in particular said that, when their office was cleaned out, they put in dirty coffee cups and post it notes.
I mean, everything came back to them.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I think if the union hadn't gotten involved and there hadn't been a public outcry, I would never have seen those records again. The union really stood up for journalism. And I I testified that when the network of Walter Cronkite sees this your reporting information, including confidential source information, it's an attack on investigative journalism. And I heard from contacts that I've worked with over the years, who've helped me to expose government wrongdoing interruption that they were very concerned that they would be identified.
Speaker 1: So you I mean, again, I I doubt you will agree with this. I don't know what you really think. But from my perspective, super obvious they're taking you out before the election because you're reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop. And that was that's my take on it. I was shocked that they fired you.
And when I reflected for a moment, I was not shocked at all. You know, they took out the Drudge report before the 2020 election. They, you know, whatever. Lots of people who are in the way have been taken out before election. So, what yeah.
Do you think there was do you think your notes were did they go through your notes during the time they had them?
Speaker 0: I really can't answer that.
Speaker 1: Because you don't know? Or
Speaker 0: I just don't wanna really answer that that right now. That's okay.
Speaker 1: No. Of course. I think Yeah. I think people can draw their own conclusions. Tell us about the reporting you did.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Publicly, they said they haven't, but, anyway, I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Will be kinda tempting to go through your interview notes. I'd like to. I mean, why would they seize your personal report, reporting product, you know?
Speaker 0: It was a very sad episode for me, just professionally and personally, because I thought that we had done some really tremendous work, on, not only, the the laptop, but also, the IRS whistleblowers. I mean, this was a major story for CBS News. I did an interview along with one of my colleagues, and I think that really changed the public discussion of a Hunter Biden investigation and this question of whether there was a double standard applied in that So in that case.
Speaker 1: For those of us who missed the CBS report, tell us what the the the tax investigation into Hunter Biden. So Hunter Biden in the end got convicted of completely ridiculous gun this is my personal editorializing, but ridiculous gun charge. Like, who cares, actually? But there are other potential crimes. Tell us about the tax
Speaker 0: Well, you have to I I would think about the Hunter Biden case as having 2 buckets. The first was the gun charges, and then the second is this tax case. I've always felt the tax case is a much more serious case Yes. And has the greatest legal jeopardy for himself and members of his of his family. It I'd encourage people just to look at the indictment, which is in California, and it's, my memory is that it's on the first page or the second page.
They refer to him as a lobbyist. And that to me is an indicator that the special counsel is exploring whether there were violations of FARA, which is the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And that in simple terms means that if you're working on behalf of the interest of a foreign government, you need to be clear with the US government.
Speaker 1: Just to register.
Speaker 0: That's right. And seated throughout that document is information about his businesses with Ukraine, with China, with with others. So to me, it leaves the door open to a superseding indictment. I'm not saying that's gonna happen, but it certainly, to me, was an indicator or a flag that that was possible.
Speaker 1: So, but the tax charges specifically, what what do they amount to?
Speaker 0: These are felony tax charges. They're pretty significant. And a tax case, the challenge for any defendant is that these are paper driven cases. They're not really witness driven cases. What did you attest to when you signed the forms?
What did your accountant attest to? And, I think one of the important elements in the case is how much of this happened after he was sober. Right? Because there's a whole window with the taxes where he's really, a heavy user and drug addict. But as he told the Delaware court last year when the plea deal fell apart, there was, a period of time where he became clean.
So how many of these alleged bad acts happened during that period versus when he was an addict?
Speaker 1: And that's relevant because sober people have no excuse?
Speaker 0: Well, it just goes to your state of mind. Right? I think I think a
Speaker 1: jury mistakes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think I think any jury wants to understand someone who's come through addiction. They they wanna understand that. They're they're they're sympathetic to that because that's like a daily challenge for individuals. And I think that knowing when they were able to get themselves clean, I think, helps un inform, their view on the evidence and what actions
Speaker 1: I think that's I think that's right. So what's the status of those charges?
Speaker 0: Last, I haven't been following it as closely, but in the fall, I think that goes to trial.
Speaker 1: It was just kind of inter I mean, this is relevant now, and I don't think it's often referred to in daily reporting on what Joe Biden is going through right now. So 10 days ago ish, there was the debate. People were shocked. Democratic donors appear shocked. Some I talked to one of them who really was shocked, didn't know that Biden was impaired.
And there was a push, pretty sizable push, from members of congress for Biden to step aside, and he's now issued this letter, which seems to me is written by his son, Hunter, saying I'm staying it. And Hunter, it's been reported widely, is in the White House. He's his father's chief adviser on this. And you're sort of wondering, like, what is this? And you're saying, well, Hunter Biden is facing this trial.
Yeah. It's probably better to have your dad be president when
Speaker 2: when he's in a trial.
Speaker 0: I I really can't really Right.
Speaker 2: No. That's just saying
Speaker 1: you don't have to connect those dots, but that's not an irrelevant fact that he's facing these charges.
Speaker 0: It's not it's not a it's not an irrelevant fact, and I I I I guess what has my attention is that over the last couple of years, there has been such an effort by the White House to distance the president from his son, especially in terms of business affairs. Yes. Right? But now they're they're really sort of joint joint at the hip apparently. I don't know that independently, but, you know, they're very and it just, did their relationship really suddenly change in that moment or not?
Or maybe it's always been like that. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 1: Most of us well, actually, all of us go through our daily lives using all sorts of quote free technology without paying attention to why it's quote free. Who's paying for this and how? Think about it from it. Think about your free email account, the free messenger system you used to chat with your friends, the free other weather app or game app you open up and never think about. It's all free, But is it?
No. It's not free. These companies aren't developing expensive products and just giving them to you because they love you. They're doing it because their programs take all your information. They hoover up your data, private personal data, and sell it to data brokers and the government.
And all of those people who are not your friends are very interested in manipulating you and your personal political and financial decision. It's scary as hell and it's happening out in the open without anybody saying anything about it. This is a huge problem and we've been talking about this problem to our friend, Eric Prince, for years. Someone needs to fix this and he and his partners have and now, we're partners with them and their company is called Unplugged. It's not a software company.
It's a hardware company. They actually make a phone. The phone is called Unplugged and it's more than that. The purpose of the phone is to protect you from having your life stolen, your data stolen. It's designed from a privacy first perspective.
It's got an operating system that they made. It's called messenger and other apps that help you take charge of your personal data and prevent it from getting passed around to data brokers and government agencies that will use it to manipulate you. Unplugged Kibman is to its customers. They will promise you and they mean it that your data are not being sold or monetized or shared with anyone. From basics like its custom Libertas operating system which they wrote which is designed from the very first day to keep your personal data on your device.
It also has, believe it or not, a true on off switch that shuts off the power. It actually disconnects your battery and ensures that your microphone and your camera are turned off completely when you want them to be. So they're not spying on you in, say, your bedroom which your iPhone is. That's a fact. So it is a great way, one of the few ways to actually protect yourself from big tech and big government to reclaim your personal privacy.
Without privacy, there is no freedom. The unplugged phone, you can get a $25 discount when you use the code Tucker at the checkout. So go to unplugged.com/tucker to get yours today. Highly recommended. Well, my impression knowing Hunter Biden pretty well as I did, I think he was always close to his dad.
Mhmm. He revered his father. I know that
Speaker 0: And there's a difference, to being close than being a business with somebody.
Speaker 1: Of course, there is. I revere my dad, not in business with him. But I do think it's I know for a fact that he was always close to his dad. I always loved his dad. That's one of the things I liked about him, actually.
But, you know, it's all these are very different circumstances from when I knew him. And so he's facing and, you know, these are charges that carry potentially jail time. Correct?
Speaker 0: Yes. Mhmm. The gun and the taxes.
Speaker 1: The gun and right. Interesting. So why do you think there's been that seems like kind of a big deal. It doesn't seem like there's been a new reported on it, but there hasn't been a ton of reporting on
Speaker 0: that. I guess what I would say is that, I felt very proud at CBS News of the of the of the investigative journalism that we did, whether it was with the whistleblowers or whether it was, with a laptop. And I went to a lot of effort to get, data from that laptop, which had a very clean chain of custody Yeah. That I learned through my reporting was, mirrored what was given to the FBI, and I felt that was important to understand the integrity of of the data.
Speaker 1: Given that that laptop had been described by a bunch of retired intel officials as Russian pop as fake.
Speaker 0: Right. Mhmm. And we went to a lot of effort to, have it, forensically analyzed by a very reputable group and a group that was, with sort of no political attachments that was outside the beltway, a group out out west, and really a stand up group. Great group. They did a terrific forensic scrub of it, and and they concluded that there nothing had been altered or changed on the of the copy of the data that we had.
Other journalists, got their data through third parties, And I think that that probably contaminated the data in some way, but I felt extremely confident, about our data. I, I guess what I would we did that story in, late 2022. And, you know, my reputation is for moving quickly and efficiently through complex investigations. Not believable. What does that mean?
Not believable.
Speaker 1: What does that mean?
Speaker 0: I I think that, and I I wanna be respectful of my former employer. I think that there was an opportunity to lead earlier on that story. I guess I would lead leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Well, I authenticated at day 1 because there was emails from me on there, and no one knew I knew Hunter Biden. So I knew it was real because no one would ever do you know, no one would ever fake it.
Speaker 0: Your typos.
Speaker 1: Well, so, like, I I had lived near Hunter Biden. That's how I knew him. And so, just live in Washington because you did. So it's not that weird if you live in Washington. It's like a small city.
Everyone knows everybody else. But I knew that nobody knew that I knew Hunter Biden. So, like, if you're assembling a fake laptop, you wouldn't put emails from, like, the Fox News host on there because that's too weird. So I instantly knew it was real. And, I'm just a little bit surprised that it took you that long.
So you're saying it didn't actually take you that long. There were roadblocks for
Speaker 0: I just think my reputation is for moving quickly and, unfortunately, to a complex investigation.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Did so but it took 2 2 years for that story to make air.
Speaker 0: And I'm glad it did. Yeah. Because I think it really changed the conversation.
Speaker 1: For sure. Mhmm. Interesting. Did you feel could you feel it at the company that, like, people didn't want you to do this?
Speaker 0: You know, I I've always tried to be respectful of my former employers.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And I testified to congress that, I mean, there was tension over, the Biden reporting.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Especially when I sort of turned my lens on to president Biden.
Speaker 1: Oh, didn't like that. I'm sorry. It it's it's I'll say it. You don't need to. I'm not even speaking of CBS specifically.
It's so corrupt to me. It's just absolutely ridiculous. Because it's not a reporter's job to cover for a politician. Right? I'm just checking.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, I I like to think that I call balls and strikes. People like to talk about the Hunter Biden reporting at CBS, but I was also the reporter who obtained the audiotape of president Trump apparently bragging about these Iran documents at Mar a Lago. Right. But they don't talk about that.
Speaker 1: Well, I well, you should, I mean.
Speaker 2: You should,
Speaker 0: but I'm just saying, you know, I'm kind of equal opportunity when it comes to the accountability.
Speaker 1: Were there any well, I know that, which is I'm what I'm saying is that your supervisors, whoever they were, and you're being very polite, I would say, but they should have the same fair minded attitude and, you know, allow reporters to tell the truth, period, no matter who it's about, I think. Don't you?
Speaker 0: I think that's what the public's looking for.
Speaker 1: And because they're not delivering that, Matt Taibbi is more influential than CBS News. That's all I'm saying. Like, it finds its own level. People need credible information. They need to
Speaker 0: There's such a hunger for it.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: That's that's, we just, did our first investigation, on x, and we looked at, the defense department's, specifically the army and the National Guard's failure to look after a soldier who had a debilitating heart condition that they blamed on, the COVID vaccine. This was someone who had no heart issues before they entered the military, and we did an independent review of their medical records. And the symptoms appeared almost immediately after, being vaccinated, and they're really amplified after they had that that second dose. And,
Speaker 1: Can you fill out some of the details? Like, how old is this?
Speaker 0: She's 24 years old. Her name is Carolina Stancic. She was, a a soldier in the Army National Guard, and she was on active duty orders when she was diagnosed with this debilitating heart condition called POTS, which is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. And what it means is that there's kind of a disconnect between the way your heart is working and your blood pressure. People can have blackouts, puts a lot of stress on your heart.
And she's had multiple heart attacks. She's had a mini stroke At 24. And we sat down with her, just days before she got a pacemaker at 24. And this story, appealed to me for months because she had paperwork, we learned, from the army, or rather there was army paperwork that, showed that they conceded over time that, her heart condition was in the line of duty, and it it was especially important. And, when we launched that investigation, I felt along with the team that x was probably the only platform that we could have such an authentic and candid and open conversation about the failure of the US military to take care of its people.
Speaker 1: But I just find that crazy. I mean, I have a 24 year old daughter, so it makes me emotional thinking about it. But a 25 year old child, this girl, has a peacemaker Mhmm. Because she followed orders. So or it seemed that's what she says, and that's certainly a credible claim given that's happened to a lot of people, and everyone knows that.
So why would x, which is not was not designed as really a news platform, like, why are they the last outlet that would run something like that? That's crazy to me.
Speaker 0: I I didn't really fully appreciate this until until I started working independently, but we felt that x was the platform where we could really have an open candid conversation and we could put out the records so people could analyze them and fact check them for themselves to understand the issue and make up their own minds as to whether the army and the national guard had really let this soldier down. Right? We just put it all out there for scrutiny. And, I say this, because what I heard anecdotally from from colleagues is that other platforms, that story, even though it was a story about a failure to take care of, of of soldiers, could be de amplified on other platforms or or or labeled something that
Speaker 1: But why is NBC News leading with that? I mean, I thought we No.
Speaker 0: I can't I can't really answer for those outlets. But But
Speaker 1: we both know they would never run that.
Speaker 0: I don't know if they would never run it, but I I just felt that it was a completely legitimate story. Of course. It was, it was a story, about accountability, a failure of the government to look out for its own people. And then in her particular case, it took her 19 months to get the acknowledgment that this heart condition was in the line of duty. And what that means is that she's eligible for different benefits and and medical care.
But because there was such a delay to get medical care, because there was such a delay to get mental health care, she told us at one point she considered suicide. 24. And, anyway, I we heard from other people who believe that they have similar circumstances, and I and I say this with some humility. That's what good journalism does.
Speaker 1: Well, obviously, there's no other point to it. Like, what's the point? I mean, either you're carrying water for people who are paying you to do that, which is just the definition of dishonesty, or you're doing what you're supposed to do. The reason we have First Amendment protections in the first place, which is tell the public what their government is doing, what the powerful people who control their lives are doing. I mean, I don't
Speaker 0: And and and to the credit of the army and the national guard, we engaged with them over 2 weeks. I felt it was very important to give them a lot of time to respond to the charges because they were such serious charges, and they engaged with us, which I thought was a very positive thing because I'm now working independently. Right? I'm not working for a big corporation. And it it said to me that they understood sort of the power and the impact of what we were doing.
You know, 3,000,000 people watched that video or touched that video.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's
Speaker 0: a lot of people. And, you know, global and young people and probably a lot of service members as well. Yeah. So I I I wanna give them credit for that. They they engage.
They try to answer our questions. Folks who are watching this can decide whether their answers, you know, pass the sniff test. But that's that's part of what
Speaker 1: you're doing. You've got a very generous spirit, and you're trying to give people credit where it's due. I will say I've always thought just watching you from a distance that one of your main kind of advantages over everybody else is you cared less about, you know, what the prevailing view of the group was, and it didn't bother you to go in a direction that you felt was the right direction or to tell the truth even when it was unpopular. Why it does it feel to you like a lot of journalists are you know, it's a big deal to them what their colleagues think
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Back in the newsroom.
Speaker 2: Do you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying? Mhmm.
Speaker 0: I guess it it doesn't matter to me as well.
Speaker 1: I can tell.
Speaker 0: I I I I I don't really have any other sort of, explanation for it. I I would say, without getting sort of too personal because I'd like to keep the conversation professional
Speaker 2: Well, it's just interesting.
Speaker 1: It's like, why you
Speaker 0: I just I just, if there's anything I hate more, it's injustice. I hate injustice when I when I see it. And, I just think throughout my career, I've taken on a lot of stories which are about the little guy.
Speaker 1: Well, they should be.
Speaker 0: Fighting the big bureaucracy or the person who says, wait a minute. It's not, you know, it's not adding up. And, so it's that's really what drives me in the end is that sense of there's injustice and there's an opportunity. In the case of this 24 year old, I think that we've seen some incremental, improvements to her situation. I hope that her records issue with the military is resolved quickly because at 24, she's really given up everything.
I mean, she's she's given up her health to serve this vaccine.
Speaker 1: And a lot of other people. I I mean, I know someone who died from the vaccine. Dead.
Speaker 0: But it's not the story was the story was not a moratorium on the vaccine Right. Or the mandate. The story was always about the the alleged failure of the military to take care of its people because that's that's the sacred pledge that you leave no one behind.
Speaker 1: Well, I agree, but I would say that pledge applies to the entire country. The government exists only to serve us. That's its only that's its only job. We pay for it. We own it.
This is a democracy. And, so if they're hurting people and don't care, then that's the the gravest crime they could commit. That's my personal opinion. I thought that was everybody's opinion. Apparently, it's not.
Speaker 0: Apparently not.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Apparently not. Right. I'm not in the military, and I'm never gonna be in the military, but an American citizen. And if my government hurts me, I think it's just obvious that they should apologize and try to make it better.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: But, but they don't. So you're saying well, we've had such a similar experience. You're like, you're in this little world, which you think is a much bigger world than it actually is. I'll speak for myself. And then you get ejected from that world, and you're, like, shocked, but then you thank god for it because, wow, there's fresh air and sunlight.
And then you look around, and you realize that all these smaller organizations or individuals are having, like, a huge effect, and you didn't even know that. It's amazing. But one and I I just love the whole thing. But one of the problems is it's pretty easy it's pretty hard to take down, like, a big news organization because they have, like, a well staffed legal department. Pretty easy to take down an individual with law fair.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: I mean, great? I don't know. Concern.
Speaker 0: Yeah. One of the things I I'd like to talk about is this the press act. The press act is a piece of legislation, that's in the senate right now. It passed unanimously, in the house, and the press act is a federal shield law for reporters. It would allow them to protect confidential sources, and there are just very few exceptions to what I would call common sense exceptions for imminent violence or threats to critical infrastructure.
And I've said that I think the protection of confidential sources is the hill to die on. Because if if you don't have that ability, a credible assurance that you're going to protect your source, as an investigative reporter, your toolbox is empty. I mean, you really have nothing to offer. And you know and others, I can't say a lot about it, but I'm in the middle of a major case where I was asked to disclose confidential source information. I refused to disclose.
Speaker 1: Who asked you to disclose it?
Speaker 0: It was a it's part of a privacy act lawsuit. I'm a witness in the case. And, I So
Speaker 1: this is a private entity?
Speaker 0: Mhmm. There's a a plaintiff. They're suing, government agencies including the FBI, and they wanna understand, the source of sources for my reporting, a series of stories, national security stories in 2017. And,
Speaker 1: This is all public. So just remind me, who's suing?
Speaker 0: A Chinese American, scientist, and she's suing the FBI, the Justice Department, Defense Department, I believe Homeland Security as as well. They're, like, 4 or 5 different agencies. And, the the plaintiff wants to understand how I got information, about her and her So
Speaker 1: you're not being sued?
Speaker 0: No. I'm not. I'm just a witness.
Speaker 1: It's just the same thing happened to me. They grabbed all my text messages. I was not named in the suit, but a judge said I had to divulge. So they're trying to violate, among other things, your privacy, but also the the they're trying to violate the the protection that we all assumed was real, that confidential sources had.
Speaker 0: Look. I I don't wanna lit I wanna be very careful because I don't wanna litigate, you know, the case the case here. But the issue is, the the forced disclosure of confidential source information.
Speaker 1: And So that means you as a reporter talk to people, they tell you stuff on the condition of anonymity. I'm not gonna tell anybody that we spoke, but tell me the truth about what you know.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Correct?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And this is something that journalists deal with constantly.
Speaker 0: If you don't have that credible pledge of confidentiality as an investigative journalist, you really have very little to offer.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I've done it, like, 3 times today already.
Speaker 2: Oh, wow. No. But that's just that's
Speaker 1: your life. You know? Right. You're talking to people constantly about stuff and but everyone knows you're not gonna rat them out. Right?
Speaker 0: The question is in the appellate court right now in Washington, and, the question is when when the need for that information overrides the first amendment and, the reporter's, privilege. I haven't lost a night's sleep over my decision to protect confidential sources. But that doesn't mean I don't feel a tremendous burden and responsibility with this case. Tell
Speaker 1: us about the burden.
Speaker 0: Well, it's it's so much bigger than just my individual case. It's it's not just about me. It's not about just a single series of stories. It's not about one media outlet. Whatever the courts decide, and and I have respect for the legal process and what's unfolding.
Whatever they decide is gonna impact every working journalist in the United States.
Speaker 1: Well, in the public.
Speaker 0: For the yeah. And the public and for the next generation. And that's why, you know, the press act is an opportunity to really strengthen press freedom and press protections at a time, as as you mentioned, that there's this explosion of smaller and independent outlets. And they can't, you know, they can't withstand the legal and financial pressure.
Speaker 1: Tell us about the financial pressures. Like, what does that look like?
Speaker 0: Well, right well, right now, I'm, facing fines of $800 a day for refusing to disclose. That has been, put on hold, and I'm grateful for that pending the appeal, in in the court in Washington. But then there's the cost of litigating a case like this. This is not an inexpensive thing to do. I've been fortunate to have, Fox News, which has mounted a very vigorous defense, an excellent legal team.
Speaker 1: Because you worked at Fox at the time.
Speaker 0: That's correct. I worked at at Fox at the time. But not every outlet can afford to do that. And so having the press act would prevent them from sort of being sort of legally strangled in the future, and and losing that pledge of confidentiality. And if you believe as I do, that an informed electorate and an engaged, reporting core is fundamental to democracy, you're gonna wanna see this opportunity seized and and really realized.
Speaker 1: Well, if you think the public has the right to know what its government is doing, which is kind of the bottom line as far as I'm concerned, and I think the public does public has no idea what the government's doing. I I can say that factually. No clue. They should know. And, then you need to make sure the mechanisms exist for them to get that information.
Correct, I mean?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I I I testified to congress about this earlier in the year, and, I just feel like we're at an inflection point. There's just this incredible shift in the media landscape. There's this sort of exciting diverse group of new voices doing some really tremendous journalism. So this is the moment to me where you wanna offer these kinds of protections for confidential source protection at the federal level so that it's consistent with what existed in almost every state in this country.
And I think it's an acknowledgment of the role that journalism should play and can play in the democratic process.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It can't. You know, if you make it too expensive to tell the truth, nobody will.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of where we are. I mean, you can take people out with lawsuits if you're some well funded political group, particularly on the left. They've been doing this at scale. You just you you shut people up by bankrupting them.
Speaker 0: Well, one of our kids, as we were really, wrestling with the subpoena and how that was all going to unfold, and there's a certain amount of, you know, you can't keep your kids off their phones. Right? So they're seeing sort of some of this play out. And one of our sons asked me, mom, are you gonna go to jail? Are we gonna lose the house?
Are we gonna lose everything that you've worked for? And I wanted to tell him that in this country where we say we value I could get a little choked up when I think about it. But, you know, in this country where we say we value democracy and we value a vigorous press, that it was impossible. But I couldn't offer him that assurance. And, the best part of the story is how he ended it.
He said, mom, do what it takes. I've got your back. And I thought
Speaker 1: Good day.
Speaker 0: If a teenager understands the importance of this pledge of and understands the importance that journalism plays in a democracy, then certainly congress can get this legislation passed. Right now, it's in the senate. Chuck Schumer has said he would like to get it to the president's desk this year, and I hope there'll be movement before the August recess.
Speaker 1: Social media are great. They're important. They're the main way we communicate with each other. They're where politics happen in this country. But one of the problems with social media is that the rules change.
People in charge don't want you to say something. They don't tell you that, And the next thing you know, you're without a platform. Well, now you have an option. Parler. It's back.
The original free speech app, taken off the Internet by the sensors, has come back in full force. Parler was the first big app to be pulled off because it was the 1st big app to make free speech a top priority. Now, other platforms may be relaxing their policies and they change a lot, but Parler will not change. Its distinct approach is here to stay. By paving the way for other apps to protect users free speech, Parler has set the standard in the industry.
It is now launched on a hyperscale private cloud called Parler Cloud and that means your data are secure, your words cannot be controlled by third party companies. It's uncancelable. Again, Parler has been canceled. They don't plan to be canceled again, and they've taken extensive and very expensive steps to make sure it's not going to happen. Parler is not at the mercy of other companies that don't believe in free speech.
And here's the best part, it's ad free. You are not the product on Parler. Parler is committed to providing a space where you can share and engage without interference of ads or invasive targeting. So it's more than just a platform. It is effectively a movement and its goal is to keep the free flow of information open globally where everybody can talk without fear of suppression.
So it's upholding the values this country was founded on, free expression, open dialogue, also innovation, by the way. We're on parlor at Tucker Carlson, and you can go there and find us and stay formed about what's happening in the world. So join a place that embraces your right to say what you actually think, and that fosters connections between people. Without free speech, you can't connect with other people. We're all just lying to each other.
But Parler offers you that a seamless social media experience tailored to your needs. You can get Parler from the App Store, Google Play, or visit parler.com. At Parler, you are valued, you can say what you think, and you're awarded for doing so. Who's against it?
Speaker 0: You know, I think there are some Republican members who have hesitations, about it. What I would say is that
Speaker 1: Well, because they hate the media.
Speaker 0: I I I can't speak to the their Well, I
Speaker 1: hate the media because they're liars, so you wanna protect the truth tellers. I guess that would be my view of it.
Speaker 0: I mean, I think the important thing to understand is that this is legislation that would do so much to protect these smaller independent out outlets where you have this diversity of voices, period, on both sides of the left and on the right. And it's a moment when we can codify those protections. And it's a moment when we can say, you know, we talk about the importance of the First Amendment, we talk about the importance of press freedom, and now we can actually really do something concrete to protect it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think you're right. And I I do think the one thing that we can do is just not obey. I mean, I was told to give up my text messages. I never should've done that.
I knew I shouldn't have done it. I should've just, oh, they're gonna throw you one joke. Go ahead. Now come to my house. Try it.
And I never should've done that, and in a weak moment, I did it. I I mean, clearly, you're facing this right now. I caved. You haven't. Bless you.
But, I mean, what are you gonna do if they if they command you to do it?
Speaker 0: I mean, I just have to cross that bridge Yeah. When when we get to that. In in the meantime, I've been so encouraged by how many media outlets have really filed briefs in support of of our position, that they understand that it's a case that's gonna impact everyone who's working today. And, that's encouraging.
Speaker 1: Does it ever strike you how small our world has become? I mean, so you you work for 30 years or whatever more to become
Speaker 0: It is more. More.
Speaker 1: I'm not I I actually know how long it is, but I I'm not gonna a long time. And you become, you know, the most, arguably, famous investigative journalist in the United States.
Speaker 0: I don't know about that.
Speaker 1: Well, I I would say that's true. Or, certainly, you're top 2 or 3. I mean, well, you are. Okay? But you it's like you you'd think that every news organization be like, oh my gosh.
Katherine Harris is free. Let's hire her. But you're independent on acts. Like, what does that say about the landscape? It's just it's amazing.
Speaker 0: Well, it was a personal choice.
Speaker 1: I I know that. Yeah. Yeah. But but, really, I mean, NBC in a normal world would be like, hey. We don't pay you $3,000,000 a year to do what you do.
But they didn't. So, like, is is that a little strange?
Speaker 0: I think it's an indicator of how the marketplace has really shifted. Yeah. I I think it's I think that's the biggest indicator to me. I didn't really understand how much sort of the Earth had moved moved beneath me in the last four and a half years. And when you start to look at the numbers, you see that, these big corporate out outlets are not, essentially the the gatekeepers on the information anymore.
Yeah. That it's that it's much larger on these on these platforms. And I I really believe in my heart that there is a place for investigative journalism on platforms like X and and other platforms. People are just hungry for it. And that's the investigation we did.
It's like as I said, about 3,000,000 people. I mean, that's a that's a good healthy number.
Speaker 1: Do you don't seem angry, though.
Speaker 0: No. I don't. I don't I don't feel angry. Really? Mhmm.
Speaker 1: There's not a smoldering ball of rage inside towards your old employers?
Speaker 0: No. I I, look. If they don't want me to work there, they don't want me to work there. I know the work was it was not a performance issue. I heard from many of my colleagues who were very, very sad
Speaker 1: that Oh, I know. I I heard from them too.
Speaker 0: Yep. But that's but that's not my call, in the end. The but the seizing of the records was a completely different thing. That was something that I was gonna go to the MET because I felt so strongly,
Speaker 1: about Can you explain why they stole your stuff?
Speaker 0: Well, in a letter to congress, they argued that they had not seized the materials. I think the language they used was that they had tried to secure and protect them, which I left me a little, speechless, because it was diminishing reporter materials to work product. And to say that what had happened was an effort to seize or protect my materials was I mean, it just showed that some executives had a very difficult relationship with the facts.
Speaker 1: That's kind of a problem for news
Speaker 0: I am restrained. I am restrained.
Speaker 1: But if you have liars in charge of it, you know, the truth telling business, that's a problem.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm not saying I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that.
Speaker 2: Oh, I
Speaker 1: am saying that.
Speaker 0: I okay.
Speaker 1: Alright. I'm saying that. I mean, that's just a you know? I don't know. There are certain businesses you sort of expect that, you know, time share sales or whatever, used cars.
But, like, if your job is to tell the truth and the people in charge are just, like, lie for fun.
Speaker 0: It was fair I said this before. It was very sad. Very, very disappointing, to see that see that happen. And I heard from people I used to work with, and they were really saddened by it as well.
Speaker 1: Did any of them say I gotta get the hell out of here? I can't work for these people anymore?
Speaker 0: I don't wanna go into the conversation.
Speaker 1: But do you feel like people who remain at in corporate media jobs are desperate to get out? Is that your sense
Speaker 0: in general? I think there's a lot of anxiety. Yeah. I I think people are starting to feel the sort of the earth move beneath them. You just have to look at the the ratings and the numbers to understand sort of the the for lack of a better term, the old order has has kind of disappeared.
Speaker 1: That's for sure. How long can they keep going, do you think?
Speaker 0: I don't know. Edge I think this election cycle will be, pivotal. If these town halls go ahead on x I think it's the partnership with NewsNation. I think that the the numbers on those town halls are gonna be just mind blowing in in the true sense of of the word, and it's gonna be global. And, I forget I think Elon Musk or, Linda Yaccarino posted on x what the numbers were with the presidential debate.
And, I mean, when you looked at how many people watched it on, you know, traditional outlets versus the kind of, volume and engagement on on that platform, it's I mean, it was many multiple times larger.
Speaker 1: Well, the entire political conversation in the United States plays out on x, period. I mean, I I can't speak for, you know, sports, entertainment, culture. I mean, there are many different verticals in any civilization, but the political conversation takes place on acts, period. Does not take place on any TV channel or any newspaper. You think that's fair?
Speaker 0: I do. I think it's and I think it's exciting too, actually, to to see it, a little bit unleashed. It's not always pleasant. It's not always easy. But it's, it's sort of unleashed and evolving and engaging, and it's bringing in different points of view, and I think that's what civil discourse, is about.
Speaker 1: Did you read it before?
Speaker 0: I did.
Speaker 2: But you
Speaker 0: But I I when I was, when I worked at Fox, I was I was not on what was, Twitter at that time. And then when I went to CBS, I I joined because I thought it would be a good way for people to find me.
Speaker 1: What role do you think x is playing in the media landscape right now?
Speaker 0: Oof. Wow. You're asking me. That's a big, a big question. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know that I know the answer, by the way.
Speaker 0: I I from my own experience, when I had an investigation that I thought was a sensitive topic, I felt very confident that I could put it on x and there could be a really engaging, candid, authentic discussion about it. And I thought that was important because, it seemed to be an undercover issue. This is the the soldier story. Yeah. And, I was really grateful for that, and I I would commend Elon Musk in in that way.
I I kind of understood it. And then when I actually went to do it, I had a different and sort of larger appreciation for it. That people could have that conversation. And the the comments that we received were, you know, this happened to me or can you look into this. And I mean, it was a very organic thing.
And I think that you can't look into every case. You can't follow-up on everything.
Speaker 1: That's for sure.
Speaker 0: But I think there's something very positive about people sharing their experiences and not feeling so isolated on a subject that's so sensitive. And I I think that's, really commendable.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. And there's no someone who thinks she's sincerely believed she's been injured because she followed an order has nothing to be ashamed of, and she does have a right to tell her story in public. I I I mean, the whole thing is so nuts. Did anyone would prevent a 24 year old girl who thinks she's been injured by following an order from talking in public is just like, you're not on the right side if you're preventing that. Don't you think?
Speaker 0: I think it was the right thing to do. I I I first heard about her story last October, and it's always been in the back of my mind as a story that should be done. And so when I decided to launch the first investigation, it just seemed like a natural to me.
Speaker 1: So when I thinking back when I got into this business when I left college in 1991, you've been in it for a couple years maybe before no. Not long. But
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. 87.
Speaker 1: 87. 87. So in 1987, you worked for ABC News in London.
Speaker 0: The very the starter job of all starter jobs.
Speaker 1: That's crazy. Yeah. Yeah. It's hard to convey now to younger people the prestige that attached to that job. And you had, you know, all the all the credentials necessary to get that, and you went to Harvard and Columbia.
Speaker 0: Well, the joke with my father was, did you really go to Harvard to make coffee and fax documents and photocopy? I said, absolutely. Yeah. 1000000. I I make the I do the best job photocopying and faxing if anyone I But it's about pride in your work.
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 2: But it was such
Speaker 1: a different world. Like, that was a really rich company then. I mean, they had, like, catering and, you know, executives flew 1st class. You can go wherever you wanted. And, I mean, do you ever look back on that and think, boy, that was just such a different time?
Speaker 0: It was I was, in touch recently with there was sort of a little core group of us that were starting out at that time between the news desk and, what they call the production control room. And there were maybe 12 of us, so between maybe 22, 23, and 27. And, we look back on that period as kind of like a like a golden window in television news. The the quality of the correspondence, many had come out of Vietnam, or had come out of Washington and then got a foreign assignment. The crews were incredibly experienced.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know,
Speaker 0: if you had a cameraman take your stand up, you know, he probably had been in Beirut during the very For sure. Bombing. Oh, for And the editors were so I mean, he learned so much from from all of them.
Speaker 1: Oh, oh, I I grew up around that stuff. Yeah. Those guys were impressive.
Speaker 2: I
Speaker 0: mean, this was an incredible opportunity for me and very formative.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And now yeah. It's just it's I remember filling out my tax return in 1991, my first job. I worked at a gas station on a factory, but I never, like, had a real job. And I remember, you know, occupation journalist.
I was like, I'm a journalist. Now it's like, I mean, I don't even know what I would put on there. You know? I don't know. Armed robber would be less embarrassing.
But it was you know, it seemed like a pretty honorable profession, I guess. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 0: I I, you know, I I hear what you're saying, and you're gonna accuse me of being so sort of deferential, but I just have always tried to stay focused on my own work. Like, I have to answer to myself.
Speaker 1: That's not deference. That's the opposite of deferential and ask kissy. That's, like, that's integrity.
Speaker 0: I just I just am like, is this the story I you know, there's stories in front of me. Which is the one that I should really be doing? Where can I make the most impact? What's the story that hasn't been told that I can actually Well, so that's
Speaker 1: that's it right there. That I agree with you a 100%. It's like it's not that hard to tell the truth, I don't think. It's pretty easy. Actually, it's easier than lying.
What's hard is figuring out what you should be focused on, and I think you're really good at that. What are the stories that should be told that aren't being covered?
Speaker 0: Our our next project is gonna look at, the issue of, immigration and and the borders. And I don't wanna give it all away, but, we've got a lot of good data about how, homeland security is in violation of federal law and regulations on a on a daily basis and creating, I think, a significant security risk for many American citizens. And I think that that really deserves a deep dive. Yeah. And it's a story that I can really tell now that might have been hard to tell before.
Speaker 1: So I can't even get, and I have tried, like, a clear number on how many people have come into this country illegally over the last 4 years. I mean, it ranges from 5,000,000 to 30,000,000, and I can't and those are all kind of credible estimates, and I don't I have no idea which one is correct. But why can't we get even a real number on that?
Speaker 0: I I I I think the the simple answer may be, and I don't know, but my my assessment would be that it's just the volume that that we're talking about. I guess the volume.
Speaker 2: So
Speaker 0: But there's not but to your point, I don't think there's great transparency on this issue. I hope to bring a little bit more transparency to it.
Speaker 1: So in your judgment, that's a big deal story.
Speaker 0: Oh, 100%. I yeah. I and it's not just I'm looking at what the the polling shows about the top issues for American, you know, American voters in this election cycle. I'm asking myself, I have information. I think there are violations of federal law and federal regulations every day, at the border.
I need to find out if that's really if that's really true. And if it is true, why is it true? And who's really losing in that equation? Is is is the country less safe as a result or or not? I don't know the answer to all of that yet.
But that's that's a very legitimate story to
Speaker 1: put in. Also, how does a bankrupt come country, which ours is, pay for all these services? I don't. Yeah. There are many questions.
I totally agree. But so you're focused on the question, is the federal government violating its own laws?
Speaker 0: Federal employees. Yes. Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And to the extent that you've reported it out, are you closer to an answer?
Speaker 0: I I think based on our reporting so far that it's it really, tips that way. It does appear that way. And so my question is, where's you know, who's been disciplined? Who's been suspended? Who's been fired?
Who's been demoted? And I'm not sure the answer is really anyone except the people who blew the whistle on it. Really? Don't make me give the story away. No.
I won't.
Speaker 1: I won't.
Speaker 0: I won't. I won't. Right now.
Speaker 2: Like, I
Speaker 1: I'm, like, so shocked. I mean you know?
Speaker 0: But I think but that's the kind of, to me, that's the kind of story you wanna be doing. Right? I I just think it's, the thing that has always encouraged me about, the the, the consumers of news in this in this country is that they really understand this idea of accountability. They they they wanna see it. They expect it.
They demand it. And and when you do it, I think it can be very gratifying to, you know, to kind of shine a light. I it sounds like so old fashioned, but to shine a light on an issue that really is worthy of that and is sort of screaming out for coverage.
Speaker 1: How do you I've had many people ask me this over the years, but, you know, one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story, and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story. And sometimes it's like a really boutique story. You know, it's a story of limited obvious importance, but everyone does the same story. Yeah. How do these like, who decides that?
Where how does you know? Ugh. Where does that come from?
Speaker 0: I mean I mean, this comes from the executives or the show producers.
Speaker 1: But have you noticed that you know, I don't know how many news organizations are in the United States in a country of 350,000,000 people. They're they're a lot. Mhmm. They all do, you know, in a in a given week, they do a suite of maybe 20 stories.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Themes, you know, variations on the theme perhaps, but but, I I mean, why? You'd think that
Speaker 0: I really I I wish I could answer that question. But
Speaker 1: you've noticed this. Right?
Speaker 0: I mean, when you look at the rundowns, let's say, for an evening news broadcast, you'll see a lot of the same stories. Now that may be a function of the fact that they have such limited time to tell the story. It was at 18 or 19 minutes or 20 For sure. Or 20 minutes.
Speaker 1: But it's the the topics are the same. It's just interesting. I'm not suggesting coordination, but I I do think it's a I don't know what it is. It's I think it's a conspiracy of like minded temperament. They all are kind of the same people.
Speaker 0: I I just I don't know.
Speaker 1: But you'll concede there are a lot of stories that they could be doing that they're not.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I think so. That's that's the appeal of being independent is that you can tell some of the stories that maybe you couldn't tell before.
Speaker 1: Is it weird not to have a boss?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's a big change after nearly 4 decades of working, for major media outlets. It's a it's a huge change. I've had a lot of change in the last 4 months, 5 months. A lot.
Speaker 1: Do you miss being scolded?
Speaker 0: I'm not even scolded. I miss the structure. I'm very used to the structure, and, you know, structure that, you know, has resources that you didn't realize that you needed until you went to do it yourself. I'm sure you understand that.
Speaker 1: Been there.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You've been there. Right? But I I really like working with a small team and, as a group, deciding what is it that we're gonna pursue next, and how can we structure the story that it has an impact, and what kind of reporting do we need to be doing, and at what point do we engage with government agencies, And how do we keep moving the story forward after after we do it? I I just find that just kind of exhilarating and refreshing all at all at the same time.
And in a marketplace that's really just exploding where you're setting your own boundaries and your own rules. Right? You're saying, okay. I've got almost 4 decades of experience. This is what I believe journalism is.
This is how I'm gonna execute it. These are my standards. These are my expectations, and I'm gonna be true to those. I'm I'm gonna follow it through. That's the exciting part of it.
And then having a public that responds to it, which I'm, you know, so grateful for.
Speaker 1: People like honesty in a world full of lies, I think. Do you feel that?
Speaker 0: People are looking for credible, reliable information in a way that I never maybe seen in my lifetime working as a journalist.
Speaker 1: So not maybe what you're saying is that as a business, journalism is, like, more discredited than it's ever been and more disliked. But individual journalists who decide to tell the truth are
Speaker 2: I don't know I don't know if I I don't know if
Speaker 0: I would go that far. I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole, you know, profession that way. How's that? I I just sort of come back to my, you know, I come back to my own, you know, my my own work. I I wrote something recently for the free press, which is really an amazing operation.
It's Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of, you know, engaging, driving thing, you know, it's like it's like a great source for information. I wrote something on on the press act, and, you know, that it's the protection of sources is the hill to die on. And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention. Because all of our our futures, our careers rest on that basic principle. So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet which is really has a lot of impact and made a difference.
Speaker 1: How, of the people that you worked with 30 years ago, were any still around in the business?
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm trying to think. A lot of them are retired now. I went to a a reunion, ABC Lending Reunion. I wanna say it was maybe 7 years ago, 7 6 or 7 it was before I just before I went to CBS, and a lot of people were retired. A lot of people had, passed.
5 of them were already gone.
Speaker 1: Is that weird?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's sad. But, I learned so much from them. And I think that not to sound, too sentimental, but I think you carry that on. I think one of the greatest things you can do at a certain point in your career is to share your experience and to share the skill set that you that you have.
And I really enjoy doing that, especially with younger journalists.
Speaker 1: How long are you gonna do it?
Speaker 0: Oh, you know, we I talk about this with our kids. How long am I gonna do this, and when will I retire? And, you know, they all have the same verdict, which is like, oh, mom, like, you need to keep working as long as you can work. Because you're really, if we had you loose in the house all the time, it would just be crazy and you love I mean, I just love it. I feel fortunate to have found something I feel so passionate about.
Maybe you feel
Speaker 2: Oh, of
Speaker 1: course I do.
Speaker 0: Maybe you feel the the the same way.
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 0: And I I can't sort of I'm I'm surprised even by the evolution of where I am, today, and I'm surprised that I'm fighting in the courts to be protecting confidential sources. But if if there's something that folks who are listening and watching this can take away is that, you know, I came out of February, so it was a tough time. There's no question about it. But I had a lot of clarity, and sometimes crisis gives you clarity.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2: And
Speaker 0: the idea of a free press and free speech, these really became my North Star. They really became the driving force of what I'm gonna do in this next chapter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I couldn't agree more. And it's weird to wake up and see things you took for granted under threat. Mhmm. Did you ever think that free speech in the United States would be open to question?
Speaker 0: No. I I wouldn't have anticipated the situation that I'm in now. That's that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Well, we're rooting for you fervently.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Catherine Hertz, thank you very much.
Speaker 2: It's so good to see you.
Speaker 0: Thanks for
Speaker 1: having me. To you. To watch the rest unlock our entire vast library of content, you can visit tucker carlson.com and activate your membership today. In the name of free speech, we hope you will.
@JzeViewing - Jimbo
Tucker Carlson is CIA https://t.co/IE9nmm6dcf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson has given varied responses regarding his connections to the CIA. He stated that he applied to the CIA as a college senior wanting to work in operations, influenced by his father's friends who were operations officers. He claimed he "had no idea what the CIA was, actually" at the time.
Carlson acknowledged his father's work in conjunction with the CIA. According to Alan MacLeod, Carlson's father, Richard Carlson, directed the US Information Agency (USIA) under Ronald Reagan, overseeing Radio Liberty and Voice of America, which the New York Times called a CIA-built "worldwide propaganda network." Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA until the 1970s. Richard Carlson ran Voice of America, essentially the broadcasting wing of the CIA's propaganda machine, at the height of the Cold War.
Carlson now claims to be a "sworn enemy of the CIA." When asked about the Nord Stream pipeline explosion, Carlson denied involvement, but the CIA was implicated. The speaker questions whether it is a coincidence that the son of the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of Voice of Liberty for the CIA is one of the most influential political pundits in America.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When Tucker Carlson is asked about any of his connections to the CIA, he always seems to give a very confusing mix of responses. In an interview with a former member of the CIA, Sean Ryan, he was asked about it. He recounted how everyone around him growing up was in the CIA because his father was. Despite this, he also says that he had no idea what the CIA really was.
Speaker 1: You were trying to get into CIA? Yes. Vladimir Putin reminded me. I don't know how he knew that. Yeah.
I applied to CIA when I was a senior in college. What did you want to do for the CIA? Operations. Yeah, it was completely different. Completely different organization.
Well, who knows what it was, actually? I don't know. I mean, I was operating on the basis of a lot of my father's friends served as operations officers, some really wonderful guys, who I guess I probably shouldn't name, but who were always at our house and were just legit interesting people. So I applied to CIA and that whole application process then, this was 1990, and I should just say, for the record, that I, like, had no idea what the CIA was, actually. And I didn't believe any of the I think Kermit Roosevelt actually lived right down the street from us.
Are you kidding? No. Oh, man. That's cool.
Speaker 0: This isn't particularly relevant other than this being like a CIA super spy. Kermit Roosevelt Junior is a very famous intelligence officer who worked in the OSS and then the CIA. He was best known for his role in orchestrating the nineteen fifty three coup in Iran.
Speaker 1: But I didn't know I mean, but that was just the world you live in in Northwest DC. Like, I didn't I I never thought any of it was bad. And so when I applied to CIA, and I've taken a lot of crap, including from Putin, Oh, you're from a CIA family. Well, yeah, obviously my father worked in conjunction with CIA. Mean, that's what that is.
And I tried to join the CIA, but I'm not being false about it. I am a sworn enemy of the CIA at this point. No doubt about that. I just wanted a life that was interesting. I wanted to see stuff.
Speaker 0: This would all be a lot more believable conspicuous if he hadn't ended up becoming one of the most influential conservative news pundits in American history. Tucker Carlson himself says that he comes from a CIA family and that his father worked for the CIA. Alan MacLeod of Minton Press writes, Richard Carlson is an important journalist and high state official who was appointed by Ronald Reagan as director of the US Information Agency, USIA, which oversees Radio Liberty and Voice of America, which Dick was also the director. Together, these outlets are part of what The New York Times called a worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA. Their goal is to bombard enemy countries with regime change propaganda.
Until the nineteen seventies, Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA. Richard Carlson would have been running Voice of America and then the branch of the CIA that oversaw Voice of America at the height of the Cold War, basically the broadcasting wing of the CIA's propaganda machine.
Speaker 2: With the backing of CIA, of course, the organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis a vis, in the sense that I served in the first main directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service.
Who
Speaker 1: blew up Nord Stream?
Speaker 2: You for sure.
Speaker 1: I was busy that day. Nate, do you have do you I did not blow up Nord Stream.
Speaker 2: Thank you though. You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi. Is
Speaker 0: it a coincidence the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of voice of liberty for the CIA's son is one of the most influential political pundits in America?
@EndWokeness - End Wokeness
Hillary Clinton tonight on MSNBC: "The press needs to create a consistent narrative about how dangerous he is" "He is a danger to our country & world" https://t.co/7rBt7zcVGY
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker is frustrated by the press's inconsistent narrative regarding Donald Trump's perceived danger. They invoke the late journalist Terry Evans's idea that journalists should "cover the object," which in this case, according to the speaker, is Donald Trump. The speaker believes the press should consistently focus on Trump's demagoguery and the danger he allegedly poses to the country and the world.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I don't understand why it's so difficult for the press to have a consistent narrative about how dangerous, Trump is. You know, the late great, journalist, Terry Evans, you know, one time, said that, you know, journalists, should, you know, really try to achieve objectivity. And by that, he said, I mean, they should cover the object. Well, the object in this case is Donald Trump. His demagoguery, his, danger to our country and the world, and stick with it.
You know?
@iAnonPatriot - American AF 🇺🇸
Hillary Clinton says that the Democrats lose TOTAL control if they stop censoring social media. 👀https://t.co/9g9kwFbZT1
Video Transcript AI Summary
If platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok fail to moderate and monitor content, we risk losing control. This lack of oversight leads to not only social and psychological issues but also real harm.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And if the platforms, whether it's Facebook or TwitterX or, Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don't moderate, and monitor the content, we lose total control. And it's not just the social and psychological effects. It's real harm.
@WinnieSchola - Winnie Schola
Tucker Carlson exposed who Mike Pompeo and why he shouldn’t be in Trump administration https://t.co/fSuyWxKlga
Video Transcript AI Summary
I went quail hunting and received a call from Mike Pompeo's lawyer, who warned me that discussing classified documents is a crime. I challenged him, asking if revealing the U.S. government's role in the murder of a democratically elected president was the real crime, rather than the murder itself. Pompeo, as CIA director, allegedly plotted to kill Julian Assange, who hasn't been charged with any crime. Despite this, Pompeo is treated as a respected figure in Republican circles and is expected to become secretary of defense in a Trump administration. It's shocking that someone involved in such serious misconduct is celebrated rather than held accountable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The next day, I'll never forget it, I went quail hunting. And I was driving back, and I got a phone call from Mike Pompeo's lawyer. Mike Pompeo was secretary of state, but before then, he was the director of the CIA. And in that position, he plotted the murder of Julian Assange. So he is a criminal as far as I'm concerned.
But, his lawyer called me and said, you know, you should know that anyone who tells you the contents of classified documents has committed a crime. He's threatening me. He's in my car. I'll never with my dog sitting next to him, I'll never forget this. And I said, are you really saying that to reveal that the US government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president to say that out loud, that's the crime?
What about the actual crime just murdering a president? Like, you're covering up for that, Mike Pompeo. He had no no response at all. And so Mike Pompeo is the one who pressed Trump to keep those documents secret. And so it's like, what's crazy to me is not just that Pompeo did that.
I think Pompeo is a really sinister person and a and a criminal. I think that. I think that because the facts suggest that he was caught. Yahoo News, Mike Isakoff wrote a long piece on this several years ago. His employees went to Mike Isakoff and said, hey.
Mike Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange who's never even been charged with a crime in the United States as CIA director. That's illegal. You're not allowed. Federal employees are not allowed to just kill people they don't like. Okay?
Just to set the baseline here. So that's who Mike Pompeo is. But he somehow intimidated Trump into not releasing this. Well, okay. That's all bad.
Right? I think it's criminal behavior. What's crazy is how Mike Pompeo is treated. He's treated as like a Republican poohbah in good standing. He fully expects to become the secretary of defense in a Trump administration, which is, like, completely insane.
Why would you get criminal and give him nuclear weapons? Okay. That's my view. I think it's a common sense view. And, like, he goes to fundraisers and dinners, and everyone's like, hey, Mike Pompeo.
It's like, no. You're the guy who kept information the public has right to know secret. You're the guy who plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime. You are the outlaw. You are the bad guy.
But, no, he's treated as like, you know, like a pillar of Republican Washington. I think that's I think it's mind bending to watch that.
@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson
🤣President Trump says Hillary “did not look too happy today.” Savage Trump moments are BACK. https://t.co/8N1Nc1LYnP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The situation revealed significant incompetence, highlighting a major historical event that could have unfolded differently. While some negative outcomes occurred, such as the presence of people in the country who shouldn't be here, the journey began in 2015. From day one, Trump surged to the top and maintained his lead throughout the primaries. We faced Hillary, who appeared unhappy, but ultimately, we defeated her. In 2020, we performed even better, securing millions more votes—around 10 to 12 million additional votes compared to the first election.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know the only thing good about it? It showed how bad they are, showed how incompetent, and and frankly, historically, this is a much bigger event if that would have gone like it should have. The only The bad thing about it is some bad things happened like a lot of people in our country that wouldn't be in our country right now. So you know, that's the that's the bad part. But I will say that, it started in 2015 and right from the beginning, when we went went to the top to day 1, They announced Trump, and Trump went to number 1, and stayed there for the whole primary.
And then we took on Hillary. She didn't look too happy today. We took on Hillary. A very nice person, but we took on Hillary and we defeated Hillary, and then we, did much better the second time in 2020. You know, we got millions more votes.
We got millions, like 10, 12,000,000 more votes than we did the first time.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Tucker Carlson says the quiet part out loud! 🔥 https://t.co/X6jMgR16CB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jeffrey Epstein was murdered in the most secure federal lockup in the country, yet there was no real investigation. Attorney General Barr lied about it. Where are the tapes from Epstein's properties? The fact that we can't see them suggests a massive blackmail operation run by intel agencies to control famous people.
If someone can kill Epstein in a secure lockup and get away with it, that's a powerful, dangerous force. It's important to talk about it though because we need transparency and honesty. Crimes like this make people feel impotent and paranoid, leading to a society where no one believes anything. We need a country where things are what they seem, where people are honest and admit mistakes, not a place of crazy deceptions and murders.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bottom line is Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, and not only murdered, but he was murdered in the most secure federal lockup in Midtown Manhattan in the country. Okay, not just in federal lockup, but in the most secure part of federal lockup. So how did that happen? Well, he was clearly murdered by another inmate, you can't get any answers to who the other eight inmates on his block were. There was no investigation into his death, they've never released it, and the attorney general at the time, Attorney General Barr clearly knew that this happened, and I've said that in public and he's attacked me for saying that, but it's just a fact he lied about it.
And so what is that? What is that? Think about that for a minute. I don't know the, I mean, there's a lot I don't know, I don't pretend to understand really anything, I don't understand anything, but I know lying when I see it, and they're lying about Jeffrey Epstein, if they're not, where's the investigation? And there hasn't been one, and so that's pretty heavy duty.
Where are the tapes? Where are the Epstein tapes? You know, it was so funny, they released a tape, a guy I know actually released a tape of Jeffrey Epstein talking about Donald Trump and saying we were friends once and I don't like Trump, and okay, this was like the October surprise was to derail Trump. And everyone's like, how can you do that? I thought, I'm so glad they're doing that.
So let's talk about Jeffrey Epstein. Like where are the videotapes from his home in New Mexico, from his Caribbean island, from his place on Fifth Avenue, there are always videotapes now in federal hands, why can't we see those? And we can't see them of course, because it's like a massive blackmail operation run by various intel agencies designed to put famous people under the control of governments. Of course, that's what it was. Obviously, and everyone knows that, but no one can say anything about it.
And as a friend of mine said, we were talking about this one night, and he goes, you know, kind of if you think about it like if you're able to kill somebody in the secure block in federal lockup in Manhattan and get away with it, probably not someone you wanna dick around with. Like, that's a powerful force, and that's a fair point, but it's still worth saying out loud because it's worth living in a transparent, honest country. It's bad to have rot like that. It's bad to have crimes like that committed in front of our faces. We can't do anything about it.
It makes everyone feel impotent. It makes everyone paranoid. It makes everyone feel like nothing's on the level. We wind up with a society where no one believes anything. And I feel like that's where we are.
The number of people I know who are like, wow, I've become a really deranged conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in the moon landing. I must know 100 people who said that to me in the last two years. This is and trust me, if you don't feel that way, you're just not admitting it because you do feel that way if you're paying attention. And that's a bad way to feel. I don't think I don't you don't want a country like that.
You want a country where things are pretty much what they seem to be, where people are honest, they're straightforward. When they make a terrible mistake, they admit it. You want a country that is like the family that you have or want to have, where people are just direct with each other and kind to each other, and not everything is some crazy multilayered deception designed to you know, screw you or kill Jeffrey Epstein, like that's so dark.
@trumpcel - Trumpcel
@NickJFuentes Tucker Carlson is CIA https://t.co/YPveZG5HDD
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson has given conflicting responses about his connections to the CIA. He stated that he grew up surrounded by CIA agents because of his father's involvement, but claimed he didn't understand what the CIA was.
Carlson said he applied to the CIA in 1990 wanting to work in operations, because his father's friends were operations officers. He mentioned that Kermit Roosevelt Jr., known for orchestrating the 1953 coup in Iran, lived near him. Despite his attempt to join, Carlson now claims to be a "sworn enemy of the CIA."
Alan MacLeod of Minton Press notes that Carlson's father, Richard Carlson, was appointed by Ronald Reagan as director of the US Information Agency (USIA), overseeing Radio Liberty and Voice of America. These outlets were described by The New York Times as a CIA-built "worldwide propaganda network." Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA until the 1970s.
Carlson was asked if the CIA was behind the Nord Stream pipeline explosion, and he denied involvement. It was questioned whether it was a coincidence that the son of the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of Voice of Liberty for the CIA is now a major political pundit.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When Tucker Carlson is asked about any of his connections to the CIA, he always seems to give a very confusing mix of responses. In an interview with a former member of the CIA, Sean Ryan, he was asked about it. He recounted how everyone around him growing up was in the CIA because his father was. Despite this, he also says that he had no idea what the CIA really was.
Speaker 1: You were trying to get into CIA? Yes. Vladimir Putin reminded me. I don't know how he knew that. Yeah.
I applied to CIA when I was a senior in college. What did you want to do for the CIA? Operations. Yeah, it was completely different. Completely different organization.
Well, who knows what it was, actually? I don't know. I mean, I was operating on the basis of a lot of my father's friends served as operations officers, some really wonderful guys, who I guess I probably shouldn't name, but who were always at our house and were just legit interesting people. So I applied to CIA and that whole application process then, this was 1990, and I should just say, for the record, that I, like, had no idea what the CIA was, actually. And I didn't believe any of the I think Kermit Roosevelt actually lived right down the street from us.
Are you kidding? No. Oh, man. That's cool.
Speaker 0: This isn't particularly relevant other than this being like a CIA super spy. Kermit Roosevelt Junior is a very famous intelligence officer who worked in the OSS and then the CIA. He was best known for his role in orchestrating the nineteen fifty three coup in Iran.
Speaker 1: But I didn't know I mean, but that was just the world you live in in Northwest DC. Like, I didn't I never thought any of it was bad. And so when I applied to CIA, and I've taken a lot of crap, including from Putin, Oh, you're from a CIA family. Well, yeah, obviously my father worked in conjunction with CIA. Mean, that's what that is.
And I tried to join the CIA, but I'm not being false about it. I am a sworn enemy of the CIA at this point. No doubt about that. I just wanted a life that was interesting. I wanted to see stuff.
Speaker 0: This would all be a lot more believable conspicuous if he hadn't ended up becoming one of the most influential conservative news pundits in American history. Tucker Carlson himself says that he comes from a CIA family and that his father worked for the CIA. Alan MacLeod of Minton Press writes, Richard Carlson is an important journalist and high state official who was appointed by Ronald Reagan as director of the US Information Agency, USIA, which oversees Radio Liberty and Voice of America, which Dick was also the director. Together, these outlets are part of what The New York Times called a worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA. Their goal is to bombard enemy countries with regime change propaganda.
Until the nineteen seventies, Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA. Richard Carlson would have been running Voice of America and then the branch of the CIA that oversaw Voice of America at the height of the Cold War, basically the broadcasting wing of the CIA's propaganda machine.
Speaker 2: With the backing of CIA, of course, the organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis a vis, in the sense that I served in the first main directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service.
Who
Speaker 1: blew up Nord Stream?
Speaker 2: You for sure.
Speaker 1: I was busy that day. Nate, do you have do you I did not blow up Nord Stream.
Speaker 2: Thank you though. You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi. Is
Speaker 0: it a coincidence the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of voice of liberty for the CIA's son is one of the most influential political pundits in America?
@NickJFuentes - Nicholas J. Fuentes
Tucker Carlson’s character assassination of Pat Buchanan in 1999 is nearly identical to his attack on me last week. Seriously, what is going on here? This is the definition of controlled opposition. https://t.co/uwvZdlq4P4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss a controversial figure, possibly Nick Fuentes, noting his talent and articulation while also acknowledging problematic aspects of his views. It's claimed he appeals to young white men who feel economically disenfranchised and unrepresented.
One speaker suggests this figure is part of a campaign to discredit legitimate right-wing voices. Concerns are raised about his alleged belief in conspiracies and the idea that Jewish people are a sinister force manipulating American politics.
The figure is described as portraying himself as a victim persecuted by a powerful cabal for speaking truth to power, similar to Karen Silkwood. He is accused of making Holocaust jokes and targeting individuals within a specific group. Pat Buchanan's presence is said to discredit certain conversations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I mean, this is part of the sad thing of happy Canada as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: Sad thing is, and I know that no one who watches him will believe me.
Speaker 0: That does raise issues that I think are important.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean everything he says is false. It's it doesn't mean he's not talented. He's enormously talented. Doesn't mean he's a bad person. I'm not attacking him personally.
Speaker 0: I mean, I think that, you know, the sovereignty of the American military, etcetera. Mean, these are not just crank issues.
Speaker 1: It's young white men who've been totally cut out of our economy, attacked mercilessly. I mean, they really are the victims, and they're desperate, and no one speaks for them. So they go to Fuentes because he's, like, incredibly articulate, and they think he's our leader.
Speaker 0: But unfortunately, Pat Buchanan raises them in a
Speaker 1: way that I think is discredited. But he is clearly part of a campaign to discredit non crazy right voices.
Speaker 0: Pat Buchanan is part of the reason it's so hard to have that conversation because he discredits it by his by his presence.
Speaker 1: That's a campaign to destroy credible voices on the right, and Fuentes is part of it.
Speaker 0: And that he believes in conspiracies and and that he believes that the Jews are this sinister, secretly organized force trying to affect American politics. And those aren't discussions I think normal people sober people should be having.
Speaker 1: Anyway, like, who is this kid exactly? Mhmm. And maybe it's just an accident that the guy goes after, exclusively goes after people who are in the same, roughly the same. And then he gets up there and he's like, you know, making Holocaust jokes.
Speaker 0: When attacked, he can always fall back on the line, well, the, you know, the tiny cabal that controls American politics doesn't like me because I speak truth to power. This is actually incidentally almost verbatim what he said the other day that I offend the plutocracy, that I'm a wanted man by the inside the Beltway people, and in in in every sense cast himself as a as a victim who is sort of a Karen Silkwood of politics. Someone who's so truthful that he's being hunted down by the by the conspiracy that runs Washington. I mean, it's it's all a bit much.
@ThomasSowell - Thomas Sowell Quotes
Megyn Kelly talks about Tulsi Gabbard's "Russian asset hoax." "This was started by Hillary Clinton. She started it because Tulsi was a rising star within democratic politics." https://t.co/vyzqRLtk2b
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hillary Clinton started the Tulsi narrative because Tulsi was a rising star. She was a woman, a minority, and combat vet. Tulsi began 'to be kind of open minded to what Bernie Sanders was saying' and spoke up, making enemies in the party. She was outraged when she learned the DNC 'cheated on behalf of Hillary to try to make sure she got the nomination and screwed Bernie.' Hillary Clinton allegedly called her a 'Russian asset,' part of the 'Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.' 'Her campaign made up the all the stuff about there being a server in Trump Tower Right.' Don Junior was using it to commute. Tulsi left the party. She argued the Russia-Ukraine war 'didn't have to happen' if Putin's views on NATO expansion had been listened to. She met with Bashar al Assad; Trump opened negotiations with Kim Jong Un; 'Diplomacy means you talk to your enemies.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This was started by Hillary Clinton. Why? She started the Tulsi because Tulsi was a rising star within Democratic politics. She had all the boxes checked. She was a woman.
She was a minority. She was the first this and the first that, and she was a combat vet. Beautiful, well spoken, like amazing. And then she started to be kind of open minded to what Bernie Sanders was saying and maybe had some problems with the Hillary Clinton messaging and having Hillary shoved down our throat as the Democratic nominee back in '16 Yes. And spoke up about it and started to make enemies in the party because of that.
And then was outraged when she found out the DNC cheated on behalf of Hillary to try to make sure she got the nomination and screwed Bernie, and she was angry, and a and a rift was formed. Then Hillary Clinton called her a Russian asset just like Hillary Clinton's campaign was the one that made up that Donald Trump was a Russian asset. The Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. Her campaign made up the all the stuff about there being a server in Trump Tower Right. And Don Junior was using it to commute.
Those were lies made up by the Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton absolutely loved making up lies in her campaign about the Russians interfering in against anybody who she didn't like or wanted to undermine. Tulsi was just one of them. Then Tulsi, an independent thinker, quite obviously Yeah. Winds up leaving the party.
And then she says, you know, this war that is going on between Russia and Ukraine didn't have to happen. If we had just listened for a minute to what Putin was saying about how it was genuinely important to him that Ukraine not be, ex that NATO not be expanded by allowing Ukraine potentially to join it, This whole thing could potentially have been avoided. And was it really so important to us that we not say that? Couldn't we have said that? Couldn't we have listened to him?
The other major nuclear power in the world, maybe that was worth more than a day's worth of thought. That is really what is used against her. If you go back and you look at why. Why is she a Russian asset? Okay.
That's it. The made up Hillary Clinton stuff, this, and then she met with Bashar al Assad, an enemy by far. Sure. It's no question. And And so they say, you know, she's got, like I guess she's getting her marching orders from Assad.
Okay. Trump himself decided to open up negotiations with Kim Jong un. I feel like course. No more spend with Bashar
Speaker 1: al Assad. Perfect sense to me because what are you gonna do? Diplomacy means you talk to your enemies. Isn't that more important than talking to your allies? Like, I
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
2023: Chuck Schumer demands Tucker Carlson be taken off the air because he “slimed the truth." https://t.co/MXfn6ceVCO
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker contends lies persist, directing attention to Rupert Murdoch. "These lies continue tonight." "Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight now that he's seen how he is perverted and slimed the truth and from letting him go on again and again and again." "Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it." The speaker frames these remarks as defending democracy and accountability, urging Murdoch to intervene to curb Carlson's appearances. The statements are presented as a critique of media influence and the integrity of public discourse.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: These lies continue tonight. Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight now that he's seen how he is perverted and slimed the truth and from letting him go on again and again and again. Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it.
@SpeakWithDeeDee - SpeakWithDeeDee
Regardless of what you think of Tucker Carlson, he was spot on here. https://t.co/421pWlDTLt
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers identify TikTok as the “most important purchase” and name X as the other key platform, stressing the need to talk to Elon. They describe an on‑camera remark by a foreign leader as “censoring Americans” and include “This guy runs a country of 9,000,000 people that's totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist.” They argue this underscores the push to “force a TikTok sale” through Congress. They insist “the only reason we have free speech in The United States right now is because of Elon Musk.” They also claim “Free speech is central to the entire idea of America” and contrast it with “not our market economy” but “freedom of speech.” They contend the censorship drive aims to silence opposing views in the United States and emphasize engaging Elon to address the issue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And the most important purchase that is going on right now is glass Followers. Five followers. No. Box?
Speaker 1: TikTok. TikTok. TikTok.
Speaker 0: Number one. Number one. And I hope it goes through because it's it can be consequential. Mhmm. And the other one what's the other one that's most important?
Oh, Alex. X. Mhmm. X. Oh.
Speaker 1: Successful. Very good.
Speaker 0: And, you know, so we have to talk to Elon. He's not an enemy. He's a friend. We should talk to him. Now if we can get those two things, we get locked, and I could go on on other things, but that's not the point right now.
We have to fight the fight.
Speaker 1: It's almost unbelievable that he said that on camera. Imagine. This is a foreign leader bragging about how he's censoring Americans. Again, this guy runs a country of 9,000,000 people that's totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist. And here he is on camera, he's a sophisticated guy.
He of course, he knows that he's being filmed saying, anyone who opposes me in The United States who opposes more aid to Israel or opposes getting sucked into war with Iran, which does not serve American interest, that person is not simply mistaken or wrong. I'm not gonna bother to explain why that person is wrong. That person is a Nazi, part of the woke Reich, a Nazi. And the only way to fix it is by preventing Americans in the last country on Earth with guaranteed freedom of speech, prevent Americans from hearing the other side. And so we push congress to force a TikTok sale, which is true, by the way.
And when that happened and various members of congress, like, no. Really, it's about China. There were people in line who said, no. I think it's really about Israel. You you you kinda wish it was about China.
Here he is just admitting. No. No. No. We pushed the US congress to censor in The United States to commit censorship in The United States because we think it's bad for us, and we need to talk to Elon.
The only reason we have free speech in The United States right now is because of Elon Musk. By way, a naturalized American, a foreigner who looked at The United States and said, what's great about that country? People can say what they believe because they're not slaves. They're not subjects of the state. They're citizens of a nation that they own.
Free speech is central to the entire idea of America. In fact, it's really the only thing that sets us apart from any other country on Earth. It's not our market economy. It's freedom of speech.
Speaker 0: And
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Is Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset? Yes. And here's 30 minutes-worth of proof: https://t.co/UPRNcgWihR
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 3 launches a documentary-style indictment of Tucker Carlson, asserting he has “many connections Tucker Carlson has to the CIA and other groups,” that Carlson is “leading a major part of America off a cliff with his false conservative platform,” and that he is “a total shill, a puppet being used to distribute propaganda.” The speaker argues the left-right paradigm is false, claiming CIA agents train people in media propaganda regardless of network (CNN or Fox). Anderson Cooper is cited as an example, with the claim he interned at the CIA and was born into the Vanderbilt family, making him the face of CNN and Carlson the face of Fox. The speaker then traces Carlson’s background in detail: born 05/16/1969 in San Francisco; his father Richard Carlson divorced and remarried Patricia Swanson; Carlson attended multiple boarding schools in Switzerland and Rhode Island; graduated from Trinity College in 1991. The claim is made that Carlson attempted to join the CIA after graduation but was denied, with the suggestion that his journalism path was encouraged by his well-connected father.
The narrative then catalogs Carlson’s father’s career: Richard Carlson started in journalism as a copy boy at the Los Angeles Times and a UPI reporter; later worked at several LA and San Diego outlets; became involved with San Diego Federal Savings and Loan (headed by Gordon Luce, a Reagan-era figure); ran for mayor of San Diego in 1984 and lost; Reagan announced his nomination to the United States Information Agency in 1986; served as Director of Voice of America, described as a propaganda broadcasting division; VOA is linked to the CIA, with the assertion that its purpose shifted from abroad broadcasting to domestic and international propaganda, including a CIA black site in Thailand (Cat’s Eye/Detention Site Green). The father’s later roles included ambassador to the Seychelles and CEO of King World Public Television; he became vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (an Israel-lobby-linked group).
The speaker asserts that Carlson’s path mirrors his father’s, arguing that Carlson’s early journalism work included policy review (Heritage Foundation publication), where Heritage Foundation’s founders (Paul Wyrick, Edwin Feulner, Joseph Coors) are described as influential, with Feulner allegedly connected to KCIA donations and UN reform task forces linked to CFR and the Project for the New American Century. The Heritage Foundation’s funding is linked to Coors, Chase Manhattan, Pfizer, Dow, Sears, GM, Amoco, Mobil, with David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan leadership invoked to support broader conspiratorial links among the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, CFR, and related networks. The claim is made that Buckley and Crystal (William Crystal) were CIA-connected or staffed, and that Tucker Carlson’s journalism career spanned outlets including Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Weekly Standard, New York Magazine, Reader’s Digest, Slate, Esquire, The New Republic, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, The Wall Street Journal, and television work for CNN, PBS, MSNBC, before Fox News.
The video then connects Carlson to Murdoch’s News Corporation (which also owned The Weekly Standard) and to Genie Energy, with other board members named such as Jacob Rothschild and James Woolsey; Carlson’s overlap with Rockefeller- and Rothschild-linked networks is highlighted, including Charlie Rose’s Vanity Fair article about a Rothschild–Rockefeller merger and Rose’s program history. The speaker argues “these overlaps” explain why Carlson ridicules 9/11 skeptics and avoids addressing Rothschilds on his show, implying his gatekeeping role.
A separate segment covers a Washington, DC climate-conspiracy joke by a city official about Rothschilds controlling the climate, followed by a joking discussion about microaggressions at UC Santa Cruz.
Speaker 3 reiterates the claim that Carlson is “CIA?” and contends mainstream media is controlled, citing Operation Mockingbird as a precedent. The speaker concludes that even if direct government documentation isn’t present, Carlson’s numerous connections and the overlaps among the elites make his CIA linkage plausible to believe, urging viewers to do their own research and turn off the television.
The transcript then shifts to a late-appearing discussion involving a Ron Paul event in Minneapolis (2008) with speakers debating 9/11, Building 7, and government involvement, with participants sharing mixed views on 9/11 conspiracy theories, evidence, and the appropriate stance on such claims.
Towards the end, Steven Jones, a Brigham Young University physicist, offers a televised segment presenting a hypothesis that explosives might have contributed to the World Trade Center collapses, including Building 7, mentioning molten metal in basements, thermite, and a kink in the collapse symmetry, while acknowledging FEMA’s report noting only a low probability for the conventional (fire) hypothesis and calling for further investigation. The exchange ends with a brief acknowledgment of the need for follow-up by viewers. A final red-string/prophecy monologue introduces a biblical-tinged conspiracy frame involving “Jews” and “the red string,” Rahab the harlot, and spies, cutting off before a concluded point.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're about the most unordinary person I know. You're an elitist. You're an asshole.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't know. I'm a but see, I'm an out of the closet elitist. I don't run around pretending to be a man of the people. I'm absolutely not a man of the people at all.
Speaker 2: How do you pay your bills?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm, like, extraordinarily loaded just from, like, money I, you know, inherited.
Speaker 0: You're a trust fund baby, are you not?
Speaker 1: No. Completely. I've never needed to work. I mean, it's all just the whole cable news thing was like a phase I was going through.
Speaker 3: I will document the many connections Tucker Carlson has to the CIA and other groups. The reason I'm doing this is because right now, he is leading a major part of America off a cliff with his false conservative platform. He rages about the elite and how America seems to be going down the drain when he himself couldn't be more connected to these same elites helping to do it. He is a total shill, a puppet being used to distribute propaganda. What people need to realize is the left and right paradigm we are given is entirely false.
Whether you watch CNN or Fox, you are getting CIA agents highly trained in propaganda, usually coming from wealthy families. Take Anderson Cooper for example. He admittedly interned at the CIA and was born into the Vanderbilt family. He could be called the face of CNN just as Tucker is the face of Fox. Follow me as I take you through his career and document his highly suspect rise in journalism.
Don't forget to take notes and research these things yourself. Tucker Carlson was born on 05/16/1969 in San Francisco, California. When he was six years old, his father Richard divorced his mother Lisa and married Patricia Swanson, one of the heiresses to Swanson Enterprises most notable for their TV dinners. Carlson attended many boarding schools during his youth, including locations in Switzerland and Rhode Island. He graduated from Trinity College in Connecticut in 1991, which is known as one of the Little Ivies, which are a group of private schools which compete with Ivy League schools.
Supposedly, Tucker attempted to join the CIA when he graduated, but his application was denied. I can't find an explanation as to why he wanted to be in the CIA or why they rejected him. His father was a very well connected man in the media industry and encouraged him to pursue journalism because, quote, they'll take anybody. His father Richard started his career in journalism at the young age of 22. He had jobs as a copy boy at the Los Angeles Times as well as a reporter for United Press International, which at the time was one of the largest newswire services in the world.
He worked for a few TV stations in Los Angeles and San Diego before joining San Diego Federal Savings and Loan in 1977. The bank was headed by Gordon Luce, who was the former public affairs director for Reagan. Richard became vice president of finance within three years, and during this time, the bank had a lot of political controversies due to their connections to current and former members of the Reagan administration. In 1983, he decided to get into politics, and in 1984, ran for mayor of San Diego. He lost to his opponent, Roger Hedgecock, who was later forced from office in 1985 after it was revealed he received over $350,000 illegally during his campaign.
Coincidentally, he would also go on to become a conservative radio host. In 1986, using his connections to the White House, Reagan personally announced his intention to nominate Richard as associate director of the United States Information Agency. He became Director of Voice of America, which was a propaganda broadcasting division of USIA. He served as their longest running Director. Voice of America started in 1941 when President Roosevelt established the Foreign Broadcast Information Service as a program directed by the Office of Strategic Services, which became the CIA.
The intention stated publicly was to communicate America's views abroad, but it was really an outfit to disseminate propaganda. The first few broadcasts for Voice of America were done over British Broadcasting Corporation transmitters but expanded rapidly and fell under control of the Office of War Information in 1942. The Office of War Information was tasked with creating distributing propaganda domestically and internationally. They did this through various means such as broadcast, newspapers, posters, films, and other media. The agency was terminated by President Truman in 1945.
Their offices were transferred to the State Department and most of their responsibilities were transferred to the CIA. It should also be noted that a Voice of America relay station in Thailand was used as a CIA black site referred to as Cat's Eye or Detention Site Green. These overlaps and connections between Voice of America and the CIA should not be glossed over. In 1991, Richard Carlson was personally nominated by President George H. W.
Bush to be The U. S. Ambassador to The Seychelles, a nation of islands off the Eastern Coast Of Africa. In 1997, he became CEO of King World Public Television, which was later purchased by CBS in 1999 for $2,500,000,000 He became the vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which is an organization that is part of the Israel lobby in The United States. It was founded by Clifford May, who was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the project for the new American century, and vice chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Now you're starting to see that it was no mistake Tucker wanted to join the CIA and become a journalist, like father, like son. Tucker Carlson got his start in journalism when he was hired as a fact checker for policy review. This was a publication put out by the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by three men: Paul Wyrick, a political activist and commentator Edwin Feulner, an academic who attended London School of Economics, which is a Rothschild controlled school, who was also advisor to different government agencies and domestic policy consultant to Reagan, and last but not least, Joseph Coors of the Coors Brewing family. In 1975, Congress investigated the activities of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency in The US.
Mr. Feulner had met with the KCIA station chief, Kim Young Hwan, and in the early nineties, the Heritage Foundation started receiving donations from the KCIA. It should also be noted that in 2005, Mr. Feulner was appointed to a task force on UN reform, which included such people as former CIA Director James Woolsey with the goal of achieving a more effective United Nations. The task force was also supported by the Council on Foreign Relations.
In 1977, Paul Wyrick hired a man named Roger Pearson to write for policy review. In 1986, an intelligence agency watchdog publication called the Covert Action Quarterly documented Pearson's connections to James Jesus Engelton, who was the former chief of CIA counterintelligence, as well as Daniel Graham, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Heritage Foundation was largely funded by Joseph Coors through his family wealth, but it also received funding from Chase Manhattan Bank, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, Sears, General Motors, Amoco, and Mobil. David Rockefeller was CEO and Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank at the time. It should also be noted that David's grandfather, John D.
Rockefeller, who started the Standard Oil Company, had to break it up due to antitrust laws, and Amico, as well as Mobile, were once part of the company. John D. Rockefeller also donated the 16 acres of land upon which the United Nations headquarters sits in New York. In David Rockefeller's O Memoirs, he is quoted as saying, some even believe we, the Rockefeller family, are part of a secret cabal working against the best interest of The United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalist and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure. One world, if you will.
If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. He also funded and was chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. A quick little fun fact. Before the homosexual political commentator David Brock, founder of Media Matters for America, a leftist propaganda outlet which received funding from George Soros and given office space by alleged pedophile and human trafficker John Podesta, he was on the board of the Heritage Foundation. He supported Hillary Clinton for president twice and dated James Alifantis, has been accused of being a pedophile and human trafficker.
He is also a friend of Lynn Rothschild. Lynn Rothschild supposedly abhors Trump and fawns over Clinton publicly, yet her and Trump go way back as well. Also, here's a photo of Trump laughing it up with happy Rockefeller, wife of former vice president and New York governor Nelson Rockefeller. It's a great example to show you that these people are all liars and actors. They will fill whatever role they need to fill when they need to fill it.
Sometimes that involves swinging to the total opposite side of the false paradigm politically if it's advantageous to the agenda of the elite. Pick your central banking puppet, left or right. It's all controlled, and these people are shameless whores. When Tucker Carlson left his job at policy review, he went to work for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette under the tutelage of editor Paul Greenberg. Mister Greenberg was very well connected having his pieces published across 1,400 different newspapers within the Tribune Content Agency Syndicate at the time.
He also won a Pulitzer Prize in 1969 and appeared on major television networks as commentator on talk shows such as Charlie Rose. Now I can't actually prove that mister Greenberg was CIA, but when I started to look at a few publications he put out, it made me start to wonder. In one article entitled How to Break the CIA, published on jewishworldreview.com 09/02/2009, he defends the CIA from what he believes to be unfair persecution. He defends the torture of possibly innocent people as justified in the, quote, war on terror. When referring to the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he says, are we supposed to be sorry about that and proceed to punish those who uncovered these plans?
On what theory? That no good deed for your country should go unpunished? He also boohoos about the morale of the CIA and how investigations might increase their agents' anxiety. In another article by Mr. Greenberg entitled Hooray for Snooping, published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette October 2333, he talks about a national conference of editorial writers he attended in Calgary, Alberta in the seventies or eighties.
In the article, he says that, quote, that year at Calgary, one solemn resolution proposed that we stop talking to the CIA since a number of journalists abroad had been assassinated on the pretext that we were all CIA agents, capitalist spies, tools of imperialism, and, well, you know the rest. As if the killers were so lacking in imagination, they couldn't come up with some other excuse to do away with us if they hadn't invented this one. So there we were, an all too solemn convention assembled, First Amendment or no, debating whether we should gag ourselves. I dissented, being an American, and unaccustomed to being told whom I could talk to or not talk to. Memory grows furtive, but I believe the resolution was defeated.
That it was ever considered was disgraceful enough. It occurs to some of us that if the CIA and FBI and NSA had been allowed to talk even to each other before 09/11/2001, that date might not have become another one that will live in infamy. If only big data could have been mined back then the way it is now, the country might have been a lot safer along with the thousands of innocent victims who found themselves in the Twin Towers that fateful day and others rushing to their rescue as firefighters and cops, and the troops who were stationed at the Pentagon as airliners were turned into flaming engines of destruction, their passengers and crews wiped out, including those who, like the ones aboard Valiant Flight United 93, were the first to mount a counterattack against the terrorist in the still continuing war. It would seem mister Greenberg, a very well connected columnist, was very sympathetic to the ambitions of the CIA for seemingly no reason. It should also be noted he was Jewish and a Zionist.
When Tucker left the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, he went to work for the Weekly Standard News magazine in 1995. It was founded by William Crystal and Fred Barnes. William Crystal is Jewish and the son of Irving Crystal, who's been described as, quote, the godfather of neoconservatism. Irving Crystal was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and worked for the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The Congress for Cultural Freedom was a group started by a Jewish CIA agent named Mikkel Jocelyn in 1950.
It distributed anti communist propaganda in 35 countries and published over 20 magazines. In 1966, The New York Times are in a series of articles exposing it as a front for the CIA to transfer money to the State Department and the United States Information Agency, the same agency which broadcasted Voice of America, which Tucker's dad was the director of. In the book, Finks, How the CIA Tricked the World's Best Riders, author Joel Whitney talks about, quote, how the good versus bad CIA is a false divide and that the cultural cold warriors again and again used anticommunism as a lever to spy relentlessly on leftist and indeed writers of all political inclinations and thereby pushed US democracy a little closer to the Soviet model of the surveillance state. He alleges that Crystal was in fact a CIA employee, The man who referred to Irving as the godfather of neoconservatism was a man named Jonah Greenberg, also Jewish and editor in chief of The National Review, a semimonthly magazine. The magazine was founded by William F.
Buckley Jr. And has played a significant role in the development of conservatism in The United States. Like Krystal, Buckley was also outed as a CIA employee in Joel Whitney's book. It should also be noted that Fred Barnes, cofounder of The Weekly Standard, currently moderates a show on Voice of America called Issues in the News, again, the same program Tucker's father, Richard, was director of. It would seem William Crystal was also a fan of Paul Greenberg, Tucker's first mentor at the Arkansas Democrat Gazette since he quoted him in an article he published in the Washington Examiner 11/01/2004 entitled the 09/11 connection.
In the article, he quotes Paul as saying, everything we had thought, assumed, expected in the golden nineties hadn't been so. The surface piece of the nineteen nineties had been bought at a great price. On nine eleven, a failure of American leadership was revealed, a failure to look ahead and act forcefully to forestall threats, to do what Bush has called, quote, the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom. William's father Irving, alleged CIA employee, also only had kind words to say about mister Greenberg when he wrote the forward to his 1991 book, Resonant Lives, 50 Figures of Consequence. He said, and I quote, our intellectual and spiritual elites today are, with some notable exemptions, semi educated at best.
This explains why someone like Mr. Greenberg has not received the recognition he deserves. Oh, yes, he has won a Pulitzer Prize and other awards, which is nice, but these are tributes to his journalistic talents as a columnist and editorial writer. As a master of the brief moral essay, he has yet to come into his own. These men all seem to connect to one another in some way, and they all seemingly support the, quote, alleged war on terror while increasing the size of the government in the name of preserving freedom.
They protect Israel and promote their agenda while scapegoating Muslims for false flag attacks meant to justify giving more power to their think tanks and intelligence agencies which answer to nobody except the people lining their pockets. After leaving The Weekly Standard, Tucker then went on to write for New York Magazine, Reader's Digest, Slate, Esquire, The New Republic, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, and The Wall Street Journal. He would also go to work on camera for CNN, PBS, and MSNBC before finally settling into his role at Fox News as the poster boy for conservative values. During those years, he also somehow found time to appear on shows like King of Queens, 30 Rock, and Dancing with the Stars. While he is now on Fox News as arguably their most popular personality, this wasn't his first tango with News Corporation, which owns Fox News.
News Corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch also owned The Weekly Standard where Tucker worked under Bill Crystal. News Corporation headquarters is located in none other than the Rockefeller Center Complex in New York. Rupert Murdoch is also on the board of Genie Energy, an American energy company located out of New Jersey. Other noteworthy people on the board of Genie Energy include Jacob Rothschild, the head of the Rothschild banking dynasty, and James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, who, if you remember earlier, was also on the UN reform task force in 2005 with Heritage Foundation founder Edwin Feulner, whose goal was to create a more effective United Nations, the same United Nations which resides on land donated by John D. Rockefeller.
In a 2015 article written by Charlie Rose in Vanity Fair, he details a merger between Jacob Rothschild and David Rockefeller. Rothschild bought 37% of shares in Rockefeller Financial Services through his RIT Capital Partners. This is the same Charlie Rose who would have Arkansas columnist Paul Greenberg on his show to talk politics and the same Paul Greenberg who was held in such high regard by William Crystal and his father Irving. There are so many overlapping connections that can be made that I probably missed dozens, if not more, during my research into the topic. Given these connections to the CIA, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, etcetera, it's no wonder Tucker Carlson ridicules people who believe that 09:11 was an inside job and calls these people parasites.
It's also no wonder Tucker Carlson won't seriously address the Rothschilds on his show as his boss probably wouldn't be too happy even though they have so much control and influence. Whenever people bring up legitimate issues, it's his job to mock them so his viewers won't get to the truth of the matter.
Speaker 4: Washington DC experienced a mild snowfall last week. Luckily, city councilman Trayon White was on it. He knows why it happened. Watch this.
Speaker 5: It's just started snowing out of
Speaker 6: nowhere this morning, man. Y'all better pay attention
Speaker 5: to this climate control, man. This climate manipulation, and DC keep talking about we are resilient city, and that's a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate. It should create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful.
Speaker 4: Yep. The Rothschilds control the climate. The Rothschilds, of course, are a wealthy Jewish banking clan. They're included in a great many conspiracy theories, but those theories rarely give them credit for the weather. That's an ambitious new twist.
Mark Stein is an author and columnist and a part time meteorologist, and he joins us tonight. What are you making? So this is by the way, I live here, so you can laugh all you want, but that's actually my city councilman speaking there. The Rothschilds control the weather. Did you know that?
Speaker 7: Well, I did actually, Tucker. They've they they bought the weather from God back in 1929, when he had a bit of a liquidity problem after the Wall Street crash, and, they keep it in the wine cellars at the Chateau Mouton Rothschild estate in France. And, they're able to micro target the climate. For example, it was light snow in your part of Washington, but I gather in the stairwell of Trayon White's, apartment building, he actually had an avalanche just on his floor. That's that's how micro targeted the big Jew weather machine is able to be.
Speaker 6: And he may and, by the way,
Speaker 7: you may you may think it's a light snowfall, but if you actually examine it, it's actually small pieces of gefelter fish, which is why it doesn't melt. And that's why the Jews control the snowplow business. So they scoop all the gefelter fish in Washington away, and they use it to make Louis Farrakhan calypso albums, which they put out to discredit, Louis Farrakhan from telling the truth about the synagogue of Satan. It all makes sense.
Speaker 6: See, the funny thing is I mean, I don't
Speaker 4: know if it's funny. It's actually so appalling and shocking that it's it's hard. I'm just gonna laugh about it. That was that was you made me feel better about a city out of control. So then I wanna run this by you.
May maybe you can make me feel better about this too. There's a new uproar on social media over microaggressions at UC Santa Cruz. The school has assembled a list of microaggressions. Tucker
Speaker 3: Carlson seems to be everywhere. He has become the face of the conservative and right wing movement in The United States, surely due to the incredible amount of connections he has to intelligence agencies and the government. This is why the gatekeepers and the media attempt to give him credibility and publish stories like how he's being spied on by the NSA or how a seemingly random man confronted him in Montana at a fly fishing shop and insulted him trying to start a confrontation, and it turns out that the man was actually an employee of the Asia Foundation, which was created in 1951 by the CIA as a front organization to distribute propaganda. If you had any doubts before watching this that Tucker Carlson was controlled opposition, I hope the research I presented will put that to bed. Mainstream media is all controlled in its one big incestuous pit.
Don't worship these people as heroes because they will sell you down the river in a heartbeat. Is Tucker Carlson CIA? Well, you can't prove that directly, but once you pour through all of his connections, you would find it incredibly hard not to believe that is the case. About the only thing we're missing at this point is official government documents detailing as much, which I am sure will come out at some point in the future. The CIA has a very long and documented history of infiltrating and controlling the media.
Operation Mockingbird is a great example of that. Tucker Carlson is just one of many examples you could make. Remember to always do your own research and turn off the television.
Speaker 6: Good to see you after, we met briefly at the event in 2008 in Minneapolis for Ron Paul.
Speaker 1: Oh, that
Speaker 6: was fun.
Speaker 2: I remember that.
Speaker 6: But but you had to leave early. What happened? The
Speaker 2: truth is stopping. The truth is stopping. I'll tell you why.
Speaker 1: I didn't bail on Ron Paul. No.
Speaker 6: I don't
Speaker 2: It's when Jesse Ventura got up and started saying 09:11 was an inside job.
Speaker 6: He didn't say that. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. He did say that. Answer your question. Sure. It wasn't controversial.
It was stupid. And if there's any evidence that the government is behind nine eleven, looks you know, I believe anything if there's evidence, but there isn't any. So knock it off. That's my view.
Speaker 6: Okay. But And
Speaker 2: I said that to him.
Speaker 6: Sure. Sure.
Speaker 8: But one stupid person says something
Speaker 6: stupid at Ron Paul event.
Speaker 2: No. No. But I I hate that. And and by the way, I am open to almost any crackpot theory about anything. It's just on that subject, come on.
You know what I mean? That's too much. That even for me.
Speaker 6: So just out of curiosity then, what what's your take on Building 7? Which explanation do you believe?
Speaker 7: Yeah. Come
Speaker 6: on. It's like it's a slick. No. That's a serious question. Which explanation did did
Speaker 2: it Okay. Which explanation?
Speaker 4: I I There's two explanations.
Speaker 6: It was either it was it was pulled or it was isolated pockets of fire on the building that blew that that were Let
Speaker 2: me let me get let
Speaker 6: me The towers coming down. They're coming down.
Speaker 2: This a no win conversation, so I'm not gonna continue it. But let me just say one The macro my macro view is is the obvious one, which is the buildings came down. There's a bunch of nutcases. We're playing into them.
Speaker 6: Okay. So are you still supporting Ron Paul? So are you supporting anybody in the race this year? No.
Speaker 2: I don't support. I mean, I don't even vote. I don't even vote. I'm hardly objective. I'm honest.
I'm not objective.
Speaker 6: There you go. Certainly not afraid to speak your mind.
Speaker 2: No. I'm not. No. You can assess my views. They're very clear.
You don't have any But I hate that nine eleven crap. Wish they just kicked those people out.
Speaker 6: I mean was supposed to be on the ninety third floor. Really? Oh. It's important for people and their families still involved to know the truth whether or not the government was involved or whether it was terrorists, but there's a history of government sponsored terror throughout the past century. I'm Yeah.
Exactly. So what do you mean kick them out?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Whatever.
Speaker 6: You you anyone who's a 09:11 intruder should be should be kicked out of the the country? Of course not. I don't, you know, I don't
Speaker 2: I don't even believe in parking tickets. I mean, didn't you please? I just don't I think that people, before saying something that heavy, ought to present real evidence and not just it's a coincidence or the questions remain a dumb
Speaker 6: I think like steel doesn't weaken until 2,400 degrees is evidence that that jet fuel couldn't cause a collapse of the tower from being at
Speaker 2: the top. Except the thing is it did.
Speaker 9: So
Speaker 10: problem. We we gave them a lot
Speaker 6: of money.
Speaker 10: See, see, pretty much trained them. I mean, mean, that's that's pretty much enough evidence for me.
Speaker 2: Did the government brought down the Twin Towers? You know
Speaker 10: what? The government that the government was involved in bringing that into our because they would not
Speaker 6: be trained because who because who trained them? The government trained them. The CIA trained them. The special ops trained
Speaker 2: them. Alright. I've I've had this debate so many times. It's not you know, I don't know. I just it it seems to me that it it's kinda beneath, sort of beneath, like, adult discourse even, really, I guess.
And it and it definitely discredits otherwise good ideas.
Speaker 6: I just think that the implications if if the government was involved, the implications are so vast that it should be looked into whether or not it seems ridiculous. Ridiculous.
Speaker 11: So for family members of
Speaker 6: the victims that are asking questions and want the evidence that's been withheld by the government released, you would say that they're less than adults somehow for wanting that
Speaker 2: I would say that parasites like you make it much worse for them. That's what
Speaker 10: I would say.
Speaker 12: I'm a parasite now?
Speaker 2: Yeah. It's it's filthy to say things like that with no evidence, and you have none. So you should stop. That's my point. Well, this is deal with this
Speaker 10: is insult of politics today.
Speaker 4: Back. Millions of people watch the horror of 09:11 right before their very eyes live on television. Two planes crashing into the World Trade Center. And less than a couple of hours later, both towers, of course, collapsing. My next guest says that hijackers may not have brought down the towers by themselves.
Here to explain his controversial theory, Steven Jones. He's a professor of physics at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Professor Jones, thanks for coming on.
Speaker 9: Sure. Thanks, Tucker.
Speaker 4: Well, just sum up this, obviously, your theory, the one sentence that I just explained in the intro contradicts what we all think we know about how these towers collapsed. Quickly sum up your explanation for what happened.
Speaker 9: Well, I'd like to start with this paper that you referred to. It's available online. What I'm doing, Tucker, is presenting evidence, but it's a hypothesis to be tested. That's a big difference from a conclusion. And so I just wanted to clarify that.
But to sum up, I've looked at the official reports by FEMA and so on regarding the collapse of these buildings. I'd like to look at the collapse of Building 7 in just a minute. It was not even hit by a jet. So we should look at that one.
Speaker 4: Two towers. The explanation has been that the fire inside was so intense that it weakened the structural steel and that each floor collapsed collapsed down upon the next in a pancake fashion and they imploded in on themselves. Is that essentially I think what people think?
Speaker 9: Doctor. Yeah. That's basically it. Yeah. And so what I've done is to analyze these reports.
I would like to do a little experiment with you, Tucker, if I could. I sent out a video clip of the collapse of Building 7 because most people haven't actually seen that one and that's the crux of the argument I'm presenting.
Speaker 4: Sum up very quickly the argument for us. You believe there were explosives in the buildings planted by someone, detonated.
Speaker 9: Is that correct? In other words, hypothesis to be tested there's two hypotheses here. One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse. The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse. And so then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I've done that in my in my 25 page paper.
Speaker 4: I wanna read you a quote from the Deseret Morning News, a paper in Utah from you. I'm quoting now. It is quite plausible that explosives were preplanted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, you, which were actually diversion tactic. Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all. That's, I would think, pretty offensive to a lot of people listening.
Do you have any evidence for that?
Speaker 9: Well, not to the Muslims, I might say. I've got a lot of emails saying
Speaker 4: I'm sure your writings have been greeted with glee in Islamabad and Peshawar and places like that.
Speaker 9: Well, I haven't received any notes from there, but just good people. I have Muslim friends. Let me read for example, but I'm not going to let you off the hook. Really want to do this experiment with you.
Speaker 4: We don't have lot of time for experiments, Professor, but if you could just give us one thing to hold on to. You make these claims or appear to make these claims. Do you have any
Speaker 9: collapse of Building 7. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
Speaker 4: Okay. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if we
Speaker 4: can, but to specify that is World Trade Center Building 7, smaller than the other two, not hit by a plane, of yet it collapsed.
Speaker 9: Right. It's 47 stories.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 9: 24 steel columns in the center. Right. Trusses asymmetrically supported. Now, I can't see what you're seeing.
Speaker 4: Are you rolling that? No, we just see the building. And just so our viewers know, the explanation that I think is conventional is that there was a large tank of diesel fuel stored in a lower level of that which caught fire and the resulting fire collapsed the building.
Speaker 9: That's basically it. But as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course, the best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, the fire, has only a low probability of occurrence. Further investigation, analyses are needed to resolve this issue and I agree with that. But they admit there's only a low probability. And if you look at the collapse, see what I've studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle, that's called the kink, which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition.
Speaker 4: Professor, that we are out of time and I'm not sure that you've J.
Speaker 9: One fully other thing I want to mention
Speaker 1: about Doctor.
Speaker 4: Okay, if you can hit it,
Speaker 6: really quick.
Speaker 9: Doctor. Here we go. Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings. Yet, all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel. So what is this molten metal?
It's a direct evidence for the use of high temperature explosives such as thermite. Thermite produces molten iron as an end product. Okay. So, we do have Yeah, it's very short time, but people will read the paper, then I talk about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.
Speaker 4: Professor, we're going to have to leave it to our viewers who are interested enough to follow-up to do just that. We appreciate you coming on. Even if I don't understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them. Thanks. Okay.
Speaker 13: The red string is a symbol to show the Jews that they are helping the Jews usher in the new world order. The reason they do it is so that the Jews spare them from the nasty population that is happening. Not many people are allowed to live in a new world order. In the Old Testament, the book of Joshua, God was giving the Israelites the land of Canaan. Joshua sent in spies.
The Canaanites found out and were searching for the spies. The spies got help from a harlot called Rahab. The Canaanites went to Rahab's house, and she told them she did not see anyone. When they left, Rahab, the harlot, made a deal with Israelite spies. Since she helped the spies, she asked that they spare her and her family.
The Israelite spies agreed and Rahab let them down on a red rope from the on the wall, and the spies escaped safely. The Israelites killed all the Canaanites except Rahab and her fam