reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@BehizyTweets - George
ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION It's time to wake up and ask yourself, "Why did the DHS and CISA want Twitter to remove that bombshell story that exposed ballot harvesting by Illhan Omar in Minnesota?" https://t.co/A2hq6ErWOG
Video Transcript AI Summary
In downtown Minneapolis, James O'Keefe meets Levon Mohammed, also known as King Levon One, who claims to have hundreds of blank absentee ballots in his car. Levon discusses how money is the key to winning elections and mentions that people in Hanover are paid to fill out the absentee ballots. He also reveals that seniors in three towers collect every ballot, even without payment. Young people and women who didn't vote on the ballots were given cash incentives. Levon emphasizes that the system is against them and that they are victims. He mentions that they were instructed to stay at home and fill out the ballots.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: James O'Keefe here in downtown Minneapolis at the scene of the crime. The person you're about to meet, Levon Mohammed, aka King Levon One, boasts about the hundreds of absentee ballots in his car.
Speaker 1: Theory. Theory months Yeah? There was video. You could see the video. There was Video out and about that he has the ballots in his car Right.
And talking about the only way you can win is with money. I was looking at them, and they were not filled. They were blank.
Speaker 2: Who is the one filling out the absentee ballots? People will work, with, like, in Hanover. Where do they pay the money? The the minute we sign the thing, Election. That's what you can do.
Speaker 1: Money is everything. Money is the king of this world.
Speaker 3: If you ain't got money, you shouldn't you should not be
Speaker 4: At the end of this trip Yes. There's 3 towers called 1 tower. Okay. And it's all seniors, and they took every ballot.
Speaker 2: Every ballot. They just take it from
Speaker 4: single ballot. They knock on the door and say, your ballot's come. Give it to me. Give it to me.
Speaker 2: They don't need to pay them for it. They just take it.
Speaker 4: No. And the ones that didn't vote on ballots, the young people And the women and staff, they were paying cash cash back. They were carrying bags of money the last time. Yeah. To to drive people.
So there's a vested interest, But we are victims of the system. They don't give a shit about anything.
Speaker 1: 20 in the morning, still hustling.
Speaker 2: Who is the one filling out the absentee ballots? Levon will work, with like, Hanover and other candidates work for them. They came to us to our apartments. They tell us that this year, you're gonna go for your house. You don't go nowhere.
You stay all rules that will fill up. So you have to see valid
@gunthertree2 - Blake 🔮
@TuckerCarlson Remember this? https://t.co/z769ZhDMQ0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: America's future requires everyone's participation. We are fortunate to have people like George Soros who fearlessly step up when it matters. Please welcome George Soros. It's the first time I feel compelled to get involved in the electoral process in this country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Not enough for America's future that some participate and others don't. We have been given an extraordinary blessing and at this moment in time, Our country needs us, and we need people like George Soros who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts. So please join me in welcoming George Soros. It is the first time that I feel that I need to stand up And to do something really, and become really engaged, in the The electoral process in in this country
@OliLondonTV - Oli London
DNA test previously found Somali born U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar had a 99.9% DNA match to her second husband Ahmed Elmi. The results found it was 99.9% probable that he was in fact her BROTHER and she married him to help get into the U.S. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9891015/amp/Claims-DNA-match-proves-Ilhan-Omar-married-brother.html
Claims DNA match proves Ilhan Omar married her brother
A supposed DNA match between Rep. Ilhan Omar and her second husband Ahmed Elmi claims to prove that the two are in fact siblings.
dailymail.co.uk
@dom_lucre - Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives
🔥🚨DEVELOPING: Ilhan Omar's speech is creating a lot of backlash but Ilhan's best friend, Somalia's current Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre publicly called jews "the descendants of monkeys and pigs.” Nobody has reported on this yet. https://t.co/Ag3Yy31WhY
@RealMacReport - Real Mac Report
🚨Breaking: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a resolution to censure Ilhan Omar for her treasonous statements that she is serving as a foreign agent for a foreign country. "Ilhan Omar of Somali, I mean Minnesota.” https://t.co/pNFv0OpYqO
Video Transcript AI Summary
Representative Ilhan Omar is being accused of making treasonous statements and violating her oath as a member of Congress. She allegedly promised to pressure the US government to act in favor of Somalia, stating that they will do what Somalians in the US want. It is claimed that she is acting as a foreign agent on behalf of Somalia. The resolution calls for her censure, removal from committees, and a public reading of the resolution.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Centering representative Ilhan Omar of Somalia, I mean Minnesota. Whereas, elected members of Congress take an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Whereas Representative Ilhan Omar took an oath of allegiance to the United States upon becoming a citizen declaring, I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen. Whereas, on January 27, 2024 Representative Omar gave remarks at an event in Minneapolis in which she made treasonous statements. Whereas, Representative Omar said she has spoken to many Somalians who asked her to intercede for the Somali government by pressuring the United States government into certain actions.
Whereas, Representative Omar assured the Somalian she spoke to, the US government will only do what Somalians in the US tell them to do. They will do what we want and nothing else. They must follow our orders and that is how we will safeguard the interest of Somalia. Whereas, Representative Omar continued, For as long as I am in US Congress Somalia will never be in danger. Its waters will not be stolen by Ethiopia or others, sleep in comfort knowing I am here to protect the interest of Somalia from inside the US system.
Whereas George Washington warned in his farewell address of 17/96 to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism and further declared citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. Whereas, these statements by Representative Omar clearly violate the oath she took as an elected member of Congress to defend and protect the United States Constitution. Whereas Representative Omar has exhibited the treasonous tendencies George Washington warned about. And her actions must be condemned by all members of Congress who adhere to the oath they took upon assuming office.
And whereas by openly admitting her efforts to advance Somalia's interest using her position as a United States representative, Representative Omar has revealed herself to be a foreign agent acting on behalf of a foreign government. Now therefore be it, resolve that representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota be censured. Representative Ilhan Omar forthwith present herself in the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure. Representative Ilhan Omar be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the speaker and representative Ilhan Omar be and is hereby removed from the Committee of the Budget and the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
Ilhan Omar needs to be expelled from Congress https://t.co/HF9cYEMhDK
@overton_news - Overton
NOW - Tucker Carlson releases interview with former CBS News correspondent Catherine Herridge https://t.co/j3sYQjWQ0C
Video Transcript AI Summary
One of my sons asked if I would go to jail, and I couldn't assure him that wouldn't happen in a country that values democracy and a free press. The media's reaction to Biden's recent debate performance surprised many, but I believe it's crucial to analyze past interviews to assess his cognitive state. The lack of transparency in releasing interview transcripts raises questions about accountability. After losing my job, I chose to pursue independent journalism, focusing on stories that matter, like the military's treatment of soldiers. The Press Act is vital for protecting journalists and their sources. As I navigate this new chapter, the importance of free speech and a free press has become my guiding principle.
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?
@Real_RobN - 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸
CONFIRMED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, Ilhan Omar DID marry her brother and said she would 'do what she had to do to get him "papers" to keep him in U.S. Now, arrest @Ilhan at once, for immigration fraud, marriage fraud, incest, and for the crimes of defrauding the United States government.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ilhan Omar faced allegations that she married her biological brother, Ahmed Saeed Almi, in 2009 to help him gain legal status in the U.S. This claim resurfaced after a wedding certificate was discovered, prompting Omar to remain silent on the matter, stating she does not discuss her personal life. Abduhakim Osman, a notable figure in the Minneapolis Somali community, confirmed to the Daily Mail that Omar's marriage to her brother was intended for immigration purposes. At the time, Omar was in a religious marriage with Ahmed Hersey, which lacked a state record. Osman also mentioned the name of the Christian minister who officiated the marriage, although the minister has declined to comment on the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was first made a few years ago. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar tried to knock it down by calling it absurd. Then when the media turned up a wedding certificate, Omar went silent, refusing to make any comments at all, saying she does not talk about her family or personal life. Well, now others are talking like Abduhakim Osman, a prominent member of the Minneapolis Somali community, who is now on the record telling the Daily Mail that in 2009, Elon Omar married her biological brother Ahmed Saeed Almi so that he could legally remain in the US and attend college. At the time, Omar was married to Ahmed Hersey, but it was a religious marriage, meaning there was no Minnesota state record stating that she and Hersey were husband and wife, and so marrying her brother would allow her sibling to get his legal immigration documents.
But mister Osman isn't just saying that Omar married her biological brother. He also gave the Daily Mail the name of the Christian minister who married them. That minister reportedly says she does not wanna be involved or interviewed about congresswoman Omar.
reSee.it AI Summary
Evidence and witnesses confirm that Rep. Ilhan married her brother to help him obtain residency. I urge Speaker Johnson and House GOP to take action and remove her from Congress. House Democrats should also address this issue, as it contradicts the values we stand for in America. What do you think?
@CreasonJana - C-Reason🇺🇸
Evidence and witnesses have come forward verifying the FACT that Rep @Ilhan (@IlhanMN) did marry her brother in order for him to get papers to stay in this country. @SpeakerJohnson @HouseGOP this needs to be dealt with and she needs to be kicked out of Congress. @HouseDemocrats, show you have a tini-tiny bit of morals left and deal with this issue. This goes against EVERYTHING that is good about America. Thoughts?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ilhan Omar previously dismissed claims about her personal life as absurd, but new information has emerged. Abduhakim Osman, a member of the Minneapolis Somali community, stated that Omar married her biological brother, Ahmed Saeed Almi, in 2009 to help him gain legal status in the U.S. At that time, Omar was in a religious marriage with Ahmed Hersi, which lacked official state recognition. This marriage allowed her brother to obtain immigration documents. Osman also mentioned the name of the Christian minister who officiated the marriage, although the minister has declined to comment or be interviewed about Omar.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was first made a few years ago, congresswoman Ilhan Omar tried to knock it down by calling it absurd. Then when the media turned up a wedding certificate, Omar went silent, refusing to make any comments at all, saying she does not talk about her family or personal life. Well, now others are talking like Abduhakim Osman, a prominent member of the Minneapolis Somali community, who is now on the record telling the Daily Mail that in 2009, Elon Omar married her biological brother Ahmed Saeed Almi so that he could legally remain in the US and attend college. At the time, Omar was married to Ahmed Hersi, but it was a religious marriage, meaning there was no Minnesota state record stating that she and Hersi were husband and wife, and so marrying her brother would allow her sibling to get his legal immigration documents. But mister Osman isn't just saying that Omar married her biological brother.
He also gave the Daily Mail the name of the Christian minister who married them. That minister reportedly says she does not wanna be involved or interviewed about congresswoman Omar.
@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk
Ilhan the Ingrate, who lives freely in this country thanks to American generosity, is now advising Somalians living illegally in America on how to evade ICE. Despicable. By the way, did we ever get to the bottom of her marrying her brother? We should. https://t.co/7VabbOsTpO
@DineshDSouza - Dinesh D'Souza
Ilhan Omar facing calls to be deported after her latest stunt. Do you agree with this? https://conservativebrief.com/gops-for-89260/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=DJD
@elonmusk - Harry Bōlz
Wow
@alx - ALX 🇺🇸
As I was saying… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8013283/Ilhan-Omar-DID-marry-brother-reveals-Somali-community-leader.html
Ilhan Omar DID marry her brother, reveals Somali community leader
Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar told friends years ago that the man who went on to become her second husband was in fact her brother, DailyMail.com can confirm.
dailymail.co.uk
@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸
Immigration fraud is grounds for losing citizenship
@alx - ALX 🇺🇸
As I was saying… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8013283/Ilhan-Omar-DID-marry-brother-reveals-Somali-community-leader.html
Ilhan Omar DID marry her brother, reveals Somali community leader
Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar told friends years ago that the man who went on to become her second husband was in fact her brother, DailyMail.com can confirm.
dailymail.co.uk
@Chicago1Ray - @Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸
Turns out the FBI had evidence that Ilhan Omar did in fact marry her brother which is in violation of immigration laws and did nothing Calls for her to be expelled from Congress & deported are growing, this should happen https://t.co/nsSYS8XCQp
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's been known for a while that Ilhan Omar allegedly married her brother to help him enter the country illegally, which violates immigration law. The FBI reportedly had evidence confirming this but took no action.
Republican operatives in Minnesota spent significant money on private investigators to determine if Ilhan Omar was a DNA match to her second husband. They collected DNA samples from different continents and found a conclusive match, indicating that her second husband was a sibling.
The FBI arrested one of the involved individuals, Anton Lazaro, on separate charges right before the information was to be released. The FBI was allegedly uninterested in the information and said the statute of limitations had expired. The story was reported after viewing the website before it was taken down.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So it's been known for quite a while that Ilhan Omar apparently married her own brother to help him gain entry illegally into the country. That's a violation of immigration law. That actually happened, it turns out. And now we're learning the FBI had evidence to confirm it, but didn't do anything about it. Randa Devine is an actual journalist.
She works at the New York Post where she writes a column. She joins us tonight to explain what exactly happened. Randa, thanks so much for coming on.
Speaker 1: Pleasure, Taka. Well, some, basically, Republican operatives, up in Minnesota decided to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on private investigators to really find out if Ilhan Omar was a genetic match, the DNA match to, the man who was her second husband. They went to three continents. They found a cigarette butt and a drinking straw, which, they decided. They sent it to an a DNA laboratory and found conclusively, that the DNA matched that the second husband was a sibling, according to this DNA sample.
So, the the very day that they were going to unleash this on the world, and in fact, I was interviewing one of the people involved, the FBI swooped on, the the gentleman, Anton Lazaro, from this, this Republican, pack up in Minnesota, and arrested him on some different charges. Who knows whether, you know, he's guilty or not guilty. I mean, he's not guilty until, proven, but he's in jail. And so his story never got to see the light of day. I mean, luckily, he'd he'd, told the FBI they were not interested.
They told him the statute of limitations had run out. We managed to see the website before he took it down, before he was arrested, and managed to report the story such as it was.
@TheBabylonBee - The Babylon Bee
Ilhan Omar Accused Of Appropriating Alabama Culture By Marrying Relative https://buff.ly/39eXrlJ
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
buff.ly
@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.
@Chicago1Ray - @Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸
Holy Sht 🔥 (MTG) is calling for the Censure of Ilhan Omar, says she's a foreign agent working in the interests of Somalia not America Most Americans think she should be expelled from Congress for marrying her brother to help him gain citizenship...this should happen https://t.co/WHMEbiqnQa
Video Transcript AI Summary
Representative Ilhan Omar is accused of treasonous statements made at a Minneapolis event on 01/27/2024. It is claimed Omar told Somalians she would pressure the US government into certain actions, assuring them the US government will only do what Somalians in the US tell them to do, and that Somalia will never be in danger as long as she is in US Congress.
The resolution states that Omar said she is there to protect the interest of Somalia from inside the US system. Referencing George Washington's warning against pretended patriotism, the resolution asserts Omar's statements violate her oath to defend the US Constitution and reveal her as a foreign agent acting on behalf of Somalia.
The resolution calls for the censure of Ilhan Omar, her presentation in the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure, a public reading of the resolution by the speaker, and her removal from the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Follows. Recognized. Centuring representative Ilhan Omar of Somali I mean, Minnesota. Whereas elected members of congress take an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to The United States without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Whereas representative Ilhan Omar took an oath of allegiance to The United States upon becoming a citizen declaring, I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.
Whereas on 01/27/2024, representative Omar gave remarks at an event in Minneapolis in which she made treasonous statements. Whereas representative Omar said she has spoken to many Somalians who asked her to intercede for the Somali government by pressuring the United States government into certain actions. Whereas representative Omar assured the Somalian she spoke to, the US government will only do what Somalians in The US tell them to do. They will do what we want and nothing else. They must follow our orders and that is how we will safeguard the interest of Somalia.
Whereas representative Omar continued, for as long as I am in US Congress, Somalia will never be in danger. Its waters will not be stolen by Ethiopia or others. Sleep in comfort knowing I am here to protect the interest of Somalia from inside The US system. Whereas George Washington warned in his farewell address of 1796 to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism and further declared citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
Whereas these statements by representative Omar clearly violate the oath she took as an elected member of congress to defend and protect The United States constitution. Whereas representative Omar has exhibited the treasonous tendencies George Washington warned about. And her actions must be condemned by all members of congress who adhere to the oath they took upon assuming office. And whereas by openly admitting her efforts to advance Somalia's interest using her position as a United States Representative, Representative Omar has revealed herself to be a foreign agent acting on behalf of a foreign government. Now therefore be it resolved that representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota be censured.
Representative Ilhan Omar forthwith present herself in the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure. Representative Ilhan Omar be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the speaker and representative Ilhan Omar be and is hereby removed from the committee of the budget and the committee on education and the workforce.
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation centers around allegations that Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud by marrying her brother. One participant suggests deporting both Omar and her brother to Somalia, arguing that she should not represent America as a dual citizen. Another participant agrees, stating that dual citizenship should disqualify individuals from holding political office. A third participant questions whether Omar's Somali citizenship has been revoked, expressing concern about the presence of dual citizens in Congress.
@TomHoman_ - Tom Homan - Border Czar MAGA News Reports
Ilhan Omar, in a case of immigration fraud, married her brother. Your call America, deport or keep? https://t.co/d0zHTq4hH3
@Ryan_In_Mi - 🇺🇸 Ryan 🇺🇸
@TomHoman_ Can we deport them both to Somalia? She shouldn’t represent America as a dual citizen.
@TomHoman_ - Tom Homan - Border Czar MAGA News Reports
@Ryan_In_Mi Exactly, dual citizenship should NOT be allowed as a politician.
@mercpa37 - Pam Mercier
@TomHoman_ @Ryan_In_Mi No one who has dual citizenship should be in Congress. Was her Somalia citizenship ever revoked? Grok doesn't know.
@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer
.@IlhanMN is crazy, @elonmusk. Can you please get @SpeakerJohnson to do something about this jihadist? She needs to be censured. Her behavior is unbecoming of a US Congresswoman, & her existence as a jihadist Muslim in Congress is a massive national security threat. She married her brother.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed Ilhan Omar's controversial marriage with former ICE Director Tom Homan on @LoomerUnleashed. He wouldn't confirm if she's under investigation but hinted at it. I believe she should be deported instead of making laws in Congress, where I feel she's pushing for an Islamic takeover.
@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer
Ilhan Omar married her brother and committed immigration fraud in our country. Last night on @LoomerUnleashed, I asked Border Czar and former ICE Director Tom Homan @RealTomHoman if Omar is under investigation for marrying her brother. He wouldn’t deny it, but he smiled and said he couldn’t discuss investigations. She should be deported, not writing our laws in Congress where she’s advocating for an Islamic takeover of America.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A reporter asked if Republicans would investigate Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for allegedly marrying her brother and committing immigration fraud. The reporter stated this claim was previously reported and confirmed. They inquired whether Omar's citizenship could be revoked if she is found to have committed immigration and student loan fraud. The respondent stated they could not discuss any investigation. The reporter then stated that many people wonder why there are "jihadists" and "anti-American immigrants" serving in Congress who are perpetuating open borders. The respondent stated that they are aware of the situation, but cannot discuss it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now that Republicans are back in control, can we expect to see some type of immigration investigation into Congresswoman Ilhan Omar? There was a report, this was a story I broke, and it's since been confirmed that she married her brother and committed immigration fraud. Can you speak to whether or not there's any investigations into congresswoman Omar's immigration fraud via the marriage to her brother and whether or not her citizenship could potentially be revoked if, you guys also find that she did in fact commit immigration fraud and student loan fraud? I can't discuss any, investigation. Okay.
All right. Well, I figured I would just ask because a lot of people, always wonder why we have jihadists serving in Congress, why we have anti American immigrants serving in Congress who are perpetuating this open border. We're aware of that situation, but I can't discuss it. Oh, so you are aware of it. Okay, great.
So you guys are aware.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe it's time for the DOJ to arrest Ilhan Omar without further investigation, as the evidence has already been presented. Republican State Representative Steve Drazkowski has confirmed that Omar married her brother to help him stay in the U.S., providing various documents as proof. There are calls for her arrest on multiple charges, including federal tax and immigration fraud, perjury, and campaign finance violations, with implications across several states. Following her sentence, it is expected that she would be deported.
@Real_RobN - 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸
It’s time for the DOJ to arrest Ilhan Omar. No investigation is required — it’s already been done. This is Minnesota — Republican State Representative Steve Drazkowski CONFIRMS, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT: Ilhan Omar did marry her brother and admitted she would “do what she had to do” to get him papers to stay in the U.S. He has the receipts: affidavits, eviction notices, marriage certificate, and other documents. There is now a demand for the arrest of Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan, @IlhanMN) for crimes including federal tax fraud, federal immigration fraud, federal student loan fraud, and state violations such as perjury, bigamy, incest, kickbacks, and campaign finance abuse — spanning from the East Coast to the Mississippi River, including Boston, Washington, New York, Chicago, and Florida. 📝Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) @OfficialFBOP And once she serves her sentence, the illegal alien will be deported by @ICEgov.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe it's time for the FBI and DOJ to act against Ilhan Omar, whom I consider a "serial career criminal." Minnesota State Representative Steve Drazkowski has confirmed that Omar married her brother to help him stay in the U.S. He claims to have substantial evidence, including sworn affidavits and a marriage certificate. Drazkowski is calling for her arrest for various alleged crimes, including marriage and tax fraud, and highlights her past violations with the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board. He insists she should face consequences, including deportation after serving her sentence.
@Real_RobN - 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸
It’s time for President Trump’s FBI (@FBIDirectorKash) and DOJ (@AGPamBondi) to arrest the “serial career criminal” Ilhan Omar. No investigation is required — the investigation has already been completed. This is Minnesota — Republican State Representative Steve Drazkowski CONFIRMS, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT: Ilhan Omar married her brother and admitted she would “do what she had to do” to get him papers to stay in the U.S. He has the receipts: witnesses, sworn affidavits, eviction notices, a marriage certificate, DNA evidence, and other documents. Rep. Steve Drazkowski: “I am presenting you with a copy of my letter and just a sampling of the materials available to you on these topics.” He is now demanding the arrest of Ilhan Omar for crimes including marriage fraud, tax fraud, immigration fraud, student loan fraud, perjury, bigamy, incest, kickbacks, bribery, campaign finance abuse — and for defrauding the United States government — spanning from the East Coast to the Mississippi River: Boston, Washington, New York, Chicago, and Florida. Rep. Steve Drazkowski: “She [@Ilhan] was found guilty of violations by the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board and was ordered to return those funds. Ms. @IlhanMN appears to be a serial career criminal.” 📝 Federal Bureau of Prisons (@OfficialFBOP): And once she serves her sentence, the illegal alien is to be deported by @ICEgov.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker Omar asks congresswoman Angie Craig to initiate an ethics investigation into Congresswoman Omar, citing 'federal tax fraud, federal immigration fraud, federal student loan fraud, and state violations of perjury, bigamy, kickbacks, and acts of campaign fraud abuse' in Boston, Washington, New York, Chicago, and Florida. He notes Minnesota House ethics rule violations relating to speeches in 2017 and 2018. He states, 'Miss Omar appears to be a serial career criminal and should not have access to our nation's highest secrets and intelligence.' He frames this as seeking 'answers' and mentions a 'sham marriage' with Ahmed Elmi from 2009 to 2017, noting North Dakota State addresses and FAFSA questions. He concludes, 'The endgame here is to find answers,' and, 'If you interview the police, they will tell you that a person's past behavior is the best indicator of their future behavior.' He asserts, 'our national security is at stake.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Omar on the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs. I'm also asking congresswoman Craig to initiate an ethics investigation into congresswoman Omar because of questions about federal tax fraud, federal immigration fraud, federal student loan fraud, and state violations of perjury, bigamy, kickbacks, and acts of campaign fraud abuse in Boston, Washington, New York, Chicago, and Florida. There are also violations of state ethics, or of the Minnesota House ethics rules regarding colleges for speeches she gave while she was in partial control of their budgets as a member of the House Higher Education Finance Committee, in both 2017 and 2018. She was found guilty of the violations by the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board three weeks ago in order to return those funds on June 6. Miss Omar appears to be a serial career criminal and should not have access to our nation's highest secrets and intelligence.
That is why I'm calling on our congresswoman Angie Craig to protect both our national security and our respect of the rule of law. Tax fraud, immigration fraud, student loan fraud, perjury, bigamy, kickbacks, and campaign abuse fraud from the East Coast to the Mississippi River. If those charges have been brought against Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, the Star Tribune would not have said on Sunday that she was attempting to, quote, skirt the law, and then followed up with a front page story the next day on a pie in the sky proposal that had zero chances of becoming law. Minnesota deserves better. America demands more.
I'm presenting you with a copy of my letter and just a sampling of the materials available to you on these topics, and we'll take your questions. Here's a sampling of materials that I, have offered you today. Anybody who would like them, there's many more than this available, all over social media and, in printed, publicity and elsewhere. So, with that, ladies and gentlemen, we'll take your questions.
Speaker 1: Yes, representative. Why are you asking Angie Craig, congresswoman Craig, to open this ethics investigation? Unless I'm missing something. I think she's on the transportation and agriculture committee.
Speaker 0: Yeah. She's my congresswoman. I'm from the Second District. That seems to me to be the best place to ask your elected representative to, represent you in forming an ethics investigation.
Speaker 1: Oh, so are you doing this as as an individual citizen of Minnesota? Are you doing this as representative?
Speaker 0: Well, I'm doing it as both. I'm a constituent of hers, and I am asking her as a constituent, and presenting it here today as a state representative, but asking her as a constituent to bring forward an ethics investigation. I could ask Nancy Pelosi, but she doesn't represent me. Congresswoman Craig does.
Speaker 2: Are you only allowed to to ask someone who represents you? The reason I'm asking is, I mean, you know the party of the congresswoman, and I would assume the chances of it happening pretty slim. Why not ask the Republican Congress congressperson?
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, you could ask any member of Congress. Angie Craig is my US House of Representatives, my US Congresswoman, and because of that, she is the one that made most sense to me to ask to represent me and represent, this pursuit of justice and and respect
Speaker 2: for the rule of law. And analysts will say this just an attempt to embarrass her or put her in a tough position as opposed to just getting the job done by going and asking a Republican congressperson to to pursue what she
Speaker 0: wanted to do. How would
Speaker 2: you smile?
Speaker 0: Well, this is not about congresswoman Craig. It's not about about Republican or Democrat. It's about an avenue for me to, bring forward, these questions and get it in front of The US House Of Representatives.
Speaker 2: What's the history of these sifted requests for investigations? Has Congress responded to them?
Speaker 0: I I believe some of them may do. Some may find it superficial and don't. I haven't really dug into that myself, but I I expect and have heard that they receive a lot of requests. Certainly, I don't know that many of them or all of them, contain, the level of importance, or the level of detail and information available that this already does.
Speaker 2: Are you expecting more information to come out related to some of questions you raised during this time?
Speaker 0: I am. As a matter of fact, I've talked to one of the people, David Steinberg, has done a lot of the work. You will see his blog posts in here that have the social media that some of you in the Minnesota media here have referred to. And if I can be critical, somewhat dismissed because it wasn't something that you found but something that he found. Incidentally, as soon as David and Scott Johnson and Preah did their work, and I know this for sure with David, he he took the screen captures of these social media accounts, and then formed a blog post, offered representative Omar comment before he published the blog post, heard nothing back from her, published the post, and shortly after the post was published, either depending on the situation, either her image on social media or, Ahmed Elmi's image was removed from their respective social media accounts.
And I think that's important for you and the media to note, as you try to discern, what motives are and where the truth lies. What's the what's the endgame here? Well, I think the endgame is to find answers. The answers, have not been, pursued. We're starting to see them be pursued.
The national media is really starting to kick it into gear. I think the Star Tribune for their effort recently, although it was, it was not, the the level of of inquiry that Matthew many people wanted and expected. It was a great start, and so, I think the end game is for us to bring about bring about visibility to this in a way that the people of Minnesota and the people of America can find answers to what appears to be a sham marriage that represent Omar has with or have with Omar Ahmed Elmi from 2009 to 2017.
Speaker 3: Should Congresswoman Craig dismiss or ignore your your letter? What's your next step in there? Any any other plans? Any other attempts to maybe refer this onto other agencies or officials?
Speaker 0: Well, one idea that that I heard was actually from the Democrat. And by the way, I've heard from Democrat colleagues in the house that are thanking me for my efforts to pursue this because they have the same concerns I do. I want you to know that. I'm not gonna name names. But one of those democrats, offered to me that, what represent then representative Ellison did when he was running for office last year, and there was questions about his situation with his wife as he offered, you know what?
I will ask for an ethics investigation upon myself. And I think maybe a call from the media, a call from me, or a call from someone to say, represent Omar, if you don't think this that these things, that there's there's problems here, do as your predecessor did. Ask for an investigation of yourself and clear your name. I think that would be a great inquiry. The theory is that the Shanmarie was needed to help him or her?
We're not completely sure. You know, there's a there's a bunch of I mean, you look at the tax fraud probable cause that exists from the June 6, campaign finance stuff. I mean, probable cause is right there for tax fraud, federal and state. You can't deny that. But I think you need to go and and, first of all, find out more about the marriage and start to get more people involved in digging through this stuff.
The questions about people brought up questions about immigration. Did it somehow help Ahmed Elmi or someone come here illegally or easier or get special preference? There's questions about FAFSA. Incidentally, the marriage between Ahmed Elmi and, represent Omar occurred in 02/2009. As I understand, that was the first year that they both attended North Dakota State together.
And during that two or or three or four years at North Dakota State, there were at least two instances at two different addresses that represented Omar, Ahmad Hersey, and Ahmad Elmi all lived at the same address. Was that I think that should be interesting.
Speaker 2: Is that a real address or a post box?
Speaker 0: No. I can't recall. There were two different ones, in two different points in time. So evidently, may have moved to a different street address or something.
Speaker 1: Representative, this have you contacted representative Craig to let her know that this was coming or she
Speaker 0: just I have not, and I haven't talked to representative Omar about it either. I know that was a question last year when I brought up the fact that representative Omar was taking money from three different house three different state higher education institutions, directly in in conflict with Minnesota House rules, which she eventually then returned those thousands of dollars to them realizing that she was wrong in doing that. But they I was asked by the media last year that very same question.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you, you know, I know that, at one point the the then US attorney Andy Luger made it clear in a statement that he he was not invested. The federal government was not investigating Ilhan Omar. Also, I believe that the state campaign finance board has the ability to refer items to promote jurisdictions. Obviously, the investigators, the IRS, the federal government, they're pretty aggressive and they're pretty good. It doesn't appear that they're on this at all.
Does that say anything to you?
Speaker 0: Well, the Campaign Finance Board does do criminal referrals about campaign finance related items. And if you'll read the Campaign Finance Board's findings and orders, from June 6, you'll realize as they, form their context out forth that they limited their approach, to items that concern campaign finance and didn't. As a matter of fact, they didn't even see the tax forms.
Speaker 1: Right, but they didn't feel that the the campaign finance portion of this reached a criminal element in their opinion.
Speaker 0: Well, she broke the law and she's paying the money back. Right.
Speaker 1: It's she broke. She broke the law. Right, right. But I guess I'm I'm just wondering if it it appears that people who do have access. Obviously, US attorney, the campaign finance board regulate camera for items to criminal entities or criminal investigators.
They've had access to this and they haven't done that yet. I mean, are they remiss in their actions?
Speaker 0: Think I think we I think we all are. I think they are. I think you are. I think I am. I think we all need to pursue justice and truth here, and that's why I'm here today.
Another exhibit, it's in your packet, the question of perjury. This isn't the best copy, but this is representative Omar's I'll just call it because it's called application for an order for service by alternate means. So as I understand it, representative Omar, approached the court and tried to get the divorce in 2017 from Ahmed Elmi without actually having him there. And in order to do that, she testified under perjury twice in here that she hadn't seen or heard of Ahmed Elmi since 02/2011. And you'll find in your packet too, and pray up Samsador Samsador I think I still struggle with their last name.
Had this, brought forward, as I understand, 02/2016. This is the affidavit of service of the eviction notice for Ahmed Noor Saeed Elmi in 02/2012, a year after she said she had last heard from him. Less than 10 blocks from where she lived in Minneapolis.
Speaker 2: Representative, you say that our national security is
Speaker 0: at stake.
Speaker 2: Would you outline for Minnesotans? And you're making some out some allegations in other areas, but specifically, how is our national security at stake here?
Speaker 0: If you interview the if you talk to the police, they will tell you that a person's past behavior is the best indicator of their future behavior. Best predictor of the future behavior is their past behavior. I have laid out for you represent Omar's past behavior. And
@BasedSamParker - Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯
BREAKING: Tucker Carlson's wife (and children) are jewish. https://t.co/sVcpXoQSqb
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 states a personal stance toward people and principle. They begin, 'In my views, I like people, and I just feel that way.' They then reject performing a narrative about their wife's heritage, saying, 'And I'm not gonna play the game where I have to be like, oh, actually, my wife is part Jewish or whatever.' They reference a 'Final question. Play. I'm not gonna do that.' The remark concludes with, 'I think we should stand on principle.' The speaker emphasizes not altering a stance for perceived group identity, choosing to adhere to a stated set of beliefs instead of altering responses for appearances.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In my views, I like people, and I just feel that way. And I'm not gonna play the game where I have to be like, oh, actually, my wife is part Jewish or whatever. Final question. Play. I'm not gonna do that.
I think we should stand on principle.