reSee.it - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
A Maui local shares concerns about the recent fires, blaming outdated infrastructure and fallen electric lines. They believe the disaster could have been prevented with upgrades and earlier power cuts. Lack of warnings, water, and media coverage are criticized. The conversation also mentions alleged mishandling of aid and a lack of transparency from officials.
@MattWallace888 - Matt Wallace
🚨 MAUI FIRES DISTURBING TRUTH REVEALED 🚨 ⚠️ WARNING: What You Are About To See is EXTREMELY AGGRAVATING/UPSETTING ⚠️ This Article Was Written and Sent To Me By A Maui Local Born and Raised There. He Currently Lives in Lahania and Knows Some of These Officials Personally. When I Asked To Include His Name, He Said: “I don’t want any clout. I send this out of love for Maui and its people. I hope something like this never happens again.” As You Read This, Please Consider Sharing! All Ad Revenue From This Tweet Will Be Donated DIRECTLY (Through Local Sources) To Maui Fire Victims! WE MUST SPREAD THIS INFORMATION FAR & WIDE TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN ANYWHERE! Each Like/Retweet Equals Money Going To Families Who Need It! HERE ARE HIS EXTREMELY POWERFUL WORDS: “First let me start off by saying Lahaina is a desert climate and has been since plantation owners rerouted the water source to other parts of the island. Lahaina used to be a lush landscape. The infrastructure has largely remained the same since its inception. This means a cluttered nest of wires and rotting buildings. We have fires every year due to fallen electric lines. This isn’t something new. In my opinion, this disaster could’ve been completely prevented had they spent the money to upgrade to in-ground electric lines. Many have asked over the years but were told there was no funds to do it. It’s a lot easier to secure funding after a disaster. At the very least, HECO (the electric company) could’ve cut the power a lot sooner. HECO CEO Shelee Kimora claimed it could’ve affected specialized medical equipment. This is crazy considering you can’t use medical equipment if it’s incinerated by a fire. Just another excuse to avoid accountability. The state of the art “all hazard” sirens never went off. Herman Andaya (Maui EMA director) who was in charge of making the decision to turn on the sirens said he didn’t regret it. The next day he resigned due to “health issues”. No cell service and no loudspeaker either. There was no warning of any sort. People were in their houses and completely unaware until it the fire was close. There was a fire earlier and the Maui Fire Department said it was “100% contained”. The police allowed incoming traffic into the town coming from Kaanapali but closed the road off on the other side due to a downed line that wasn’t even blocking the road. This caused a gridlock. Residents' water was turned off with no way to protect their houses. Firefighters ran out of water and were denied access by Kaleo Manuel (DLNR’s deputy director for water resource management) until it was too late. This unnecessarily put firefighters at even greater risk. I am especially embarrassed with leadership treating locals like criminals. They immediately enacted a roadblock (they could’ve just closed the fire zone) and implemented a military-enforced curfew 10pm - 6pm. There has also been a near-total media block in the fire zone. This is unconstitutional! Many residents believe they have been soft selling the body count and knew they were hundreds of bodies that they collected the first day. Most of which are likely to be children who stayed home, without any cell service or power. Rumors of them filling containers with bodies and stacking them up in non refrigerated buildings. I suspect they’re trying to keep numbers down until the news cycle is over. Despite not providing aid themselves, they have made it incredibly hard for residents to help by blocking the wharf and turning away boats with local aid, they blocked the roads, FEMA has been confiscating pallets of aid claiming it’s not fema approved items and they are not trained to distribute them. Maui’s Mayor Bissen has acted like a bully throughout this entire mess. Just recently he threw a fit and tried to close down the press conference after a reporter asked “how many children are missing?” The people need transparency and accountability and independent reporters who won’t be bullied!”
@ChaoticGood42 - ChaoticGood42
@MattWallace888 https://t.co/vLzgki9Lmz
@timelesspat - Timeless Pat
‼️THE TRUTH IS OUT💥👆 https://t.co/rxArMAf1MQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The US withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002 and started placing Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania. Putin expressed concern about the proximity of these missiles to Moscow. The US refused to negotiate with Russia and stated that NATO enlargement was none of their business. Russia's attempts to engage in negotiations were unsuccessful, leading to a military operation and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The situation has resulted in a high death toll, mass displacement, and a significant economic decline in Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our border. Second, the US had walked away from the anti ballistic missile treaty unilaterally in 2002, and it had basically ended it had base it started to place Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania. Yeah. And Putin said, we don't even know what is in those silos, but it's a few minutes from Moscow. This is intolerable.
You unilaterally left a treaty. Now we are vulnerable. The United States said we don't negotiate with you. And in January 2022, the US gave a formal reply to who? And the formal reply is NATO enlargement is none of your business.
Literally, that is US policy. It's none of your business. Not that we will sit down and discuss, negotiate, try to understand your security concerns. It's none of your business. And on February 21st 20 22, Russia Security Council met.
President Putin asked foreign minister Lavrov, Lavrov, give a report of the status of your discussions with the Americans. Lavrov responded that we have received a firm reply of no negotiation over NATO. We have tried, mister president, but we did not succeed. The US will not engage in negotiations. And 3 days later, the special military operation took place.
Since then, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are killed. 10,000,000 have fled the country. The economic collapse is probably more than 50%. Ukraine is losing around a 1000 soldiers every day killed or seriously wounded right now. This so called
@digitalassetbuy - Digital Asset Investor.XRP
EXPOSE THEM ALL! 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿 https://t.co/1gHi5KRQzX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 expresses opposition to cryptocurrency. Speaker 1 mentions that Jamie, who supports blockchain, helped launch JPMorganCoin. They explain that JPMorgan created its own blockchain protocol based on Ethereum, allowing private transactions. Speaker 0 suggests that the only use case for blockchain is criminal activity. Speaker 2 states that JPMorgan was involved in Ethereum from the beginning and played a major role in the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance. Speaker 0 comments on shutting down blockchain if they were the government. Speaker 3 compares the Mt. Gox scandal to Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, where JPMorgan was involved. JPMorgan account holders sued the bank and recovered over $2 billion, but no executives went to jail.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've always been deeply opposed to crypto, Bitcoin, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, first of all, if I might add, Jamie has always loved the blockchain. You know, I think at one point in time, he publicly said, God bless the blockchain. I definitely believe in the blockchain. So, you know, he's always been a staunch supporter of us through the entire program. And, you know and in fact, that's the reason why we were able to launch JPMorganCoin.
Nordwin is basically US dollars on blockchain. We actually are one of the few banks to have almost created our own Blockchain protocol, like the underlying technology layer, essentially, what we did was take the Ethereum, public Ethereum Blockchain codebase, and we forked it, which meant we copied and pasted it. It was open source. And then we added enterprise technology trappings. But then we also added a private node to enable private transactions, between participants in a network, telling that all of our projects are, you know, on Ethereum variant as an example.
That's that's intentional. And I think that as a bank, you know, many many did not agree with that approach early on, but now it's sort of playing through as as being relevant.
Speaker 0: One You pointed out the only true use case for it is criminals.
Speaker 2: So our company consensus has been, very prominent at Since the start of the Ethereum ecosystem, I I can attest that JPMorgan was there right from the start before Public Mainnet was even launched. One one one
Speaker 0: drug traffickers, anti money laundering, tax avoidance.
Speaker 2: JPMorgan, at what started paying attention to Ethereum blockchain technology even before public mainnet was released. At what So they started, experimenting and and building out some things, when we were still building proofs of concept. One they had a handful of different teams that focused on blockchain technology, one And we've interacted, with them roughly from the start. We one I started to interact with them, in a really concerted way, around the time of at The advent of the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance. So, we were 2 of the major drivers of that initiative at 1 and have been 2 of the major drivers of activity inside the EEA since since launch, really.
Speaker 0: I one If I was the government, I'd close it down.
Speaker 3: You know, with respect to to to to Mt. Gox, there's not that much here that's all that unique outside of it being, Bitcoin related. At one side of it being, Bitcoin related. Bernie Madoff had his company banking at JPMorgan. JPMorgan caught on at 1 to the scam about a year before it collapsed.
They pulled most of their money out of, out of the the the Madoff fund, didn't tell their what Their own account holders who were also with Madoff that they were doing that. After everything was revealed, at 1 The JPMorgan account holders who are all who are also with Madoff, they sued JPMorgan for violating the fiduciary obligation that JP at JPMorgan had to them, and they recovered over $2,000,000,000 in that lawsuit. And the JPMorgan executives went to jail. Right? One No.
The JPMorgan executives want to chill? No.
@Prolotario1 - Ariel
I told you all who is running everything. Yet, I still have to show you. https://t.co/5xLcy66B6v
@Sadie_NC - Sadie 🇺🇸 👩🌾
This is what we need more of in our representatives!🔥 https://t.co/tPlKEonYsX
Video Transcript AI Summary
I propose reducing the salary of White House press secretary Corinne Jean Pierre to $1. Throughout her tenure, she has been accused of lying to the American people, displaying condescension towards reporters, and violating the Hatch Act. Some of her alleged lies include stating that illegal immigration is down under the Biden administration, denying people are crossing the southern border, claiming the 2016 election was stolen, asserting that Governor Brian Kemp stole the 2018 governor's race from Stacey Abrams, denying that Biden's stimulus bill impacted inflation, and denying the teaching of critical race theory in schools. Given her history of deceit, it is questioned how she can continue to serve as the president's liaison.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I rise today to offer an amendment to reduce the salary of Corinne Jean Pierre, the White House press secretary, to $1. Mister speaker, during miss Jean Pierre's tenure as press secretary, she has repeatedly lied to the American people and acted in a condescending manner toward reporters and also violated the Hatch Act. Just to name a few of her lies, miss Jean Pierre has claimed, one, illegal immigration is down under the Biden administration. She also claimed nobody is just walking in across the southern border, she also claimed that the 2016 election was stolen. She also claimed that governor Brian Kemp stole the 2018 governor's race from Stacey Abrams.
She also claimed that Biden's stimulus bill did not impact inflation. She also claimed that critical race theory or its equivalent isn't being taught in our schools. She also claimed that nobody has done more for the southern border or our border in general than Joe Biden, how can somebody with such a history of deceit continue to serve as the liaison for the president
@DefiyantlyFree - Insurrection Barbie
Truth 💣 alert. https://t.co/q5E2TrrjGk
Video Transcript AI Summary
If you support Palestinians having their own homeland, you're considered woke. But if you support white people having their own homeland, you're labeled as racist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you say Palestinians deserve a homeland just for themselves, you're woke. But if you say white people deserve a homeland just for themselves, you're racist?
@j00ny369T - Johnny
Truth matters. https://t.co/f06B9Fa1aL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many creative people had mundane jobs. Einstein, despite his fame, had a controversial personal life and was accused of plagiarism. He was criticized by many scientists, including Nikola Tesla. Einstein's theories were not universally accepted, and he faced accusations of distorting Western science. Despite his reputation, some argue that true brilliance was overshadowed by his media hype. Einstein's legacy remains a topic of debate among scholars and scientists.
Translation: Einstein, a famous figure, faced criticism for his personal life and alleged plagiarism. Many scientists disagreed with his theories, and his reputation was questioned. Some believe his true brilliance was overlooked due to media hype. The debate surrounding Einstein's legacy continues among scholars and scientists.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nina, a lot of creative people had mindless jobs. Michelangelo worked in a marble quarry. Herman Melville was a customs agent. Albert Einstein worked for the patent office.
Speaker 1: And what is it you want to patent here, Smith? I call it Smith's theory of relativity. Hey. Look at this. What?
Well, in 18/95, Einstein, he failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. Okay. He was a dropout. He's a dropout student. He was cruel to his first wife.
He beat her. He cheated on her. Then he married his cousin who he cheated on constantly. He estranged from his sons. He left them with no money, although he had it.
He was a Marxist who hated McCarthy for hunting commies. In fact, he was mentioned by Stalin Soviets as a close friend. The this film or this TV show says, oh, he was just an internationalist. No. He was a commie.
He says he was a pacifist, but he wanted war with Germany. He actually wanted to genocide Germans. There was a quote where he said, the Germans can be killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be reeducated to a democratic way of thinking and acting. It is hoped that by war's end, they will largely have been killed off. Albert Einstein said this.
At Lincoln University, California, Einstein gave a speech in which he called racism a disease of white people and added, I do not intend to be quiet about it. But he was vehemently anti nationalist and anti white, but very, very pro Jewish. In fact, he was offered a presidency of Israel. He politely declined the offer by saying, I'm deeply moved by the offer from our state of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept. He was a hardcore Zionist, but a post nationalism nationalism at every turn for Europeans.
In fact, he wanted to crush it. So what did he give us anyway? Everything is relative Relative? Moral relativism? Nothing is certain.
No such thing as an absolute. Anything goes. What is truth anyway? There's no meaning except relativism, of course. Right?
So only his view of the universe is the right one that we're all choking to death on. Right? And many physicists disagree with his theories because that's all they are, is theories. Well, how is he how is he even gotten this big in the first place? Well, it's a fact that his work was not only twisted unscientific ideas, but that it was science that was plagiarized.
I know Reddy said, did a show on this, a great show on this, covering this in detail. His writings included his popular 1924 book, Meaning of Relativity, which was plagiarized from the Lawrence transformation. Plagiarism of the mass energy equivalence largely based on the work of George Fitzgerald and Hendrick Lawrence, Irish and Dutch theoretical physicist. And also the work of French physicist, Henry help me with this Poincare. Henri Poincare.
There you go. He developed Henri Poincare. There you go.
Speaker 0: He he developed
Speaker 1: the theory of relativity years before Einstein. Einstein. And it gets worse. Plagiarism of Paul Gerber's, or is it Gerber's groundbreaking work on the speed of gravity. Okay.
This was a German guy. And the idea that the speed of light was a constant and was independent of the motion of its source was not Einstein's at all, but was proposed by the Scottish scientist, James Maxwell, in 18/78. Also, Berhard Reiman, a German, was the first to develop a sound non Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all the math he used to describe relativity. Also, it goes on. Heinrich Hertz, the the father of the unit of frequency Hertz, right, sound vibration, discovered that electro loads illuminated with ultraviolet light, and they create electric sparks more easily.
Well, in 1905, Einstein published the paper explaining this same experiment from Hertz's photoelectric effect. And it was actually Hertz's discovery that led to the quantum revolution. Yet Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effects. Okay? It goes on.
Nikola Tesla, he could not stand Einstein. In fact, he called them an old crank. He gave a scathing analysis of Einstein's relativity theory, calling it a magnificent mathematical garb, which fascinates, dazzles, and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar cloth and purple whom ignorant people take for a king. He said this in 1935.
John Murray Coudehy, a brilliant known sociologist at Einstein was motivated by a desire to distort and destroy Western Science. Very, very accurate. Dayton Clarence Miller, president of Britain's Royal Astronomical Society disagreed with all Einstein's theory. He had his own absolute space theory, which is interesting. And it goes on.
A 100 prestigious Austrian and German scientists denounced him in this book, Hundert, I don't know how to say it, Alterin Gegen. I'll I'll pull it up right here. Accused him of being a pseudo mysticism and, pseudo mystic and, and just speculating everything, basically. A 100 scientists. H.
L. Mencken, there's sound reason for believing that Einstein will not hold up in the long run. His curved space may be classed with psychosomatic bumps of Gall and Spurzheim, 2 other brilliant scientists. So the point is we wouldn't be in the stone age without him hardly. We'd be cultivating other planets by now.
Right? And then people who say, oh, you're just jealous of him or oh, it's because he's Jewish. No. It's because he was a thief, a liar, and a plagiarist, and an awful person in his private life. And, you know, true brilliant people couldn't stand him and they viewed him as a crack box a crack pot and a liar and a plagiarist because he was.
And Einstein criticized scientists he felt threatened by true geniuses like Erwin Schrodinger, quantum theory, Werner Heisenberg, Hilbert Planck. He was actually the jealous one who was attacking all these. But he he was propped up as the archetype of brilliance, genius in science, the smartest man alive, and he was a Jew. Right? So he's just a pure creation basically of a Jewish media hype that was manufactured in the twenties, basically like a pop star.
But he was a commie who failed his college entrance exam and shamelessly ripped off true geniuses. So he's all smoke and mirrors. He's a fraud, people. And I don't know if you guys have heard this before, but it it's massive. Germany, Henrik, as you said, was thriving.
I mean, just amazing minds were coming out of Germany in this time. It's not like Einstein took Germany out of some kind of stone age and they were, you know, they were not gonna advance without his brilliance. Right?
@VincentCrypt46 - Vincent Kennedy
Some more disclosure... https://t.co/pEK1vyiKPa
Video Transcript AI Summary
You think atheism protects you, but ignorance prevails. Humanity faces a battle against those who deny evil. Despite progress, issues like slavery and hate speech persist. Evil is pervasive, yet often unnoticed. Winners and losers are determined by unseen forces.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You ignorant sack of meat. You think your atheism will protect you? Oh, I don't believe in angels or demons, heaven or hell, so you can't hurt me. I was full of pathetic trash who thought exactly like you do, Boldly proclaiming their ideas on how they feel the universe operates. Never once contemplating the possibility that they could be wrong.
It's about everyone. The entire human race. All of us against all of you.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, if
Speaker 0: that's the case, your side's not doing too well. Do you really believe that, James?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We've never been freer. Literacy is at an all time high. We're working to eliminate racism, intolerance, gender inequality. People can people can love who they want.
Be who they want. Do what they want. Diversity is no longer a dream. Hate speech is no longer tolerated. And politically, we're reclaiming the moral high ground.
Speaker 0: I think I love you. Literally see, David, James, the average high school graduate reads at a 6th grade level. You have basketball players making 30,000,000 a year, decrying racism, all while wearing sneakers made from slave labor. Here's something for you. Right now, your world currently has 40,000,000 slaves, one the Romans had at the height of their empire.
Wanna know the best part, though? Half of those, half are sex slaves. Okay? That's for hate speech. Well, you wanna hear some irony?
We didn't even come up with that one. You did it all by yourself. Sometimes you amaze even us.
Speaker 1: I fail
Speaker 0: to see the humor. Bottom line is you're done. It's over. That's it. And we did it all right to your face, James.
And now there's evil everywhere, and no one even cares. Yeah. I don't I don't agree. Proving that we achieved our goal slowly with your movies, your TV, and your media, we desensitized you, redirected your world view to the point that you can't even recognize evil when it's right in front of your face. More to the point, James, you can't even feel it when you're doing it.
And as for winners and losers, woah, woah, woah. Like, it's decided at the time of death. These act numbers are closely guarded secret, but there are more of you ending up in my master's house than with the enemy. A lot more, Demi.
@ajtourville - ALEX
They're zero accountability – It's just one lie after another. https://t.co/P94wL2Hm25
Video Transcript AI Summary
Biden did not take FEMA relief money to use on migrants. FEMA regional administrators have been meeting with city officials to coordinate available federal support from FEMA and other federal agencies. Funding is available through FEMA's emergency food and shelter program to eligible local governments and non-profit organizations upon request to support humanitarian relief for migrants.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's just categorically false. No. Biden did not take FEMA relief, money to use, to use on migrants. So FEMA regional administrators have been meeting with city officials on-site to coordinate to coordinate available federal, support from FEMA and other, federal agencies. Funding is also available through FEMA's emergency food and shelter program to eligible local governments and not for non for profit organizations upon request, to support humanitarian relief for migrants.
@MAGA__Patriot - Trump Girl 🇺🇲🦅🇺🇲
The truth and only the truth! https://t.co/D4vYxqH2dA
Video Transcript AI Summary
Barack Obama has been criticized for not supporting the black community and failing to address crime in Chicago. Some believe he has caused harm to the nation and that Joe Biden's administration is similarly ineffective. There is a sentiment that Trump listened to the concerns of the community more than Obama did. Bill Clinton, despite his shortcomings, at least acknowledged people's struggles. A warning was issued about Obama before his election, claiming he was ungodly and detrimental to the country. Critics argue that organizations like Black Lives Matter do not genuinely support black people and instead focus on personal gain, moving into predominantly white neighborhoods without contributing to black businesses.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Barack Obama was a plant. He did nothing for the black community. Nobody knows who he is. Did he ever come back to Chicago with this much crime to talk to the young black men? He doesn't give a damn.
He doesn't. Barack Obama is a curse on this nation. Joe was Joe Biden. I think it was a black woman. Abomination.
He provided the money for his Marxist socialist program pushing abortion in Africa and other Abomination. He didn't care about us. He didn't care. That gave rise to Trump because Trump actually listened to us. He actually cares.
Many of us I mean, it was bad. At least Bill Clinton Bill Clinton BS and said, I feel your pain. Yeah. But he said it. Marco Barbour didn't give a damn.
He should have never been elected. Before he was elected in 2,000 and 6 what Levi elected in 2008, my mother said, may god rest her soul, letters to black churches, warning them about Barack Obama, saying he was so ungodly. I said, mom, that's harsh. She she wrote it anyway. And everything my mother said, may god rest her soul, was right.
He hates this country, but he wants to live off the fat of the land. Oh, yeah. Like the founders of Black Lives Matter. They don't give a damn about black people. They didn't have to spend one time to help build a black business.
But these lesbians, they brought homes in the predominantly white neighborhoods. See, they said they had Smart. Go. She is. She's, she's going in.
@Sassafrass_84 - Sassafrass84
Another reason why he won. The level of transparency is wild. He is incredible. This man is a legend, and I'm proud I voted for him 3 times. We are back on track America. https://t.co/SileZxEo9R
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thank you all for being here. From India to California, I pursued my dream of becoming a scientist.
There’s a lot to discuss, including the impact of childhood experiences and current issues like border security and inflation.
Donald Trump is often seen as unserious, and the consequences of political actions are significant. It’s important to highlight how some individuals, like Cindy, have been involved in controversial actions, including paying bail for violent offenders.
There’s also misinformation surrounding Project 2025, which I have no connection to, despite claims to the contrary.
Let’s focus on the facts and the real issues at hand.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Is she crazy?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you so very much. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you. Oh,
Speaker 1: too many. Thank you. It's about 20. I've that must be 35.
Speaker 0: Oh, sure. From India to California with an unshakable dream to be the scientist.
Speaker 1: How many people are watching?
Speaker 0: Can we tell how many Dan? How many people are watching?
Speaker 1: She's talking about how great Santa's sister was before she destroyed it. A lot of talk about childhood. We've gotta get to the border, inflation in Toronto, and take Cindy's out. The things of which she complains, the things of which she of which
Speaker 0: In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man. Oh,
Speaker 1: you hear that, Phil? The consequences. It's great. What the consequences are all started by her and Biden against their political opponents. Me.
You get that out right away, John. She paid and raised bail. She paid bail to get the violent Yeah. Briars of Minnesota out of jail. To the top of this with the nonvolatile we love it.
The matches. Put it in there. Put it right in with the put it in there. Put it right in with the second. With that whole shit.
You will be in Yeah. Now. You could do it either that or separate.
Speaker 0: The state of lying about this project 2020 5.
Speaker 1: Oh, lying against project 25, which he knows and so do all Democrats that I have not that I have absolutely nothing to do with. She says we all know that.
@RickyDoggin - A Man Of Memes
Another reason why they hate him... He tells the truth. https://t.co/5G5wytFEMT
Video Transcript AI Summary
He wants to appear tough, but it's easy to take advantage of vulnerable people, like an elderly woman. Many in the audience are donors and special interests, which affects their support. The RNC has confirmed that the audience is filled with donors, and the lack of enthusiasm for me stems from my refusal to accept their money. I prioritize doing what's right for the American public over financial contributions. I'm the only one here committed to saving the country without relying on donations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me just you know, he wants to be a tough guy. A lot of times, you'll have you'll have and and it doesn't work very well with How tough is it to say, like, property from an elderly woman? Let me talk. Quiet. Now so out of time a lot of times, That's all of his donors and special interests out there.
So it's what it is. That's what and by the way, let me just tell you. We needed tickets. You can't get them. You know who has the tickets for the, I'm talking about to the television audience?
Donors, special interest, the people that are putting up the money. So it is, the RNC told us we have all donors in the audience, and the reason they're not loving me, the reason they're not excuse me. The reason they're not loving me is I don't want their money. I'm gonna do the right thing for the American public. I don't want their money.
I don't need their money. And I'm the only one up here that can save
@OG_DrC - Dr. C
Wow. Look at that. Real journalism. https://t.co/y4OBHyBwUt
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden-Harris administration persuaded Ukraine to abandon a peace deal that would have resulted in losing only half of the territory currently occupied by Russia, leading to significant loss of life. This decision was driven by interests in the vast mineral resources under the Donbas region and the desire to weaken Russia's military. Additionally, U.S. hedge funds are profiting from Ukraine's fertile land and mineral rights. The narrative of the U.S. standing with Ukraine is misleading, aimed at justifying prolonged conflict for profit. Ultimately, the actions taken have cost Ukraine its territory and the lives of its children, with war profiteers showing no genuine support for the Ukrainian people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is a tweet from me. I don't normally read people's tweets, but in standing with Ukraine, the Biden Harris administration convinced them, Ukraine, to abandon a peace deal that would have ceded only half of the territory that Russia now occupies. And for that opportunity to lose twice as much of their homeland, they paid with tens of thousands of innocent lives. We did this to control the 11,000,000,000,000 of minerals under the Donbas. We did it to grind down the Russian war machine on the grist of Ukrainian teenagers.
We did it to hand out 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to US hedge funds who are, as we speak, carving up rights to Ukraine's fertile soil and vast mineral resources. The truth is the United States has never stood with the people of Ukraine. That is simply a jingle, an ad campaign broadcast to those who have never been there, designed to sell taxpayers on the appeal of prolonging war for profit. We have cost Ukraine her territory. We have cost Ukraine her children.
The war hawks and the bankers are no friends to Ukraine.
@MAGA__Patriot - Trump Girl 🇺🇲🦅🇺🇲
This is the type of leadership we needed! 👊🇺🇸💪 https://t.co/oSD8wKsVv7
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cartels are adapting, particularly by increasing maritime operations. We anticipated this shift and have tripled Coast Guard patrols in response. We will shut them down on the water as well. Our goal is to put them out of business entirely.
President Trump is designating them as criminal terrorist organizations, and rightfully so. They've caused more American deaths than all other terrorist groups combined. We will wipe them out by cutting off their funding, which is the source of their power to bribe and operate.
Our strategy extends beyond Mexico. We're targeting the Jalisco cartel and other cartels in the 43 countries where they currently operate. We're launching a global attack to dismantle their networks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Cartels are getting craftier. They're obviously trying to adapt to what you're throwing at them. You're seeing this video now. They're on boats. How have you seen the coyotes and the cartels kind of reorient their business to handle what you've done?
Speaker 1: Look, they they are going more maritime. We knew they would. That's why we've increased coast guard patrols three times, three times more than we have in the past. So Coast Guard will answer that call, so we're gonna shut them down maritime too. Look.
We're gonna put them out of business. President Trump is does designating them criminal terrorist organizations, which they should be. They've killed more Americans than every terrorist organization in this world combined. President Trump will end up wiping them off the face of the earth because we're gonna put them out of business. You put them out of business.
You take their money away. They can't bribe Mexican officials. They can't bribe anybody. Without money, they have no power. We're not just gonna attack Mexico.
There's a Jalisco cartel. We're going to attack them in the 43 countries that have operations currently operations in 43 different countries. We're gonna attack them worldwide.
@ChrisBarber1975 - Chris Barber (Big Red)
Truth spoken 👏 https://t.co/h8PlUSBbVC
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's just one ant, but if you let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up. Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one, and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life. It's not about food; it's about keeping those ants in line. You let one ant stand up to them, and they might all stand up. Individually, we feel helpless, lonely, often frightened. Together, nothing can stop us. No tyrant can rule us. No dictator can demand from us subservience. Together, we're powerful.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Someone told me to watch this clip. It was that ant that stood up to me. Yeah. But we can forget about him. Yeah.
It was just one ant. Oh, one ant. Yeah. You're right. It's just one ant.
Yeah, boss. They're puny. Puny? Say, let's pretend this brain is a puny little ant. Did that hurt?
Nope. Well, how about this one? Are you kidding? How about this? Wow.
They put this on a children's film. You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life. It's not about food. It's about keeping those ants in line.
I would show this clip in my class. You let one ant stand up to them, and they might all stand up. You see the power of solidarity, the power of all of us together? Individually, we feel helpless, lonely, often frightened. Together, nothing can stop us.
No tyrant can rule us. No dictator can demand from us subservience. Together, we're powerful.
@AntonioTweets2 - 🇨🇦 Antonio Tweets
Always hiding the truth. Wild. https://t.co/BapcskmVOg
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the media attacked them after they began reporting a story, leading to their firing. They cite the case of Isabella Ferrera, an independent journalist investigating Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte, who was found dead, with the media claiming suicide despite a friend's doubts. Another independent journalist, Natasha Ray, who has cancer, was sued by Brigitte Macron, not over the claim that Brigitte was born a biological male, but over errors when speaking to Amandin Roy, who was also sued for invasion of privacy. Xavier Poussard, the journalist who originally exposed the claim that Brigitte Macron was lying about her identity, has faced harassment, including financial audits and searches of his mother's home. Poussard has not been sued for defamation because his work has been thorough.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What the hell is wrong with our media? What the hell is wrong with our media that when I began to try to report on the story, they came for me. They started pitting me as Adolf Hitler. They started canceling me, demands for me to get fired. I was fired.
It was in March that I reported of last year on the story, and it was in March that same exact year that I got fired from my former employer. And nonstop have been fighting the press since. And, guy, by the way, you should know that there is this strange case of what happens to every journalist who tries to touch the story. and foremost, Isabella Ferrera, I think I mentioned this on a past episode. She was one of the Jean Valais Jean Jean Gillais, the yellow vest people who began prodding into the story as an independent journalist happened upon some huge information pertaining to the relationship of Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte.
But then she was found dead. She was found dead floating in a river, and her friend said that she didn't kill herself. But the media said she most definitely did, that she must have slipped and fell after she took a lot of pills. So that kind of stuff happens, I guess. Then there is Natasha Ray, who the media has been lying on attempting to ruin her entire life.
She has cancer. She was an independent journalist. This is the one that, Brigitte Macron notoriously sued. And similarly to what they sent him a letter, was not over the substance of the claim that Brigitte Macron was born a biological male, but rather pertaining to errors of misspeak when she spoke to Amandin Roy who was similarly sued for invasion of privacy. Okay?
And then there's one man still left standing, and that is Xavier Poussard. Xavier Poussard is the person that I am so honored to introduce to you guys on Monday. He is the journalist who has been diligently working on this, whose work I am repeating, really. I feel blessed that he even selected me to be able to bring this to the public, that he trusts me with this story. Xavier Poussard has been working on this for eight years and has given up everything, including his home country of residence because, well, how did they come after Xavier Poussard?
They looked into his finances, found who was funding his publication, and decided that it would be a really good time to go through a two year audit. One of the government's preferred ways of harassing someone is getting the IRS out there and finding the crime in any way possible. And so Xavier Poussard was dropped from the people that were investing in him. He had to move his family. His mother's house was searched just to scare them and to intimidate them and to let them know that they are watching them.
And to this day, Xavier Poussard, the man who originally dropped the six part series exposing the fact that Brigitte Macron was lying about her identity has never been sued for defamation because his work has been thorough.
@RedpillDrifter - Redpill Drifter
When I say they have to tell you this is what I mean https://t.co/eAs5DPlr6x
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 references the World Trade Center bombing and a diplomat who allegedly issued a terrorist visa with CIA involvement. Speaker 1 expresses disbelief at a plan to fake a terrorist event to secure congressional funding. Speaker 0 responds that faking the deaths of 4,000 people is impossible, implying the event must be real. Speaker 0 adds the event should not be blamed on Muslims.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: World Trade Center bombing. The diplomat who issued the terrorist visa with CIA.
Speaker 1: You're telling me that you're gonna fake some terrorist thing just to scare some money out of congress?
Speaker 0: Well, unfortunately, mister Hennessy, I have no idea how to fake killing 4,000 people. So we're just gonna have to do it for real. Don't blame it on the Muslims, naturally.
@QuantumAlteredX - Invisidon
Someone gave the go ahead for this man to tell some raw truths https://t.co/JRVZpbiX7b
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers believe the system is rigged, pointing to consistent foreign and economic policies regardless of who's elected, and the secrecy surrounding the Epstein videos. They suspect Epstein's operation was a blackmail scheme run by intelligence agencies to control powerful individuals.
They question why those caught in the scheme don't expose it, suggesting deep implication or repeat offenses. One speaker believes every US president faces implicit threats, referencing JFK's assassination and the continued withholding of files. They cite Nixon's fear when discussing Kennedy with the CIA director as evidence of the power these forces hold, implying a clear message to stay within certain boundaries.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I feel like an idiot for being shocked because, of course, it's not a democracy. Of course, the system is rigged. It's fake. Because no matter who gets elected, you get the same foreign policy, you get the same economic policy, and the Epstein videos remain secret. So, like, that just shows you that our system has no effect on the actual system.
Speaker 1: Wait. What are you talking about? I thought we could all sleep well at night now knowing that Epstein legitimately Right? I've dug into that, and it's just so spooky what's going on with that. I mean, how do you charge a guy with trafficking when there are no end users that have been charged?
Who did you traffic to?
Speaker 0: I don't know. You got me on that one.
Speaker 1: I mean, right? How do how do you charge him with that if there's no if that's where the trail starts, where does it end with? I I think there's just a lot more going on than the majority of people know about. What do you think that was? What do I think it was?
Yeah. I think it was a blackmail operation. What do you think it was?
Speaker 0: I think it was a blackmail operation run by the CIA and the Israeli intel services and and probably others. You know, French intelligence always has a hand in everything I've noticed, so probably them too. The usual,
Speaker 1: you know, darkest forces in
Speaker 0: the world colluding to make rich and powerful people obey their agenda.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why nobody has come out on it. Nobody has come out on it. Right? I mean, because if you paint the scenario, you get on a jet, maybe you're totally innocent. You don't know what's going on.
Two hot women come out of the whatever sewer this place come out and one thing leads to another. Yes. And then and then what They go, oh, we got you. You're on camera. And by the way, these girls are teen or teen or whatever the hell they were.
Right? And, yes, for a married guy, it's pretty up that you're doing that. But, I mean, it's nothing nothing new under the sun. So why wouldn't you just scream blackmail at the top of your lungs like, didn't know this is what happened and just come clean on it? Why do you think?
Because they're repeat customers.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because they're so deeply implicated that they can't actually get out of it. Yeah. Maybe not. I don't know.
I mean, there's also it's not just blackmail that makes people obey. It's not just bribery. It's also the threat of
Speaker 1: Do you know anybody that's been threatened with
Speaker 0: I think every US president has been threatened with implicitly because of or of John f Kennedy. I've known a bunch of presidents. I think every
Speaker 1: one of them understands that, you
Speaker 0: know, it's pretty obvious what happened there, and no one has, in to this day, released all the files. And, like, why is that? Because the message is really clear. You know, if you get too far outside the boundaries, like, you could wind up like JFK. Who places the boundaries?
Probably the same forces sitting president in 1963. If you listen to the tape of Richard Nixon talking to the CIA director in the Oval Office, when he brings up Kennedy's he's the president. In fact, not only is he the president, he got he's won by the biggest landslide in American history. Has a real mandate, and he is afraid. He's afraid even to talk in private to the CIA director about what that was, and he indicates, like, I know what happened to Jack Kennedy, and the CIA director doesn't even respond.
And the president doesn't have the balls to say, hey, son. I'm talking to you. You work for me. Like, I want I want the files on this. Mhmm.
Like, I knew Jack Kennedy. He was pretty in the head next to his wife in public like a man. Mhmm. I wanna know what happened here. He does not have the balls to say that to his own CI director.
Man. That's the level of fear that a like that that's officially unsolved, but, you know, whose outline everyone really a lot of
Speaker 1: people understand. Like, that's the
Speaker 0: fear that that inculcates.
@NathanielSami - Sami Nathaniel
Finally the truth is coming out.!!! https://t.co/bAAcoLj96n
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker presents seven core points about the January 6 investigations and related prosecutions.
1) Original sins of government and due process concerns
- The lawless formation of the House Select Committee on January 6 led to a one-sided, due process-free process.
- The committee was gerrymandered by Speaker Pelosi, operated without a ranking member or counsel for the ranking member, and Liz Cheney was granted vice chair status to cover that up.
- The committee conducted scripted hearings with prewritten Q&A paths and cherry-picked, highly edited audio and video.
2) Collaboration with mainstream media and narrative shaping
- The committee worked with major outlets (The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC) to blast a narrative of an insurrection.
- The speaker claims secretly recorded video shows Nancy Pelosi, her daughter, and friends admitting no real insurrection occurred.
- The combined effect of the committee’s conduct and the media blitz allegedly poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC, and suggested that venue transfers should have been permitted.
3) Fourth Amendment concerns and the dragnet
- Many defendants were swept up in a broad dragnet that the speaker believes resembled a general warrant violating the Fourth Amendment.
- This involved geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants to telecom providers.
- People arriving after the speech and the ellipse allegedly did not see that areas normally open to the public were closed, creating a trespass trap for the unwary.
4) First Amendment rights and unequal treatment
- The Department of Justice did not treat First Amendment rights of the protesters with appropriate respect.
- The speaker contrasts the January 6 cases with the 2020 Portland protests, where nightly attacks on federal courthouses and antifa/BLM activity were characterized differently.
- The speaker asserts that insurrection labeling in Portland was more applicable to those actions than to the largely spontaneous January 6 crowd, implying selective enforcement.
5) Selective prosecution and unequal treatment
- The January 6 defendants have not been treated the same as Antifa and BLM protesters in 2020 who damaged property and threatened the White House.
- The speaker calls this a flat violation of equal protection of the laws and suggests broad public belief in selective prosecution.
6) Brady violations and exculpatory evidence
- Widespread Brady violations are alleged, focusing on two areas: concealed or underreported footage of the Capitol, and the large number of unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts (over 800), with the possibility that exculpatory evidence remains unseen by defendants and their lawyers.
- The committee allegedly acted like a star chamber, and there is concern that not all exculpatory material has been made available.
7) Judicial influence and misapplication of obstruction statutes
- DC federal judges are said to have been influenced by the January 6 committee’s narrative and the mainstream media.
- A statute designed to close an obstruction-of-justice loophole from Arthur Andersen/Enron is claimed to be applied to activity that in many instances is protected by the First Amendment, with unequal sentencing: Antifa and BLM defendants allegedly receiving lighter outcomes or settlements, while January 6 defendants face disproportionate sentences.
- The speaker concludes by expressing disagreement with the overall approach and intention to speak on these concerns.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me make seven quick points. First, one of the original sins of government that has carried, and caused the poor treatment of the January 6 protester defendants is, the, lawless formation of the house select committee, the January 6 committee, leading to it acting in a one-sided and due process free way. That committee was gerrymandered by speaker Pelosi, operated without a ranking member or counsel to the ranking member. Liz Cheney was granted vice chair status to try to cover that up. The committee then had a series of carefully scripted by Hollywood hearings where the entire q and a path was prewritten and meshed with cherry picked snippets of highly edited audio I'm sorry, video and audio doctored video.
The committee interviewed a thousand plus witnesses, it says, but only about 200 transcripts have been released. Second, the January 6 committee worked with regime media. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC, etcetera. In that way, the fake narrative that an insurrection had been had occurred on January 6 was blasted everywhere. Based on secretly recorded, video, we now have on tape Nancy Pelosi's documentary and daughter, and her friends admitting that no real insurrection ever occurred.
The collective effect of the January shameful way of proceeding, plus the reinforcing media blitz poisoned the jury pool in Washington DC. Trial venue transfers out of DC should have been permitted. Media narrative mongering indeed was also the pre original sin therefore of this entire issue because it laid the groundwork for the January 6 select committee's hatchet jobs. Third, many of the defendants were swept up in a vast dragnet that I believe violated the fourth amendment because it was the equivalent of a general warrant that our framers sought to ban. This was done through the use of geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants sent to telecom providers.
Additionally, many protesters arriving after president Trump's speech, in the ellipse in the ellipse had finished, did not see any signage that areas normally open to the public were closed that day, setting up a trespass trap for the unwary. Fourth, the justice department did not treat these cases with appropriate respect for the first amendment rights of the protesters. The twenty twenty presidential election was incredibly contentious, and many citizens in this country disagreed with mainstream media pronouncements that they should, in essence, sit down and shut up about the election and how it was conducted. By contrast, I was at the justice department getting daily updates about the Marco Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Portland being attacked night after night after night in the 2020. Insurrection is a far more appropriate moniker for that targeted antifa lawlessness than a largely spontaneously assembled crowd being agitated by tear gas and rubber bullets.
Yet, the First Amendment issues led to the self agitators in Portland being treated very differently and with special kid gloves. This takes me to my fifth point. The January 6 defendants have not been dealt with in the same fashion as the Antifa and BLM protesters in 2020 who engaged in terrible conduct, threatened the White House, did millions of damage in property to property in that summer in the lead up to the presidential election. This is a flat violation in terms of comparing those two categories of defendants or potential defendants of the equal protection of the laws. Many Americans think the selective prosecution on display here is blatant.
Sixth, there are widespread Brady violations as to how these defendants are being dealt with today, and I'll confine that to just two areas for our purposes today. First, the concealed or underreported footage issue around the capital. So, the house is to be commended for allowing Tucker Carlson, Julie Kelly, and John Solomon to review the footage. And second, it's hard to imagine that with 800 plus or so unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts that there's not at least some exculpatory evidence in there that is not yet been seen by the relevant defendants and their lawyers. The January 6 committee in short acted like a star chamber and there is no reason for this congress to let that go on.
Seventh and lastly, the judges on the federal district court here in Washington DC seem to have come under the spell of the January 6 committee's original sin, and in that way, they allowed the constructed mainstream media narrative to influence their decisions. And as a legal matter, they're by and large allowing a statute designed to close an obstruction of of justice loophole that Arthur Anderson exploited in the Enron debacle to be applied to entirely different activity that in many instances is protected by the First Amendment and should appropriately be treated differently. As a result, Antifa and BLM revolutionaries and it's not an exaggeration to call them that who engaged in worse conduct largely got off scot free and worse yet, many of them left with bags of cash from civil settlements. By contrast, the sentence is being handed down against January 6 defendants are wildly disproportionate. For all these reasons, I'm glad to be here today before you.
@JakeG_Official - JAKEGTV
This deserves scrutiny. https://t.co/p9EvQ2mUlJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donors give money to TP USA. TP USA loans 350,000 of that into a company Charlie owned. That company uses it to buy a premium on a jumbo life insurance policy on Charlie's life. Once he dies, TP USA recoups its loan. The leftover millions go to whoever Charlie named his private beneficiaries.
The payout was somewhere around 20 to 50,000,000 upon his death. The nonprofit pays the premiums now. The family gets paid later. The nonprofit merely recoups its loan. And often, the insured doesn't pay a dime, so the donor money does.
The payout only triggers when the insured passes away. In short, charity money basically becomes a death benefit jackpot for private beneficiaries. The question is who controls the structure. The policy isn't owned by TPUSA. It's owned by a shell company called GGLF twenty twenty three LLC, owned by Charlie Kirk. So the main thing is they didn't run this through TP USA's books. They tucked it away in a Wyoming shell where nobody can easily see who benefits. All this comes from TP USA's own publicly available form 990. So it's a mailbox.
All of these billionaires do this. Trump does this. Epstein did this. They use a trust, and smart people actually do this to keep the government's hands off of your hard earned money. A lot of people do.
Yep. And it's legal. Like I said, you just search it up. This is just their paperwork. It's filed under oath. The shell company formed in May 2023, and that became public only recently, and then Charlie was assassinated.
These people are covering up the truth behind what happened on September 10. And I've heard a lot of people saying, well, I don't believe that Charlie Kirk is dead. I believe that he's secretly alive somewhere.
That's what it's sounding like. And until we see how these were set up, who's profiting from this, then we won't know. And Erica Kirk can absolutely show us, but they don't seem like they wanna show us anything.
It's gonna continue to happen where people are gonna speculate, well, is Charlie Kirk privately sitting on an island somewhere with 20 to 50,000,000 and we don't see the kids because they're with him?
Right.
People are gonna continue to say that. If these people do not become transparent and start saying the truth, then how can they fault anyone for speculating? Because what we do know is that they're lying.
So, of course, we're going to do our research. We're going to look into things. We're going to investigate. We're going to come to our own relevant conclusions. And if they are right or wrong or indifferent, we won't we'll never know because these people won't just tell us the truth because they are liars and frauds, they're the profiteers of Charlie's death on September 10.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So, basically, donors give money to TP USA. TP USA loans 350 k of that into a company Charlie owned. That company uses it to buy a premium on a jumbo life insurance policy on Charlie's life. Once he dies, TP USA, they recoup its loan. The leftover millions go to whoever Charlie named his private beneficiaries.
Speaker 1: And the payout was what upon his death?
Speaker 0: Somewhere around 20 to $50,000,000 payout. The nonprofit pays the premiums now. The family gets paid later. The nonprofit merely recoups its loan. And often, the insured doesn't pay a dime, so the donor money does.
The payout only triggers when the insured passes away. So in short, charity money basically becomes a death benefit jackpot for private beneficiaries. And so who controls the structure? I mean, that's the biggest question. The policy isn't owned by TPUSA.
It's owned by a shell company called GGLF twenty twenty three LLC, owned by Charlie Kirk. So the main thing is they didn't run this through Teep USA's books. They tucked it away in a Wyoming shell where nobody can easily see who benefits. And all this comes from Teep USA's own publicly available form nine ninety. So it's a mailbox.
It's not a real office, and, you know, it's it's commonly used for anonymous entities.
Speaker 1: So All of these billionaires do this. Trump does this. Epstein did this. They use a trust, and smart people actually do this to keep the government's hands off of your hard earned money. A lot of people do
Speaker 0: Yep. And it's legal. Like I said, you just search it up. This is just their paperwork. It's filed under oath.
The Shell company formed in May 2023, and that became public only recently, and then Charlie was assassinated.
Speaker 1: These people are covering up the truth behind what happened on September 10. And I've heard a lot of people saying, well, I don't believe that Charlie Kirk is dead. I believe that he's secretly alive somewhere.
Speaker 0: That's what it's sounding like. And until we see how these were set up, who's profiting from this, then we won't know. And Erica Kirk can absolutely show us, but they don't seem like they wanna show us anything.
Speaker 1: It's gonna continue to happen where people are gonna speculate, well, is Charlie Kirk privately sitting on an island somewhere
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: With 20 to $50,000,000 and we don't see the kids because they're with him?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: People are gonna continue to say that. If these people do not become transparent and start saying the truth, then how can they fault anyone for speculating? Because what we do know is that they're lying.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So, of course, we're going to do our research. We're gonna look into things. We're going to investigate. We're going to come to our own relevant conclusions. And if they are right or wrong or indifferent, we won't we'll never know because these people won't just tell us the truth because they are liars and frauds, they're the profiteers of Charlie's death on September 10.