TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
Peter Strzok the FBI Agent who texted with his lover that they needed to stop President Trump: "There is simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions." What a clown world we live in... #StrzokHearing https://t.co/rnkQOIMJXK
Video Transcript AI Summary
I express regret for my texts causing confusion and pain. My political opinions were shared during the election, but they never influenced my work at the FBI. I criticize various politicians, including Clinton and Trump, but my actions were always unbiased. I was involved in the Russian interference investigation and take pride in the FBI's integrity. I believe the hearing is a victory for Putin and a threat to our democracy. I am ready to answer any questions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Chairman Goodlatte and Gowdy, ranking members Nadler and Cummings, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committees again, this time in an open hearing. I testify today with significant regret, recognizing that my texts have created confusion and caused pain for people I love. Certain private messages of mine have provided ammunition from misguided attacks against the FBI, an institution that I love deeply and have served proudly for over 20 years. I'm eager to answer your questions, but let me first address those much much discussed texts. Like many people, I had and expressed personal political opinions during an extraordinary presidential election.
Many contained expressions of concern for the security of our country, opinions that were not always expressed in terms I'm proud of. But having worked in national security for 2 decades and proudly served in the US Army, those opinions were expressed out of deep patriotism and an unyielding belief in our great American democracy. At times, my criticism was blunt, but despite how it's been characterized, it was not limited to one person or to one party. I criticized various countries and politicians, including Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders, then candidate Trump, and others. But let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took.
This is true for the Clinton email investigation, for the investigation into Russian interference, and for every other investigation I've worked on. It is not who I am and it is not something I would ever do. Period. I understand that my sworn testimony will not be enough for some people. After all, Americans are skeptical of anything coming out of Washington.
But the fact is, after months of investigations, there's simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions. There is, however, one extraordinarily important piece of evidence supporting my integrity, the integrity of the FBI, and our lack of bias. In the summer of 2016, I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian in elect Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail and quite possibly defeat mister Trump, but the thought of expressing that or exposing that information never crossed my mind. That's what FBI agents do every single day, and that's why I'm so proud of the Bureau.
And I'm particularly proud of the work that I and many others did on the Clinton email investigation. Our charge was investigated competently, honestly, and independently, and that's exactly what happened. I'm also proud of our work on the Russian interference investigation. This is an investigation into a direct attack by a foreign adversary, and it is no less so simply because it was launched against our democratic process rather than against the military base. This is something that all Americans of all political persuasions should be alarmed by.
In the summer of 2016, we had an urgent need to protect the integrity of an American presidential election from a hostile foreign power determined to weaken and divide the United States of America. This investigation is not politically motivated. It is not a witch hunt. It is not a hoax. I expect that during this hearing, I'll be asked about that ongoing investigation.
Where the FBI has directed me not to answer, I will abide by the FBI's instructions. But let me be clear, this is not because I don't want to answer your questions. If I were permitted to answer, I would, and the answers would doubtless be disappointing to the questioners and undermine the conspiracy narrative being told about the Russian investigation. I understand we're living in a political era in which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity. But the honest truth is that Russian interference in our elections constitutes a grave attack on our democracy.
Most disturbingly, it has been wildly successful, sowing discord in our nation and shaking faith in our institutions. I have the utmost respect for congress's oversight role, but I strongly believe today's hearing is just another victory notch in Putin's belt and another milestone in our enemy's campaign to tear America apart. As someone who loves this country and cherishes its ideals, is profoundly painful to watch and even worse to play a part in. Mr. Chairman, I welcome your questions.
@GuntherEagleman - Gunther Eagleman™
No Americans are safe under this FBI… Watch your backs. https://t.co/E0aMSSboF4
Video Transcript AI Summary
On October 18th, a pro-Hamas group led by Rashida Tlaib illegally occupied the Canon House building. Photos captured organizers texting each other in a chat called "global intifada." During a Homeland Committee hearing, the FBI director, Christopher Lee, admitted he was unaware of the group and its meaning. Over 300 members were arrested, including one with terrorist ties who almost assaulted a congresswoman. The chat also revealed the involvement of Katrina Blakely, a lead attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which the FBI has used as a resource. The congresswoman criticized the FBI for not caring about terrorism and accused them of being a political campaign arm. She also mentioned Tlaib's connection to a Facebook group with known terrorists.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So October 18th, we had the ceasefire now, the pro Palestinian the really pro Hamas, group come in, illegally occupy the Canon House building. And that was led by Rashida Tlaib. She she's very organized in those groups, and we captured photos of the, organizers texting, shared photos of the, organizers texting each other on their cell phones. And the image we captured shows their cell phone, and they were in a chat message amongst each other. And the the name of the chat is global in Tifana.
And this is what I brought at the Christopher Lee, our FBI director, yesterday at the Homeland Committee hearing. And I said, are you aware that this group call some self global intifada. And I asked him, I said, do you know what intifada means? And he goes, no. I don't.
I said, do you know the definition? He goes, no. I don't. I said it means Arab uprising. It means jihad, and it's a global intifada, global jihad group broke into our office buildings in the capital complex, and Capitol police arrested over 300 of them.
One of them that has known terrorist ties nearly assaulted me, and Capitol Police had to move him out of the way. But here's what else is interesting because you already brought it up. In the in the chat message the list of names. We're very visible. One of them is Katrina Blakely, who is the lead attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
And the FBI has been using the resources and quoting, the Southern Poverty Law Center in their attacks on Catholics all over the country. And this is who is involved in the global intifada group. And I brought this up to him, and he had no knowledge, no awareness of it, and was not even interested. Didn't ask me, Congresswoman, could you please provide me with this evidence? Not at all.
He did not care because the FBI and the Department of Justice is the political campaign arm, which is the weaponized arm of the Joe Biden campaign for presidency. And this is the most outrageous, Dangerous thing happening in our country, Dawn. No American is safe when we have an FBI director that doesn't care about terrorism, breaking into our own government or terrorists all over our country, but yet will abuse the system to hunt down people like Gregory Getman, with helicopters and tanks in the streets. Doesn't doesn't want to go after, all the black high school students that beat and kick to death. A 17 year old white student doesn't consider that a federal hate crime, but yet will target any minority that is killed by a white person and considers that a federal hate crime.
It it just it I could not believe it. I was so angry questioning him yesterday, and and I'm going to continue that path because our FBI should be investigating terrorists, especially when it's linked to Rashida Tlaib, a member of congress who was outed this week for being in a Facebook group for 6 years with known tariffs in Hamas. And it's very serious.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
New whistleblower documents show the FBI is every bit the politicized secret police force you feared it was. https://t.co/hFEUvjrNSL
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FBI whistleblower has revealed evidence that suggests the FBI now has an internal political litmus test. The whistleblower, who remains anonymous, had his security clearance suspended after supporting the vaxx regime, Donald Trump, and the Second Amendment. The FBI checked his loyalty before denying his security clearance and suspending him without pay. The documents uncovered show that the FBI asked intrusive questions about political views and vaccine hesitancy during security clearance interviews. This case raises concerns about the FBI's political bias and lack of oversight. The whistleblower remains anonymous due to privacy and hopes for the possibility of having their clearance reinstated. The revelations may lead to investigations and reforms within the FBI.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the FBI is the most powerful law enforcement organization in the world, certainly in the free world or what we've referred to for our lifetimes as the free world. So the nightmare scenario is that it becomes perverted, subverted into a secret police force, a Tonton Macoute accountable to politicians and used to punish the adversaries of the regime. That's the one thing you can't have happen or your country will no longer be a free country. Well, there's some evidence, unfortunately, that that is happening, and the latest comes from an FBI whistleblower. The documents that he's handed over to John Solomon of just the news suggests that the FBI now has an internal political litmus test.
In his case, in order to get a security clearance after 12 years working for the agency, the FBI checks whether he supported the vaxx regime, Donald Trump, the second amendment to the US constitution. And afterwards, determined he supported all of these things, which at least half the country does support, he was denied his security clearance. Again, this comes from documents newly unearthed that confirmed the FBI checked his loyalty before allowing him a security clearance. And when denied that, he was suspended indefinitely without pay. So the FBI has not provided any comment to John Solomon, who broke the story and got these documents, but Tristan Levitt, who's the president of the group Empower Oversight, is representing him in court and joins us right now with an overview of this case.
Tristan, thank you very much for coming on. So My pleasure. It was is that a fair characterization? Or why don't instead you start at the beginning and tell us what you have uncovered and what this employee underwent at the FBI?
Speaker 1: So what makes this a little bit different from your average FBI employee is that this employee who who has chosen to remain anonymous did get swept up into the funnel of folks being investigated after January 6th. So the FBI cast a very wide net because of that. There was frankly some hysteria within the bureau, almost McCarthyism, searching out anybody that had, views with any tie you know, after searching anybody who had any ties to events of that day, then examining their views. So this client particularly is someone who had decided on the day of January 6th to go down and hear President Trump's speech. After attending the rally, he walked down to the Capitol and stayed outside on the grounds.
He never went inside the Capitol. He was never involved in any violence. He was never involved in any conflict. Eventually, the FBI became aware that he had been, at the Capitol, which is ironic because the day after it, he self reported his attendance. But that went, you know, that didn't attract any notice within the FBI, until a year later.
And at that point, the hysteria was in full force. And so there were a number of FBI whistleblowers, several of whom we have represented, people like Steve Friend, Marcus Allen, Garrett O'Boyle, who were objecting in various ways to how the FBI was approaching its investigations of those, related to January 6th. But this particular individual had his security clearance suspended, and that's when all of this hit. And so 1 year ago, I testified alongside 3 of those other whistleblowers, Steve Friend, Mark Sall, and Gary O'Boyle, in front of the weaponization committee. And at the time, the FBI had just released information that they had all had their security occurrences suspended.
A couple of them revoked. And so as we started that hearing, delegate Stacey Plaskett opened by saying, you know, chairman Jordan, you've invited these people here who are a threat to our national security. How dare you? And now, a year later, we've been able to pull back the curtain and see the FBI's documentation for why it did what it did with their clearances. And that's the context in which we've seen this sort of questioning going on, asking people if they ever supported president Trump.
And mind you, it wasn't just that they asked these individuals. These were interviews by the security clearance division of their fellow employees. So people who are compelled to answer, who had to either answer these questions from the security division or have their own security clearance called into question. And they were asked, did you ever socialize with these individuals? What was your association with them?
And then ask these extremely intrusive questions. And so that's the context in which this very problematic set of questions came up. And what we are hearing is that this may be just the tip of the iceberg. That there were many, you know, that certainly there have been allegations out there that once people got swept into that security funnel, that there was a purge of FBI employees that had conservative views or had skepticism of the vaccine or just hesitancy to receive it. And now, in black and white, we've uncovered those documents because of our client's security appeal where we've been able to see the basis on which his colleagues were questioned, and this is extremely problematic.
Speaker 0: It was pretty clear, from the beginning. I mean, there are different threads here, but on the vax specifically, that the vaccine mandates were designed, and certainly their effect was, to winnow out people with high testosterone levels, independent thinking, commitment to liberty, common sense out of positions in the federal government, and that would definitely include the military, but also at the agencies including the FBI. So did they they found out this guy didn't take the vax and that was one of the factors?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It clearly was one of the factors, and it's ironic because this came 3 months after a court had put an injunction on the, federal employee vaccine mandate. And so this was not even a live issue. Right. It it this was not a matter of you're currently required to and you're not.
Months after that, they're asking his colleagues, did he ever express any hesitancy about the COVID 19 vaccine?
Speaker 0: Have a hesitancy. Did he pause before allowing an injection? Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes. And, of course, the the reverse of this, right, I think no every American would agree. It would not be appropriate in the future for the FBI to ask employees, did they ever express any support for receiving an abortion. You know, these this is this this idea that that's any of the FBI's business whatsoever is really, really outrageous.
Speaker 0: Support for Donald Trump, support for the second amendment to the constitution of the United States, our founding document, So these are disqualifying positions?
Speaker 1: Well, it's that's clearly seems to be the case behind the scenes. Now again, keep in mind, this is not what was put into the security clearance suspension letter that our client received or that other whistleblowers we have represented or received. It's not what went into their revocation letters. So it's only now, like I said, pulling back the curtain that we see that it's behind closed doors. Right?
So it's within this black box of secrecy and it's really this secret process that has no oversight from the outside. No generally no oversight from the inspector general, no oversight from Congress, that's an environment that allowed this to flourish because otherwise, we never would have known about this had we not seen those backing documents. Because, again, the sis the proposals themselves didn't reference any of these things that we would consider illegitimate. They just talked about whether someone engaged in violence, whether they broke laws on January 6th, and, you know, the things that stretched beyond that into personal political views or, again, even feelings about one's own bodily autonomy, all of that was hidden in these documents. And now that we've ripped the mask off the FBI, again, we're we are certainly going to push the inspector general to see whether this happened in other cases, and we strongly expect that they will find that it did.
Speaker 0: So for those who don't work in or around government, it it may be hard to appreciate how central a security clearance is if you're working in an agency like the FBI. I mean, you can't can't do your job without a clearance, but the criteria for getting and holding a clearance are sometimes muddy. In other words, there's a lot of subjective judgment, and it's particularly vulnerable to political interference. Right? Because there isn't, you know, character, for example, is is one of the, you know, one of the the criteria, person of good character.
So, like, how much do we know, not just about this case, but about all security clearances across the millions of federal employees about how these clearances are awarded?
Speaker 1: Well, there are criteria that are supposed to be consistent across the board. So there are executive orders. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, you know, puts out guidance on these. It is subjective agency by agency. Several years ago, when I worked on Capitol Hill investigator, we did a very in-depth, investigation into the Secret Service and how they issued clearances, and, you know, it was clear that there it does change from agency to agency.
You know, and what's ironic about this is that, again, as a credential, if you will, if someone gets pushed out of the FBI, you know, because they say, you know, didn't show up for work on time or something else. Right? That looks bad if you're fired. If you have your security clearance revoked, you're not in a position to go to another agency. Exactly.
Right? You can't you can't say, I don't I wanna go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement because I think that they need some help over there. No. You have you have been deemed disloyal to the United States. And so lacking a security clearance, that's a huge, huge issue.
And this came up as we, you know, we recently obtained total vindication for one of those individuals I mentioned, Marcus Allen, who had been an FBI employee. And, just last week, we're able to get his clearance reinstated. We're able to get him full back pay for 27 months to use without work. But during that whole entire time, you know, it's not just this future idea of a credential. During that whole entire time, he was not paid while he was held in limbo.
And so, again, it seemed designed to squeeze him to leaving the FBI, which is what this anonymous client, in the current case that we're talking about did. And so but again, if you if you leave while your clearance is suspended or while it is revoked, you don't have a future hope of getting a job with another, law enforcement agency or anywhere that would require clearance or access to secure classified information.
Speaker 0: What's so baffling is that, Republicans hold the majority in the house. There's a Republican speaker. We now know you've proven with these documents that supporting a Republican for president is enough to get your security clearance revoked. So the FBI is, by definition, a political secret police organization, and that's antithetical to freedom. And yet the Republicans in the Congress, even though this is all very obvious, just refunded the FBI and allocated 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars to build them a new headquarters.
They're rewarding the FBI. So at what point do Republicans say, I'm sorry. We're not gonna pay for a secret police organization dedicated to destroying us.
Speaker 1: I think these documents are going to be the tipping point, frankly. I think that the inspector general we expect that, an investigation by an inspector general will open up. We expect that Congress is going to be doing oversight of that. And along with some of these other instances of vindication, I think this summer, we're going to see exposed quite a bit how the FBI has has had made shown such political bias in what they do. And so I think Congress has a unique opportunity here, a unique opportunity to overhaul the FBI, the personnel that are in it at the moment, to reform that and also to to pursue broader reforms, you know, from a legal front.
And so to your point about funding, I think this is the time. I think this is the thing that, more than anything else these documents demonstrate in black and white what individuals like chairman Jim Jordan have been alleging for 2 years, and now we have the definitive proof of that. So we expect there's going to be a lot of attention given to these and not just from Congress, but from places like the inspector general Michael Horowitz and the press and others. Because now you cannot deny that these political considerations, you know, weren't just tossed around in a general sense. They weren't just, you know, possible considerations.
They were there in black and white for individuals in their security clearance determinations.
Speaker 0: I mean, it it just becomes clear every day that January 6th was, well, a hoax, on one level, but the response to it was one of the most corrupt things that's ever happened in our lifetimes in this country. I mean, that's the conclusion I'm coming to.
Speaker 1: It's difficult. Clearly, that's a that's a touch point for a lot of people. And I will tell you as a former congressional staffer, it was difficult for me to see where there was violence on January 6th. Right? And so those that broke laws
Speaker 0: Right. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't have any objection to those people, you know, suffering the consequences for that. Right? And I think most Americans, that's the case. But, again, within the FBI you know, for people to have just been on the grounds and the FBI to have gone after those individuals, for for that to become and, again, that was the tipping point within the FBI for this sort of hysteria where anybody that came to the attention of the security division, all of these other factors then got wrapped in. Right?
It wasn't a question of were you present and then did you go inside the Capitol or did you engage in violence? It's do you have any views that we don't favor? And so for that to lead to a purge of conservative employees, again, is just is just totally inappropriate and wrong, but, you know, it's a it's a sign of how polarizing January 6th was to our country, I think. One of the things that we brought to the attention of the inspector general a year ago was that less than a month after January 6th, the new deputy director of the FBI, a guy named Paula Bate, spoke up in a call with all special agents in charge around the country for the FBI and said, if you don't like our response to January 6th and how we're going after this, the FBI is not the place for you. You can come and talk to me, but we don't need agents like that in the FBI.
And it's just not healthy or fair for the FBI to push out, say, roughly half of its employees just because they have differing political views, who weren't there on January 6th, didn't engage in violence, none of those things, but for the FBI to use that as a pretext to say, well, we we don't need you, and we don't want you here right now.
Speaker 0: Well, it's well, I I would go farther and say that's tyranny. Right? I mean, this is a this is an agency that's allowed to kill you if they deem it justified. They can use lethal force against American citizens. So you they cannot be a political instrument, or else it's it's tyrannical.
No?
Speaker 1: It's extremely important that they be, you know, both perceived and and be neutral perceived as and be neutral. Yes. That they are not they're not just hiring people based on one political view or the other. Yes. It raises major, major concerns about because of their ability to use force and the role that they play in American society.
Speaker 0: Last question. Why is your client, the whistleblower, not coming forward by name?
Speaker 1: Multiple reasons. I think, for starters, there is the fact that they are not a public individual. This is not someone that sought out attention and, you know, the the the to the extent that this is the whistleblower disclosures that are involved here are us raising to the inspector general and others the misuse of this security clearance process. So this was not somewhere the whole process started with, you know, disclosures or something like that. But in in this is someone who's a very private individual, and doesn't want to see all this strewn out to the world.
Another reason that I think is significant is that, you know, in this instance, they are still hopeful that they can, you know, after an inspector general examination, have the possibility of getting their clearance back. That if the inspector general realizes how tainted this whole process was, you know, that that the inspector general can help to set things right. That's what happened in Marcus Allen's case, that the inspector general did a very lengthy investigation, we believe that played a big role. And the FBI is saying, maybe we better reinstate this person. So if there's a possibility like that, I think it means more to this client to have the possibility of their economic livelihood restored than to to make some splashy headlines.
But, you know, this is significant, and they recognize this is significant, and that's why they're okay with this being shared with the American public.
Speaker 0: Sure appreciate you explaining that for us. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Tristan Lars. It's Tucker.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@donlemon - Don Lemon
Is THIS why people voted for Trump? https://t.co/miQJjkgvDI
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's a perception that whiteness feels threatened by demographic changes and cultural shifts. Many voters are struggling with rising living costs, leading them to support candidates who may not align with their values. Some believe people are disillusioned with the political system, feeling their lives aren't fair despite living in a prosperous country. They may choose to vote for unconventional candidates out of frustration with the status quo. However, there's skepticism about whether economic concerns are the true motivation behind these votes. The belief is that many voters are aware of the candidates' flaws but choose to ignore them, leading to a disconnect between their choices and the reality of the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's this sense, right, that whiteness, right, is under threat. The demographic shifts the country isn't what all of these racially ambiguous children on Cheerios commercials are confusing the hell out of me.
Speaker 1: Patty, a lot of people voted because their life's too damn expensive, and it and it was here, and it was They
Speaker 0: voted for you're telling me, Stephanie, that all of these people who believe that their lives are that bread is too high and eggs are too high, that they voted for a convicted fella, a guy who said we can grab the pee.
Speaker 1: I think that a lot of people
Speaker 0: have passed the
Speaker 1: I'm not defending it. But I think there are tons of people that don't pay attention to and I'm not defending it. Don't pay attention to politics at all. But we while we live in the most prosperous country in the world, people are saying, life's not fair. I'm not doing well.
My son's still living in the basement. I can't seem to get a job. I don't like the status quo of voting for something else, and he will
Speaker 0: I love you
Speaker 1: to lie. Love you.
Speaker 0: But I do not believe that. Mhmm. I cannot believe that. And the reason I think you believe it is because you don't want to believe that that's what's really motivating them. It's always the case.
We people don't wanna believe what the country actually is because if they believe it, they're gonna have to confront what's in them. I don't believe that. They voted for a crook, a person who they know is stealing from just doing everything to undermine the so called country that they love. And then they're telling us the BS that it's economics. We know that's not true.
@alx - ALX 🇺🇸
So Andrew McCabe, who was fired from the FBI for lying to investigators under oath about leaking information to the media is now telling us Kash Patel is incapable of being the FBI Director? What a joke. https://t.co/DNOxTaV2sB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Moving forward with Kash Patel's nomination as FBI director will likely provoke significant backlash. Many believe he seeks to disrupt the institution, but he is profoundly unqualified for the role. His experience in federal government is limited to three years as a line attorney at DOJ headquarters, with no leadership or management experience. The idea of him leading an organization of 37,000 people, with operations across 400 locations and sensitive global roles, is unrealistic. It’s hard to imagine him commanding respect in a room full of police chiefs and sheriffs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But in this case, moving forward with a nomination of Kash Patel as FBI director, really, it will provoke, I think, a massive amount of backlash. Now, you know, you can make the argument that that's what he wants. He wants to disrupt. He wants to, you know, provoke the ire of people like me and others who who feel strongly about the institution and what it takes to run it, faithfully and ethically and legally, none of which I think, Kash Patel can do. But we'll we'll have to see.
You know, I think at the end of the day, Kash Patel is profoundly incapable of running the FBI. He is absolutely unqualified for that position. He's never run anything in his life that I'm aware of. He's never managed or led an organization of any type. His entire experience in the federal government is limited to about 3 years as a line attorney in DOJ headquarters.
You know, the idea of him taking on the mantle of leader essentially of the American law enforcement community running an organization of 37,000 people, 400 locations in the United States, people people serving all over the globe in incredibly sensitive capacities working with the intelligence community, and really standing as the representative of law enforcement in this country. The idea that Kash Patel would walk into a room of police chiefs, and sheriffs and command any level of respect and and recognition is is absurd.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just heard from Steve Bannon that President Trump plans to appoint Kash Patel as FBI Director. Kash has bold ideas, like shutting down the FBI Hoover Building and turning it into a museum of the deep state. He wants to redirect the 7,000 employees to focus on chasing down criminals.
@BehizyTweets - George
BREAKING: According to Steve Bannon, President Trump will name Kash Patel as his FBI Director Kash Patel is a total savage. His plans for the FBI are magnificent. "I'd shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopen the next day as a museum of the deep state. And I'd take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals."
Video Transcript AI Summary
We need to reduce government size, particularly within the FBI, which has expanded unnecessarily. The FBI's intel operations have caused significant issues, and I would repurpose the Hoover building into a museum while reallocating its 7,000 employees to focus on law enforcement, tackling crime directly.
Government reform is essential, and collaboration with Congress is necessary to eliminate redundant positions. During my time as deputy DNI, we identified and cut unnecessary roles, which Congress appreciated as it saved money. Agencies often request more positions without justification, leading to unfilled roles and wasted budgets. It's a misconception that agencies can't return unused funds; they often spend unnecessarily to avoid returning money to Congress.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Then we need to decrease what I call government creep with personnel. The FBI's footprint has gotten so freaking big, and the biggest problem the FBI has had has come out of its intel shops. I'd break that component out of it. I'd shut down the FBI Hoover building on day 1 and reopening the next day as a museum of the deep state. And I'd take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals.
Go be cops. Your cops, go be cops. Go chase down murderers and rapists and drug dealers and violent offenders. What do you need 7,000 people there for? Same thing with DOJ.
What are all these people doing here? Looking for the next government promotion, looking for their next fancy government title, looking for their parachute out of government. So while you're bringing in the right people, you also have to shrink government.
Speaker 1: So massive government reform.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And you gotta work with congress to eliminate the billets. This is one of the things we did when I was deputy DNI. We got to DNI, and I was like, okay. What do all these people do?
We've got the CIA, so why do I have analysts doing the CIA's job here? Why do I have a floor of them? Like, give me a good answer. I I mean, I don't know everything. I don't know a lot.
But if you can give me an answer that satisfies their existence, I'm all in. Well, we just have our own people. Okay. Well, now we don't. And we went to congress and zeroed out a bunch of bills, and they hated us for it.
Speaker 1: Why? Why would congress hate you
Speaker 0: for that? Not congress, the the public. Congress is like, great. You saved us money. You're the only agency that returned money this year because we didn't spend our entire budget.
We were literally funding seats with no humans in them for years. And what the government creep that I was talking about is these agencies go to congress every year. And, again, that's why it's a thing of decades. I need 5 more seats here. I need 10 more seats here.
Okay. You keep doing that. How's that going? Oh, we'll fill that seat next year. We're in the process of, you know, interviewing people for that section, and that keeps no one returns money.
It's the biggest fiction in government that you can't return money. Every agency and department that I've ever worked for, when it comes to the fiscal end of the year, they're like, go on trips. Go spend money. What? Just give it back to congress.
We can't do that.
@TimRunsHisMouth - Tim Young
Kash Patel will make a great FBI Director... Watch this! 👇👇👇 https://t.co/Z5xTwq1hrf
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FBI has expanded significantly, and its intelligence operations are problematic. I would close the Hoover building and reopen it as a museum, reallocating the 7,000 employees to focus on law enforcement across the country. They should be out there fighting crime instead of being tied to bureaucratic roles. The same applies to the Department of Justice; many are more focused on promotions and titles than on their duties. While it's essential to bring in qualified individuals, it's equally important to reduce the size of government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: FBI's footprint has gotten so freaking big, and the biggest problem the FBI had has come out of its intel shops. I'd break that component out of it. I'd shut down the FBI Hoover building on day 1 and reopening the next day as a museum of the deep state. And I take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops.
You're cops. Go be cops. What do you need 7,000 people there for? Same thing with DOJ. What are all these people doing here?
Looking for their next government promotion, looking for their next fancy government title, looking for their parachute out of government. So while you're bringing in the right people, you also have to shrink government.
@AlexPfeiffer - Alex Pfeiffer
Did you know Kash Patel was given a DOJ award for work he did investigating and prosecuting terrorists under the Obama administration? https://t.co/WjuXYFAHTK
@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸
THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI RESIGNED JUST 1 DAY AFTER THE IG REPORT SHOWED THEY WERE SPYING ON KASH PATEL WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE https://t.co/Bnsi7QYjnB
@_wake_up_USA - Wake Up America
BREAKING: Adam Schiff says Kash Patel is unfit to serve as FBI Director, because he is a "conspiracy theorist." Send a message to Schiff👇 https://t.co/7SeqgQqnfw
@JohnStrandUSA - John Strand
BREAKING: President Trump posts glowing @WSJ endorsement of @Kash_Patel as his nominee for FBI Director “Trump has assembled one of the most diverse & capable cabinets in American history…Kash Patel is an excellent choice that adds further luster to the new administration.” 🇺🇸 https://t.co/HaKVV4fzRH
@DschlopesIsBack - Gain of Fauci
Let me get this straight... a white FBI Director (Chris Wray) gets fired and replaced by a brown minority Director (Kash Patel) and members of the FBI's DEI office are now protesting and threatening to resign? 🤡 The irony is ALMOST too good to be true. 😂 https://t.co/7jcWkzpiPl
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
Every FBI Director I’ve questioned has lied to me. @Kash_Patel told the truth. https://t.co/929MCdTlfw
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've served as a US senator for 14 years and have consistently raised concerns about FISA 702. Unlike previous FBI directors, you acknowledge the issues surrounding the collection of Americans' communications without warrants. The 4th Amendment requires warrants for searches, yet there have been numerous instances where private communications of Americans were accessed without proper authorization. This includes inappropriate uses of FISA 702, such as agents checking on personal matters. A FISA court report revealed over 255,000 improper queries of American citizens, eroding public trust. It's crucial for Congress and the FBI to work together to restore that trust and ensure accountability. Your willingness to address these issues gives me confidence in your leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've been a US senator for 14 years. I've been on this committee the entire time. You're the very first FBI director or FBI director nominee, who, when I've asked about this, hasn't said, oh, don't worry about it. We'll handle it okay. We've got good people on the inside.
We would never breach the trust of the American people. Do you know what? They were lying. Let's talk about the 4th Amendment for a moment. The 4th Amendment tells us that in order for the government to breach your expectation of privacy relative to your person, your home, your papers, they want to search that.
If they want to seize you, they've got to get a warrant, and that warrant has to describe with particularity the persons or places to be searched or to be seized and to connect them up with a showing of probable cause. Now in the case of FISA 702, we're dealing with a somewhat different universe. Now moments ago, we heard some discussion about FISA 702, about suddenly we've got a different FISA 702 than what we had when president Trump was last in office. Is that true? Because my by my count, FISA 702 has not changed substantively since president Trump was in office last.
Speaker 1: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. And there was also some back and forth discussion about FISA 702 and the use of it and the fact that in real time, it might not work to get a warrant. This, in my view, misses the point. The concern that the American people have with FISA 702 is not about the real time collection of communications regarding foreign targets. The concern is that once those communications are stored, you have within them what are referred to as incidentally collected communications of Americans, text messages, emails, recorded phone calls, and so forth.
If they wanna go in and search for someone, let's say you, if someone wants to go into one of those databases after they've been collected collected, Let's see if you're unwittingly, communicating with somebody who, unbeknownst to you, happens to be an agent of a foreign power or otherwise under surveillance under FISA 702. If they wanted to search for you, they wanted to enter your name, your phone number, your email address, or some other personal electronic identifier, would they have to get a warrant to do that under current law?
Speaker 1: Under current law, I believe so, senator.
Speaker 0: Under under current law, they routinely access that without getting a warrant. In order to access it, they've got their own internal procedures. They're not supposed to use this for light or transient reasons. They're supposed to have a perfectly good reason, and yet we found that on 100 of thousands of occasions, they have accessed the private communications of Americans searching for those individual Americans by name, by number, by email address, whatever it is, without a warrant or anything tantamount to it. On occasion, they've even been used for overtly nefarious reasons.
One agent, deciding to look in on his father because he suspected his father might be having an extramarital affair. On another occasion, an agent, looked at people who were thinking about renting an apartment from him to make sure they were upstanding citizens and could be trusted. Are these appropriate uses of FISA 702?
Speaker 1: As you alluded to, the FISA court, it's not me deciding it. The FISA court put out a report in 22 or 23 where 255 1,000 illegal improper queries of American citizens had occurred. 255,000 reasons why the American people don't trust it. And that's what we must work together, congress and me, if I'm confirmed as FBI director, restore that trust and protect the mission.
Speaker 0: Music to my ears because I've been a US senator for 14 years. I've been on this committee the entire time. You're the very first FBI director or FBI director nominee, who, when I've asked about this, hasn't said, oh, don't worry about it. We'll handle it okay. We've got good people on the inside.
We would never breach the trust of the American people. Do you know what? They were lying. I was willing to believe that they thought they were telling the truth, but they were mistaken. But they were lying.
Time has told us they were lying. You will not lie, and that's why I wholeheartedly support you.
@atensnut - Juanita Broaddrick
Adam Schiff is scared sh*tless of Kash Patel becoming FBI Director . He should be. Schiff in self preservation mode. https://t.co/T2qklWyxuF
Video Transcript AI Summary
You're being considered for FBI director, yet you didn't check if your associates, including the president, were involved in attacking police officers. Look at the Capitol Police behind you. Are you proud of raising money from those who assaulted them? You claim to support law enforcement, but your actions tell a different story. Did you ever publicly state that Donald Trump declassified all documents at Mar-a-Lago? You mentioned a declassification order, but did you confirm it included all those documents? Shouldn't we consider the potential risks to sources before declaring documents declassified? Did Trump consult agencies about the risks? You say you support transparency; will you back the release of your grand jury testimony and relevant sections of the special counsel's report? Your time is up.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're being considered for director of the FBI, and and here you did no diligence to find out whether people you were associating with now the president of the United States in song were convicted of attacking police officers. Is that who we want running the FBI? I want you to turn around. There are Capitol Police officers behind you. They're guarding us.
Take a look at them right now. Turn around.
Speaker 1: I'm looking at you. You're talking
Speaker 0: to me. Look at them. I want you to look at them if you can. If you have the courage to look them in the eye, mister Patel, and tell them you're proud of what you did. Tell them you're proud that you raised money off of people that is that assaulted their colleagues, that pepper sprayed them, that beat them with polls.
Tell them you're proud of what you did, mister Patel. They're right there. They're guarding you today. Tell them how proud you are.
Speaker 1: That's an abject line. You know it. I've never, never, ever accepted violence against law enforcement. I've worked with these men and women as you know.
Speaker 0: You got fired in song.
Speaker 1: Did not make a single dime out of it.
Speaker 0: In song. Well, let me let me
Speaker 1: How about you ask them if I have their backs? And let's see about that answer.
Speaker 0: Ask you this, mister Patel. Let me ask you this. If an FBI director promoted a song of people who spray pepper spray in the face of an FBI agent, would you say they were fit to be director, Mister Schiff or no? Would they be fit to be director?
Speaker 1: I am fit to be the director of the FBI.
Speaker 0: If if you were the FBI director and you promoted a song with someone who beat an FBI agent with a poll, would you say you were fit to be FBI director?
Speaker 1: Mister Schiff, I am fit to be FBI director based on my 16 years
Speaker 0: in government. All these things, mister Patel. You can say, oh, I support law enforcement. I I decry violence against law enforcement. You can say all that.
It's what you did, mister Patel, that matters. It's what you did that matters. Well, let me ask you about something else that you did, mister Patel. Did you claim that Donald Trump declassified all the documents at Mar a Lago? Did you k did you claim that?
Speaker 1: In what proceeding?
Speaker 0: To the public ever. Did you tell anyone that Donald Trump declassified all the documents at Mar a Lago?
Speaker 1: From publicly available information, president Trump issued a declassification order in a variety of materials.
Speaker 0: Just ask you. Did you tell the public? Did you tell anyone? Did you make the claim that Donald Trump had declassified those hundreds of classified documents that were Mar a Lago?
Speaker 1: Did you make that claim from the best of my recollection, I said president Trump issued a declassification order to a large number of documents.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and were you present when he declassified all the Mar a Lago documents?
Speaker 1: Senator, I'm not saying he declassified all the Mar a Lago documents. I said president Trump declassified a large number of documents, and I would hope this committee and the rest of congress would wanna get those documents. The American
Speaker 0: people Mister Patel, before a president or or anyone declassified documents, wouldn't you wanna know whether making the public would would cause sources to be killed? Wouldn't you wanna know that before you just declare they're all declassified? Wouldn't that be the responsible thing for president to do?
Speaker 1: It was the responsible thing for us to do. That's why we declassified the union
Speaker 0: as a no.
Speaker 1: Did Donald Trump decline? Died.
Speaker 0: And did Donald Trump ever ask any of the agencies who produce those documents whether declassifying them would put people's lives at risk? Did he ever do that to your knowledge, Paish Patel?
Speaker 1: I don't know that he didn't. Do you?
Speaker 0: No. That's the problem, isn't it? That's the problem, isn't it? So let me just ask, mister chairman, if you would, mister Patel has said he has no problem. He would support the release of his grand jury testimony in that case.
I would ask you, mister chairman and ranking member, to join me in requesting with mister Patel's approval the release of those grand jury transcripts, and I would also ask mister Patel whether you support the release of volume 2 as it pertains to you of the special counsel's report. Any reference to to you in the report, to your truthfulness, will you support the release to this committee of those sections of volume 2 of special counsel's report?
Speaker 1: I support following the law and providing whatever information the law requires.
Speaker 0: But you you said to the Wall Street Journal that you support transparency. Here's your chance, mister Patel. You support release of that to this committee. Yes or no? Sir, your time's up.
Before I
@HawleyMO - Josh Hawley
Kash Patel pledged to open the books on assassination attempts against Trump and all corruption within the FBI That’s the real reason Democrats want to sink his nomination They know they won't be able to use the FBI as their personal prosecutor anymore https://t.co/CQcTDJaMBz
Video Transcript AI Summary
Democrats appear anxious about Cash's potential revelations regarding Butler and the Palm Beach incident. He has committed to exposing details about assassination attempts and the FBI's misleading actions to obtain FISA wiretaps on Trump. This has them worried, as they have relied on the FBI for political advantage over the past four years. Their fear stems not from the possibility of political persecution but from the prospect of Patel curbing the FBI's actions, which they have used to their benefit.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Democrats look terrified, not really equipped to handle a guy like Cash. Are we gonna learn things about Butler? Are we gonna learn things about the Palm Beach attempt? What else are we gonna find out here?
Speaker 1: You know, something that he told me, Jesse, he pledged to me that he would open the books on what you just said. He would open the books on the assassination attempts. He would open the books on the FBI's lying to the FISA court, for example, when they went and lied to get wiretaps on the president Trump the first time around. He would open the books on all of their corruption. So you better believe the democrats are worried because they've been cheering this on for the last 4 years.
They talk about enemies lists and political persecution. The FBI has been their personal play thing, at least FBI headquarters has been for the last 4 years, and they're scared to death that Patel will end it. They're not worried that he will actually persecute political opponents. They're worried he's gonna stop the FBI doing that because that's what they've been doing the last 4 years.
@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk
There’s a very obvious reason why Adam Schiff is panicking outside the FBI building this morning… Kash Patel: “Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in Congress in the last 250 years.” https://t.co/9yiQBzHMEN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kash Patel is unfit to be FBI director due to his willingness to cross ethical and legal lines during the first Trump administration, demonstrating extreme sycophancy. He lacks the integrity and character necessary for the role, posing a danger to the public by potentially misusing the bureau's resources to target political opponents.
Adam Schiff is a criminal who led the impeachment trial against President Trump after concealing his meetings with a whistleblower. Schiff lied about his interactions to set up a presidential impeachment based on manufactured information, creating a conflict of interest as he prosecuted the target of his own manufactured evidence. He thought his involvement would remain hidden, but reporting has exposed his actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is someone we cannot trust. This is someone who lacks the character to do this job, someone who lacks the integrity to do this job. We know that. Our Republican colleagues know that. The only qualification Cash Patel has to be FBI director is that when everyone else in the first Trump administration said, no.
I won't do that. That crosses moral, ethical, and legal lines. Cash Patel said, sign me up. In the first Trump administration, as we are seeing in the second, you rise to the level of your sycophancy, and no one is a bigger or more dangerous sycophant than Kash Patel. This political hack does not deserve to be in this building.
He can't do the job. He won't protect the public. He will misuse the resources of the bureau. He will weaponize it against the president's political opponents rather than the protecting the safety the public safety of the American people.
Speaker 1: But Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in congress in the last two hundred and fifty years. And what Prince broke that we're gonna talk about right now is Adam Schiff met with a whistleblower. Adam Schiff went to the podium day after day after day saying, I know nothing about this. We're not gonna discuss it. We're gonna protect it.
And then he, Adam Schiff, led the prosecution of the impeachment trial in the senate of President Donald Trump. Talk about someone who was conflicted out of the game because he was part of the hoax that brought Charmela in, manufactured that false accusation and then pedaled it out to the world and he continued, you know, not surprising. He's lied about almost everything in his life, but now he lied just to set up a presidential impeachment. That's what I was talking about, these disinformation campaigns. And then they he should be investigated because he lied to the world about his interactions with Charmela, who is a whistleblower, and I can't stress this enough, that started a presidential impeachment.
Now your history is way better than mine, but I can't remember the last time a president was actually impeached. It's a significant process and escalation, and it's reserved for the time when it actually shows a crime, not when it shows the manufacturer of fake information to show a fake crime. The guy that found and manufactured the evidence with Charmela was the prosecutor in the case against the target of the investigation. That is the ultimate, from a prosecutorial standpoint, conflict of interest. But he knew what he was doing, and he thought he would never get exposed.
And I think thanks to, you know, I think it was John Solomon, his fantastic reporting. We now see what I've been saying for years that I thought he met with him for sure, and it will come out, and it now has.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
BREAKING: Kash Patel confirmed to be the next director of the FBI. It’s a rough day to be Adam Schiff. https://t.co/XaMD7Ol2Zr
Video Transcript AI Summary
I questioned Mr. Patel's fitness to be FBI director, given his association with individuals convicted of assaulting police officers and profiting from it. I asked him to look at the Capitol Police officers present and explain why he is proud of what he did.
I responded that I have never accepted violence against law enforcement. I have worked with law enforcement and never glorified violence against them. I never made a single dime out of violence against law enforcement.
I also questioned whether Mr. Patel had claimed that Donald Trump declassified all the documents at Mar-a-Lago and whether he considered the potential risks to sources before advocating for declassification.
I responded that President Trump issued a declassification order to a large number of documents. It was the responsible thing to do and no one died.
I support following the law and providing whatever information the law requires.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're being considered for director of the FBI, and and here you did no diligence to find out whether people you were associating with now the president of The United States in song were convicted of attacking police officers. Is that who we want running the FBI? I want you to turn around. There are Capitol Police officers behind you. They're guarding us.
Take a look at them right now. Turn around.
Speaker 1: I'm looking at you. You're talking to
Speaker 0: me. No. No. Look at them. I want you to look at them if you can, if you have the courage to look them in the eye, mister Patel, and tell them you're proud of what you did.
Tell them you're proud that you raised money off of people that is that assaulted their colleagues, that pepper sprayed them, that beat them with poles. Tell them you're proud of what you did, mister Patel. They're right there. They're guarding you today. Tell them how proud you are.
Speaker 1: That's an abject line. You know it. I've never, never, ever accepted violence against law enforcement. Worked with these men and women as you know. Glorified it in song.
And I did not make a single dime out of it.
Speaker 0: And in song. Well, let me let me
Speaker 1: How about you ask them I have their backs? Let's see about that answer.
Speaker 0: This mister Patel. Let me ask you this. If an FBI director promoted a song of people who spray pepper spray in the face of an FBI agent, would you say they were fit to be director?
Speaker 1: Mister or
Speaker 0: no? Would they be fit to be director?
Speaker 1: I am fit to be the director of the FBI.
Speaker 0: If if you were the FBI director and you promoted a song to someone who beat an FBI agent with a poll, would you say you were fit to be FBI director?
Speaker 1: Mister Schiff, I am fit to be FBI director based on my sixteen years
Speaker 0: of coverage. All these things, mister Patel. You can say, oh, I support law enforcement. I I decry violence against law enforcement. You could say all that.
It's what you did, mister Patel, that matters. It's what you did that matters. Well, let me ask you about something else that you did, mister Patel. Did you claim that Donald Trump declassified all the documents at Mar Lago. Did you did you claim that?
Speaker 1: In what proceeding?
Speaker 0: To the public ever, did you tell anyone that Donald Trump declassified all the documents at Mar a Lago?
Speaker 1: From publicly available information, president Trump issued a declassification order in a variety of materials.
Speaker 0: Just ask you, did you tell the public? Did you tell anyone? Did you make the claim that Donald Trump had declassified those hundreds of classified documents that were Mar Lago? Did you make that claim publicly?
Speaker 1: Best of my recollection, I said president Trump issued a declassification order to a large number of documents.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and were you present when he declassified all the Mar Lago documents?
Speaker 1: Senator, I'm not saying he declassified all the Mar a Lago documents. I said president Trump declassified a large number of documents, and I would hope this committee and the rest of congress would wanna get those documents
Speaker 0: to the American people. Mister Patel, before a president or or anyone declassified documents, wouldn't you wanna know whether making the public would would cause sources to be killed? Wouldn't you wanna know that before you just declare they're all declassified? Wouldn't that be the responsible thing for a president to do?
Speaker 1: It was the responsible thing for us to do. That's why we declassified the dean as
Speaker 0: we Did Donald Trump
Speaker 1: And no one died.
Speaker 0: And did Donald Trump ever ask any of the agencies who produce those documents whether declassifying them would put people's lives at risk. Did he ever do that to your knowledge, Kanch Patel?
Speaker 1: I don't know that he didn't. Do you?
Speaker 0: No. That's the problem, isn't it? That's the problem, isn't it? So let me just ask mister chairman if you would. Mister Patel has said he has no problem.
He would support the release of his grand jury testimony in that case. I would ask you mister chairman ranking member to join me in requesting with mister Patel's approval, the release of those grand jury transcripts, and I would also ask mister Patel whether you support the release of volume two as it pertains to you of the special counsel's report. Any reference to to you in the report, to your truthfulness, will you support the release to this committee of those sections of volume two of special counsel's report?
Speaker 1: I support following the law and providing whatever information the law requires.
Speaker 0: But you you said to the Wall Street Journal that you support transparency. Here's your chance, mister Patel. You support releasing that to this committee. Yes or no? So so, your time's up.
Before I
@prattaaron - Aaron 🏃🏼♂️✨
Adam Schiff today, before Kash Patel was confirmed as Director of the FBI, five of them showed up to protest with literally no public support, understand what is happening now? 🤡 https://t.co/oMxLfUfGfm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kash Patel is unfit to be FBI director due to his lack of character and integrity. He is a sycophant who will misuse the bureau's resources and weaponize it against political opponents. Unlike others in the Trump administration, Patel crossed moral, ethical, and legal lines.
Adam Schiff is a criminal who lied about his interactions with a whistleblower named Charmela to set up a presidential impeachment of Donald Trump. Schiff met with Charmela and then led the prosecution of Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. Schiff was conflicted out of the game because he was part of the hoax. As the prosecutor in the case against Trump, that is the ultimate conflict of interest.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is someone we cannot trust. This is someone who lacks the character to do this job, someone who lacks the integrity to do this job. We know that. Our Republican colleagues know that. The only qualification Cash Patel has to be FBI director is that when everyone else in the first Trump administration said, no.
I won't do that. That crosses moral, ethical, and legal lines. Cash Patel said, sign me up. In the first Trump administration, as we are seeing in the second, you rise to the level of your sycophancy, and no one is a bigger or more dangerous sycophant than Kash Patel. This political hack does not deserve to be in this building.
He can't do the job. He won't protect the public. He will misuse the resources of the bureau. He will weaponize it against the president's political opponents rather than the protecting the safety the public safety of the American people.
Speaker 1: And Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in congress in the last two hundred and fifty years. And what bridge broke that we're gonna talk about right now is Adam Schiff met with a whistleblower. Adam Schiff went to the podium day after day after day saying, I know nothing about this. We're not gonna discuss it. We're gonna protect it.
And then he, Adam Schiff, led the prosecution of the impeachment trial in the senate of President Donald Trump. Talk about someone who was conflicted out of the game because he was part of the hoax that brought Charmela in, manufactured that false accusation and then pedaled it out to the world and he continued, you know, not surprising. He's lied about almost everything in his life, but now he lied just to set up a presidential impeachment. That's what I was talking about, these disinformation campaigns. And then they he should be investigated because he lied to the world about his interactions with Charmela, who is a whistleblower, and I can't stress this enough, that started a presidential impeachment.
Now your history is way better than mine, but I can't remember the last time a president was actually impeached. It's a significant process and escalation, and it's reserved for the time when it actually shows a crime, not when it shows the manufacturer of fake information to show a fake crime. The guy that found and manufactured the evidence with Charmela was the prosecutor in the case against the target of the investigation. That is the ultimate, from a prosecutorial standpoint, conflict of interest. But he knew what he was doing, and he thought he would never get exposed.
And I think thanks to you know, I think it was John Solomon, his fantastic reporting. We now see what I've been saying for years that I thought he met with him for sure, and it will come out and it now has.
@WhiteHouse - The White House
🇺🇸 @FBIDirectorKash has officially been sworn in as the Director of the FBI by @AGPamBondi. It’s time we restore integrity and justice at the FBI. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN! https://t.co/XCyo6HzThf
@SaveUSAKitty - MAGA Kitty
Now that Dan Bongino @dbongino has been named Deputy Director of the FBI, has anyone checked in with Geraldo Rivera @GeraldoRivera ? 😆😆😆😆 https://t.co/kGdKWNPg7k
Video Transcript AI Summary
Geraldo claims to know everything, but he's wrong. A Department of Justice study found no systemic racism in police contacts. Geraldo, you had a brief stint as a cop. Stop already. You push a race narrative with no data.
There are hundreds of thousands of police officers and millions of Black Americans. If police were hunting Black men, where's the evidence? This rhetoric is why people are enraged. You're injecting racist rhetoric.
Go tell black families who've lost sons to violence that your rhetoric is factual. That's all you have. You just want to see the country burn.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wanna see the country burn, you son of a I wanna see the country burn, you Geraldo knows everything, apparently. Despite the fact that did Dan, arguing Harvard time. Now, it's your turn. You have the mic. Yeah, they did an actual study on police contacts and found no systemic racism.
It was the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, but he doesn't know any of that. But secondly, this is again one the about police. What, have a ten minute career as a cop? Geraldo, you gotta You can't yourself. Take volume.
Geraldo, you gotta stop ever. People like Geraldo continue to pump out a race narrative with no data to back it up at all. There are hundreds of thousands of police officers. You don't don't. And millions of You only accept facts that you black Americans agree with.
In the course of each day. If there was a plague of police officers hunting black men down at night, then what what I don't understand if that's happening. Where where is there with this massive gun we would This man, Sean, this man is why they have that rage. This man with this baloney. He doesn't know anything about that woman.
Is a He doesn't know anything about that woman. A rhetoric. He's injecting racist to the artistic rhetoric. Has nothing. Mister rhetoric, that's why.
Go ahead. You tell that to the black families that see their sons being killed That's all you got. The rate. Got nothing else, buddy. You got nothing else.
That's a fact. You've got nothing else. All you wanna do is see the country burn. You just wanna see the country burn. That's it.
Wanna see the country burn. Son of a bitch. Wanna see the country burn.
@robertdunlap947 - Bobby D🎙
In honor of Dan Bongino becoming the Deputy Director of the FBI I give you an AWESOME RANT WITH HIM GOING OFF😲! Between Kash and Dan, the FBI will be purged OF ALL THE SCUMBAGS AND TRAITORS🫨! Congratulations for making it through the last 4 years TO WITNESS HISTORY🇺🇸 https://t.co/N4NIdx9CuI
Video Transcript AI Summary
If you're going to attack me after begging to be on my show, especially regarding my stance against Democrats wanting illegals to vote, you can go fuck yourself. You're being played if you listen to Bill O'Reilly. He doesn't even know about the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Most of these hosts are too lazy to do their own research and just read what their producers put in front of them. O'Reilly is a loser who's mad that others who left Fox have built successful careers while nobody likes him. Remember when he blamed Trump for January 6th? He's a douchebag. He has no idea what he's messing with. Everyone hates him.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But if you are gonna go out now start attacking us for calling out Democrats for wanting illegals to vote and calling me a fanatic when you kiss my ass to get on my show, you can go fuck yourself, you pussy. You understand? You got something to say to me, you six foot tall plus piece of shit? Say it to my face. Fucking chump.
Piece of shit. You listen to this guy. You're being played. Here. Put up that, put up that article about the the New York Post article I had put up.
Yeah, Bill? The Democrats don't want, they they don't want illegals to vote? You know there's an act in congress called the SAVE Act. Did you notice you're so fucking stupid? You don't even know this, you dipshit.
You know why? Let me tell you a little secret about this industry. There's about 10% of the hosts that actually do their own show. Producer Jim, am I right? Thank you.
You know what the other 90% do? No. No, Dan. They're talking about what they care about. No.
They're not. They're too freaking lazy to do their own show. So you know what a lot of these other bums do? Like O'Reilly? They have producers and stuff just throw shit in front of them, and they read it.
He doesn't know shit. They have this act called the save act. It's a really simple thing. It's up in the house of representatives or it's gonna be. And the bill says something real simple, that if you're gonna register to vote, you should be able to prove you're a citizen.
How many Democrats, Bill? Because you said it's only the far left. Right? How many Democrats support that bill? Oh, there's the answer you dipshit one.
You stupid fuck. You're so stupid. You dumb motherfucker. You gonna take me on bro? You sure?
What do you think I'm here for? You think I'm here to play nice thing? I give a shit about you. I give a shit about you. I care about this cause.
Care about you one bit. You're a bum and a loser. You've always been a loser. You left Fox and you're pissed off that the other people that left build careers and nobody likes you because you're a piece of shit. Calling me a fanatic if you beg to get on my show?
Here's the real Bill O'Reilly too. You wanna see his tweet on January 6? This is a couple days later. He had time to think about this. At Bill O'Reilly, douchebag.
President Trump's failure to tamp down the angry protesters. You mean by telling him to mark peace march peacefully and patriatically, you dumb fuck? President Trump's failure to tamp down the angry protesters supporting him in Washington has destroyed his legacy. Oh, yeah. It really has.
It's only up in every swing state, you moron. Let's listen to this next part. This is Bill O'Reilly. Our divided nation turns to you, Joe Biden. Defuse it as best you can.
Don't fuck with me, bro. You fuck around, you're gonna find out. Go star go go have a few beers with some of the makeup people and other people at Fox. Find out what a dick this guy was to people. And, Bill, let me tell you something because I know you're watching, you piece of shit.
You have no idea. I'm not gonna name names because I'm not a dick like you. You started something you can't tamp down because I actually have an audience and you don't because you're a dick. You have any idea how many people texted me this morning? Nail that motherfucker to the wall.
They hate you. Nobody likes you. You're an asshole. You've always been an asshole, and we're doing it live. Bill's Bill's jealous, of course.
He's had a radio show, and it sucked ass, and nobody listened. Do you know that? Oh, you didn't know that? Of course, you didn't know it because the show sucked.
@LangmanVince - Vince Langman
Hey Kash Patel, it looks like we have a domestic terrorist posting videos about attack federal agents and their families on TikTok https://t.co/bObXXZ4Vpx
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states it is time to track down ICE agents, find out who they work for, determine if they have families and where their households are, and then "rip them the fuck apart from their family and put them in fucking jail."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And now it's time to track down ice. Now it's time to come after ice. So let's figure out where these people are, who they work for. And on top of that, let's figure out if they have families, where their household is, and let's rip them the fuck apart from their family and put them in fucking jail.
@joma_gc - Bad Hombre
Makes sense why John Bolton was panicking over Kash Patel’s nomination. https://t.co/ocTPj47OMq
@KimDotcom - Kim Dotcom
Is this the guy who’s now redacting everything? Do what Dan Bongino did. Resign! @FBIDirectorKash https://t.co/BHcPwkGfoP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker advocates creating a twenty-four-seven declassification office in the White House that reports directly to the president and handles incoming from the United States of America. The office would pursue declassification of high-profile documents, stating a desire to obtain JFK files, the 9/11 files, and other materials.
The speaker asserts that the deep state primarily uses an illegal application of the classification system to cover up its corruption. They reference the so-called “Lovebirds” texts from FBI and DOJ officials involved in the Russiagate investigation, specifically Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who allegedly were having an extramarital affair while coordinating support for their stance against Trump. The speaker claims these texts expressed hatred for Trump and discussed creating an “insurance policy” to stop him.
According to the speaker, after discovering these texts, the FBI and DOJ redacted them before congressional investigators and members overseeing those agencies for an extended period. The speaker emphasizes that this is one example among broader claims of improper behavior by the agencies.
The speaker then notes a recent development: Strzok and Page received a $1,500,000 payout from the Department of Justice to settle a lawsuit over the improper disclosure of their personal text messages on FBI phones. The DOJ allegedly rewarded them, despite claims that they broke the law, violated the chain of command, and weaponized the justice system against a political target they despised.
The speaker claims that the text messages were eventually declassified in full when the speaker became deputy director of national intelligence, allowing the world to read them. This, they say, demonstrates the best form of transparency.
With this context, the speaker reiterates the rationale for the proposed 24/7 declassification office: to provide direct access to documents, files, and memos rather than regurgitated summaries. They argue that the deep state completed a full circle by rewarding those involved and that this office would enable America to receive the truth. The speaker frames the next step as obtaining the truth for the country, with the office serving as the mechanism to accomplish that objective.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Need a twenty four seven declassification office, whatever you wanna call it, transparency, truth, whatever, I don't care, sits in the White House, reports directly to you, and you take incoming from The United States Of America. I want JFK. I want the nine eleven files. I want this. I want that.
All the FBI and this is a tool this is something we didn't cover. What the deep state uses the most to cover up their corruption is an illegal application of the classification system. Remember the Lovebirds text from This is a beauty. The Lovebirds text from FBI, DOJ, Land, Russiagate, Strauch and Page were texting each other. They were running the Russiagate investigation against Trump.
They were the head of the counterintelligence unit at the FBI, and they're having an extramarital affair together. Can't make this stuff up. They're sending each other texts about how much they hate Trump and are gonna create an insurance policy to stop Trump. Then we finally find those text messages. You know what the FBI and DOJ do for like a year?
Redact them to congressional investigators and congressional men and women running the oversight of their of their agency. That's just one example. But it gets even better. Here's the deep state full circle. Just last week, do you know what Strak and Page received from the Department of Justice?
What? A 1,500,000.0 payout to settle a lawsuit that Strak and Page brought for the improper disclosure of their personal text messages on FBI phones. And the DOJ just rewarded them. They broke the law. They broke the chain of command.
They broke every regulation there is in the FBI. They weaponized the system of justice against a political target they hated. We found those text messages and we got them declassified finally in full when I became deputy director of national intelligence. And the world has now seen them and they can read them. That's the best form of transparency.
That's why I want this 20 fourseven declassification office. Don't have me regurgitated to you, read it. Get the documents, get the files, get the memos. But the deep state came full circle and gave these guys a payday for rigging a presidential election and breaking the law. So now you know what happens.
That's step one. Step two, get America the truth. And that's what that office would
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
New whistleblower documents show the FBI is every bit the politicized secret police force you feared it was. https://t.co/hFEUvjrNSL
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FBI is facing allegations of internal political bias and a secret process for security clearances, according to an FBI whistleblower. The whistleblower claims that the FBI checks employees' loyalty by examining their support for the COVID-19 vaccine, Donald Trump, and the Second Amendment. Those who express conservative views or hesitancy towards the vaccine allegedly faced consequences, including suspension without pay. The FBI has not commented on the matter, but the whistleblower's representative suggests that this may be just the tip of the iceberg. The documents have raised concerns about the FBI's neutrality and the need for reform within the organization.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the FBI is the most powerful law enforcement organization in the world, certainly in the free world or what we've referred to for our lifetimes as the free world. So the nightmare scenario is that it becomes perverted, subverted into a secret police force, a Tonton Macoute accountable to politicians and used to punish the adversaries of the regime. That's the one thing you can't have happen or your country will no longer be a free country. Well, there's some evidence, unfortunately, that that is happening, and the latest comes from an FBI whistleblower. The documents that he's handed over to John Solomon of just the news suggests that the FBI now has an internal political litmus test.
In his case, in order to get a security clearance after 12 years working for the agency, the FBI checks whether he supported the vaxx regime, Donald Trump, the second amendment to the US constitution. And afterwards, determined he supported all of these things, which at least half the country does support, he was denied his security clearance. Again, this comes from documents newly unearthed that confirmed the FBI checked his loyalty before allowing him a security clearance. And when denied that, he was suspended indefinitely without pay. So the FBI has not provided any comment to John Solomon, who broke the story and got these documents, but Tristan Levitt, who's the president of the group Empower Oversight, is representing him in court and joins us right now with an overview of this case.
Tristan, thank you very much for coming on. So My pleasure. It was is that a fair characterization? Or why don't instead you start at the beginning and tell us what you have uncovered and what this employee underwent at the FBI?
Speaker 1: So what makes this a little bit different from your average FBI employee is that this employee who who has chosen to remain anonymous did get swept up into the funnel of folks being investigated after January 6th. So the FBI cast a very wide net because of that. There was frankly some hysteria within the bureau, almost McCarthyism, searching out anybody that had, views with any tie you know, after searching anybody who had any ties to events of that day, then examining their views. So this client particularly is someone who had decided on the day of January 6th to go down and hear President Trump's speech. After attending the rally, he walked down to the Capitol and stayed outside on the grounds.
He never went inside the Capitol. He was never involved in any violence. He was never involved in any conflict. Eventually, the FBI became aware that he had been, at the Capitol, which is ironic because the day after it, he self reported his attendance. But that went, you know, that didn't attract any notice within the FBI, until a year later.
And at that point, the hysteria was in full force. And so there were a number of FBI whistleblowers, several of whom we have represented, people like Steve Friend, Marcus Allen, Garrett O'Boyle, who were objecting in various ways to how the FBI was approaching its investigations of those, related to January 6th. But this particular individual had his security clearance suspended, and that's when all of this hit. And so 1 year ago, I testified alongside 3 of those other whistleblowers, Steve Friend, Mark Sall, and Gary O'Boyle, in front of the weaponization committee. And at the time, the FBI had just released information that they had all had their security occurrences suspended.
A couple of them revoked. And so as we started that hearing, delegate Stacey Plaskett opened by saying, you know, chairman Jordan, you've invited these people here who are a threat to our national security. How dare you? And now, a year later, we've been able to pull back the curtain and see the FBI's documentation for why it did what it did with their clearances. And that's the context in which we've seen this sort of questioning going on, asking people if they ever supported president Trump.
And mind you, it wasn't just that they asked these individuals. These were interviews by the security clearance division of their fellow employees. So people who are compelled to answer, who had to either answer these questions from the security division or have their own security clearance called into question. And they were asked, did you ever socialize with these individuals? What was your association with them?
And then ask these extremely intrusive questions. And so that's the context in which this very problematic set of questions came up. And what we are hearing is that this may be just the tip of the iceberg. That there were many, you know, that certainly there have been allegations out there that once people got swept into that security funnel, that there was a purge of FBI employees that had conservative views or had skepticism of the vaccine or just hesitancy to receive it. And now, in black and white, we've uncovered those documents because of our client's security appeal where we've been able to see the basis on which his colleagues were questioned, and this is extremely problematic.
Speaker 0: It was pretty clear, from the beginning. I mean, there are different threads here, but on the vax specifically, that the vaccine mandates were designed, and certainly their effect was, to winnow out people with high testosterone levels, independent thinking, commitment to liberty, common sense out of positions in the federal government, and that would definitely include the military, but also at the agencies including the FBI. So did they they found out this guy didn't take the vax and that was one of the factors?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It clearly was one of the factors, and it's ironic because this came 3 months after a court had put an injunction on the, federal employee vaccine mandate. And so this was not even a live issue. Right. It it this was not a matter of you're currently required to and you're not.
Months after that, they're asking his colleagues, did he ever express any hesitancy about the COVID 19 vaccine?
Speaker 0: Have a hesitancy. Did he pause before allowing an injection? Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes. And, of course, the the reverse of this, right, I think no every American would agree. It would not be appropriate in the future for the FBI to ask employees, did they ever express any support for receiving an abortion. You know, these this is this this idea that that's any of the FBI's business whatsoever is really, really outrageous.
Speaker 0: Support for Donald Trump, support for the second amendment to the constitution of the United States, our founding document, So these are disqualifying positions?
Speaker 1: Well, it's that's clearly seems to be the case behind the scenes. Now again, keep in mind, this is not what was put into the security clearance suspension letter that our client received or that other whistleblowers we have represented or received. It's not what went into their revocation letters. So it's only now, like I said, pulling back the curtain that we see that it's behind closed doors. Right?
So it's within this black box of secrecy and it's really this secret process that has no oversight from the outside. No generally no oversight from the inspector general, no oversight from Congress, that's an environment that allowed this to flourish because otherwise, we never would have known about this had we not seen those backing documents. Because, again, the sis the proposals themselves didn't reference any of these things that we would consider illegitimate. They just talked about whether someone engaged in violence, whether they broke laws on January 6th, and, you know, the things that stretched beyond that into personal political views or, again, even feelings about one's own bodily autonomy, all of that was hidden in these documents. And now that we've ripped the mask off the FBI, again, we're we are certainly going to push the inspector general to see whether this happened in other cases, and we strongly expect that they will find that it did.
Speaker 0: So for those who don't work in or around government, it it may be hard to appreciate how central a security clearance is if you're working in an agency like the FBI. I mean, you can't can't do your job without a clearance, but the criteria for getting and holding a clearance are sometimes muddy. In other words, there's a lot of subjective judgment, and it's particularly vulnerable to political interference. Right? Because there isn't, you know, character, for example, is is one of the, you know, one of the the criteria, person of good character.
So, like, how much do we know, not just about this case, but about all security clearances across the millions of federal employees about how these clearances are awarded?
Speaker 1: Well, there are criteria that are supposed to be consistent across the board. So there are executive orders. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, you know, puts out guidance on these. It is subjective agency by agency. Several years ago, when I worked on Capitol Hill investigator, we did a very in-depth, investigation into the Secret Service and how they issued clearances, and, you know, it was clear that there it does change from agency to agency.
You know, and what's ironic about this is that, again, as a credential, if you will, if someone gets pushed out of the FBI, you know, because they say, you know, didn't show up for work on time or something else. Right? That looks bad if you're fired. If you have your security clearance revoked, you're not in a position to go to another agency. Exactly.
Right? You can't you can't say, I don't I wanna go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement because I think that they need some help over there. No. You have you have been deemed disloyal to the United States. And so lacking a security clearance, that's a huge, huge issue.
And this came up as we, you know, we recently obtained total vindication for one of those individuals I mentioned, Marcus Allen, who had been an FBI employee. And, just last week, we're able to get his clearance reinstated. We're able to get him full back pay for 27 months to use without work. But during that whole entire time, you know, it's not just this future idea of a credential. During that whole entire time, he was not paid while he was held in limbo.
And so, again, it seemed designed to squeeze him to leaving the FBI, which is what this anonymous client, in the current case that we're talking about did. And so but again, if you if you leave while your clearance is suspended or while it is revoked, you don't have a future hope of getting a job with another, law enforcement agency or anywhere that would require clearance or access to secure classified information.
Speaker 0: What's so baffling is that, Republicans hold the majority in the house. There's a Republican speaker. We now know you've proven with these documents that supporting a Republican for president is enough to get your security clearance revoked. So the FBI is, by definition, a political secret police organization, and that's antithetical to freedom. And yet the Republicans in the Congress, even though this is all very obvious, just refunded the FBI and allocated 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars to build them a new headquarters.
They're rewarding the FBI. So at what point do Republicans say, I'm sorry. We're not gonna pay for a secret police organization dedicated to destroying us.
Speaker 1: I think these documents are going to be the tipping point, frankly. I think that the inspector general we expect that, an investigation by an inspector general will open up. We expect that Congress is going to be doing oversight of that. And along with some of these other instances of vindication, I think this summer, we're going to see exposed quite a bit how the FBI has has had made shown such political bias in what they do. And so I think Congress has a unique opportunity here, a unique opportunity to overhaul the FBI, the personnel that are in it at the moment, to reform that and also to to pursue broader reforms, you know, from a legal front.
And so to your point about funding, I think this is the time. I think this is the thing that, more than anything else these documents demonstrate in black and white what individuals like chairman Jim Jordan have been alleging for 2 years, and now we have the definitive proof of that. So we expect there's going to be a lot of attention given to these and not just from Congress, but from places like the inspector general Michael Horowitz and the press and others. Because now you cannot deny that these political considerations, you know, weren't just tossed around in a general sense. They weren't just, you know, possible considerations.
They were there in black and white for individuals in their security clearance determinations.
Speaker 0: I mean, it it just becomes clear every day that January 6th was, well, a hoax, on one level, but the response to it was one of the most corrupt things that's ever happened in our lifetimes in this country. I mean, that's the conclusion I'm coming to.
Speaker 1: It's difficult. Clearly, that's a that's a touch point for a lot of people. And I will tell you as a former congressional staffer, it was difficult for me to see where there was violence on January 6th. Right? And so those that broke laws
Speaker 0: Right. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't have any objection to those people, you know, suffering the consequences for that. Right? And I think most Americans, that's the case. But, again, within the FBI you know, for people to have just been on the grounds and the FBI to have gone after those individuals, for for that to become and, again, that was the tipping point within the FBI for this sort of hysteria where anybody that came to the attention of the security division, all of these other factors then got wrapped in. Right?
It wasn't a question of were you present and then did you go inside the Capitol or did you engage in violence? It's do you have any views that we don't favor? And so for that to lead to a purge of conservative employees, again, is just is just totally inappropriate and wrong, but, you know, it's a it's a sign of how polarizing January 6th was to our country, I think. One of the things that we brought to the attention of the inspector general a year ago was that less than a month after January 6th, the new deputy director of the FBI, a guy named Paula Bate, spoke up in a call with all special agents in charge around the country for the FBI and said, if you don't like our response to January 6th and how we're going after this, the FBI is not the place for you. You can come and talk to me, but we don't need agents like that in the FBI.
And it's just not healthy or fair for the FBI to push out, say, roughly half of its employees just because they have differing political views, who weren't there on January 6th, didn't engage in violence, none of those things, but for the FBI to use that as a pretext to say, well, we we don't need you, and we don't want you here right now.
Speaker 0: Well, it's well, I I would go farther and say that's tyranny. Right? I mean, this is a this is an agency that's allowed to kill you if they deem it justified. They can use lethal force against American citizens. So you they cannot be a political instrument, or else it's it's tyrannical.
No?
Speaker 1: It's extremely important that they be, you know, both perceived and and be neutral perceived as and be neutral. Yes. That they are not they're not just hiring people based on one political view or the other. Yes. It raises major, major concerns about because of their ability to use force and the role that they play in American society.
Speaker 0: Last question. Why is your client, the whistleblower, not coming forward by name?
Speaker 1: Multiple reasons. I think, for starters, there is the fact that they are not a public individual. This is not someone that sought out attention and, you know, the the the to the extent that this is the whistleblower disclosures that are involved here are us raising to the inspector general and others the misuse of this security clearance process. So this was not somewhere the whole process started with, you know, disclosures or something like that. But in in this is someone who's a very private individual, and doesn't want to see all this strewn out to the world.
Another reason that I think is significant is that, you know, in this instance, they are still hopeful that they can, you know, after an inspector general examination, have the possibility of getting their clearance back. That if the inspector general realizes how tainted this whole process was, you know, that that the inspector general can help to set things right. That's what happened in Marcus Allen's case, that the inspector general did a very lengthy investigation, we believe that played a big role. And the FBI is saying, maybe we better reinstate this person. So if there's a possibility like that, I think it means more to this client to have the possibility of their economic livelihood restored than to to make some splashy headlines.
But, you know, this is significant, and they recognize this is significant, and that's why they're okay with this being shared with the American public.
Speaker 0: Sure appreciate you explaining that for us. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Tristan Lars. It's Tucker.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.