TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The transcript follows a chaotic, multi-voiced discussion centered on political information networks, election integrity, and coordinated activism around protests and media narratives. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly question the sources of information: “Who the fuck is Jeremy? Where do I get my information? Why did I delete karaoke?” and the same for Jonathan, signaling concern about where information originates and how it is disseminated. - Speaker 2 describes a sense of purpose from sharing information and notes that Wisconsin was the first state where “the evidence that I and my one of my associates, Chris, had put together for Peter, Wisconsin was the first state where it was actually presented, under oath in, you know, a senate… the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Election Integrity.” - Speaker 3 references multiple online presences, including YouTube and Facebook (Jeremy Oliver, Onslaught Media Group), and mentions protesting activities as part of the narrative. - Speaker 4 mentions “Using other state capitals for practice dry runs,” implying rehearsal for protests or political actions. - Speaker 1 indicates a readiness to “storm the capital” and notes that participants are “all actors,” signaling a performative or coordinated element to actions. - Speaker 3, as a journalist or news producer, plans to stream live from protests to show “the real story” and “support the people that are out there fighting for our First Amendment rights.” - A dialogue involving Speaker 1 and Patrick discusses Mary Fanning and Mary Fenix, with questions about speaking to Patrick and perceived fairness in conversations, leading to a strained exchange. - Speaker 5 asserts that “Donald Trump has no business being president,” and introduces a coalition or think tank that includes Biden, Harris, Mike Flynn, and Simon Johnson (an IMF chief economist by birth in England), framing a network with both Democrats and Republicans. - Speaker 3 introduces Brian Gamble as CIO of the America Project, founded by Patrick Byrne, who sits on the Council on Foreign Relations with Stanley McChrystal. The claim is made that Flynn registered Flynn Intel Group from McChrystal’s home; McChrystal is described as an advisor for the Defeat Disinfo Pack, an AI system that detects Trump-trending content and promotes opposing viewpoints. The system is said to share opposing viewpoints, connecting to efforts involving the Flynn network to target the Patriot movement. - Speaker 6 expresses disbelief at the unfolding information, while Speaker 1 dismisses an interruption during a conversation, showing friction in interviews and onlookers. - Speaker 8 details that “the entire Flynn network was there,” naming Ali Alexander (a former CMP member) as a lead organizer, and Michael Flynn’s appearance on the CMP staff roster. The aim is stated as “creating instability as they’re trying to carry out a color revolution.” The speaker lists a list of Flynn network traits: a united and organized opposition, the ability to drive home the claim that voting results are falsified, compliant independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote, and the mobilization of tens of thousands of demonstrators. - Speakers 9 and 10 discuss 2020 in Maricopa County, noting 395,000 in-person voters on election day (a figure they describe as low due to COVID) and debating how many Republicans intended but did not vote in Maricopa in the midterms. Projections estimate large missed numbers (700,000 or around 150,000 in later drafts), with debate on whether turnout would favor one party given demographics and turnout expectations. - Speaker 8 critiques associated figures: Patrick Byrne, Roger Richards (tattoo of Lucifer, propaganda space films with Jordan Sather), Emily Newman (ties to US Agency for Global Media, linked to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry), and Brian Gamble’s background in information warfare. - There are digressions about fundraising sources, rockefeller connections, and a tension between reform goals and control, with Speaker 12 suggesting figures like Charlie Kirk publicly advocate doing “the same things that got us into this place” to “beat the system,” implying a critique of reform vs. control within the movement. - The dialogue closes with personal anecdotes about Wisconsin politics, a case discussed with a Supreme Court justice race, and a strained, emotional confrontation that underscores distrust and the perception of manipulated information flows.

- New footage from Tel Aviv is shown, including videos outside windows of what sources say they are seeing, with a claim that Fox News is not covering this damage in Tel Aviv. The discussion centers on the reality of buildings being hit near City Hall, and questions why it isn’t being widely covered by Fox News. - The conversation shifts to missile stocks and interceptors. A comment references Keith Kellogg on Fox News discussing a Wall Street Journal report about running out of interceptor missiles within four to five weeks, and a claim that there is no problem because orders were placed and allies could supply missiles. The speaker notes that UAE reportedly has about a week left of interceptor missiles and says missiles from Iran are getting through “like a sieve.” - It is argued that the U.S. has a limited stockpile because many missiles have been transferred to Israel and Ukraine over the past years, leaving the U.S. inventory low. The claim is made that continuing the war with depleted missiles would heighten national security risk and vulnerability globally. - The transcript discusses potential international responses. The speaker contends that Europe’s mobilization rhetoric (France, Greece) should not be expected to deter Iran, noting that Greece does not have a major army and that NATO-funded contingents are involved rather than independent power. The assertion is made that Iran’s strikes in Tel Aviv, Tehran, Qom, and other cities show that Iran believes it can strike back effectively, signaling a preference to fight the United States and Israel rather than submit again. - The central point is that the conflict is described as 100% about missiles and air-defense missiles, not ground forces. The speaker argues Iran likely has enough offensive missiles to prolong the conflict for months, possibly longer than U.S. capacity to sustain it, especially with Hormuz potentially shut or partially shut, which could hurt the western economy. - Admiral James Stavridis is cited by Speaker 0, noting that as the U.S. and Israel expend hundreds of precision weapons, the focus should shift to logistics and stockpiles. The discussion emphasizes the need for inventory clarity, planning, and alignment between political objectives and military capabilities. - Speaker 1 asserts that the planning should have assessed inventories, timeframes, and whether the means match the objectives. The argument states that risking all resources without sufficient offensive or defensive capacity is a dangerous gamble, suggesting the current course could be a “huge blunder.” - The conversation touches on General Dan Kane, who reportedly told the president two weeks earlier that there were not enough ammunition and it would not be pretty to win. A reference is made to Trump’s Truth Social claiming Kane’s assessment was incorrect, with talk of whether Kane did or did not say the president’s characterization was accurate. The claim is made that there are concerns about integrity and whether senior leaders would publicly contradict the administration’s framing if necessary. - A follow-up question is raised about whether admitting a ground invasion would imply insufficient missiles to sustain the mission, with Speaker 1 acknowledging that admitting ground troops would signal a lack of missiles for sustained action. - The segment then shifts to a sponsorship note about depression treatment options, promoting Ataybekli and its lead program BPL-003 (a nasal spray psychedelic-based therapy) developed for treatment-resistant depression, with background on the company, its investors, and the roadmap toward Phase 3 in 2026. It emphasizes the potential for faster, more scalable treatment sessions and invites viewers to learn more at a website, with disclaimers about not providing medical or financial advice.

An individual from the Pittsburgh office, who may have failed training exams and was not a top agent, was inexplicably placed in charge of the president's entire trip from arrival to departure. Sources close to the Secret Service's internal investigation claim the Department of Homeland Security is pressuring the Secret Service to withhold documents requested by Congress. The speaker insists the American people deserve the truth.

Speaker 0: Decision on whether to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine or sell them to NATO and let them sell them to Ukraine. Speaker 1: Yeah. I've sort of made a decision pretty much if if if you consider. Yeah. I I think I wanna find out what they're doing with them. Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: Donald Trump's recent statement to the press about mulling over sending Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine has elicited a response from the Kremlin today. Putin announced that the peace process with the Trump administration to end the Ukraine war is officially, quote, unquote, exhausted. Trump and Putin have had a very, you know, strange relationship, a little touch and go since Trump returned to the presidency. At first, to end the Ukraine war on his very first day in office, Trump has meandered a bit on the issue and is now apparently settling on the Biden administration's policy of arming Ukraine and NATO to the hilt. But can Tomahawk cruise missiles even make much of a difference given that the Russian military has achieved supremacy on the battlefield and maintained that dominance for at least the last year and a half, maybe even longer, if you will. We're now joined by, and we're so pleased he's with us, retired US Army colonel Douglas MacGregor. He's the author of I'm sorry. We also have Brandon Weichert with us, the author of Ukraine. Go cross wires there, a disaster of their own making, how the West lost to Ukraine. Thank you both for being with us. Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 4: Thank you for having me. Speaker 2: Colonel McGregor, welcome to the show. We're so glad to especially have your perspective on this. And what we're gonna kinda do is a tour, if you will, around the globe because there's several, ongoing and pending conflicts. Right? So let's start with this breaking news out of Russia where Putin says that these talks, these negotiations are exhausted. Are they, as a matter of fact, exhausted, colonel? Speaker 3: Well, I think he was referring specifically to what happened in Alaska. And I think president Trump showed up, you know, in grandiose fashion with the goal of overwhelming, president Putin and his team with his charm and grace and power, and it all failed miserably. President Trump never really listened carefully to anything the Russians said to him. He didn't read any of the material that was pertinent to the discussion. He came completely unprepared, and that was the the message that came out after the meeting. So the Russians were very disappointed. If you don't read their proposals, you don't read what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish, then you're not gonna get very far. So now, president Trump has completed his transformation into Joe Biden. He's become another version of Joe Biden. Speaker 2: What it is so unexpected. And, you know, it's hard for a lot of a lot of Trump voters to hear because specifically part of voting for him and the mandate that he had going into this term was in these conflicts. Right? Specifically, the one in Ukraine. He didn't start any new conflicts while in office in the first term. Why this version of Trump this term? I know you, like I, look into the hiring, the administration, the pressures from the outside on the president. What is influencing where he is now on Ukraine, colonel MacGregor? Speaker 3: Well, that's a that's a difficult question. I mean, first of all, he grossly underestimated the complexity of the of the war. If you don't understand the foundations for the conflict, how this conflict came about, I mean, I I was standing around listening to someone like Brzezinski in the nineteen nineties trying to tell president Clinton that it was critical to address Ukraine's borders because Eastern Ukraine was, quote, unquote, Russified and effectively not Ukrainian. Nobody would listen to Brzezinski, and so we walked away from that very problem. And in the run up to this thing back in 2014, I was on several different programs, and I pointed to the electoral map, And it showed you who voted for what where. It was very obvious that the East and the Northeast voted to stay with the Russian pro Russian candidate, and everybody else voted against the pro Russian candidate. So none of this should come as a surprise, but I don't think president Trump is aware of any of that. I don't think he studied any of that. And so he's got a lot of people around him pushing him in the direction of the status quo. He went through this during his first term, disappointed all of us because he could never quite escape from the Washington status quo. So he simply returned to it, and I don't see anything positive occurring in the near future. Speaker 2: That's sort of the same as well, with other agencies like the the DOJ, which I wanna get into a little bit later. Brandon, you've been writing about this as a national interest. So what what do you make of it? Speaker 4: Well, I think that right now, this is a lot of vamping from Trump. I think the colonel is a 100% correct when he says Trump really didn't come prepared to the Alaska meeting. I think ultimately Trump's default is to still try to get a deal with Putin on things like rare earth mineral development and trade. I think it's very important to note, I believe it was Friday or Thursday of last week, Putin was on a stage at an event and he reiterated his desire to reopen trade relations with The United States and he wants to do a deal with Trump on multiple other fronts. So that's a positive thing. But ultimately, I think that people need to realize that Trump says a lot of stuff in the moment. The follow through is the question. I am very skeptical that he's actually going to follow through on the Tomahawk transfer if only because logistically, it's not practical. Ukraine lacks the launchers. They lack the training. The the targeting data has to come exclusively and be approved exclusively by the Pentagon, which means that Trump will be on the hook even more for Joe Biden's war, which runs against what he says he wants to get done, which is peace. Regardless of whether it's been exhausted or not that process, Trump I think default wants peace. So I think this is a lot of bluster and I think ultimately it will not lead to the Tomahawk transfer. Last of all because we don't have enough of these Tomahawks. Right? I mean, that that is a a finite amount. I think we have about 3,500 left in our arsenal. We have 400 we're sending to the Japanese Navy, and we're gonna need these systems for any other potential contingency in South America or God forbid another Middle East contingency or certainly in the Indo Pacific. So I think that at some point, the reality will hit, you know, hit the cameras and Trump will not actually follow through on this. Speaker 2: So speaking of South America, let's head that way. Colonel McGregor, I I don't know if you know. I've been covering this pretty extensively what's been going on with the Trump administration's actions on Venezuela. So a bit of breaking news. Today, the US State Department claims that Venezuela is planning to attack their embassy, which has a small maintenance and security board other than, you know, diplomatic staff. Meanwhile, Maduro's regime argues they're just foiled a right wing terrorist plot that's that was planning to stage a false flag against the US embassy to give the US Navy fleet. There's a lot off in Venezuela's coast the impetus to attack Maduro. I've been getting some pushback, you know, on this reporting related to Venezuela, because, you know, Trump's base largely doesn't want any new conflicts. They're afraid this is sort of foreign influence wanting wanting him to go there. Are we justified in what Trump is doing as far as the buildup and what we are hearing is an impending invasion? Is it is the Trump administration justified in this action, colonel MacGregor, in Venezuela? Speaker 3: No. I I don't think there's any, pressing pressing need for us to invade or attack Venezuela at all. But we have to go back and look at his actions to this point. He's just suspended diplomatic relations with Venezuela, which is usually a signal of some sort of impending military action. I don't know what he's being told. I don't know what sort of briefing he's received, what sort of planning has been discussed, but we need to keep a few things in mind. First of all, the Venezuelan people, whether they love or do not love Maduro, are very proud of their country, and they have a long history of rebelling against foreign influence, particularly against Spain. And they're not likely to take, an invasion or an intervention of any kind from The United States lately. Secondly, they've got about 400,000 people in the militias, but they can expect, at least a 100,000 or more paramilitaries to come in from Brazil and Colombia and other Latin American states. It's why the whole thing could result in a Latin American crusade against The United States. And finally, we ought to keep in mind that the coastline is 1,700 miles long. That's almost as long as the border between The United States and Mexico. The border with Brazil and with Colombia is each of them are about 1,380 kilometers long. You start running the math and you're dealing with an area the size of Germany and and France combined. This is not something that one should sink one's teeth in without carefully considering the consequences. So I don't know what the underlying assumptions are, but my own experience is that they're usually a series of what we call rosy scenarios and assume things that just aren't true. So I I'm very concerned we'll get into it. We'll waste a lot of time and money. We'll poison the well down there. If we really want access to the oil and and gas, I think we can get it without invading the place. And they also have emerald mines and gold mines. So I think they'd be happy to do business with us. But this obsession with regime change is very dangerous, and I think it's unnecessary. Speaker 2: That is definitely what it seems they're going for. When I talk to my sources, ChromaGregor, and then I'll get your take on it, Brandon, they say it's a four pronged issue. Right? That it's the drug that, of course, the drugs that come through Venezuela into The United States, Trend Aragua, which we know the ODNI and Tulsi Gabbard, DNI, Tulsi Gabbard was briefed on specifically, that the right of trend in Aragua and how they were flooded into the country, counterintelligence issues, a Venezuelan influence in, you know, in some of our intelligence operations, and, just the narco terrorist state that it is. But you feel that given even if all of that is true and the Venezuela oh, excuse me, in the election fraud. Right? The election interference via the Smartmatic software. Given all that, you still feel it's not best to invade, colonel. You how do we handle it? How do we counter these threats coming from Venezuela? Speaker 3: Well, first of all, you secure your borders. You secure your coastal waters. You get control of the people who are inside The United States. We have an estimated 50,000,000 illegals. Somewhere between twenty five and thirty million of them poured into the country, thanks to president Biden's betrayal of the American people and his decision to open the borders with the help of mister Mayorkas that facilitated this massive invasion. I would start at home. The drug problem is not down in Venezuela. The drug problem is here in The United States. If you're serious, anybody who deals in drugs or is involved in human trafficking, particularly child trafficking, should face, the death penalty. Unless you do those kinds of things, you're not gonna fundamentally change the problem here. Now as the narco state title, I think, is a lot of nonsense. The drugs overwhelmingly come out of Colombia. They don't come out of Venezuela. A very small amount goes through Venezuela. I'm sure there are generals in the Venezuelan army that are skimming off the top and putting extra cash in their banks, but it's not a big it's not a big source from our standpoint. We have a much more serious problem in Mexico right now. Mexico is effectively an organized crime state, and I don't think, what Maduro is doing is is really, in that same category. On the other hand, I think Maduro is courting the Chinese and the Russians. And I think he's doing that because he feels threatened by us, and he's looking for whatever assistance or support he can get. And right now, given our behavior towards the Russians in Ukraine, it makes infinite sense for the Russians to cultivate a proxy against us in Central And South America. This is the way things are done, unfortunately. We there are consequences for our actions. I don't think we've thought any of them through. Speaker 2: Well, in in in talking about turning this into a broader conflict or a bigger problem, I I I I know, Brandon, you had heard that that Russia basically told Maduro, don't look to us. Don't come to us. But now this was a couple weeks ago. Yep. Yep. Like you just said, colonel MacGregor, things have changed a little bit. Right? Especially looking at what Putin said today. So will Russia now come to Venezuela's aid, to Maduro's aid? Speaker 3: I think it's distinctly possible, but it's not going to be overt. It'll be clandestine. It'll be behind the scenes. The Chinese are also gonna do business with Maduro. They have an interest in the largest known vindicated oil reserves in the world. The bottom line is and this you go back to this tomahawk thing, which I think Brandon talked about. It's very, very important. The tomahawk is a devastating weapon. Can they be shot down? Absolutely. The Serbs shot them down back in 1999 during this Kosovo air campaign. However, it carries a pretty substantial warhead, roughly a thousand pounds. It has a range of roughly a thousand miles. And I think president Trump has finally been briefed on that, and he has said, yeah. I I wanna know where they're going to fire them, whom they're going to target. Well, the Ukrainians have targeted almost exclusively whatever they could in terms of Russian civilian infrastructure and Russian civilians. They've killed them as often and as much as they could. So the notion if you're gonna give these things to these people or you're gonna shoot for them, you can expect the worst, and that would precipitate a terrible response from the Russians. I don't think we understand how seriously attacks on Russian cities is gonna be taken by the Russians. So I would say, they will provide the Venezuelans with enough to do damage to us if if it's required, but I don't think they expect the Venezuelans to overwhelm us or march into America. That's Mexico's job right now with organized crime. That's where I think we have a much more serious problem. Speaker 4: I I agree with the colonel on that. I think also there's an issue. Now I happen to think we we because of the election fraud that you talk a lot about, Emerald, I think there is a threat in Maduro, and I I do think that that there is a more serious threat than we realize coming out of that sort of left wing miasma in Latin America. And I I think the colonel's correct though in saying that we're we're making it worse with some of our actions. I will point out on the technical side. I broke this story last week. The Venezuelan government, the military Padrino, the the defense minister there, claimed that his radar systems actually detected a tranche of US Marine Corps f 35 b's using these Russian made radars that they have. This is not the first time, by the way, a Russian made radar system using these really and I'm not going get into the technical details here, but using really innovative ways of detecting American stealth planes. It's not the first time a Russian system has been able to do this. And so we are now deploying large relatively large number of f 35 b's into the region. Obviously, it's a build up for some kind of strike package. And there are other countermeasures that the f 35 b has in the event it's detected. But I will point out that this plane is supposed to be basically invisible, and we think the Venezuelans are so technologically inferior, we do need to be preparing our forces for the fact that the Venezuelans will be using innovative tactics, in order to stymie our advances over their territory. It's not to say we can't defeat them, but we are not prepared, I don't think, for for having these systems, seen on radar by the Venezuelans, and that is something the Russians have helped the Venezuelans do. Speaker 2: Very complex. Before we run out of time, do wanna get your thoughts, colonel MacGregor, on, the expectation that Israel will strike Iran again. Will we again come to their aid? And do you think we should? Speaker 3: Well, first of all, stealth can delay detection but cannot resist it. Yeah. I think the stealth is grossly exaggerated in terms of its value. It causes an enormous price tag Yeah. When you buy the damn plane. And the f 35, from a readiness standpoint, is a disaster anyway. So, you know, I I think we have to understand that, yes, mister Netanyahu has to fight Iran. Iran has to be balkanized and reduced to rubble the way the Israelis with help from us and the British have reduced Syria to chaos, broken up into different parts. This is an Israeli strategy for the region. It's always been there. If you can balkanize your neighbors, your neighbors don't threaten you. Now I don't subscribe to the Israeli view that Iran is this permanent existential threat that has to be destroyed, but it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what they think. They think Iran is a permanent existential threat and therefore must be destroyed. Your question is, will they find a way to attack Iran? The answer is yes. Sooner rather than later. The longer they wait, the more robust and capable Iran becomes. And, I think that's in the near term that we'll see we'll see some trigger. Somehow, there'll be a trigger and Iran will strike. And will we support them? Absolutely. We're already moving assets into the region along with large quantities of missiles and ammunition, but our inventories, as I'm sure you're aware, are limited. We fired a lot of missiles. We don't have a surge capacity in the industrial base. We need one. Our factories are not operating twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. The Russian factories are. Their manufacturing base can keep up. And by the way, the Chinese are right there with them. They have the largest manufacturing base in the world. So if it comes down to who could produce and fire the most missiles, well, we're gonna lose that game, and Israel is gonna lose with us. But right now, I don't see any evidence that anyone's worried about that. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 2: You know what? Colonel McGregor, I I I don't know if I feel any safer after you joined us today. It is very concerning. It's it's a concerning situation we find ourselves in, and I feel like so many people because they feel the election turned out the way they wanted to wanted it to, are not concerned anymore. Right? But we are in Speaker 1: a finite amount of time and there's still great pressures upon the president. There are many voices whispering in his ear. And so we constantly have to be calling out what we Speaker 2: see and explaining to people why it matters. Speaker 3: Remember, this president has said this. Everybody dealing with the administration has said this. It's a very transactional administration. Yep. Follow the money. Who has poured billions into his campaign and bought the White House and Congress for him? When you understand those facts in, you can explain the policy positions. Speaker 1: And I think that's also why we're, the leading conversation we're seeing on acts and social media. Right now, Colonel McGregor, thank you so much for joining us today. We hope you'll come back soon. Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you. Speaker 2: And, Brandon, as always, good to see you, my friend. Thank you. Speaker 4: See you again. Nice to meet you, colonel. Speaker 3: Very nice to see you. Bye bye.

Donald Trump went to Texas and stood next to officers, but one speaker believes he is not there to help and is a self-serving man. He could be on a beach instead of getting shot at. Trump killed the border bill, making jobs harder. Another speaker asks for the president or a member of his administration who can make decisions to come to Texas and speak with at least 12 Texas sheriffs dealing with the border issue firsthand. They want someone from Washington to get boots on the ground. Another speaker claims to have been to the border. Someone questions what she is fighting with, suggesting it's ineffective, and states that many law enforcement officers and sheriffs would disagree with her claims. They also believe she is lying about fighting for the country at the border.

Following an armed insurrection, the speaker calls for the resignation of the Capitol Police chief but wants the focus to remain on the President. There will be an after-action review, but the speaker does not want the review to be on par with the insurrection and impeachment. Schumer is reportedly going to fire the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The speaker states that they can pull the card out for Q&A if Audrey finishes the card. They can say they will call for something, but they don't know because they don't have all the blue dogs with them on this subject. Someone mentions that a person briefed on a plan with numbers and stakeholders signed off on it. Another person says that in a conversation, someone was very transparent about underestimating the crowd size and the president's influence. The speaker asks if they will stay there all day or until the National Guard arrives.

The speaker addressed Kareem at the White House briefing room podium, stating that it had been only two days since an alleged assassination attempt on Donald Trump. The speaker questioned why, in light of this event, Kareem was calling Trump a threat. The speaker asked how many more assassination attempts would occur before the president, vice president, and Kareem would choose a different word to describe Trump. The speaker then thanked everyone and said goodbye.

The speaker claims that despite hearing Donald Trump wants war with Iran, he is more willing to negotiate with the theocracy than any other American president. The speaker criticizes a North Carolina representative for posting an image of Trump's decapitated head next to a guillotine. The speaker also criticizes California Senator Alex Padilla for disrupting a press conference by the secretary of homeland security without identification. The Secret Service restrained Padilla, who the speaker says thought he would become a folk hero like Cory Booker, but failed to gain media attention due to other events. The speaker concludes that Padilla made a fool of himself.

The speaker questions the DNC's corruption level, suggesting it functions as a campaign arm for the president. The bigger issue, however, was Joe Biden's chief of staff, who wielded enormous power. The speaker stresses the chief of staff's influence, describing him as a "shadowy, blister to ball type figure." While not publicly recognizable, this individual held significant power within the White House. The speaker emphasizes avoiding him, describing him as "scary."

The speaker, as a spokesperson, feels uncomfortable answering questions about the president's mental state. However, in their experience over the past 2.5 years, they have not seen any signs of concern regarding the president's lucidity, understanding of context, or command of facts and figures. They mentioned a recent incident where the president asked for information they didn't have, showing that when he lacks information, he expects to be provided with it.

Speaker 0 (anonymous whistleblower): Government seems to be involved. They’re definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. We’ve recovered the vehicles and have physical proof. I was partially cleared into those activities and had access to the data, reading intelligence reports resulting from those programs. Speaker 1: And with your own eyes you’ve seen it. So when people say this is kooky, there’s nothing to back it up… Speaker 2 (NASA): NASA is open and transparent with our data. Do you believe what Mister David Crush said, or is he lying? Whatever he said, where’s the evidence? Speaker 1: What do you say? Speaker 0: Members of this administration are very aware of this reality; the current president is very knowledgeable on this subject, and I trust his leadership. I think he’s assembled a cabinet, and I believe if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, the capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3: I have access and have spoken to people about it. I’ve had meetings with very smart, solid people who believe there is something out there. It makes sense there could be, but I’ve never been convinced, despite that. It’s not my thing. Speaker 1: So you think, one, he knows, and two, he’s open to transparency on UAPs? He’s very well informed on this issue. Leave it at that. I don’t want to get ahead of what the president might want to reveal. There’s been a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 0: I was physically threatened even before I sent in my intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration. I had to seek legal protection because I was fearful professionally and personally. Speaker 1: And when you mention recovering pilots or remains nonhuman, that’s something you saw in the intelligence with your eyes? Speaker 0: Yes. There were pictures. It’s uncomfortable to discuss because it’s outside a normal worldview to understand there is a biological sentience that piloted these crafts and does not necessarily look 100% like us. Speaker 1: Were there pictures? Speaker 0: There were. Speaker 1: When I said from another planet or outer space, you said you don’t know where they’re from. Is it interdimensional? What are we talking about? Speaker 0: I’ve talked to a lot of graybeards about the origin. I leave an open mind. There is an extraterrestrial hypothesis, and they could be coming from elsewhere off Earth, but I didn’t see that data. I’m not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government had. I’m not aware of any remains the department has of extraterrestrial beings or technology. Speaker 1: Do other governments know? Do they have programs? Speaker 0: They have their own programs. Two and a half years ago we’ve been in an arms race with peer competitors—Russia and China—and they have their own programs. I viewed a body of intelligence that discussed adversarial programs. Speaker 1: We’ve recovered things—bodies and physical remains. Was there a sense of their motive or whether it’s peaceful or not? We’ve seen a mixed bag of motives. Speaker 0: Activity and motive vary; the reasons for visiting are not fully understood. Could it be because we have interesting genetic material on Earth and we’re a Jurassic Park tourist attraction? There could be a myriad of reasons. Speaker 1: For other people coming forward, what do you say about intimidation? There are reports of harassment. There’s hope. Congress values whistleblower information now, and there’s appetite to do the right thing. There are things happening behind the scenes that the administration may discuss when ready. Speaker 1: We’ll follow every element. It’s fascinating. Speaker 0: Thanks for having me. Speaker 4: Sean Hannity here. Subscribe to Fox News YouTube pay.

President Trump is mentioned repeatedly. The speaker requests "just a minute" from President Trump multiple times. "A %" is stated, followed by "That's a random. No."

According to the speaker, an individual from Homeland Security informed his office before the second assassination attempt that there were 5 known assassination teams in the United States: 3 inspired by foreign governments and 2 domestic. This individual was concerned that President Trump's force protection was insufficient. The speaker clarified that all 5 teams were targeting Trump. This raised questions about why security teams were being pulled from Trump's detail to be assigned to Joe Biden, John Bolton, and others, despite the threat level to Trump being substantially higher. The speaker also claimed that requests from the Trump detail and campaign for more security were being ignored.

Speaker 0 will respond if asked, but not in a park due to an active diversion. A card can be used for Q&A if Audrey finishes it. They can't say they want P2, but will call for it, stating they don't know because not all relevant people are present. Speaker 2 states that someone was transparent about their opinion of certain states, believing they underestimated the crowd size and the president's influence on Saudi Arabia. Speaker 0 adds a further comment.

The conversation centers on preparation and concerns surrounding a decision or briefing. Parked in a location because a diversionary is active, with discussion about whether to pull a card out for Q&A once a card is finished. There is acknowledgment that they cannot definitively decide on certain wording because not all stakeholders (“blue dogs”) are present. One speaker notes they are finishing up and references “the ground,” indicating finalization of points or a plan. They suggest that the plan was the result of a briefing with numbers and that stakeholders have signed off, but there is anxiety about the president’s stance or position. Regarding the president, one speaker remarks that the president is not bad “at the fourteenth,” implying a view of performance around a specific date or milestone, but another adds that the president has always been skeptical, particularly of certain issues or actors. They describe the president as having terrible relationships with the union and not great handling of the coronavirus pandemic with the workforce. They acknowledge some positive aspects: the president has hired well at the lower ranks and has done some things well on the operational side, but characterize him as not a strong leader overall. The discussion also notes that the president is a Secret Service figure. In a prior conversation with him just before the meeting, he was very transparent about his views on other states he might order, which were underestimating crowd size and underestimating the president’s influence on Saudi Arabia. The transcript ends with a commitment to further announcements.

The shooter was identified as a potential suspect, but by the time they were located, they were on the rooftop and able to fire at the former president. The Secret Service director was allegedly instructed by the administration and the DHS secretary to keep quiet or risk losing her job. One speaker has heard from the Secret Service director, but not publicly. Another speaker states they would fire the Secret Service director for not being visible and transparent with the American people, regardless of the story. They believe the handling of the situation by briefing only Milwaukee was poorly executed.

Paul and the vice president are present, but the speaker doesn't think anyone wants to hear them speak anymore. The speaker acknowledges the presence of cabinet members and praises the generals, stating they will keep us safe. The speaker mentions that the other side will have problems when they see these generals, referring to them as if they were chosen for a movie. The speaker specifically mentions General Mattis, who is doing well, and notes that even Chuck likes General Mattis and General Kelly.

Whistleblowers claim the security plan for the former president called for law enforcement on the roof and around the building, but there was no one except the shooter on the roof and no one around the perimeter. The excuse given was that it was too hot that day. Whistleblowers also say the lead site agent was not trusted or highly regarded by other Secret Service agents and didn't know what she was doing. The speaker questions why these individuals were running security for a former president and current major party nominee, calling it inexplicable and stating that the lack of answers is making the situation worse.

Speaker 0: All your great videos from Air Force One. But tell the American people, from your perspective, you got a view none of us did, what is it that we didn't get to see about that trip that you got to experience when it relates to president Trump? Speaker 1: It's actually very surreal because a lot of people said that president Trump couldn't get this done. Couldn't get it done. MAGA knew deep down that if anybody could get this deal done with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Marco Rubio and that great team that it would be president Trump. And we're on the plane going out. We all knew this was a historical moment. There was a great sense of pride on the plane, know, checking in on the president up in his office. You know, just he does so much reading and consuming of information. He knew how real the moment was too. Then when we entered out into the Middle East and you had the f sixteens escorting the plane in, which has happened before, but it was just it was a great feeling that the president of The United States, the leader of the free world, Donald j Trump, was there on a mission that he wanted to complete, you know, that he talked about and talked about and talked about. And everybody said, no. No. No. And he ended the war. And it it's absolutely incredible. You know, millions of lives saved amongst all these wars being ended. 20 hostages coming home. Just think about it. If if president Trump was not in office, this would still be going on. Speaker 0: It was historic for sure. There's no doubt about it. You were announced last weekend as the head of PPO, presidential personnel. So for the American people, maybe give them a sense of what this job actually entails, what you do, and why it is so important to the American people, so important to national security, and really the future of the country. Speaker 1: It it was an honor for the president to ask me to take this, additional job on. PPO is responsible, for vetting, interviewing, and bringing in candidates, political appointees to all of these agencies throughout the government. And something that we really wanna keep an eye on, which has been done, is, you know, bringing people with the values of the president that want to complete his agenda, making America great again, America first policies. I work very closely with all of the cabinet members, or I will be working very closely. So the communication you have with the cabinet members is very important in staffing up their agencies with political appointees. PPO also oversees ambassador appointments all around the world. So we have those to fulfill. We're also responsible for US Marshals and fulfilling those obligations all around the country. Work very closely with the DOJ on that front. So as I said, I'm learning every day that passes. I'm a quick learner, and I've hit the ground running. Speaker 0: As it relates to The Middle East, since we just talked about that, obviously, people are really excited about what happened there, and they wanna see more forward progress. Do you come in on that? What is it that you're gonna be able to do from this office to help implement phase two? Speaker 1: It's a great question and and things that actually came up yesterday in a couple of meetings. So that's my learning process. But we will need to fulfill, special envoys that are that are gonna be out there as well as oversight of the rebuilding of Gaza, and there'll be commissions that will be created in which we'll assist in. And with that, I would work with secretary of state Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, who is just such a great, great, great man. Love the guy. As well as, you know, Jared is very involved in getting this done as well. So it's really a team effort, and I'm willing to put forth the office with anything we can assist with in in getting the job done and fulfilling obligations out there to to support their mission in in completing each phase. Speaker 0: Well, something else that this administration has been very successful at doing is a crime crackdown. What else are you involved with from PPO that can help, you know, facilitate more of this crime crackdown all across the country? I imagine you guys have a role in that too. Speaker 1: We do. We do with fulfilling judgeships, within districts. US marshals, like I mentioned earlier, the US marshals are absolutely, incredible in what they do. And it's just getting leadership in each district, within each community, county, and state, throughout the country. So we'll fulfill all of that. And we'll we'll work with all entities. It is a team effort, and you see it every day. It's an atmosphere of where everybody wants to work together. I tell you behind the scenes in these cabinet meetings and in these meetings that take place in the Oval, everybody's on the same page marching in unison to deliver the president's, you know, agenda and and his goals in making Washington DC safe again, in making Memphis safe again, Chicago. How can these guys like Chicago how could they not want to make Chicago safe again? I'll understand it for the life of me. How these people do not want to work with this administration. And I'm talking Pritzker, and I'm talking Newsome. How and why? Speaker 0: Yeah. And it's it's sad because it's hurting the residents of their cities and states. So, Dan, as we sit here in Washington DC right now, the government is still shut down. What do you make of the priorities of the Democrat party? Speaker 1: It makes absolutely zero sense. There are more issues and problems in in this world, and they decide to fight to give illegal immigrants health insurance, and they're keeping the entire government closed down. And and I joke and I say, what? The government's closed down? For the past two weeks, this White House and other agencies were getting things done. We're marching forward. Look what just happened in The Middle East. You wouldn't even known the government was closed down. To close down the government, they are losing on this, the likes of which I was gonna say they've never lost before, but they've lost a lot before. So, they're just not on message. They don't know what they're doing. Zero leadership. Zero leadership. I I think they're truly embarrassing themselves. Absolutely embarrassing themselves. Speaker 0: I know we talked very early on in this administration about the difference between president Trump the first term, because you were here for the entirety of that, and the second term. How is he day to day now? Where do you see him overall? And I feel like the sky's the limit for this president and this administration. Speaker 1: The differences are absolutely incredible. We're not being attacked every day or investigated every day. The head games they played, they wanted to silence us. They ultimately wanted to put us all away for life. Then when he announced for the presidency, and we went full steam ahead. We worked in courtrooms behind the scenes. We're putting out truth social posts. We're campaigning. We're turning his press conferences in at the conclusion of a court hearing. Butler, Pennsylvania, we talked about last time, changed everything. Literally changed everything. It was from that point forward where I knew that he would be the forty seventh president of The United States. And then he just brought on a great team of people when we won the presidency. I mean, it is all surreal. I don't have time to even sit back and think about it and think about what we've been through and what we've done and what we've achieved. There will never be a president Trump ever, ever, ever again. He's changing history for the better. He's fighting every day for your children, your grandchildren, your great grandchildren, my family. That's why I do what I do. We could go out tomorrow and make millions of dollars. I I instead take a government salary to fight for the American people every day, and that's everybody in this administration. All for president Trump because they adore and they love the guy, and they love the American people. They're patriots, And that's why we're here. We're on a mission. We're on a mission to deliver for everybody out there. And we're gonna continue this mission. And we're gonna fight hard each and every day no matter what hit pieces come our way, no matter who tries to take us down, we're gonna fight, fight, fight.

Speaker 0: Bouncing off the CDC sit the situation with CDC. I'm curious if if administration officials are pushing back on the president's agenda privately, publicly, however, should they fear to lose their jobs going forward? Speaker 1: Look, I think if you're doing your job well and if you are executing on the vision and the promises that the president made to the public who elected him back to this office, then you should have no fear about your job. Just do your job. That's what this president wants to see. He wants to see people solving problems. He wants to see the the people who have the privilege of serving the American taxpayer and the federal government abiding by the wishes of the American taxpayers who overwhelmingly reelected him, in this cabinet, to make America great again or, in this case, make America healthy again.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

The speaker questions the Secret Service's effectiveness, citing a shooting of Trump and a recent shooting attempt. They claim the Secret Service's current methods are not working and that whistleblowers have revealed the agency isn't following its own protocols. The speaker believes the core issue is a failure of leadership, not the agents themselves. They advocate for firing people, implementing new protocols, and ensuring the protection of Trump and attendees at his rallies. The speaker expresses a lack of confidence in the Secret Service's current protective measures.

Speaker 1 argues that Jack Smith’s request to prevent evidence about security or intelligence failures before January 6 is unacceptable, claiming it would excuse Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of DC for failures. He asserts Pelosi was responsible for January 6 because she did not accept the security help offered, stating that 10,000 troops or National Guard were available if needed before the event, and that the event would have been different if 500 or 200 people had been used; he emphasizes that he offered 10,000 troops and that January 6 would not have happened with a larger deployment. He notes that he personally attended and gave a speech, and claims the audience included the largest number he has spoken to, contrasting with the smaller group that he says went down to the Capitol. Speaker 1 contends that the party should be allowed to introduce evidence showing that there were security and intelligence shortcomings, including the assertion that Pelosi “did not take the security that we offered her,” with the offer of 10,000 troops and the fact that “you had far fewer people than that.” He mentions that the unselect committee did not discuss or include references to “peacefully and patriotically” behaving crowds and says this group was not highlighted by the committee or in their words. He criticizes the prosecutor, calling Jack Smith a “deranged human being, unattractive both inside and out,” and accuses Smith of wanting to suppress testimony because the committee “illegally destroyed everything” and deleted evidence related to Pelosi’s decisions about troop deployment. He asserts that much evidence indicated Pelosi did not want the troops and that a letter from the mayor contradicted Pelosi’s stance. Speaker 0 acknowledges the point but keeps the dialogue focused; Speaker 0 reminds that Capitol Police Chief Steve Sun said January 6 was a preventable event if the intelligence and resources requested had been provided, noting that Speaker 0 sees this as an amazing point and confirms that the offer of troops was in writing. Speaker 1 reiterates that he offered 10,000 troops for January 6 and emphasizes that this fact is in writing, arguing that the prosecution is attempting to suppress relevant evidence. He maintains that Pelosi’s leadership and decisions about security are central to the discussion, and he reiterates the claim that the offer of security was not acted upon. The conversation pivots back to the assertion that the Capitol Police Chief’s past statements support the claim that January 6 was preventable with proper intelligence and resources.

The speaker joked about wanting a third term, suggesting an arrangement with a stand-in who wears an earpiece. The speaker would then deliver the lines from their basement while the stand-in handles the talking and ceremony. The speaker then stated they would take one last question, after which they would be in trouble. They mentioned needing to address the full Obama agenda of building back better. The speaker repeated the idea of making an arrangement.

The reason I finished this card, we can pull it out for q and a. We can say we'll call for we don't know because we don't have all the blue dogs with us on this subject. I think that it was the plan that they briefed on with the numbers, stakeholders that have signed off on it. Terrible relationships with the union. He's particularly good, I think, not great handling this coronavirus pandemic with the workforce. But he's a strong leader. Very transparent about what he thought of other states that he may order, which were underestimating the crowd size and underestimating the president's influence on Saudi Arabia.