TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Any other questions? What concerns are there about animosity from the incoming Trump administration? I'm not worried. I invited the incoming president to Los Angeles and had a positive call with the administration. I believe I will maintain good relations with my former colleagues who are up for confirmation. Is the incoming president expected to come here? Yes, I received a positive response during our conversation yesterday. I represent Altadena, a diverse community with various socioeconomic backgrounds, and they are suffering. I am confident the president will visit. We also discussed possible timing for the visit.

The speaker believes that there is a plan to prevent Trump from becoming president again. They claim that the plan involves someone within their own party who will be propped up as a candidate to keep the war machine and censorship agenda going. The speaker is determined to prevent this from happening. They express gratitude for the opportunity to ask a question and appreciate the honesty of the conversation.

- Speaker 0 expresses a core problem: how to support the Donald Trump presidency when the figures associated with his circle (Alex Jones, Owen Shroyer, Ian Carroll) embody traits they oppose, prompting questions about alignment with their side. He asks how to reconcile supporting Trump with these associations, calling it an objective problem. - Speaker 1 responds that he has not researched certain controversial items (Eric Prince’s phone) and notes that Eric Prince is a polarizing figure from the military-industrial complex world. He argues that involvement in war fighting does not automatically make someone evil and that a full picture requires digging beyond initial impressions, acknowledging he hasn’t done all the research. - Speaker 0 challenges this, citing his own video: Eric Prince has three CEOs for Blackwater, all with intricate ties to the IDF. He questions coincidence between Palantir Technologies and the surveillance state, Israel’s influence, and three IDF-affiliated Blackwater CEOs, referencing USS Liberty and suggesting Eric Prince’s past atrocities and a lack of accountability. He asks whether such a figure could ever be considered a good person and whether repentance is possible, noting he hasn’t seen Prince acknowledge past wrongs. - Speaker 0 adds BlackRock as another easy target, claiming BlackRock, with help from the Trump administration, bought two ports in the Panama Canal for $22.8 billion, and contends Trump mentioned a company would buy the Panama Canal during the State of the Union, but did not name BlackRock. He challenges the listener to consider whether Trump is on their side given this nugget of information. - Speaker 1 says he was not endorsing a specific device or action, calling the “phones” comment offhand and irrelevant. He reiterates he isn’t waiting for Trump or Elon Musk to act in the interest of people, and states he’s intentionally not waiting for them to do so. He emphasizes starting change bottom-up, and encourages starting conversations rather than trolling, suggesting Seven Seas could help. - Speaker 0 shifts to a broader miscommunication problem: there’s a gap where people misread each other, treating allies as enemies. He advocates filling this gap through dialogue with diverse figures like Seven Seas, Ian Carroll, Joe Rogan, Whitney Webb, Derek Brose. He mentions a planned March sit-down interview between Derek Brose and Ian Carroll, hoping for a productive exchange, while noting past heated exchanges where ad hominem attacks diminished constructive dialogue. He cites Clint Russell and redheaded libertarian as examples of contentious interactions. - They discuss disagreements over Trump’s ideology and policies, including concerns that Trump still praises the VA, pharma, and large-scale spending, which confounds libertarian critiques. He cites a national debt comparison between Obama and Trump era spending, arguing that debt devalues the dollar and harms Americans, regardless of party. - Speaker 0 reiterates suspicion that the criticism of Trump and Elon Musk coexists with perceived support for them, labeling it an inconsistency. He promises to withhold calling someone a shill until there is clear intent to deceive. Speaker 1 suggests focusing on good-faith arguments, mentioning Glenn Greenwald with respect, and invites Seven Seas to share their take on Ian Carroll’s reaction to Seven Seas’ post.

The speaker poses a hypothetical scenario: a president exhibiting signs of mental or physical decline, such as fatigue or symptoms of a neurodegenerative disease. They ask the panel, all former government staffers, about their moral obligation in such a situation. One panelist suggests initially exercising personal judgment and then directly addressing the president, while also acknowledging the 25th Amendment. Another panelist emphasizes the importance of moral judgment by staffers and officers, suggesting prayer, conversation with other staffers, and resignation if necessary. The final panelist states a moral obligation exists to act if the leader cannot make critical decisions, emphasizing following the chain of command and acting if it fails.

The speaker asks if current laws are adequate to manage the challenges presented by the Trump administration, particularly in law enforcement. The speaker responds that while some changes could be made, the main issue is cultural. They suggest that law enforcement officials, for example in the FBI, may be hesitant to aggressively pursue certain groups due to the perception that one of the two major political parties is, at a minimum, "white supremacist adjacent." This creates a disincentive to act, as it could lead to career repercussions and scrutiny from Congress for pursuing "innocent groups." The speaker believes this cultural impediment deserves more attention.

Shutting down a city could be a plan if Biden wins and Trump doesn't concede. If Trump narrowly wins, the strategy might pivot to targeting Democrats to ensure Biden doesn't concede. In DC, identifying Democratic leaders and players is key. Alternatively, if Biden narrowly wins and Trump doesn't concede, the focus shifts to targeting Republicans to pressure Trump to concede. The goal is to think through different scenarios, identify appropriate targets, and determine actions to enable people to organize and prepare.

The speakers discuss the possibility of running for office and the importance of stopping Donald Trump. They mention the need to make a decision before the party nomination, but it could be as late as spring 2000. They consider different approaches and ways to facilitate discussions. They talk about the energy and dedication required for politics and the potential to heal divisions. They plan to have more discussions and meetings before any official decision is made. The speakers express their frustration with the current political climate and the desire for change. They end the conversation with plans to talk again after further discussions.

The American people made their choice in a free and fair election, and it's crucial to respect that decision. The president's role is to ensure a peaceful transfer of power, which is a fundamental aspect of our democracy. The president has reached out to the president-elect, following customary practices, to facilitate this transition. It's important to acknowledge the concerns of those who feel fearful, but the administration is committed to putting the American people first and ensuring they receive the peaceful transition they deserve. The president and vice president are focused on delivering for the American people during this time.

The speaker discusses the concept of truth and reconciliation and suggests that everyone should remain calm until the 2024 election. They mention concerns about Trump winning and the potential for violence. They emphasize the importance of working on election integrity, such as cleaning voter rolls and taking action on election day. The speaker expresses fear that there may be attempts to provoke a civil war or impose martial law. They believe that reasonable behavior can prevent extreme measures, but warn against doubling down on divisive actions like another COVID-19 situation.

The speaker discusses the potential aftermath of a hypothetical "blue wave" election following a "MAGA nightmare." They raise the issue of "putting it all back together again" and the need for "reeducating" people. The speaker acknowledges that the term "reeducation camp" is problematic and expresses a desire to find alternative terminology.

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.

The speakers discuss the possibility of running for office and the importance of stopping Donald Trump. They mention the need to make a decision on running before the party nomination, but it could be as late as spring 2000. They consider different approaches and ways to facilitate discussions. They talk about the energy and dedication required for politics and the potential to heal divisions in the country. They plan to have more discussions and meetings before making any decisions. They express frustration with the current political climate and the need for change. The conversation ends with a promise to call back after further discussions.

The speaker discusses the risks surrounding the upcoming election. They highlight Donald Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and his fear mongering about mail-in ballots. The speaker mentions that the election results may not be finalized on November 3rd, leading to potential disagreements and court cases. They emphasize the importance of taking Trump's statements seriously, particularly his comments about getting rid of ballots and questioning their manipulation. The speaker concludes by mentioning the significance of believing authoritarian figures when they make statements.

The discussion centers on a sequence of events and documents that connect pipe-bomb material purchases in 2020 to a high-level, bipartisan war game and contingency planning around the 2020 election, with implications for how the transition away from Trump was imagined by prominent officials. Key facts cited: - Cole purchased pipe-bomb parts in June 2020 in two phases: June 1 and June 8, with additional purchases around June 20 and timers bought on June 3. - The timing aligns with the Transition Integrity Project, a war game exercise organized in June 2020 by Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration senior official who led the project, and involved figures from both parties including Michael Steele (former head of the Republican National Committee), Donna Brazile (former head of the DNC), and John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager). The participants allegedly included other high-ranking political, military, and intelligence figures from both sides. - The project is described as a bipartisan “war game” that examined how to handle a contested election and to plan for preventing Trump’s inauguration if he won, or managing Trumpism after a loss. The document referenced is a 22-page memo with an annex (appendix C) focusing on “clear Trump win” scenarios and alternatives to ensure a Biden victory or to defeat Trumpism permanently. - The narrative asserts that the Transition Integrity Project produced recommendations for handling a contested election through street protests, electoral strategies, and political pressure, with emphasis on mass mobilization, particularly with Black Lives Matter, to influence outcomes or to force changes in leadership if necessary. - The participants allegedly discussed provocative strategies to destabilize outcomes through street actions, including plans to mobilize protests and to leverage or fund Black Lives Matter and other networks to pressure the political process. They also allegedly discussed concepts such as alternate slates of electors, secession discussions in Western states, and the possibility of arresting Trump and his associates under various circumstances. - The discussion references a sequence of events and media coverage surrounding the 2020 election, including the “Red Mirage Blue Shift” concept (the idea that results might shift after Election Night) and the goal of mitigating perceptions of illegitimacy through censorship measures and strategic messaging. - The speakers connect the June 2020 war game to events around January 6, including the notion that the plan contemplated provoking a breakdown in the joint session of Congress and coordinating demonstrations that could impact the certification process. - The dialogue also ties the Transition Integrity Project to broader discussions about preventing Trumpism from enduring post-election and to “robust, intentional, and specific strategies” to dismantle networks associated with Trump’s rise to power. They discuss the role of mass protests, the potential use of the National Guard, and concerns about preventing or countering demonstrations in the lead-up to and during the certification of the election results. - The conversations reference mainstream outlets (e.g., The New York Times, Molly Ball’s Time Magazine piece) and insist that the Transition Integrity Project’s work was widely discussed and reported, with emphasis on its admission of planning to test receptivity of protests and to coordinate with foundations, corporations, and donor networks to fund and sustain street action if needed. - Throughout, there is an emphasis on not allowing Trump or Trumpism to demobilize automatically after the election and on preparing a comprehensive, multi-front strategy to address a perceived threat to democratic order. Notable participants named or implied include Rosa Brooks; Michael Steele; Donna Brazile; John Podesta; Bill Crystal; David Fromm; and Hillary Clinton’s campaign apparatus. The discussion ties these figures to both the June 2020 pipe-bomb purchases and the broader Transition Integrity Project, framing the war game as a blueprint for how to stop Trump, manage protests, and dismantle the networks that supported Trump’s rise.

You discussed concerns about trusting President Trump to honor the constitution, given his past actions after losing the election. There are doubts about whether he can genuinely seek constitutional integrity. While there are disagreements with Trump’s previous administration, he has become more aware of issues like censorship and the misuse of federal agencies against democracy. He recognizes the dangers posed by emerging totalitarian technologies that can monitor and control lives. Despite the controversies surrounding the last election, a peaceful transition of power is essential to democracy, and there are significant concerns about ongoing attacks on the constitution.

Donald Trump is making numerous appointments and sharing his plans frequently, but there's no need to engage with his divisive rhetoric. He talks about shutting down the Department of Education, which would have severe consequences for special education, but he hasn't taken action yet. The process to shut it down is complex, and there are ways to make it more difficult for him. I'm consulting with legal experts to develop strategies, and I will share those plans with everyone. Together, we can work to counteract his proposals. There is still hope, and we will make it challenging for him to implement his agenda. Stay strong.

Federal workers are encouraged to self-organize with colleagues within their bureau and across government agencies to build trust and navigate challenges together. They should also connect with civic groups and have open conversations with them. Legal support and advocacy from civil society organizations can be helpful if they need to take action. Contributing their knowledge and skills to civic groups can be beneficial. It is important to stay in communication with grassroots groups and be prepared in case of a stolen election.

Cole notes that he purchased six galvanized pipes of this size on June 1, June 8, and November 16, and asks for receipts. The discussion shifts to what questions a point person in 2021 would face and to a theory of the case, with speculation about how individuals could be drawn into a plan to influence events, including the possibility of a “pipe bomb” plot and manipulation of associates. Speaker 1 explains that, as a federal investigator, one would use a speculative investigative lens to broaden the search to cover various permutations of the case, including the idea that there was a so-called Red Mirage Blue Shift scenario surrounding the 2020 election. They reference CNN’s 2020 reporting on deciphering red mirage and blue shift uncertainty, including pre censorship by DHS/CISA in June 2020 to suppress any social media criticism of mass mail-in ballots, so as to prevent questions about legitimacy of an upcoming Biden victory. The discussion asserts that the goal was to preempt perceptions of illegitimacy and manage the narrative around the election results. The conversation then turns to Rosa Brooks, a high-ranking Obama administration official who headed the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and wrote about pathways to remove Trump from power. Speaker 1 cites Brooks’ article “Three ways to stop President Trump before the 2020 election” and notes an assertion, reportedly in a Diet of Lisa-like coverage, that she later discussed a fourth, insurrectionary possibility: a military coup. They claim TIP was a war game conducted in June 2020 and then in November 2020, involving senior military, intelligence, diplomatic, and political operatives, with participants from both parties including Michael Steele (former RNC head), Donna Brazile (former DNC head), John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager), Bill Kristol, and others. The summary asserts that TIP’s appendix, “Will Trumpism survive a Trump loss?” warned that Trumpism could persist even after a loss, necessitating a robust strategy to eliminate Trump supporters and networks that enabled Trump’s rise. It is claimed the document discusses how to mobilize mass street protests, especially via Black Lives Matter and allied groups, to pressure a Biden administration to act against Trump, including funding and resource provisioning of protest movements to ensure their alignment with Democratic objectives. The dialogue alleges that, in June 2020, TIP proposed measures to de- legitimize Trump, including not letting Trump use the National Guard or invoke the Insurrection Act to quell protests. It is asserted that the plan contemplated mass demonstrations, the use of “street protests” as decisive leverage, and the establishment of communications infrastructure to support mass mobilization for street action if Trump won, or to counter him if he did not. The participants allegedly favored aligning with groups like Soros-funded Indivisible and Hold the Line, and urged resourcing new racial justice leaders and major philanthropic/foundation channels to fund these movements, including a claimed $50 billion in funding to Black Lives Matter. The transcript claims that TIP’s War Game included explicit scenarios about alternate electors, secession moves, and the potential for mass prosecutions of Trump and his associates, as well as strategic recommendations on how to proceed if Trump refused to concede. It is further asserted that a June 2020 war game considered provoking an “January 6” breakdown in Congress as a central move to prevent a contested inauguration, with participants pondering agent provocateurs and avenues to postpone certification. Throughout, the speakers connect the pipe-bomb purchases in June 2020 to the TIP war games and the broader plan to undermine Trump through street mobilization, legal maneuvers, and potential mass arrests of Trump supporters and networks, while noting the January 6 events as a focal point of these discussions.

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 speakers discuss the importance of using the term "coup" to describe the current situation. They question whether they should listen to political appointees if they are not legitimate. They mention the need for a transition team if Biden wins, as they did during the previous transition. They express concerns about conflicting narratives regarding the transition and discuss the responsibilities of issuing visitor badges and granting IT access. They mention the challenges of starting work without physical access to the building. They also mention the possibility of choosing the leader based on their understanding of who won the election.

Speaker 0 advises the top 3 in the Navy on equal opportunity, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The new chief of naval operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, believes in DEI. Speaker 0 believes that if Trump becomes president, their job will still exist, but they would skirt around DEI and instead emphasize equal opportunity. Speaker 0 believes DEI efforts will be irrelevant when a missile hits. They express confusion about the focus on DEI, with some believing it's a waste of time. China is considered the biggest threat, not Israel and Gaza. A war with China could escalate into a world war. If Trump wins, equal opportunity will remain, but the language will shift away from DEI. Speaker 0 believes Trump will win unless something drastic happens, citing a lack of faith in Biden and his age.

I will ask the Justice Department and the President to address the potential threat of violence if he loses. I am concerned about right-wing groups connected to him training in the hills and planning attacks on communities.

The speakers discuss the possibility of running for office and the need to stop Donald Trump's influence on the political process. They mention the importance of having discussions and forming coalitions to bridge the divide between different beliefs. They express a desire to heal the divisions in the country and bring about positive change. The speakers plan to have further discussions and meetings to explore the potential for running for office. They also mention other individuals who could potentially contribute to creating change in the country. The conversation ends with a plan to talk again after the speakers have spoken to someone else.