TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @texan_maga
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve moved away from the idea of a "free and open" internet for Wikipedia, as it reflects a narrow, Westernized perspective that doesn't fulfill true openness. Some believe I should resign, expressing strong opposition to my stance on censorship and cancel culture.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
@krmaher says that she abandoned a "free and open" internet as the mission of Wikipedia, because those principles recapitulated a "white male Westernized construct" and "did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be."@SGTnewsNetwork She must resign. I'm not paying this fascist's salary another one damn minute. We should give no quarter to Katherine Maher and others like her who would willingly censor and cancel Americans.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Free and open principles, originating from the open-source community, were initially seen as foundational. However, it's argued that this approach is limited in achieving broader goals. Despite good intentions, free and open models, particularly in Wikipedia, often replicate existing offline power structures.
Wikipedia, it's claimed, reconstructed knowledge around the Western canon, leading to the exclusion of languages and communities. The emphasis on reliable sources and written tradition favors cultures with such traditions. Notability standards are said to reflect a Westernized construct, influencing whose voices are elevated. Therefore, radical openness allegedly failed to fulfill its intended potential.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I started by talking about the idea of free and open as some of our founding principles, sort of free and open source coming from the idea of the open source community. Well, I have come to the opinion and the and the perspective that free and open was a way of looking at the world that was inherently limited relative to what we were trying to achieve. Free and open has the best of intentionality. But in the end, what free and open often ended up doing, particularly in the case of Wikipedia, was really capit recapitulating many of the same power structures and dynamics that exist offline prior to the advent of the Internet. And so what we ended up seeing was Wikipedia really rebuilt this idea of knowledge as a whole around what the Western canon.
You see the exclusion of communities of languages because of the ways in which Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The idea of a written tradition is something that is particular to many I mean, not sorry. The idea of a written tradition, which is particular to some cultures and not to others, the ways in which we I'd ascribe notability often really comes from sort of this white male westernized construct around who matters in societies and who is elevated and whose voices. And so some of these ideas of sort of this radical openness really did not end up with the intention, really did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
"They have the recordings of the zoom calls setting up J6, MONTHS ahead of time." 👀 https://t.co/QKQQ97bSOt
Video Transcript AI Summary
The events of January 6th were not spontaneous; planning began in September involving deep state members and various NGOs. We have identified those involved, and if you're on that list, you should consider leaving the country, as prosecution is likely. We have video evidence of meetings, including one with an infiltrator who recorded them. The planning included participation from groups like the Azov battalion in Ukraine, which is linked to Nazi ideologies. This group is not just labeled as Neo-Nazis; they represent a continuation of Hitler's legacy, marking a troubling resurgence of extremist ideologies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Like, January 6th, nobody knows what January 6th is all about. Can did they think that January 6th is something that sprung up spontaneously on January 6th? The planning of January 6th began in September by members of deep state and homeland security and by, different members of different NGOs that were but we have them. We have the names, by the way, ladies and gentlemen. If you happen to be on that list, of those hundreds of people, you might as well quit now because, you know, you're gone.
And you're, you know, it it it hopefully, you'll you'll be prosecuted as well. So maybe maybe leave the country. But, you know, I'm just letting you know, we know who you are. That's great. We we've got videos of the meetings.
It was Zoom meetings. Oh. And there was an infiltrator and and that that videotaped those meetings. So ladies and gentlemen, you're screwed. Excellent.
The ones of you that thought you were doing such a great thing to be able to infiltrate the capitol building on January 6th. I'm talking specifically. This is what was planned starting in September. And not just by these people, but also, believe it or not, the Ukrainians were involved in this as well. Yes.
More Including the Azov battalion, which is which which which what you know, some people say, ah, he's a Nazi, meaning he's a bad person. I'll say he's terrible person. Right? He's a Nazi. No.
No. No. No. No. There's another time you use the word Nazi, and it doesn't mean he's a bad person.
It means he's actually a Nazi. Right. Okay? Yeah. I mean, a Swastika carrying Nazi, and that's what that's what the Azov battalion is.
And I can't even call them Neo Nazis because they're a continuation Exactly. Was started by Hitler. Mhmm. They are the beginning of the 4th right.
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across Danya Perry, a lawfare coordinator linked to Michael Cohen, collaborating with Norm Eisen on legal actions against Trump. I believe Trump should consider suing them both, as it could lead to significant discoveries.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
What do we have here but one of the lawfare coordinators who worked with Michael Cohen. Her name is Danya Perry from Perry Law. She is working with Norm @NormEisen on the lawfare against Trump @BrookingsInst@Edanyaperry Trump should find a good lawyer and sue her and Norm Eisen into oblivion. The discovery would be 🔥 The Researcher 👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
We were on defense, but also took offensive actions, filing discovery motions to obtain documents. I was set to depose Trump when he dismissed the case. In the criminal case, we prepared extensively, and he withstood a week of cross-examination, resulting in a unanimous verdict in his favor. We also pursued criminal referrals and threatened defamation actions against OAN, which led to an apology from them.
Looking ahead, I focus on individual defense work while collaborating with organizations like the ACLU. Despite concerns about politicization in the judiciary, I maintain hope in our judicial system and the jury process, as ordinary people often make the right decisions. The collective effort and awareness raised in this conference are vital for future resistance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And so there we were on defense. He was Cohen was the defendant. But we went on offense there too. And we filed the scores of discovery motions and other motions. We got documents that he didn't want to give us.
I was supposed to take Trump's deposition one business day before that was supposed to happen. He voluntarily dismissed the case. So there had been and then as I mentioned, I represented him in the criminal case where with my colleague Josh Cole, who's in the front row, who also helped organize this conference in part today, we prepped the bejesus out of him. 100 of hours of prep and mock cross examination and just doing the work and going through the documents. And he withstood withering cross examination.
He was on the stand for a week. And the jury, of course, believed him. They came back in very, very short order with a unanimous verdict on all counts. And that's just, you know, the results I firmly believe not, you know, obviously there were many other factors and many other witnesses. But, you know, we went through.
There was not a single document that we hadn't gone through and prepped him on. And on there, you know, he we've heard today about, you know, the plan, the Project 2025 plan and also what we saw in the last administration. And we heard from Sarah Matthews and Olivia Troy and others who who saw firsthand what Trump and his acolytes will do when you stand up to them, when you're brave enough like those women. I couldn't believe that Sarah was was 25 when when, she stood up. And and and, you know, Michael stood up and he has paid a a horrible price.
He and his children get doxed. They get swatted. They death threats and all that. So on there we tried to go on offense as well. We brought a couple of criminal referrals, to the various relevant law enforcement agencies.
And we also brought or threatened a defamation action against the network OAN, where they, said some horrible and defamatory and untrue things about them. And they retracted and actually apologized. So as you say, you know, offense is best defense. And the other way around, you know, you can look, we we you know, some of the groups who have organized this conference, the ACLU and really, the attorneys general are the bulwarks here and they do unbelievably important work. They did it the last go around.
They brought, as we heard, hundreds of cases, 80% of which, were successful. And you'll hear from AG Plakkin about the incredible, incredible planning that's going in for the next time around. But you know those are big actions, right? We heard about some of them, actions against the Muslim ban, DACA, the Census that required that had a citizenship question. All those things, very big, impactful, broad cases.
To go back to Norm's question, what I'm doing is trying to do the individual defense work, also offense work. We read in the Project 2025 Manifesto, Chapter 17 on the DOJ, is chilling. It is it truly got me, and I hate to say it, you know, but in a panic. They have said, and Norm and other people here, just security, that threat tracker. Trump has said this.
He's, you know, Project 2025, we were just talking about amongst the panel, they're saying the quiet part out loud. Trump has always said the quiet part out loud. And he's very, very openly said he's going after very specific people. It includes Michael Cohen. It includes Biden and his family.
It includes, you know, groups of people. But, you know, there will be there will be criminal prosecutions of individuals. And, you know, I have seen in my work as a prosecutor, and I'm I'm sure these guys know as well. You know, when you're when you're going to trial and you have a defendant and they're have the temerity to go to trial in the federal criminal system, it's almost unheard of because the cards I'm now, a defense lawyer, the cards are really stacked. You go to trial And as a prosecutor, you start investigating that person.
And you look at, you know, you look under every rock for what I alluded to before in the federal system, it's called 404b evidence, but it's prior bad acts. So you just you just do a full you boil the ocean and you look at anything that that person might have done, almost certainly you're gonna find you're gonna find something. And here, Trump, who's going to have full immunity now, thanks to the Supreme Court, is going and particularly with the Department of Justice, right? That was just in the ruling. They ruled on that specifically.
And he's he's going to have free reign to say, look at Michael Cohen's tax records. Look at, you know, Norm Eisen's mortgage payments. I don't know more than Norm Eisen. And, you know, a lot of times you're going to find something just to bring, right? Which itself is ruinous in every single way, reputationally, financially.
They tried to do that in the last administration. They brought in a special prosecutor, John Durham, right, who did actually bring he prosecuting the prosecutors. He looked at some of the people who who were behind what they call the, you know, Russia hoax. He brought 2 prosecutions and I mentioned before, in the federal criminal justice system, it's only it's unheard of essentially to get acquittals. He got 2 because they were just bogus, lame cases.
But they still were devastating to those human beings who were the targets of that prosecution, those investigations. And so we know it's in the pages and it's in any number of truth social posts from Trump. That's what they're going to do. And so what I personally plan to do is to keep doing what I'm doing. We devote a tremendous amount of our practice to individual defense work.
We're going to keep doing that. And, you know, the kind of, you know, we work with many of these groups all the time and we put out reports, white papers, Brookings Institution, Just Security and trying to raise that awareness. And as I mentioned with the Bivens action, the so called Bivens action, against Trump that we brought on behalf of Michael, that was going to be a loser. The Supreme Court, never in a 1000000 years it's on, the petition right now, never in a 1000000 years will they grant cert on this case. But the idea was to try and raise awareness and get the word out there.
And so I think the amazing results of this kind of conference and this level of awareness and group building is that, you know, we can all work with each other and the unbelievable tools, you know, the unbelievable people in this room, you know, especially the press, obviously, we heard from Jen Rubin and Dahlia Lithwick and others. Maybe in the past there have been some lapses in the way the press has dealt with these issues. But hopefully going forward there's some consensus that they need to do better. We all need to do better and work together. So, Norm did ask us to end on a note of hope.
I actually have hope. We've had success in the small individual litigations that I've been been lucky enough to be part of. But, you know, Judge Gertner will talk about the the federal judiciary's place in all this. I do have some hope, both in the people who will be, you know, on the resistance side if, you know, this should come to pass. But I do think, and I don't wanna steal your thunder, Judge, not that I ever cried.
Don't worry about it. But, I do believe in our judicial system still. The Supreme Court, not so much right now. There's, obviously, a a modest super majority. We're gonna get to it.
But the lower courts have really held up. Trump has appointed, I think, 230 something. Yes. But many of them were Trump appointees who actually found against him, his policies, you know, some of the the criminal cases, the January 6 cases. And they're much less politicized, I think.
And so I do maintain some hope there and of course in the jury system. You know, as I mentioned, the 2 John Durham cases fell flat. The Trump criminal case went exactly as it should. And so while, yes, the prosecutors of DOJ becomes completely politicized, obviously there's some concern in terms of the kinds of cases that get to a jury. And if judges become overly politicized, like we've seen with Kath Merrick and Cannon, which I know we'll talk about, obviously the evidence that gets in front of the jury also can be shaped.
And so those are of course worrisome. At the end of the day, you get in front of 12 ordinary people peers, they tend to do the right thing in my experience. So I do have some hope. And hopefully when we hear from you guys, you guys will have some ideas as well that will give further hope.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
🇺🇸⚡️- VIRGINIA: 🔴 Trump: 1,169,731 (50%) 🔵 Harris: 1,134,064 (48%) 53% reporting Despite Virginia being called for Kamala Harris by multiple outlets, Donald Trump remains in the lead in Virginia.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
HEARTBREAKING: Widow of a fallen soldier, who was killed 7 months ago while deployed by the Biden Admin, reacts to Biden's lie that he lost no service members in the last 4 years. 😔 #Trump2024 #Biden #DementiaJoeGotToGo - Breaking911 https://t.co/GCeE2baUBb
Video Transcript AI Summary
I received messages about Biden claiming no service members died under his administration. My husband died 7 months ago while deployed under Biden. I flew 12 hours with my 16-month-old to receive his remains at Dover AFB. Biden didn't show up. I'm not angry about his statement; I've been angry for a long time, knowing he doesn't care.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've gotten a lot of text calls and messages about Joe Biden's claim that he's lost no service members in the last 4 years under his administration. And everyone finds that ironic because my husband died 7 months ago while deployed under the Biden administration. And everyone expects me to be really angry about that statement about him not remembering that sacrifice that my husband made. But here's a little secret. I was already fucking angry because when I had to fly for 12 hours for the first time with my 16 month old to Dover Air Force Base, 8 hours after learning my husband died to receive his remains back into the United States.
You know who couldn't be bothered to show up to that dignified transfer? Joe Biden. I had to get on a flight 8 hours after I learned my husband died and fly for 12 hours with a breastfeeding 16 month old and sit in the rain at 1 AM to welcome my husband, his remains in a flag covered casket back onto US soil, But he couldn't be bothered. So no. I'm not angry about his statement.
I've been angry for a long fucking time, and I've been knowing that he does not give a fuck.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
Everything you’ve been told about the OKC bombing is a lie https://t.co/TfuETX7b1E
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, questioning the official narrative and highlighting inconsistencies in the investigation. It mentions the involvement of multiple government agencies, the mysterious John Doe number 2, lost evidence, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Timothy McVeigh. The video suggests a cover-up and urges viewers to question the official story.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you the Oklahoma City bomber?
Speaker 1: Maybe one of the benefits of me talking to you today is that you'll see that maybe not everything is true that you've heard about me.
Speaker 2: On the morning of April 19, 1995, a decorated Gulf 4 combat vet blew up federal building in Oklahoma City using a truck bomb that he didn't build and a rider truck that he didn't rent with the help of a passenger who didn't exist. Having just gotten away with the largest act of terrorism on US soil to date, the Fort Bragg Train Special Forces Sheep Drip Dropout blended in with the crowd by making his getaway in a car without a license plate and was immediately pulled over. The ATF was the supposed target of the attack, but luckily all of their agents were out of the office that morning. Later that day, the president boldly declared
Speaker 0: We will find the people who did this. And? When we do, justice will be swift, certain, and severe.
Speaker 2: Except for
Speaker 0: John Doe number 2. John Doe number 2. John Doe number 2.
Speaker 2: Who, according to the FBI, never existed. In In McVeigh's unprecedented three and a half week trial, the prosecution didn't show the CCTV footage of him and John Doe number 2 parking the Ryder truck. Didn't explain why 24 witnesses mass hallucinated the existence of John Doe number 2, didn't explain why the government was testing truck bombs and the army was storing Ryder trucks at Camp Gruber right before the bombing, and didn't talk to the FBI informants who blew the whistle on the plot. But they did collaborate with the CIA and they did convict McVeigh as the lone wolf bomber and Terry Nichols as his bomb constructing accomplice. Still, a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists, including 300 bombing victims, insist on talking about facts and evidence and refuse to simply believe what they've been told a 1000000 times by people in tailored suits with well cloth hair.
They quote the US Army brigadier general and the FBI crime lab whistleblower and the inventor of the neutron bomb, who point out the physical impossibility that the Ryder truck bomb did the damage to the building, but that doesn't matter because if there were other bombs in the building that day, we would have heard about them.
Speaker 0: The second explosive was found and defused. I think he said another bomb.
Speaker 3: The justice department is reporting that a second explosive device has been found.
Speaker 0: They then found a third device, which was also larger than the first. And I see another bomb truck going, so apparently they're gonna try to get out that third bomb.
Speaker 2: The FBI claims to have lost the footage showing McVeigh and John Doe number 2, parking the truck in front of the Murrah Building that morning, but that's understandable because the bureau has a lot of important evidence to store. Terry Nichols insists the FBI was involved in the plot, but thankfully a judge has saved the trouble of listening to him by preventing lawyers from deposing him. There was a bomb squad truck parked across the street 2 hours before the blast, but that just shows the authorities were prepared for anything. And
Speaker 0: Other documents obtained by 2020 show that someone called the executive secretary of office at the Justice Department in Washington and said the Morrow Building had been bombed. But this was 24 minutes before the blast.
Speaker 2: But that just shows the public was unusually vigilant that morning. Also
Speaker 3: Apparently, before the bombing, governor Frank Keating's brother, Mark, had been working on a novel about a terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City, stranger still. One of the characters in the novel was named Thomas McVay.
Speaker 2: But that's probably just a coincidence. McVeigh wrote a letter to his sister where he admitted to being a secret Special Forces operative, and he complained to friends of the pain in his ass from an army implanted microchip, but that's crazy because if he didn't actually leave the army in 1991, there would be proof of that. McVeigh was not executed on May 16, 2001 as scheduled because
Speaker 0: The FBI had failed to turn over thousands of pages of evidence to McVeigh's defense attorneys.
Speaker 2: But the execution went ahead on June 11th. In a highly unusual and secret agreement, no autopsy was performed. One witness said he was still breathing, and the prison officials admitted his hearse was a decoy. Then, the case was officially closed. And if you question any part of this story, you are a paranoid wingnut birther truther, 10th or prepper conspiracy loon who'd bring up any of these points ever again.
Ever. This message has been brought to you by the friends of the FBI, ATF, DOJ, CIA, SPLC, Amazon, and the US Army. And remember, ignorance is strength.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
And riddle me THIS?!?! I just caught this little “production error”…….. TWO IDENTICAL PENCE RECORDINGS. TWO DIFFERENT “SHOTS” OF WHO IS LISTENING TO RECORDING. ONE WITH GRASSLEY LISTENING— ONE WITHOUT GRASSLEY. H/t Karma Patriot telegram @realX22report@JustHuman_Kyle https://t.co/DqYxgrcSKe
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm at the Capitol building with the chief of police of the US Capitol police.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yeah. So so I'm at the Capitol building. I'm literally standing with, the chief of police of, of the US Capitol police.
reSee.it AI Summary
FBI Director Wray focuses on Trump supporters at the Capitol, but ignores the terrorist group "Global Intifada" behind the illegal occupation of the Cannon House Office Building. Mayorkas allows terrorists into the US while Wray neglects investigating those who breached the Capitol.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
FBI Director Christopher Wray is obsessed with targeting Trump supporters who were at the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021, but claimed he did not know that a terrorist group called “Global Intifada” organized the illegal occupation of the Cannon House Office Building on Oct 18th. Not only is Mayorkas willingly breaking our laws allowing terrorists to flood into our country, Wray is not investigating or arresting actual terrorists that illegally entered the Capitol complex! @RepMTG
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker confronts Mr. Ray about relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center, mentioning an individual involved in the global intifada group who illegally occupied the Cannon office building and disrupted Congress. The speaker questions if Mr. Ray was aware of this, to which he responds that he hasn't seen the photos but they were posted on Twitter. The speaker accuses the Department of Homeland Security of censoring Americans and urges Mr. Ray to investigate terrorism, providing evidence of terrorists in their office building linked to Global Intifada. They suggest that instead of targeting innocent individuals, the focus should be on those tied to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, you relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center, but I would have you know, mister Ray, that this one right here, this person involved in the global intifada group that illegally they broke the law, came in and occupied the Cannon office house building, interrupted congress, interrupted hearings right here, Katrina Bleakley is the lead attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Were you aware of this? Counseling, as I said, I haven't seen the photos that you're holding up, before. Maybe well, I posted them on my Twitter account. It's it's public.
You know, maybe I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter. Well, you know, you you oh, I'm sure you do because the Department of Homeland Security organized with other offices has censored many Americans, including myself I'm not part of the Department of Homeland Security. Right. Mister Ray, you should you should be you should be interested in investigating terrorism. And this right here is proof that we had terrorists in our own office building, Global Intifada, and you rely on the Southern Poverty Law Centers.
Katrina Bleakley is one of the organizers. I'll send this over to your office so maybe perhaps you can stop targeting innocent grandmothers and veterans who walk through the Capitol on January 6th and might after might actually go after people tied to Hamas, tied to Hezbollah, and likely Iran.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
@DschlopesIsBack Feds broke into the Capitol https://t.co/SVKVc3f49A
Video Transcript AI Summary
Open the line, guys. Be careful, don't go in there.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why don't you guys open up the line? You sure guys take that? I'm just picking up Do not go in there.
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2021, Merrick Garland faced criticism for not committing to an ethics review of his family's financial ties to Critical Race Theory (CRT). Despite the fact that his son-in-law earns a significant amount from a company involved in CRT, Garland evaded the question for nearly two minutes. This incident highlights concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
Do y’all remember this inconvenient memory-holed event from 2021? Well, Pepperidge Farm remembers: After aiming the FBI at parents who protest Critical Race Theory, Merrick Garland refused to commit to a mandatory ethics review of his family's financial ties to advancing CRT. "Your son-in-law makes a very substantial sum of money from a company involved in the teaching of critical race theory. Did you seek and receive a decision from an ethics advisor?" Garland: dances around the question for almost two minutes. @SGTnewsNetwork
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about whether they sought an ethics opinion regarding the financial benefit their son-in-law receives from a company involved in teaching critical race theory. Speaker 1 avoids directly answering the question, stating that the memorandum they are discussing has no predictable effect on critical race theory. Speaker 0 persists in asking if critical race theory being taught in more schools would result in more money for their son-in-law, but Speaker 1 continues to deflect and refuses to give a clear answer. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 stating they would seek an ethics opinion if there was a conflict of interest, but the question remains unanswered.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Your son-in-law makes a very substantial sum of money from a company involved in the teaching of critical race theory? Did you seek and receive a decision from an ethics adviser at the department of justice before Kirk, you carried out an action that would have a predictable financial benefit to your son-in-law.
Speaker 1: This memorandum is aimed at violence and threats
Speaker 0: I just question. Did you seek an ethics opinion?
Speaker 1: No predictable
Speaker 0: objection. An ethics opinion?
Speaker 1: It has no predict
Speaker 0: Did you seek an ethics opinion? Judge, you know how to ask questions and answer them. Did you seek an ethics
Speaker 1: You asked me whether I sought an ethics opinion about something that would have a predictable effect on something. This has no predictable effect in the way that you're talking about it.
Speaker 0: So if critical race theory is taught in more schools, does your son-in-law make more money?
Speaker 1: This memo has not
Speaker 0: If critical race theory is taught in more schools, does your son-in-law make more money? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: This memorandum has nothing to do with critical race theory.
Speaker 0: Will you answer
Speaker 1: if you sought an ethic statement?
Speaker 0: Curriculum? Will you answer if you sought an ethic?
Speaker 1: I am answering the best I Christians?
Speaker 0: Yes or no? Did you seek an ethics opinion?
Speaker 1: This memorandum has
Speaker 0: nothing to do. Did you seek an ethics opinion?
Speaker 1: This memorandum has nothing to do with General,
Speaker 0: are you refusing to answer critics sought an ethics opinion?
Speaker 1: I'm telling you that there's no possible
Speaker 0: So you're saying no. Just answer it directly. You know how to answer a question directly. Did you seek an ethics opinion.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you that if I thought there was any reason to believe there was a conflict of interest, I would do that, but I cannot Why
Speaker 0: do you refuse to answer the question? Why won't you just say no?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: You you're not gonna answer the question?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Say ask the question again.
Speaker 0: Did you seek an ethics opinion?
Speaker 1: I'm saying again, I would seek an ethics opinion in
Speaker 0: So no is the answer. Correct? Well, I
Speaker 1: there was a con Senator, your time is up.
reSee.it AI Summary
Many blame Joe Biden for the Israel/Hamas conflict, but he is not in control. Both US press secretaries confirm that decisions are being made by Barack Obama, who announced recent developments. Jen Psaki and Karine Jean-Pierre express their loyalty to Obama. (Characters: 278)
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
A LOT Of People Are Blaming Joe Biden For What’s Happening With The Israel / Hamas Palestine War & Arming Those Who Chant Death To America But REMEMBER Biden Is NOT In Control BOTH US Press Secretaries confirm that Joe Biden is not the President of the United States making decisions, it’s Barack Obama calling the shots Jen Psaki: “I love working for President Obama” Karine Jean-Pierre: “So today as you all saw just an hour or so ago President Obama announced” H/t Wall Street Apes @SGTnewsNetwork
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Biden's team is dedicated to their work and they love it. President Obama recently announced that President Biden invited someone to be a stand-in for him during public events. This would allow President Biden to stay in his basement, wearing comfortable clothes, while someone else speaks and handles the formalities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Working for President Biden every single day, and I love working for President Biden single day. So today, as you all saw, just an hour or so ago, President Obama announced that pardon me. President invited. Woah. If if I could make an arrangement where, I had a I had a a stand in, a front man, or frontwoman, and and they had a near piece in.
And I was just in my basement and my sweats looking through the stuff, and then I could sort of deliver the lines, but somebody else was, doing all their talking and ceremony.
@texan_maga - 🇺🇲Salty Texan
Look at all the money NGO’s are getting from DHS YOU are paying for them to invade our country
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses how certain policies are contributing to sex trafficking and empowering cartels. They question how a religious organization can justify this. They mention an incident in Mission, Texas, where Catholic Charities took over a park and set up tents to house illegal migrants, claiming it was for COVID safety. However, it was actually to keep the media from seeing the large number of people entering the country illegally. They estimate that over 8 million illegal migrants will enter the US during Biden's term. The speaker believes that these actions perpetuate the problem and benefit the charities financially. They also mention the Catholic church's silence when their own churches were surveilled by the FBI, suggesting that money played a role in their lack of action. The conversation ends with gratitude for bringing attention to this issue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Policies are fueling sex trafficking, are fueling, you know, so many people putting their lives at risk in the hands of the cartels and is making the cartels more powerful. How do they justify that as a religious organization?
Speaker 1: I don't know. And I'm Catholic. And, you know, and so I see this It is. It is. And I see this happening.
I was, you know, in Mission, Texas. They took over the park down there, Anzalduas Park. Catholic Charities had access to it. They basically shut the park down during COVID, Rachel. The entire park was shut down.
They put up tents. And as people were being brought into the United States illegally, they were being bused over to Catholic charities to these tents where they were kept, hidden away from the public. And they were saying, well, this is just to check for COVID. This is to keep, the younger people safe. What it really was was to keep the eyes of the news media off of the people that were coming in, which we know right now, I mean, is in the millions.
We have, By the end of Biden's term, over 8,000,000 is what we're estimating illegal migrants coming into the United States. So this is very frustrating. Trading. I know that some of these charities do try to do their best, but unfortunately, what they're doing is just perpetuating this behavior and pocketing that money. I I just don't see any other way around it.
Yeah. One last note I'll say
Speaker 0: is that it's poisoning the churches themselves. The Catholic church was seriously silent when they found out from whistle blowers and the FBI that their own churches were being surveilled by the FBI. I wonder if the money I don't have to wonder. I'm pretty sure That the money had a lot to do with why they didn't even stand up for their own churches, in that in that situation. It's dysfunctional all the way around.
Sarah, thanks for keeping an eye on this. I think it's a really important connection you're making. Have a great one. Thank you. Thank you, Rachel.
Of course.