TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @thegabriel72
@thegabriel72 - GABRIEL 🪽
He’s right pay attention if you love your family pay attention. https://t.co/7NU9PJhlFU
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 emphasizes that a significant boycott begins on November 25, described as a turning point that could change everything. The movement is framed not as left vs right, but as people versus a system that “keeps taking and never giving back.” For the first time in a long time, millions are moving together, with movement growing from four small groups to more than 100 organizations in a short period. Movements do not grow like that unless people are fed up, and right now, people are beyond fed up. Phase one begins on November 25, and the main action is simple: no shopping—no Black Friday shopping or anything leading up to it. This is the pressure point, and companies know exactly how much it hurts when people step back during their biggest profit week of the year.
The message stresses that participants do not have to do everything. If someone cannot do it all, they should do something. Suggestions include calling in sick for a day or two, using PTO if possible, and choosing one act of solidarity that fits their life. People should share their actions, talk about the movement, and help raise awareness. The idea is that small actions, when billions of people participate, can turn into a tidal wave. November 25 is when that wave begins.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I want you to listen to really carefully because the big beautiful boycott starts on November 25, and this is the one that could change everything. This is not left versus right. This is people versus a system that keeps taking and never giving back. And for the first time in a long time, millions are moving together. What started with four small groups just weeks ago has already grown to more than 100 organizations.
Movements do not grow like that unless people are fed up. And right now, people are beyond fed up. Phase one begins November 25, and the main action is simple. No shopping. Nothing for Black Friday.
Nothing leading up to it. That is the pressure point, and companies know exactly how much it hurts when people step back during their biggest profit week of the year. But here is what matters most. You don't have to do everything. If you cannot do it all, do something.
Call in sick for a day or two. Use some PTO if you can. Pick one act of solidarity that fits your life. Share it. Talk about it.
Get other people aware. Just be part of the movement. Small actions turn into a tidal wave when millions do them together. And November 25 is when that wave begins.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL™ 🪽
Well.. his wife just ruined his career! https://t.co/3lMJUJSHs6
Video Transcript AI Summary
"I have the best news ever." The conversation playfully compares death rumors to real news, with lines like "What? Donald Trump died?" "Second best news." "The vice president died?" "Okay. Third best news." "That Elon Musk died?" "Okay. No. No. No. No." The speaker then clarifies, "Nobody died. My best friend's getting married." When asked which one, he reveals, "Which one is it? Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got engaged." The exchange shifts from fictitious celebrity deaths to a real-life engagement involving Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have the best news ever.
Speaker 1: What? Donald Trump died?
Speaker 0: Second best news.
Speaker 1: The vice president died?
Speaker 0: Okay. Third best news.
Speaker 1: That Elon Musk died?
Speaker 0: Okay. No. No. No. No.
Nobody died. My best friend's getting married.
Speaker 1: Which one is
Speaker 0: it? Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got engaged.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL™ 🪽
She said this many years ago. This may be the same video. People laughed, then and some are still laughing today. Listen up! She knows what she's talking about. https://t.co/gzUgs6HiS8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker cites 'Muslim Brotherhood Plan for the destruction of The United States' and the explanatory memorandum for the group written 05/22/1991, including 'Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America.' He says 'The process of settlement is a civilization jihadist process with all the word means' and that 'their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.' He notes 'the most important page of this document is the last page' listing '29 front Islamic organizations set up in The United States with the specific goal of sabotaging America from within and destroying America by our own hands,' with 'Number one on the list is ISNA, Islamic Society of North America.' He adds they are 'advisers to president Obama about Middle East policy' and that 'we not only have the fox watching the hen house, we have the fox inside the White House dictating policy in the ear of the president.' Finally, 'we in The United States have a 150 terrorist organizations right now operating in America, and these are the ones we know about.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I am holding in my hand the Muslim Brotherhood Plan for the destruction of The United States. The title of the plan is You all got that? An explanatory memorandum for the general strategic goal for the group, the Muslim Brotherhood in North America written 05/22/1991. Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America. The process of settlement is a civilization jihadist process with all the word means.
The which is the Arabic word for brothers must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions. They don't mince words, do they? But the most important page of this document is the last page. They list 29 front Islamic organizations set up in The United States with the specific goal of sabotaging America from within and destroying America by our own hands. Number one on the list is ISNA, Islamic Society of North America.
They are now advisers to president Obama about Middle East policy. So we not only have the fox watching the hen house, we have the fox inside the White House dictating policy in the ear of the president. As a matter of fact, we in The United States have a 150 terrorist organizations right now operating in America, and these are the ones we know about.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL™ 🪽
Leadership isn't about making everyone happy. It’s about doing what needs to be done even when it’s unpopular. Trump wasn’t perfect (who is?), but he made decisions based on what he believed was right for the country. https://t.co/caRLrWAXgD
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL™ 🪽
I thought California was supposed to break off an slip into the ocean... the beach would be in vegas... https://t.co/bqr3kLsOHG
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL™ 🪽
Butler was the 1st Rally that CNN covered, and they Brought a slow motion camera to it. Another first. They knew Trump was going to be shot and they wanted to film every gorry detail. https://t.co/P58677RCoP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Secret Service whistleblowers are reportedly furious about the agency's response to security failures. According to Senator Josh Hawley, whistleblowers claim the lead site agent for the Butler rally was inexperienced and incompetent, and the Trump campaign was aware of these issues beforehand.
Whistleblowers allege she didn't enforce normal security protocols, IDs weren't checked, and most agents were from Homeland Security and inexperienced with rallies. The site agent allegedly failed to ensure a clear line of sight for agents, obstructing their view of potential threats to Trump.
Hawley says whistleblowers are concerned that this individual is still in charge of security for political events and possibly investigating herself. They are coming forward because they fear a repeat incident and believe the Secret Service isn't taking appropriate action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fox News alert. Secret Service whistleblowers are coming out of the woodwork, furious about last week's press conference where the director, Ron Roe, admitted the agency failed but wouldn't fire anyone. Trump's entire predictive detail's been an illusion. The rally in Butler was the first time the Secret Service sent countersnipers to a Trump event. And those snipers were communicating by text message without Wi Fi.
Only the locals had radios and according to the Washington Post, the Secret Service wasn't even in the same room as they were. They were in a completely different command center on the opposite side of the farm. Basically, the Secret Service was playing a big game of telephone while Crooks was stalking the grounds. Who signed off on this disastrous plan? According to whistleblowers who've spoken to senator Josh Hawley, it all comes down to the lead site agent who they claim is inexperienced and incompetent.
Senator Josh Hawley's been speaking with these whistleblowers and he joins us now. Senator, what have these whistleblowers been telling your office?
Speaker 1: Well, what they've been saying, Jesse, is that this individual, the site agent, the lead agent was known to the Trump campaign to be inexperienced, to be ineffectual, to be frankly incompetent at their job. Well, I'm also told by whistleblowers that on that day, she was not enforcing the normal security protocols. She was not checking people's IDs. She did not use secret service agents. Most of the agents there that day were not secret service agents.
They were homeland security agents. And get this, Jesse, most of them had never worked a rally before. And yet this is who she chose to staff the event with, and she didn't train them or integrate them. From top to bottom, it was a total disaster. Jesse, it is a miracle, a miracle.
Not only that Trump is alive, but that more good Americans were not killed. It's unbelievable.
Speaker 0: You're saying that the site agent in charge of this security in Butler wasn't checking IDs? What what what do you mean? She was just letting people in?
Speaker 1: That is what whistleblowers tell me is that IDs were not checked to allow individuals into secure areas, Jesse. In other words, it was a total free for all. Whistleblowers portray to me a circumstance, a a situation that was totally out of control where people were milling around including in what were supposed to be highly secure areas. Nobody knew who they were. By the way, it was also the lead site agent's job to make sure that the line of sight for where Trump was was clear, that agents could see all angles, and she didn't do that.
In fact, I'm told that the line of sight was obstructed, means that agents from different angles couldn't really see around Trump, couldn't see potential dangers to Trump. This is pretty textbook stuff, Jesse. And what whistleblowers say to me is none of it was done properly. None of it was done by the book. And frankly, when you know all that, it's amazing more people weren't killed.
This person needs to be fired as does anybody who had leadership on that day.
Speaker 0: This person is still doing security. They're still in charge of security for political events. Why isn't why aren't they sidelined and under investigation themselves?
Speaker 1: This is exactly what the whistleblowers who are coming to me, Jesse, want to know. And in fact, we know that this individual is still doing all those things because the director confirmed it. He told me under oath that, yeah, this individual is still working events. In fact, he said still doing investigations, which raises the question, is she investigating herself?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is insane. And I'll just say this, Jesse.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 1: Whistleblowers are coming forward from the Secret Service because they can't believe what leadership is doing. They cannot believe that the Secret Service is not taking action to clear out the rock, frankly. They're scared to death this is gonna happen again, but we can't let it happen again. We've gotta get the facts.
Speaker 0: Was this site agent for Butler, was she one of these Cheadle hires? You know how Cheadle has an agenda? She just promotes people without merit. Was that person a person like that?
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to that. All I'm told by these whistleblowers is that this individual was inexperienced, that she was known to the campaign to be frankly not very good at her job. They had concerns about this individual before the Butler rally. Again, when she was assigned to Butler, the campaign was worried. They thought, uh-oh, This has not gone well before, and my gosh.
It didn't go well that day.
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, I'm I'm very glad these whistleblowers are speaking out to your office. Please keep the public posted on on some of these developments because the more and more we hear about it, just the angrier I get. Thank you again.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL™ 🪽
He wiped the floor with her https://t.co/wBOMnmozur
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Kennedy questioned Dr. Mary Anne Franks, a law professor, about her past statements. Franks claimed the Trump administration engaged in censorship, while denying Biden did. Kennedy quoted Franks's writings, including claims that the Supreme Court uses the Constitution as a tool of "racial patriarchy," promoting a culture where "white men" can "terrorize and kill" those they perceive as threats and turning the constitution into a "homicide pact."
Kennedy also confronted Franks about tweets stating "the majority of Americans hate women" and that "white male supremacy" guides the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. Franks defended her First Amendment dedication by saying she is defending it against a presidential administration that is threatening journalists, surveilling citizens, and punishing people for what they say. Another clip showed Franks stating the U.S. was built on racial patriarchy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Senator Kennedy just had a field day with this leftist, unhinged law professor who absolutely hates white men, despises white men, and is accusing the Trump administration of censorship when her literal words describe what Biden did. And Kennedy called her out on her past tweets exposing her bias, and she was literally squirming in her chair, and she even went private on Twitter after this. Let's get into the video. It was absolutely glorious. My name is Clayton Kearns from trendingpolitics.com.
Please make sure to like this video. It helps us out so much in the algorithm and subscribe to the channel if you have not already, you like to see videos like this every single day. So let's get right into it. This is a committee hearing that they held the other day and, this woman's name is Doctor. Mary Anne Franks.
She is a hardcore leftist, always ranting and raving against white men, white people, the patriarchy, and wow, she did not expect Kennedy to go into her past tweets, and she got feisty. She got, indignant. Let let's just take a look at this, and we'll pause at a couple parts, and then we'll discuss.
Speaker 1: As I understand it, your position, professor Franks, is that I think you used you used the word myth. It is a myth that the Biden administration used government to compel speech, private speech, but the the Trump administration is doing that. Is that a fair characterization?
Speaker 2: Yes. That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. So let's set the stage here real quick before we continue. She is saying that Biden was not controlling speech and that Biden was not pressuring social media companies and news networks to publish certain stories, but the Trump administration is okay.
Speaker 1: Do you think perhaps you're allowing your personal political beliefs to to to affect your objectivity here?
Speaker 2: No. I do not. What is guiding my answers here is that I'm looking to see what the Supreme Court has said. You noticed that in the testimony about the censorship industrial complex I got that part. No.
I'm just I got that just wanna clarify.
Speaker 1: I've only got five minutes. Your your answer is no, as I appreciate it. Arnold, let let me ask you a couple questions. You you wrote a Law Review article in February for the New York University Law Review, and you it was about the two cases, Bruin, Supreme Court case, and Dobbs. Remember that article?
Speaker 2: Yes. I do.
Speaker 1: Okay. It's so good. In this article, you said I'm gonna quote your words. Taken together, these two cases demonstrate that the Supreme Court has embraced the use of the constitution as a tool of racial patriarchy, end quote. Did you say that?
Speaker 0: Yes. Wait.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then you went on to say, quote, when the Supreme Court declares that there is a constitutional right to arm self defense in public. It openly embraces and promotes a culture that privileges white men's ability to terrorize and kill those that they perceive as threats, close quote. Did I read that correct correctly?
Speaker 2: I believe so. Thank you for reading.
Speaker 1: Okay. And did you also say in that article I'm gonna quote again. Quote, by simultaneously expanding white men's right to kill and constricting women's right not to die, this Supreme Court, referring to the current United States Supreme Court, has turned the constitution into a homicide pact as well, close quote. Did you write that?
Speaker 2: That sounds like me.
Speaker 0: She said, that sounds like me. This has turned the constitution into a homicide pact for white men. And look at the smug expression on her face. Unfortunately, this is a woman who is teaching our youth in these colleges, in these universities. May God help our young people.
That person who just wrote that is in charge of educating our youth.
Speaker 1: Okay. In February you tweet, don't you?
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what the current terminology is for it, but, yes, I am sometimes on the social platform that was formerly known as Twitter.
Speaker 0: Okay. So she refuses it to refuses to call it x because Elon Musk branded it as x, and she smugly says I don't know what it's called anymore, but yes. It used to be called Twitter. Oh, man. You're on a lot, aren't you?
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.
Speaker 1: You're trying to be provocative on there, don't you?
Speaker 2: Again, I am not sure what the relevance is.
Speaker 1: Me show you the relevance. On 11/07/2024 from your tweet here's a here's one of your tweets at 02:41PM. Quote. The majority of Americans hate women. The majority of Americans hate women more than they love anything, including democracy, close quote.
Did I read that correctly?
Speaker 2: I am not sure what this has to do with the subject matter of this
Speaker 1: Did you say it?
Speaker 2: I do not have those words in front of I probably said something along those lines, but what is the relevant Dallas
Speaker 1: right there.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: But your political foot beliefs don't impact your feelings about president Biden or president Trump. I don't have feelings about either of What I have is me like you have your favorite feeling is anger. Let me ask you this.
Speaker 0: And she didn't she couldn't even respond. Look at her face there. He's like he's like, your favorite feeling is anger. He says she said, I don't have feelings about Trump or Biden. Really?
The man just read your tweets. Oh my goodness.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this. You you issued another tweet. This was in February. You've just been tweeting up a storm. You said, quote, there's a reason why the conservative dominated Supreme Court thinks the constitution did not contact does not contain a right to an abortion, but is convinced that it contains an individual right to possess firearms.
And that reason is white male supremacy, close quote. Did I read that correctly?
Speaker 2: Is there a question in this?
Speaker 1: Did I read that correctly?
Speaker 2: Is there a question that is relevant to this hearing?
Speaker 1: Did I read that correctly? Do you really think that the United States Supreme Court, you're an officer of the court, is guided by white male supremacy?
Speaker 2: I believe that the First Amendment prohibits the president
Speaker 1: Did you
Speaker 2: and others say that? For punishing people for
Speaker 1: Did you honestly say that, professor? And you expect us
Speaker 2: That the first
Speaker 1: as a democratic witness to take you seriously? Are you kidding me?
Speaker 2: I believe that you should take
Speaker 1: You heard of curb your enthusiasm? Here's my saying, curb my nausea.
Speaker 3: Believe that you do Senator
Speaker 0: Curb my nausea. Wow. I mean, that was just an absolute master class as always by Senator Kennedy. Wow. Guy Ralph Ford had this to say, this was a Senate judiciary subcommittee hearing on the censorship industrial complex, and this liberal loon is George wash is a George Washington University law professor.
Let that sink in. According to Wikipedia, her ex her areas of expertise and teaching include first amendment law, second amendment law, criminal law, criminal procedure, family law, and law technology. Thank God for Senator Kennedy, but God help us if our next generation of lawyers is learning about the second amendment or anything else from people like Frank's. Guys, this is serious. This is very, very serious.
This woman is literally probably poisoning our youth, poisoning our young people, and let's just pray to God that these kids know right from wrong. Here was another clip of her. Eric Schmidt was grilling her over the same same type of thing. Let's take a look at this video because although he did not it was not as much of a fireworks exchange as the Kennedy one we just watched, It was it was pretty revealing as to as to her points of view. And to think that the Democrats put her as a witness here is quite concerning.
Speaker 3: Doctor Franks, did wanna ask you yourself in your writings, I wanna ask you about it to respond, don't seem to be a very big fan of the First Amendment. You've written, and I quote, the conception of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment reflects white, wealthy men's experience and interests. You've described free speech advocacy as a, quote, neo confederate agenda. And in 2021, you published an op ed calling for completely writing the First Amendment. Are those your comments?
Speaker 2: Those are not entirely accurate. No. The Boston Globe piece was a thought experiment that I was invited to contribute to, and so I was asked if we were rethinking the constitution, what are some of the ways we could rethink it? So that is the context of that op ed.
Speaker 3: Okay. I just I think, it's interesting that of all the people that could have been selected to come testify about the dangers of limiting free speech and censorship, my colleagues on the other side chose someone who believes that, the First Amendment is essentially a white male fetish.
Speaker 2: The evidence of my dedication to the First Amendment is the fact that I am here defending the First Amendment, that I am defending it against a presidential administration that is, at this moment, threatening journalists, that is surveilling citizens, that is punishing people because of what they say. Not some sort of vague allegations about NGOs or about some plainclothes speech police. Actual government forces that this president and his officials are enacting. They want to jail people for their speech. They want to deport people for their speech.
Oh, They want to take away people's money, their funding for their speech. That is a violation of the FirstNet.
Speaker 0: So so Trump wants to just deport people based on what they're saying. That's what she just did. That's what she just said with the straight face in this hearing. Take a look at this. The guy who just tweeted that video said, this is the woke insanity Democrats sent into this hearing.
This is her giving a speech. The US was built on racial patriarchy. If you want to describe what the First Amendment is, it's not about consistent or normal principles. It's about power. It's about converging with that idea of racial patriarchy.
And if you are disturbing it, wow. That is who the Democrats trust. That is who the Democrats felt like it was a good idea to trot out there during a committee hearing. And wow. I just needed to show you this to expose this and thank God for Senator Kennedy for grilling her because she absolutely this this needed to be public.
So if you like this video and you want this to go get out there, spread the message, please like this video. It helps within the reach, it helps the YouTube algorithm, it helps our channel immensely. So please comment below. Let me know what you think about this lady, Doctor. Mary Anne Franks, who once again, by the way, made her Twitter account private after this.
Interesting move. I'll talk to you guys later.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL™ 🪽
They framed him for sure. https://t.co/sOP87M1SfL
Video Transcript AI Summary
In New York, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor is one year. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, which can become a felony if done in concealment of another crime, each with specific elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the Trump case, the indictment did not specify the underlying crime, only describing it as "other crimes." Jury instructions described falsifying business records but lacked detail on the three crime choices, including a New York state election law violation.
Two misdemeanors do not automatically lead to a felony statute of limitations. Time spent out of New York could toll the statute of limitations, based on the Harvey Weinstein case ruling. The election law violation appeared to be charged as both federal and state, with one of the three underlying charges being an unspecified violation of federal election law. Another was an unspecified tax violation. The elements of these underlying crimes were not listed. Without knowing the elements of the crime, mounting a defense is impossible.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Judge Wilson, what's the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor in New York? One year. The business records case is a misdemeanor. Correct?
Speaker 1: The underlying crime, the falsifying business records, yes. That's a misdemeanor charge.
Speaker 0: So the only way to get to a felony is by committing or is by in concealment of another crime? Correct. And each one of those crimes has specific elements? That's right. And you have to prove in order to get a conviction at trial, you have to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right? That's just traditionally how this works.
Speaker 1: That is the right way to do it.
Speaker 0: So in the indictment, did they put the underlying crime? No.
Speaker 1: They did not. They only described it as other crimes. Okay. And in the jury instructions, did they put the specific underlying crime? No.
The falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions. There was some brief description of the New York state election law violation, but there was no description given of the three choice of three crimes. There was a description given of falsifying business records, which was pretty ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records.
Speaker 0: So and that's also a misdemeanor. Right?
Speaker 1: That should be. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So you have two plus two equals six. Like, if you commit two misdemeanors, you get to the felony statute of limitations, which they had to get or they could have never brought the case.
Speaker 1: That's correct. But there there's some more question marks regarding the statute of limitations. It's not cut and dry because the time that Donald Trump spent out of New York could be used to toll the statute of limitations. That was the ruling in the Court of Appeals Harvey Weinstein case. He argued that the time that he spent out of California should not have told it out of New York that is in California should not have told the time limitations, but the court of appeals ruled against him on that issue.
So that's, I think, how they get around the statute of limitations problem in this case.
Speaker 0: So was the election law case a federal election law or state election law underlying crime?
Speaker 1: Seemed like it was charged as both when we got to the jury instructions. There's a violation of New York election law charge, but then there's one among the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law.
Speaker 0: Alright. And then the third one was tax violation.
Speaker 1: Right? Also unspecified. So all three of
Speaker 0: those underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime?
Speaker 1: That is correct. Were any
Speaker 0: of the elements of those crimes listed? No. Not at all. So the and this is important and it it's it might not be as robust or anything, but when you defend a client in court, if you don't know what the elements of the crime you're defending, how do you
Speaker 1: mount a defense? You can't. That's the very issue of fundamental fairness that I referenced. You as a
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL™ 🪽
The Dems are only good at lying 😔 so sad what they have become.😢 https://t.co/dYjEc4CsF4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Madam Speaker, as a congresswoman on the judiciary and rules committees, after reading transcripts and hearing testimony, I believe this impeachment process is unfair, politically biased, and rigged. There is no proof the president committed an impeachable offense. No Democrat witness established bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors.
Democrats undermine their argument because 17 of 24 judiciary committee Democrats voted to move forward with impeachment on July 17th, before President Trump's call even took place. The process has been rigged from the start. This is the first impeachment in US history that went through the intelligence committee in closed door hearings where members of the judiciary committee couldn't ask fact witnesses questions. The president had no right to counsel until the judiciary committee hearings, but by then it was too late.
This is the most partisan impeachment in US history. No Republican voted for it in the judiciary or rules committees, and I don't think any will vote for it today. Democrats are tearing this country and families apart.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Madam Speaker, you know, god takes us on journeys in our life. And about thirty years ago, I was married to an abusive ex husband. And when I finally left him, there were times in my life I had no money and no place to live. And I tell you what, I never dreamed in a million years that I would be standing here today as a congresswoman in the United States House of Representatives. And I tell you what, I never would have believed that I would be standing here talking about impeachment of a president of The United States.
I serve on the judiciary committee. I also serve on the rules committee. I have spent hours and hours and hours reading transcripts, looking at documents, hearing testimony. And I can tell you one thing. I believe this is the most unfair, politically biased, rigged process that I have seen in my entire life.
Here are the facts. There is no proof, none, that the president has committed an impeachable offense. Not one of the Democrat witnesses, not one was able to establish that the president committed bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors as required in The US constitution. And as I've said before, the Democrats are really undermining their own own argument here because 17 out of the 24 Democrat members on the judiciary committee voted here on this floor to put forward move forward articles of impeachment on July seventeenth of this year before the president Trump's call even took place. And five out of the nine rules committee members that are democrats did the same thing.
So if your argument is that this phone call is the main reason for this impeachable offense, why did you vote for impeachment moving impeachment forward before the call even took place. The process has been rigged from the start. My members other members have told you. I mean, never in the history of The United States have we had impeachment that's gone through the intelligence committee in closed door hearings where a member of the judiciary committee, myself, wasn't even able to ask one single question of a fact witness. The whole thing's been rigged, been unfair.
In the process that you had set forth, you made sure that the president didn't have any right to have his counsel there until judiciary. But by then, it was too late. It was too late because there was no fact witnesses allowed in judiciary. So I couldn't even ask a question nor could the president. This is the most partisan impeachment in the history of The United States.
Not one Republican voted for it in judiciary committee, not one Republican voted for it in rules, and not one Republican I don't think is gonna vote for it here today. Madam speaker, this is this is a sad day. I believe that Democrats are tearing this country apart. They're tearing families apart. May god continue to bless all of you.
May god continue to bless the president of The United States, and may god continue to bless our great nation. And I yield back.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL 🪽
Wow a reporter doing his job ...there's a first https://t.co/g5FXYooDCC
Video Transcript AI Summary
Liam Crosgrove of Zero Hedge asks about the president's foreign policy, noting peace efforts with India, Pakistan, the Houthis, Iran, and Putin, contrasting this with continued funding for the wars in Israel and Ukraine. He asks if Americans can expect an end to financing foreign wars and if that is one of the president's goals. The speaker says the president's foreign policy is "America first," aiming to end conflicts in Israel/Gaza and Ukraine. The president will speak with Putin and Zelenskyy. He wants all hostages released.
Crosgrove then references Trump's video about the "Clinton body count" and the death of Mark Middleton, found dead on Clinton Foundation property, apparently shooting himself in the chest with a shotgun and hanging himself from a tree with an extension cord. He asks about the Epstein files, specifically the omission of connections to intelligence agencies and potential ties to the Israeli government. He asks when phase two will be released with information on these aspects. The speaker defers to the Department of Justice on the timeline for releasing the files.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, have Liam Crosgrove, the White House correspondent for Zero Hedge. With that, Liam, please kick us off.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Caroline. So my first question is on foreign policy.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 1: The president has made, several moves towards peace in multiple fronts, India, Pakistan with the Houthis talking with Iran and talking with Putin. Biden didn't even talk to Putin for the entire span of the war, which is crazy considering two nuclear powers were engaged in a proxy war. So I do admire these moves by the current president, I'll be honest. However, we as of today, we are still funding both Israel's and Ukraine's wars. So can Americans expect to finally be done financing foreign wars at some point?
Would it do you consider that one of the president's goals?
Speaker 0: Well, I think I can summarize the president's foreign policy agenda with two words, America first. And that means putting the American people and the American taxpayer first. And that's why the president is moving as quickly as he possibly can and working overtime to end these conflicts in both Israel and in Gaza and also the Russia Ukraine war. As you all know, the president will be speaking with Putin at 10:00. He plans to call president Zelenskyy when that call concludes.
I spoke to the president about that call at 10:00. I don't wanna get ahead of those very important conversations, but, of course, you will hear directly from the president or me after those calls conclude today. So you can expect that. As for Israel and Gaza, the president continues, to, not only himself, but his national security team engage, in talks on both sides of this conflict. The president made it very clear to Hamas that he wanted to see all hostages released.
And last week, when we were flying out of town, there was great news on that front with the return of Eden Alexander, who was the last remaining hostage in Gaza. So to answer your question, the president is always thinking about the American people, the American taxpayer first. He wants these conflicts to end, not just to save money, but most importantly to save lives.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And my only other question for you is, so over the weekend, president Trump posted through social, a video highlighting what most people call the Clinton body count, which is the strange number of suicides that had seemed to happen in Clinton circles. I have a headline here from the Washington Post that said Trump peddles false conspiracy theories tying the Clintons to several deaths. So I just wanted to highlight real quick. This wasn't in Trump's video, but this is from the Arkansas Times.
And it's the death of Mark Middleton, was a former Clinton White House aide, who was found dead dead on a Clinton Foundation property. And I'll just quote from the Arkansas Times. Middleton apparently shot himself in the chest with a shotgun and also hung himself from a tree with an extension cord. So I have no idea how somebody commits suicide that way, but if the Washington Post is here, maybe you can enlighten us as to how that was actually a suicide. So anyways, that's just a lead into my question about the most famous Clinton related suicide, which is that of Jeffrey Epstein.
There's still a lot of questions around that case. You've released phase one of the Epstein files. What was missing from that is any connection to his ties to intelligence agencies, that's really the whole story, that not just trafficking young girls, but doing it on behalf of intelligence agencies and even potentially, as part of a blackmail ring with potential ties to the Israeli government. So, for phase two, when can we expect it? Will it have information pertaining to those aspects of the Epstein case?
Speaker 0: I know the attorney general has committed to releasing those files. I would defer you to the Department of Justice on her timeline, but, when she has made a promise in the past, she has kept it, and I'm I'm certain that she will in this case as well.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL 🪽
Spot on! God bless you. Telling it like it is https://t.co/4gpHDhJhPs
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jerry Nadler has described the raid of his office as outrageous and fascistic. However, the speaker claims Nadler's aides and staffers protested outside an immigration courthouse, then ran back to Nadler's office, a secure government building, when things escalated. The Federal Protective Service performed a wellness check after being notified protesters entered the building.
The speaker asserts that Nadler's staff pushed back against DHS, claiming they needed a warrant, but the speaker states it's a public building, so no warrant was required. According to the speaker, one of Nadler's staffers, whose legal status is unknown, pushed a DHS officer, which the speaker claims is a crime. The speaker concludes that Nadler's office committed an insurrection and that no one is above the law.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So Jerry Nadler has been all over the media talking about the raid that happened in his office using words like outrageous and fascistic. But were they? You see, Jerry, no one's above the law, so let's break it down. You had aides and staffers that decided to go outside and protest outside of an immigration courthouse. And then when things escalated, they ran back to your building in your office, which is a secure government building, and the Federal Protective Service was notified that some of the protesters went running into your building, so they did a wellness check.
You should be grateful. But instead, your staff pushed back against DHS and said that they couldn't be there. They didn't have a warrant. Well, guess what? It's a public building.
They don't need a warrant. And during this, things got escalated, and one of your staffers, who is still unknown whether they're illegal or not, pushed a DHS officer. That's a crime. Your office and staffers continue to get in the way of law enforcement doing their job. And somehow you're the victim.
You're not a victim, Jerry. And one step further, by definition, your office committed an insurrection. No one is above the law.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL 🪽
Democrats are liars and thieves who take advantage of their uneducated constituents. Wake up Dumbocrats https://t.co/jWF91m30Wg
Video Transcript AI Summary
A CBS12 reporter, Tory, attempts to question a congresswoman at a ribbon-cutting event about an investigation into her family. Tory also asks the congresswoman about a congressional ethics investigation into potential campaign finance violations. The reporter repeats the question about the ethics investigation and asks what the congresswoman has to say to her constituents, implying she is obligated to answer as this is her district. The congresswoman does not respond.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tory with CBS twelve. How are you? I just nice to meet you. You know, you're here. You've helped cut the ribbon, but I also wanted to ask you about the investigation into your families.
But this is also part of her congressional duties. Congresswoman, you know, you're under investigation for the congressional ethics for violation of campaign finances. Congresswoman, this is your district. You have to answer to these people. Congresswoman, you're under investigation for a congressional ethics investigation for violation of campaign fines?
You don't have an answer to that? What do you have to say to your constituents?
reSee.it AI Summary
I can't believe that in 2025 we're still debating basic facts that have existed for thousands of years. If we allow men into women's sports and spaces, what's the point of designating them as women's at all? No woman should have to share a bathroom or locker room with a man.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL 🪽
It boggles my mind how in 2025 we have to debate things like this that are basic known facts that have been around for thousands of years. If we're going to let men into women's sports and we're gonna let men into women's locker rooms and bathrooms then why even designate any sport as women's or any locker room or restroom as women's. No woman should have to be forced to share a bathroom or a locker room with a man.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Transgender women pose a threat to women's sports. A UN study found that males competing as females have won nearly 900 trophies in women's competitions. Last week in Texas, a male swimmer competing as a woman won all five of the women's races that he entered.
Men have an inherent biological advantage over women. Males are 30% stronger than women of equivalent stature, jump 25% higher, and accelerate 20% faster. They also have larger hearts, lungs, more bone mass, more muscles, and stronger muscles. Testosterone does not erase key differences that give them advantage by nature because a man cannot become a woman. Biological men competing in women's sports hurts women.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now this is ridiculous. And as an expert on women's rights in sports and in society, I wanna be clear here. Transgender women do not pose a threat to women's sports. A recent UN study found that transgender athletes, so males competing as females, have won nearly 900 trophies in women's competitions. Just last week in Texas, a male swimmer competing as a woman won all five of the women's races that he entered into.
There are countless examples of this. It is a very real and growing issue. Men have an inherent biological advantage over women, and there are plenty of facts to prove this. The red on this graph shows male advantages for specific sport related skills. It's from the Independent Women's Forum Competition Report that also published data showing that males are 30% stronger than women of equivalent stature, that males jump 25% higher, that they accelerate 20% faster, they also have larger hearts, lungs, more bone mass, more muscles, stronger muscles, and more.
It is undeniable, and no, testosterone does not erase key differences that give them advantage by nature. This is ultimately because, by nature, a man cannot become a woman. Trying to do so is impossible and is a denial of the most basic truth, reality, and science. Biological men competing in women's sports does hurt women, and it is a growing issue that deserves attention.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL 🪽
That's what democrats have been trying to accomplish in America Americans need to wake up b4 it's too late https://t.co/7wGOxsYg6C
Video Transcript AI Summary
Germany labeled the AFD a far-right extremist threat and is moving to ban it, prompting criticism from figures like Marco Rubio. Similar actions have occurred elsewhere: Marine Le Pen in France has been barred from seeking office, Bolsonaro in Brazil was banned and silenced, and Donald Trump in the U.S. has faced indictments and media blackouts.
The speaker claims this is a pattern of disqualifying opposition and criminalizing dissent, drawing a parallel to actions taken by Adolf Hitler. They assert that censorship and the arrest of political rivals are not about defending democracy, but about global control defending itself.
The speaker urges listeners to recognize this pattern and resist division. They state that awareness is the most powerful act of resistance, and encourage listeners to unite and refuse to be branded by the established order.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did you hear? Germany just labeled its second most popular political party, the AFD, as a far right wing extremist threat, and now they're moving to ban it. Even US Secretary Of State Marco Rubio responded, quote, Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That's not democracy. It's tyranny in disguise, end quote.
But this isn't just Germany. In France, Marine Le Pen, who challenged the global agenda, has been barred from seeking office. In Brazil, Bolsonaro was banned, silenced, his supporters censored. And in The United States, Donald Trump, the one man standing openly against the globalist machine, has faced indictments, gag orders, media blackouts, and even assassination attempts. This isn't random.
It's a pattern. Disqualify the opposition, criminalize dissent, call it safety, call it democracy, but it's not. A former German leader once said, quote, it is the task of justice to support and protect the people as a whole against those who act against the interest of the community, end quote. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? That German leader was Adolf Hitler.
In the nineteen thirties, they banned parties to preserve order. In the nineteen forties, they burned books to protect truth. Today, they censor speech and arrest political rivals to defend democracy. But this isn't democracy defending itself. It's global control defending itself.
They fear you. Your vote, your voice, your unity, that's why they divide you. Left versus right, black versus white, citizen versus citizen. Because united, we are unstoppable. The most powerful act of resistance isn't violence.
It's awareness. Refuse the trap. Don't play their game. See the pattern. Break the cycle.
Because once you see it, you can't unsee it. My friends, we are all anonymous. Not because we hide our faces, but because we refuse to be branded by theirs. We are not left or right. We are not elite or obedient.
We are the question they can't silence. The voice they can't erase. And we are just getting started.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just watched Trump’s explosive livestream on April 14, 2025, where he boldly addressed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. With his signature confidence, he declared, “Not on my watch, Tehran!” It feels like the world is buzzing with his return and the impact of his fierce stance.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL 🪽
🚨 *BREAKING:* Trump, in true MAGA style, drops a YUGE bombshell on Iran’s nuke dreams during a *fiery* April 14, 2025 livestream! 😎 With his classic swagger, he’s like, “Not on my watch, Tehran!” 🇺🇸 The world’s shaking, and the haters are quaking—Trump’s back, saving the day, one epic threat at a time! 😂 #Winning
Video Transcript AI Summary
Six B-2 bombers have been assembled in Diego Garcia, signaling a potential attack on Iran. The U.S. President is described as serious about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, preferring a negotiated resolution but prepared to consider other options, including military action.
The U.S. may support an Israeli-led strike on Iran's nuclear facilities if Iran doesn't voluntarily dismantle its program. A decision on Iran will be made very quickly. The President believes Iran might be stalling nuclear talks and warns of harsh consequences, including potential military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, if Iran pursues nuclear weapons. The President stated that if harsh action is necessary, the U.S. will take it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're on the brink of an attack on Iran. There are six b two bombers that have been assembled in Diego Garcia. He's he's dead serious, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. He's dead serious that he wants it done at at the negotiating table. We can't figure this out at the negotiating table, then there are other options to include my department, to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear bomb.
I think they've come to the conclusion that the president is dead serious about supporting an Israeli led US supported strike on Iran to take down their nuclear enterprise if they don't voluntarily dismantle it. If the Iranians do do not come to a deal and an agreement to dismantle their program, then it will be done by force. Give us an update on Iran. Well, we're gonna be doing it very shortly, and we'll be making a decision on Iran very quickly. Trump told reporters during the meeting that he thinks that Iran could be stringing The US along for nuclear talks.
He added that Tehran should abandon any drive for a nuclear weapon or face harsh consequences that could include a military strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities. Of course, it does. Trump said when asked if a potential response could include strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. If we have to do something very harsh, we'll do it, the president said.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL 🪽
Kameltoe Harris you mean and her husband sits on the board of directors of the morning company that's been harassing North Carolina residents esp in chimney rock since 2017 to mine the land lithium and quartz https://t.co/fa2AUqAjsD
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump posted a picture of Judge James Blasberg standing next to Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris's husband. The speaker questions the coincidence, suggesting it's suspicious.
The speaker identifies Blasberg as "third from the right" in the photo, with Emhoff to his right. The speaker alleges that Blasberg, a federal court judge, consistently blocks Donald Trump's actions. The speaker believes it's not coincidental that Blasberg is friends with Emhoff, the former Vice President's husband, and calls it "deep state" activity. The speaker asks viewers for their opinions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Donald Trump has just posted a picture showing judge Blossberg standing next to none other than Doug Emhoff, the husband of former vice president Kamala Harris. Suspicious? Nah. Why would that be suspicious? Check this out.
There he is. There's you'll see him. He's third from the right. Judge James Blasberg standing to his right of Blasberg is who? Uh-oh.
Douglas m Hoff. Oh, shit. I'm telling you guys, this is the stuff that has to stop. This is the stuff of the deep state. Now you can't tell me this is coincidental that the same federal court judge that continuously put stays and and blocks everything Donald Trump does happens to be friends with Douglas Emhoff, the husband of the former vice president of The United States Of America.
No. That can't be coincidence. What do you guys think? Tell me in chat.
@TheGabriel72 - GABRIEL 🪽
These mindless liberals I guess don't know how to use the internet because it's all out there.All they have to do is go to the website.I don't know why you waste your time talking to these people.They are so low information https://t.co/TnBhbxFJ3J
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 claims the Department of Government Efficiency found hundreds of billions in fraud, but Speaker 1 denies any fraud was found. Speaker 0 alleges Social Security is paying people over 220 years old, which Speaker 1 disputes.
Speaker 1 criticizes Trump's anti-immigrant stance and calls Musk a "thug." Speaker 0 defends Trump, suggesting he might be the greatest president in modern American history. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 "deluded" for supporting Trump, characterizing Trump as rude, nasty, and racist.
Speaker 0 accuses others of being in a cult, claiming they try to stop people from talking to those with different ideas. Speaker 0 says things got "hot" and troopers asked him to leave. Speaker 0 then shares the speech he planned to give, emphasizing that all are Americans with First Amendment rights and should unite to eliminate corruption.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Would you like me to tell you? So the Department of Government Efficiency is going into all the different funding data. They're going into all of it, and they're finding hundreds of billions of fraud is what they're finding.
Speaker 1: They found no fraud.
Speaker 0: They found no fraud.
Speaker 1: No fraud.
Speaker 0: So how so how old do what's the average age for somebody to live?
Speaker 1: Oh, you're talking about the 50 year. That happens. How do even know about the fraud? That's not fraud, dude.
Speaker 0: So paying somebody that's a 50 years old social security isn't fraud?
Speaker 1: You know well, they're not how do you know they're paying it?
Speaker 0: Because they're in the system.
Speaker 1: So what? What doge is doing is fine, but release the actual data out
Speaker 0: the every day.
Speaker 1: No. Here's the Yeah. Is.
Speaker 0: There's literally a website.
Speaker 1: That's right. Can't.
Speaker 0: There's literally a dope Blank.
Speaker 1: You show me the ad. It was blank.
Speaker 0: They are releasing the contracts. They literally show the contracts.
Speaker 1: Keep saying we found them, and they don't show any evidence. More reality television show and show the actual proof. Yeah. Line item
Speaker 0: It's happening every day. Yeah. Line. Let's see. Here's your data on Social Security.
Speaker 1: My dad?
Speaker 0: Here's here's a thousand Social Security. A thousand people above age 20.
Speaker 1: Not proof. That's just a bunch of numbers listed.
Speaker 0: Literally the Social Security data sheet.
Speaker 1: Bunch of numbers listed.
Speaker 0: This is literally the Social Security data sheet. We're paying over a thousand people over age 220 Social Security.
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 0: So do you know anybody over 200 years old, sir?
Speaker 1: Oh, no. That's not true, though. It's not
Speaker 0: true. See, that's what it is.
Speaker 1: That's the only reason It's just
Speaker 0: not true.
Speaker 1: You're a bit
Speaker 0: Oh, what's wrong with project twenty twenty five? Everything. Can you name one thing?
Speaker 1: Robin. Yes. For starters, the anti immigrant stance.
Speaker 0: Who's anti immigrant?
Speaker 1: Trump is gonna try to troll you.
Speaker 0: Wait. How is Trump anti immigrant? What are you doing out here?
Speaker 1: Why
Speaker 0: does he hate that photo?
Speaker 1: That's your dad. Is this your litter? No. You sure? Because it looks like they're litter.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, it's not.
Speaker 1: Want it? No. Sure. So Yeah. Come on, man.
Here you
Speaker 0: go, buddy. So you just littered. On, man. Now so you littered.
Speaker 1: Take it.
Speaker 0: What about Musk? What don't you like about Musk?
Speaker 1: Awful person. He's he's also a thug. Yeah. And he's not he's not elected. He's a brainless But they're cowards.
Should
Speaker 0: we get rid of anybody who's not elected? What? You don't like Trump?
Speaker 1: What's his life? He's so racist. Well,
Speaker 0: he's for president. That's why. Maybe the greatest president in modern American history.
Speaker 1: You think so?
Speaker 0: I do.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Believe I'm sorry. I need to know.
Speaker 0: Why are you sorry?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry for you. Why? Because you're deluded. Hey, man.
Speaker 0: How am I deluded?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Don't you know that? Okay. You don't notice? I don't want an awful person for president.
Anybody else need an awful person for president? No.
Speaker 0: So what what's awful?
Speaker 1: Someone that looks off someone that's rude and nasty and has no redeeming qualities. Anybody? Only Rosie
Speaker 0: O'Donnell. Only Rosie O'Donnell. Who's racist?
Speaker 1: Who do you think is racist? Why? Yeah. Well, what makes him racist? What
Speaker 0: has he done that's racist? Can you tell me what you don't like about Doge?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. You can do better than that.
Speaker 0: There you go. Yeah. Get a good one.
Speaker 1: There you go. That's much better. Ignore the troll.
Speaker 0: You can't ignore me.
Speaker 1: Ignore the
Speaker 0: troll. It's impossible to ignore me.
Speaker 1: Ignore the
Speaker 0: So so this is what happens in cults actually.
Speaker 1: You know. You have
Speaker 0: you have people that tell you who you can and can't talk to, and they'll try to stop you from talking to somebody that has a different idea. Yeah. Are you the cult leader?
Speaker 1: Anything out
Speaker 0: of my feet. Are you the cult leader? I
Speaker 1: will have
Speaker 0: a very unifying message.
Speaker 1: Everybody I hope so.
Speaker 0: That's why I hope that she
Speaker 1: would give me the megaphone.
Speaker 0: I promise my message will be very
Speaker 1: everybody turn away, and you'll leave. We have to do KMI. I ask that you wait in line. You wanna see what it's like
Speaker 0: to deal with discrimination and hate? What? Be a conservative at a liberal event.
Speaker 1: This
Speaker 0: is insane, man. So here's the deal. So here's the deal. So things were getting a little hot in there. The troopers didn't want me to stick around.
That's fine. I'm not trying to make their day any harder than it already is dealing with these freak shows. So they requested for me to leave
Speaker 1: that area. Insist and you're sick. Just stop, please. Go ahead. Here we go.
Have the mic. Stop, man. Just give it up.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let me be perfectly
Speaker 1: clear. Fuck you.
Speaker 0: They are the ones that invited me up there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I know. Boo.
Speaker 0: Aren't you glad that you show how you guys show the world how loving and tolerant you are? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I can't wait till this footage comes out and everybody can see how hate filled this movement is.
So here was the speech I was gonna give. Ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 1: we are
Speaker 0: all Americans. And even though we have different points of view and different ideology, you have your first amendment right to be here. I have first amendment rights to be
Speaker 1: here.
Speaker 0: And I think it's time for all of us to have a conversation, and we might find we have more in common than we do different. And we all can agree that there is corruption we all wanna get rid of. So let's all come together in peace. First amendment rights. I support your right to be here.
You support my right to be here. I appreciate you letting me speak. We're all Americans. We all wanna live in a better future. So let's come together and try to do that.