It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Help your own people. Help your own people.
Just take your time.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Friday, 08/08/2025.
Thank you for joining me today.
Limited time, so I wanted to make sure
we focused on some, I think, two and
a half very, very important topics. I only
say that because I added a couple of
points from the beginning that we'll get into
in the next show that I just didn't
want you to miss regarding Israel.
Just on that note in general, it's sadly
just more of the same, more of the
same of US government officials lying about what's
happening, more of the same of Israel just
continuing to kill anybody that they can, whether
in food lines or starvation,
rape, torture, murder, and the,
seemingly
soon to be occupied
actually occupied in the sense of boots on
the ground. It's always been occupied, but feet
on the ground like it was before inside
of Gaza coming very soon. I have an
interview with Robert Inlakesh
to follow-up and more writing for him coming
for KeyLab, by the way, as well. But
I'll be I think in two days, hopefully,
earlier if we can do that, I'm having
him on to discuss what he's seeing there
and what he thinks is going to happen.
Today,
immediate topics I think I want to focus
on and possibly tomorrow with the very next
show, we're gonna be getting into all of
that and how it's going down. Today, we're
gonna be talking about some pretty interesting updates
that we just covered.
Very hopeful,
I think, yesterday
or day before. Yesterday, I had a great
interview with Jimmy Doerr, just kind of a
conversational overview of what he's seeing about things
going on. Probably putting that out tomorrow as
well. But
day before yesterday,
talked about RFK Jr. And the $500,000,000
pulled from mRNA contracts, which I really
hoped
would be what people hoped it was the
beginning of. In and of itself, yes, that
money coming away from anything mRNA, I also
think right now with what we understand about
it, is a good thing.
But it's not exactly what it looked like,
and that's what I was worried about, and
that's what hap that's what's happened every single
time so far, in my opinion. As I'll
get to in a minute, even, Steve from
Slow Newsday
rather and and Wake Up that we join
on Tuesdays,
called it the bait and switch administration for
obvious reasons. I almost used that in the
title today. Sleight of hand seemed like a
little bit more little more accurate to what's
happening.
But it it's it's like with gain of
function. We'll point out again as well that
they they didn't actually end gain of function.
In fact, they claimed that they'd be the
leaders of the version they find to be
appropriate in the document people pointed to saying
it was removed.
And sadly, it appears that's the same kind
of thing in a slightly different way that
that we're gonna get into today around what
happened with the mRNA direction.
Not really stopping mRNA entirely.
It's not even stopping all of the mRNA
shots despite the framing.
Really frustrated by that. In fact, especially since
the HHS post
that people are referencing, corporate media and and
mainstream alternative media wide
states it ex interestingly, the quote they use,
if you discontinue the quote, it makes it
clear that they're not stopping all m r
mRNA.
Why is everybody so dishonest about this? I
think we all kinda know why, but recognize
who else out there is covering it that
way. Maybe because they didn't read it carefully,
that's important for you to think about, or
maybe because they just don't want you to
see what's happening, or maybe they just don't
care. But But we're gonna get into what's
really going on with all that and why
I still think it's just the alarming progression
of the exact same problem and and kinda
what we touched on in the last couple
of shows about wondering whether
is the future even,
well, first, is the agenda actually just about
mRNA vaccines? I don't think that. I think
that's a step in regard to the agenda,
the technology,
the, you know, biodigital convergence, all sorts of
things we've talked about, very real stuff.
Then on top of that, though,
are they done with
it? Right? So is the next step going
to be more mRNA vaccines, or is this
just about, like as I was saying, about
a a progression of the agenda, the technology,
the research,
and that now we're moving on beyond the
original mRNA vaccine platform COVID nineteen framing.
Maybe and and not maybe
continuing the self amplifying shots going forward with
universal platforms.
Not m r mRNA necessarily,
but in ways we're gonna get into that
I find very alarming and and especially considering
how most of us recognize that what we
just went through and still continue to be
in is sort of an experiment, and this
adds to that. But we're gonna go through
where that's going and some things I wanna
make sure we call out
coming beforehand and,
well, I I guess, currently beforehand and what's
coming.
We're also gonna talk about some Epstein stuff
that I think is very relevant to just
to kinda catch up on where that's going.
And, again, this is not just about, like,
the media coverage of this and how it's
affecting Donald Trump. That's the surface level nonsense
that's out there. And in its own right,
can be entertaining, if not important in in
certain ways. But as you guys know, this
is much more about its interconnections with foreign
policy. It's it's if the blackmail network can
use to infiltrate governments
and who might be guilty of those crimes
and who's trying to cover those crimes up.
And and, you know, you know our opinions.
This is a government wide dynamic, not maybe
not every single individual, but it's left and
right for sure. And we know that. Most
Republicans are now saying that because that's the
clear reality. And the way that they're covering
this up so far
is really stark. It's obvious. It's in your
face.
We're gonna go over some information that I
haven't covered yet about what Epstein has said
in the past and and what it means
and what other interviews have just uncovered about
what Trump with the possibility most to make
it as objective as possible about Trump involvement
with actual crimes. We know it was involved
with Epstein. That can't be denied. But whether
that amount of the crimes, that's that's what
we're gonna get into partly today and for
you to decide.
But it's also about,
you know, the
the weird way that they're handling the release
of information and what that seems to suggest.
But important to go through all this so
you want we we all understand,
you know, what the implications are of how
they're handling this. Not that anybody knows for
sure.
Either way, and that's important to think about.
We're also gonna talk about a couple of
points toward the end that have to do
with a little overlap of Obama
and and that direction of it, which I
still think is really interesting the way that's
kind of being conflated, and there might be
something to that.
Some points about how the CIA might have
threatened Trump to not expose, you know, how
the except Trump was the one that said
the CIA has to get involved now, and
we'll go over how interesting that is. And
we're also gonna end with an important part,
just briefly highlighting it and where I think
it's going around the debanking executive order that
went out,
which very well could be a positive step.
I mean, again, like always,
the the the partial aspect of it,
if I'm reading it correctly,
is still a good thing, just like with
the mRNA thing. But if there's something more
around it that is, you know, used for
manipulation, the best
lies manipulations always involve truth, if not most
of it being truth,
then I think this it might be something
that is about,
you know, good example, and and then we'll
get into everything. Like the woke conversation, where
you have a situation where a lot of
people, rightly so, and still to this day,
we should be on guard against the whole
woke left idea, whether it's about pronouns and
whatever else.
And then ignoring the fact well, I just
make it simple. The point is the right's
doing a similar thing, but in a smaller
way. Right? About anti anti Semitism. But it's
hate speech and censorship and identity politics. And
so the point was that it's still the
same
mechanism.
And so is it really about all those
things, or is it about just the mechanism
and how it's applied and what that does
for the government? Same with all the things
we're talking about. And so in this case
about debanking,
we we've seen how this has continued. We've
seen it during the from the left administrations.
Well, now we're seeing it a lot with
Israel connection, antisemitism, hate speech,
even US citizens. And so this seems to
carve out an area that seems to apply
to things except what they've already claimed or
even like we just saw with the disaster
aid. Their statement said, well, we removed that,
but we still could do it because we
just do this, you know, regarding the leg
the law the the legislation we passed around
hate speech, we could still just remove
you know, I'm I'm paraphrasing. That's what they
said in their tweet, which we'll show you.
So So the same thing with the debanking
dynamic is it's clear that there's no carve
out for that point. So, yeah, they may
protect you from debanking from the left going
after you for pronouns, but guess what? Republicans
calling out Israel might just fall into that
trap. And so it's really always about trying
to frame it away that makes you think
that they're the good guy when really it's
just the same damn thing.
But let's start today
with a few quick points that I wanted
you all to see that have to do
with foreign policy
that I will get into a come in
a new in a the next show. And
I I just wanted you not to see
this. So you know this already. Anybody watching
the show likely already knows all these things,
and it can't even prove all these things.
These are just supplementary that continue to show
you what's going on in some cases.
UN experts,
this is today, Israel is exterminating the people
of Gaza by any and all means any
and all means. That is a direct quote
from the United Nations. But if you're still
trapped in and look, this is not to
say, I love everything UN and support all
the things they do, including their globalist agendas.
That's stupid. No way are we saying that.
But the fact is the facts, and that
is interesting that it's being stated by such
an a a the leading international body. And
so the point is, you could prove that's
happening whether or not they're saying it, but
the fact that it's being stated, if your
only argument is they are Hamas, then you're
one of these ridiculous people that nobody's listening
to anymore because that's insane and everybody sees
this.
And it says, how is this not newsworthy?
Think about that. Even the people who are
claiming to support, you know, calling out the
genocide now, you're not seeing most of the
mainstream platforms go look at what the UN
said today even though that used to be
what all of them did. There's everything's being
exposed right now because of this central thing.
So recognize what they're doing. Call it out.
We're gonna focus on it more coming up
soon. It's just heartbreaking that this keeps going.
Also,
in regard to the occupation,
Fox News, will will, will Israel take control
of all of Gaza? You know, the whole
thing they they said was never going to
happen. That was never the intention. It's only
about Hamas. And all of us who cared
and studied this and had any information, brain
cells rubbed together, we said, yep. That's what's
planned. Look at the Greater Israel Project. Look
at what all the people in their Knesset
are saying. And here he is going, we
intend to. That's not a bombshell to anybody
with a brain. But so many people have
failed and recognized this because they listen to
people who don't care about the truth. Glenn
Greenwald says,
who do you think will pay for Israel's
full scale occupation of Gaza and the ensuing
years of guerrilla warfare?
Even IDF chiefs are vehemently opposed, knowing it
will lead endless insurgency and enduring fighting in
death. It's not Israel who will pay for
it. It's you. And on top of that,
recognize that they're not getting the hostages out.
What about the people that are still there?
They don't care about them. They don't care
about the American Palestinians or the American Britons
or the Americans that are just there in
general. Whether they're still alive, I can I
don't know? Even NPR said in the beginning,
over 600 Americans were in Gaza before this
started. Your government never cared about any of
them. They sure as hell care about the
Israeli
American Israeli IDF members. They seem to focus
on that entirely. But what's interesting to me
is that the IDF chiefs are against this
largely because they fail every time this happens.
But I'm sure from Netanyahu's perspective, the more
dead IDF members they can show the world,
the more sympathy they can garner. It's my
opinion. Bottom line, this is happening. At least
they're continuing to frame it as about to
happen. And, you know, even,
Robert has argued that this seems insane for
the the very reasons we just stated and
that everyone seems to know that, but I
think this is a desperation move. I think
Netanyahu independently is moments away from going to
prison if this stops.
On top of that, the entirety of Israeli
government is being seen by the world for
what the Zionism infiltration
rather, you know, Zionism have done to this
country. And I think this is about trying
to swing that back the other way desperately
at the expense of their own people, just
like the US government's doing today to you.
On top of that, nine seven two magazine,
like a video game, Israel enforcing Gaza evacuations,
which is what they're beginning to do is
force people into these areas, these concentrated areas,
what they called them,
to with the interest to move them somewhere
else illegally.
Illegally. And in in in doing so, popping
shots, killing them left and right, the same
they're doing with the food lines. Israeli media
is calling it out, but your totally America
First politicians don't care or are lying about
it. It says, I do not think that
IDF soldiers returning to The US should be
yelled at on the street, Kate Willett says.
I think they should go to jail and
be yelled at in there. So think about
the information we just went over with the
IDF member who had their house in The
United States,
the car burned and death to the IDF
put in the street. You start to understand
why people actually think that? Now whether you
condone those actions or not, I don't call
for violence. I don't call for committing crimes.
But you understand it.
It's not about people being Jewish, and that's
coming out all over the place. Now we
will come back to more of that in
the next show. Also, didn't want you to
miss from the peace president. You know? And
don't forget, by the way, there's now Starlink
in Somalia, and they're bombing Somalia. And there's,
you know, all sorts of things spinning out
further, not going smaller. More spending, more government,
more war, just like we told you it
would be happening. I hoped it was opposite,
but here we are. Trump directs military to
target foreign drug cartels. Now if you think
that's a good thing, first of all, if
that's even what's happening, it's not.
Plus remember the war on terror, excuse me,
same thing, the war on drugs, the war,
you know, you can call it the war
of terror. You can't really call it the
war of drugs. But I mean, kind of,
when you realize the CIA and the rest
are shuttling drugs back and forth between countries
for their own benefit at your expense, and
then arresting individuals with a gram of weed
in their pocket. The point is that this
is not about drug cartels or a war
on drugs. The US government is and has
this close ally of Colombia, the leading exporter
of cocaine in the world, but yet they
pretend Maduro is which is what this is
really about, is the one the narcoterrorist
used to well, is it about narcotics? Because
you work with all the leading narcotics traffickers,
but, you know, that's a different conversation, apparently.
This is about military targeting of drug cartels
that they're calling terrorists because that's what they
did with
and Ira gua, MS thirteen. These are these
are horrible gangs, many of which work with
the US government, by the way. The point,
though, is it's really about using them and
calling them terrorists to create the same thing
they did with immigration, this legal gray area
where they act like it's all insurrection, it's
all invasion. On top of that, they're rationalizing
going after Maduro
again.
It's every single president as far back as
you can look. Look at that consistent policy.
That's what this is really about. We'll come
back to this the next show,
but here is the insider paper. President Trump
has signed a directive to the Pentagon to
begin using military force,
war
against Latin American drug cartels because that's what
Americans care about. Right? Going after gangs in
other countries. Is that America first, even if
you think it's important in the long run?
Simon Godek says, hey, Pam Bondi. How about
a $50,000,000
reward for the information leading to the arrest
of everybody who effed kids in Epstein Island?
Nope. She's given $50,000,000 to go after Nicolas
Maduro's head. Because that's what that's what democracies
do. They call for the killing of people
around the world and pay for it. No.
It's called mercenaries, guys. That's called I mean,
definitely not what they frame themselves as.
Think about how wild this is.
They were offering they were offering this much
for Osama bin Laden. In fact, it's kind
of the close to was it was it
50,000,000 they were offering for Jelani who they
now allow to rule Syria? These people are
morally inept.
She no. I'm not talking about her. She's
just talking head. She says whatever she's told
to do. This is insane, and this is
not what anybody wanted on either side of
the paradigm, but here we are because your
government doesn't care what you think.
And Khaleesi simply points out, and it could
be true. I believe it's part of it.
This is why America put a $50,000,000 bounty
on the president of Venezuela. He says, who's
the one that bombs their neighboring countries every
day? Iran?
Nope. The Zionist state led by Netanyahu, and
he's right. But let's keep calling everybody else
terrorists as these people lead the world into
chaos. We'll come back to that. Now let's
get into today.
Did a pretty good job there. That was
only four fourteen minutes sixteen minutes
for some opening points. Okay. This is really
important, and I do think it's
incredible how they keep lying to you, like,
blatant in in either hopes that you're that
stupid or just that willing to blindly follow.
Now, we just talked about this. RFK Jr.
Cancels nearly $500,000,000
in mRNA contracts. I genuinely,
one, had a feeling that this was going
to go in a positive way, that that
there were gonna be like, even just a
give us a head fake, to feign like
we're going more, they don't even give you
that. And not as far as I can
tell, other than the contracts that are canceled,
but let me explain why I think this
was sort of the inevitable.
We'll get into it. My point is that
I hope that that would happen, but also
that this would be the beginning of a
direction that I that a lot of us
want to happen. Even people that don't support
any politician
still hope for the positive outcome of anything.
So here's what we went into here's what
we're gonna get into today, the reality of
this. Now break it down quickly.
What's happening here is that they are not
stopping all mRNA tech. That's clear. It's right.
It's right in their own document in in
their own post, by the way, from HHS,
And they're not even stopping all mRNA shots.
So mRNA in other areas of the field,
which that's still the same problem,
but specifically
two
main creators of shots, not even their individual
ones, but the ones we've already talked about.
I believe it's pronounced
Arcturus
as well as
this one here, which is
where was it?
It's right here somewhere. I'm just blanking on
the
how am I missing this? Oh, it I
moved the page. That's right. It's right here.
It is
out Amplitude
Therapeutics. Now we're gonna come back to both
of those. I'm gonna show you why both
of those are not being stopped, and those
have shots for COVID nineteen that include mRNA
very clearly. So first, what Time magazine reported,
and this was on the fifth. It says
that it will start winding down
mRNA vaccine development. So RFK's announcement,
which I keep trying to find any real
momentum on. Like, I'm looking into these 22
that they still don't give you any indication
on, at least far as I can tell.
The 22 contracts they're canceling. I I I
don't doubt those are happening at least. I
mean, I I mean, always question everything, but
I get the indication that that's probably going
to happen, But we should wait for it
to happen as always. But 22 of them,
and I'm not I can't no one's releasing
what they're going to be. I'm sure we'll
find something. But winding down is my point.
So that's they're not stopping these things. Now
that's important first because of and a lot
of us understand what RFK told you. They're
deadly.
Not Trump, who I'll show you in a
second. Yet again, Kilt still tells you that
they're safe, but if
warp speed was the best thing ever that
everybody agrees to. He just said that again.
But winding them down. So if this was
is, and we know it's as deadly as
RFK told you it was, If this was
arsenic on the shelf, would you go, well,
we're gonna wind down the arsenic sales, but
you can get it for a minute limited
more time. That's not that doesn't make any
sense.
But it goes on to say, we're shifting
that funding towards safer, broader vaccine platforms that
remain effective even as viruses mutate. That's what
they're announcing today and yesterday. That's the universal
vaccine
platform. Now, there's a difference, obviously, between mRNA
and even these old styles, which I'm gonna
get into. It's the whole cell ones, which
are problematic for a lot of reasons. Those
are the ones that people tended to get
sick from that had high levels of side
effects. I'm gonna argue less than mRNA.
I think that's easy to prove. But that
like, worse than hit the ones we've been
using between those things.
And
the people from Maha, in a lot of
ways, I would argue the majority, don't want
any of these things. We're convinced that he
would pull back on basically all of it,
the child's schedule, at least look into not
just mRNA, but every vaccine because that's what
he's told you. The entire industry is broken.
And yet, here we
are, not changing these things. If you think
there's no tweaking every vaccine that's still being
used, they're not. These are the same ones
that he called out before. Yeah. But you
could argue he can only manage one thing
at a time. He can't change everything at
once. Fine. Fine. I get that. I'm not
even arguing that maybe that'll happen, and when
it does, I will praise it. But at
the moment,
this seems like a
not really what people are making it out
to be. At and even in mRNA in
particular, but in general, that the vaccine platform,
including what Fauci told you was the next
step, is now beginning to happen. It says
HHS said on Tuesday that some final stage
contracts,
and what's funny is this gets dot dot
dotted, which this there's reason for that, will
be allowed to run their course
to preserve prior taxpayer investment. Okay. Right. So
you can keep buying arsenic because, well, you
paid for
it. Okay. Well, if this was about life
and death, which it is, that doesn't make
any sense. That's the same as before. It's
going, well, it's not like, it's freedom of
choice. Well, it's not the same thing when
you're, you know, forcing us to pay taxes,
using that money to produce dangerous things, and
then acting like we have to let that
be on the shelf. It's not the same
thing. If you grew this yourself, then that.
You could choose to eat it if you
want. That's your freedom.
The idea that you're acting like it's their
choice or hands are bound because you have
to be able to choose to take this
thing and die or not, it's
especially when they're misinformed about what the risks
are, you know that doesn't make sense. But
it's and they're using your your it's funny
how they go, it's about freedom of choice,
and then take that away from you everywhere
else when they're not even giving it to
you here. But it says, but that no
new no new mRNA based project will be
initiated.
I somehow even doubt well, here's what's funny.
That's not even true. Now what they mean
is vaccines, and I don't even I doubt
whether that'll even be the case. But the
crazy thing is I'll read you directly from
HHS' statement where it says that they'll we'll
they will continue mRNA
products in other fields. So that is this
is how most of these platforms are are
are framing it,
making it sound like that's happening. Why is
everybody doing that? I mean, you know why
most of them are. But it says they
the the agency said that other uses of
MRA technology within department are not impacted. Well,
it said that's so this is funny. It
says it it right afterward. Here's oh, I'm
gonna come to it. It's right here where
it says that on their page.
But it says no new mRNA based projects
will be initiated.
Doesn't that seem to make it sound broad?
But then they go on to say next,
the mRNA technology within the department is not
impacted by this. So there are continuing mRNA
projects.
It also said that BARDA will shift its
focus to, quote, platforms with stronger safety records
and transparent clinical and manufacturing data practices. Great.
But I don't know why you would assume
that. They're just words
on a page met from a
politician. So maybe it'll happen, and when it
does, we should go, yay. Great.
And then double check to make sure we're
not being lied to by those
objective transparent research. The point is that these
are just statements, guys. People love at this
point to cheer when the guy they like
says the thing they hope happens and acting
like that means it's already happening. It's just
politics. It's partisan politics.
But it goes on to say, adding that
technologies that were funded during the emergency phase
but failed to meet current scientific standards will
be phased out in favor phased out. Someone
they're killing children, but we'll let them taper
down. That's just so stupid to me. In
favor
where was it? In favor of evidence based,
ethically grounded solutions, which is not what's happening
right now, in my opinion, like whole virus
vaccines and novel platforms. Well, novel platforms and
whole so you're talking about something from the
fifties that they most people have gravitated away
from for obvious reasons and then novel platforms,
which is the same problem.
And I'm gonna show you why. Whether mRNA
or not, we're getting into the problematic we'll
show you a 21 valent shot.
21, like, bivalent, but 21 valent. These are
all happening. And I don't know why this
is you know, mRNA is only one part
of this, guys. Remember that there was a
multitude of
scientific vaccination
processes, and it's not
what it appears to be.
Here's what it says.
HHS
winds down mRNA vaccine development,
and it says under BARDA, by the way.
I'm I'm pretty sure not everything they do
is managed under BARDA.
So we you all this, we basically already
know. They they they announced
the beginning of a coordinated wind down of
mRNA platform stuff.
We reviewed the science, listened to the experts,
and acted.
Terminating, again, I really wanna know the exact
22. What are the 22
in, vaccine development investments?
Show these vaccines to fail to protect against
respiratory infections like COVID and flu, which is
the truth.
He's right about that.
So it says, while some final stage contracts
and look at what they choose to dot
dot dot.
The things that matter,
e g, Arcturus
and Amplitude
will be allowed to run their course and
to preserve
taxpayer investment.
So when you mean run their course, so
that means you're gonna let them make them
and sell them. And then what?
Do one, like, one contract and then we're
gonna stop it? That's the no. A few
people think that I don't think you're paying
attention. Certainly could be. If you're gonna make
that allow them to make these shots and
put them out in the world, they will
continue to be sold. And it says,
no new mRNA based projects will be initiated.
Then it says, other uses of mRNA technology
within the department are not impacted, which we
already read.
So you tell me why that feels, and
and funny how this part of it, the
bottom part of it, is being left out
of the conversation.
He says, let me be absolutely clear. HHS
support
supports safe, effective vaccines. Well, the FDA with
Prasad and MacKaire just told us the science
around the other the old COVID shots were
safe and effective.
They're the ones involved in this.
And it says for every American who wants
them.
That's why we're moving beyond the limitations,
the limitations of mRNA and investing in better
solutions. Does that really make you feel like
we're aware of how dangerous these things are
and going away from them or that we're
getting beyond them, we're growing beyond them, you
know, to things like self amplifying mRNA shots?
Because that's what's actually happening.
K. First of all,
our Arcturus,
not around COVID, is one of the main
ones we told you about. This is the
self amplifying
bird flu shot.
That's one they just told you are not
going away.
And as far as I could tell
okay. Yeah. No. I was gonna say, this
one is mRNA as well, but it's a
self amplifying mRNA shot.
That's what I think this is about. Now
you'll find it interesting that the groups that
they cap they kinda carved out as the
ones we won't stop right now are all
self amplifying shots. I think this is a
kind of a sleight of hand to make
us feel like we're stopping the things we
want. We heard. We heard what you said,
and then not really stopping them, and, in
fact, going in the direction that they're focused
in on. We always told you self amplifying
was going to be the next step.
Here we are.
It's funny how much of what we said
early in in the COVID illusion is exactly
what continues to happen.
And a lot of us, not just T
Lab. Now this is the one I wanted
to highlight on. This is from before. This
is 2024.
Self amplifying
mRNA COVID nineteen vaccine. This is one that
this is Arcturus. They're not stopping these.
There you go.
Now there's other ones.
These are all ones we've covered, by the
way. This is just what Google says about
Amplitude. It says the Amplitude COVID vaccine refers
to an mRNA based vaccine candidate developed by
Amplitude Therapeutics.
More than one, guys.
It's being developed as part of a broader
initiative by the Department of Health and Human
Services to explore next generation mRNA vaccine technology,
specifically focusing on a trans amplifying
mRNA approach.
Right. We're gonna move beyond the limitations of
those old school mRNA shots. We're gonna dive
into the trans amplifying mRNA approach because that's
not the same thing.
While AtroGenesis is winding down, see, many mRNA
vaccine development projects,
Amplitude's project, as well as Arcturus' bird flu
vaccine, are allowed to continue to completion
due to existing contracts.
Because their hands are bound, guys. Didn't they
just pull an mRNA COVID shot from Moderna
even after the funding? Yes, they did. So,
that's bull. I almost cursed.
Just frustrates me how obvious this stuff is.
Here's one of the they're referencing. It says
new research to investigate
next generation
transamplifying
mRNA vaccines.
Scientists in The US are set to test
a new vaccine approach that could overcome some
of the challenges associated with the latest mRNA
vaccine designs, see, the limitations,
and more rapidly create, great, faster,
more spreading, pandemic busting vaccines in as little
as a hundred days. Cool. So nothing's changed.
It's only gotten worse if you focus in
on what they're saying. A hundred days?
So what's different? Rapidly produced platform mRNA shots.
Those are happening.
With up to $1,000,000
in funding from CEPI.
Right? See, it's, you know, all the same
groups that we were all calling out, you
know, and it's I mean, it's not like
these are I mean, it's part of the
government, but realize that this is stuff that
is not slowing down, in my opinion. Researchers
at Amplitude Therapeutics will perform preclinical studies that
assess whether their transamplifying mRNA vaccine approach could
provide a simplified alternative to the self amplifying
mRNA vaccine technique
being used today.
Really, being used today. But let's not forget,
if you go back to the original Pfizer
documentation, what you remember what I showed you
right in the beginning, 2020?
That one the way they listed the b
n t b n what was it? Shoot.
BNT6212.
Damn. I'm forgetting now. The the are it
was so
on the top of your head when you're
covering this. So the original Pfizer that b,
b n b n two and b n
or now I can't remember. The the two
shots. The two Pfizer shots and the the
number letter
descriptor they gave for it.
The one that they listed, the one that
ended up being used predominantly was listed originally
as self amplifying.
Still there. So the point is, they went
on to call it something else, but that's
what it was listed as, and that's the
number that they now say is associated with
the ones that were always being used. So
maybe it's always been the case. It's worth
considering.
Now here's one. 07/01/2025,
Moderna's
mRNA
one one zero one o shows effect efficacy
in phase three seasonal flu vaccine trial. Now,
as far as I can tell, you know,
unless they release the the the full data
on the 22
that they're claiming they're stopping, this does not
appear to be one of them In in
in everything that I can find, that's a
limited statement because I haven't gotten everything. They
haven't released everything. But from what I can
tell, this appears to be one that is
almost there. So in the same logic of
not stopping ones they're committed to with money,
this one feels like one of those as
well. The point, they're all over the place,
and they're continuing. And this is about the
seasonal flu vaccine.
Now the vigil of Fox highlights that
a
HHS
adviser
spoke to Bannon.
And guess what he's saying?
He confirmed
that you could see, and you could see
the pain on his face because he was
somehow forced to say the things he came
on the show to say. Like, what a
weird way to frame that. So he goes
on the show clearly.
Like, so you act like like Bannon tricked
him into saying it. And first of all,
RFK has publicly said all of these things.
So this to me feels really weird way
to frame this and it adds to what
I think. That really, they're trying to make
it seem like we're calling it out finally.
This explains why RFK effectively shut down all
mRNA vaccine funding. No. He didn't. See how
easy that is to miss? To to, you
know, to manipulate?
The point, guys,
is that he's claiming that every you know,
there's no benefit.
That the really, the main point that he
that we all know, I'm just trying to
skim and go quickly, is that
the right here. The in other words, the
cure was worse than the disease. Oh, weird.
You mean, like, what all of us were
screaming in 2020, at least worrying about that,
and Trump promised would never be the case,
and here we are? The point is that,
yes, we all see that. So then why
are mRNA vaccines still being allowed to go
forward? Why would this guy come on, Bannon,
and say, oh, they're so bad. They kill
everybody, and then but we're gonna let them
keep going.
Now realize
the shots are still going, but also mRNA
tech in other avenues is still being allowed
to go forward. This doesn't make any sense
unless you realize, in my opinion, that this
is him going on the show to make
it feel like we did it, and he's
even grudgingly admitting it. How would that even
make sense? Why would he grudgingly admit something
that you're telling us that team wants? It
doesn't line up. It it does if you
realize they're trying to play you into this
direction to make you think that you stopped
it, just like gain a function, by the
way,
which, by the way, I'll show you in
a minute
or just highlight. You know, here's the show.
We did this on gain a function head
fake. This was on 05/09/2025,
and I already described it. They didn't really
stop it. They made they lied to you.
And the document they put out claiming that
that everyone pointed to as proof that they
stopped it said right on it that they
weren't stopping it. People follow, man. Now here
is Donald Trump. After what we just showed
you, what we're being told from RFK's advisor,
make sense of this for me. You already
know. He said it a 100 times. The
driving force behind operation
warp speed. I also wanna point out quickly,
why has nobody asked this question before? You
know how long this question has been valid
and how it's been very right it's right
on the surface. The contradiction between what he
says and what all of his base thinks.
Wouldn't that be easy, low hanging fruit for
Democrats that wanna expose him? Right? But only
now, after all these times that come out,
because they're not really fighting each other at
the end of the day, at the higher
levels, because just there really is one government
playing you into this, whether they even know
that or not. You just have to be
able to look at history and recognize how
easy that is to see. But they finally
ask it.
Behind operation Warp Speed, these mRNA vaccines that
are the gold standard. Right. Now your health
secretary
is pulling back all the funding for research.
He's saying that the risks outweigh the benefits,
which puts him at odds with the higher
Even right there, by the way, she made
it sound like everything mRNA was stopping. Right?
It's so easy to mislead people these days.
He's saying that the risks outweigh the benefits,
which puts him at odds with the higher
medical community and with you. What is going
on? Research on what? Into mRNA vaccines. Well,
we're gonna
Do you really think that he didn't know
what he meant? It's being really ridiculous. It's
getting ridiculous today how often Trump is playing
stupid. He acts like like, I think he
now thinks it gives him some kind of
legal bound like, oh, like, like, distance from
it. But it makes you look stupid. It
makes you look like you don't even know
what's going on in your administration. He keeps
referencing to I know what you know. I
read it in the papers.
He damn well knows what's going on, guys.
He literally just oh, let me finish this
first.
Which puts him at odds with the entire
medical community and with you. What is going
on? Research on what? Into mRNA vaccines. We're
gonna look at that. We're talking about it,
and they're doing a very good job. And,
you know, that is,
a past with operation warp speed.
Yeah. Why are you still talking about Epstein?
That's old news. That's the past.
Was whether you're Republican or Democrat considered one
of the most incredible things ever done in
this country. Do you agree with that?
Democrat, Republican?
I mean, here's what's funny. Democrats
still in a large degree want to think
this was positive and say the vaccines helped,
but not when Trump does it. Not when
Trump's vaccine. Because they're children. Right? But the
point is
nobody actually feels that way, guys. That's insane.
Like, he's he's this narrative, he keeps putting
out the claim that everyone everywhere agrees that
Trump saved the day with Operation Warp Speed.
It's this it just gets it's, you know,
conspicuous. It's right there. Everyone feels that's weird,
but you get the team sport followers. It's
like Zionism and and what's going on in
Israel. They'll always hold the line, but it's
not every it's it's not even close to
the majority in my opinion right now. The
efficiency,
the,
the way it was done, the distribution,
everything about it was
has been amazing. Wow. Amazing,
you know, killing children, amazing d
driving people to disability, amazing short I mean,
all the things. It's all amazing. All the
horrible things that we all know that the
whole world's called out, it was all amazing.
How can he keep saying that? But, you
know, that was,
now a long time ago. Oh, yeah. And
we're on to other things, but we are
speaking about it. We have meetings about it
in, tomorrow, actually, tomorrow at 12:00.
Now I looked it up so far. I
can't see anything.
I can't even see that there was a
meeting that took place. But what's interesting
is that very that seems to suggest like
it's not
completely defined. It's not absolute because he kept
twice now. They're, well, we're gonna talk about
that. Doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement, does
it? And we'll determine.
We're looking for other answers to other problems,
to other sicknesses and diseases,
and I think we're doing really well. Yes.
Great. Great. Not an answer. And ends with
we're the best always. I'm good. Move next
question. You know, it's just it's just so
funny. But at the end of the day,
he only really put doubt in that conversation.
And on top of what we already know,
that shouldn't surprise you. But the real point,
he continues to to scream about how great
the the ejections are, how warp speed saved
the day.
No. But especially his base does not think
that, and that was the premise of the
question. Now,
Mary Talley Bowden, by the way, who just
was on Joe Rogan and was
calling one of the main things was exposing
all the different shots, mRNA related, that were
in the pipe work. And I think it's
way more. I think she said 27 that
she could see. That's more than 22, as
we're trying to highlight. But there's more that
aren't even in this the the, you know,
kind of BARDA related management. And that's important
to think about.
Now on a quick side note, by the
way, it's funny that somebody put me this
really good thread about what she said on
that show,
and then it even got exposed by the
fact checker. People were just, like, literally word
for word copying it, posting it, and then
sharing it, and then going, like, invest here.
And, you know, this this platform is just
garbage with that stuff today. And it it's
something that they claimed they wanted to stop
before. Now realize, I'm not even calling for
that. The point is that they they said
they would do that, and they've just this
platform is just a bag of manipulations at
this point. But Mary Talley Bowden points out,
after the same clip we just showed you,
asked about ending it all and Trump's response,
we have meetings about it tomorrow. Actually, 12:00.
Now guess what?
Gary
Delaney,
director of MAHA implementation,
was just fired. Why?
As Mary's claiming,
the the fired for defending
Kennedy's decision
to end funding of all mRNA shots.
Now this very well could start if this
maybe Trump didn't know. Maybe this is genuinely
something that he didn't want to happen and
he stopped it. I don't know. We'll have
to wait for more information. But she he's
Mary says, thank you, Gray, for having the
integrity to speak out when others won't.
I think that's really interesting.
I mean, at the very least, why would
he be fired?
And, you know, this is that's Trump going
around r k junior to fire somebody he
put in position. That seems pretty strange.
This just doesn't add up with the way
people want it to look, you know, like
the people that are desperate to make this
all about winning.
Now this is where it gets even more
alarming,
especially because this is something that people like
Rick Bright, Fauci have told you is coming,
is the future before the COVID nineteen time
frame. And so you have to ask the
question about whether all of it was always
leading in this direction.
So TruStream Media said RFK Jr told everyone
straight up what his job
as HHS secretary is, and I'll play the
clip for you, is to to restore
trust in the vaccine program.
Very different than changing the vaccines. Now that's
what people wanna hear. That means he's gonna
change it all, make it safe, and then
make sure we know that. Maybe.
Maybe not. This is where it comes to
the point of choosing to hear what you
want or believe what you want when it's
somebody you hope or believe in. You hope
you could hope is, you know, what you
think or wanna believe in.
When in reality,
it doesn't matter what you think. We should
question them all the same way. That's just
logic. That's intelligence.
Question them, especially those you believe in because
you want them to succeed. Hold their feet
to the fire more than anybody.
That's not what happens usually.
He's a government vaccine salesman now, they claim.
That's what True Street Media says. I agree
with that. Maha Action says, RFK Jr, we're
developing a universal vaccine at NIH, which is
a vaccine that addresses the entire vialmoviruses.
Yeah. That sounds
safe. Remember the whole point about giving I'll
I'll play that clip in a second, actually.
But, you know, if you give the wrong
vaccine that addresses a wrong antigen, then bad
things happen? Well, what if you take an
injection that has, I don't know, 21 different
antigens in it? 21 different valence or the
one that's most supposed to aim at all
of them somehow.
Very very weird. Now I'm not claiming to
be an expert on vaccinology or any of
this, but I think it's what we've researched
in the past and what even they have
said. What RFK Junior has said speaks to
speaks
suggests this is not the right step.
But we should be questioning at the very
least, I think. Here's the clip.
Now we're developing a universal vaccine at NIH,
which is a vaccine that addresses the entire
phylum of viruses.
And so it's a it's a vaccine that
mimics natural immunity,
and it,
and it it is effective against any kind
of mutations. So it doesn't drive virus to
mutate,
and it could be effective. We believe it's
gonna be effective about against not only coronaviruses
but also flu.
Think about that. And this is what we
told you was always coming. This is the
platform that we already reported on. We already
told you this was coming. Again, demonstrating our
value, guys. This was reported. Right now, it's
a big story because they came out and
they posted it. We were telling you this
was coming well before this, that it was
gonna be COVID nineteen. It was gonna be
flu because they told you that if you
were paying attention.
And it's gonna be a much more much
safer
and much more effective vaccine.
So
if it's all of these things, how do
you think that's happening?
Right? I I when these things actually
if if and when, I hope not, become
circulated and have their and there's data which
I could probably find if I dig deeper
right now when I have more time. You
know, I wanna look through this entirely like
we did during COVID. I wanna look at
this I wanna look at this trial. I
wanna look at the actual the actual post
information about these things and look at how
that's possible. How is that happening?
Right? What is the what is the logic
behind it?
But as people you know, there's a lot
of people who I hold in high regard
in this conversation. Sasha Latapova says, do do
you know that this, quote, universal flu platform
is using whole viruses?
It is. Grown in aborted fetal cells?
Isn't that something that republicans have a big
problem with?
They wanna think about that. And uses beta
propylolactone,
which is which is a known carcinogen,
genotoxic, mutagenic agent,
tetro,
a teratogenic
causes reproductive harm, environmental
toxin by the EPA, FDA, EMA.
Yeah. Sure sounds great. Seems like a great
step. Like, it's you should ask whether this
might even be worse than what we're talking
about. I mean, it's experimental. You understand. This
hasn't been done before. So this should not
be something that ends up being like, again,
we're getting ahead. We'll see how it comes
out. Is it something that's put out like
it was last time? Is it something that
is tested in a certain way? Is it
forced because of circumstances? You know, we'll find
out, won't we? But I'm not feeling good
about where this is going. Sure as hell,
Maher should not.
Slow news day. It's like I said before.
Steve says Steve poke poikin in for mayhem.
Wake up. Since day one of Trump two
point o, he says, I've been calling it
the bait and switch administration.
Not because I want it to be true,
but because that's the only thing they've shown
us and continue to show us. I flatly
agree with that. It's true. Here's five times
August who feels the same. In January, pull
the COVID shot. He's saying what we were
saying, everybody. In in February, pull the shot.
March, same thing. April, May, June, pull the
shot. That's what everyone was saying. Pull the
COVID shot. Then in July, here's a new
COVID shot,
which may very well be one of the
ones in that 22 category, but we're not
being told yet, and there's plenty still continuing.
So the point is they did put out
another one, which seems ridiculous whether or not
they eventually pull it back. That was still
HHS.
Them in August. Oh, also, we're working on
one big beautiful mega shot for all the
things, which would conclude a COVID shot.
Doesn't seem to line up.
Doctor Jane Ruby rightly points this out. Now
we've covered this clip more than once.
As she says, Fauci was going for the
universal flu vaccine. He was. He was all
about it. Many times he was talking about
this. He when somebody said, as a pharma
pharma maker, why would I want a product
that was only given once?
And I'll I'll play Fauci's reply. Now, here
is the show that we did about this.
This was back in 05/04/2025.
One of the points in the show was
RFK's universal flu vaccine platform.
This is this this came out May 1.
We covered this back then on
May 4, and this is exactly what we're
talking about. And I'll play I'll I'll go
through it next, and that's exactly what you
just heard. But here's, Jane Ruby pointing out
what Rick Bright and Fauci had to say,
and I forget the guy's name. It look
looks like Michael Spector.
And here's what they had to say about
the coming universal flu shot that's now being
rolled out by the Trump administration.
Representative of industry, but I'll pretend I'm one.
I make a flu vaccine every year, and
it sells and it protects people to the
degree that we expect. No incentive. Right? Why
the hell
would I go spend $400,000,000
to do this thing, which may be great,
and then if it's really great, you give
it once or twice or five times. And
and that's where the federal government comes in.
Yuck.
It's funny.
You know, the point is, we'll we'll find
a a way to course you into it.
Like, that's the logic.
As the same thing they were saying before,
the documents I've shown you about, you know,
health is more than influenza, the WHO put
out, or the HHS document about talking about
how they they're lying about the flu and
pneumonia overlap. I mean, I've shown you these
things a 100 times on the show. It's
very easy to see that they've been manipulating
this for a long time, and anybody honest
has been calling it out for a long
time.
Now this plat or the,
release about this, HHS, NIH, and we're gonna
get into some overlapping points I find very
interesting about this that they also have patent
investments, you know, sort of like just exactly
with COVID nineteen and Fauci that we all
had a problem with, and now it's happening
again. NHS NIH excuse me, NIH HHS launched
new generation
universal vaccine platform for pandemic prone viruses.
NIH in house development of universal influenza and
coronavirus vaccines,
protection against multiple strains of pandemic prone viruses
like h five n one, ABN influenza, and
coronaviruses,
including SARS cop two, SARS cop one, MERS
and COVID. So all of that's packed into
this thing.
I think most people, especially those that were
hoping for something different from RFK, are not
gonna be feeling good about this.
Here's this is even more interesting. Trump this
is from May 13. So remember, we're talking
about the same universal platform. Trump's administration's
universal flu vaccine project puzzle scientists. A lot
of this is about how great mRNA is,
and we can't believe they're but it says
vaccine experts are perplexed by the project the
Trump administration has launched to develop a universal
flu vaccine,
which has been which has long been a
goal,
though an elusive one in medical research.
Dubbed generation gold standard, just the same old
thing, the project is aimed at creating a
flu shot that doesn't have to be updated
every year. So that's the real thing. May
whether you need 15 of them or not,
we don't have to change this. It's a
forever shot that you take
and works 60% of the time, which turns
out to be 5% of the time based
on the numbers we whatever it turns out.
That's kind of the way this always goes.
But let's wait to see some facts. The
bottom line, though, is that seems to be
the real push is that we can just
make it
forever, and that becomes the you know, and
it's just all profit from there forward.
And then, you know, it's way more than
just profit when it comes to this stuff
like we saw during COVID nineteen.
And it says,
the project also aims to produce a vaccine
that could protect people against other respiratory viruses
that could cause a pandemic, such as bird
flu and coronaviruses. Now doctor Bakhti talking about
the mRNA shot was important recognizing
that it doesn't work against
respiratory. Now this is arguably not an mRNA
shot. But, I mean, we'll have to see
how this actually pans out. My point is
arguably the same, though. I've heard plenty of
experts make this case about flu shots, that
if you're getting a shot in the muscle
in your shoulder, that it really the the
point is it should be in your your
your nasal passage, your mucol you know, there's
there's better ways to have it affect a
respiratory illness.
So the argument is that this also in
your shoulder, which is what we're talking about,
wouldn't have you know, that this is about
something else is what my point is getting
at.
And it says,
such as bird flu coronavirus, it says it
extends vaccine protection beyond strain specific limits and
prepares for flu viral threats,
which, you know, my argument is the same
as flu, the same thing. Guys, it's why
you think we need these things in the
first place.
Not just today's, but tomorrow's as well. How
would you possibly think that even scientifically makes
sense?
But I'm not an expert. We'll find out.
Using traditional vaccine technology brought into the twenty
first century. That's what they said. Quote, I'm
glad to see that this administration is still
wanting to invest in developing next generation influenza
vaccines or respiratory vaccines in general, says Ted
Ross, director of the global vaccine development to
the Cleveland Clinic.
Makes you feel good. First of all, the
project plans to use an approach that would
involve injecting people with a whole
flu virus
that has been killed with a chemical to
render it harmless, so we're told. Or maybe
they made a mistake. But, remember, historically,
this was why one of the reasons why
these things were pulled back because it there's
openings for that to be a problem. And
it says, but is still capable of stimulating
immune system if even though they claim they've
killed it. Most vaccine experts consider the whole
killed virus approach to be antiquated. And more
than that, though, whole dead virus vaccines tend
to produce more side effects, including high fever,
seizures than than that especially can frighten patient
parents,
Poland,
Ross, and others say. Now realize, like I
said, my opinion, I think, which is easy
to prove, these mRNA shots, at least the
ones we just saw,
shockingly
more side effects. But in in comparison to
old like, you know, the ones we've been
using before COVID nineteen and these whole ones,
they have historically at least been shown to
have a lot higher issues.
And it says and then there's the price
tag, $500,000,000.
Look at that, which is a huge amount,
especially at the time when federal health research
funding is being slashed, the money that was
originally earmarked
to help explore a variety of technologies for
next generation COVID vaccines. Okay. So let's unpack
that really quickly. $500,000,000
in May was earmarked for the next generation
COVID vaccines.
Right? So we're coming along. We're getting closer
to this. And they go, we're slashing $500,000,000
in COVID nineteen
contracts.
Secondarily,
we're starting a universal flu platform that previously
we were told would cost $500,000,000
or flu COVID-nineteen. Okay. So, is this just
the same damn thing?
Kinda seems that way. So, if it's the
generation of COVID-nineteen vaccines and they're still doing
self amplifying COVID vaccines, but yes, they're over
here slashing off some old mRNA things they
don't wanna use anymore,
They're using the $500,000,000,000
they claim they slashed from COVID and shots
to make a universal platform that makes COVID
shots.
So nothing really changed other than where they've
kind of carved out what they're focusing on.
So just like every other topic, like Steve
was pointing out, it's a bait and switch.
They're still doing it. Maybe not exactly the
same way or as many, but I don't
even know how we can prove that. The
point is they are clearly doing it with
the same money for the same purpose, but
we're folding in flu too and everything else,
apparently.
It says another aspect that's raising eyebrows is
the fact that technology called a beta
propylactone
in the in in inactivated
whole virus platform, more platforms,
was developed by n I NIH
scientists.
Great. So you mean the same NIH that
we all were calling out before they took
over this administration?
Doctor Matthew Mimali and doctor Jeffrey Todd,
Taubenberger.
I half expected to see Fauci's name right
there.
Mimali was recently named as the principal deputy
director of the NIH after serving as Trump's
acting NIH director during Fauci's reign.
That's what that means.
Taubenberger
was recently named acting director of the of
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Taubenberger
holds a patent
on the technology.
So here we are again with an NIH
scientist who has a profit motive about this
very thing.
In addition, the strategy was picked without independent
public review and based on only very limited
preliminary testing. Great.
Here we go again, ladies and gentlemen.
Last quote, the BPL platform is fully government
owned
and NIH developed,
the announcement says. This approach ensures radical transparency.
Oh, it does, does it? Public accountability and
freedom from commercial conflicts of interest except the
one we just read for you. The point,
guys,
this
look. I'm not gonna pretend like we have
more transparency from Pfizer,
but if you for one second think that
the government is the now because the government's
doing it, it'll be transparent. It's like the
most the biggest oxymoron I've ever heard in
my life. They are by out of like,
it's their policy
to hide everything even sometimes what doesn't need
to be hidden. Pfizer, this is the same
damn thing, Cause it's like a it's a
public private dynamic where it's a fascistic world
we live in. It's and I mean that
only in a sense in this case of
the corporate government overlap.
Here we are.
Oh, and then I think I the last
part was
oh, no. I read that.
So also just wanna point out that we've
been talking about this a long time. If
you wanna go back and watch them, this
is from 2022.
Showing you that this is where it was
gonna go, not because we were guessing, because
we could see where the things were pointing.
The multivalent,
where we are, universal mRNA flu vaccine, 11/25/2022.
Now it's not like I'm psychic. It was
already being talked about. My point was we
were discussing how we felt this was going
to be the next step, and and this
is clearly the that's correct.
This one is from 2023.
MRNA
universal injections are, quote, the future. That's what
they're claiming. That's my point. That's what the
quotes are for. The future even as they
alter, maim, and kill many who take them.
Why?
Because that was the
plan. Great a great one to watch. The
point was this was the plan. They knew
this was the plan, and now it's being
parried out from from Trump to Biden to
Trump or even before that when you understand
how long it's been going on. But they
already knew that was the case, and we
covered it back in 2023.
Here's May 2023. That one was January.
The new mod RNA ferritin nanoparticle universal flu
injection. Right? So I bet you this spins
out into a bunch of other projects if
well, let's be clear. This was already happening.
In 2023, we showed you the study. One
of them at MIT. There's a Rockefeller study
in the technology, but there is an actual
trial ongoing, if not already being produced,
for a mod RNA ferret nanoparticle universal flu
injection.
Now, I'm not gonna dive into all that
because it's if you wanna check out what
that means, look at it. The the the
crazy part is even the Rockefeller study showed
you that the ferritin nano particle injections can
quite literally be used to control the way
you move, control the way you think, control
the way that you care I mean, or
relay information. I'm not It may sound crazy
to you, but this is an MIT investigator.
This is from Rockefeller Institute University, excuse me,
and MIT and plenty of others that have
investigated this. It's not fake, at the very
least.
If it is, it's a grand manipulation that
they put out all sorts of research on
and show you the studies, but that's what
they're claiming at the very least. Now last
couple points on this, as I mentioned, here's
Merck. This is from 06/17/2024.
The f d FDA approves
Capvaxxiv,
however you say that,
eight eight for pneumonia, a twenty one valent
injection,
which as far as I can tell, appears
to be continuing. And so I'm wondering whether
there's some kind of overlap to this step
this this research and where it goes. But
recognize this is, I I don't think for
a second that this is even stopping or
even slowing down. I think they're recalibrating their
direction based on what the real agenda is.
Here's one that Orwell shared, that one as
well before it. Quadra quadrivalent
influenza
nanoparticle vaccine or the flumos v one. All
of these are coming forward right now.
Now I wanna point out really quickly, like,
one of the only people that I could
find I was I basically was organizing this
setup with the ones we had that, you
know, Arcturus and everything. And I went on
to Twitter to see if I could find
any, you know, anybody else. I'm just kinda
searching for it. And this I I'm not
familiar with him. I started following because of
this. But this seems to be, like, the
only guy that I could find that is
actually covering
what we just told you, which is that
this is, as he says, don't be fooled.
They just opened the door to the next
pandemic. He says, yes. It's true. HHS terminated
22 projects. Well, again,
technically, not yet. That but the movement seems
to be happening. But it says, citing failure
to protect from COVID and the flu, but
it says,
this jab, arc arc Arcturus two three zero
four, is self replicating
mRNA, and it is continuing. So I just
wanna point that out that there are people
that, you know, it doesn't get very much
reach,
funny enough, more than mine, which is funny.
But the point is that John Fleetwood called
it accurately.
So good shout good, you know, shout out
to people that are actually seeing it. We'll
see you know, not again, never endorsing everything
everybody does. I've just only saw them today.
But, you know, think about that. The people
out there are seeing it, yet the ones
that get all the attention and all the
rage are all the people that are trying
to deceive you because that's how these platforms
work.
In a function head fake, we already pointed
that out. That's the way these things go.
They lied to you about it.
Now on Epstein,
and this shouldn't be that much longer for
the show today, but this is important.
I mean, it's just like the starting of
the other one. It even has the same
background. I think it was in the same
press conference. Trump again calls the Epstein piles
a hoax. Now I wanna be clear about
this, guys.
It's the the game that's being played about
how, oh, he really only means that they
took things out of it, and so part
of it's alive. Certainly possible.
But let's be clear. All we have to
go on
is what he says.
We can't go, but this is what he
really means, which is what Jones always does.
And the point is that he said more
than once, the whole thing is a hoax.
He said that exactly more than once.
So if if everyone if if your
effort is to go, well, I think he
means this. Well, that's your opinion entirely. The
reality,
first of all, is that he's said it
many times, which should be enough for people
to be objectively like, well, that's where the
data stands. That's what he said. We have
no other indication.
But the fact that he is you know,
the idea that he is clearly involved in
this because of all the overlap with Epstein,
which we'll go through in a minute, it
seems really weird for him to say, like,
even once was ridiculous, and he lost a
lot of people for it. Then he called
them weaklings and cowards.
And then it kinda floated away a little
bit and people weren't really, but they pretended
it did. And now he comes out and
says it again. It just shows you that
there's something very weird going on here, especially
when they're the ones telling you that there's
more information, that they're asking Ghislaine Maxwell about
things, and yet it's all a hoax.
And then, of course,
he calls their the the calls for release
are he says that the calls for releasing
more information are BS, even though that's what
they told you was about to happen. But
on top of that, he asked them about
what we reported yesterday, about the fact that
they're having a meeting about how they're gonna
handle this. And they call they all laugh
and call it fake news. Like, here's what's
funny, and this is my indication and I'll
play it or my my thought.
Trump starts to move to ask JD Vance
something.
Right? Before he even explains what he's about
to ask, they all start chuckling.
Almost like they talked before about how they
would do that. You can decide for yourself.
The point is,
I find it absurd
to think that they're not very clearly damage
control gaining this out.
But cause they all laugh. That must be
true. And all the mainstream alternate media guys
will tell you absolute backed.
Must've missed this one.
Let me grab that real quick.
So I still find it really, really amazing
that they're even still, you know, pushing back
on something that they use to build their
entire you know, like, think about how embarrassing
this must be for the Dan Bonginos and
the Cash Patel's.
Right? Who who build their entire, you know,
weird following on on this exact thing,
and then
basically turn right around and tell you it's
all fake. He did he he killed himself,
and it's exactly what we've been telling you
isn't the case this entire time.
Trump says Is
he
working on what? Is he hosting some kind
of gathering of top advisers this evening to
talk about how to respond to the Epstein
situation?
That's a New York that's a a Newsweek.
You know, I I think it was Newsweek.
Right? But, anyway, it was a pretty widely
reported story.
I don't know. I could ask you that.
So they're all chuckling about this. So they've
clearly addressed this beforehand.
Like, it could just be that it's fake
a fake story, and they laughed about it.
That's possible. But I get the sense that
it's something else, especially because and I'll I'll
wait. I'll read my comments.
I don't know of it, but I think,
I I here's the man right here. I
saw it recorded today, and it's completely fake
news. We're not meeting to talk about the
Epstein situation.
Okay. Well, how about one possibility, which by
the way, you've I could prove to you
this has happened many times. Clinton did it
all the time.
They what if it was planned? They saw
the report, then they said, never mind. Let's
not do it now because they reported on
it. Then they can stand there with a
straight face and it's actually true and go,
that's not even about to happen. You're all
a bunch of fake news liars.
Even though it was definitely about to happen,
and now they're gonna meet at somebody else's
house. And, you know, it's like, that that
is the way they play this. And if
you don't recognize by now how, like, not
just that they lie all the time, all
of the government, but how bad these people
are in particular
about lying to you. It's clumsy.
Like, it's really embarrassing, especially the Bondis and
Hegseths and and gnomes that aren't good at
it in the first place.
And I think the reporter who reported it
needs to get better sources.
Look. The whole thing is a hoax. It's
put out by the Democrats because we've had
the most successful six months in the history
of our country. Oh, really? Think about how
stupid that is. Guess you realize how dumb
that is to say? Like, there are points
in this history where things were ex like,
technological growth, like, post World War two.
Are you gonna pretend there's not a six
month period there with massive growth and massive
technological advancement that worked? And and you're telling
me this six months, which has been clumsy
and broken, and everyone's upset about it's it's
just not the truth. And this is why
I laugh when the people out there only
say this, agree with it, or the people
that you already know were gonna cheer. What
he could come out and say it's Tuesday,
and they go, exactly. He's right. What a
great guy. That's what they do.
And that's just a way of trying to
divert attention
to something that's total bullshit.
And he cusses.
Very interesting. I mean, I look. Not like
I even care. He can say what he
wants. But in a day sense of decorum,
I've never seen that before. I've never seen
somebody in that kind of a setting. Cuss.
Not like it even matters. I just think
it's interesting. I think it shows desperation. And
I think what ultimately is he's using is
the thing that we're pointing out, all of
us. They're desperate to get you looking anywhere
else, so they're trying to distract you with
all this nonsense. And so he goes right
to the same thing because he's I think
these people can't think our way out of
this.
It's crazy to me.
Anyway, the main point, he said it again.
It's a hoax. It's all a hoax. But
if you listen to Jones, oh, no. He
meant this and this part and they lied
and that's what it's gonna or at one
point, it was that he made it up
to go after the deep state. Secondarily, the
next day, it was that the deep state's
using it to blackmail him. Remember how fun
that was? Then the third day, it was
something different. Now we're kind of at the
same point, at least the the team's more
politics are trying to gather back their narrative.
The point, guys, is this is obvious,
that they're trying to lie to you everywhere,
and that's why honest people are like us.
It's uncomfortable. We all see. I wanna support
him. Some of them do. But he is
just we we're not dumb. We see that
you're lying.
Now I said, JD Vance comes out and
goes or excuse me. Benny Johnson comes out
and says, JD Vance shuts down false reports
because Benny knows? Right. JD Vance says they're
false, so therefore, it's absolutely false because Johnson's
a good journalist. And it says about a
secret Epstein meeting of the top White House
officials. Okay. It's fake news.
Certainly could be. I simply said, we're right
because it's totally not spectacularly
obvious
that they're trying
to deflect from the story at all costs
and absolutely not embarrassingly clear that they're game
planning on how to work through it, obviously.
And, clearly, they laugh. So, you know, fake
news. You're a joke. It's just kinda weird
to watch people get more and more obviously
play you know, kind of gray trying to
do that job.
Now the
transcript, the audio, I just use this to
remind me. This says Trump face is just
lame act's will conundrum. It's what it's about
from yesterday. But unless it came out just
now, up until the show started, they hadn't
released the transcript or the audio, which I'm
starting to think neither gonna come out. But
if a transcript gets released, it's meaningless because
we don't know they could type anything they
wanted. They could cut parts out like we
already see them doing, like they cut out
of the video they gave us.
My point though is it hasn't happened yet,
even still. So I just think that speaks
volumes.
Oh, wait. I forgot. There was breaking news.
There was one thing that came out already.
Very important. Jislaine Maxwell.
Trump
did nothing, at least in my presence, that
would be cause for concern.
He was always a perfect gentleman,
elegant dancer, a gifted poet. He spoke Cantonese
fluently.
At one point, he threw a football 300
yards, and it somehow boomerang back to him.
Saw a grizzly bear charge him, and he
delivered such a withering barb that retreated in
shame.
One night, Donald performed an emergency tracheotomy
on Bill Gates, saving his life.
He did a chiropractic adjustment on Stephen Hawking,
and
professor Hawking was able to skip all the
way home.
The point is the man is a saint,
and I would like to not be in
prison.
Obviously, that's not real.
Two points to make. One, it's just funny
that, like, this is where people's minds are
going, that it's like, okay. You know? Not
like the joke of typical Trump kind of
stuff. Like, you can't just come out and
be like, we won. It's gonna be like,
we won more than anyone's ever won in
their entire lives and the history of the
world and all of the universes combined. That's
kind of his hyperbolic ridiculousness all the time.
The point is that, you know, through through
a football, 300 yards, and it's like it's
just it's just a joke about how that
would be the case that, you know, not
just convince her to say he wasn't guilty,
but to make it about Baltimore. But the
bigger point that I wanna make is that,
you know, just get ready for what might
happen. I we're in the world of deep
fakes, guys. They could easily put out something
that would look I we I don't think
people could even tell the difference. So just
question everything as always. But don't assume based
on that that it has to be false.
Consider that it could genuinely be true, but
just recognize that we're in a pretty dangerous
time when it comes to manipulations like this.
Right. Oops.
So David Ike highlights exactly what I'm thinking
on this as well. And this Adam also
says, Ghislaine Maxwell, which we reported in the
last show,
reportedly told the DOJ she never witnessed Trump
engage in any con in concerning behavior. See,
this is really weird they keep doing that.
We read it to you directly from the
exact quote, and I think ABC
or no. I think it was CBS was
the only one that quoted. She said she
I didn't see him do anything in her,
like, in her presence.
That was what the quote was. And yet
everyone weirdly has contorted this into and even
put quotes on it, well, that might be
Adam, never witnessed Trump engage in any concerning
behavior.
That's not actually what she said, which is
interesting because they now make it, like, this
broad, he's never done anything wrong, when it
was more about that she saw, which leaves
open that it was maybe something happened when
she wasn't around. Right? But even the same
thing, she never witnessed, it's the same kind
of point. But I think it's interesting to
say no concerning behavior.
But the point is, this comes after Trump
gave Maxwell limited immunity and moved her to
a minimum security prison, which we covered already,
in a very weird thing that he tried
to act like was totally normal. Every expert
on the topic has said, no. It's wildly
unusual, especially since he used the Brit the
pure of prisons to transfer and not the
marshals. There's something weird going on, and we
all sense that. Gave her a box of
materials. She claims to have sung on a
100 people, but it turns out they were
100 people that they asked about. I guarantee
it's all the Democrats. I mean, that's how
I look at it. The point,
David Icke says in plain sight, before our
very eyes on public display,
monumental cover up, it comes to something when
you are so it it comes to something
when you are so deep in the mire
that you can't even do it correctly.
When your only option is in broad daylight.
I that's what I'm sensing too. This feels
desperate. But interestingly is, you know, the immunity.
Like I said in the beginning, limited immunity.
Not yet complete immunity, but limited immunity about
everything that she said. So if she screamed
about all the crimes, then she'd be immune
from those things. That's the reality. And so
now she's been moved to a
basically,
the club fed. That's what they're calling it.
And
I didn't witness anything that Trump did that
was wrong.
Well, that seems to contradict what you said
before.
Let's look at that. So a few places
have reported it, and it apparently comes directly
from this book, which I wasn't able to
find a transcript of. I'm gonna try to
see if I can find it somewhere, but
the book's called Ticking Clock, behind the scenes
at sixty minutes,
written by
Ira
Rosen.
So multiple platforms. These are just two of
them, but multiple mainstream platforms reported on what
the book said. This one this this one's
just covering the book in general and says,
Ira Rosen's sixty minutes book has store stories
galore, and it lists off a bunch of
them. And it says, Saint Martin's nice relaxing
bedtime read, ticking clock behind the scenes at
sixty minutes by Ira Rosen is upon us.
Stories include, and it lists off a whole
bunch of stuff. One of them, Ghislaine and
Jeffrey Epstein's alleged private tapes on Clinton and
Trump,
which does appear what she said in this
interview, which here's their daily, mail.
It's Lane Maxwell admitted Jeffrey Epstein did have
tapes of Trump and the Clintons after she
was tricked by sixty Minutes producer, that's Ira,
in 02/2016.
It says Maxwell told sixty Minutes producer, Ira
Rosen in 2016 that she didn't know where
the tapes of Trump were. And it says,
quote, I know the way you people think.
This is her speaking. If you do one
side, you must do the other. If you
get tapes on Trump, you have to do
Clinton.
So more than once, if you she art
she insinuates that there are tapes on Trump.
Now saying that there's not.
That's worth pointing out. Now maybe she lied
then. That's just as likely. Maybe there's a
reason she wanted to lie about Trump then
and maybe not now. Maybe maybe she sees
Trump as the way she can get out
unless she's lying now. You have to be
honest with yourself to consider all of these
things. The point though is it's beginning it's
becoming very clear that this is just, you
know, it's I shouldn't be new to anybody.
This is what the US government does or
what government does
that we're being manipulated.
We'll include that so you can check it
out for yourself. Oh, and let's let's also
include the clip from the Daily Beast podcast,
Fire and Fury, which we played for you
already, that,
Epstein states,
you can decide if he's lying or not.
We're only reporting that Epstein stated this, that
he was Trump was his one of his
closest friends for ten years. What seems the
opposite of what we're being told. Right? So,
how do you know this?
Donald's closest friend. It's
low on the audio, but you could see
the transcript, Daily Beast interviewed him and he
says, I I was you see right here.
Donald's closest friend. I was Donald's closest friend
for ten years.
Now, you know, you maybe could turn around
and argue that Trump didn't consider him a
friend. But somehow Epstein felt or at least
claimed on this podcast that he was Trump's
closest friend for ten years. You know? And
then you look at all the photographs they
have, all the videos they're laughing together. It's
it takes a really special kind of willful
ignorance to pretend that they weren't friends. Now
that's not the same as saying he broke
the law,
but it seems much, much more likely, doesn't
it? The many times he was on the
flight logs, maybe didn't go to the island.
I don't know. He also has that part
of his island that's about, you know, thirteen
minutes away from Epstein's Island, so maybe he
could have gone there instead and then traveled
over. The point is we don't know. But
that contradicts everything we're being told. And on
top of that,
people just seem to get really upset when
you point this stuff out and, well, that's
not true. And I like, I did online
with somebody today, and I'm like, so you
know what you know what they how do
what do you mean it's not true? He
just said that. I'm not claiming I know
anything other than what this what this guy's
saying. But are you claiming Epstein was lying?
If you if so, why do you think
that? Because Trump said, okay. So you're taking
Trump at face value. Like, it just shows
you there's a a willingness to see this
one way. Both of them could be lying.
One of them could be lying. Anybody honest
will consider all those things. On top of
that, Midas Touch reports that Annie Farmer,
an Epstein survivor,
who testified against Ghislaine Maxwell,
just revealed on CNN
that she wrote a letter
with her concerns to deputy AG Blanch about
Maxwell
and actually received no response.
And now they moved her to Club Fed,
and it seems like something's about to happen.
She says neither she nor other survivors have
even heard a word from the DOJ. So
let's piece this together. If the survivors aren't
being contacted and they're supposedly investigating this about
whether she was involved, it does not seem
that they're doing anything other than covering this
up and working with Maxwell. Wouldn't they be
involved? Especially since they tried to reach out
and says, here's some data information I have
about Maxwell.
Doesn't seem to matter.
I again, this is for people that need
to hear that. I think everybody, especially conservatives
right now, are starting to feel really uncomfortable
about how obvious this is. Now, this is
a great arc of Bloomberg.
Here's a look at what the FBI's Epstein
files would reveal, and I wanted to go
through this. It's it's really interesting, actually.
Now this is from,
August 8, from today.
An index from an eight year old FOIA
lawsuit shows that the bureau is withholding bank
and phone records, photographs, communications with foreign government
agencies,
sure we can piece together who that is,
and other revealing material related to this 2006
investigation.
Just since that's the point to make here,
I'll end with this as well. Let's open
this here.
This clip went around, and I think actually
today, the article was, I was Epstein's butler.
He's the one of the only people that
actually one of the others that went to
jail for being involved with all this. He
says, I was Epstein's butler for eighteen years.
There's no way he killed himself. That's what
he said.
Additionally,
the picture happens to show him wearing an
IDF logo on his shirt. Not that that
necessarily proves anything, but it just seems relevant.
Now
it says
I think there's a part in here I
was gonna read.
No. I start here. So it says neither
confirmed nor denied. Really? It says the intense
secrecy shrouding the Epstein files dates back to
president Trump's first term. This is very relevant,
especially for the point that Trump had the
opportunity to put this stuff out his first
term.
Allegedly before it was altered, or I guess
you could claim Obama did it before that,
but I don't think that even makes sense
necessarily with I mean, there could still be
an overlap. The point is that during Trump's
term, a lot of this went down, and
I think it's the extension to today. Back
then, it says the FBI blocked the release
of the documents during his last administration
from its investigation into Epstein.
Since then, a pretty interesting and infuriating chain
of events has unfolded.
It dates to 04/20/2017,
Trump's first administration. That's when James Robertson, an
editor for National Enquirer and Radar Online, filed
a FOIA request with the FBI seeking all
documents relating to the FBI's investigation and prosecution
of Epstein.
A week later, the FBI denied his request,
saying that the bureau could neither confirm nor
deny the Epstein records even existed. And even
if they did, Robertson's request to records on
third parties bumped up against two privacy exemptions.
They were the exact same exemptions that the
FBI used to justify redacting Trump's name from
these files
today,
which this person wrote about in last week's
edition of the FOIA files.
Isn't that interesting? So the same logic they
used to keep a secret before is the
logic they applied to to redact Trump and
his other the other people's names that we
get to didn't get to find out from
those files. Now I said at the time,
there's no way that makes sense. Trump getting
his name redacted, is is he a victim?
There's no logical reason that would happen other
than the obvious. That's just, however, in its
response, the bureau held out an option that
was untethered from reality.
It included a privacy waiver
and explained that Robertson must first obtain permission
from the subject of his request, Jeffrey Epstein,
before the FBI could even consider releasing documents
about him. Think about
that. Ultimately, the FBI's argument in denying the
records boiled down to this.
Epstein was never charged with a federal crime.
Therefore, the release of any FBI records revealing
his name could, quote,
endanger comment
and or in day engender comment and speculation
and carries a stigmatization
con concoction.
Whatever that even mean. But are we concerned
about stigmatization of a sex trafficker?
Not me. According to the exemption cited by
the FBI when it refused to release the
documents,
Robertson, who later coauthored a book about Epstein,
sued the FBI a month later, arguing that
the bureau was wrong in its decision to
withhold the records.
In October 2017,
the FBI did start to release a sliver
of the investigative files
on Epstein. Ultimately, over the course of nearly
three years, it processed a total of 11,571
pages that the FBI considered responsive to Robertson's
initial request. However, it released only about 1,200
pages, which were heavily redacted.
Most of which, by the way, were already
posted all over the Internet. So thinking about
this, 11,571
pages that the Trump administration had combed through
only gave me 1,200, most redacted, most of
almost all of which was already posted.
So this is the body of work that
they don't want you to see. That's what
I think. What they decided shouldn't be released
at under Trump's purview.
The FBI posted and in case you're new
to this, in no way am I suggesting
that only true it's our government, Biden, Trump.
It's I think it's the whole damn thing.
Not that I know for a fact that
every one of them are you know, the
point is they're all part of this corrupt
organization. All of them. And it's very clear
that it's not unity left or right.
The FBI posted those 1,200 pages in the
bureau's online FOIA reading room called the vault.
To be clear, the FBI wasn't acting particularly
generous
or proactively
transparent when it released this narrow set of
Epstein documents to the vault, which the point
is that some people would love to frame
it as, see, Trump was trying to show
you the truth, not really how this went
down. It was oops.
It was forced to do that. They were
forced to release this, and then they redacted
it all, and it wasn't really anything new.
Under the 2016
FOIA amendments, if an
an agency
gets three or more FOIA requests on the
same subject, it is required to release the
records to everyone.
If there there's any doubt, that's why the
FBI released those files. There's a the telltale
series of numbers at the bottom of each
page, which corresponds with the federal docket number
of Robertson's FOIA case so you can prove
it. And they have the screenshots throughout here,
but there are links to the actual documents.
What's surprising, though, is that the Epstein documents
posted to the vault are the very same
documents that have been screenshotted
and shared
thousands of times on social media amid a
torrent of renewed interest. So the point is,
it's all information they knew, and that's probably
why they selectively picked them out, used them
to make it look like they were giving
information when it was all stuff they knew
was already public. But a lot of people
didn't know that. And a lot of mainstream
alternative media pretended they didn't care anyways and
said, it's all story. We knew it. Blowing
the story out the the lid off the
story. Same thing I did with JFK,
MLK,
when though it just wasn't the truth.
Now it says withheld withheld in full. So
what's what happened to the remaining 10,371
pages of documents
not released by the FBI? Well, here's where
the plot thickens. The processing of the Epstein
files ground to a halt in 2019,
still in Trump's administration,
when Epstein was indicted on federal sex trafficking
charges. The FBI explained to Robertson that his
attorney
and and his attorney, Dan Novak,
that it couldn't release any further records on
Epstein since the man was now being prosecuted.
Ongoing investigation.
In particular, the department said that the the
remaining records would be withheld in their entirety
due to an ongoing investigation
and because disclosure could impact Epstein's ability to
get a fair trial.
But wait. A month later, Epstein allegedly died
by suicide in his jail cell while awaiting
trial under Trump's administration. Wouldn't the fact that
the defendant was no longer alive mean the
documents could now finally be released?
Not so fast. The FBI did release another
46 pages that it determined wouldn't interfere, and
he's now dead, with the ongoing proceedings, mainly
news clippings that were already out, but it
stopped there. The bureau's FOIA team said that
even though Epstein was dead and federal prosecutors
dropped their case against him, records still need
to be withheld because of ongoing law enforcement
proceedings.
Fast forward to 07/02/2020
when it became clear that the FBI meant
or what the FBI meant. That's the day
Epstein's former girlfriend and close confidant Maxwell was
indicted on federal sex trafficking charges. Now the
FBI said in a letter to Robertson's lawyer,
it was required to do the same thing,
withhold all the information
which could interfere with Maxwell's ability to get
a fair trial.
During the course of Robertson's ongoing FOIA legal
battle let me clear. Those aren't unfair arguments,
but you can see how this cascading thing
continues in the real court. The the consistent
thing is not giving you anything that changes
the story. During the course of Robertson's ongoing
FOIA legal battle,
Maxwell was convicted and sentenced to twenty years
in prison. Novak argued once again that the
documents should be released. At this point, there's
no there's literally no reason that shouldn't happen.
This time since the case was resolved, but
in a development that borders on the absurd,
the FBI, and the federal prosecutor on the
case, Maureen Comey,
who Trump just fired,
argued against disclosure because Maxwell was appealing her
conviction.
So the same logic.
Last month, Trump fired Maureen Comey, the daughter
of James Comey. Now that does appear to
be,
like, you could look at it as he
got rid of her because she's corrupt.
But think about it, guys. She's now they've
removed her. So I don't know how this
I don't I mean, I would argue that
this doesn't then stop her from being accountable.
But you see, what's interesting is, like, let's
say a CEO takes over a company. What's
fascinating to me is that then there are
like, they could be legally held accountable for
things that happened under the previous CEO. So
I don't know how exactly works with that.
I should look into that. But the interesting
point though is that it could just be
that he's he's corrupt. Get rid of them.
Even though we can see tons of corrupt
people in this administration,
it seems more likely to me that this
is an issue
that she is involved with the cover up
and it's important to push her out to
the side, especially since she's overlapped with the
Democrats and we have to make it look
like we're not on the same team. You
can decide what you think on that. Also
included in the docket was a declaration from
Michael Seidel
and the then head of the FBI's record
office. He explained the bureau's latest rationale for
withholding Epstein files pertain to numerous sensitivities,
such as the surveillance operation conducted by the
FBI to obtain investigative intelligence. You know where
this is going. Right? It's all concluded. It's
over. But, you know, we did special things
in that investigation that we don't want everyone
to see that we do. Give up all
of our tools.
So the point was, you could've made that
argument the last time, the first time, and
said we're never going to release this ever
because then it it exposes our special investigatory
processes, which I don't buy for a second.
If that information was revealed, Sidel said it
could allow current and future subjects of investigations
and other potential criminals to develop and utilize
countermeasures to defeat and avoid different types of
surveillance. You mean, like, they can't piece together
how you guys surveil us now and do
their best to avoid that? What a ridiculous
argument. It says in the last week's FOIA
files, they reported that Sydell was essentially forced
out of the FBI over attorney general Pam
Bondi's boss rollout of the Epstein files. So
yet another person involved with this up this
process getting pushed to the side. That doesn't
seem like a positive thing to me. Last
year, a US district court I mean, it
could be if you somehow think that this
is Trump working through the like, it's so
easy to go, oh, those are the deep
state, and he's fighting through them to get
this out.
I mean, let's see how it turns out.
I find that to be quite naive and
childish to even think as possible, my personal
opinion. But let's see. If it turns out
that way and they actually get released, then
we can go, yay. It turned out that
I was wrong. But when they inevitably don't,
not in the way we think, then we
have to recognize that there is something else
going on here. Last year, a US district
court judge ruled in favor of the government
and are agreed that the FBI didn't have
to release any additional Epstein records given Maxwell's
ongoing appeal.
Milvak has since appealed the decision to the
second circuit court of appeals.
Now I this is something I learned actually,
the Vaughn index.
Like other reporters, is he they write, I've
been scouring the radar online docket in search
of any details that might shed more light
on the 10,000 pages the FBI withheld.
Drawing on my own experience, he says, from
filing nearly 200 FOIA lawsuits against government agencies,
He says, I know that when I a
case comes to a close,
an agency is required to produce a so
called Von index, which, you know, you know
my opinion. I don't think they're required. Like,
they're required to do things, but I don't
think they ever
there's plenty of examples that go where governments
just disregard
everything. Trump's doing it every other day right
now or just their administration, just the US
government. But the point is supposed to follow
that. Like, with FOIAs, there's so many ways
they manipulate this. But it says,
which describes the documents it withheld and redacted
and the justification for doing so. The VAWN
index the FBI produced for the radar for
radar online is a 170 pages, and it
contains some pretty revealing details about what it
is hiding inside the FBI's Epstein files. And
for the podcast, again, they have the screenshots
of all the documents, which are, you know,
publicly out there. You can find them for
yourself.
Among other things that the FBI processed
but withheld
was information provided by confidential sources,
Letters addressed to then US Attorney for Southern
District Of Florida, Alex Acosta,
I think that's monumentally important, who cut a
plea deal with Epstein in 2008 that saw
him avoid federal sex trafficking charges. Now remember,
when he got the first Trump under Trump's
first administration before they shuttled him to the
side, probably for the same reason,
they asked him point blank about Epstein. And
on the record, he said they he was
told to leave it alone because he was
connected to intelligence.
And they and that was enough. They good.
Come on board. That's what happened.
So
he's involved
to a very serious degree. And it says
subpoenas to Myspace agents, handwritten notes, photographs, grand
jury subpoenas, intelligence analysis,
and a wide range of correspondence related to
FBI victim assistance program.
All of that included in the stuff they
don't want you to see. And here is
a detailed explanation of what was in the
other categories of documents the FBI redacted and
withheld.
It says and that you this these are
all just these you can go through these
yourself.
Child victim and child witness rights act. These
are, information withheld
under that's the logic, by the way. You
know, there's so much going on there that
I mean, the problem is that you just
can't ever take the claim of face value.
But who knows what they claim is? The
reason the reason doesn't make you understand or
doesn't show you what they're hiding from you.
This is even more intriguing. The index included
included correspondence with foreign government agencies,
a large volume of subpoenaed phone records, and
a lot a lot of bank records. So
right there,
out of everything we can see in this,
they're telling you that in the information that
they currently don't wanna give you, that they
already currently withheld from you through multiple administrations,
including Trump's last administration, which is where this
ultimately started being withheld,
is what foreign government agencies are working along
with Epstein and the entire thing.
We all know what this is, guys, and
I think that's a huge issue, especially since
Israel seems to control Trump's administration,
more accurately, governments all over the world. Separately,
the FBI created a spreadsheet that contains a
detailed breakdown of the documents it processed.
Importantly, it reveals that the FBI conducted 55
interviews with witnesses,
victims, and potential investigative targets between 02/2006, 02/2008.
Now does this sound like they don't have
names of people that were involved?
Right? I mean, that's there's even a mention
of the black book right here. It says
the interview summaries known as the three o
twos, and the names of all the interviewees
were withheld with the exception of one, Alfredo
Rodriguez,
Epstein's former butler, who you just heard told
you he knows he didn't kill himself. That's
his opinion, but he's saying I worked with
him for this whole time. He didn't kill
himself. Who was sentenced to eighteen months in
prison in 2012
for concealing Epstein's black book.
Right. So that again, a a a compilation
of people who are utilizing their services, whether
or not it's one single list or that
you can pile into a list for us.
That's what people are demanding, and they tell
you it's a whole hoax by the Democrats.
Something else that no that's noteworthy from the
Vaughn index, the FBI's investigation into Epstein remained
active after he pleaded guilty
to state charges of solicitation in Florida in
2008 and was released from prison in 02/2009.
Some of the documents that were processed and
withheld are from 2011
and include dozens of photographs, agents' interview notes,
and third parties and documents provided to the
FBI by confidential sources. The FBI doesn't typically
close investigations,
which is weird to me. Usually, they keep
an open file and continuously submit that file,
probably because they can always say it's an
open investigation and say we don't have to
talk about it. That's my opinion. When the
FBI does reach a formal conclusion in a
case, they prepare what's known as a case
closing memorandum.
There is no case closing memorandum in the
Epstein bond index,
which indicates that the case remains active.
Now I guess you could argue that's because
of Maxwell, but, I mean, there's a whole
level of this that starts to feel like
a lot. I mean, you know, I'm trying
to be I mean, I think we all
sense what this is. Now, that doesn't mean
we know that Trump's guilty or that they're
what exactly is covering up, but I think
it's obvious. We can all see that there's
a cover up happening.
That's my opinion, but I think it's very
easy to see that there's something very like,
it's simple when you find them getting caught
lying about things. You know, that it shows
you there's something going on behind the scenes.
It's not brain right. You know, rocket science.
Brain surgery. It's put together.
So where does it all leave us? It
says.
Even as Trump supporters and now lawmakers from
both sides of the aisle continue to demand
further disclosures in the Epstein files, the Trump
administration has made clear it has no intention
of releasing any further materials. That should outrage
everybody.
That's why radar on and to be clear,
that doesn't mean that he won't tomorrow. But
as of now, he said that many times.
Now he's calling it a hoax again.
That's why Radar Online's FOIA lawsuit might be
the best shot after all of getting a
glimpse inside the controversial records. There's one potentially
interesting twist on the horizon. Last month, Trump
administration officials visited Maxwell and the federal prison
we reported on, nine hours apparently over two
days, where she'd been serving out her sentence.
After two days of questioning, Trump wouldn't rule
out the possibility of issuing her a pardon.
Now, actually, I remember, I don't think they
visited her there. Did they? They brought her
to another location, which wasn't the prison.
Yeah. Pretty sure that's the case. So that's
funny that they get that wrong. And, anyway,
the point is,
visitor gave her a box of materials. They
claimed that that she identified a 100 people.
Remember that they now let out that that
was people they asked about, so it feels
very contrived to me.
But the pardon hangs in the air. Last
week, she was moved to a minimum security
prison in another state, raising further speculation about
whether she might be freed. If Trump pardons
her, Radar Online's FOIA case could become very
interesting. Yet again, but I wouldn't hold your
breath, he says. It's pretty clear now the
FBI won't part easily with those 10,000 pages,
and why do you think that is?
End of the day, if they do partner
or something concludes here, you know what should
we should be demanding,
and I doubt it will actually happen.
Now Thomas Massie is is really pushing this.
He says the Epstein files are not a
hoax. The speaker adjourned congress. They all went
to Israel
to avoid the topic. But we will not
forget, he says. When the house returns from
August recess, I can begin collecting the 218
signatures required to force a vote on binding
legislation to release the files. You want my
honest opinion here, which I always give?
I think that he's gonna have a hard
time getting that because I think probably a
lot of people in congress, probably
I doubt there's 280 people who are not
compromised by these things. That's how I look
at it. So we'll see what happens. But
I think it's interesting
that he is calling this out.
Now he says, I'm leading the fight in
the house to release the Epstein files. Is
this why a billionaire who appears on Epstein's
black book and regularly donates to speaker Johnson
and NRCC is paying for ads against me?
That is pretty interesting. His Super PAC is
deceptively named MAGA Kennedy.
Guys, this is ridiculous.
Johnson, Trump, they're, like, all rallying together to
get the one guy trying to call this
out removed from congress. The guy that doesn't
take APAC money. Right? The guy who clearly
like, I'm really I think that's wild. A
guy who's behind this is in the black
book,
Paul
John Paulson,
and has his super PAC named MAGA Kennedy.
Like, it's it's very obvious.
He excuse me. MAGA Kentucky, which is where
he is, you know, a member of Congress.
I think it's insanely obvious.
I think we all see that.
And there's Epstein wearing his IDF uniform
or, you know, for the podcast is the
sweater.
Now couple overlapping points to finish here, and
then I wanna just list off some stuff
about the banking thing.
An interview Alex Jones has put out. It
says deep state FBI operatives reportedly attempted to
blackmail Kash Patel if he fired a senior
FBI agent celebrated for defending the deep state.
So this is just sad. I mean, I
I struggled through most of this, and it's
hard.
Look at the comments. I mean, it's hard.
Like, this is a I mean, look. There's
a guy saying what saying what he thinks.
And I don't even think this is based
on fat like, this is him saying things,
which if if somebody who, by the way,
is
working for the government. And what is the
argument?
Trump's name is only in the files
because Epstein reached they they re they basically
reached out to fight with the other guy
that or no. It was that Epstein listed
Trump as one of the other people who's
been
manipulated by the law like he has. And
that's why his name's in there. Like, this
is absurdly stupid. There's a 100 other reasons.
Flight logs, friendship. I mean, it's bad stuff,
guys. And yet, it's I mean, it's not
even it's not even getting much reach compared
to what he normally does. His audience is
not buying this, but this is just keeps
happening.
Same thing, and this is just another post
of it. Maybe that's what they kinda do
every time. FBI whistleblower exposes where Trump is
in the Epstein files. That's the business, excuse
me, specific part I was talking about. That's
what he mentions. And propaganda monitors as Alex
can't stop executing the most absurd mental gymnastics
to to justify and run cover for Trump.
I mean, a lot of these people are
people that follow and support their platform.
The overarching idea, though, is that cash was
threatened and everyone's be like, it's
suggest that they're I mean, so what is
the argument here? They took control of everything.
They're in the White House, but yet somehow,
they're still being controlled by the deep state,
which is not impossible.
But why wouldn't they be calling that out?
You could, oh, oh, they'll kill. Okay. Well,
then why are they here if they're not
afraid? Like, are they fighting for us or
not? Are they fighting deep state or not?
Or is it all a big lie? Which
I think you know where I'm leaning on
that. This says after at the same point,
this guy says, stop listening to Alex last
month. Can't believe he's still defending Trump. Now
Vance is pulling Epstein files is a hoax
crap. Unbelievable.
This guy, James,
says, you are not going to be able
to clean Trump's name. Just give it up.
I mean, every I mean, you read for
yourself. I'm not just picking these selectively. It's
like the whole damn thing. It's crazy to
me.
Here's another one. I just I was actually
just talking about this guy in a few
shows ago. Just how fun and now now
I certainly have a different opinion, like, a
more evolved opinion.
It says, is Andrew Shultz right?
Guess what he's arguing?
That the CIA threatened to kill Trump if
he released the Epstein files? No. Is it
possible? Of course it is. Is there anything
to back that up? Nope.
But we're sure he's all gonna throw it
at you and go, what do you think
about this completely baseless allegation that completely wraps
it all up for Trump in a nice
bow?
Well, here's what I keep continue to think
is absurd. More than once, it's like the
CIA bad that Jones puts out, but then
fails to point out that Trump repeatedly says
the CIA must get involved
before it's too late.
Okay. Well, I mean, the some at some
point, you have to stand back and recognize
how inconsistent all of this is. I said
the same thing then when Jones says huge.
Both shooters were connected to the CIA. Then
why did Trump say get the CIA involved?
This tweet, by the way, again, if you
try to search for it, it doesn't pop
up it doesn't pop up in the search.
Check it out. I think there's a reason
for that. But either way,
to me,
that the same CIA Trump said should get
involved and the same CIA that RFK said
killed his uncle,
it doesn't make sense unless you realize, you
know so the CIA threatened to not put
this out. Is that possible? Obviously. But if
that's the case, then why wouldn't this be
called out?
Or if it just continues to go in
the direction of we're not comply we're gonna
comply with the deep state, well, then he's
captured by the deep state. And say that
then. But it's not. It's that we support
him and we're fighting for, but but maybe
that's why, and it's like this game is
played to hide from you that they're completely
lying to you all the time.
The overlap quickly about the Obama point,
this
so right now, as far as still, there
are subpoenas that went out for
all, you know, Comey and Brennan and and
Obama and and and all the Clintons
about Epstein,
about coming in to talk about Epstein, which,
you know, if you really think that after
all we've seen that these people are gonna
anything's gonna happen, I hope it does. They're
all criminals, but I don't believe it. But
here's what keeps getting interesting. Now they're expanding
it even further. Now it says the Clinton
Foundation and money laundering operations could finally be
exposed.
We already went through this. I bring it
up all the time when the people from
Boston tried to expose their pay for play.
They had I mean, I've never seen more
evidence that was I mean, night it was
so obvious.
Documents, list I mean, everything, and nothing happened.
They listened to it all. Everybody was floored,
and then nothing happened. They're still free. Nothing
happened.
And they were allowed to continue until they
eventually shut it down, but they clearly they
that was probably by design. The point is,
they supposed a the, the money laundering operations
about the Clint Foundation. So you think it's
gonna happen now? It was the same point
before.
And it says the Russia collusion hoax and
the Epstein case move forward with new subpoenas.
Oh, wait. So and here's the point to
make it quick.
Conflating
as if all of them are interconnected. I
told you. I sensed this before it even
came out.
People are arguing that all of these, the
Russian, Epstein now I'm not there's plenty of
ways that you could tie all the things
together, especially that you can see that the
government left and right were involved in all
of them. The point is that we're, I
think, now trying to, kinda blend all this
together, probably in a way to distract you
from the Epstein point. But now it's about
Russiagate too. Well, Russiagate was a hoax and
everybody knows that, a manipulation, clearly. But now
you're gonna and you're gonna pretend that they're
gonna arrest them now even though Obama was
Trump told you Obama has immunity?
I mean, it just it all seems so
silly to me. But here we are, in
a way distracting you yet again from what's
happening, but getting you to think that what
they're being pulled in for has to do
with your Obama. And and, oh, it doesn't
seem to be the case, but it's all
the same names.
The House Republicans subpoena Clintons, DOJ, and officials
for the Epstein probe. That's the only one
you can find. Not the article. Look on
the DOJ.
No subpoenas, as far as I can tell,
have gone out for anything other than Epstein.
But they want you to think, don't worry.
It means all of it. Guys, oh, that
that's one of the main points I wanna
make on this little point.
If you so if they wanted to go
after them, let's say, for oh, the the
hoax around,
Russiagate,
well, then the best legal avenue you should
take is to focus in on the most
provable parts of just that one charge.
But, no, these people are going, don't worry.
We're gonna charge them for the Russia hoax,
Epstein, Haiti, Benghazi, all of it, human trafficking,
law, and it's all gonna come down. If
you think for one second that anybody's gonna
make a case stick in front of a
court of a a court of law, in
front of judges, about all of these cases
simultaneously,
you're lying to yourself. Not only I mean,
it's certainly possible to make a case that
they are connected, but you're not gonna make
this stick. It's near impossible to jam all
these things together and make this case stick,
and you're gonna go to jail for these
17 things simultaneously. It doesn't make sense.
Charge them independently, but go after what you
can prove. Put them in jail for one
crime and then charge them next. But the
reason they're doing this, in my opinion, is
to make sure that it doesn't actually happen.
Even if it even comes to court or
comes to congress,
it's going to be done in a way
that creates a situation that they never hold
accountable for. It happens every time. You know
this too. You've seen it yourself.
Now, lastly, this came out. Bennie Johnson says
president Trump signs executive order banning banks from
debanking Americans over their political or religious beliefs.
And I said restrictions may apply regarding hatred
of Israel's US backed genocide, and you damn
well know it.
We saw the same thing we talked about
yesterday
or the last show about the aid, the
disaster aid. Right? What they do? Well, first,
they put in there that you couldn't boy
you couldn't boycott an Israeli company or you
wouldn't get funding for, you know, disaster aid,
even if you pay your taxes for it.
They got caught,
changed it, and said, you're lying. We didn't
do that. Even though literally everybody caught them
doing it.
As you can see the difference of the
pages, then they literally came out with a
DHS post and said, you're crazy. We didn't
do that. And then Twitter fact checked them
and said, You're being misleading. We know you
deleted it. So, you know, then
they added it back that later that day,
which I covered on the show. Then the
next morning, they just deleted the whole page
because they're clearly not hiding anything, are they?
It's the same stupid thing. The point that
DHS post actually said was that whether or
not that language is in there, we can
still do it based on the idea that
you're creating you're violating our hate speech laws,
which are unconstitutional, by the way. Republicans would
say that, of course, it was about the
left, but they keep their mouth shut largely
when it comes to Trump. The problem
is this,
as you can read through it for yourself,
will be applied
in any way they want to around they're
doing it right now. It's unconstitutional.
So you read the bill,
rather the executive order,
The reality is they make it about political
or religious beliefs.
So when you so if you're gonna claim
me saying
Palestine should be free is antisemitism,
well, would you categorize that as political? No.
They'll say it's hatred. Would you categorize that
as religious belief? No. They'll say it's hatred.
They'll say it's hate speech.
They're carving this out to be it's just
like I said before. It may it's not
pronouns and everything else, but it's the same
thing, but with a finer tune point, probably
for what it's always been about.
It's very obvious to me. Now index reds
is, like, give Trump no credit for this.
The executive order bans politicized or unlawful
debanking. So even right there, you could argue
they mean we'll do it in ways that
are lawful, you know, which is the same
point. But it says, defined as denying or
restricting access to banking products based on political
religious beliefs or lawful business activities the bank
disagrees with for political reasons.
Nowhere does it define what is a political
belief. The executive order leaves enforcement to federal
banking regulators.
Great.
And lets them decide if the denial is
politicized or unlawful. So great. So they're deferring
to the banks like Thiel defers to Israel.
That what you want?
They're gonna apply it the same way they
do. As long as they can carve out
something that they argue doesn't apply to those
two things, it applies the same way. Language
is always the way they get you. That
means if a regulator or DOJ official decides
your views are hate speech
or not protected,
they could say you're debanked is justified as
a risk based decision, which the executive order
explicitly
allows.
See, you don't need it's just you know,
I wouldn't assume any ever. I wouldn't assume
anything like this. Well, no. None of us
should. But based on their track record, this
is what I kind of expected, the bait
and switch administration. They do it with everything
they've done so far. I mean, even with
the fluoride, guys,
they've now appealed the fluoride rule the the
the fluoride report that showed you it was
dangerous. Trump's administration now appealed it despite their
big thing they did and stood up and
said they're gonna look at it. They've appealed
it just like Biden did. We already covered
that. Still bet you most Republicans don't know
that.
Now drop site news reports that Mike Johnson
went to the West Bank as we told
you in the last show. And but the
point is the entire trip has is tied
to what the the this this is religious
Zionism, the apocalyptic
prophecy.
Mike Johnson's recent visit to occupied West Bank
to an illegal location
wasn't just political gesture. It's part of a
years long evangelical campaign tied to end times
prophecy. Let's not forget, end times prophecy that
religious Zionists believe starts with the collapse of
the West.
But but America first, though, guys. America first.
Ryan Grim reports Johnson was personally
supported by a movement to rebuild the Jewish
Third Temple, same point, which would require the
destruction of Al Aqsa Mosque.
Right? We've talked about this forever.
My point is that that's what he's doing
there, while he's hiding from the Epstein files,
while they're not working for you.
Now, another point, by the way, about the
Wailing Wall.
Plenty of people can disagree. That they do
it out of respect, whatever. But ask yourself
this, why every single one of them takes
a picture when they do it?
Not of the other that take a picture.
Well, isn't that a personal thing? Isn't it
about you? No. It's about them going, look
at me.
I I, you know, it's obvious
what that is.
Imran Sikhi, Siddiq Sid how do you say
that? Siddiqi
says this was the site where American settler,
Barack Goldstein,
massacred 29 praying Palestinians in 1994.
Also, currently, the site where Mike Johnson's taking
a picture with members committing genocide.
America
first. As Glenn, rather Dave DeCamp points out,
Netanyahu is borrowing on congress during the recess.
Guys, that's literal I mean and and to
be clear, as Ryan Grim and others point
out, the Democrats are coming next. It's not
a secret.
This is not normal, guys. This is insane.
And we're I the what's even more insane
is that people are finally starting to see
it, which is crazy, but I'm very happy
to hear it. Marjorie Taylor Greene
opens she literally says, we bombed Iran on
behalf of Israel. Now just because she says
it doesn't make it true, but I also
believe it's true because the facts back that
up. And I'm happy to to raise this
up regardless of whether I think her intentions
are true because it's right.
I think it's important to think about that
people in congress are now starting to tell
you what they know, that this was all
about Israel. Well, that's what we were telling
you.
Now this is actually crazy. I mean, it's
the same as all the rest of it,
but it just continues to get more my
point the reason I say it's crazy is
that it's happening now when they know you're
starting to call it out, which just see
continues to show you who they're working for.
And that is not the mean what people
wanna pretend it means. It simply means people
progressing the Zionist agenda and doing so at
the expense of American
interests.
US attorney for DC.
Interesting, by the way. DC.
We just talked about the federalizing DC, the
Freedom City overlap, giving it to Peter Thiel,
and the weird thing with that guy, Big
Balls, who got beat up, and that's the
guy from Doge, and it's all weird. I
would all just it's like, what a coincidence.
Well, here she is. The attorney for DC
Pirro
has threatened
all the anti Israel Americans.
It's not about America first, guys. This is
straight up unconstitutional.
Problem with antisemitism
in this country,
and the statistics bear that out. And I
No. What they show you is that the
ADL has used every Palestinian flag in the
country to claim it's risen five 400%.
Same old stat we keep telling you that
has been proven that even the ADL has
had to acknowledge, yes, is Palestinian protest. These
people don't care. She doesn't care. Either she's
that easy to manipulate, that's stupid, or doesn't
care that she's
attacking American interest for a foreign country.
Now, again, antisemitism,
whenever you even if it's even if they're
genuinely being racist, that is not something they
can that's not a law. You're allowed to
think and say what you want. That's a
fact.
Or we pretend that, don't we?
Think now more than ever. Wait. I should
be clear. Understand the constitution is not something
they can take away from you. It's inherent,
god given. Now they can choose to not
respect those rights, but it's never something they
can legislate away no matter what they say.
It's and that is the reality of this
from day one. Ever,
bear that out. And I think in this
country,
and the statistics bear that out. And I
think now more than ever,
we are seeing increased numbers. So what does
that mean? If, you know, if what it
means, if you can get from, you know,
my tone,
we're gonna be very aggressive. You heard from
the FBI, the MPD.
We're gonna look for these cases. We're gonna
prosecute these cases to the full force of
the law.
It's a problem. Right. So we're gonna prosecute
you for speech,
but only the speech that we deem offensive
to Israel.
Period.
Right? You can come out and be racist
against Muslims and Christians in America. They they
or just hate America. They don't care. They
love they even Miller was just called out
for this. They love to make it about
where people who hate America. That's not what
they're doing. It's there's not a single person
who has been deported or removed for hating
America. It's all been around Israel.
But they claim that just therefore means they
hate America too. It's just not they don't
even in most cases, these people don't even
hate Israel. It's about focusing on what matters.
On, you know, ending the genocide or calling
out, you know, discrimination or calling out the
unconstitutional
actions.
These people don't work for you. They don't
care about you. You know? I mean, I
should make a funny comment with the way
she looks, but you could you could fill
it in. Glenn, when we're not gonna tolerate
it, antisemitism
has historically
been,
one of the biggest scabs in the world
that keeps getting picked on and picked at.
So
from my perspective,
you know, I will go forward with every
case with vengeance.
Now the reality of this, guys, is these
things have been going on for a long
time. Right? Not these are you know, this
is not something that's only happening today. Right?
And I believe that one's not even from
immediately. The point is that, clearly, we're building
into this direction where all of government stands
left and right, which is what it's always
been, is about coming after you for Israel.
Solomon Ahmed about and this is and this
just expanded to the global point, just a
couple of them. Ireland.
One of them also historically,
you know, pro Palestinian entities in the national
discussion or rather international discussion.
US is now threatening Ireland
over boycotting Israel. Now this this is just
so far beyond. So, obviously, they the con
the US government has
arguably you know, they're supposed to protect our
constitutional rights. They don't care. But we pretend
that that's the case. Right?
This goes so far beyond that. Now they're
going they're saying other countries,
around
Ireland.
You're not allowed to boycott a group committing
genocide.
You, foreign country, which we have no jurisdiction
over, we're gonna you you we're gonna go
after you. We're gonna throw tariffs at you.
Like, it's the same thing we saw with
Canada. Trump came out and said, we can't
make a deal because you want you say
Palestine's a state.
This is all of this is immediately counter
to US interest
for Israel. That is not America first eve
and Matt Walsh and many other conservatives were
screaming about that.
Same point here. He says, quote, if you
try to economically isolate Israel, you will bear
the consequences.
Trump is make is using America as a
battering ram to support Israeli interests.
US congress urges treasury secretary percent to investigate
Ireland's proposed boycott.
Investigate?
In what world is it illegal to make
decisions financially for what you want to boycott
or not or even just not work with?
The idea that you're forced to work with
this country regardless,
or if you don't, you're racist, is insane.
It's the same thing we're just talking about.
You know, people that don't take APAC money
are racist. You know, it's just like that's
an insane way to look at this. Quote,
The United States must send a clear message
that efforts
to economically
isolate Israel will carry consequences.
Okay. Can you economically isolate Iran?
Sure. Can you economically isolate China, Russia? Absolutely.
Can you economically isolate The UK, Germany? Anyone
you want, but not Israel.
It's just so stupid.
This comes after the Trump administration threatens US
cities and states that would receive they wouldn't
receive fund federal aid if they boycotted Israel,
which is still the reality despite the screaming
idiots in the mainstream alternative media.
Representative Claudia Tenney says, if Ireland supports Hamas,
don't think that's the case. And BDS, that's
just simply your legal right to boycott what
you want. By boycotting Israel, The US must
enforce our anti boycott laws. You want your
so now your laws apply to Ireland?
Are these people that stupid or are they
just that megalomani are they megalomaniacs? Are they
just working for somebody else
to protect US companies?
She said, I'm calling on the scent to
investigate Ireland's proposal. Okay. So quickly recognize her
as somebody not working for American interests. Somebody
called her and said, do this.
Right? This is some this is
the representative of the house. Where is it?
Hold on. Try to look at where area.
New York?
Okay.
So the point is, this is somebody who
is a a New York representative. Okay?
Why in the world is she even talking
about something that is real involved with the
or why are you focusing on New York?
Or if that I I believe that's where
she is just based on that task tag,
but I could be wrong. The point is
why are you focusing on your district?
Why are you out wildly outside of your
mandate, your field of work to talk about
Ireland Israel because somebody in Israel who gave
you money said, hey, Claudia,
scream about this,
or you have to, or however you wanna
look at it. That's disgusting. It doesn't make
any sense.
And here,
Disclose TV points out, in case you missed
it, US Congress urges US Congress
urges
secretary of descent to investigate Ireland's proposed boycott.
The United States must send a clear signal
that efforts to economically isolate Israel will carry
consequences.
I just I don't need to even make
this is speaks for itself.
If these people wanted the ice to boycott
UK, I'm sure there'd be a conversation about
allies, but it would not look like this.
Dear percent,
we write to express our serious concerns regarding
recent proposal by the government of Ireland to
boycott
urge the department of to examine the implications
of the proposal under US law. How do
they think US law applies to Ireland? Like,
even if you wanna talk about, like, the
companies that overlap with Ireland, there's no legal
avenue through which you can argue they have
to do anything. You could pull your companies
back, and that would hurt American interests. That's
the point.
It says section nine nine nine of the
the Internal Revenue Code.
Now look. This may overlap with that weird
thing they were doing about, like, the revenue
services for outside The United States.
This is getting it has been insane for
a long time.
Reflects The United States bipartisan commitment to opposing
foreign boycotts of friendly nations,
particularly
Israel.
So that they do that to make it
seem that they don't do this for anybody
else. The bipartisan commitment, very clear.
Marjorie Taylor Greene
stands up today pointing that out and says,
what is happening?
America's economic power and success should not be
used as a blunt force weapon against other
countries on behalf of Israel's economy. On top
of that, they do in general, Trump shouldn't
be using tariffs coercively to force countries into
positions he wants, regardless of whether benefits is
for The United States. That's just that that
is I mean, it's economic warfare.
It says,
I'm and look, I'm sure people disagree with
that. My point is that if we want
to build a world in a direction that
we think is gonna benefit even just American
interests, then we should do that. Might makes
right is not that direction. That is historically
what's always caused the same things we always
have got, and that
received, gotten, which is
war, pushback.
You economically manipulate that country. What do you
think they're gonna do back to you? You
may wanna ask yourself whether that would be
the way the world is if this wasn't
being forced on everybody.
It says, and I'm a big supporter of
dissent,
worth considering, the massive Zionist descent.
He as he is working hard to level
the playing field for America. I don't agree
with that. But congress, who is overwhelmingly controlled
by multiple foreign governments. True. Especially, the secular
government of Israel is fighting for Israel first.
Now
multiple governments, I don't believe that's the case.
I think this is a way to water
this down for hopes that maybe she can
gain back APAC support, if you want my
honest opinion.
But what she's saying is correct, regardless of
whether you think her intent or intent is
true.
This is about Somalia,
Cutter.
Right? I mean, that's insane to argue. Or
even the push recently, Charlie Kirk is like,
Carr, c a r. That is like the
most
problematic thing in the world.
Like, just look at the influence of APAC.
Look at what Israel does. It's
ridiculous to claim anything other than Israel is
truly influencing US policy.
Just I've given an example. I'm in Texas
visiting my family, and I've talked to a
lot of people. Beef is an all time
high, and I'm happy for the cattle ranchers
because they got hurt a few years back
from big drought. However
from a big drought, however, that is hitting
people hard in the checkout line of the
grocery stores. The average American is barely getting
by. Other new that, guys. Been that way
for a while now, sadly.
My confused colleagues are blinded and have forgotten
their job, their title as representative.
You know, and I agree with some of
what she's saying. I gotta be honest. It
just I don't feel like it's true. I
think this is opportunism, but I'm more supportive
nonetheless.
Glenn Greenwald, to make it about The UK
as well, which we all know, and funny
how
there was this major moment where it was
about The UK and censorship, and it's all
woke and bad, which is true.
Funny how they're not really saying that right
now. You know why I think? Because it's
become about Israel. Free speech effectively does not
exist in The UK.
Quote, armed police threatened to arrest Kent protester
for holding Palestinian flag and a flag saying
free Gaza, and Israel's committing genocide.
Illegal ideas and opinions. That's it, guys. That's
one of those anti Semitic events that that's
simply standing up for your rights against people
committing genocide, whether they're Jewish or not. That's
what's happening.
Now remember, Elon Musk and all the rest
when he was, like, charging the whole Twitter
space, they were screaming about UK and ignoring
what happened here. Why aren't they screaming about
it still? It's still happening. I think you
know why.
Megatron points out Trump to the countries of
the Middle East.
Join the Abraham Accords and protect Israel if
you want peace in the Middle East.
Speaks for itself. Trump has openly announced that
the to the countries that they will never
have peace
if they don't invade Israel. Now that's the
way he frames it, but that's generally the
point.
Probably the point where it's like, we won't
let you have peace unless you do it.
That's how it's been going the whole time.
Quote, it's it is very important. This is
quote.
To me that all the countries in the
Middle East join the Abraham Accords. This will
ensure peace in The Middle East,
he said on Truth Social. Now that's not
the way you spell that. That's like insurance,
but the point is it e with an
e. Something that clearly indicates that Israel is
the cause of the wars in this region.
We all know this.
We all know this by now. We showed
it anyway.
Now here's a clip that's gonna bother you,
and I'll play this really quickly. It's only
forty seconds, and it's exactly what we're talking
about. Here's Alan Dershowitz going to some random
Martha's Vineyard farmer's market.
Apparently, he's been making a big deal about
this one guy forever and trying to force
him to sell him food even though he's
straight saying I won't sell food to people
who are Zionists.
Certainly sounds familiar, doesn't it? Let's take a
listen.
Stands
one for anti Zionists and one for people
who will sell that. So I'd ask you
to please just sell me any one of
your products to show that you're prepared
to sell to anybody and not allow your
anti Zionism to,
decide,
which people will sell will be of your
side. Fan. This man is calling me an
anti Zionist.
This man excuse me. This man is a
saint.
Mhmm. I also have a saint. This book,
which No. Thank you. So thank you. I
signed it to you. Oh. To Creme, please
learn the truth. Thank you so much, Alan.
You're welcome. Thank you so much. I am
very I'm very surprised that you're here because
of the things that you've been, saying about
us and the business. They're just you. Yeah.
Online. And he bits it. Just you. Okay.
First, before we even get into the overlap,
Here's what this guy says, Michael Knowles says,
Alan's completely in the right here.
Right. By forcing someone to sell them food
that they don't wanna sell them because of
a political opinion?
Gee. Don't we have a a precedent for
that? Haven't we talked about this before?
He ruins these insufferable libs,
this moron,
and takes all their pierogies.
Okay.
So in the first sense,
do you feel that you should be obligated
to sell food to somebody that you don't
agree with?
Sure. Seems to be your right, doesn't it?
We have this whole thing about, you know,
constitutional
rights, but then it overlaps with the whole
what is it called again? The woke idea
of, you know, the the like, what what
what do they frame this as? Like, the
bottom line is that there's
perspectives out there that say that that's,
discrimination.
Right? That you're not but but you own
this business, and you could do what you
want with it. I can decide I wanna
sell you this because you got red shoes
on, and I hate red shoes. That's the
reality, guys. Now you know where this is
going because this already happened.
That's right. Supreme Court upholds Baker's right to
disagree with gay marriage in marketplace. Remember when
this was, like, the whole thing?
Oh, the Republicans are going, how dare you
can't make me?
Yeah. Right.
Remember that?
Funny how weird these things swing around, and
now we're watching the woke right do the
same damn thing. Now realize he's not considered
a Republican. The point, though, is this is
from a Republican perspective. The idea of forcing
these stupid libs,
as he says right there, to take the
because it's all about left versus right. Right?
Children.
This guy's a maniac, by the way. Dershowitz
is very clearly I think this is a
stunt trying to distract from everything else going
on, part of it, anyway, but really just
to force the idea that everyone in this
country hates Jews. That's all it's about. Right?
Or is it about the fact that everyone
supporting the genocide
is somebody they don't wanna be associated with?
Or that they have a right to not
sell food to people that they don't want
to support? I mean, it's just insane
how blind it can be when people are
on one side versus the other.
It just makes me sad that we have
to be this ridiculous about it all, that
it can't be that obvious, that we've already
set the idea that you guys made the
argument, and now here we are where it's
okay because you're doing it. Sorta like when
lived with TikTok, got that person fired from
Home Depot because they made a bad joke
about Trump's being the well, whatever you wanna
call it. What happened in Butler?
Think about
that. She said, I wish he was a
better shot. Or too bad he was a
better shot is what she said. Sure. That's
bad taste.
It's not against the law to say that
regardless of what the implication is. And what
did they do? Doxed her, went after her,
got her fired from a job as some
random middle, you know, person who, you know,
who I don't actually know, but the point
is probably somebody who was just getting by
at her job,
and they hated her for it.
How was that different than the left?
It's not.
But we'll leave it there today. Very important
stuff, I think, overall. I think that what
we're seeing today is just continuing to show
you that we're, you know, we're on a
positive path as much as it continues to
feel chaotic.
Things are changing. People are seeing these things,
but you got the government trying to desperately
scare you into place. You got the mainstream
alternative media screaming their heads off to maintain
their cash train or gay the gravy train.
You know, it's and in in the process,
trying to convince you how dumb you are,
how lost you are, how you're missing everything,
how dare all the libs are distracting. It's
it's dangerous.
But it's going in the right direction. I
think we can see that. The direction is
truth, guys. And sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.
But if you want truth, then we're going
in the right direction.
Keep fighting for it. Now, I'll leave you
with a clip that you've seen before, but
the idea of understanding who's been driving all
these wars and all the different things that
we've seen. It's obvious where this is coming
from, and it's about time that we put
a stop to it. Thank you for being
here.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
This starts and it's it's really fascinating
to go back. It starts,
in 1996
with Netanyahu
who wrote a book called Fighting Terrorism.
And the thesis of the book is quite
straightforward and
and very dangerous.
He says, you know, there are there's Hamas,
there's Hezbollah. They oppose Israel. It's not good
for us to fight them directly.
That that won't work.
What we need to do is topple
the governments
that that back them. So what we need
is regime change throughout The Middle East.
And he actually gave a long list of
seven countries,
that included,
Syria,
Libya,
Iraq, Iran,
Somalia,
Sudan,
and Lebanon.
And systematically,
The United States has done Netanyahu's
bidding for almost thirty years now going to
war
with every one of them except for the
big one, that Netanyahu
so much longs for, which is the war
directly
between The United States and Iran. About ten
days after 09:11, I went through the Pentagon,
and I saw secretary Rumsfeld and
and deputy secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just
to say hello to some of the people
on the joint staff who used used to
work for me, and one of the generals
called me and he said, sir, you gotta
come in you gotta come in and talk
to me a second. I said, well, you're
too busy. He said, no. No. He says,
we've made the decision we're going to war
with Iraq.
This was on or about the September 20.
So, I said, well, did they find some
information collect connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda? He
said, no. No. He says there's nothing new
that way. They just made the decision to
go to war with Iraq.
He said, I guess it's like we don't
know what to do about terrorists, but
we've got a good military and we can
take down governments. And, he said, I guess
if if the only tool you have is
a hammer, every problem has to look like
a nail.
So I came back to see him a
few weeks later,
and by that time, we were bombing in
Afghanistan. I said, are we still going to
war with Iraq? And he said, oh, it's
worse than that. He said he reached over
on his desk. He picked up a piece
of paper. He said, I just he said,
I just got this down from upstairs, meaning
the secretary of defense's office today. And he
said, this is a memo that describes how
we're gonna take out seven countries
in five years, starting with Iraq and then
Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.