Please, sir. This is a presidential memorandum on
countering,
domestic terrorism and organized political violence.
In recent weeks, months, and years, we've seen
a tremendous upsurge
in some highly visible, but also other acts
of domestic terrorism and organized political violence
being perpetrated by radical politically motivated groups.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality. 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.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Thursday, 09/25/2025.
Thank you for joining me. Now we're gonna
focus today
on a lot of social commentary. Now we
talk about this stuff all the time. I
mean, almost every show, there's points that I
like to make, usually in the beginning, about
certain two party illusion points, or or sometimes
we do larger focuses on it where I
think it's more important.
Today, we're gonna focus, I think,
largely
on, you know, a lot of the important
stuff that's happening, the the the shooting in
Dallas, the ICE shooting, the conversation around it,
many different points around that kind of part
of the conversation,
some more parts around Epstein to get you
updates on what's happening there. But a lot
of what I wanna cover today is about
that social commentary. Well, as I call that,
that's what I kind of give.
It's the correct term, but it really just
encapsulates a large part of the conversation that
I think, honestly, in most cases, is less
important than just knowing the facts.
You know, what we can prove rather versus
what's being said and and the different partisan
conversations around it are less important than just
the basic reality of what we can prove.
But today, I think it's important to see
how these things are constructed and how in
real time, which I argue most everyone that
watches this show is probably already very well
aware of it. But I see things when
you watch the way these things develop,
things that really stand out and and can
help people new to this really understand the
motivation,
you know, as I see it behind where
these things are going. But people that have
been doing this a long time or, you
know, veterans in this kind of just observing
the political chaos,
I I hope I just wanna outline what
I see developing in hopes that or, you
know, and maybe you may might be missing
what I'm seeing
and
where I think this is going.
And I I started with that clip for
a very real a very obvious reason.
We've been talking about the development of the
domestic terrorism focus for a long time. Whitney
and I have been going back and forth
around this for quite a long time, and
I'm gonna include our article today, of course,
about, you know, who who is a terrorist
in Biden's America. We just read that article
on the on the show, I think, two
shows ago.
Because if you and you just insert who's
a terrorist in Trump's America. It is the
exact same article. Because what's crazy, if you
as you understand, outside of the narratives and
wedge issues, that if you look, it's the
exact same discussion.
Using hate speech,
using the idea of political domestic violence.
You know, using these ideas to just be
aim at whoever they want. And that it's
being very clearly
executed, rolled out as we speak, along with
the larger technocratic agenda that is not even
slowing down
but gets missed because of things like this.
So today, I wanna make sure we go
through a lot of these different points.
Largely, again, the kind of the topic areas
we're gonna get into. Actually, one important one
to start with social media that I want
you to highlight around YouTube that says a
lot to me, and TikTok,
around where that goes.
But a a good port portion of the
update around Epstein, which I really do think
is one of the more important topics today,
even over the shootings, to understand
what is going on around this and what
that shows you. I just think it's it's
amazing to see the lack of conversation from
people who were otherwise screaming about this coming
to pass.
We'll talk about the the
discussion from,
I guess, Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel, but
really, again, the larger point of the story
itself and where that's how that's developing and
the different points that you need to see
to keep you updated on it. But, also,
you know, again, where I think this is
all coming together as one,
pardon me, one kind of act you know,
I mean, look. There's always multifaceted
agendas, moving parts. Individual politicians, let's say, have
a a personal interest in making something happen
a certain way because of lobbyists they're investing.
But, you know, there's always moving parts, always
ulterior motives. But the larger pieces being used
around these different motions that I think are
developing into what we're always talking about. But
right now, it seems very important for them
to create,
as the government, not left and right, but
the government, create a circumstance where they can
justify
taking such, like,
in your face unconstitutional
actions or things that are completely dismantling foundational
ideas of this country
that obviously,
the Trump supporter, Republican side, the MAGA side
will be the most
resistant to that if it was Biden doing
it. And really anybody, but when this situation,
it pacifies them the most. Just like the
point they made about COVID nineteen. And so
the right now is an important time where
these things are being lined up. The dominoes
are being set.
And I think these moves,
whatever you think about the actions, we'll get
into that too. But, you know, the last
shooting, the recent one, this Dallas ice shooting,
whatever you think about them, even if it's
exactly what their narrative is, they're still being
used to execute this direction.
Like, every single left and right government we've
ever seen since this country's been in existence,
in my opinion. So outside of that, there's
many other parts we're gonna get into, but
I hope you can try to see this
as one larger overarching picture of where it
goes. I wanna start with something I'm not
gonna get into today. Put it up last
minute because I saw a a post from
somebody that just you know, it's important to
hear this today. We're gonna get into it
tomorrow in the next show.
Now this is a post about the West
Bank.
Now we're gonna get into more of you
know, it's sadly, the reality is if you
watch this show or really anybody's been covering
this outside of the kind of newest horrifying
developments in the direction of the same conversations,
it's that you already know what's going on.
You already know about the occupation. You already
know about the exit the genocide taking place,
the starvation, the manipulation of the ceasefire, the
lies around it, all of it, which is
all still happening. Every day, they just blend
into each other because the horrifying reality of
our government is that they don't care. They
don't care that you see them doing it.
That has to say something to you. But
this is about the West Bank.
Because don't forget,
that was a promise Donald Trump made in
regard to getting funding for people like Adelson.
But he comes out and says and this
has been a bit he made a huge
promise
saying that he would not,
excuse me,
that he would not
allow them to annex the West Bank. You
know, aside from that literally happening right now
and has been going on for a long
time. And in his last administration, they made
more efforts than any administration through Pompeo to
say that it was okay.
So he says, I will not allow Israel
to annex the West Bank. I will not
allow it. Not gonna happen. Yeah. You know,
sort of like he said that about Gaza,
like he said that about, I mean,
a 100 other examples. Let's not pretend this
is partisan because left does it too. K?
But Trump is just very, very blatant about
the way he he'll say whatever people want
to hear in the moment. That's he's he's
a pleaser. He wants you to like him.
Here's somebody who's pointing out that's not true.
Except Israel, literally, she writes, just annexed my
village in the West Bank this past Saturday
by officially announcing they consider the land now
part of Israel. This has been ongoing every
single moment. And, again, well before October 7,
but it's ramped up incredibly
since Donald Trump got back into power. It's
not an accident. It's not a coincidence. And
And that that says and any and she
says anyone living on it requires a permit
that no longer has a Palestinian ID number.
Ethnic cleansing is what that's called.
So let's not forget,
Trump is desperate for Miriam Adelson's cash, says
the leading Israeli newspaper, Huret. Her condition, West
Bank annexation. Any? Agreed. It's public information if
you just care to look. As well as
the fact that here is,
Smotrich
last month. Israel settlement plans will bury his
choice of words,
idea of Palestine state. He said Israel far
right minister,
Smotrich, has said plans to build more than
3,000 homes, illegal homes,
in occupied West Bank will bury the idea
of the Palestinian state. That's his own statement.
Keep that in mind as we go through
parts that relate to what they're doing and
what they don't care about. They'll their their
concern for international law and the legalities around
these pro radical terrorists like these people, how
much they care about this. But as I
said, we'll get into this more.
Not much of the Israel conversation today, but
my god, just to see how in your
face the dishonesty is. And I'd like to
believe that most Americans,
whatever partisan side you think you're on are
aware of the lie, that you can see
objective dishonesty,
objective
immoral acts,
justifying, allowing, funding, arming the ongoing thing in
everybody's
eyes in the world outside of people lying
about it, a genocide.
I mean, it's just mind blowing. And, I
mean, again, the joke that was put out
I mean, it's not even a joke. That
I mean, you name it. Every human rights
group, every single thing we're standing up even
remotely in the conversation of genocide has said,
yes. It's genocide. Now, one by one, Western
states are doing the same. Didn't we just
talk about this? The opportunism is gonna they're
gonna yep. Now it's happening. France, different countries,
Saudi Arabia. Yep. Palestine. That's real.
We told you. Now the bar the point,
though, is that how long will it take
for people in this country to recognize our
governments, whether they even want to or not,
don't seem to be able to tell them
no?
We'll come back to that. Now let's start
with some censorship today, which obviously very much
relates to this whole point because let's not
let's be honest about what we can see
in all of this. If you're out there
believing that Jews somehow control everything and stop
you from being, then you're being played by
Zionist. Yes. There's Jewish supremacy that overlaps with
that conversation, which is obvious, as even the
leading human rights group in Israel will tell
you. It's an objective reality,
but it does not make every single person
of a certain religion a pro it is
about Zionism and the way that they infiltrate
groups,
platforms, companies, governments.
It's very real and very historically documented, and
people are finally starting to see it. To
make that about racism is to say that
the Republican Party doing something is somehow about
Christianity. It doesn't make any sense when you
understand the reality of it. Now the point
I'm saying that for is that throughout this,
including this censorship, there is an obvious overwhelmingly
clear
presence
of Zionism in controlling the way that we
are acting and thinking in regard to this
kind of content.
But you see why it's important, even though
I hate to reiterate it all the time,
why it's important to say that distinction before
you say something like that. Because people that
might be new will just assume that you
somehow are falling into the the, you know,
the tropes, the
the half thought theory, the idea, you know,
the un the the
what's the right word for it? You know,
something that's based on something that is real
but is completely
there's not enough evidence. It's subjective.
That's what that's what partisanship does to us,
guys. That's what's so important to think about
in regard to the two party illusion part
today is that it is I mean, it
is like anti the antithesis of intelligence of
of of critical thinking. It's everywhere you look.
Now to to censorship,
this came out where they said, we've seen
some previously terminated creators try to start new
channels. This is YouTube. To clarify, our pilot
program on terminations is not yet open. It
is still against our community guidelines for previously
terminated users to use, possess, or create another
channel. I thought this was funny, as you
well know why. And we'll terminate new channels
from previously terminated okay. All this comes to
the idea that YouTube is out there saying,
yay. We're welcoming you all back. Anybody can
come back. And that's not even that new.
This has been going on well before Jim
Jordan's,
before the recent discussion.
They they have been slowly doing so. I've
never thought it was possible because I don't
think they I don't think this is about
honestly allowing people to come back that are
nonpartisan objective reporting about the big picture as
opposed to partisan manipulation.
But this is about specifically the pirate channel
point. So I think it's funny, especially
as Alex Jones and plenty of others come
back on and they get deleted all of
a sudden. Oh, big story. Such a victim
being censored yet again as this platform grows
and grows and grows.
What's funny though is that, see, people like
myself
will try to do
that, and we get denied.
This is yesterday
instantaneously
even though it's the point the point being
that there are certain platforms out there that
nothing will ever be allowed. If it does,
I'll put it back up, but I'm not
gonna keep using the channel for very obvious
reasons.
But we were denied under misinformation, as usual,
despite the one reason that we got censored
on YouTube about myocarditis and and the shots
being one of the most provable points of
the conversation
still being censored. Because they reviewed it, and
they know for sure that I'm right and
don't want that to be something publicly known.
But I point that out that T Lab
Pirate Streams is the way that we get
around that. For those who don't know, the
channel we're broadcasting on right now on YouTube
that we do almost every single well, this
one's what we there's a couple we oscillate
through until they get deleted.
One about three right now that we're using
until they get deleted almost happens every every
couple of weeks or months.
We're breaking this rule. They
probably know that. And what's funny is I
tell people on the on the platform just
put our content out there. Download the video.
Post it. I don't care. Put it out
there as much as you want. So they
can't I mean, they could do whatever they
wanted. They do most of the time. But
what's funny is you could just start knocking
down every channel that looks like it has
my content. And I just think it's funny
that we're violating this and people that are
trying to go through the channels are the
ones being censored. It's just funny to point
out. But note TLAB Pirate Streams is what
the real you know, it's kind of the
pirate radio of today that they can't really
stop because we're gonna keep popping up everywhere.
And that goes for everything. And by the
way, on Facebook's note, I still need a
Facebook power channel. Anybody out there that has
a Facebook account they don't care about, reach
out. Put Facebook in the subject line, and
I'll reach out to you. We could use
it. Not that I even care. I think
Facebook is kind of one of the dying
sides of this, but just content everywhere we
can.
But we were denied on YouTube. Now, this
big story going around is that, you know,
Alex Jones got his YouTube channel back and
then they deleted it right away.
And I just think it's interesting, isn't it?
I mean, it feels
you mean, you know my opinion. I think
this is a very I think this person
is either a,
like, a willfully ignorant use use you know,
being used in the whole thing or is
a part of that. I I mean, this
dishonesty is unbelievably clear.
So this, to me, personal opinion, is sort
of like demonstrating the big censorship. You know,
even though objectively at this point now I'm
not talking in the sense of, like, monetary
value or the reach, because he has me
beaten both of those, both censorship and his
reach. But in regard to platforms, I can
prove it to you. I have been censored
on more platforms than anybody else I've ever
met in my life. And I I have
the list. I've gone through it more than
once. Whether it's social media platforms, whether it's
PayPal and Venmo and I mean, it's everywhere
you look.
Even people that I've always said in the
past were there's I'm just not not even
close. I'm it's well beyond that now. And
I'm sure there might be somebody out there
that I don't know about. I'm not gonna
it's not about me. It's about the point
of how many different platforms we've been censored
from and somebody like this who gets the
moniker of the most yet continues to be
beneficially, like, absorbed into, like, literally the current
power structure, but you're the rebel flying the
deep state. Overall, I just thought it was
interesting
how that worked out to be simply reiterated
as we're the ones now being censored still.
But on in regard to that overlap and
I think there's a clear reason why we're
seeing this. Let's not forget about the TikTok
point. Here's WikiLeaks again saying Israeli aligned billionaires
seize TikTok in battle for US narrative control.
We recently talked about this. And this is,
Greenblatt basically just saying that, you know, what
we've heard in the past, I played all
these for you, that we need to get
TikTok. The other one is about a generational
problem and a leaked one.
Glenn says, easily one of the most consequential
yet overlooked events of 2025.
Larry Ellison,
the mega billionaire Oracle founder and the IDF's
largest private donor, is now taking control of
CBS, Paramount, TikTok, likely CNN. He won't just
control content. That's what I think is most
important. He will also you control user data.
But interestingly enough,
seven seas rightly points out,
it was already
in a large part owned by Israeli overlap,
which I find really interesting. Right? Because, I
mean, what I think this is showing and
a good work by seven seas is that
there is, you know, more to these stories
than just the like, for example, when we
talk about the left and the right of
what's going on, if you're paying attention, you're
probably well aware by now that that's a
that's a that's 5% of the story. The
re that's it's like the ice the tip
of the iceberg, the actual analogy. The reality
of this is the the the all the
stuff happening beneath the game that is the
childish cartoonish clapping steels talking about partisan politics.
And so this is the same idea, that
it's all about China and The United States.
Well, many people have already kind of sussed
out or seen that, well, you are worried
about foreign influence.
And so you take it from China and
then just basically can coerce it into the
hands of Israel. Well, that's the same issue.
Right? Except they don't care about that foreign
influence. That foreign influence is them. But
he he points out Israeli aligned billionaires have
60% have been 60%
owners
of TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, for years. So
what does this seem like to me now?
Tying it up
entirely. So they now they went from 60
to what? In a 100%?
So if you were if the if the
40% of the information that was squeaking by
on TikTok was an issue, well, now that's
no longer gonna be a problem, which is
evidenced by the fact
pardon me. Something congested in my throat today.
But the the evidence by the fact that
before they even took the this even really
happened, they were censoring conversation of Ellison and
his name in regard to the deal. They
immediately ramped up, like, expo I mean, maybe
not exponentially, but a lot
censorship around Israel.
It's, I mean, it's it's very obvious.
And he writes, however you pronounce this, Susquehanna
International Group, Zionist billionaire Jeff Yass, who we've
talked about, who also donates to Thomas Massie
Rentpal,
which is which is important to know. BlackRock
Zionist billionaire Larry Flink and Robert Capito
from Blackstone and Susan Wagner from Swiss
Re Robert. And Susan are part of the
UJIA
Federation of New York. General Atlantic, Bill Ford,
who also sits on the board of BlackRock
and is member of the council of foreign
relations. No big deal.
Anton Levy,
investment banker from Morgan Stanley, was given the
UJA Federation of New York's Alan c Greenberg,
young
leadership award.
USDS TikTok has been in Oracle servers
since at least 2022
under Project Texas. So it's just
a it's a shell game is what it
appears to me. And I find this really,
really interesting
because if it what what is it's almost
as if they need I mean, look. There's
it's all subjective and abstract when you get
into it because it's hard to know for
sure, for example, whether Larry Ellison is, in
fact, acting for Israeli interest. Right?
I'm not claiming I know that for a
fact, but you can clearly show that he
is blindly adherent to Israel policy, Israel first
mentality. He said that publicly.
And now he's taking this over because and
Israel has had issues with it. So that's
that's you can suss you can piece that
together for yourself. But it is important to
ask and be objective about whether or not
that's the exact but I think what this
pictures
what what it it's the ongoing overtaking of
the of the narrative. At a time when
they've lost control of the narrative, or rather
to put it more accurately, the attempt to
take back the narrative. I I I think
we all kinda see that. Right? It's not
that hard to recognize.
I mean, you're gonna have to make it
about some bigger conspiracy theory if you think
that's what it is. Governments have always wanted
to control the narrative. Left and right every
single day, they're trying to control the narrative.
Right? So it shouldn't be that hard for
us to make sense of this.
Now Ben and Johnson says breaking. President Trump
signs executive order saving TikTok
and praises Charlie Kirk for urging him to
get on the platform during
I'm getting really tired of this.
How much you wanna bet that didn't even
happen? That's just my opinion. But I can
prove to you that there's already been people
caught for saying things like being claiming they
were friends. And, I mean, in his cabinet,
as well as people in in the partisan
social media field.
Everyone wants to pretend like they were best
friends with Charlie Kirk right now and use
his name for everything they're trying to accomplish,
much of which is completely counter to what
Charlie Kirk said he wanted from, you know,
hate speech, for example, censorship,
free speech,
as he uses him to do those things
or counter those things or a youth well,
to attack free speech and censor.
But he says, Charlie helped me a lot.
Go on TikTok, he said. We got record
votes with young voters. Okay. So if you
understand the
actual reality, which is not hard to see
if you just look, of his evolving opinion
and people close to him who are actively
saying so, like Candace Owens, like Tucker, about
his transition, whether it's to Christianity, whether it's
about his awareness of Zionism,
and understanding that TikTok problem, which he's mentioned.
And so now we're gonna say that he
was you know, get TikTok so we can
I mean, I you know, to me, first,
I don't even know if I believe that
statement was said? It's about trying to say,
well, everyone likes the Kirk thing. If I
say Kirk is on the side of this
issue, they'll just flock to that side of
the issue. You know, the blind sycophant followers
out there.
Whether or not he actually said it. But
I also think it's about misrepresenting what it
seems he was actually trying to point to.
But this person calls it out in general
and says someone should let Donald Trump know
that TikTok, that's now owned by Larry Ellison
and Israeli backers, is censoring memorial videos about
Charlie Kirk.
Now why do you think that even makes
sense? Well, the only reason to me that
even remotely starts to add up is when
you understand that there's an uncomfortable issue around
this story that Israel does not like.
I'm sure you could piece that together as
well.
That's just my opinion. Regardless,
Charlie Kirk said we should get it. And
then they sent to Charlie Kirk's men. I
mean, it just doesn't make sense unless you
look at the big picture and realize these
people don't care about anybody but their agenda.
They will use his name as far as
they can, no matter what.
White House account literally post this. They have
some sixth grader running all his accounts, apparently.
President Trump just signed a huge deal, the
executive order that saves TikTok and protects American
data. Oh, it protects American data right into
Israel's hands, doesn't it? Or how about the
fact that you are the ones literally stealing
our data every single day? Protects us for
I mean, from you?
It's a weird way to frame that. But
the bottom line again and he says we're
back. Better than ever.
And five times August says, well, I'd rather
have top tier bad guys arrested, but okay.
See, people out there need to understand that
a major portion of this like, they're leaning
into the sycophant, blind, you know, all the
people they've kind of allowed to have a
million followers that don't deserve it, who can't
even spell their own name properly but ultimately
out there. You know, these these are the
ones that stand up and go, yay what
Trump said. He's the one, and we're all
on his side forever no matter what. And
that might represent 1% of the conversation for
all we know. And there's a lot of
people, which by the way, five times August
is not a small account. It's got 243,000
followers. But there's a lot of people out
there that just aren't kind of projected as
that major, and they're saying, what? This isn't
right. Where are the Epstein files? You guys
are lying to us.
I really think day by day, this is
getting larger and larger and larger, and every
topic is starting to show that.
More than anything, the Epstein story, which we'll
get to next.
Oh, and by the way, on that note
about free speech,
I wanted to yet again include the new
store we have with all the different shirts
you can buy.
Once you check it out, make sure you
go there and support KeyLab because I don't
rep I don't point that out enough. And
I know people like the con maybe go
out there and watch the show, don't even
know we have it because I'm just not
I'm I'm terrible at self promotion and marketing
because I hate them both, but check it
out.
As well as this one specifically about free
speech absolutist,
where on the back it says, I support
the last American vagabond and different versions of
it. I mean, because you have to understand,
guys, really, the term free speech means that.
Now we have to say absolutist because ridiculous
people out there pretend that free speech somehow
means limits
because they're either really uneducated or trying to
censor you. So absolutist seems necessary today, but
that is what it means. And so understanding
when you say that, it just means that
you actually understand the reality of free speech,
that words are free no matter what. No
no matter what other kind of narrative or
argument or hate speech word or fire or
anything. It doesn't change the reality that your
words are not crimes.
And, really, that is actually the reality of
the law. Even though they go, but you
said that and he did this and therefore
you're okay. It's been bent and warped into
the idea that your words are violent even
though that's what the right was telling you
the left was trying to do, and here
we are. But check it out. Support TLav.
One last thing that, that was shared with
me today that I thought was very interesting.
I mean, this this
is very, very transparent.
So on the wall at the DMV in
Florida,
somebody points out to me that this their
their,
some of the versions of their of license
plates say Florida stands with Israel. And
And, interestingly
enough, has it covered by this stand.
So I think people can see it. I
just thought that was interesting.
But I think what's what what the what
the point shows
you, in my opinion, is that ultimately,
these government entities
are beholden to Israel for any number of
reasons. You know my opinions.
And they just know you don't want that,
which shows you it's not America First what
they're doing. But they know you don't want
that, so they don't want it in your
face. That's what I take from that.
But let's talk about,
the,
in in regard
to AI government. And I think this is
a very important conversation because we and we've
talked about this for a long time. Again,
here here's actually the, the show we did
on this.
The impending future of AI government, but who
controls the AI. This was 03/08/2025.
Now this was at the time when it
was actually very clear, you could prove already,
that they were making little,
AI bots to help functions in regard to
the the government.
Now the reason I'm framing this today is
not because of this thing you've all probably
seen, not because of the AI, which I
honestly I I genuinely think at this point
is kind of a gimmick,
even though it's real. Right? Even sort of
like the Saudi Arabia robot was real, Sophie,
but it was clearly a gimmick or many
things that Elon has done in the past.
Turns out they were controlling it from behind
the screen scenes. Right? Like, it's all about
trying to project what they want you to
think is happening just like the government does
all the time. Otherwise, it's called lying.
But, you know, with the intention of that's
where they're going. But so it's a little
bit different, but they're just trying to you
know, in this case, I think it's more
than just trying to project. It's about wanting
you to think, you know, really just normalization,
getting you to accept this is where the
world is going. David Icke says, so on
it goes. Albania's AI cabinet minister
is now in effect. Now it's a real
thing.
But what do I think about it? It's
hard to tell. I mean, is it even
having an effect? I mean, do what other
Paul didn't think about it? It's gonna take
time to see where this even flushes out.
So that's not really what I'm getting at
today. We've talked about the idea of AI
governance and government and where that goes and
how The US is already doing that and
how the XAI and Elon overlap and all
of that was a very real
step in that direction.
But then he kinda stepped away. Right? But
now there's a new step that I think
really brings back I I I even argue
why it was necessary to have him step
away.
First, just to point out one thing about
governments. I think this is interesting.
Carrie Carol Caroline Levitt says, Democrats are about
to shut shut down the federal government because
president Trump won't force American taxpayers to pay
for free health care for illegal aliens.
It's just so exhausting
having to constantly you know? I mean, it
makes you feel if you only if, like,
when I do this for what I do
every day, you have to kind of immerse
yourself in the partisan game. And social media,
I mean, there's I mean, I'm of the
mind, as I've told you many times, and
I think it's provable, that the majority of
Americans aren't even on well, you can prove
that, are on social media. They're not on
Twitter.
Or rather, majority of the world, I should
say, are not on Twitter.
But but, you know, you can look at
it and get a what you
a very clear representation of what they want
you to think the world is like, which
it's not. So I I think that's important
to think about. But my point is that
it's so exhausting having to
fall into that every day when I think
most average people aren't, you know, aren't as
partisan and dishonest and just kinda blindly following
a certain side, but they lie, each side,
in very ridiculous ways when the truth has
come almost always somewhere in the middle. It
is exhausting.
But my point like this,
I'll just read what I said.
The deliberate dishonesty of this repeated claim
about free health care for a legal illness,
by the way, is not an untrue point
in some context. There is efforts to make
that exact point happen, but what they're pointing
to does not actually mean what they say
it means. It's a whole point we can
get into, but wait for if and when
this continuing resolution passes the way that it
currently is. I hate talking about these things
before it actually happens. It seems like a
waste of time.
But the point is the way that they're
framing it.
And, overall, I just said
that deliberately dishonest claim aside and
acknowledging that both sides, otherwise simply known as
the government,
are wanton criminals,
shut it down.
At this point, it always bothers people so
much. It seems what's funny. It's getting very,
very little engagement, which tends to show me
that this is something that's getting I mean,
this is insane to me. I can prove
to you when it might when post get
completely shut like, just shut down.
70 what? 79,000
followers, but yet we get 800 views over
so many hours. That's that's, like there's the
only way that's possible, views, not engagement and
shares, but views, is because it's being suppressed.
I mean, it's not unique. I think it
happens all the time to things that might
not even be necessarily important. It's algorithmic. But
my point, though, is that saying shut down
the government, let it happen, point out the
law I think that's something like when we
were pointing out the two party illusion before
this election process, they called black pill and
purity test, I think the reason we got
such incredible pushback, even though we've been saying
these things, you know, vote no one twenty
twenty, for a long time,
was because of where we are. I think
a lot of these have been building up
to what's currently happening, and they need this,
like, aggressively
mindless partisanship
to execute where this goes. That's what I
think in a large sense. And I think
that for whatever reason, they recognize the building
momentum behind the awareness that the two parties
are one or that it's it's meaningless differences
at the end of the day. And that's
something that the power structure really can't allow.
In my opinion, I think that's the linchpin
to our problem
or to say of the of, you know,
it's it's what holds it all together.
So at this point, let's just help what
if we just let it go down? What
if we just said, we don't care. Stop
doing it. What happens if it just well,
the reality is so many people lose their
mind about what that might mean. And, yes,
I could acknowledge that there are government processes
and and and, you know,
like, medic you know, people that need certain
things.
Yeah. And I can acknowledge that. And I'm
not saying I cheer on the p fact
that people might suffer in that process. But
I think in the long run, it's like
saying that we go to war because of
a positive outcome, but we just ignore you
know, have to acknowledge that people are dying
and bad things are happening. Right? It's the
same kind of analogy
that if we're in a situation where this
thing is completely broken, instead of trying to
cling to the things they give us, how
about we just stop and acknowledge what it
can be like without that, even though the
bad things might develop? It it it comes
down to actual liberty and actual self responsibility.
Stop being reliant on this sick of this
this parasite government. Anyway, too much in this.
I I just wanted to point out that
I think it's interesting to think about what
if we did just let it shut down
and stop letting them point at each other.
This happens every time. Oh my god. The
government's gonna shut down. They're trying to stop
it. They wanted to shut down. They're trying
to sneak this in, and they do it
both sides every time. It's like every other
topic. It's not a both sides in the
issue because it's not really both sides. It's
your government doing it every time.
It's it's kind of crazy to me, but
it's very obvious. Now to the AI part
of it, I just wanna include that because
right now in the continuing resolution, there's there's
many examples of continuing funding that goes in
this direction,
which it all it's always the case. But
let's remember that this is where it's going.
They're very aggressively positioned for toward the AI
future, and they want to beat China or
whatever they're really trying to do. I think
it's about control.
And so we I've seen things like this,
AI government in Albania. So it's very obvious
this is happening.
As seven seas points out, and there's one
other point before we get to the AI
x AI overlap,
h r two three eight, he points out.
Health Technology Act of 2025. I hadn't seen
this. The bill establishes that artificial intelligence or
machine learning technology
may be eligible to prescribe drugs.
You you don't see where this goes. I
mean, every not only does this go to
a place that is lacking privacy. You know,
you owe nothing and you've never been happier.
That's what this is. It's if you go
back and look at their outline, that's what
this was for. Or rather, that's what this
was these are parts of that. You look
at the outline of Klaus Schwab, and there
that's there's everything they're rolling out is one
of those parts.
But it's also
about being able to be shut out. If
you're in a system where everything turns out
that way, well, they can shut you out
of the system. Digital ID is necessary for
that to work, which is also happening, despite
how many people don't wanna see it. They
They don't wanna look it in the eyes
because they recognize it makes them feel like
they were tricked or that Trump's the bad
guy.
Well, I care about the truth more than
I care about my side, if they're my
you know, my side is the truth. But
it says currently, certain drugs may be dispensed
only upon a prescription provided by a practitioner
licensed to administer a drug. Under this bill,
an AI or machine learning technology may qualify
as such a prescribing practitioner. That's terrifying to
me. If the technology is, one, authorized by
state law to prescribe the drug involved, and
and think about that like some kind of
a you know? I mean, that's an easy
way too to just dole out things without
people paying attention to it, like COVID shots,
and approved, cleared, or authorized under certain federal
provisions pertaining to medical devices and products. It
also just sets the precedent that AI
is
that is your engaging process with the government.
We just went over this in regard to
the different process, even the gain of function
part we just talked about. Everything is going
in that direction. You know how rapidly this
gets out of control? If if not, that's
where we already are if this keeps going?
Nobody is there's no oversight here. There we
we don't even know how to control this
stuff at this point. There's not laws in
place for where this is going, and they're
building it out anyway. They don't care about
the possible side effects. They just wanna be
the first one there because it's about their
power, their influence, their legacy. They don't care
about you. Whether they say so or not,
whether they think so or not, their actions
demonstrate an irresponsibility that goes well beyond it's
it's malfeasance.
And here's the act.
The bill establishes the artificial intelligence or machine
learning technology may be eligible to prescribe drugs.
We'll follow-up on that. Oh, also, let's not
forget that in The UK,
Starmer is now to require
all adults
to have government issued
digital IDs.
I mean, it's not long till that shoe
drops here, guys. I'm sure they'll probably call
it something else, but here's what he said.
I'll just play the first part. You won't
you won't be shocked to hear why it's
necessary.
Breaking news now. Digital ID will be made
law for all adults in an effort to
tackle small boats. Downing Street believes that a
mandatory ID card system
will help stop illegal immigrants working. Let's bring
in our political Oh, illegal immigration.
What a weird thing to know, except, like,
there's no precedent for that. It's they're all
it's it's a narrative. It's a justification.
They wanted the digital IDs during COVID time.
They wanted to do it before that for
I mean, you can go back even before
that, actually. What was the one anyway, I
don't wanna get
distracted. The point is whatever the problem,
their solutions are always the same.
Right? Digital IDs, more surveillance.
It's just the same conversation every time. Digital
IDs are the connective tissue between the old
system and what they're trying to shove you
into. That is so you can be turned
off. Digital money, digital IDs, as we just
highlighted. You know, what even getting your prescriptions
can be like, oh, well, your social credit
score is too low, or and Twitter already
rolled out their reputation score. We already have
different scorings for credit cards and different it's
all
slowly encroaching on you. And this is not
some kind of, like, a fear mongering hyperbolic
point, guys. Those are all verifiably real. Now,
whether their intention is that or not is
that for you to decide. I'm just pointing
out what we can prove. That is where
it's going, using the same justification, the same
fear mongering. And it says, coming to America
not long now. And rightly so, this person
says, how will they track the traffickers worldwide?
Well, let's not forget. Donald Trump told you.
It will be a biometric tracking system.
Let me see if I've got that already
plugged in over here.
I can grab real quick.
But I think it's important to understand. I
mean, this has been coming. It's been building.
And, you know, and that's actually a good
point to think about. At when he said
this and even right now, many people go,
okay. It's about immigration. Right? Well, it's it
even let's just even say it is.
Well, good. That means or not good, but
that that means about you I mean, I
guess I guess the movement of people anywhere.
And that's the point this person is making,
is that now you can overlap it with
what they're talking about in regard to any
number of other things.
Exit, entry, biometric tracking system. And it's not
just on the border as we've all become
as we've hopefully become aware of with all
the different narratives. This will be done with
and Palantir's already basically doing this, guys. They're
already basically surveilling this country. This has been
publicly stated to to track down these illegal
immigrants.
I made that point in the beginning. The
only way you can effectively do that is
by surveilling the country, which, by the way,
they were doing his last administration. That started
back then with pre crime, and it's easy
to see.
Here's what he said.
We will finally complete
the biometric
entry exit visa tracking system, which we need
desperately.
For years, Kai,
in my administration,
we will ensure that this system is in
place.
And I will tell you, it will be
on land.
It will be on sea. It will be
in air. We will have a proper tracking
system.
Yep. And and typically, the people out there
just going, yay. We're with Trump. Without thinking
about it, go, oh, I mean, or is
it common for illegal immigrants to fly in
on planes and, you know, and and and
and leave and and, you know, when they
leave, we had to make no. No. See,
it's about tracking no matter what. Sure. Immigration
fits in there, but it also works for
literally anything else they wanted for. Or, you
know, again, leaving as well or coming back
in. It's not just immigrants. You too, guys.
That's the whole point. Biometric surveillance. It's funny
how that's not a problem when Trump does
it even though it was everything we thought
we were fighting during COVID nineteen. But, you
know, I digress.
Going forward, this is the part that I
think
really worried me. I saw this. This is
actually from today.
Elon Musk's Grok AI,
you know, so x AI, which I'll have
you just include this by the way because
it's important to actually see this other than
my article.
Hold on. There it is. That a DARPA
program.
Here's the actual it it's on onlinelibrary.wiley.com.
DARPA's explainable
AI program,
literally called XAI. This was completed,
for those that are new to the show,
if you haven't seen this, completed right before
Elon Musk took over. Months, I think, just
before it.
They ended it. It's over.
Elon Musk buys Twitter
and completely differently starts exactly the same thing,
called exactly the same thing for the same
reason. It's I mean, you you can actually
still click on the XAI tab, and it
says explain this. It's the same thing. That's
what it was about. Ex explainable
AI. That's what the x must stand
for. So my point is, it's not hard
to see that this is a program just
like total information awareness became Palantir, which you
can prove. This didn't even change the name.
So Elon Musk started
a continuation
of a
government program. Here's my show on that if
you wanna watch it, the quiet transition from
DARPA's xAI to Elon's xAI. And else makes
it even more clear, by the way. And,
of course, you know, BlackRock funding is no
big deal as long as it's on the
right side of the paradigm.
BlackRock gives funding to xAI.
Oh, and then, I guess, since we're grabbing
them all,
you could also point out
that he sold it to himself. Elon Musk
says he sold x to xAI. So the
social media platform is synonymous with the is
artificial intelligence program, which was always the case
since he bought it, in my opinion. That's
just them exposing that to you.
So Elon Musk, Grok, AI, Inc's deal with
Trump's administration
to integrate with government. Now if you understand
the legal reality of his situation, as last
I checked, the the courts ruled he was
effectively still part of the government because there
was no legal kind of, however they framed
it. Ultimately, where he was despite him stepping
away, they argued he was still legally part
of the government.
And maybe that's changed. Maybe I missed it.
As far as I could tell, that was
the reality, and it still stands with the
logic.
So you could argue that's just him doing
working with the government or rather as the
government to roll this out. Now my opinion
is stepping away allowed this to feel like
something other than just the government rolling out
AI to control government. Right?
And I'll go into what it is. It's
not as specific as that right now, but
I'll just read it to you directly. This
is a major thing.
Integrating with the government.
And let's also not forget that there's an
ongoing open memorandum of understanding with Israel for
all of its AI information.
So in effect, you now literally have Israel
controlling
the AI governance.
I mean, I don't know how the the
re
maybe you may
take issue with the words.
If we understand that Israel is very, very,
very clearly
manipulating, at the very least, the outcome of
policy in this country, that's objective. Okay? So
that means that whether AI or not, you
can easily prove that Zionism and Israel are
actively controlling many parts, if not
entirely, the outcome of this country. Now I
get it. People may see that the other
way and think US is controlling Israel. Maybe
I'm wrong. Consider it.
But the point, though, is that now with
the AI overlap, we can show you that
they have access to all the information that
they were unsiloing and allowing their their Palantir
and and their models to be able to
learn from, Israel has access to that. Every
piece of data your government has on you.
So now
with the development of the XAI rolling into
the government processes and and Israel being immersed
with that platform
and the government, I mean, it's not really
hard to piece together.
So what I see now, not only is
the as we get more deep into it,
the reality of the AI government rolling out,
but also the understanding that Israel has already
worked its way in to that very thing
from the base.
So this is only gonna get worse if
we continue to go in this direction.
Here's what the article says.
Elon Musk's XAI has signed a deal with
the General Services Administration,
the GSA, which is, if as far as
I understand it, like, one of, if not
the largest government body,
which in which overlaps and it goes in
which it's just
that's a very big problem if you understand
what that means. It's not just one small
thing. It will be even just the GSA,
which seems like it's gonna get bigger, will
be overlapped with a ton of other things.
And it says,
to allow the inter integration,
not just the use of, the integration of
Grok artificial intelligence, chatbot with federal agencies.
XAI has the most powerful AI compute and
most capable AI models
in the world, Musk says.
Thanks to president Trump and his administration, you
know, the one he told you was in
the Epstein files. We'll get that in a
second.
XAI's Frontier
AI is now unlocked for every federal agency
empowering the US government to innovate faster and
accomplish its mission more effectively than ever before.
So he's saying it is now unlocked in
and overlapping with every single government agency.
So if you understand that Israel has in
worked its way through, infiltrated these technological platforms,
and now you know and, again, XAI has
folded into X. Twitter has complete background access
to all sorts of things on Twitter as
we've shown you a 100 times. And now
you have Twitter
and rather x AI, excuse me,
integrating with the US government and all the
agencies.
I mean, I don't I don't think I'm
even expressing or relaying how big of a
deal that I think this is.
He goes on to say, we look forward
to continuing to work with president Trump and
his team to rapidly deploy AI throughout the
government for the benefit of the country.
And, really, you could decouple the Israel part
of this, and it's still wild to me
that we're allowing this to happen. Even Elon
Musk, even the idea of artificial intelligence with
what we know they're using it for, what
they're manipulating it through. Look at what he's
done with Grok on Twitter publicly so far.
We want that to be used to to
dictate government actions around your life.
He says until a recent falling out or
the article writes, Musk was one of president
Trump's most prominent vocal supporters, spearheading Dogue to
the department dedicated to slashing federal spending, except
that's not even close to what was happening.
I I don't think it was happening at
all. Now they just kinda stop and pretend
like it's not happening. It was never really
there, and Gleason's back to promoting wearables, you
know, the digital services, which is what DOGE
really was.
The partnership is the latest between the Trump
administration and big tech, with Meta and Microsoft
also joining forces with GSA to allow their
AI tools to be used by federal workers
earlier this week. Oh, even better. Right? Because
it's not like we don't obviously know that
Microsoft is completely
immersed or rather vice versa, that Israel is
completely integrated, infiltrated through Microsoft.
Here's The Guardian. Microsoft deepened ties with Israel
military to provide tech support during the Gaza
War. Here's Gray Zone. How Microsoft became a
hub for Israeli intelligence. Now they're just articles
that give you the larger point, but dive
into it. We've talked about it in the
past. Employees from Microsoft have called cried foul
about how they're hiring directly from the IDF.
It's it's pretty obvious. Now one note to
add, it's interesting to report that Microsoft has
revoked Israel's access to AI Azure because we
just talked about that they got caught using
it to spy on Palestinians. Now what I
think is they didn't get caught.
People found out that Microsoft was allowing them
to do that, and Microsoft has to save
face by pretending they can't do it anymore.
You have to realize that they this is
one of many tools they're using and probably
have a different one for Microsoft anyway. But
Palantir alone is allowing them to do many
of these things. So my opinion, which is
what it is, is that I think this
was them acknowledging, you know, acting like we're
stopping the things they did without our knowledge
even though you're literally working with them. Are
we really gonna pretend that you didn't know
that they were using your tools as they
work with you? I mean, it's it's just
ridiculous, but they have to frame it as
we are. We didn't know, and we're stopping
them. And from what? From surveilling Palestinians? Isn't
that what you guys are literally doing and
promoting right now, the ongoing genocide? Like, you
just this is completely inconsistent with everything else
happening. I think it's obvious why.
It says in early September, Trump also announced
that federal government would own a share of
intel, which, you know, just another example of
the fascist to kind of blending of government
power and corporatism.
Sparking concerns of his own from his own
party, XAI said that the partnership known as
Grok for government
would deliver the tools for 42¢
per agency for eighteen months. Another very important
point, when people do this for basically nothing,
that means there's something else being exchanged.
And I can guarantee you it's because having
this happen is important for all of them.
My point is, guys, nobody does anything for
free or let alone for pennies from the
dollar. Not how this works. There's this is
in their benefit to do it. It's sort
of when they said, hey. We'll give you
all this stuff for free. Check out to
find out what your your genetic background is
for free. No. No. It wasn't. They were
stealing your data. That's what this tends to
be every single time. So when you find
out he's I mean, 42¢,
why not zero? You know, it's it's clearly
about
doing it because it's important to them and
because it benefits Grok. It benefits Elon. It
benefits Israel. It benefits the people trying to
control your lives.
X a I x a I cofounder Ross
Norgine is a GSA press release said, we
will work hand in glove
with the entire government
to not only deploy AI, but to deeply
understand the needs of our government
to make America the world leader
in AI in AI. Okay. So
none of that has to do with you.
You understand? We're gonna use this to deploy
AI. We're gonna use the tool to see
what the government needs to deploy
AI. But, you know, on a side note,
maybe it'll help you too. But, you know,
shut up. You're in the way.
It it's it's like a half hearted thought.
Like, this clearly, guys, with what we understand
about what XAI is,
on the surface, this is the beginning of
AI government, guys. That's what the or governance
and government. They're different.
But, also,
how we can't decouple these things from the
ongoing genocidal lunatic in the room.
It it concerns the hell out of me.
I'll include these for you so you guys
can check out all the background parts of
this.
Some of these will be at the very
bottom because I'm adding them late.
Now let's not forget, as I said, yeah.
Nothing odd about this. Carry on. Elon Musk
said time to drop the really big bomb.
Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. Well,
we're gonna talk about that next.
But, I mean, I I just don't know
how you can pretend like that wasn't said.
Was he joking? And if he was, how
do I mean,
I just don't know how either way you
look at this, how you just ignore this
and move forward.
Now either so either he was and Elon
doesn't care about that, or he lied about
that because he was a petty, child
you know, childish person.
Either way, let's let them rule the country.
You know, let's roll out the AI that
Israel's control. You know, it it just it's
concerning for obvious reasons.
And I'd like to believe most people are
on the same page, that the partisan game
out there is diminishing by the moment.
Oh, wait. Make sure that one's included. That's
an important one. Okay. Good. I missed it.
Elon Musk says he sold it. So that's
just understanding
that
everything you know about the AI x problem
or the x AI that will now be
used to help the government run your life
is overlapped or became Twitter. And we know
that Twitter is completely immersed or in in
infiltrated,
excuse me, by Israel everything, from Elon Musk
himself to CHEQ
to
Authentix that was being used until thirty seconds
ago, which I I argue is still a
background element, but that's my opinion.
So let's talk about the Epstein overlapped all
of it.
Obviously, a very important conversation. It's getting very
little coverage. Now on the AI point, we're
gonna keep up on that, see where it
goes, let you know how it develops. I
just think it's important for us to know
where it goes and things like that. They're
getting zero attention right now. Zero.
James O'Keefe puts this out. Official statement from
the DOJ on their story. I'm sure you
saw this.
So it's a thirteen minute video. I'll include
it. But it says senior DOJ Epstein investigator
reveals Epstein was CIA, but you know this
already. I mean, guys, it's not this is
what's interesting about this story is that these
things are not like, I wouldn't say that
you could apt to argue they're completely proven,
but there's so much evidence from multiple sources
that you're in the know claiming that he's
part of intelligence and then in in whether
and including in other parts Israel and The
United States, as well as the FBI and
former part of this. So but the CIA
part of it, I it's something that we've
already discussed many times over the years. And
he confirms that there were rapes
occurring while Bill Clinton was on the plane.
Says says of president Trump, he's protecting a
lot of other people. He's not protecting himself
because there's nothing there. You can decide. I
think there's a lot there regardless of whether
he committed crimes around Epstein.
At very least, the knowledge of what he
did and who he was and what was
going on that he didn't care about until
it was in his political interest. But it
says, I've interviewed all the victims. There's never
been an instance where Trump was on a
plane with these kids or the rapes occurred.
Well, okay. That doesn't mean then that he
didn't do anything else in his entire lifelong
friendship with with Epstein. Let's not forget, on
the record, he said I was his closest
friend for ten years.
And many other examples of the overlap, guys.
It's you know, you you can be fairly
argue that there's no evidence he committed any
of these crimes other than maybe ignoring ongoing
rapes and and whatever else.
But you can't keep pretending like there's not
an overwhelming amount of overlap here, guys. Or
the the there's willful denial of how he
was his friend or they knew him or
he kicked him out of Mar A Lago.
Yeah. Keep saying that. Maybe he did. Maybe
he didn't. Maybe that in regard to what
actually went down, maybe they agreed that so
he could push himself out of the story.
Let's get into where he was saying this.
About what they had to do about Donald
Trump. Epstein, new story came out. We'll get
to it in a minute. From Forbes. Epstein
asked Ghislaine Maxwell to remove Trump from the
list of associates. Epstein back then. It's
just too much to ignore. But
first,
this isn't,
you know, O'Keefe media.
So it's sort of a, you know,
secret camera recording.
And here's what the DOJ said.
This individual worked in the Department of Justice
as a program analyst over fifteen years ago.
He has no understanding of or access to
the underlying facts in this investigation. His statements
should be not be considered accurate. It is
disgusting that someone would further exploit victim of
sexual abuse by fabricating stories of their personal
benefit.
Okay.
I mean, they've been caught lying,
I don't know, what, 15 times so far
in the Epstein files very, very clumsily. And
this guy who, arguably, didn't know he was
being recorded
saying that he has insight into this. You
know? Who knows?
The question is absolutely. And even whether James
O'Keefe is part of some kind of a
grander thing, but also consider it. So I
think it lines up very clearly.
Now even Mike Flynn came out, posted the
video, and said, the Epstein affair is not
going away. No. Let's not forget how Trump
numerous times has tried to convince you that
nobody on his side cares about this.
I mean, so right there, guys, that is
a lie that you cannot disregard.
He was trying to kick gaslight you who
do care about this into thinking you were
the lone one and maybe actually a democrat
if you think that. Just trying to can
just muscle you out of the conversation.
And he's lying.
And we everyone still sees that because, no,
it's not going away because most of the
Republicans seem to be wanting like, this is
a problem. This is what we're fighting for.
And some of them have convinced themselves that
it's like a 40 chess move, like usual.
Some of them don't even talk about it,
but you can see through the Republican conversation
how much this matters.
And he's saying it's not going away because
it never was. Trump was lying to you.
And it says, when we stop making it
about who flew on the Lolita Express and
start making about the children who were raped
and otherwise mentally and physically abused by
a sick elitist, I would add, social class
of people, we will finally be getting into
a solution.
Well, yeah, that's a good point. But see
how that's exactly what the Trump administration is
dragging its feet on. In fact, literally
standing still. They're in cement at this point.
They're saying nothing else. We're not gonna do
it because the victims, even though you can
prove that's not even the reality.
He says, maybe only temporary
because this child slavery and child sex trafficking
is not only an abhorrent activity but appears
endless in demand, which is horrifyingly the reality
when you look into the worldwide problem that
seems to be allowed by most governments.
However, no class of citizens should be exempt
from accountability.
Like many people I like and respect, he
says, I want you to know the American
people already have zero trust in any part
of the government, but clearly want to trust
the government, this administration.
Help us help you regain some of this
trust. It's a very political statement.
You know? Like, hey. We see this. We
all do. And I'm gonna be honest about
that, but we wanna support you, so help
us support you. You know? It's that's weird
to me, especially with how much we can
see them literally willfully deceiving you on.
Now here is the Miami Herald. This is
from the nineteenth. Acosta stands by Epstein's sweetheart
deal during congressional hearing.
And I'll play that clip again because I
think it's relevant about what one of the
members of congress came out and said.
But it says, Alexander Acosta,
who don't forget,
Trump's first administration,
and I'll read the quote directly from the
article. Actually, it's right here,
in regard to what he said. I'll read
it in a second.
But it's good to read it afterwards. I
want you to hear what's being written here
and then think about what it what he
said, what Trump's administration asked him before they
brought him on and what he said, and
try
to reconcile those two things.
It says,
Acosta, the former US attorney in Miami,
who was the one, in case you don't
in case you forget, who gave Jeffrey Epstein
the an an untold amount excuse me. The
the sweetheart deal. And he just gave him
gave Epstein and an untold number of his
coconspirators that we don't know immunity for sex
trafficking. Dozens of underage girls defended his decision
not to prosecute Epstein during closed door decision
or congressional hearing.
And the point, as we know, is that
you can't have trafficking and miss Maxwell in
prison for it if, unless there was somebody
who was trafficked to. Not how you it's
the only way that works. It's not possession
of material. It's not sexual abuse of one
person. It's the trafficking act on top of
those things. And so he wants you to
believe just like Cash Patel and Bongino lied
to you as well and say that he
trafficked to himself or either they lie in
their typical clumsy fashion by almost proving to
you that they're lying by saying it in
a way that proves they can't be the
case because that's not possible to traffic to
yourself legally speaking.
But that,
untold number of conspirators was the, I believe,
at least in part, the 20 that Massey
was pointing to. So they have all this
on the record.
They're just lying to your face, guys. It
says the hearing held by the House Oversight
Committee is the latest in a series of
efforts by congress to scrutinize how the late
financier
managed to get away with abusing hundreds of
girls and young women over more than two
decades. Despite Epstein being on the FBI radar
since 02/2006, he was an informant.
Just like Larry Nassar Nassar, I think his
name was,
this is not a unique story, and it
pains me.
It seems to be the norm, guys. They
let that monster who was, a trainer for
women in, like, the Olympics. Right?
They let him continue to molest these girls
for years because they were, I guess, they
argued they were still investigating.
I I covered this when it happened.
Nobody I mean, barely even a conversation about
that. The idea that they knew they were
watching him, and they'd let him molest molest
girls.
Because and and then eventually, he got taken
down, I don't even think, if I remember
correctly, because of their investigation. It's just it's
sick to me. Again, the FBI is not
on your side.
What if not the one of the or
if not the one of the most un
American institutions in this country. I've said that
for years, and it's easy to back up.
They are not acting for your interest. They're
manufacturing
plots. It's and, I mean, I'm not saying
everybody involved. I'm not saying everybody in the
FBI are against you or that are bad
people. I don't think that's the case for
any institution. But I think you can historically
see it for yourself.
Now remember that point, by the way, when
we get into the ICE overlap, saying somehow
that by me saying FBI is a bad
edge agency or that they're all criminals even,
somehow means that I'm convincing people to go
out and tear take out criminal acts. Well,
guess what? That's what they're trying to paint
right now. They're trying to paint a picture
that that's how that works. And even if
I just said FBI is bad and somebody
does something, if they wanted to, they can
apply what they're now passing around all this
I played in the beginning to go after
you because that's how abstract it is. Or
somebody who just yells the word fascist is
now part of anti, but therefore a terrorist.
That's what they're doing.
It's lazy and it's designed to allow them
to do whatever they want. We'll come back
to it. But remember my point about the
FBI because I think that's how that's going
to apply, even though it's honestly the truth.
But, also, I'm allowed to say what I
want about what I think is going on
because I have free speech.
But again, it's also true.
Goes on to say the hearing held by
the House Oversight Committee in the latest series
of efforts by Congress to scrutinize this.
He was on the radar since 02/2006, the
FBI. The scandal continues to consume the Trump
administration,
which has been unable to satisfy public outrage
over the justice department's decision in July to
not release all of the files.
Most of the material the DOJ has released
thus far has already been in the public
domain.
Easily verifiable. And so, yes, that means you
can prove to yourself if you're honest with
yourself that they tried to lie to you
more than once.
Phase one binder
redacted all all public information.
DC Draino and Luke's TikTok were like, we're
breaking the story. Everything's coming out. And they
just quietly ignored it because it didn't do
anything different, and they were lying to you.
No phase two binder.
Even they even they lied about, like, more
phases. No. They they just lied, guys. And
then it came out, oh, no. No more
because victims. Oh, but wait. There's truckload.
Oh, but never mind because that's not real.
It's a hoax. And then wait. But now
here's a little bit more that didn't exist
before. I mean, it's just blatant
if you care. It's up to you to
care if they're lying to you.
Now it says,
I or just describe so they described, Acosta's
testimony in this closed door hearing, which I
don't know why it was closed door. Or,
I guess, they're gonna say victims or, you
know, not an invalid point, but, obviously, you
could make a point to anyway, it's I
think it's for not allowing this to be
discussed publicly.
They described it as defiant,
unremorseful, and evasive. Now it's Democrats, but also
Republicans. And it says they said the former
FIU law professor and Epstein's victims weren't credible.
Wasn't that what Kash Patel was trying to
lean into?
And that he says and that he didn't
believe that their stories
of sexual assault would lead to a successful
federal prosecution.
But you put Maxwell in prison based on
the trafficking.
You can't have it both ways, guys. And
it says Acosta, quote, essentially said he didn't
have faith in the victims.
There and this so this works for the
Trump administration, guys, because they're leaning into this
too. So if you're out there pretending they're
fighting for you, like, most of the victims
are very well aware now the Trump administration
is not. That's why they're calling this out
in a very serious way. See, some of
them seeming to focus only on on Kash
Patel even though or Bondi.
Like, that's what right now, that's what you're
gonna see amongst the Jones circles and people
in the mainstream alternative media is it's Bondi
or some deep state holdout even though Trump
appointed them. Right? And and we'll get to
that in a minute too.
But it says
they're at their and,
they essentially had no faith in them and
their stories. Their and their ability to tell
their own story and their own testimony, which
is deeply disturbing to all of us sitting
in there, was what the rep, members of
congress said. They said also that they found
it disturbing that even in hindsight,
Acosta would not admit, something, by the way,
that everyone can publicly acknowledge right now and
is basically a central part of the conversation,
but he's unable and unwilling to admit that
mistakes were made
and was not apologetic about how his actions
led to other victims being abused by Epstein.
Right? In regard to the sweetheart deal, I
mean, there's there's many parts that we all
just kinda publicly discussed at this point, and
he's acting like it's not true. And and
by the way, what he did allowed him
to continue to manipulate rape and and do
everything else he did between the sweetheart deal
and before he whatever happened to him.
He doesn't care.
He says Acosta, the representative said, refused to
characterize the plea bargain that allowed that to
happen. And as, you know, the sweetheart deal
or, you know, as a sweetheart deal, and
he said maintaining that even today, he believes
the deal was the best course of action.
That's what he's standing by. So remember this,
if and when this really comes out, The
plea deal. Now it says Epstein
was rearrested
in 2019
following publication of a Miami Herald investigation
perversion of justice. By the way, on a
note
that, you know, worth considering,
I I consider Miami Herald part of the
mainstream media. They are. But at the same
time, that was an exceptionally
important piece of work that was very well
done. That completely rocked the boat. Now it's
certainly possible, and you can consider whether that
was deliberate for some kind of larger thing.
It's always asked that question. I don't think
it's the case. I think it's an example
of how even people, even controlled platforms, even
mainstream media, whatever it is.
It's not always all the same thing all
the time. Right? Nothing's a 100%. There's always
reasons and just so always think about that.
So it and it and it very much
forced action and then forced them to acknowledge
what the independent media has been saying for
for decades. And it says, which examined court
records, emails, and police files, the original article
that showed up, Steen's high power powered lawyers
managed to manipulate federal prosecutors, including Acosta himself,
into minimizing the scope of his crimes.
The series led federal prosecutors in New York
to take a look at at Epstein,
and he was arrested on federal sex trafficking
charges by July 2019.
Trafficking charges, not sexual abuse.
And then later I mean, guys, do you
understand? You can't the way they're trying to
rewrite this story now is not just insulting
to you. It's insulting to everybody included, and
most importantly, the victims.
He was found dead in his jail cell,
they claimed, a month later. His death was
ruled a suicide by hanging, which is laughably
stupid, especially now with everything we still know.
Acosta was Trump's labor secretary at the time
of Epstein's 2019 arrest. He resigned days later
saying he did not want to become a
distraction.
Right.
So here is what he said. Now thinking
about what that today,
here's what the the exchange was. This article
was 02/2019.
Epstein's name, I was told, had been raised
by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta,
the former US attorney in Miami, who'd infamously
cut Epstein a non prosecution plea deal back
in 02/2007,
was being interviewed for the job of labor
secretary.
The plea deal had put a hard stop
to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex
crimes when with minors and trafficking.
Quote, is the Epstein case, Trump's administration was
saying, going to cause a problem for confirmation
hearings? Meaning, are they gonna bring it up
in the hearing? Is that gonna cause you
not to be are you gonna not be
able to be confirmed?
Not not do we care that you allowed
a sex trafficker that you claimed to to
call out off the hook? No. No. No.
Is it gonna be a problem for our
agenda?
Costa had been asked that. And Costa had
explained, breezily, apparently, according to the report,
that back in the day, he'd had just
one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut
the non prosecution deal with one of Epstein's
attorneys because he had, quote,
been told to back off,
that Epstein was above his pay grade.
Quote, he said, I was told Epstein belonged
to intelligence
and to leave it alone.
How in the world do you not you
you those things seem to be completely opposite
points. You can't say what he said in
that recent engagement. I mean, my point is
always is what about all the Democrats? They
were supposed to say are trying to expose
it all. Why wouldn't they call this out?
I mean, some of them seem to be
pointing to some of it.
But as we get through the rest of
these tabs, I think it'll make a bit
I mean, I think as as like we
said before,
it's pretty clear that there's left and right
people involved in this that really don't want
this to come out.
And even then, even though I think pretty
much every one of these people are criminals
in many different ways, doesn't then automatically mean
that, like, everyone in congress is on the
files or committed a crime over there. Right?
Or that even every Democrat or every Republican.
I just it's I don't think it's ever
really the case. I mean, usually, I would
say.
But it says, even if it's, like, 99%.
Right? There's it's just there's it's easy to
assume in that direction. Don't be that
manipulatable.
But he says and he he said this
in Trump's transition team, who they wrote, who
evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and
went ahead and hired him. The labor department
had no comment when asked about this. So
I want you to understand. Like, this is
what we're saying. Okay. So you gave the
human trafficker Epstein, a sweetheart deal that allowed
him to continue hurting people.
Is that gonna be a problem for us?
No? Okay. Come on the team, guys. Come
on board.
Admitting that he was intelligence, and then they
act like and then Trump, at many points
later, will be like, well, Epstein, what? What?
You know? Always his his game where he
pretends like he doesn't know what you're talking
about.
They know. It's quite obvious.
Now this is what one of them said
after this meeting. And we've played it the
other day, but I think it's worth hearing
again.
At least 40
minors who gave sworn statements to the FBI
as part of the investigation
before a decision was made in this case
that they had been raped, abused, and trafficked.
Over 40 minors.
And the line prosecutor
in this case
wrote
an 82 page memo
to the leadership
in the US attorney's office recommending
a prosecution,
and she was so convinced
based on the evidence and interviews that she
had taken and reviewed
that she drafted a 53
page indictment in this case.
And what mister Acosta just told us
is that based on his assessment of the
case with his team,
that he did not see sufficient evidence to
move forward with prosecuting
the case, that there were weaknesses
in the case.
When asked
Okay. Even just right there.
So knowing that Acosta himself publicly told the
Trump transition team that he was told to
back off and that he was intelligence,
well, you already know why, guys. You already
know why. He doesn't care about the 40
minors claiming they were raped. He doesn't care
about the many other victims who on the
record can prove that they were
sexually abused
because he was told to back off because
he was part of intelligence. That's the only
part you need to remember. At least in
this card, there's a reason he didn't do
it or rather a reason why he allowed
the guy to get off and and, you
know, exit exited stage left from Trump's administration
because it was getting a little too hot.
If he
made the decision
as to whether or not to prosecute fully
prosecute this case, he took responsibility
for it.
He said it was the decision of him
and his team. But when asked if he
had directly reviewed the evidence itself
in this case, he said that he had
not actually
read the statements of the victims. Right. He
didn't need to. He was told to back
off. So let me just say this.
Something doesn't smell right here.
Yep.
Now as always,
does she does she have a political motivation
to to just point that out even if
it's false? Yeah. I can probably guarantee it.
I can't know her intentions or mine, but
I would argue most likely, they all have
an intention to go after the other side
because they're mostly petty and don't even know
that they're probably working for the same people.
But just because that might be the case,
not we can prove it, but probably,
doesn't then make the point false. It's a
very lazy way of thinking just to go,
oh, democrats, senate, deference would probably fall. Well,
no. You're you're you're the people that they
look to. Like, you're the they plan these
lies to aim at people just like you,
willing to pull a punch whether or not
it's true because of your team. I mean,
that that that's those are the children in
the room. They're the ones that are being
allowing this to continue to happen.
So moving forward, and this is from this,
today, actually, Trump scrambles to sway. Now remember,
up we've been reporting up to up recently
that Massey was trying to accumulate enough signatures
to get this forced release. Now they recently
had a vote
that kind of intertwined with this also release.
And here's Trump scrambling to try to sway
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Boebert, or Mace on Epstein
files as House now has enough votes to
force release within days.
Right? So right now,
he's trying to manipulate them or rather trying
to, you know, convince them not to allow
this. Now how do you possibly make sense
of that? How do you start by saying
we're gonna release this and expose the Democrats,
and now you're trying to stop Republicans who
want the information to be released?
It's not difficult, guys. You either are obvious
and open about the or you're either acknowledging
what you obviously see that shows you or
you ignore it. I mean, that's what you
have to do here. And if you ignore
it, that means you don't care about the
truth. President Donald Trump is reportedly scrambling to
sway the three Republican congressmen
who signed the petition to force a vote,
ordering the release of all government files related
to Epstein. Now I'm not saying this because
independent reported it. Right? I'm not as blindly
I'm not as ridiculous as the mainstream alternative
media. This is one report among many, and
and many of them are coming from people
like Thomas Massie, who are telling you that
they know that's what's happening. So understand that
this is he's pressuring them. It's come out
from them as well. So that being the
reality, how else do you make sense of
that? Why in the world would you try
to prep well, some of them are now
trying to float the idea that because, well,
there is actually more coming even though they
keep telling you that wasn't the case. But
secretly, now it always really was and it
was a move and and now it's gonna
now they're ruining the plan. That's actually what
some of them are trying to say right
now.
Trust the plan.
President Donald Trump is reportedly scrambling to sway
three Republicans who signed the petition to force
a vote.
Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are
trying to stop the vote, stop it, from
happening now that enough members of Congress have
signed a measure to force a full floor
vote and Democrats recently gained a deciding vote
on the measure.
Massey, Ro Khanna, put forward a bipartisan discharge
petition to release files related to the late
convicted sex offender and pedophile.
A discharge petition needs to receive the signatures
of a majority of members to force a
vote without the consent of leadership, which means
that Johnson and the rest are trying to
stop it. And it says Massey said he
did not think Johnson would block the final
vote. Now we'll get to where that ended
in a second. Quote, if he does, that's
the cover up right there, Massey said.
Right.
He'd better serve he he'd better serve and
serve his party better that's weird. He'd better
serve and serve his party better to go
ahead and have this vote for the 218
signature. That could be a miswritten quote, but
that's what it reads. Oh, but here's what's
interesting, by the way. It says,
he if he does that, if he stops
the vote,
that's the cover up. Massey told the independent
last week before
the house left for the Jewish high holidays.
I just think that's interesting.
Like, what in regard to
is it every single holiday? I don't know.
I just think it's interesting to overlap to
that with what's going on. And it says
he better served and served, which I read
this weird sentence, then go ahead and have
this vote for the two hundred and eighteenth
signature be a republican.
Basically, he's doing what he can in every
way to stop this.
Trump has reportedly called files related to the
Epstein list a democrat hoax even after survivors
of the late predator came to Capitol Hill
to push for their release.
You know this, but just in case you
didn't. Now it says the most uncertain vote
would be Mace,
which I'm curious
where she voted on this. As a sexual
assault survivor herself, she was visibly unsettled after
meeting with survivors of Epstein.
But Mace is also running for governor of
South Carolina as a pro Trump MAGA Republican.
She's running for a tight race primary and
would likely need Trump endorsement to win, which,
by the way, is already why she's kind
of watered this down and stopped talking about
it. Her she was the one because she
thought that's where this was going on Twitter
going, where you know,
something about, like, for you know, no. Protecting
pedophiles is not you if you're doing so,
then you're the problem. And then they started
being the ones doing that, and so she
stopped caring about it.
Pretty simple. Right? I mean, it's
you can even argue she genuinely cares about
the issue, but realizes she can't point to
it because she politics is more important to
them.
Media writes full panic mode. House Republican says
his party's leaders threatened supporters of Epstein's file
Epstein filed bill.
Massey claims that Mike Johnson and other Republican
leaders are in panic mode and threatening supporters
of his bill to release documents related to
child sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. Now this is
interesting seeing as how this is Thomas Massie.
Now they've really tried to frame him despite
using his name as a possible part of
the administration,
lying about that to convince other MAGA people
to support him, Trump,
but he didn't because it was never part
of the plan
because Massey, at least, it has been long
term so far demonstrating principle that none of
the rest seem to have.
And
this is not a Democrat.
Thomas Massey is the one saying they're in
panic mode. Thomas Massey as a Republican is
the one telling you. By the way, Thomas
Massie as a Republican who's more in line
with the America First than any of these
people pretending to be so.
I mean, by principle, by action.
And he's the one telling you that. So
can you just ignore it because you don't
like what this what it says? That's what
they're doing, some of them.
But he's a Republican. This is not some
Democrat attack. This is because the fact that
Trump is trying to frame him as somehow,
like, against him, that's all that seems to
matter. Because let's not forget, for many of
them,
it's Trump first, not MAGA first.
Quote, they came back and tried to get
the four of us to take our names
off the petition, Massey told seven four after
an event in Kentucky this week. They asked
some of the colleagues who are cosigners,
and they actually threatened them politically,
not physically.
It's just wild, man. I mean, and they
must have known this would come out of
that means it's more important for them to
stop this from coming out than for them
to be seen trying to stop it. What
does that show you?
Massey believes he can force a vote on
the Epstein legislation thanks to Democrat
Adelita,
Grogelba
winning a special election in Arizona. Massey already
has the support of all the house Democrats,
which, again, doesn't prove anything. I think it's
obvious that they recognize that Trump is,
like, adamantly not gonna let this go because
I think that says a lot, and I
think just as many of them are probably
just as guilty. But, see, my point is
some of them could start going, oh, well,
since we know he's not gonna do it,
since we maybe we know something about it,
then we're gonna pretend that we wanna know.
And he can't do anything about that. You
know? He makes us look like we're on
the right side of it. Just that's just
hypothetical. Just consider
how that mind would work for people that
might actually be guilty. Now it says Maxwell
is currently incarcerated for sex trafficking, which we
already pointed out, so you can't claim that's
not part of the story. A mem a
a new memo from the DOJ this year,
however, claimed that there were no evidence of
Epstein trafficking, and even Cash embarrassingly said that
no he trafficked to himself.
Quote, I'm going to be the speak I'm
going to bet, Massie, right, the speaker is
probably going to hand out hall passes on
some congressman because this is an eighty twenty
issue. Meaning again that he'll find whatever ways
he can to manipulate this to stop that
from happening. Now as of today,
Republicans vote 51 to 49 to defeat Epstein
amendment.
The senate voted 51 to 49
to reject the amendment,
and a related house discharge petition, that's what
Massey's talking about, failed to secure the necessary
Republican signatures for a floor vote.
So somebody got more somebody got manipulated. Right?
Some so who one of those people, they
successfully threatened or maneuvered them into removing their
name, so he wasn't able to do it.
I mean, look at how this is playing
out. He had it, and they threaten people
into removing their names. I'm yet to find
out who it is, by the way. And
I've even looking into it. It seems that
they don't even release who voted in what
way with these things half the time. How
was that possible?
I think it I've this there's clear interest
in keeping their names. I mean, we we
all know why we wanna see who votes
what way. Right? Ongoing lawsuits by Epstein's victims
who claim the justice department partial disclosures remain
inadequate
have prompted renewed calls for transparency as the
investigation continues.
Schumer pressed for the amendment to compel comprehensive
disclosure and challenge. Senate Republican's stance is at
stating, quote, I asked my Republican colleagues after
all the years you spent calling for accountability
and transparency for getting to the bottom of
these awful crimes. Why won't you vote yes?
So very well point right there. Schumer is,
in my opinion, one of the most kinda
slimy people
in in congress.
I mean, I mean that from my personal
observation of him doing slimy, deceptive, lying, dishonest
things.
So whether he's guilty of this or not,
I don't know. Just because he's a disgusting
person doesn't therefore mean as a fact that
he would do something. I I don't know.
I I think they're all potentially cope, you
know, potentially guilty in this conversation.
My point is him saying that could just
as easily mean he's trying to make it
look like he's not. And it's a senate
major minority whip John Thune,
Republican, defended the justice department's actions,
highlighting that significant documents have already been made
public while prior to ours yeah. Prioritizing victim
privacy. That's the only thing I can say
right now. Well, you keep pointing to the
documents that come out, but everyone already knows
that that's, like, 99%
was already public. The rest of it was
redacted. Like, you guys keep lying about this,
and you know it. It shows desperation. On
top of the fact that the victim privacy
thing is not right now, you've got the
majority of victims who are saying, we don't
care. Our names are public. Release it. They're
trying to foyer that information as Massey pointed
out, and they're being refused
or can't even get responses.
How do you make sense of that?
They're lying to you. I don't know how
else you could point I mean, I don't
know what else you can piece that together
with.
Prioritizing their privacy, the people that want it
to be released. Oh, it's okay. At the
very least, how about you take all the
people that names our public who are telling
you we don't want we don't care about
our name being public. Release that part. How
about that?
Nope. They won't do that.
It takes a special kind of willful ignorance
to not acknowledge how clear that is.
Despite the amendment's failure, senators Josh Hawley, interesting,
and Rand Paul broke party lines to support
the democrats proposal.
Hawley has surprised me in that. Schumer criticized
the opposition saying it's become so apparent that
they're lying about it every different every different
way, and the demands of the American people
are so great. See, it kills me that
Schumer gets to play the the one being
right about it even though he is right.
No matter who says that, they're right.
So
voted it down.
Right? I mean, you look into it. I'd
like to find out who actually voted. Who
shifted? Was it I I'm willing to bet
you it was Mace.
I mean, I think that's very clear that
she was the one with the most,
you know, they had the most leverage. Well,
we're not gonna endorse you unless you take
her now off the list. Nope. Done. Out
of there. Because these people have no
nothing sacred. There's no integrity there. No gumption.
But might else comes out on twenty third
and says, one message, release the hostages. You
know, the same old lazy thing that they
keep stopping from happening. Over and over and
over just like the very last one. The
old we veto the ceasefire that would allow
the release of the hostages. Now we're not
gonna get into it all today,
but just kills me how they just and
and
Tony Montana.
What message released the Epstein list is what
they keep getting.
Check this out.
Oh, right here.
1,700,000
views.
Tony Montana has 54,000
views or followers.
1,700,000
views.
Why? Because everybody
everywhere,
just like with Israel,
is pretty much on this side.
And I I mean, I'm being hyperbolic, but
really, I what I mean is obviously the
vast majority, and I think that's very clear.
Yeah. He settled this by right ratio ing
the White House.
It's just it's just crazy.
They're trying to just deceive you. Here,
Vance says, if you're a man and you
see the pleading eyes of a girl looking
up for protection and the and we have
to protect our girls and our women in
this country.
Syspero's ghost
says, you know,
what's the word I'm looking for?
You know, like,
asterisk,
but there's another word for it. You know,
like exception.
Unless they're Jeffrey Epstein victims.
Everybody, guys, it's just because these people are
standing up and trying to project this righteous
fighting for you. Their own people don't their
own people laugh at that right now.
I mean, I've never seen a government so
at least, I've never seen this government so
vulnerable.
Now new article from the eleventh. Epstein asked
Ghislaine Maxwell to remove Trump's
from or rather remove Trump from the list
of associates.
New emails have revealed.
Just quickly, remove Trump, Epstein told Ghislaine Maxwell.
When she asked him to review the list
and flag people, he wanted eliminated.
According to Bloomberg, which obtained hundreds of emails
from Epstein's personal Yahoo account that includes several
mentions of the president.
So exactly why would Epstein
ask for his name? We're not talking about
now with Trump asking them to remove his
name from the list, which was clearly there.
This is Epstein
asking her to remove his information.
The you know, his closest friend for ten
years, somebody with pictured many times who, I
mean, met his wife. I mean, you can
clearly show that there's an overlapping problem here.
And then it says in another email in
02/2007,
as Epstein's Florida case was underway, Maxwell wrote
to Epstein, quote,
you have to assume
they went to Donald Trump.
Okay?
Why would he say that? You see, this
is not rocket science, guys, because clearly that
suggests that Donald Trump knows something,
apparently referring to reporters who are probing Epstein.
Right? So why would they why why why
would they have to assume that? Because there's
a lot of evidence leading in that direction.
Now they tried to remove that. That's the
point. They tried to remove that connection by
scrubbing it themselves. And it says several other
references to notable politician figures, political figures also
reportedly appeared in the emails, including
Bill Richardson,
Bill Clinton,
Clinton aide Doug Doug Band, US ambassador to
Turkey Tom Barrack, and former Trump lawyer Alan
Dershowitz. Surprise, surprise. Left, right, left, right,
which is the reality of this story if
you're paying attention.
So
I think it's pretty obvious, guys, that that's
in a pretty
transparent story. Right?
And you can't decouple the CIA Mossad in
overlap to that conversation.
Oh, and don't forget, though, Natalie Bennett recently
came out and said, I I asked Mossad,
and they said he wasn't part of it.
So, you know, that's the truth.
Cool.
That, what is it? What is their what
is the tagline?
That,
I can't remember now.
Through deceit, thou shall commit war or something
like that. You know? But but trust us.
Assad said he's not part of that. Now
I'm not saying I know for a fact
that he's Assad, but or could just be
working with Mossad and CIA, like the FBI.
You know, it's it's I think there's obvious
points to make for both.
So talking about that,
I think, is pretty important to the larger
point of the story. And I think it's
it's breaking down
the,
I guess, the illusion of the of how
much the two party illusion controls this country.
I don't mean I shouldn't say it like
that, but how many people are still kinda
blindly lost in it?
So let's get into
the
war on you.
The idea of this country and with the
help of the mainstream alternabedia
cheering on the authoritarian
state, well, claiming to fight it,
they are roll rolling in, not just I
mean, we're even talking about technocracy today. That
just makes this
a different conversation, far more alarming. But just
the idea of even just the security state,
the what nine eleven rolled in and and
increasing that problem, the reality of pitting us
against ourselves,
arguing that it's the all of the left
suddenly, they're all evil villain dev it's the
same story as always. The left, then it's
the right. They're all Nazis and terrorists and
maniacs, which some, maybe, everyone. That's stupid.
Right in reverse, lunatic left crazy. Some, maybe,
everyone, that's stupid. It is objectively stupid to
argue the entirety of this political party. It's
because they just need to sell you on
the idea that the other side is the
enemy
to the very destruction of this country, and
you can watch it happen right now.
So let's talk about that.
Here,
we showed you this before.
This was the one from before on the
twenty third where Jones says, huge DOJ actions
incoming. Now we're gonna get into what recently
took place.
Indictments,
which has happened countless times that amount to
they have amounted to nothing because they're not
anything other than accusations
with enough superficial information that rational that the
court can say, okay. That seems like a
logical charge. Go for it. Not proof. You
understand? But evidence of the crime.
But evidence could be falsified.
Evidence could be incorrect. Evidence could amount to
it's not you know, you I've gone over
this many times. Evidence is not the same
as proof.
So with the Comey direction, which we'll get
into and false statements, bum, the big story,
they're all gonna go to prison for life.
No false statements, which literally they all do
in front of Congress every time I've ever
seen one of them sit in front of
Congress. But I still think Comey's a criminal.
I think he deserves to be in jail.
But here on twenty third, he said, big,
big, big action's coming, and it's gonna you
know, Obama and Clinton and everybody's all going
down. And I said, any updates on the
twenty ninth? I'm super excited about these. Clearly
not fake. Big, big, big actions coming.
And my point is always is that I'm
not I'm not I know as a matter
of fact that he's wrong. I just think
he's constantly misleading you. And I think he
gets fed information through people that try to
mislead you and he doesn't seem to care.
But maybe it happens. And if it did,
I still think those people should go to
jail. And I'll happily stand up and say,
looks like I was wrong, finally, about Alex
Jones.
But 2024, you go back even further, and
he said the same thing.
Bill Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Fauci, Hillary. And
the whole point was if we can keep
Trump alive, they're going down for sure. Didn't
happen.
Right? You know all these guys. You've seen
all of this. So
going from this point forward,
actually, this this is what this is the
one that, as of
yesterday, Alex Jones came out and said political
bombshell.
Disgraced former FBI director James Comey, Soros operative,
Lolita James, to be indicted
in the next five days,
which happened today.
So what's important about this to get into
let me play the clip first, is understand
how many times you've been here before. How
many times people could have been indicted with
nothing ultimately happening? How many times let me
let me ask you this. When's the last
time you've seen anybody?
I mean, literally anybody. When is the last
time you've seen anybody
held accountable?
And I mean, like, a politician
or even, like, a pre you know, a
part of the government. I mean, there's a
few small examples, and I wouldn't even call
it accountability.
Maybe a slap on the wrist, they lose
their position.
So really think about that. How is that
possible? From Clinton to I mean, every single
part of the conversation, from Trump himself.
I know you guys love to pretend like
he's being attacked. Okay. Every single time it
seems to peter out, nothing happens, and he's
more popular just like with Alex Jones. A
lot of attack, a lot of pressure, ultimately
seems to come out
with more influence.
Maybe it's a stratified effect. Could be. And
I, again, I always stand by the side
that he has every right to scream whatever
he wants about Sandy Hook because that's free
speech. See? Principles.
But so I think it's important to think
about that, though.
How many times have you seen somebody actually
held accountable in one of these conversations? The
answer is basically zero.
So that speaks for itself. Right? So coming
back to this, let's play the clip,
and I wanna show you where I think
this is gonna go. But I think all
of this is leading to the point of
keeping you thinking this is a war against
the deep state when what you're watching is
the deep state, I think, like, of like,
for once and all and I I use
the term because I think it's easy to
understand. It just means an unelected power structure.
It means the people in power who are
trying to control your lives and, you know,
the corporate overlap, the Palantiras, the companies, the
the Soros, yes, and the other side of
it as well. The reality of all of
this controlling your
life. And I think what we're watching is
this kind of pointing to things to distract
you from as the as the like I
say with the techno proxy point, like, driving
us to a place to where it will
no longer matter whether or not we see
what they're ultimately doing.
I'm gonna have the m fours archivist pull
it up for the show tomorrow at 11AM,
but I've told people for six months
that the first deep state kingpins to be
indicted would be James Comey federally and Leticia
James
DeSoros.
Except for right before that when you said
it was gonna be Klaus Schwab and Hillary.
But look. Who cares about the facts, though?
You know? AG in New York.
And NBC News, they're all reporting it
that
the indictments are gonna be handed down the
next forty eight hours.
Now I've not been given any inside information,
but I know they've got the grand juries
open in Virginia. I know the US attorney
that turned out to be a Herbert Walker
Bush
minion.
His
father-in-law was this head lawyer. Deepstater refused to
do it even though the grand jury came
back with the indictments.
Now what's funny to me is how every
time somebody who ends up not doing what
they like, who Trump puts in place in
many cases
gets removed, you know, put deep state, all
over democrat.
Okay. Or just somebody who didn't tow the
line exactly with what Trump wanted.
So that was that big dust up last
week.
So god bless
the patriots that they're starting to get into
the DOJ. This this isn't about vengeance. It's
not about okay, so what about the other
people? You mean Trump didn't point the right
people the first time even though you told
us this was everything we you know? It's
just it's an evolution of the story. One
by one, it doesn't whatever they say today
is the right thing. It doesn't matter what
happened yesterday. So if he contradicts everything tomorrow,
that's the right thing. It was a ploy
oh, deep Democrat ploy before.
Who cares about facts and proving anything? Let's
just keep marching forward.
I argue that you're gonna see nothing happen.
I argue that we've seen this, and we've
been here many times before. And that's not
being, like, a pessimist or black dog. It's
it's a it's an objective
observation
of how often that doesn't come to pass.
And I said, pretty sure we've been here
before. We can agree
that these people should be in jail, I'd
like to believe. But do I think that
will happen because Jones blindly repeats what he's
fed? No. No. I don't. Indictments are accusations,
by the way, and do not imply guilt
despite dishonest actors using them that way, which
they always do. Go look at the next
order counts right now. They're screaming, like, we
got them. They're going to prison forever
or not because it seems like there's basically
no evidence to back this up. But who
cares about that? Right? Well, let's get into
that.
So my point was, I said this when
I saw this just about on my instincts
about what we see and how often he
lies about these things.
And then one hour later, where's the even
gateway pundit?
Let's talk about that.
It says, leaked memo. Deep state prosecutors in
the Eastern District Of Virginia claim there isn't
enough evidence to convict Comey amid reports of
evident indictment.
Deep state prosecutors. Right. You mean the people
that are currently working with you know, like,
we're we're gonna get into the exact person
we're talking about first. Right? The person who
Trump appointed
is the person they're actually talking about in
regard to,
what's his name again? It's right here.
Eric Siebert.
Donald Trump appointed him.
Let me see. Let me let me finish
this out real quick.
The first indication.
The deep state ran cross for a hurricane,
and the Russia Gate and Arctic Cross and
the persecution of myself and Trump and so
many others. They're the tyrants. They started it.
They did it. And now you gotta get
Hakeem Jeffries two days ago saying, once we
get back in, we're gonna arrest all MAGA
supporters. We'll put you all in prison. Yeah.
Doesn't that sound familiar? Doesn't that sound equally
as ridiculous and stupid as exactly what they're
doing? Every left is a democrat is a
maniac terrorist man. That's exact like, it's fine.
Do you I wonder. Do they even are
they able to see that they are exactly
the same thing? Do you think he sees
it himself?
Is he that a manipulator, doesn't care, and
he's just projecting, or is he actually that
blind?
You guys are all aiming. You know, go
after the Democrats. Take down every left organization,
and yet they come out and say the
same thing, which, by the way, is the
same game in reverse. That's why honest people
can go both of their sides are ridiculous
and are a problem. Both of them are
trying to remove your rights by framing the
other side as the worst problem in the
world. It is the war on terror come
home like it was always meant to
or always was.
This might have been the right one. There
there's a point that I might just be
missing and I thought was in there.
He says that this person was a deep
state holdo or a a deep state manipulator.
I think I think it's this one. We'll
give to a second. So here's this article.
And I think this is really important because
the person that were that was in this
position, who they removed to make this happen,
to to release the indictment for Comey, was
somebody that Donald Trump appointed, who they now
call deep state actor.
I just wanna point that out. This is
the White House page from night base 06/2025.
Donald Trump
appointed him himself.
So here's what the article says. On Wednesday
evening, this is from twenty fourth, disgruntled officials
in the Eastern District Of Virginia leaked contents
of a memo explaining why charges should not
be brought against Comey.
As reported earlier,
former FBI director James Comey is expected to
be indicted in the Eastern District Of Virginia
in the next few days. Now all that
means is accusations.
Doesn't mean he's gonna get charged with a
crime or rather, you know, held account or,
you know, found guilty of a crime rather.
Comey will reportedly be charged for lying to
congress in 2020. That's it, by the way.
False statements.
That's it. No. Yeah. That may develop into
something else. Certainly could.
But at the moment,
it's a fishing expedition, guys. And the reality
of the false statements are gonna be disputed
by many people because you remember the narrative
they're spinning is still backed up by half
of members of congress even though I can
prove to you they're lying. But so too
do the rest of them. I can tell
I can show you fifteen minutes in a
row right now of Donald Trump proving lying
to you. Right now, like in the last
week. Bondi, Noam, Hegseth, every single one of
them. I can literally show you videos where
they're lying and I can prove it to
you in real time. I've done it
every time. All I'm saying is that so
if you're gonna make a case about them
being brought for the congress for lying in
front of congress, will they all do it?
That's politics, by the way. I'm not I'm
not even to make that point clear like
before,
good. Charge them for it. Prove it and
charge him if you can do that. I'm
not saying don't do that because it is
a crime and he should be charged for
it. I don't think that'll happen because they
all do it. And this is really about
trying to create momentum around going after the
deep state. If you get Comey,
like, if this actually happens I mean, do
you not realize like, my opinion is that
that will there's a lot more that could
happen from the other peep like, this
let's just put it like Comey has information.
Right? And I think they all know that
about each other, especially those involved with this
manipulation. This is just my opinion. Either way,
ultimately, my prediction is you'll see nothing really
happen. And if anything, at the least, at,
like, at most would be something like Comey
being the scapegoat and nothing else happens. Even
that, I find to be a stretch. But
the and my point if that happens,
the argument will be we got them. See?
I told you. It was we're going out.
And then if nobody else ever goes to
jail, somehow that was enough. Is that what
you guys want? James Comey? Is that it?
Is it over? Because I think that's where
you're gonna get it most. But we'll wait
and see. I hope I'm wrong. President Trump
last week fired Eric Siebert as The US
attorney general
or, US attorney for the Eastern District Of
Virginia because he refused to bring charges against
Comey and Schiff and others.
Okay. So we understand this is not some
secret Democrat. Donald Trump appointed him.
Whatever is what standing. My point is that
Donald Trump put him in that place.
Then
based on the evidence at hand, which is
what they're reporting, maybe you can decide for
yourself, He did they said no. There's not
enough evidence.
So he fired him, brought in somebody else
who was willing to do it regardless of
the evidence, and I'll show you this. Even
Pam Bondi expresses that there's not enough evidence.
On Saturday evening, Donald Trump announced that he
had appointed Lindsey Halligan,
his personal attorney who defended him against the
Mar A Lago raid as US attorney for
Easter Eastern District Of Virginia.
I mean, even this alone I mean, you
must understand that removing somebody for refusing to
investigate something they argued not enough evidence for,
this is what the entire cabinet is like.
Blind
adherence to what Trump wants, even if it's
to their own detriment.
It says now with just a few days,
just days to go before the, statute of
limitations runs out, that's what this is about,
on Comey
for lying
in a twenty twenty testimony. Lindsey Halligan is
reportedly gearing up to indict Comey. It says,
at US attorney's office presented newly sworn US
attorney Lindsey Halligan with a memo explaining
why charges should not be brought against Comey,
because there isn't enough evidence to establish probable
cause that a crime was committed, let alone
enough to convince a jury to convict him.
Now, yes, that is what the the the
attorney's office is saying, and I wouldn't blindly
take their opinion like I wouldn't blindly take
anyone's opinion.
But that's what they're claiming.
So before right now, the partisans,
as usual, because they're blind the the team
sport side are gonna go, they said it,
therefore it's false, without caring to know if
it is, you know, or looking into it,
while the other side will say that it's
true no matter what. As usual, the reality
is an adult can stand back and go,
well, it could be true, and they still
could be lying about other things or it
could be you know, that's the reality. And
I think the evidence
from multiple points seems to back up the
case that there's not enough.
We'll come back to the
okay. That's I thought I was missing something.
So next and we're gonna come to the
next point here. This is the title. Attorney
general Bondi and prosecutors have reservations overcharging Comey.
Now I think that speaks to the fact
that they know at some level that they're
the scapegoat.
As you as you as anyone can probably
recognize, and Bondi is now hearing her name
come out from people like Jones and others
as she's the one that's gonna go next
if she doesn't do the right thing, which
means they get what they want on the
situation regardless of whether it's supposed to happen
or are they able to. Right? It's gonna
be her it's her fault. She didn't do
it right. Get her out of the way.
Now she's a deep state democrat holdover.
Watch.
But here's what,
Caroline Levitt said.
I just find this I mean, it just
it makes the case for you about what
they're willing to say
to sell you on what you're supposed to
think about them.
Question that both of you have raised, I
think it's frankly ridiculous that anyone in this
room would even suggest that president Trump is
doing anything for his own benefit. He left
a life of luxury and a life of
Can you even make sense of that? I
mean, let's be real about literally everybody in
politics. They're all out there doing things for
their own benefit. I mean, most most human
beings are doing things for their own benefit.
But somehow, we've got the most altruistic person
in the history of human beings out there
running an entire country
and constantly doing things for his own interest,
but that just must be coincidentally
also in America's best interest. Right?
Except none of them have actually it's just
it's it's not even worth joking about. It
is patently absurd to argue that Donald Trump,
more than anybody else, would never do something
for his own interest despite him telling you
this is in his interest. Telling you that
this I mean, it's on the surface. She
is just defending him because that's what they're
supposed to do. Now that's not new.
These people lie as a matter of that's
what it's her job. Now their job, whether
KJP or Carrie Ann Leavitt, Caroline Leavitt is
to
mold you into the position that the establishment
wants you to think. Now that's not even
a secret. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's
what their job is. Now, of course, they
try to overlap that with what's best for
the country is whatever we tell you you're
supposed to think, But it's all deceptive. They're
lying about gods. They're lying about Lebanon. They're
lying about Afghanistan. They're lying about what they
said yesterday. They lied to you as a
matter of practice.
But Trump would never do anything to benefit
himself. I mean, it's just a it's a
laughable statement from just about anybody.
But it shows you what they're willing to
say. I agree with that. I mean, it's
actually really silly. As this person rightly wrote,
there it is. She will say absolutely anything.
Now,
Pam Bondi,
attorney general Bondi and prosecutors have reservations over
charging Comey.
Now it says Bondi has concerns about the
case, which focuses on whether Comey made false
statements during congressional testimony involving a 2,016
investigation into Russian interference in the US presidential
election. According to a person familiar with their
thinking, though she believes it would be possible
to bring an indictment.
Indictments are simply accusations. So that's the point.
I mean, it's very easy. Like, if you
actually research this enough, you'll find with the
right political maneuvering, you can get indictment for
just about anything, especially if you have people
on your political side when it comes to
the judicial side of it. Right?
But it says, should Bondi give the okay,
Lindsey Halligan, Trump's former personal attorney and the
new top prosecutor in the Eastern District Of
Virginia, is prepared to present the case to
a grand jury. Halligan has been spotted at
the justice department twice this week where sources
say she was part of
of conversations
over whether to charge Comey.
Halligan has also had questions about the case
according to a source briefed on the discussions.
Publicly and privately, Trump has complained that prosecutors
were willing to bring numerous criminal cases
against him
while he was out of office,
noting that in those instances, he was charged
with whatever they had at the time. According
to the person who are familiar with the
discussions, the person added that Trump had has
repeatedly said the justice department should bring the
case, the best case it can, when it
comes to his political opponents and let the
court decide.
Yeah. What which means witch hunt.
Which means which we all see happening. It's
not secret. He he's praising it. It means
go after them and see what you can
get. That's not how this is supposed to
work. Even with indictments, the reality is you're
supposed to have some kind of a standing
with it, right, with not proof. I mean,
but sometimes it can be proof if you
just have a lock a lock case. My
point is in this case, that's not what's
there. But what she what he's saying is
these people are who I want,
find a
case. Now, yes, I also agree that they're
criminals, but you could I that's the same
for all of them, my opinion.
So
the idea like, it's very Loomer type statement.
Right?
Go out and break down all the left
or institutions. So don't worry. We'll find crimes.
We'll get them.
So it's it's politically motivated. That is a
crime. What you're doing here is seeking them
on that. It's it's transparent.
Bring the best case it can when it
comes to his opponents. Let the court decide.
So if you don't have a case, what
he's saying is find something to charge them
with. And he says, I want, quote, I
just want people to act, he said, and
we want to act fast, Trump told reporters
Saturday as he departed the White House. Quote,
if they're not guilty, that's fine, he said.
If they're guilty or if they should be
charged, they should be charged. And we can
we have to do that now. Meaning, we
don't even know that there's not it's not
some stand if you had a slam dunk
case like you're claiming, there wouldn't be this
wishy washy. Let's find out what happens. The
reality is they're trying to lay this out.
I argue most likely because nothing will happen,
but he wants to appease the people screening
for action. Where are all the Democrats that
are supposed to be arrested? Hates and Schwab
and I mean, everybody, guys. Everybody they claim.
All the big military tribunals and arrests and
people, all the Democrats. So what about the
Social Security lies? What about all the Doge
lies? What are all the money they stole?
What are every single claim they've made? Not
a one person.
Not one.
See, honest people are already screaming about that.
They have been for
months. It says some inside the White House
view Halligan's witness willingness, excuse me, to bring
the case as as her jumping on the
grenade to please Trump.
Though that is why she was picked to
take on the role of leading that district
in the first place. While several justice department
officials are worried about the strength of any
case against Comey, multiple political aids share a
different view. They prosecuted Trump, so people like
Comey deserve to be prosecuted too, which is
my point as always, isn't it? They're the
same thing.
You can fee you can act all righteous
and above it because you think you're just
doing it back and they started it. You're
a child and you're doing the same thing.
It means you're just as morally incompetent. You
are
lacking principle.
That's what that means, guys. I don't care
how you try to work, you you know,
mental gymnastics. You are doing exactly what you
claim they're bad for doing, so you are
just as bad.
Now
here is the report from the twenty fourth.
New details
of the indictment of deep state operatives.
Well, I just talked to very high level
sources inside the White House.
Again, like last time, even though what he
said last time, they told him didn't turn
out to happen. And they have confirmed to
me that indeed
the new prosecutor they've put in in Virginia
because the last one was a deep stater.
Oh, yeah. The one Trump appointed, by the
way.
And what what does it mean to be
a deep stater? Is there a process of
evidentiary review? Like, do you do you do
you break down the connections to some kind
of a deep state apparatus,
or are you just blindly
saying that about anybody who's no longer in
your team?
Well, he's out of the way, so deep
state. Do I mean, do we not care
that there's no evidence to anything they ever
I mean,
the kind of people that blindly go along
with whatever he says every day don't care
about the facts.
I'd love to prove somebody was part of
something called the deep state. I would love
that. Break it down for me.
I genuinely would love, one, to be able
to define and prove connections to a thing
called the deep state, and I'd also like
to really understand how you prove that because
I would love to see somebody go to
jail for that. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm
just simply trying to point out that it's
wildly ridiculous for him to claim that he
was a deep stater when you don't even
know what that means or that Trump appointed
him.
So okay. So Trump is part working with
the deep state, or is he just every
single time as a problem, he was tricked
and played, but somehow he's also tricking everybody
else all the time?
It's a it's a it's a partisan blindness,
guys. They don't care. That's all this comes
down to my opinion. Set to indict Comey,
Leticia James,
and others,
and you can guess who those people are.
Now the indictment That's meant to mean whoever
I've always said was coming.
You'll see within the next five days
are Leticia James and the disgraced FBI director
James Comey.
But then soon after,
they already have the grand juries. They already
come back with the indictments.
Accusations.
Brennan,
Clapper,
and, of course,
Trump's former
national security
adviser,
John Bolton.
Ah, okay. Now at this point, this was
already being dripped out.
Whether it happens or not, I honestly find
it really hard to believe. I'll point to
something that came out recently, but John Bolton
is a new one for this conversation.
Right? So but interestingly enough, John Bolton was
also chosen by Donald Trump.
When this happens, the rats
inside the globalist system are gonna run from
a sinking shipment. There before, they thought they're
invincible. They thought they're above the law. So
the globalist meaning the the the Zionist technocratic
overtaking of the world, or you just mean
the democrats who you don't like?
Right? Let's let's break these things down. Right?
Let's say let's explore these wonderful new ideas.
Right? So if you just keep talking about
these globalist manipulators, well, I see a lot
of stuff globally taking place in regard to
occupation, in regard to legal realities in the
North American Union and technocracy,
but funny how that's not at all what
he's talking about. He means Democrats.
Very intelligent.
They thought they just had free rein, and
you're about to see they don't. They tried
to kill Trump twice.
They've had a winning terror against this country.
They killed Charlie Kirk. Oh, did they? Right?
So we've all we're all proven. Right?
Right?
Or not?
I mean, we're I'm we'll go through it.
There's still literally nothing that can prove that
he was connected to any kind of an
organization, let alone left or right as a
political voter.
But they'll still lie to you every single
day, including with the new shooter, the same
thing. In fact, there's way more evidence, subjective
still, but way more evidence of the ice
shooter leaning in the right direction. But, again,
seems as if he's some kind of political
middle grounder. I think what that's showing you
is that's where most people are right now,
guys, and they just try to shoehorn into
whatever they want you to think because people
like this are manipulators.
The gloves are off, and I'm told
that Cash Patel is actually great. Mangino's great.
Oh, grow. Cool.
Don't worry, guys. He's told they're great. So
who cares that they've been caught lying 75
times each? And that the issue is Pam
Bondi. Ah, okay. But if Pam Bondi didn't
do her job, she is
goodbye.
Right. And and what's her job? To blindly
do what Trump tells her. And that's what
she's been doing, and now she's gonna get
called the problem because she blindly let herself
become the scapegoat.
Well, that's the that's the role that's the
risk you take when you're willing to step
into
a viper's nest like this
knowing that they don't care about you because
you're a second tier person who wants to
get more power than you deserve. That's what
these all they're all doing. They're the junior
team, guys. They're out there shuffling through this,
mindlessly following orders in hopes that they can
just
skim by without being called the problem. That's
what but each day, you see it differently.
Right? Cash is the one. Bonjino is the
one. Bonnie is the one. They're all expendable
to the team.
And people like this
are part of that problem.
I said four months ago, she's got six
months. That was what she was given because
the evidence is just
open and shut on all this.
Right. So it's not Trump's fault. It's Bonnie's
fault. You see? All the evidence and Trump's
just this so he's just not involved? Is
he not paying attention? He's just going, I
don't know. Bonnie's doing something over there. I'm
not even paying attention. I'm just an independent
third party. Trump loves to pretend like he's
somehow
not in charge even though he's always in
charge and could do whatever he wants all
the time. But when it comes to consequences,
well, I'm not even involved.
What a great leader. Right? Isn't that what
great leaders do? They pretend like they're not
making decisions, blame it on the underlings. You
did that. You're the one. No. That's a
weak person is what that is. And it's
also even a weaker person who's unwilling to
call that out on somebody they want you
to support. The globalist wanted a war. They
got one. But now is when they're gonna
watch false flags. Now is when they're gonna
pull all sorts of shenanigans because they know
the jig's up. Right. Right. Right. So anything
happens next is all some deep plate. Like,
so no. Now next things to come, he's
now, because he said that, gonna pin it
on something that they plan to manipulate you.
So blindly accept whatever I told you to
run for,
except for the reality is that each one
of these narratives and psyops and manipulations are
all serving to drive you further into the
thing he claims he's fighting.
Every single moment from the shootings to the
technocracy
to the vaccines
that he always pretended he's fighting, they're watching
them, usher them in as we
speak, but don't worry. The next it'll be
a deep state ploy.
When's the evidence come, Jones? When do we
get that part of it?
So
FBI director James Comey indicted on charges of
lying to Congress, obstruction.
Comey was charged Thursday with making false statements
and obstruction in a criminal case filed days
after Trump appeared to urge his attorney general
to prosecute former FBI director and other perceived
political enemies. I mean, it's worth noting too
that you now have the White House, the
executive branch, literally directing
DOJ actions of prosecution.
The indictment makes Comey the first former senior
government official to face prosecution
in connection with one of Trump's chief grievances,
the long concluded investigation into Russian interference, which
they very much manipulated and lied about.
Now Paul Lemarquette also points out the FBI
has seized weapons of mass destruction, whatever that
means, documents
from John Bolton's office.
Something about this just feels very off to
me. I mean, the idea that John like,
John Bolton
is, like, a he's embedded in the government
like a tick.
Whether or not he's immediately in front of
you right now, this guy has been around
old school. You know, like,
you can see look at what he was
trying to do with Iran. Very clumsy, very
belligerent.
Trump loved him despite the conversations he put
out for because he allowed
you look at the background. Don't look at
the public statements ever.
But whether this amounts to him going after
Bolton,
we'll have to wait and see how that
plays out.
I think this is more about threats or
getting people to fall in line because he's
been kind of calling out Trump and and
so on. But weapons of mass destruction documents?
I mean, it's just a weird thing to
say, and I ultimately wonder where this will
go seeing as how they all eat Trump,
Clinton. They've all they've all been shown to
have documents and just selectively applied when they
want to.
Here's Pam Bondi.
I think this is these last few points
really speak to the kind of bluster and
bombastic things they always do.
Coming out, what, for the fourth time?
And this is Baron Trump, of course, commentary
anyway, in a bombshell revelation. Every time. Every
single thing is a bombshell political a bombshell.
When you're a bombshell, it's probably a good
indication that somebody's trying to manipulate you. Attorney
general Pam Bondi revealed a DOJ investigation
proving
that Biden administration aided child sex traffickers, and
they're in jail right now because they oh,
I guess not. So they proved it, but
no one's arrested. That's interesting. Okay. Allowing $7,000,000
to a trafficker who profited a staggering $18,000,000.
We've gone over this. There's real evidence around
a lot of things connecting at,
Biden's administration.
And we went over this in actually two
different shows.
The claim they keep pointing to, there's evidence
around. What I keep pointing out,
nobody's being arrested.
Why is that?
Biden, like your chief enemy, didn't he? Isn't
he like the deep statement or rather the
people controlling him around him? Okay. Then do
something about it. I'd love to see you
arrest somebody around this conversation.
She says,
smuggling children in The United States. Right? So
sex traffickers, ain't that interesting while you're ignoring
the most obvious example of that, pretending like
you don't like you don't see it.
18,000,000
that he apparently took from them, allowing $7,000,000
to a trafficker, all smuggling shown in The
United States, apparently proving all that, but nobody
went to jail.
I mean, I just don't understand how people
think about this stuff. What do you think
is supposed to happen? Do you think that
they come out and and announce to the
world that they're gonna go get them
and then go get them with the provable
evidence? Is that really how you think this
goes down? If you see them doing this,
and this is the third time I've seen
them state this kind of thing, then that's
about trying to get you to think something's
happening.
And and, hopefully,
that'll be enough for you. Right? Here's a
phase one binder. Are you are you pacified?
Are you gonna bring it up again? Then
we did it. Ignore it. Move forward. That's
what this is to me. I could be
wrong, obviously. It's my opinion. But I said,
and watch as absolutely nothing happens.
And this Mike Mike the Knife says same
as it ever was. Bill Barr, Pam Bondi,
who can tell?
This person makes this funny meme, the the
keystone flop flops.
Says a hundred days, May 2025. All the
claim, remember the first hundred days and all
they were claiming, zero arrests, zero investigations reported,
two strongly worded letters from Pam Bondi, the
newest Fox News star guest.
And here is Kash Patel.
The skies aren't the limit. They're just the
beginning. This isn't brand new, but it's, what,
August, April. Excuse me. The FBI is looking
for the elite pilots to lead missions protecting
Americans at home and abroad if you're ready
to serve. The mission's ready for you. All
this bluster and hype. We're gonna change everything.
Gonna go farther than ever. That's all these
people are. They're PR
representation.
Here,
Dan Bongino
drops a bombshell
on corrupt politicians.
Get ready. It's gonna shock the world.
Hold on.
Set that up, and then I
looks like I somehow recorded over the video.
I'd seem to do that often these days.
What you're gonna hear,
stamp on Gino
threatening the world.
Right? We're gonna we're gonna go after you
like you've never seen. No one's above the
law. We're gonna get everybody every that that's
what that's what it is.
Now you've seen this before. Right? Haven't we
already seen them do this little tap dance
where they come out and go, oh, gosh.
It's coming down. Everyone's gonna get it, and
then nothing happens.
Now look. I love I you know, as
much as people try to frame me or
people like us as just parties, not the
case.
I I'm not I'm I'm very much not
partisan, and I wanna see anybody guilty be
held accountable, whether that's left or right
or anywhere else.
100% easy to prove. If you look at
my track record, the principle is on display,
guys.
So when you call this stuff out, it's
not about attacking a partisan side. This is
about realizing
that both of them will lie to you
as often and as regularly as they can
to get what they want.
Let me ask you about,
are you gonna be looking into, when Cash
and Pam,
any potential collusion between the DOJ,
Leticia James,
the novel legal theory of Alvin Bragg, or
Nathan Wade or Fonnie Willis and the DOJ.
Is that something has anything come up? Is
there any way to determine whether or not
evidence was destroyed in any of these cases?
Well, there's always a way to determine that.
I don't wanna comment on that specific case
right now for a reason. I don't wanna
get ahead of the Department of Justice on
that, but I wanna say this. You know,
the FBI obviously has the public corruption portfolio.
And, yes, if you are a corrupt politician
out there,
if you are engaged in behavior, you you
know what you're doing,
we're gonna find you. I promise. No one
is going to get off Except none at
all, though, ever, for any of them. But
it's a nice it's a nice words though.
The days of selecting and putting your, you
know, partisan bias on and taking care of
your friends, those days are over. Except that's
what you're literally doing. Like, the entire conversation
every single day is showing you very clear
partisan sides, choosing not to go after them.
You know? How about all these s e
SEC and all these criminals
that stole from Americans? No. They're okay, though,
because they're on our side.
That's happening every single day. It's not unique
to left and right. They both do it
every time. All I'm showing you is how
late this person blusters
like I've never seen before. They all do
it.
Now if they arrest Comey, I'll still cheer
that on. I'll still argue that's not even
remotely enough, but we're at a point where
nothing has happened, guys. Regardless of all the
winning and hat memes and all the crazy
win and golden age,
You show me what's happened. You know what,
Sean? I don't have any friends. I don't
want any friends. Well, maybe outside of you
on a call. I don't Yeah. Nothing new.
Now this one's not brand new as well.
It's the point from coming back up because
the Comey discussion is now in the conversation.
But I simply said all bluster, no substance.
Anyone else tired of these empty threats for
the sick of fans to cheer at?
Do I even need to rattle off the
list?
Arrest someone for f's sake.
Right? Cash Patel, August 22. No one is
above the law.
Blakely says, unless it's an Israeli pedophile, and
then, yeah, then you guys will let him
above then then you guys will let him
be above the law. That's one of that's
one of the most obvious and recent examples,
but it's just one. They're everywhere. If you're
honest with yourself, you already know the reality
of it, but they'll they love to scream
the things you're supposed to point to.
And this is just one example I saw
was referencing, the recent one from yesterday. Trump's
SEC forgives three scammers who built Americans out
of millions. And, guys, this is not
debatable.
You could look into their stories.
The re it's it's like the whole like,
they referenced the beginning, like, Tom Homan thing.
Like, you they're they're the idea that they
try to sidestep these things with blatant lies,
it only works when you can recognize they
they they work. I mean, if they could
prove it, which it may come out for
other reasons, but so far, why hasn't that
been more why isn't the Democrats why haven't
the Democrats, like, screamed on that story?
I think there's many examples you find where
that happens, where it doesn't fit the mold
of the left deal, fighting the right and
going after him no matter what. But that's
what's something to reference. The reality is that
there's been three examples of people that have
been gotten let go
who have stolen
billions,
if not, you know, millions overlapping to billions.
One so this guy had to pay back
$660,000,000
after he inflated the technical prowess of his
electric car company. There's three of them. Just
quickly to go over it. The point is
that they've just let him go because they're
on Trump's side. This is how this continues
to work. If you think it's unique to
the Trump side, you're wrong.
But that's sure as hell above the law.
Now let's talk about
Obama and the rest of it. Right? The
same kind of point that we've seen about
and this has been gone I mean, going
back to the beginning of his first administration,
lock her up,
military tribunals. I mean, can we not just
see the pattern? Can we not just recognize
the same thing?
Here's Eric Dougherty, which is somebody new that
I recognize as one of these just, like,
screaming blind Trump supporters. No matter what they
do, Trump could his his chair could squeak
loudly, and they'll go, oh my god. That
was the coolest sound I ever heard in
my life.
He says, breaking Trump posts that Obama should
face justice for treason.
Okay.
Do you not know that he's the one
that has to make that happen, bud? They
caught Trump's and Obama cold.
Why is he in jail?
I'm baffled.
This is what they did to this country
in 2016
going all the way to the twenty twenty
nation fair. Okay. I agree with you. Funny
how that
works. Why isn't he in prison
if he committed treason? I
mean or you or you could argue Trump
is literally accusing a former president of one
of the most serious crimes in the country
without any evidence.
That's pretty crazy.
I don't know how you wanna make sense
of it. Either that's a lie or he
doesn't care about it or it's not. I
mean, I don't know how you also make
sense of this. And I said, oh my
god, guys. Trump said things again. What a
cool president. Hashtag winning.
Right. You he screams things in in the
act. Well, I think I said it.
No. I didn't say it right there. No.
I posted earlier today. You know, where they
basically just pretend like whatever they said is
already happening and already changed the world.
I said, who exactly do do these partisans
think Trump is speaking to?
Right? I
mean, he is the one who makes these
things happen.
All you get is talk. Now watch as
absolutely nothing continues to happen.
Whole point is if you're gonna say he's
committed treason, we went through this
months ago. You said Obama committed treason. And
what do we say then? Well, why isn't
he in jail? Maybe it takes your time.
Let's give him a month. Now all he
says is go after Obama. Who are you
talking to, Donald Trump? You are the one
in charge. See, if you're not blindly following
a team, you can stand back and go,
okay. Well, that means he's not doing anything.
If he's treasonous and he's proven to do
so, then he'd be in prison right now.
You pretty much know that if you're not
blind.
Here's Doherty again. President Trump warns the leftist
who are causing violence that the right could
eventually get effed up
fed up, excuse me, and fight back.
See how you're framing this? Right? So if
we do the same thing back to you,
you started it. It's your fault. I guess
we're in kindergarten. Right? Except in kindergarten, you
realize that that's not okay. You realize that
it doesn't two wrongs don't make a right.
Maybe Trump missed that part of the class.
I mean, come on, guys. This is insanely
childish. You're talking about allowing or rationalizing
the allowance, which he already did. He already
said in one other interview that, well, they
may when the right reacts, they're doing it
because the left is doing crazy things.
Do you not realize that's exactly what the
left thinks if you guys are all part
of the same problem? It these moments like
this that make you wonder whether Trump is
actually completely unaware of how he's being used.
He says the radical left is causing this.
So we even need to make them I
I I'm I'm not gonna make the same
points a 100 times today. It is obviously
the same problem because it's a partisan problem.
It is a team sport politics problem.
He says the right is a lot tougher
than left. I mean, really? I mean, this
is just child level partisan division, guys. He
says, but the right's not doing this,
except they literally are though. I guess, just
and you better not get them energized. Oh,
so now you're threatening the left
to not do things they're allowed to do,
protest, and utter more violence because you realize
they're just talking about them existing as a
left. So you're gonna say you better stop
speaking and doing things they don't like because
if they respond, it's justified.
He goes, I'm the president of all the
people.
Clearly.
As you just literally before this said the
left is crazy.
Clearly, if you think one half of the
mainstream political conversation is crazy, then you're not
the president of all of them. You're president
of the right, just like Biden was the
president for the left. It's the same thing
they do every time. Radical left is causing
the problem. Now, he says radical when they
argue that's what he mails only part of
it, except when you listen to him talk
over a week, he constantly says the leftist,
left that, leftist. That's what he does. They
all do.
Most of them, anyway. They are out of
control.
They're really dumb people. Crockett, some of these
people, low IQ people, actually, like your entire
cabinet, by the way, barely able to string
together proper sentences or understand the law they're
supposed to represent. Not the right, he says,
the radical left.
And it's gonna go it's gonna go back
on them. Bad things will happen when they
play these games. Guys, this is the president
of The United States threatening
it people out there that if the right
attacks you, you brought it on yourself.
This is why people can get so worked
up against this person because he is ridiculous.
But the point is they want you to
lean into this and be so outraged that
you're willing to do it back.
Just like they're they're doing right now, guys.
Don't fall for this lazy trap.
Be bigger. Be an adult. Don't fall for
this stuff. Call out the crime people are
committing and let that be the end of
it.
Because this is the real point, guys. They're
trying to drive you into a position where
you rationalize them taking more control to go
after you
because they claim everybody on your side does
something similar or they claim everybody in a
certain group does a certain thing and they
just broad stroke the conversation. So you have
to understand guys, I wanna make this point
very clear.
If a person breaks the law,
regardless of the intent, the speech,
charge them for the crime.
That's the reality of it. The only difference
is when you start to say, oh, well,
they're gonna say, like, we're gonna get to
with Trump's recent thing. This is, you know,
organized domestic terrorism, whatever, and you give them
the power
to lay that over you. All you're doing
because you realize the laws are already there.
You don't need these new additions to make
the laws any different. All they're doing is
giving them the power
to broaden that out, to lay that on
top of you, to construct the narrative however
they see fit. The crimes were already there.
You shoot someone, that's a crime. You break
a window, that's a crime. You commit a
terrorist attack, that's a crime. It's already there.
When you broaden it out to be some
kind of categorical ideological problem, that's what the
left was doing that right had a problem
with. Except you pretend like it's right because
that they're actually doing it. Well, even if
they are, it's irrelevant. The crimes are already
the they're they're already in existence.
Like, you have to I mean, I know
people wanna argue that, oh, well, it's systematic,
and maybe it is. What does that change?
So your answer is to give a government
who has historically always taken power and give
never given it back, historically abused that power
every single time. You wanna give them more
power to be able to broadly frame
an entire group as something that you already
have a crime to address.
I'm sure that can't get out of control
like it hasn't already a 100 times. Or
how about just what if the left then
comes into power and does it right back
to you? Who can't see that coming?
I mean, you have to understand how simple
this is. And this is why I think
nonpartisan objective coverage is like the antithesis. It
is the
antidote to what they're doing
because it's basic. And I I'd like to
believe that most people are not stupid. You
hear it and you go, well, yeah. That
makes sense. Why do we need some domestic
terrorism plan? And when the left came out
and said it, you guys said it probably.
That's not okay.
Then why can't we do it the same
way?
The the political ideology, the hate speech, it's
all the same kind of ploy to get
you to give them power to broaden out
the allowance of how they apply a crime.
We don't need that. It will always be
abused. It always has, and they will use
it against you on either side.
So here is what
vice president Vance was saying.
If you wanna stop political violence,
stop telling your supporters that everyone who disagrees
to you is a Nazi.
Okay?
Past comments on Trump.
We talked about this when he was coming
into the administration.
Might be America's Hitler, might be a cynical
a hole, cultural heroine,
noxious and
and reprehensible.
You know, one of them was Hitler.
So here's Vance who literally called him Hitler
when he thought was in his interest, or
maybe he actually believed
it. And now he's going, how dare you
say that because you're causing violence. Well, either
way, it's their words, and you have a
right to say what you want. They know
that. They're trying to create the set the
the drive to roll in the thing they
just rolled in, which is that we're now
saying it's all part of some organized problem.
We're gonna go after whoever we want, whenever
we want. And now welcome to the war
on domestic terror. Just like Biden started, Trump's
finishing because your government
is trying to accomplish this.
It doesn't take
a a especially intelligent person to recognize that
he's calling himself a problem right there. But
you see, he wants you to pretend like
that didn't happen. He wants you to pretend
that only the left calls names against the
other side, even though a child can see
that's not true, even though as we're talking,
they're doing the same thing back. Radical crazy
left terrorists.
That's not the same thing? Oh, but we're
right when we say it.
I mean, who who are we dealing with
here? We're dealing with children
who have way, way too much power.
So Donald Trump comes out and says, I've
been briefed on the deadly shooting at the
Ice Field Office, which we're gonna talk about
next. Bennie Johnson says president Trump announces he
will sign executive order this week
to dismantle
left wing
domestic terrorism.
And we're gonna go into that actual executive
order, which I didn't grab today, most likely
tomorrow.
I wanna read it because what I found
very interesting, I'll probably just play it again
right now, he didn't seem to mention the
word left in any of that. Do you
not find that strange that every other moment
that anything comes up is left crazy, left
terrorist, left radical,
and then when they show you the executive
order, they just don't say that?
How transparent.
Like, we don't recognize that gaping absence. It's
because you know you're supposed to pretend like
we're just going after everybody who's
bad. Nobody believes that.
So
we've already designated Antifa terrorist organization. Right. Now
you're using that to go after anyone who
says the word fascist or calls you a
fascist. That's what's actually happening. So here is
what we again, I'll probably play it again
in a second time anyway.
Here's what Trump
just said. I remember
telling you that they already announced it as
aiming at left wing terrorism.
Lastly, sir, this is a presidential memorandum
on countering,
domestic terrorism and organized political violence. In recent
weeks, months, and years, we've seen a tremendous
upsurge
in some highly visible, but also other acts
of domestic terrorism and organized political violence
being perpetrated by radical politically motivated groups all
over the country. What this presidential memorandum will
do is set off an administration
wide response to that, ranging from the joint
terrorism task forces to other components of the
Department of Justice to Department of Homeland Security
and Department of Treasury. We're looking at interdicting
these groups, preventing them from performing acts of
violence, and also looking at sources of organization
and funding and support that prop them up
and allow them to do the acts that
that they have been doing.
We're looking at the funders of a lot
of these groups.
Oh, great. Right. So when you when they
find somebody who, before they did this, was
already funding a group that maybe they thought
was something they they should support or maybe
not. The point is now you can retroactively
say, well, now you're supporting terrorism. Even though
we just now signed this executive order, which
I don't even think is possibly able to
declare something executive,
a terrorist organization since the executive orders literally
only apply to the executive branch. But let's
pretend like you can just deem a foreign
country. It's just this is it's
an abuse of power.
But the point
is that you can just now say, oh,
well, you're a terrorist now. You funded this
group, you're a terrorist. Even though you're not
I don't even think you're legally allowed to
sort of grandfather in that you were a
criminal before you knew that before that was
even the reality.
There's nothing legally guiding with all of this.
It's abstract. They're going after who they want
just like they've been doing and still are
with the immigration point if you're not blindly
lying to yourself.
And,
you know, when you see the signs and
they're all beautiful signs made professionally Aim over
this every single time. Another subjective point, which
does not apply to every single protest that
you could point to, it's you could point
that on left and right in many different
examples and that still doesn't prove that they
didn't just pay for science or they didn't
get funding from somebody who definitely like, right
now especially. You realize how many people are
out there who genuinely with good intentions are
funding people protesting
a genocide?
A lot.
But you know who who also is also
is out there funding them for manipulative purposes?
A lot. So what the point is is
you can't know for sure based on this
objective point. Doesn't matter though because Trump could
say, look, I can sell by their shoes,
and they'd all go, we knew it. Because
blind following sycophants are the ones who are
making this problem happen.
Tell your protesters that make the sign in
their basement later in the evening because they
really believe it. These Oh, of course. Only
the guys who make written weird signs in
a paper in their in their basement. They're
the ones. They're the only ones that are
real. Everybody else.
I mean, can can you not just glance
at another protest of the right to it's
just it's the same thing.
I'm not gonna suggest I know that means
anything. Maybe they just paid for them. But,
see, Trump will say whatever he needs to
to get you to do it just like
Biden did, just like everybody else who had
a political position, who are trying to coerce
you into accepting
more control over your life.
They're anarchists
and agitators,
professional anarchists and agitators. And Oh, right. Right.
Again, anarchists because that means
chaos? No. No. It doesn't. Anarchy means no
rulers, not no rules.
Everyone seems to miss that. Of course, the
only ideology in the world that doesn't have
a place for rulers,
gee, I wonder why they want that to
be seen as chaos.
It's not.
They get hired by wealthy people. Some of
whom I know, I guess. Yeah. I probably
know them. And, you wouldn't Oops.
You gotta love how he speaks off the
cuff and basically incriminates himself.
Make a sign in their basement later in
the evening because they're agitators.
Professional anarchists and agitators. And Oh, and don't
forget that anarchist is something they only say
about the left. Right?
That talk about them, not everybody, but that's
my point. This is about the left. It's
quite obvious with everything they've led up to
this point, But funny how they don't say
that now. They get hired by wealthy people,
some of whom I know, I guess. You
know? You probably know. Maybe. I don't know.
Maybe I should've said that. Whoops. You know
them. So he said that pretty matter of
fact, some of which I know, or I
guess maybe. I kinda maybe not.
It just cracks me up.
So all you're really saying is you somehow
know like, so if you knew that they
were doing why aren't you charging him with
a crime, Donald Trump? Aren't you the one
saying that's terrorist activity?
You see, because that's not what's gonna happen.
If you think for one second he's gonna
break down some Soros person, like, it's gonna
be, if ever, some random person who they
claim is responsible
and is usually a scapegoat.
If you think for one second they're gonna
go after these high people, I got a
bridge to sell you. I hope it happens.
I'd love to admit that I'm wrong. Historically
speaking,
it shows you that's never gonna happen. And,
you wouldn't know it. You at dinner with
them, everything's nice, and then you find out
that they funded
millions of dollars to these lunatics.
Such a hypocrite.
I mean, just go look at the things
that their money's involved in and act like
we don't really know. You know? They're all
they're all just as guilty as each other.
It kills me.
But
Democrats, I'm calling all Democrats to stop the
rhetoric against the ICE people. Okay. We'll talk
about that next or in two more segments
here. But Carrie Wedler wrote this. In a
development everyone could have predicted, and very much
so,
many of the same people who, quote, don't
trust the government
claim to question everything
and shouted for years that liberty is more
important than security are gargling
government narratives
and
demanding daddy government make them feel safe.
Now that either means, like, a DC brainer
lives with TikTok, Nick Sorter type that they
never actually cared about these principles, probably which
which is probably the reality.
They just thought it was good for their
interest, or
they're just too dumb to know they're being
manipulated by somebody who's literally driving in the
opposite of what they claim they're fighting for.
Yeah. You can decide. I just I think
that's a very well you need to understand
that point because it's like a diametric opposite
position.
Now here is a couple more points in
regard to that same kind of overlapping issue
of, you know, inciting very clear, like so
if you're gonna claim like, let's be clear
first. Incitement to me is a is a
manipulative word. I think you're allowed to say
what you want, and I'm gonna keep pushing
this in more and more.
We should we need to have a real
conversation about e like, fire in a theater.
Right? The idea of when did words become
violent crimes
on either side of the conversation. If somebody
commits a crime, charge them for that crime.
What well, no matter what they say, people
can bluster. They can lie. We see it
happen all the time in politics. When somebody
commits a crime, we have things to charge
them. That's it. Period. Done. Charged with a
crime. Don't then go, everyone they know is
a criminal suddenly. That's how stupid this is
today. Go after them for what they do.
People are responsible for the things they do,
not words they say out loud because we
have we have free speech. Right?
So what we see is if you're going
to call an incitement, them saying, he called
me a Nazi, therefore, Charlie Kirk was killed
because of them. That's the dumbest thing I've
ever heard. Is it possible that was somehow
leading into wide app? Sure.
Prove that. Secondarily, how would that end up
being the person's fault who said something that
caused that person to make a decision to
act on his own? It's ridiculous. And in
fact, it's exactly,
I mean,
textbook counter to constitutional rights.
But so then my point is you have
them doing the same thing in reverse. Terrorists,
crazy, lunatic. They're gonna destroy the country. It's
exactly the same level of rhetoric. In fact,
in many ways, a lot more severe.
But Mehdi Hasan says this
or, you know, frames it this way. MAGA,
why does the left endorse political violence?
And then he goes, Fox News host, what
we need to do is either leave the
UN or bomb it.
Jesse Waters says this. The whole UN thing
happening is just wild to me. The weirdness
around this, the obsessive I think it's a
very much, let's just barrel through this ridiculous
conversation to water out everything else.
But bomb it?
I mean, it's just insane thing to say
right now. But see whether that's that's a
bad example of political violence, but I think
it's in I mean, kind of. I just
think it's point to lead into the UN
thing I think is interesting. Here's Laura Loomer.
Donald Trump came out saying a real disgrace
took place at the UN. So if you
didn't see this ridiculous story,
an escalator stopped working when he walked up
to it, and the teleprompter wasn't working for
him. Oh my god. Let's stop the presses,
guys. On top of that, guess who else
it didn't work for them? Three different people
speaking on the reality of Israel's genocide. So
if you're gonna go out there lazily like
Laura Loomer and pretend that this proves they're
going up to Trump, explain to me why
they were censoring the people who were speaking
about Israel's genocide.
You could argue that one was one, both
of why if you think all of it
was happening deliberately, then make sense of why
that all may how that happened.
Right? Because they wouldn't be censoring people exposing
a genocide if they were going after Trump.
But either way, I don't know. Maybe both.
Maybe somehow it makes sense. You can't prove
that, and it seems to me that they
just had issues.
But am I getting more safer am I
gonna argue that it's not it's even unlikely
that it would happen? No. Not at all.
I think it's almost more likely to accept
that somebody would
because of their rhetoric and how alarming they
are today that somebody might take action, justified
or not.
But I I can't prove that, so I
would never make that claim. Trump would though.
He's had he'll happily scream whenever he wants
to. Everything is happening with nothing to back
it up. Oftentimes the lie,
but the real disgrace he says,
not one, not two, but three sinister
sinister events.
First, the escalator stopped working. What a petty
person. It stops on a dime. It's amazing
that we didn't fall forward when it stopped.
You weren't on the stairs when it stopped,
man. We watched the video. But who cares?
We'll just make a story up in regard
to something they all watched because my followers
will repeat what I say. What he's doing.
Watch the video for yourself. He hadn't even
stepped on it. They were right in front
of it. It stopped, and they looked around,
and they started walking up. That's what happened.
And it says it was only
that we were each holding the handrail tightly.
There wouldn't have been a disaster.
A disaster? Maybe because you're 80. I don't
know. But it says this was absolutely sabotage.
Oh, it's absolutely. Can you prove that?
Not that I can tell, but Trump doesn't
need to. He'll say whatever he wants.
He says the London Times said the UN
workers joked about turning off an escalator. These
peep maybe they did. Like, okay. Well, here's
my point. Even if they did, is this
what you care about? You're such a small
petty person that you're gonna make this huge
story about something so insignificant.
Maybe because he pretended like he could just
bluster through it and kind of messed up
his speech, which is what people or the
fact that it turned into one big rant,
which is what happened last time we did
have a teleprompter. It was just him saying
how great he was and ranting about people
doing dumb things. And then Jones and everyone's
like, the best UN speech in the history
of the UN, because that's what they do,
even though it was really ridiculous like it
tends to be. I mean, it's just that's
it's just what we keep getting.
Historic speech that's gonna change every oh, and
they called him out to their face. No.
He didn't. Just like he didn't call out
Davos to the face. He went and spoke
with them and made some points about woke
pronouns, and you guys were like, oh, they
told him. No. He's working with them. You
have children. But he goes on to make
a big deal about this. The escalator, the
but, again, don't forget,
it also turned off the teleprompter, at least
for plenty of other people that had different
opinions in Trump. But Loomer says Trump should
just order the demolition of the United Nations.
These are the kind of people that's that
are, like, inside peep they listen to these
people.
I I you know, it makes you wonder
whether Trump is literally not aware of these
being used. And at Loomer as well, they
think they're the smartest people in the room
when there's people around them that are allowing
them to look like that or let them
think that, who are laughing at how stupid
they are, about how dumb it makes this
country look.
Now who has an interest to make us
look that bad? You could think of that,
defund it and do ball and demolish it.
Now, look, I'm no supporter of the UN
body or the institution. I've always been, I
think in ultimately it's led to a lot
far more problems than good. But you also
can understand that the reality of how it's
worked independently
as the individual pieces are rather the you
know, so you have the body or, I
mean, again, the institution,
and then you've got the individual states
that you know, and each of them, we
should question their whole governments. Right? But it's
in how that structure can work. Interestingly, which
I think was the Finnish person just said
from the UN, get rid of the veto
power. Now imagine you get rid of the
fact that The US and Israel or,
there's another one. Right? Can just veto whatever
they want, and it just goes away.
If you got rid of that, do you
ever know how often they vote for things
and it's like, what is it? 300 something
to one? And it's like a veto to
call out Israel for crimes? It's been going
on for decades.
That's ridiculous. So if we got rid of
that veto power, whether or not the the
institution is corrupt, which I believe it is,
what you can see is sort of the
same argument you have in this country if
it was actually working, checks and balances, where
you know that each one of them has
their own self interest and they're all corrupt.
But when all of them are left with
their own like, they'll push back against each
other when they try to take power. Like,
that's what the argument is in this country.
That with, like, the Congress situation and the
and the impeachment situation, which is not happening
anymore, that they can check each other. And
whether or not they're all corrupt, that ultimately
the power they don't want another one to
have more power than each other, and they,
like, they check each other. That was kind
of the real design.
My point, though, is that you can stand
back and look at all the individual states.
And you can see Bolivia, for example, before
even Morales was removed from power, stand up
and call them all out, which is a
big moment, and then they removed her from
power. And again and then had they not
had the veto power, I think that would
have changed the situation. My point, though, is
that that is a way it shows you
how that structure can work
for your benefit because they're willing to call
out the other side. But it says defund
and demolish it. The building is an eyesore
anyway. Just order the structure of the building.
The UN doesn't even do that. Like, first
of all, you destroy the building in New
York does not mean the UN goes away.
She is just uninformed about everything that she
does, but turn it to dust.
Like, that's not violent rhetoric to just say,
bomb it, destroy it. Well, she's also said,
bomb it, by the way. There's other points
she's put out the same way. White House
says, I'm sending a copy of this letter
to the security secretary general, and I demand
an immediate investigation.
Are you kidding me? Donald Trump is demanding
an investigation because an escalator stopped and the
teleprompter wasn't working?
That's embarrassing for the whole country.
This is no wonder the United Nations hasn't
been able to do it. Now, this could
just be trying to bury things in the
news, but I genuinely think it's because he's
a small person.
They're all criminals.
Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, they're all criminals.
But this person is a very this it
matters more than anyone I've seen that he
is projected the right way. And that's how
people make fun. That's how people take advantage
of him every single day.
Here's Laura Loomer.
For those of you who need the cliff
notes for escalator gate,
shameless.
Shameless. Just vomit into whatever you see momentum
going for. It's crazy.
Here's what happened. Basically, the UN had a
functioning escalator, and then it just stopped. And
Trump's
my god. And you want you you and,
look, oh my god. The documents. And how
well, here's an escalator blueprint.
Oh my god, guys. I just I'm embarrassed
for her, but she doesn't seem to even
have the capacity for that.
So here's what Vance said about
Jimmy Kimmel and the overlap. It's kind of
you can see these conversations are all in
the same vein about the left
and the madness. Right? Building the the division
of this country.
He's this is, JD Vance saying he accused
Charlie Kirk's murder of being MAGA.
Jimmy Kimmel. Right?
It wasn't a joke.
He said he was straight up disinformate. Okay.
We're at a point right now where you
still cannot prove either direction.
And yet these people just keep screaming down.
I don't understand
how we're in a position where this continues
to be the leading part of the conversation.
I feel like I you know, I feel
like people like, there's a lot of us
that feel like we're the only sane person
in the room.
Weirdly enough, it might actually be the majority,
but these people are the you know, take
the oxygen out of the room with the
conversation.
You can quite literally prove that the evidence
does not show either way. You got both
sides using the subjective points to claim he's
the other.
And always doing is saying, he still won't
even apologize
even though he said something that you guys
are doing in reverse and nobody knows for
sure. It's and you all lie as a
matter of like like like you're breathing.
But it says, I really wish you would
just apologize. FCC should take action if ABC
keeps him on the air, which is what
it appear yeah. Which is what Nick Sorter
said. Because if Vance has said that, well,
now you're starting the game all over again.
You're threatening them. They're gonna take action. It's
the same thing. But I think it's hilarious
that someone like Nick Sorter does not realize
how stupid he looks by saying that because
that is the whole point. You're literally telling
us that you wanna pressure them, but then
going through, well, it's their choice.
It's just it's political
politically motivated,
which is exactly what he'd cry foul if
it was left doing. And I actually think
people like this are just not bright enough
to see it in themselves. The reality though,
he's claiming disinformation because he said that he's
MAGA and said it wasn't a joke though.
How do you know? I don't think it
was a joke. I think it's clear that's
what he thought. But here's what's funny.
In another conversation, here's JD Vance saying,
oh, FCC car share car was just joking.
He was just joking when he threatened that
he can do the easy way the hard
way.
I mean, I just this is so painful.
Okay. Walk me through the joke.
Very serious deadpan face. They can do this
the easy way, the hard way. They can
deal with him or work out the step
in and do it. That's what we said.
Not some kind of like joke, and I
was just kidding or no. Very real, very
clear, was very serious until right now. And,
oh, I was just kidding though. He was
just joking.
As Evan loves Wharf says, everything they say
is a joke. Everything the left says is
deadly serious.
That's how silly this is. Now
this to me, this kind of, like, very
easy,
extreme hyperbolic difference on it. This is a
collapsing of a country, guys. This is we
are we're devolving into absurdity right now, and
the whole world is pointing it out. It's
not us. It is the government who's driving
this country into collapse. And you know why
I think that's happening?
Here's Tim Pool.
He says, this is literally every single night.
Jimmy Kimmel, the algo slop content for anti
Trump boomers. And what is he saying? He
called Trump a bully.
So you're just a snowflake now, Tim Pool,
just a child small snowflake cowering from the
words bully. Oh, you're so mean.
Really? Like how pathetic for these people to
be the ones that were laughing and trolling
the left because they're so small. And then
you become the left?
Seriously, like, keep calling no. You can't call
Trump a bully without being called a manipulator,
without being said, like, it's all you're just
pumping into the algo. Why? Because everyone wants
to hear that? Maybe it's because he's doing
that, Or maybe it's because he thinks that.
Can you not factor those hardcore logic into
your discussion points, Tim? These people will say
whatever thing to say to push the narrative,
which is civil war if you look at
everything he says every thirty seconds.
I said, well, you would certainly know, wouldn't
you? Since Algo slot for partisans might as
well be your tagline.
This person posted a very accurate picture.
Donald Trump junior.
Well, Andrew Covelet, you know, the weird fill
in from the
Charlie Kirk
Turning Point USA development.
The one that p some people called sort
of his handler in the conversation who was
very uncomfortable when when things like APAC got
brought up, but it says not good enough.
Jimmy, it's simple. Here's what you need to
say.
Quote, I'm sorry for saying the shooter was
MAGA even though you can't prove one way
or the other, though. Right? And he goes,
he was not.
See, they're saying he was left. You can't
prove that right now. You can point that
he was living with a person, maybe was
dating them. I still can't seem to prove
that outside of those text messages.
Sure. Maybe. Here he is wearing a mask.
Maybe.
Here he is living with all MAGA Republican
friend. Here he is shooting guns. Here he
is on Republican chatroom. Maybe.
See? I'm not blindly
either way, you can't prove it because I
think most people are falling into the middle
right now. People that are going,
government's lying to us. Both sides are ridiculous.
And maybe have some leanings which way or
the other. It's sort of like me. You
could you could pluck out certain things in
my life and go left or right.
But the reality is I see them all
as ridiculous, and I have things that I
my opinions are when you're not bound by
some kind of blind partisan lens, you find
that your opinions seem to fall a lot
broader.
That's the reality.
So for them to just blindly say that
that's the case because it fits in with
their narrative and because they have subjective points
just like the other side does is the
same thing in reverse.
They know what they're doing, guys. It's just
lazy.
Because I apologize to the Kirk family for
lying.
Please accept my sincere apology. Now, he comes
back on and he says,
autism capital. One of these, you know, these
are just, like, blunt it's like the looks
of TikTok and they're just like, oh, everything
partisan. He says, Jimmy Kimmel addresses Kirk's comments
on his first show back. And he says,
I don't think what I have to say
will make any difference. If you like me
he says, if you like me, you like
me. If you don't, you don't. He says,
if, it was never my intention to make
light of the murder of a young man.
Oh, what a crazy leftist. And he says,
I don't think there's anything funny about it.
God, it's pretty bad. Right? And he goes,
it was never my intention to blame a
specific group.
So what point are we getting to where
he didn't do the right? And it says,
I get why you're upset. If the situation
were reversed, there's a good chance I would
feel the same way. Oh, he's so irrational.
And I said, I get a lot of
threats in my life too, and I know
those types of threats don't come from the
people on the right
who I know love me as well.
Do you buy it? What did I tell
you?
You can come out and do remember when
the left would do this and cancel people,
and then you come out and and they
go, I'm sorry. You're right. And they would
just even go harder, and the right would
go, you can't comply. You can't give in.
They all well, there you go. Here's the
right doing the same thing. Jimmy comes out
and says what appears to be a very,
very measured statement about why he didn't mean
it. That And your comments are, no. He's
lying. He's the same thing. Well, maybe.
Or maybe you guys will just never accept
when somebody wants to say or framing this
as what not good enough. They need to
come out and say, I apologize for doing
exactly what you're doing. He didn't even come
out and say he's still MAGA. He simply
was like, I'm sorry. I just can't get
over how silly this all is. I
refuse to believe that most Americans are stupid
enough to fall for what this all is.
Even Joe Rogan comes out. This is what
I'm saying, guys. We need to start listening.
And look, I'm not saying that you have
to trust that he's on the Joe Rogan,
like anybody else, in some ways, are opportunists.
I think everybody is to some degree. That
just my point is don't just
if even Joe Rogan is able to come
out and say, conservatives were crazy to support
Jimmy Kimmel suspension, this will be used on
you, that means that the vast majority of
people in the conversation are of that mind.
That's what I think anyway.
The recognize that it's a step too far.
Maybe still don't care because screw Democrats, but
they know
you guys just need to start seeing that.
Don't stop listening to the partisan game, the
mainstream alternative media, the mainstream media framing each
other like they're everything.
Long has that not been the case.
Here we go. Yesterday,
Trump threatens to sue ABC over Kimmel return.
Are you kidding?
This is just pathetically obvious. So now you
wanna pretend like they did their it wasn't
Carr. He was totally kidding though even though
he threatened them.
Print on principle on on on precedent that's
already considered a problem. You know, they that's
a violation of first amendment because it's already
happened before where they've threatened and they took
action. They say it wasn't our fault. Yep.
Precedents
matter.
Donald Trump,
after all of this, after claiming he didn't
do it and they made their own choices,
comes out and goes, how dare you? Take
him off the air.
Because that's what he does. Because these people
I mean, look. They're they are always screaming
what they want you to think. But what's
crazy to me is you can see what
they are.
More today than ever, you can look at
them and go, well, they're obviously that way.
You know? They're both both left and right,
authoritarian, fascist, you know, wanna control your life.
But they scream different ways about different things,
but they're very obvious.
Now here, in regard to Charlie Kirk, were
some points I want were interesting to point
out. Now remember where this all started.
Fascist, trans, ideology on the bullets, which Steven
Crowder seems to be largely responsible for pushing
that lie.
The the the trans writing, by the way,
or even the fascist statements turned out to
be things from a video game.
And you and you look at his overlapping
point, most people in his life argue he
was not very political at all. Until very
recently and even then, the argument was he
wasn't connected to any real
groups. But it says a preliminary and unverified
report from New York Times circulated inside the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives
found that ammunition
recovered with the rifle used to kill Charlie
Kirk appeared engraved with statements
expressing, quote, transgender and anti fascist ideology.
A senior law enforcement official with direct knowledge
of the investigation cautioned that the report had
not been verified by ATF analysts,
did not match other summaries of the evidence
and might turn out to have been misread,
excuse me,
which was the case.
It got very little attention.
I found it very interesting, by the way.
Look. If you look the the where this
seems to have come from,
there's a bullet with t r n on
the bottom,
which apparently stands for,
Turon.
And it weirdly, by the way, might suggest
that the bullet that was there does not
match the rifle,
but this is all really up in the
air right now. My point I'm getting at
is the idea that they claimed that meant
trans t r n,
Except for the fact that that takes a
really special kind of stupid to not know
why that will be on the bottom.
TRN.
Even this, by just looking up TRN bullet,
I wanna see what it looked like. Look
at what they gave me. It says, the
term TRN on the bullet casing refers to
head stamp, which is a marking on the
cartridge that identifies the manufacturer. Right? And it
says in recent context, the incident involving Charlie
Kirk, the TRN marking was incorrectly interpreted right
or deliberately misrepresented. Now what's very interesting to
me is the fact that it turned out
the person was either living or dating, which
either one could be the truth, a trans
person.
So was that them try I mean, how
do you work that? Was that a coincidence?
Or was this something that was kind of
you know, I the fact that the guy
is still yet to actually claim that he
did it,
yet everyone else is doing that, something about
this feels very strange still. But either way,
I thought that was important. Let's not forget
how these things start and how easy it
is, but they just cast the lies aside.
It's okay. They just completely got that wrong
or lied about it. You know, we'll just
keep picking the new ones. That's partisanship for
you.
Here's what Catherine wants says about Charlie Kirk,
and I thought this was very relevant to
share.
Two videos I'm gonna play.
Now people can make this out to be
insulting. It's not. I argue what she's talking
about specifically is how the government
is using Charles Kirk, the theater of what
they're doing, which is the same theater they
do everywhere, pretending like they care about things
that you care about.
But But listen to this, because I think
this is a very important take.
Alright. I did it again.
Maybe I just didn't grab all these today.
Let me grab this for you.
And as always, guys, I mean, Catherine's takes
on these are very I think she's very
insightful.
You know, has background with the government understand,
which, by the way, as always, make you
question question that.
Also, look at her long, very, very clear
long track record of principled actions consistently with
what we're fighting for. That's what matters to
me. This is So point is
her background
gives her insight to what the people do,
how they think,
which, you know and many other examples we've
shown about how she sees, you know, even
even talking about the way that they can
manipulate people today through their media, through electronic
means.
But here's what she has to say about
the way they're using
Charlie Kirk to manipulate you.
This is a theater
where you're making it up as you go.
And as you see how the audience reacts,
you change the story
and you evolve the story, and you create
the story.
This is a
this is a theater production.
But the important thing to understand about that
theater is that
in this case, I'm seeing something I've never
seen before.
And that is when when they do this
kind of theater,
you and and when I say they, I
mean the intelligence agencies. When they engineer a
theater like this,
they always,
you know, they like to mock the crowd.
I have never seen the mockery
this extreme.
This is different. This is new.
It's a joke.
It it's a joke that you would say,
we have a manifesto, but it disappeared, but
we know it existed, and we think we
might be able to get it. It's like,
what are you taught? I mean, no experienced
enforcement person would say that could possibly say
that with a straight face. And this is
in my opinion,
I think they thought that would fly. You
put Dan Bongino, Bondi, and Pash Patel in
a room, and that's what you get.
And that's what you get. I mean, it
it's a mockery, but but but then, you
know, it turns out the roommate, he's got
a roommate. The roommate is trans. The they
were lovers, but he told his lover,
you know, before this, and he did it
on this, and he you know? And so
so they keep adding
pieces to the story
of who the alleged assassin is
that make it more and more ridiculous and
more and more ridiculous. And every time Right.
And and it's a way of mocking at
the audience that they can get them to
buy this. Right.
I agree with that. Now whether whether you
agree with why she thinks it's happening, I
mean, guys, we have to be honest. But
the same thing with Butler, same thing with
a lot of the examples. And that that
doesn't mean that maybe maybe the incident was
real. That's possible. But the every single time,
the this is how this goes. What did
I say about Las Vegas? Even still to
this day, they'll drip out little things about
it. It's very I think it's designed to
be used that way. You know, just narratives
or, you know, like what we saw with,
like, the fog and the drones and, like,
these are I think these are, like, testing
the water moments.
How easy it is to just flood the
conversation?
How easy can we manipulate them? Can we
just drip these things every day? Like, another
story, another update.
And, like, with Butler, it was like the
new ones would contradict the first ones. It
just it's almost like some kind of experiment.
I mean, I you can decide for yourself.
The the the evidence point to take away
is that I agree with her. I think
that what you're seeing is them, whether it's
making fun of you, is just leaning into
what they think you want
and then just going all the way.
Now you can decide. I think it's because
there's action they're trying to you know, whether
it's about distracting you from the ongoing agenda.
You could decide. That and that's important. You
need to decide for yourself what you think
they're trying to accomplish. We can't prove that.
Right? What we can prove
is what they're doing and how inconsistent that
is with what we argue we're fighting for
or what we argue our constitutional rights or
first principles. That it just everywhere you look,
you can prove to yourself that they're not
doing what they claim they're fighting for unless
you do some kind of mental gymnastics and
say that we have to destroy the constitution
to save the constitution. You know? Hey. Maybe
you're right. I just refuse to accept that.
That is a violation of principles, and I'm
just not gonna take that to me. That
will even r k junior will tell you
they never give back power.
So here's another example.
This is a a set sense receptor posted
this
Similar conversation. I'll let it play for itself.
And what did you think about the Charlie
Kirk assassination?
We haven't spoken about that.
I think
it's a sigh up, and I think it's
a complete waste of our time. What you
wanna focus on you know, forget what
might have happened or not happened.
What you wanna focus on is this is
being used as an excuse
by the attorney general.
We're hearing it from the president
to get
tyrannical close at,
laws and to rip up the constitution.
Don't let it happen.
So, you know, don't let free speech be
interfered with. Don't let
any of your due process rights be destroyed.
So lawlessness is not okay. And we're seeing,
you know, if you look at our our
our collection on the control grid, this administration
is moving to build a control grid. We
can't let it happen. It's one of the
reasons we want Kennedy to remain in there.
He's one of the things slowing it down
and trying to stop it. And and the
reality is you cannot let
a vague standard like hate crime
be used because
who's who's hate crime?
Interestingly, Shucks about lawlessness. Right? Well, same thing
we're talking about a second ago. So what
they're arguing is we need because what what
do you when you're saying what you're saying
when there's when they're passing laws or driving
things in that are unconstitutional,
that's law that's lacking that's not within the
law. Right? So they're saying, we'll pass lawlessness
to fight lawlessness.
It's the same thing you're finding everywhere, guys.
It's a contradiction when you really break it
down. So as Catherine very, very rightly pointed
out, right, it doesn't matter what the nary
if if the if the solution
is
violating constitutional rights, if your solution is more
government power,
that's not the solution, or the solution will
be worse than the problem as usual when
it comes to government.
And we've also seen an attack on due
process with the attack on the Venezuelan boats.
You know, but but you're watching a concerted
effort to shred the constitution.
And I hate to say it, Charlie Kirk
assassination was a Reichstag fire.
Mhmm. So
I I just you know, my attitude is
your time is busy. Don't waste time on
this.
What you need to understand is a group
of people are trying to use this
to take away
all of your rights. Don't let it happen.
Don't buy it. Don't believe it. And push
back against them because, you know, it's only
gonna take a little bit of pushback to
send the signal, this is not gonna work.
You know? And if if you want one
one action to take politically,
that is the proper pushback,
help congressman Massey get the two hundred and
eighteenth vote to release the Epstein files. But
again, too late because they clearly got somebody
to change sides. I argue probably Mace, and
now it didn't happen.
Every single moment, you can watch the corruption.
Because one of the things this is whiting
out is the the push to get the
Epstein files, and every effort
is being made to to stop the Epstein
files from coming out. Meantime, we have many
people in the Epstein files
over, you know, having dinner with prince Charles
and or I should call him King Charles
now,
you know, and and and the Anglo American
alliance celebrating. But, you know, I keep saying
this is the mega rich against every everyone
else, and we can't, you know, we cannot
let the mega rich tear up
the
the fundamental legal principles that are the bedrock
of this country. So,
you know, don't don't don't let this distract
you, and don't let them get away from
it.
Yeah. All it takes is a little bit
of pushback
against people like Pam Bondi and what they're
saying to make this go the other way.
I agree.
All said. Now in case you're not familiar,
and this is a very normie mainstream overview,
but gee but this is my the point
to make is that even from the mainstream
perspective, what she's referencing
is an incident where a fire in a
parliamentary building was used by Hitler to basically
seize tons of power. And okay. But the
just leave it there for more it's a
deeper conversation. There's much more to the story
in regard to the the idea that this
was something deliberate or that was manufactured or
the bottom line
is that he harnessed it to take power,
and that's the argument is that what they're
doing, whether or not you think because that's
the point. You could argue she's implying that
it was manufactured or that Israel's involved or
the US government did it. Maybe. But I
think the real point is simply that it
maybe she means that, but I think the
real point is arguing that whatever it was,
they're using him and the incident around him
to seize power.
Obviously. Right? I mean, that's transparent.
Maybe some people argue they should and it's
justified because the left is dangerous. Well, again,
even if you even if it's true,
there's already laws for things. Right? The point
is you're allowing that argument
to justify something that shall not be infringed.
Charlie Kirk's accused assassin here's an interesting update
from today, which I'm not even sure how
to make sense of. Charlie Kirk's assassin accused
assassin,
which is, by the way, still the reality
despite how everyone, even the Trump advances, like,
we know he's the guy. Left is crazy.
And even then, you can't prove that he
is a leftist, but it's just it's wild.
They could just scream whatever they want. But
it says,
accused assassin,
encountered this is Fox for the podcast, by
the way. Accused assassin encountered by police
during return to crime scene.
What?
So he was encountered by police when he
returned to the crime scene.
They didn't arrest him though, or they didn't
see him. But if he returned, how does
that make sense? Let me read it for
you. According to law enforcement
so this is what she's this is her
point about new developments, and it just doesn't
make any sense.
Tyler Robinson, a 22 year old accused of
assassinating Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk at
a Utah Valley,
University earlier this month made contact. That's the
quote, made contact
with a police officer
near where investigators recovered the alleged murder weapon
wrapped in a towel in the woods at
this edge of campus according to two laws
law enforcement sources. You know, again, ignoring for
the fact that the time the time it
would take down a break and reassemble that
is in doesn't even remotely line up with
the reality of the time frame or the
fact that it was near impossible for him
to be able to do that if it
wasn't broken down to come down from the
roof and you could prove that it just
doesn't or fit in the backpack that claimed
it was in when he brought it in.
You know, who cares about the wildly obvious
and almost verifiable inconsistency of their story? Who
cares about that? The point is to go
forward with the allegation. Oh, so, again, this
is the main this is the
main. What's am I looking for? This is
the official story.
Funny how the deep state fighting rebels are
taking the official story of the government.
Some of them anyway.
But it says
he
it happened around 06:30PM on September 10, roughly
six hours after a sniper's bullet struck Kirk
in the neck as he was engaging an
audience
in the audience during the speaking event. Now
this is interesting to me because the timing,
06:30, six hours afterward,
just I just to me, this this doesn't
really make much sense. Because he was telling
me that he well, let me let me
finish reading it first. Now it says the
officer was guarding the perimeter
after authorities placed the campus on lockdown,
which apparently took forever seeing as how people
were just milling around the crime scene for
pretty while, long while. Afterward, you could see
the different videos,
but eventually, I guess, they locked it down.
I have never even seen a video of
a lockdown crime scene, but it says, and
the encounter appears to have thwarted
the suspect's attempt
to recover the Mauser 30 aught six rifle.
Prosecutors allege
was used to kill Kirk.
Okay.
At what point do you claim you encountered
him?
Goes on to say, prosecutors released excerpts from
a text message conversation they say Robinson had
with his roommate and romantic partner. Again, that's
I'm not saying I'm not I'm not saying
I'm denying that. So just make make just
make it makes just as much sense as
anything else. I don't even that's even the
wrong way to say that because there's a
lot of it doesn't make sense. The idea
that's possible is is fifty fifty. It's I
I'm only saying it because it the
narrative to begin with with the bullets turned
out to be false.
So it's almost you know? And and then
this turned up to be the case. He's
yet to admit that he was guilty despite,
despite apparently turning himself in.
I'd my I just think that he could
easily become romantic partner, which then makes that
add up for the first part even though
it might be a roommate.
That's all I'm saying. I just I doubt
very strongly whatever this message back and forth
is. And, of course, since the FBI has
lied to us consistently our entire lives, it's
worth asking whether that could be something they
just tacked on. Right? Who knows? But
text messages
that just kind of set up the whole
thing, list off every motive and every narrative
and everything they want you to see and
use a bunch of terms that don't make
any sense, that don't a kid his age
would never say that anybody anywhere would ever
say, well, it just it doesn't make sense,
but possible as always.
It says that occurred at an unspecified time
on the evening of September 10 in which
Robinson allegedly discussed wanting to retrieve a rifle
before returning home from Orem, which is about
a four hour drive from where he lived
in Washington County. But there was a six
hour window between when that happened. You know,
see, I just okay. And it says, while
law enforcement searched the area, Robinson texted Twiggs
telling him to look under my keyboard.
And this is apparently where we get into
this weird vanishing note discussion where it says
the Roux eight found and then photographed
a note that read, I had the opportunity
to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going
to take it,
authority said.
But yet we've never seen that photograph, though,
which makes lots of sense.
Okay? And then it said and then don't
forget, her, Cash said it was because of,
intense investigation
posture.
But I guess that just means photograph, I
guess. But then it goes on to say
another message, Robinson allegedly wrote on or wrote
he was stuck in Orem for a little
while longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I
can come home, but I gotta grab my
rifle still. To be honest, I had hoped
to keep this secret till the day I
died of old age. So here's my thing
with that, that one right there.
So we're to believe
that you wrote a note that said that
you were guilty,
but then simultaneously had hoped to not have
to ever reveal this even though you already
did with a note. And even though you're
on the phone talking about a rifle
at a time when nobody had actually known
you were guilty yet. Right? Nobody's been that
guy was arrested and let go. Nobody knew
it was you. There was no evidence yet,
hadn't come out, and you're on the phone
going, gee. I don't I wish I didn't
have to tell you a thing I don't
need to tell you right now because nobody
yet knows.
It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't line
up with its very its own structure of
the conversation.
Why would you have hoped to keep it
secret if up until the moment you said
that it was secret?
See, this is just a lack of consent.
This is what I can picture Kash Patel's
type piecing this together. I'm not even saying
I think it's him. I'm just saying the
incompetence of some lazy put together like this.
And it says,
I'm sorry I too involve you. Quote, you
weren't the only one who did it. Right?
They text back and they says, I'm sorry.
I am. I'm sorry.
This is later in the conversation, he allegedly
reiterated that he was looking for a change
to four for a chance to grab the
rifle for the second time.
This is, quote, there is a squad car,
which nobody says parked right by it.
I think they already swept that spot, but
I don't wanna chance it.
So this point,
again, the the point of the texting, like,
are that this kid won't be aware that
this stuff's gonna be I mean, everyone in
the world knows this is unsecure,
but it doesn't matter.
A squad car.
Do you know anybody that would ever say
that other than an authority figure?
I don't.
But certainly possible. Right? Maybe it's a family
thing. Like, see, we can be objective enough
to make okay. It's possible.
But with all the rest of the things,
it just it's like, you know, your passport
being found. Like, these kind of anomalies don't
really make sense, especially with how consistently they
happen and are the one missing piece they
need to go after the thing they want
you to see. And it says Robinson eventually
surrendered to authorities in his hometown in in
Southern Utah thirty three hours after they slain
after his parents and a family friend convinced
him to turn himself in rather than take
his own life. But then why is he
not now admitting or claiming that he's never
confessed?
At least unless they unless that happened over
the last day and I didn't see it.
So you're seeing the point. Right? Where exactly
did this encounter take place?
I've looked at multiple articles about this. Nowhere
does it say anything other than this part
where it says law enforcement search the area,
tell them to, well, first it says,
where was it?
This first one here too. It says the
officer was guarding the perimeter
after authorities placed the campus on lockdown,
and the encounter appears. The encounter
guys, I mean, look. What does the what
does encounter mean?
Unexpectedly
experience or to be faced with something wait.
Unexpectedly encounter means unexpectedly?
That's not even what it says down there.
That's weird. That's just new to me. Unexpectedly
experience. But it says meet by chance. Yeah.
I guess that's weird. I always thought encounter
just meant, like, bumping, you know, I guess,
yeah, bumping in. It does mean kind of
by chance. But so you bump into. You
encounter. Right? That means
contact of some kind, at least seeing. Right?
But it says,
and the encounter appears to have thwarted his
attempt.
So what are we saying here? Are you
saying that he saw you?
Or are you saying that you guys that's
that wouldn't be an encounter.
You get what I'm saying? This is just
weird, guys. Everything about this is strange.
Now, again, the main points are back to
square one. We don't know whether for sure
whether this person was part of any leaning,
yet everyone wants to scream that and accuse
each other of crimes for saying what we
don't know for sure.
And the story has shocking inconsistencies. It's all
99%
based on some weird text message back and
forth that we can't even verify took place
or that they've repurposed and edited many times
already, given a different views, see an ended
one,
and yet he's not confessed.
You there's so much about this that's and
on top of that, guys, the real point
is they're using all of this to scream
into things that are counter to what Charlie
Kirk himself said shouldn't be the case.
Everything's wrong about this whole thing if you're
being honest with yourself.
Now here's another example.
This one recently, Dallas, with ice.
And it's it's almost worse, to be honest,
in the sense of how why how, like,
manipulated
like, what they're doing with this story, it's
like it's like a a repurposing of the
same thing, except the evidence is in a
very different skew. Now ice before we get
into it, there's a few examples I wanna
show you of just kind of setting the
table. And, also, let's not forget the I
mean, how many stories have we covered since
this started?
I can't even count. A verifiable realities of
American citizens being borderline deported or deported,
of innocent people who aren't criminals
with legal standing in this country being thrown
in jail, having their visas and green cards
revoked for illegal reasons and being deported. I
mean, it's just it's it's or military veterans,
MAGA supporters.
I've gone over all these stories. And you
see the the the ones out there screaming
about their, you know, the the typical mainstream
alternative media types don't care about those stories,
which means they don't care about you as
a MAGA person who voted for Trump if
your nor story makes Trump look bad.
Here's another one. ICE mistakenly tases and taint
attains an American citizen in Chicago, leaving him
hospitalized.
No big deal, though. Right? Oopsie. Things like
that happen when you're blindly going after people
with brown skin color with no justification and
then don't care about that.
Like, the story went over where they shot
at a family full of or or a
car full of a family.
Shot at it. I'll I'll make this reference
in a second. They opened fire on a
car with a family in it because they
drove away not knowing what was going on.
I keep the reality is there are people
I keep showing you these stories. The ones
I've seen so far, people dressing up in
other police or ice fests that they got
off online, Amazon,
and robbing, raping,
all sorts of crime.
That we cover both those stories. They happened.
And I've probably far more than we can
realize.
So I I mean, I've been willing to
bet you there's more than we can see.
My point is even without that,
if nobody which by the way they're doing
is if nobody identifying themselves,
if they're wearing masks, they're not presenting warrants.
You're in fact legally allowed to not comply
despite the fact that they don't care about
that. They'll still probably take violence against you,
so consider that. But just like you're driving
on the highway and your cop lights up
behind you, the legal reality is that if
you feel unsafe where you are, you can
keep driving until you find a safe location.
That's the reality. But you know every cop
in the world is gonna act like you're
running if you go longer than thirty seconds.
So or if you just don't know that
it's a cop.
Like, do you do you realize there's actually
stories of people that can fake being a
cop and and drive, like, on a back
highway and pull a woman over and rape
her on the street? It's a horrible story.
Look it up. It's happened more than once.
So knowing that is why those things exist
because maybe you just don't know for sure.
But so in this case,
in cases like this,
people
don't know for sure what's happening
because of what those stories are. They're not
identifying themselves. They're not giving warrants. And so
they're within their rights to be like, I
don't feel safe in this situation. So what
I'm referencing is a family where they come
up on them, and it was proven later
that they didn't have a warrant. They didn't
have any information. So they profiled them, went
up to the car.
They said, get out of the car. The
guy said, for what? What's going on? Who
are you? I don't know what you've identified
yourself. And they bashed the window in within,
like, ten seconds, so he takes off.
Doesn't hit them despite the lies. He drives
away, and they open fire on his car.
I mean, this this is the craziest part
of that story, guys. They literally decided and
these are like the bounty hunter types, guys.
These are not real these people know they're
not accountable right now, and they open fire
on the car.
Then he drives back to his house, calls
the police because that's what criminals do. Right?
And he says, I don't know what just
happened. I'm I'm afraid.
Then the FBI, the AT, they all show
up and surround his house. Apparently, like a
ten hour stand up. They finally get him
to come outside. This is a shocking story,
but it's easy to look up. I've talked
about it twice.
He comes outside.
They take him into custody, and they let
him go.
And they literally argue, sanctuary city.
Now they claim he ran people over with
that car, and that's why they opened fire.
So are you gonna pretend that you believe
that the police are on like, barely accountable
people like this are gonna say, you ran
us over with a car, but we're gonna
let you go because you're in a sanctuary
city? That doesn't even make sense. That's not
how that actually works out. So the problem
is after the story,
they went back a week later and arrested
him, took him to court. And in court,
they were forced to admit that nobody actually
got hurt. They didn't run him over. No
cop was injured. And guess what happened?
He went to
jail. That's the reality of where we are
in the world right now. This guy didn't
break the law. He wasn't here illegally.
They they literally
abuse him and his rights by doing what
they did. He drives away. They open fire
on his family,
claim they ran them over, and that's why
they open fire, then have to admit that
didn't happen, and yet he still goes to
jail.
Because
they enter the claim was
injuring,
assault on an officer.
And yet somehow despite an injury or despite
evidence or actually evidence on the video that
proves it didn't happen, he still went to
jail. Like, we are at a very dangerous
time, guys, and this is important to understand.
So this story,
ICE mistakenly tases and detains a citizen, happens
every day.
In Chicago, an alarming incident unfolded when ICE
agents wrongfully tased and attained a US citizen,
mistaking him for an undocumented immigrant. And how
do you think that happens? Because there's not
a warrant going on. They're going up. They're
brown people. Rounding them up and then going,
oops. You're a citizen. You can go.
That is criminal activity. That's on that is
textbook
unconstitutional.
That is inconsistent with our values in this
country, but they don't care.
So the reality is if you mistook him
for this person, then you were going after
anybody around them. And this is what keeps
happening.
A natural born American, he was born here,
was hospitalized after the encounter
when they used
a taser, which can kill somebody.
But they don't care, guys. This happens every
single day. But, see, what's even worse is
that there are people out there screaming about
MAGA and America First who don't care. This
American citizen was abused by the Gestapo in
this country.
Here's another example. This one really bothers me
because of just whatever you look. Look. I
don't care if this person was,
you know,
let's just just say an illegal alien.
I mean, you can go as far as
you want. I don't care if this person
was some kind of like, the reality is
a woman is standing in front of this
ICE officers
crying,
trying to get her to release the per
whether it's justified or not, whether or not
she was
you know, whether or not that guy well,
that's the West Wing frame, whether that guy
was in jail for real justifiable reasons.
The lack of empathy and the the the
the the like, this person clearly hates these
people. That's my opinion.
The lack of empathy towards the person while
they're suffering and acting this way shows you
an insight into the kind of people that
are doing this.
Mehdi Hasan says, if this is not fascism,
then I don't really know what is. I
don't think it's the best point because violence
does not necessarily mean fascism. Fascism is pretty
specific, and I think we are seeing that
very clearly. But this is just an example
of just government violence against people,
innocent people in this case, because she's not
being arrested. She's just petitioning him to, you
know, please let my husband go. So check
this out.
This is beyond the pale for me.
And then and and you might have seen
this going around.
This started
with a, oh, and then it's it's also
oops. It's also a video that Timcast posted,
of course, basically making fun of them, you
know, his typical way.
There it is.
So
before we play it,
this is where it started,
where you might have seen this kind of
circulating. Right?
It says a legal alien desperately holds on
to his wife and kids as they resist
his arrest at by mass ICE agents outside
New York City. Now I'm actually not,
immersed. Like, I'm not fully aware of this
person individual's full story, which is not really
the point for me. It's about the way
they treated this woman. But the the reality
of all the other stories we've seen I
mean, look. They just talked about an American
citizen. They detained and hate and tased, and
they were like, whoops. You can go. Like,
how you know, why we would take at
face value that these people are all guilty
is insanely stupid to me. Why? There's no
reason to. When they have been caught lying
repeatedly left and right, they lie to you
all the time. But that's not the point,
though. All I'm saying is that it may
very well turn out this person was not
a criminal, and they just did it anyway.
But this this is probably gonna upset you.
It it upset me because just watching the
way that they treat people in general.
Oh,
oh, and her children are there too, by
the way.
For what? What are you doing? What legal
what legal reality do you have?
Disgusting.
Like, you you clearly
like, to me, that's hatred.
You a human being has more empathy for
somebody suffering like that in any context unless
you've dehumanized them.
She's I mean, look. Watch this again. And
you tell me what what world does this
person have a legal right to do this?
You you can sue this person, and you
should because you didn't do anything. He touched
he grabbed you first.
I'll send it to him. He's saying adios.
Okay. Fine. He's saying go. Go. Bye. Get
away. Goodbye. Doesn't touch him.
Well, I guess you could argue she bare
I think and that's what he took advantage
of, to be honest.
She her her arm brushed his side.
You can watch for yourself a slow motion,
fast motion. I mean, I bare I almost
didn't even see it until just then.
Right there. She's going, please. That's what she's
doing. She's trying to find some kind of
empathy. Please be a human being. Now whether
or not you think you should do it,
whether or not you think legally, it doesn't
matter. That's not the point. It's the kind
of person we're talking about with the masked
agents behind them.
And watch what he does. I know. He
did it.
Do you think that was necessary,
or was that desired?
We seriously should be ashamed of ourselves right
now that we're ever allowing something like that.
And I mean just in any context. American,
otherwise.
Like, at what point did we stop pretending
like people just didn't have like, would you
stop having empathy for average people because they
weren't from a certain place or didn't have
a certain color?
Jeez. It just kills
me. You know? And then somehow by, like,
having some level of empathy for people makes
you some kind of a snowflake while Tim
clutches his pearls about mean words called a
bully. You know? Clearly, there's a very obvious
sort of bro flake snowflake thing going on
on the partisan sides. Well, they love to
reject that onto people that are just human
beings.
This is an interesting overlap, by the way.
This is just I just wanna include this
because it's about this the way you have
people on the left or rather on the
right, partisan is really the point, but people
on the right talking about the left.
And and, really, the larger point as Trump's
already floated is that you're you're you're only
an American if you have certain ideas. Right?
You can be born here. You can be
natural, but it doesn't matter. You're not really
an American, which was what keeps happening. Lumer
and the rest going, American citizens in congress,
in many some natural born, some otherwise,
naturalized,
doesn't make a difference in principle. In reality,
legal reality, that is a you're a citizen
just as much as any of the rest
of us.
Doesn't re doesn't change the reality of your
constitutional rights.
In this case,
it's another example of an American citizen
who became an American citizen when she was
a child, who
now they're claiming
needs to be deported.
Why? Because she made a statement, and this
is actually an older clip. I'll show you
where the context comes from, to make an
argument, not that that older, but not immediately
from today, to make an argument for why
even if somebody's an illegal alien, that doesn't
make them what they're trying to turn them
into.
And, ultimately, she became somebody who earned her
citizenship, became somebody in congress, and blah blah
blah. Right? So my point is twofold is
that one, that just going after people for
not being American enough, which is very reminiscent
to this, you know, dystopian movies about our
future.
But also people like this who works for
Blaze TV,
not able to do the smallest amount of
due diligence to realize that that's not the
full context.
And by the way, I found it interesting.
I just happened to see this while I
was looking through. The people like this, and
there's more of them you realize, who work
for BlazeTV, you know, Glenn Beck, she has
442,000
followers, follows me.
I don't follow her.
I'm telling you guys, you can quite easily
prove that a lot of these people siphon
off our content from a lot of us
because they've got major, like, gigantically more larger
platforms.
And they just stand on people's work, and
they shove it out all the time. They
do it all the time. It's worth pointing
out. I mean, I guarantee if you look
at the content, these people don't agree with
me, but they sure as hell follow me,
watch what we're talking about, and use certain
way. You get the point. Just worth pointing
out.
Here she is saying, hey, Tom Homan.
I think we both know what needs to
happen next.
Okay. Here she is saying, I'm illegal in
this country, and my parents are legal too.
Define else post that.
Right.
Okay. So now we're in the business of
just taking one clip on the Internet and
then calling for policy action?
These are people actually in positions of power.
Think about how insane that is. I'm gonna
I'm gonna show you in a second that
she is a citizen. But the, you know,
the point is these people just put this
out.
And Minnesota state prison have just admitted to
being an illegal alien.
You know, tag ice.
Like, okay. You have to understand. These are
people
with wait. 97,001,700,000
views. These are people with audiences. This person
has
1,600,000
followers, defiant l's, and they are sharing this
out because they don't have I don't even
think they know the definition of due diligence
because it works for their partisan side. But
the real example is somebody like this. You're
supposed to be a journalist.
Right?
So now you just see a video and
tag tag, Tom Homan,
somebody at a, you know, literally with the
power to take action and say, we don't
both need. So you didn't even look, You
didn't even take the time to look into
her background. Yeah. That's embarrassing. This person says,
calm down. This was addressed in June when
that partial clip was first put out for
obviously deceptive reasons. Here's Fox News.
My family broke the law to come here.
Full context. It says her last name is
Her, h e r. So she Her is
a citizen who was a Hmong refugee from
Laos with her family with her family in
nineteen seventies.
You know, and, you know, let's not forget
the re the history of what went down
in the conversation. You know, it's funny how
the country loves to pretend like we're there
for people when they need them, but then
this kind of thing. But it says her
her father found a way to skip the
step and get her into The United States
faster. Yes. And you that's a crime. Right?
Sure.
Then, you know, the point though,
her legal documentation
and or she her representative of her had
legal documentation, and she was naturalized in junior
high school. Her family has been naturalized as
well.
So sure. You know, it's interesting to find
out if they went after the father after
all this time. They certainly could try it,
and it would very much make the petty
case that they've they're that that's what they're
doing for partisan reasons.
But think about the, the the claims, the
statements. It's circulating. And this is getting a
lot of attention. People now calling for her
to be deported. She's an American citizen, but
they don't care because they people like this
on both sides of the paradigm, they go
off of memes,
talking points.
Don't think. They don't investigate. There's no due
diligence.
And that is how they're used.
Here's DOC.
This person has 27,000
followers. He's an attorney even.
And he says, deport them all.
No one is above the law.
Right.
An American citizen.
Now, as you may have seen, there's a
shooting in Dallas.
This was yesterday reported.
Sniper. Again, another sniper from roof. Again, used
a ladder to get up there. Again, at
least that's what they claimed the first time,
turned out to be false the first time.
We'll see if it turns out to be
false the second time.
You know, it's funny, though. It's just like
the first case where it was like, the
guy in the blue shirt, a left liberal
boomer. We knew it. And ran across the
whole media, and that turned out not to
be the guy. But the narrative didn't stop.
The narrative just kept going until they filled
it in with a new person, but the
narrative stayed the same. Funny how that works.
Same kind of thing everywhere else you look,
guys. There's a game right now to just
like Trump did with Wuhan.
Grab the microphone before anyone could speak and
scream the narrative we were supposed to repeat,
and that carried with people until this very
day without any evidence.
And even then, you could prove what he
said there is a blatant lie because The
US was directly involved with everything he was
pointing to. But
three ICE detainees
shot, not night the ICE members.
Now briefly, it says a a sniper reportedly
shot three ICE detainees in Dallas early Wednesday
morning. At least one of those has died.
The victim or the shooting happened at 06:30AM
at the Dallas ICE facility on North Stemmons
Freeway. Sources have identified the shooter as 29
year old Joshua Yon. He died from his
self inflicted gunshot wound.
And it says none of the victims are
law enforcement officers, officials confirmed, and it says
he also said rounds
found near the shooter contained
messages that were anti ice in nature. Well,
they weren't anti ice in nature. They were
quite literally
written anti ice on where is it? I
went too
far. I thought there's a bigger picture in
there. Here it is.
We're not. There we go.
Quite literally
have unfired rounds,
which is interesting seeing as how the one
shot was fired,
and one of them with a pen
is written anti ice.
I mean, seriously? Like, this is so ridiculous
to me. Like, is it possible? Of course
it is. But so just like squad car,
who writes anti ice? Does is that what
people call themselves?
I've never I mean, you argue it makes
sense grammatically,
but you I've never even seen somebody be
like, I'm anti ice. You know? Point is,
it feels like what you're trying to call
somebody as opposed to what they would say
themselves.
Right? Which might even make sense with if
this was something he wrote if you factor
in what it seems his ideas were about
the world. We'll get to that in a
second. And that's not it's sort of like
a burn the world down, all politics, or
all everyone's ridiculous kind of do they call
it? What how would they call it in
this thing? A, edge lord, right, which Elon
called himself before.
These are people that, like, they they liked
it's like I keep talking about. I think
that's a huge part of this conversation today.
They wanna see the world burn. They like
watching everybody fight each other. They just kinda
stick in a they want outrage and trolling.
Right?
Which arguably is kind of aligned with the
right for most people's minds, but it doesn't
prove anything with, I think, today. I think
most people exist sort of in this middle
ground right now and have different leanings. I
think that's because people are starting to see
through all of this.
But
that, by the way, came out because
Kash Patel shared it before everybody knew what
was going on, as usual. But Tim Pool
comes out before anybody knows. Right? And just
this is first what happened. So he post
this.
Cash Patel.
Ten o 10:47AM,
September 24 says, this morning, just before 7AM,
an individual fired multiple rounds at Dallas, Texas
ice facility, killing one, wounding several others before
taking his own life.
And it says, while the investigation is ongoing,
meaning we don't know yet,
he says, shows ideological motive.
The left is what he means.
So he knows the narrative. He knows what
Trump wants from him. He comes out and
throw this is wildly irresponsible from somebody in
the how often have we heard them go,
I can't comment on an ongoing investigation,
but sure as hell can tweet it out
in in order to shove it into the
direction of what you want the narrative to
be.
Many people were like, did he just write
that and throw it on the ground? The
point is that you can't if you if
you're supposed to not be able to comment
on an investigation, then why'd you do it
right now?
I I argue half the time they could
they should just have they say that to
get away from commenting anyway.
But this was child this was irresponsible. You
are doing it for an obvious reason at
a time when we don't even know. You
haven't even caught it was it's still being
investigated.
It's just sad to me how obvious that
is. And
Tim Pool is a journalist and came out
and was like, let's question authority.
No. He blindly came out and said, wow.
Wow. Law enforcement found rounds next to the
shooter with anti ice on it. More left
wing terrorism.
Right? The rebels fight the deep state. We're
like, what the government say? Oh, that's the
truth. End of story.
I'm not saying it's necessarily false, but I'm
just going, come on, guys. When you see
these people are they didn't this is Kash
Patel posting an image on Twitter,
and he just goes, that's the thing. Truth.
That just needs to be made fun of
even if it turns out to be true.
This person is a blind repeater.
And, of course, even mister old man says,
we deserve better psyops.
I just think it's interesting where this all
goes.
So he posts
that.
Here's what David, historian has to say. Shell
casings that say anti ice instead of something
like f ice or abolish ice or something
else that an actual human being would say.
Come on, man. This is so obviously fake.
Well, you can decide.
This is The Guardian. Dallas shooting suspect left
anti ice notes, but wasn't part of any
specific group.
Okay. So interestingly, falling in line just like
the other one, but yet they're already
immediately.
Vance, Trump, all of the ridiculous morons on
Twitter who call themselves patriot. You know, I
mean, the team sports side of it. Not
to insult anybody who actually wants to make
America great again and is willing to call
out the ways that's not happening.
Or even if you believe he's doing all
the right things that you're just, you know,
or or arguably
are aware like, I guess I shouldn't even
say it like that because, look, you can't
see what they're doing and argue it's going
in the right direction if you're being honest
with yourself. So I take it back. But
not part of any group.
Just like you before, you can't argue you
know because it's there's zero evident zero proof
that he's aligned with any specific group.
Now when you get into the evidence points,
it's not like the other one.
There's not, like, fifty fifty evidence here. In
this one, it seems to be pretty hard
leaning in one direction, but I would still
argue that it doesn't prove he's on the
right. It maybe just proves that he is,
you know, in some kind of a kind
of a right adjacent
group in the sense of, like, the chat
rooms, different things, but doesn't believe he's right.
And that matters to me. Libertarian,
whatever. That you just see, and you're calling
out all these different people, which is what
people were saying, his friends, and we'll get
to it. That he kinda just made fun
of all of them, which is kind of
what I think is going on largely with
a lot of this stuff today, including people
like this possibly, like, actually getting radicalized in
the sense of, like, maybe intentionally by the
government or maybe just because what they're doing
literally does drive people into more and more
radical positions. And I think that's by design.
That's not left and right. It's about people
they can abuse,
Like,
for example,
this one, which you've seen before,
written by the the Free Thought Project.
Parents catch FBI in plot to force mentally
ill son to be right wing terrorist.
Just some examples in the left, guys. But
in regard to them trying to entrap people
on either side of the paradigm. Right now,
that's what I think is happening in a
large degree, especially once we get into the
idea that Jones is telling you false flags
are coming to trick you and well, I
prob I agree in a sense that probably
in ways that he'll point to as the
other side when in reality, it's the government
trying to use these things to convince you
that they're doing these things. Just by the
way, like we said about the other side,
when it was all these claims of domestic
vanilla ISIS terrorists and their red hats and,
look, we found evidence that the right wing
did it.
And I think there's a lot of this
being manufactured
by the usual suspects, by the way.
But this is pointing out no political affiliation.
Authority said on Thursday that the words of
the suspect in the shooting on Wednesday in
an ICE detention facility in Texas were definitively
anti ICE.
Maybe because it literally said anti ice. Like,
that's a funny way to say that, isn't
it? Definitive well,
I mean,
at face value, it literally says anti ice.
So it just kind of a funny way
to be like, well, we confirmed that it
says the thing that it says. But it
says, but said that they did not find
evidence that the suspect was a member of
any specific group or entity, nor did he
mention any specific government agencies other than ICE.
Okay. Well, you realize a lot of people,
even on the right, are able to call
out what ICE is doing today as wildly
unconstitutional.
So to me, this
is an effort, even if this is organic,
to throw it into one side for their
agenda, like any of the sides do. So
why would Trump and Vance and Jones and
everybody else come out and scream crazy left
when they don't know that?
Like I just said, because that's their agenda.
At a news conference on Thursday afternoon, Texas
authorities provided more detail on the shooting investigation
describing messages and notes
they found at the suspect's residence.
Here we go again. Now I'm not saying
we should we don't blindly assume because the
FBI, we know fake. Right? Just like don't
assume because left is not true or vice
versa. Very well could be the case, but
question it. Because as somebody says here, I
may jump ahead.
It's right
there. Now we're here. Hold on.
I think it's this one. Yeah. Just a
screenshot of somebody. I just want I just
wanted to remind me to point this out.
Here's what this person said. Not familiar with
him. Sawyer Hackett. He says they've created a
situation
where it's impossible to trust the FBI. You
could just say impossible to trust authority, but
he's right. The FBI in particular and federal
law enforcement in cruel there you go. He
said that too. In crisis situations.
So you say they've created a situation where
it's impossible to trust them left or right.
He says they lie constantly. They spin before
we know basic facts. We all see this,
guys. Some people just are unable to look
at their own side, but we can at
least point out on the other side. Right?
And it says they instantly politicize tragedies.
Why the f should we trust them?
That's what I mean. That's one of the
most valid object
objectively clear thing we could talk about right
now. The FBI lies
as, like, a matter of policy. It's like
when they're they they lie like they're breathing.
The Trump administration, the Biden administration,
anything happens, their objective is to seize it
and use it for their benefit. That's what
they do.
So when you're talking about this,
about the notes and so on,
the the the logical thing to do, not
conspiracy theory, but based on precedent, facts, the
reality is to go, well, that could be
a lie. Now, really, you should do that
in any context. But this pushback that somehow,
like, you're un American from the right or,
you know, that you're like, it's just weird
what you get, the flip flopping of the
sides
is they could have just as easily made
that note and lied about it for their
own purposes. And if you think that's not
possible, I just think you're lying to yourself.
I'm not saying I know that happened or
I even necessarily
believe that as a matter of fact. I
think it's possible.
Just like we have this weird text message
thing, you'll see it's worth questioning whether this
is something like that.
Nancy Larson, acting US attorney for the Northern
District Of Texas, said on Thursday that authorities
found a collection of notes at the suspect's
residence
with one of the notes allegedly saying, yes.
It was me.
That's where Elijah's like, come on. Damn it.
You know? It's it's just so ridiculous.
Maybe, though. I mean, it's that's not that
crazy. Somebody might well do that because they
wanted to be known because he wanted to
be lionized. I don't know.
But he's not here to speak for himself.
So how do we know? And the point
the guy makes is very well taken. We
have every reason to believe they could lie
about this. It's not some kind of crazy
idea. They've done it before.
Quote, notably, these loose notes
included a game plan of the attack
and target areas at the facility. Feels very
similar to what we just saw. Right? He
called the ICE employees people showing up to
collect a dirty paycheck.
So at this point, if we know
the people that were shot were
detainees,
the evidence of what site is on isn't
very clear. It does say anti ice, so
that's one thing, but I'm kind of suspicious
about that whole thing. But it there to
data point.
You can't make the argument this was necessarily
about the ICE people versus the detainees or
how you wanna frame this. I mean, it
seems to lean more towards the ICE personnel,
but what I think is interesting is how
their their effort is to make it only
about that when you don't know for sure.
Anybody objective would say that we can't necessarily
prove that just yet, but that's what you
get from Noam and the rest of them.
And then on top of that, the only
things you get that push it further in
the direction that it was about ICE, but
in particular, is the weird notes that happened
to make the case very clear.
Larson said the suspect wrote that he intended
to maximize lethality against ICE personnel and to
maximize property damage at the facility, which neither
really happened, and said that it seems that
he did not intend to kill the detainees
or harm them.
It's clear from these notes that he was
targeting ICE agents and ICE personnel.
So the notes tell you, quote, he also
hoped that his actions would give ICE agents
real terror and being gunned down, and he
did this to induce constant stress in their
lives. Well, this does to feel very much
like exactly what the Trump administration is using
to push in the removal of your rights.
And it says among his papers, Larson said
that they also found a handwritten note in
which he said he's the, the suspect, quote,
expressed his hatred for the federal government.
Ah, and now you get to the point
of where I think this is the larger
idea that anybody now who is questioning the
government interest, which is what Biden rolled out
in his domestic terrorism thing that Trump is
now using today, argues that you're a threat
because you question government intentions.
They both are doing this right now. Larson
also revealed that the suspect was seen on
footage around 3AM
on Wednesday driving with a large ladder on
his car that they believe was used to
position him. How interesting and coincidentally was that?
Or he climbed up the side. Like, what's
this weird thing with the ladder in the
argument? It doesn't seem like it's even necessary
part of the story. But it says Marcos
Charles,
an ICE official,
also said on Thursday that the suspect used
ICE tracking apps to monitor the movement of
federal agents.
How would an ICE official
even be involved in how do they know
that? Or is ICE, who's an immigration element
investigating the no. That would be FBI. Right?
So why is ICE speaking about the information
or I mean, maybe they told them that.
It feels off to me. The tracking app.
Oh, now it's do you see the left
tracking them? And it's all that's the left
terrorism. We have to shut down the track
with the the monitoring of authorities?
I mean, you realize how insane this is
because they're not wearing they're wearing masks when
they're illegally.
They're wearing masks. That's illegal. They're not presenting
warrants, and that's illegal. They're not identifying themselves.
That's illegal.
Those don't matter, apparently, but they're they're trying
to hold us accountable.
Now I'm not saying that individual, like, doxing
apps, but the idea of tracking who is
where is your legal rights, by the way.
Authorities.
What what they're trying to do is go,
but they're gonna hurt them.
Now what so you're telling me these authority
people are afraid to be in danger even
though the job is literally about putting their
lives in nature to protect us? You're just
making a story and this game about a
thousand percent increase. We'll talk about that next.
They're making this up, guys. They're straight up
making the only thing that comes from his
home and saying that out loud.
But it says Patel also said that between
eighteen August and August 24, Kash Patel,
the suspect searched
apps that tracked the presence of a ICE
agents.
The FBI director added that so searching this
and now for therefore proved that he was
using it, I guess. But it says the
FBI director added that authorities also recovered a
handwritten note, which read, hopefully this will give
ice agents real terror to think. Is there
a sniper about the fire?
I don't know. You you could, I mean,
what it's it's just hard to tell anymore.
These things feel ridiculous to me, but I
don't know. We're in a weird place. I
just I'm not gonna pretend that I know
for sure it's fake like some people will
do in the reverse. That's just as ridiculous,
but my god. It just feels
wildly on the nose. And this is Patel
added further accumulated evidence to this point indicates
a high degree of pre attack planning.
Really?
So a tracking app
shows you where they are, but somehow only
hit detainees
pre like, but they they high degree of
pre attack planning, but also on a roof
shot randomly and then just didn't. I mean,
none of this makes any sense, except when
you realize the narrative is being constructed in
a way that argues exactly what they need
to make their case for what they're doing.
So we he could this is my point.
You could argue that the shooting happened completely
randomly, and then they still constructed this weird
narrative over it for their agenda and threw
some bullets on the ground or whatever. Like,
that's very likely, in my opinion, with where
we are in the world. But don't argue
that unless we can prove it. It's just
simply understanding what the FBI is capable of,
what they've done,
and why and this and especially with this
recent one and how odd this feels. The
new developments come and and one, by the
way, the idea that you should be ashamed
or not allowed to simply ask these questions
or consider these possibilities
is exactly part of the problem. Now do
people abuse that? The the Stu Peters types
of the world yet to go out there
and just propose a bunch of BS things
and act like they're just, oh, just asking
questions and push a bunch of narratives and
build on that and make stories based on
things they can't prove? Yes. Is there a
right to do that? Yes. Free speech. They
say what they want. They can do what
they want. People go out there and blatantly
lie to you every day from ridiculous, you
know, the people's voice and whatever. Just nonsense
all the time when they have a right
to do it. The government lies to you
every single day, guys. That's the point is
if you're gonna re I mean, question everything
is the point. Not that the government should
be lying to you. That's a different situation.
The point is question everything
is the point.
The new developments come as Donald Trump has
blamed the shooting on the radical left terrorists
and the Democrat party apparently. See, radical left,
meaning the ones that are radical, but then
the Democrat party.
So the core reality of the
do if if you wanna understand my opinion
about the both your yeah. You could argue
that clearly if you just point out that
they're both part of the same government who's
manipulating your life.
But he says, without citing official evidence of
any specific affiliations, party politics, or motives because
he can say that and the Jones and
Nixon sorters, they'll they'll just lie about the
list, repeat what he says, hashtag winning.
The US president wrote on social media the
day of the Dallas attack, quote, this violence
is the result of the radical left Democrats
constantly demonizing law enforcement. Okay. So now criticizing
law enforcement
is why people took violent action?
So now you're not allowed to criticize law
enforcement? I'm not saying that. But you're you're
clearly using this to stepping stone. You're saying
because they criticized the government,
bad things happened.
Are we really going to allow that? How
simple that is calling for ice to be
demolished and okay. Maybe people think it should
be demolished. What if what? So if I
say the government shouldn't exist, which you know
is much more as a much bigger point
They're that's what they're already doing. They're already
right now, so too is Biden, arguing that
people who are anti government are
terrorists.
Now can that drive someone to take radical?
Sure. Just like any other position could if
they drive it far enough. But it's also
just an opinion based on what I believe
the world should be like. And how dare
I have opinions that don't align with the
majority of people?
Or comparing officers to Nazis. Right? You mean
like you did? Like, you guys called them
Nazis, called them social fascist comment. Yep. Or
Vance called Trump Hitler.
So I guess that's not the same thing,
though. Right? JD Vance made political comments comments
before a suspect had even been named.
I it's just this is in this is
just childish, guys. It's so very clear.
Now same point, eye shooting suspect wasn't really
into politics. This gets a little more specific,
though,
saying he wasn't really into politics at all.
Not not and not even like that he
became more recently, just that he wasn't into
politics. And it says, John, Ken Klippenstein has
quoted unnamed former friends of John as saying
that he cultivated an ironic personal persona
online and forums such as the anonymous,
message board, Fourchan,
which I mean, let's be real.
I mean, there's somebody somebody makes the point
in a second. Do you I I don't
know many left wing people that often go
on for Chan outside of trolling a minute
like this. So the point is this guy
was a regular, and it was a part
of the chat room. It was there. So
that but that doesn't also mean that you
have to say right for sure. People can
exist in these groups and maybe believe themselves
to be politically independent or libertarian, which is
what the argument is.
And it says and he had contempt for
mainstream politics. This is where I think a
lot of people are going. One friend who
reportedly knew the shooter since he was eight
said he was never into politics and especially
not politicians. He was into politics only in
the four chance sense. Contrarian, pro
provocative,
boundary pushing for laughs, non not conviction.
Now look. This is somebody's opinion, his friends,
and then you could also question a clip
of sign, you know, maybe misinformed. Right? The
point though is that you could look for
yourself about the evidence of his engagement, and
it does not seem to be what they're
claiming. The friend suggested that John had become
increasingly socially isolated after he dropped out. So
right here though, you wonder if there is
some kind of, like, an like, a manipulative
element to this, like,
some kind of intelligence operation to focus in
on people who are, you know, able to
be manipulated.
That seems like the kind of category we're
talking about.
And he says he dropped out of college,
lost many of his friends due to overly
provocative behavior.
One friend told Klippenstein that he had stopped
talking to him because he had become unbearable
due to taking his fort and irony stuff
to daily interactions.
Quote, if you're having trouble finding people besides
immediate family who knew him, that's part of
the story of every every mutual friend drifted
away because of his edge lord behavior. Now
you mean look. I I'm objective enough to
say that I can't I'm not gonna argue
that prove that he's right,
but it sure as hell a lifetime away
from the left part of the conversation. I'm
I would argue with probably somebody in the
middle, which is where most people are, which
I've said already.
But can you imagine them trying to make
this into a left only thing with what
this all shows you?
The point is they argue that the anti
ice was a was one of his sort
of, like,
commentary things, but I don't know.
That's the point. I don't know. And neither
do they, but they're sure as hell willing
to drive it in to
create policy off of it and go off
to the left.
It says what we know is that Dallas,
Texas ICE facility was fired on by violent
left wing extremists, says JD Vance.
Really?
Before you even have a cussed someone in
custody because it says anti ice, like, this
is what made me feel very early on
that that was something that was deliberately put
there.
But it says for months, we've been warning
politicians and the media to tone down their
rhetoric about ICE law enforcement. See? Now you
killed somebody is what they're doing. There that's
where they're going with it. Far left,
says Christy Noe.
Let the TikTok.
The FBI investigation into Dallas ice shooter reveals
downloaded a list of DHS facilities.
Okay. That could be literally anybody anywhere. Repeated
searches of Charlie Kirk shooting. Well, that sounds
more like a right, doesn't it? Tracking ICE
agent movements through apps.
You could pretend that means left alone if
you wanna be completely subjective. Handwritten note saying,
hopefully, this gives ICE agents real terror. Okay.
Even that, by the way. I know plenty
of Republicans that are very upset about how
they're destroying the constitution. But it says, watch
Democrats continue to deny he's a radical leftist
lunatic.
Live to TikTok. These people are the most
ridiculous. 4,000,000 views, followers.
My point is they don't know that. They're
saying that because that's what they want you
to think, and they're
manipulating people's opinions. And they have a right
to do it. That's free speech. We have
a right to point out how dumb they
are. That's also free speech.
Matt Vaughn Swall says, oh, this is, JD
Vance.
This post here
where he says the gunman,
John Favreau, points out a community note
where JD Vance says the obsessive attack on
law enforcement, particularly ICE, must stop. I'm praying
for everyone that hurt this attack for their
families.
This person says according to the ICE spokesman,
the three individuals
shot were ICE detainees,
leaving two individuals dead, one injured. So you
could argue they were aiming for ICE, but
you can't prove that. You don't know for
sure. Right? But they just make it what
they want. Even if you think it's most
likely, you can't
they are selling you on what they want
the narrative to be. This person says the
vice president is not a reliable source of
information. Neither is any politician. They lie to
you every day. This is now the fifth
or sixth time he's posted a political take
contradicted by the facts of his own law
enforcement. He's true. He's right. JD Vance says
the gunman had anti ice messaging carved on
the bullets. Oh, it was carved. Was it?
Was it carved JD Vance or was it
written with a pen?
You see my point, guys? They're repeating as
well. They're these guys are narrative controllers. They're
bad at it.
What precisely did I get wrong?
All could dip shit, he said. Sorry for
cussing. I wanna make the point. That's what
he said. So what'd you get wrong? That
it wasn't carved from the bullet, you clown,
but it doesn't matter.
And this person says, I I think the
suggested content in the community notes says it
all.
Not sure why it's so difficult to give
people a full story. Detainees were murdered by
a sniper, and anti ice was found on
a bullet. That seems to happen. This this
seems to happen quite a bit quite a
bit with you, he says. It's a statistical
fact that most of the lunatics in American
politics today are proud members of the far
left,
not a statistical
fact, not even what a single online poll
was saying. And you could point out that
this is manipulated like I always do, just
like I think it's manipulated, that these argue
that all the right wing radicals because of
the red hats and trucker convoys, which is
where that really comes from, ADL manipulation of
the data, which is why most of the
studies do in fact say the right is
the problem because they built that narrative over
the last four years or, you know, more
than that.
So I can easily point out that I
think that's objectively manipulated, but I can also
point out that they're lying when they say
the data says it's on the left because
it doesn't. So it's just insane.
I this is why innocent people, average people
are able to go, come on.
Like, I want to believe this because I'm
a I'm a Republican or vice versa, but
you guys are ridiculous today, and the world
sees it.
You threatened George Soros' Open Society Foundation based
on a lie that they found they funded
a nation article that you didn't like. They
do that all the time. Now can I
obviously point out that Soros and his machine
have manipulated
politics his entire yes?
Exact same things represent in the web. Look
at Peter Thiel. It's the same thing. The
point is that he said this about something
he couldn't prove. Doesn't matter that it's real
or not. It's about the general idea that
anything bad is because of some left machine,
which is possible, but I care about evidence.
Don't don't you?
You get the point.
But he says, I'll be voting for JD
Vance when he runs. Cause we all know
it's gonna happen apparently.
Period. End of story. Why? Because he called
somebody a dipshit online.
Yeah. That's what matters. Apparently,
Tim Pool, the VP calling people dipshits on
x is what I voted for.
I'm just embarrassed for these people. Like, they
think they're so edgy, and they're just children.
It's sad. And I don't mean that to
be, like, anybody I disagree with. Like, there
there's people left and the right in many
cases that I have similar opinions with that
I I think are very, very, very childish
when it comes to partisan politics. And it's
not even meant to just be an insult.
It's I'm using the word because that's the
meaning that I'm trying to relay.
It's it's a it's a naivety, a childish
nature of just, like or just
blinds, like,
I guess, it's opportunism.
You know, whatever I can say to be
to get more followers or more clicks or
to align with Trump, but this is so
dumb.
The idea that you you vote you voted
for him to just a dunk on Democrats.
Well, that's exactly what we've been saying. It's
not about policy or America first or changing
things. It's about screw the Democrats.
That's what his whole show seems to be
about.
Now Ken Klippenstein wrote this article, exclusive. It
says the ice shooter's politics.
And it says,
three who knew him since at least middle
school agreed to speak to him on the
condition of anonymity. So take it with a
grain of salt as always, question everything. And
they gave him records apparently to to prove
that they and that's what these pictures are
so and so on appear
are of, you know,
pictures that nobody else had published before and
so on. And it says their accounts paint
a picture of someone with a vaguely libertarian
bent who despised both major parties and politicians
generally, including Trump, who didn't engage with politics
beyond that. He preferred edgy humor, video games,
and the message board for Chan, all of
which he became increasingly steeped in as he
withdrew from social life as well as the
as their own friendship several years ago, they
said. None of the former friends believe that
the anti ice inscription could possibly be sincere,
feeling such a serious political statement
was anathema to what he was. His humor
was deeply ironic, often offensive, and aggressive to
the point of alienation.
We all know this kind of this kind
of person. And it says he was most
certainly an edge lord. I'm an irony guy,
one of his friends said. Edge lord is
online speak for someone who likes to espouse
edgy, nihilistic views,
as as they frame it anyway, asked about
the inscription on the bullet or the pen.
I don't know why it's being ripped that
way. Josh, I guess I mean, could you
could say inscription, I guess, couldn't you, and
have the meaning be?
Wording. Yeah. Usually means engraved, but it looks
like it could be wording too. Josh was
an edge lord. It said he wanted someone
to get blamed. I think he tried his
best to write something goofy to rile people
up. Makes more sense to me than anything
that's going on. But you see, they don't
care about this or facts or anything else.
They see an opportunity that he use it
just like we see on every side of
the partisan game.
That said, one Fred recalled when Trump came
to first in power that he was not
a fan. So you could argue that he
was unhappy with him. But see, I think
what this leans into more is the political
direction that people are just disgusted with. That's
my opinion.
But I think we see this growing as
an idea that it's not left or right.
It's about the problem where this is the
direction. You know?
But he says, his friends say that he
had more of a libertarian bent with one
we're calling an interest in the libertarian figure,
Ron Paul. So, you know, very much not
a left leaning figure. And he says he
was never really into politics, especially not politicians,
said his friend. He was into politics only
in the in the four Chan sense, contrarian,
proactive, boundary pushing, and so on.
Yeah. Then, you know, Adam loves Wharf simply
said, you know, no leftist goes on four
Chan, which I don't wanna say that entirely,
but largely speaking, I think that's accurate.
Now for time, since we've about to go
to four hours, I'm gonna wrap this up
for the most part.
Maybe I'll go into this in the next
one. I wanted to go through this about
twelve minutes, but I'll take too long with
stopping. DHS secretary Noem talks with, what's her
name from CNN.
And I think it's important because the way
that they lay this out, you know, it's
just there's a lot of important kind of
notes in here that are weird about the
notes,
not about the notes that were left. There's
important points in this video about the notes
that were left. And what in the way,
no one is very carefully trying to construct
the narrative the way it's, you know, it's
very obvious what they're doing.
Well, I'll leave it if you watch. And
of course she re she cites the thousand
percent increase again. Here's even what
Grock, who is very much on this who's
being constantly retrained and retrained and retrained to
be very much on the side of whatever
Elon Musk wants to say. And it says,
the claim of 1000%
in violence against the US immigration or against
ICE offer of officers stems from the statement
that,
you know, that I thought it said his
name right there. It does down here.
Statement by the Department of Homeland Security reported
on Wednesday September 17 and then posted by
Fox News. That's it. A statement that it
happened, which I think is the number itself
is laughably stupid to argue with what we
can see, we can prove. On top of
that, even if you wanna argue that's the
case, like I just pointed to, not to
say it's legally justified, but you can understand
why people are upset with shockingly unconstitutional authoritarian
actions against people that don't deserve it. God
God I'm so confused. I don't know why
somebody would be upset about that. But it
says no specific data, such as raw numbers
of assaults or detailed incident reports were provided
in these sources to substantiate
either claim, which originally was 830%,
then it went to a thousand. The DHS
statements highlighted two incidents,
Two.
Where ICE officers were injured.
One, dragged by a car, which we just
saw.
Guess what else?
The other incident
was the one we just talked about where
they claimed they were hit by the car,
but revealed in court that they lied about
that and still arrested the guy for attack
on a police officer.
That didn't happen. The video proves it didn't
happen. They were forced to admit there was
no injuries because nobody was ran over. And
if Noam has to use that example to
claim this, then that's 50%
of her claims and they're claiming a thousand
percent. And one of them is a lie.
This is what this is why their their
entire cabinet is drowning in their incompetency.
And it says suggesting these contribute to the
reported surge.
Additionally, ICE's acting director and officer officials have
pointed to crazed rhetoric from gutter politicians.
And you're right. So they said bad things.
That's why we can prove it's got up.
No. That's you claiming something happened and
that your claim, this is still no evidence
that the claim is real. Yes. Politicians say
stupid things, just like you guys do every
day.
And on top of that, they have a
right to say what they want, like anybody
does. And it says, and media misinformation.
Isn't that very similar to what the left
was saying before?
Rhetoric and misinformation,
we have to shut it down. Well, here's
Trump and the team Patriot doing the same
thing back because freedom. Right? But no comprehensive
data set or specific assault counts were released
to verify the claims.
No other sources, including ICE's own reports or
independent analyses directly corroborate the 1000% figure. You
know why? Because they're lying to you.
Lack of data on violence against ICE officers.
It doesn't even exist. They're not even keeping
track
other than what they tell you.
In conclusion, the evidence for 100 1,000
increase in violence against ICE officers is limited
specifically to statements by the DHS
lacking detailed supporting data.
Don't you think if they could prove that,
they would be banding that about?
They're not.
Now just briefly, you know, just the same
thing. Here's Bennet Johnson talking with Tim Pool
about a left wing radical transgender attack to
Catholic school. This is about three terrorist attacks
in a month. So two of those are
things you can't prove or tied to either
side of the paradigm.
But here they are going left's dangerous. All
the left, 60% of left is 40 believe
political violence or something. Where is this coming
from? 60% of leftist 40 believe violence is
good.
I imagine that's a a right wing poll
put together. Right?
Can't you aren't you guys the ones that
would rightly point out that polls are manipulated
except when they work in your favor? I
mean, this is the this is the thing
that's so insulting to average people is how
they're so offended by what all the left
does, and then they come back and do
exactly that. I mean, like, identical
because they started it because that's not a
childish thing to do. Right?
Tim Pool. If you're wondering why a left
has just opened fire on ICE vehicles
because they lied about this story. That's what
he wants you to think.
And that's why they fired on it because
somebody lied?
I mean,
I just these people are literally trying to
convince you that people saying things is leading
to violence. Isn't that exactly what Tim was
calling out at the left?
You are a walking, talking contradiction. You're a
clown. And the point is, they're also lying.
Here's Homeland Security lying for, like, the fiftieth
time in the day.
These smears are sick. Our ice ages never
used a five year old girl's bait because
that's what the article says. I've held five
year old girl, autistic girl
to pressure her father to surrender.
He's saying we didn't do that.
Oops, except for this on video and you
can quite literally see it's in Spanish, but
you could quite literally watch watch it. Watch
them as they hold the girl and people
ask him, what are you doing? Why are
you holding a child? And they use the
child to coerce the person.
But you see, this is what this is.
The problem is that they come out and
just go, you're a liar. And people who
are blind followers will go, they're a liar.
And that becomes Fox News and go, they're
lying. That becomes Tom Homan that goes, they're
lying. Noam jumps out and goes, we're outraged
because they're lying. And look at all the
look at that rapist over there as if
that somehow proves that they didn't lie about
this. That's what they do every single day.
And Tim Pool comes out and goes,
their lie is why that happened. He is
a player in this game. He always has
been. He's the mainstream media.
Here's cat turn
left, just domestic terrorist organization,
the left, not the radical left. He says
the left, because that's the real narrative is
a domestic terrorist organization. This is going to
be turned into going after every single person
who criticized the government.
But here's the new New York post
anti ice left hate leads to murder.
You mean before you could prove that that's
the case? Yeah. Great journalism.
Bennie Johnson with Tricia McLaughlin
saying, incredibly disturbing. The motive is increasingly clear.
This was directly inspired by Charlie Kirsch.
Oh, based on what? Completely subjective opinion because
it looks like that.
Great job, government.
Tim Poole, breaking. It appears ice shooter was
Charlie Kirk copycat. Again,
blind
repetition of what the government says.
Great job, Tim Pool. You're a mainstream reporter.
Gunther Eagleman. Tom Homan just revealed that threats
against his life have increased significantly.
Maybe. Probably not, though. Probably because they just
scream these things to get you to think
they're the ones being persecuted when they're the
ones literally persecuting people. But overall,
peep I mean, look. I'm not gonna downplay
it. Let's put it that way. I get
things like that too probably to a fraction
of the degree if someone like that gets.
But if you actually understand how often if
you politicians get this stuff all the time,
and I'm not trying to belittle it. Very
serious.
People are if it's really happening, people threatening
your life matters. Right? But all I'm pointing
out is that when these people come out
and do this, they're doing this to build
the idea that they're under threat because they're
doing the right thing.
Maybe it's because people are outraged that you're
destroying the country, violating constitutional rights, and killing
people.
I'm not saying that means it's justified.
The bottom line though is that this is
being patched together to sell you on a
removal of your rights. Here is Jesse Waters
talking to Tim Poole who says the exact
same thing.
Open season on people standing up or supporting
Trump.
It's just it's just lazy. I'm tired. I'm
tired of having to pretend like these people
are not the smallest people in the room
with the largest audiences.
Lance Gooden says, yesterday afternoon, Ilhan Omar called
for ICE to be abolished.
Last night, this happened. It's her fault. Yep.
Words are violence now. Thanks, Tim. Just like
the left. You're a snowflake.
The reality is they're trying to create the
idea that you're not allowed to call out
the government because violence.
I just can't keep I mean, we're at
a point now where they are with I
mean, we're are we're not even a year.
And Donald Trump is rolling out every single
thing that you guys thought you were fighting
for vaccines to so hate speech, suppression, censorship.
It's kind of laughable if it wasn't so
terrifying. And this person says, yeah, we're supposed
to believe the shooter wrote anti ice and
blue ballpoint pen on just one shell he
didn't even use. That seems dumb, but maybe
This person says, wait. The guy shot immigrants,
but you think the left wing because someone
wrote anti ice on a bullet? Sounds like
another person just trying to stir the pot
by leaving messages in a bullet that they
know people like Loomer and live the TikTok
will use to fuel civil war they want.
Yeah. That actually seems more aligned with the
actual reality when you understand the person and
not just the ideology you wanna scream about
that doesn't even represent the person.
I mean, so the evidence points to. Again,
with we don't we don't when when this
flushes out definitively, it'll be too far down
the line. They won't even care. This person
says, yeah. No one believes that. Release the
Epstein files.
That's where this is.
This person says the FBI lies every day.
Why would we believe them now?
But here's where this goes. Right?
The reality of
the so the outcome.
Oh, that's narrative. Trump rolls out policy
that will be aimed at anybody doing that
Or if they just decide to claim that
you're on the left because you have an
idea or you say the word fascist. Right?
They are fascist. So is Biden. But now
I guess that makes you on the left.
And now, because he wrote this thing on
piece of paper, that means suddenly he can
just destroy the country and just remove your
rights. Right? Freedom. Hashtag winning.
Here it is again.
I think we need to understand
how obvious this was, how predictable this was,
and how this is exactly what the left
was doing, and Trump continues it.
Lastly, sir, this is a presidential memorandum on
countering,
domestic terrorism and organized political violence.
In recent weeks, months, and years, we've seen
a tremendous upsurge
in some highly visible, but also other acts,
of domestic terrorism and organized political violence
being perpetrated by radical politically motivated groups all
over the country. What this presidential memorandum will
do is set off and admit He's he's
just so happy with himself.
Like, that that whole thing, that's why I
paused at the beginning. This
is you know what I'm talking about. We
we're we're we're purposely not saying the word
left even though we've done it 75 times
the second before the start. Oh, now we're
gonna pretend like it's all about anybody anywhere,
though no one's above the law except all
of our friends.
It's clearly about, you know, who we're talking
about.
That's how I take that.
Radical terrorist. Yeah.
That this is very like, this is one
again, one of the moments makes me think
he might not even know what's going on.
He might actually think that he's in charge
and he's actually going after the evil lefties.
Certainly possible with how crazy this is. I
mean, how else do you explain somebody who
comes out and instantaneously
goes against the core
principles of exactly what they thought was coming.
Self amplifying shots, working with WHO, Davos, you
know, working with Bill Gates. I mean, it's
just ridiculous.
Here's hate speech laws. Here's some censorship, antisemitism.
It doesn't make sense
unless
somebody else is making these decisions.
Over the country, what this presidential memorandum will
do is set off an administration wide response
to that ranging from the joint terrorism task
forces to other components of the Department of
Justice. Right. The war on domestic terror. Didn't
we just have this conversation, like, back when
Biden was in power, and we were all
worried about how this is gonna be used
against people that were probably gonna go, yeah.
Where are all those guys? We're just pretending
like this isn't the exact same thing? To
the Department of Homeland Security and Department of
Treasury, we're looking at interdicting these groups, preventing
them from performing acts of violence, and also
looking at sources of organization and fund Preventing
them from okay. So does this mean precrime?
Probably. Probably another element to the same Israeli
run Gideon program where they're surveilling everybody in
this country and claiming that we say you're
about to commit a terrorist act.
And you're a lefty terrorist group because you
said the word fascist or however clumsily they
patch together. By the time they pee, like,
this is what they keep doing.
Bull rush things through, but the time everyone
finds out what's happening, it's already been too
late. You've you've already been shuffled between three
different countries. They've they've worked it out now.
Right? Like, I'm being a little bit hyperbolic.
I kinda doubt that's where it's gonna start,
but
the first step is what we'll have to
wait and see.
Where is this going to go?
Are they gonna go after their political opponents?
Are they gonna actually go after somebody who
actually committed some kind of violence? I'm okay
with that.
But I don't think that's what we're gonna
see. I think this is gonna be used
in ways that create the next step.
They can support the prop them up and
allow them to do the acts that that
they have been doing. We're looking at the
funders of a lot of these groups. And,
you know, when you see the signs and
they're all beautiful signs made professionally,
these aren't your protesters that make the sign
in their basement later in the evening. I
mean, you realize he said this, like, 11
times. Right? Like, you can watch the interviews.
He does this in every room and every
com whenever it comes up, this is kind
of his, like, rip he falls back into
the thing he's supposed to say when he
doesn't know what else to say. It's just
it's very common for him. Because they really
believe it. These are anarchists
and agitators,
professional anarchists and agitators, and they get hired
by wealthy people. Some of whom I know,
I guess. Yeah. I probably know
them. And, you wouldn't know it. You at
dinner with them, everything's nice, and then you
find out that they funded
millions of dollars to these lunatics.
Yeah. I guess we'll wait and find out
if there's any evidence to back up these
broad claims of people he doesn't like.
Or if anything happens at all or if
it's all bluster. Right? Well, here's Whitney's article,
which I really recommend you take a look
at again. Who is a terrorist in Biden's
America?
Literally could read who is a terrorist in
Trump's America, and I could date this 2025,
and you wouldn't even know the difference.
Maybe save for a few specific points. You
would not be able to tell this would
be exactly what they're doing today. And he's
he's using legislation
that Biden's administration put through for for this
exact purpose against you. Now he's framing it
toward the left just like Biden framed it
towards the right.
But how does it turn out every time?
Well, it seems really whatever Israel wants, but
we'll have to wait and see how this
pans out this time. The truth is that
you can see it's gonna be used against
people who are critical of the government because
that was the core of how this was
framed.
Read it. It's worth your time. Now just
lastly, and I'll touch on this more if
if it becomes more relevant. I thought this
was fascinating.
This person's name is Desmond Holly,
16 year old who shot two classmates in
Colorado on the same day as the Charlie
Kirk assassination.
FBI reports he had neo Nazi views and
was radicalized online. You can whatever you think
about that. That's not the real point for
me.
I'm, again, also, I'm surprised just like he
is.
How in the world this didn't get talked
about? I said, odd, that this school shooter
from 09/10/2025
with pretty obvious political leanings has gotten basically
zero coverage in partisan media.
Either side.
Right? As that's it's not trying to make
someone that if you could we could make
the point about why the right would ignore
this because clearly it doesn't fit their narrative
just like they would make the point with
the left. But then you also have to
be like, why would the left not scream
about this?
See, if you're of the mind as always
that they go, well, the left are fighting
the right, they're all back and forth. One's
the other's okay. Then why wouldn't they go,
oh my god. Look at what
does that not make sense?
Wouldn't this be a huge point of contention
to be like, look, you only care about
why isn't that happening? I think it's because
both sides of the paradigm are aware of
how much this works for their seizing of
power.
But this person says, and this is his
dad. Read the first comment on the original
post.
Okay.
I said, so your point is the right
ignored this because he's liberal.
Do you guys ever stop and consider the
difficulty of the mental gymnastics before you jump?
You know? I mean, really? So
you could prove he's a liberal and that's
why they didn't talk about it? Come on,
guys. They I I don't know why it
didn't get talked about. I I've seen some
people talking about it, but doesn't this seem
a little bit odd to you?
It certainly does to me. I think what
I'm getting at is that it's obvious what
is useful. It's obvious what can be used
and what can't.
And this doesn't fit into the narrative right
now just like it didn't fit into the
narrative when the left was in power, when
they didn't like the color of the person,
or they didn't like the political leaning just
like they're doing now.
And and it also shows you that things
like this are happening when they're not all
necessarily part of some grand scheme. It's because
they're they're driving people crazy. What they're doing
with their schizophrenic policies, with their forced medications,
with their injections, with all of the mixed
information, and people are going crazy.
I know it's not brand new. It's been
a long time where you can recognize people
are just snapping because they're putting them in
positions which drive them out of their minds.
And then they blame you for telling the
truth, for talking about what they're actually doing.
You're radicalizing them for pointing out what's going
on. Now I'm not gonna pretend that there's
not some level of radicalization that happens largely,
I think, because it's kind of by design,
but that's irrelevant
to the idea that you have a right
to say what you want, and people have
a right to think what they want and
look at what they want. That's the reality.
The game we got into where they start
going, but that leads to this. That's what
the right used to call about the left,
and now they're doing it too. Because if
you're aware, you can see that both sides
are playing the game toward the government control
like they always have been.
Now this is just the ADL post about
it, where they go over all the information
and tell you he's a neo Nazi and,
you know, basically show you the right leaning
conversation. And guess what I found even more
interesting. It turns out that he was using
the black sun symbol. It's right out of
the Azov movement, just like all the other
connections to Israel, United States tie back to
the same conversation. The Patriot front, the Azov
movement, the interaction, the the,
what's it called? The base,
the autumn Waffen.
All of these groups are completely immersed, and
they all have connected figures that tie back
to intelligence or, you know,
authorities
or Israel funding or all of them. It's
really not complicated. I've gone over this a
100 times, But, I mean, even the the
Black Sun situation that was on what the,
was the Orlando, the Buffalo shooter. It was
on any number of them.
I mean, it's just there there's an obvious
weirdest all this, whether that's some kind of
coordination or speaker. Either way,
it's very obviously, in this case, not a
left leaning thing, but I also could argue
that I don't think it has to be
proven to be a right. I think people
can be in this position and see the
problems in both.
That's the real issue is that people want
to piece this however they you know, however
works for them. Now last point, Donald Trump
is now considering
declaring a state of a national emergency.
Right? So the left can use COVID. Trump
can use immigration. It goes in the same
damn direction. Overall,
arguing that the states won't let them do
what they want.
But constitutional rights, though. Right? Who cares about
states' rights? We're gonna do it well. But
but freedom, constitution. It says president Donald Trump
has warned that he may declare a national
emergency in Washington.
Why? Due to the fact that the Metropolitan
Police Department
won't cooperate
with immigration.
Now what they're saying is what these people
are not meant to be conducting immigration, saying
their proper role is not is is,
what says there
he has maintained that immigration enforcement is not
the proper role of them and even with
federal con con coordination.
Now look. You could disagree. You can argue
it's because he disagrees with Trump's policies. Well,
that's his prerogative. He is in charge of
this area. States' rights do supersede the federal
control despite what everyone wants to screw about.
Constitutional
law, the reality of that is the core
point,
not some executed executive order about national emergencies
that supersede. That's that's that's just statist bulls
BS. Excuse me. They're using this to go
over the constitution and acting like it makes
sense. Nothing
does. If you believe in the real core
values of this country, if it was repugnant
to the constitution, it's null and void. Supreme
Court ruling, Mayberry versus Mattis 18 o three.
So here, he's trying to tell you that
they can force them with a national emergency
to do what they want because of what
their agenda is. Even if what their stance
is is political, it doesn't really change the
reality. This
is power.
This is about controlling the outcome, and I
think this is about far more than what
we think it is. As I've been making
the case for a long time about Israel,
about foreign influence, about something much more alarming.
But even if he doesn't agree with that,
can we just acknowledge this is wrong?
Even if you think the guy is acting
from completely political standpoint on the left, it
doesn't change what Trump is doing as being
it doesn't change that it's wrong, unconstitutional,
as well as the fact that what you're
doing is rolling out national police forces and
national emergencies. That's not something we're supposed to
be okay with. If it was Obama,
you all know.
We saw it. But
stand up, call it out. Because my opinion,
as it has been for a while now
is that most people see this.
Most people are seeing this, and that's why
this is getting so hard for them to
manage. And that's why, like him saying, nobody
cares about the Epstein thing, even though they
all do. We can prove that. Right? You
can see it right now. So why did
Trump lie about that? Because he's vulnerable. Because
these people see a problem developing where they
can't control what you think. They should never
control what you think. You should think for
yourself.
Thank you for tuning in and thinking for
yourself because
it's paramount today. And I think we're at
this point of momentum where we can keep
this going
in honest you know, in positive ways, honest
ways, not violent ways, not some kind of
destabilization left first right, but some general you
know, where truth
is the guiding force.
You know, you could argue that's naive or
wishful. You know, maybe it is. Maybe it
is, but I'm sure it's not gonna fight
for it anyway.
Thank you for tuning in.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.