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.
Friday, 01/30/2026.
Thank you for joining me today. Couple of
quick announcements before we get right into it
today. I want you guys to know that
we've been having some pretty crazy,
weather and and power related issues here. I
am in Tennessee. And all day today, it's
been up and down. I've I've just I'm
I've was talking about it earlier with some
others that I'm just I don't know if
I was at a coffee shop or somewhere,
I was going to get a show out
today. It's obviously been very difficult for those
of us in this area to to manage
this.
I'm just speaking with Gene Owens and others
who are struggling through the heat and or
rather the the lack of heat and the
the weather. It just started snowing again pretty
heavily. The point is don't worry if something
suddenly cuts off. If I'm able to, I'll
be back as soon as I can. Otherwise,
we'll pick it up when I can. But
I just wanted to make sure we got
some content out today. So today, we're gonna
get into a pretty important development from Ghislaine
Maxwell in regard to the coconspirators
that she's pointing to that she claims the
DOJ
is covering up, essentially.
And that goes well across multiple administrations as
most honest people, I think, are beginning to
tell you that this is not a unique
left or right party issue. We're gonna talk
about why that's obviously important for numerous reasons
and overlap that with some other point that
relate to the kind of I mean, the
the multiple cover up aspects that relate to
this administration that connect to the larger kind
of technocratic elements that we've discussed. Some really
important ones that are, some allegations that were
coming out around the Epstein point that we'll
get into that I'm wondering whether they were
a mistake in an effort to sort of
deflect from other things that were posted and
then removed, and it looks like they were
posted back. What are subjective
claims about what Trump was involved with? Not
necessarily proof that he did those things, but
interesting, as we'll get into all of that.
And with everything going on in the world,
it's very much worth considering that the Epstein
point is just, you know, even though it
makes them look bad, something to deflect from
what else is happening.
Always worth considering that, not assuming, but considering.
We also have Kevin Warsh,
the one the person that Trump is now
pointing to to be the next,
chair fed fed chair. Excuse me. And why
that's important is because of all the different
connections this person has to a lot of
different things, which doesn't necessarily mean he's who
we worry he is, but it's worth pointing
out. And it's also somebody who is,
part of the Bilderberg group, which is definitely
not something that Trump is promising.
You know, it's multiple examples of the globalist
direction, of the even just the elitist deep
state conversation, whatever you wanna frame that is.
All of his choices continue to show you
the wrong direction,
and I think that's important. Even if this
person ends up to be in the interest
of The United States, those are two different
conversations. You know, he could still be
ignoring what he promised you and then still
do something good for the country. The point
is first to acknowledge that these people are
not what we're promised, and it's also, I
think, worth pointing out that they're not going
to be good for this country.
And then we're gonna get into some points
about Alex Preddy and the and the updates
therein. Now, you might have seen some other
videos that come out, which are very relevant.
But when you cut to the chase of
what we're really discussing, it doesn't ultimately change
the reality of the circumstance. And whether you
think it does or not, the reality of
what's happening with ICE and what they're doing
to this country, rather just the government threw
that to us left and right, it it
it it's important to understand why that's happening,
how this is being driven, and I'm really
acknowledging that there is a level of coordinated
effort to this, but that doesn't invalidate people's
rights. And then we have to be honest
about these things and be measured and and
nuanced. Otherwise, the government will take advantage. It
always does.
We'll leave it there. There's a lot of
other things we're gonna get into. I wanna
start with some points on foreign policy because
there's so much to get to that relates
to this country and specifically from an American
perspective. And, you know, I am an American
broadcasting from The United States, so I think
that's where we can affect the most change.
So it's important that we don't lose sight
of these massive moment you know, changing moments.
But it's also really important, as I was
highlighting just yesterday, that we don't lose sight
of what's going on here. And I doubt
most of you will. I'm of the mind
that most of our audience here is very
aware of of what's going on and what's
important in the world, just what I from
just from what I see most people say
in the chats and the conversations and so
on. But what I I hope this doesn't
get missed by people who are because those
of us that are immersed in this from
day to day, it's it's it can be
an illusion often just to think that people
elsewhere
have the same level of information that you
do or see the same things that we
do because we tend to think this is
what everyone's looking at and it's not always
the case. So consider that. The people are
are they care about these things but maybe
don't have the same time invested, don't are
aware of the bigger picture. So my point
is that I think it's important all of
us, myself with this show, what you're doing
out there, to make sure that the conversation
that is Gaza and what they're doing to
the people of Palestine
doesn't lose focus. As well as Lebanon, as
well as what's going on in Syria, as
well as what's about to happen in Cuba,
what's going on in Venezuela.
As I'm sure you all know, this is
all very much interconnected.
A lot of these things have been for
a long time. For many new reasons added,
I think they still are today to a
much larger and more nefarious degree. But I
really may I just helped me make sure
that these things don't lose sight. Maybe I'm
wrong in saying that. Maybe everybody's talking about
it and I hope so. Because these things
are important. But first,
Netanyahu, this is antiwar.com.
Please support the platform.
Israel will have
control from river to the sea, including Gaza.
Just to kind of quickly recenter and make
sure we realize what's this didn't go the
way they claimed it did ever at any
point. And at this point in time, they're
still pretending some ridiculous ceasefire to the point
is they've been violating it every moment. And
now you have Netanyahu for, what, the fifteenth
time while lying to the Western audiences coming
out and just going, we're taking everything. That
was always the plan, even though he's not
explicitly saying it was always the plan. We
can prove that. So it's just infuriating to
see that this continues.
And and and at the same moment, there's
so much happening internally right now that it's
important for Americans to not lose sight of
that, but realize what a central role the
US
government is playing in this genocide.
This is our conversation. We need to be
aware of that, and it's American responsibility
to make sure we're pointing that out and
that our the the money that they're using
in our name. You know? This is something
we can't lose sight of. Now here's some
other points I wanted you to see. IDF
from
Harrett's article, IDF accepts Gaza military
can't read right now. Health ministry estimate of
over seventy thousand killed. And it's way more
than that, you understand? And this is why
they're now accepting it. That was the number
that they pushed back on like we were
all a bunch of crazy lunatics when it
was first discussed when that was evident at
the time. It's hundreds of thousands at this
point, guys. They've admitted this in a lot
of different sideways discussing how many people will
go at the end of these conversations. For
example, they've let this cat out of the
bag. And there's a Lancet study as well
as another one, I forget what platform it
was, showing you that their estimate was, what,
600,000?
And so recognize that now that the IDF
is now at 01/29/2026
going, yes. Yes. Fine. We accept that number.
The number that you told us was not
real because you didn't wanna be seen for
what you were doing. Now it's somehow, it's
okay because I think they feel like people
aren't paying attention as much, but realize how
gross that is.
And as Justin Amash points out, this exceeds
three percent of the Gaza population.
People often scale these figures to The US
equivalent, which I agree with him is mislead
is misultimately misleading. But to use the thing
that's often pointed out, that would equate to
more than 11,000,000
Americans.
So if you wanna make some kind of
an overlapping point to the you know, respectively
based on the population size, this is like
11,000,000 Americans being killed in a pinpoint targeted
war only on, you know, whatever the narrative
is they're saying.
Don't lose sight of this.
It's
unbelievably criminal, and that's not even a good
enough word to describe it.
Aled,
last name spelled h a q u e,
quotes what Reuters put out. The link's down
below.
USAID
staffers in early twenty twenty four drafted a
warning to senior officials in Joe Biden's administration.
Northern Gaza had turned into, quote, an apocalyptic
wasteland
with dire shortage of food and medical aid.
This is under
Biden's administration. Right? And this is USAID, the
group that they would argue is part you
know, whatever the these things don't fit into
the way they want you to see the
left right paradigm. Right? And it says, but
The US ambassador to roost to Jerusalem, when
this was posted or discussed,
Jack Lew blocked the cable.
That's what we're dealing with here, guys, and
this has been known by anybody with a
brain and two pair and a pair of
eyes since this has been I mean,
you could go back to the World Food
Program. You can go back to the flower
massacre. I mean, you could go off for
hours about how many times you can prove
their efforts to stop the food. And they've
admitted this many times. Here you have an
example of The US ambassador under Biden
blocking the information that they knew this.
Mohammad Shehada points out, now, today, IDF is
recommending, after everything they just discussed about how
they're totally not blocking food, to reduce the
humanitarian aid trucks to 200 per day, which
if you forget, 500 a day was bare
minimum to barely maintain the already food insecure
before October 7. They knew that. They lied
about that. And now,
after continually blocking the food, they're now trying
to roll it back to a level which
they barely even been meeting in the first
place, acting like this is phase two of
the plan. This is definitely phase something of
their starvation genocide plan, but it's not what
we were promised in regard to the ceasefire
agreement. They violated it every single time. They
violated it by killing people. They violated it
by moving those yellow blocks or placing them
in the first place. Over and over, they
did by every single group with any standing
in the conversation, but yet, according to the
US government, you're crazy or antisemitic
if you say that. Israel intends to reduce
the food and aid to Gaza to a
third if they agreed upon 600 trucks in
the Trump plant. How was that not a
violation? Well, guess what? It is. Nobody seems
to care. As soon as Israel got its
last captive out of Gaza, they're back to
let's starve them to death, which is what
many of them are actually saying out loud.
Caitlin Johnstone points to what the White House
said. Hopefully, Iran will quickly come to the
table and negotiate a fair and equitable deal.
No nuclear weapons. And we're right back around
to that. Now the question is whether or
not with the Iran conversation, which is very
much I I don't do we even really
need to equivocate that Iran is Israel's agenda?
I mean, I think this is at the
highest level of the corporate media conversation at
this point where we can prove that Netanyahu's
been driving this his entire career through multiple
left right administrations. He's been on video more
than once admitting that, by the way. So
here we are. We're now, with all that's
going on, clearly this is Israel's agenda, has
no this is not an America first, even
America this is in no way interest in
the interest of average Americans, or I would
even argue, quite frankly, the elitist
circle
outside of those who have business interests to
take advantage of what might happen should they
regime change Iran.
But all that's going on to pivot back
to the nuclear weapons conversation, the one that
Trump just recently told you was not even
really what was going on, that his own
people, including Tulsi Gabbard, told you was not
actually happening, but then it went to, missiles.
Right? But then it was something else. Now
we're back to nuclear weapons. And what I'm
trying to show you is that this is
an oscillating narrative that is just about trying
to make it bad guy Iran, look over
there, which, by the way, is not a,
like, a head fake.
They definitely are going and planning to go
after Iran. This has been clear for a
long time. My point is why now at
this moment and to make it so jarringly
away from what you just said again, I
think that this isn't a
a a grouping
of government entities who are desperate because the
world's seeing through everything they're doing, genuinely. Now,
that's not my answer to everything. It's not
always distractionary. But recognize, with this, after what
he just said, I don't know how else
to read that. Or just that he's being
forced to do it, and that's the only
excuse they have. You can decide. But it
says, well, he just wrote a massive armadas
heading to Iran. It's moving quickly. You you
could it's about no nuclear weapons, he repeats
over and over. Make a new deal. You
mean the deal that you personally are the
one that like, rather, just Trump's first administration.
You unilaterally pulled out of the deal that
they agreed to, that nobody broke except you,
and then used your pulling out of the
JCPOA to blame them for violating the deal,
which they never did, not even to this
point in time. Because the agreement was, should
The US do what they did, you can
read it for yourself. I went over it
75 times. Then they had the right to
continually enriching
increase enrichment in their civilian capacity, which is
what even go the rest of his administration
would tell you they're doing until they come
back to the deal, which they never did.
So now he's going, come back to the
deal, or we're gonna attack you, which nobody
responds to probably by design.
Caitlin Johnstone says, first, it was about going
to war with Iran over possible nuclear weapons.
Then it was about going to war with
Iran because they're rebuilding their conventional weapons. Then
it was about going to war with Iran
because they're killing protesters. That was what I
was thinking of. Now it's back to nukes
again. By the way, the protester story, why
that never really got momentum, they lied about
the entire damn thing from the very beginning.
Now that's a whole different point of whether
people are being killed and whether those are
operatives or not, and we talked about that
in earnest. I don't support governments killing their
people in any context in protesting, but realize
they lied.
Not even their own team in, you know,
the
multifaceted term that it is when it comes
to the government foreign policy believed them. I
think that's very clear, and it's blowing up
in their face. Now Eric points out Trump
officials are reportedly demanding that Iran not have
any missiles that can hit Israel, according to
CNN.
Take that with a grain of salt, but
I do believe this makes sense because this
has been what's driving the entire conversation.
Rubio has made this statement more than once.
So now it's about us putting our our,
you know, US soldiers in the line to
make sure that Iran can't have missiles like
every other place in the world does that
can reach Israel?
I mean, so what's the the the what
about every other location that can reach Iran?
Or what about Israel's that can definitely which
is the point. It says, but Israel would
keep all of its missiles, including nuclear weapons
that could hit Iran. So the sticking point
is an absurd demand that Iran agree to
be defenseless,
which then, of course, we're gonna pretend like
we don't know is gonna rapidly lead to
its overthrow. You know, it's come on. This
is just insane, guys, but this is the
kind of policy we get from the US
government today. Now
this is Rubio
in front of Congress.
First, two clips we're gonna play, him claiming
that, oh my god. We've got 30 to
40,000 American soldiers that are in risk of
their weapons.
As but there's no immediate reason to think
that they're targeting them other than what your
belligerent actions are causing or that those weapons
are the idea being that these weapons could
aim in any direction and anybody in this
area, and the reason that they're at risk
is because they're there. As Daniel McAdams says,
well, here's a thought. Bring them home, and
there wouldn't be a problem. The only reason
they're there is because of Israel's agenda. This
is not America first.
But every other group around them has weapons
and ballistic missiles in the same conversation. So
this is simply about this one way conversation
about what Iran can't do that everyone else
can do because Israel says so. Try to
make that into America first for me.
On the issue of our presence in the
region, here's the baseline I wanna set for
everybody. The baseline is this, we have 30
to 40,000 American troops stationed across eight or
nine facilities in that region. All are within
the reach,
Theoretically, not theoretically, in reality, all are within
the reach of an array of thousands
of Iranian,
one way, one way UAVs and Iranian
short term ballistic missiles. So short short range
of ballistic missiles that threaten our troop presence.
Yeah. Well, why not get rid of their
grenades too? You know? Because they could throw
those a couple couple yards. Right? Now that's
just too close. Right? No grenades either. How
about the stones? You can't get all those
stones on the ground. They could throw those
right in your face. I mean, I'm being
I'm making a joke, obviously. But you have
to understand how ridiculous this argument becomes when
all you're talking about are it's you know,
by this logic, you could say literally anybody
we don't like is not allowed to have
any kind of weapon. Do you not realize
how clearly this slippery slope goes in this
direction? Look at what's happening to us right
now with the conversation of guns from the
Republican side of the conversation.
There's an overlap here.
We have to have enough force and power
in the region just on a baseline to
defend against that possibility.
That at some point, as a result of
something, the Iranian regime decides to strike at
our true presence and You know, something, you
know, like something like, I don't know, illegal
actions in their country, something like, you know,
assassinating their scientists, something like bombing Soleimani in
a diplomatic mission, something like arming protesters to
shoot their government people, you know, something like
that. How dare they respond?
And I'm not saying that we should not
the point would be is this is being
caused by what the US government is doing,
not that you should then just ignore anything
they do in response. It still matters.
But you have to be honest about where
this is coming from.
This is the same old joke you hear.
That's why these things are being laughed at
today. Right? How dare Iran put their country
so close to our bases? You know, it's
this is obvious what's driving. Well, it's obvious
what's driving this rather. The region. The president
always reserves the preemptive defensive option. In essence,
if we have indications that in fact they're
going to attack our troops in the region
to defend our personnel in the region. Like,
they lied about already. That's called the Bethlehem
doctrine. It really stems from the Israeli government.
It's something UK, The US, and Israel all
adopt and is absurd. It means they say
you're about to do something. We can bomb
you and call that defense. I know it's
it might be shocking to wrap your mind
around this. They've lied about that before. It's
crazy. Right?
Realize that a good example is the is
Bolton, Donald Trump, and the limpet mines.
That no pun intended. That blew up in
their face. It was not what they claimed,
and it had to come all the way
back to
them admitting that Bolton was discussing their boats
moving in their harbors. That's it. And they
just went they all they've got boxes and
things covered. That must be bombs. And they
literally used that ridiculous argument to rush forward
all that they did. They manufactured the entire
thing, limpid minds included. They got exposed for
all of that. Some of you out there
still might not know that because there's so
much propaganda flying around. But just think about
that. So the Bethlehem doctrine is what he's
discussing. So we can go, they're about to
do this and act.
From one of the most dishonest administrations that
possibly in history, we're gonna let them tell
you what they're about to do to justify
what they want to do. Come on.
We also have security agreements, the defense of
Israel plan and others, that requires to have
a forced posture in the region to defend
against that. All it means is everything that
we want justifies what we need there. That's
it. Our actions justify through secondary actions why
we need to keep them there because our
actions cause them to be violent, therefore, we
need more. It's ridiculous. It's it's self fulfilling
prophecy. Starlink, as someone mentions in the chat,
by the way, is obviously a weapon of
war in all of this. And I point
this out in every example that Elon Musk
has done this.
What how there's so many people suffering in
the world that would benefit from using
some kind of Internet access in a place
where they don't have it. But it always
seems to be in the places where the
US military is involved. What a what a
coincidence. Right? It's it's not just about Internet
access, guys. These are tools of the Department
of War. It's what we're talking about. Now
another clip.
This is, Akron shared this, and it's Rand
Rand
Paul
responding. Actually, really, really, it's going back and
forth, but this is one of the clips
where he asked him a point blank question.
And this is, you know, again, this is
like everything else we're discussing, sort of microcosm
of the entire conversation of ICE or anything
else.
It really does come down to and there's
actually a clip of Rand Paul making the
same kind of point about Alex Petty. Alright?
Is that there's you can get into all
the nuance and the and emotional opinions and,
sure, maybe you even think he deserved what
he got. It doesn't change the legality of
what happened and the rights that are on
display, whether or not they're being coordinated and
funded. And it matters
though, but so too do your rights. And
a government will always use coordinated trade to
manipulate your rights and remove them.
Republicans know this better than anybody, it seems,
but can't seem to acknowledge it. Well, I
take that back. I think more than all
more than most, more than the majority right
now are
checking the system, I think, or their team.
But back to this point, is that it's
a hypocritical reality to to to
pretend like you
stealing Maduros, what they're discussing, is somehow completely
okay because they're a bad guy. Right? But
then when the question is would if it
was done to us, what would your response
be? You know, and you could be honest
right here. And you could say, okay. Well,
I get your point. Right? Doing it to
us would be we would call that a
crime. We would call that terrorism. Right? But
here's the difference. And at least try to
make an argument for why there's a difference
there. And say, well, you know and he
kind of breaks the point about how they're
criminals and they're we don't think they're the
leader, but that's not the my point is
like, with Noam is that they could lie
better than this. And I think that does
speak to some level of incompetence, but Rubio's
been doing this a long time. So I
think there's another agenda kinda mixed up in
that. But at the end of the day,
this is what hypocrisy looks like. And if
you have a standard or principle, like we're
talking about, this would violate that. If you
think it's wrong to do it to you,
then it should be wrong to do it
to anybody else regardless of the justification.
This is what's running most of the things
in this country right now.
Our founders debated extensively over which branch of
government should have the power to declare or
initiate war.
Virtually, unanimously,
they decided and what was entered into the
constitution was that the the declaration or initiation
of war would be the power of congress.
Now we have many advocates, many of whom
are here today,
who have been advocates for an expansive notion
of presidential power.
They often argue that wars are not really
wars, that they're kinetic actions or drug busts.
I think, though, if you reverse the circumstances,
it becomes very difficult
for these arguments to hold up. So I
would ask you, if a foreign country bombed
our air defense missiles,
captured and removed our president, and blockaded our
country,
would that be considered an act of war?
Well, I think your question is about the
and I will acknowledge you've been very consistent
on all these points the entire career.
So Yeah. That's worth noting. I'm actually surprised
he even said that. Because what that shows
is actual principle in this conversation. Right? That
it doesn't matter what my personal political agenda
is. It matters that that's simply wrong regardless
of how it makes sense for me.
Let me let me no matter who the
who's in charge. So I will point to
two things. The first is it's hard for
us to conceive that an operation that lasted
about four and a half hours and was
a law enforcement operation to capture someone we
don't recognize as the head of state, indicted
in The United States,
wanted with a $50,000,000 bounce. Would be if
it only took four hours to take our
president. It's very short. Nobody dies on the
other side. Nobody dies on our side. It's
perfect.
Would it be an act of war? We
we just don't And add his point to
it. Let's just say Iran, amongst themselves,
decided legally that Trump isn't even the president.
We legally argue that he's not even supposed
to be there based on our assessment, and
then we ignited him in our court. It's
what they're
doing. This is not hard to understand if
you're just objective and recognize that even if
you do think the guy deserved to be
removed, that what they're doing is built on
sand. And I in a lot of ways
by design and I the only the only
raise way I mean that is that from
the larger perspective,
I feel like a lot of these things
are being done in ways that actually dismantle
what this country is. That's my opinion entirely.
So take that for what you will. The
point is in the the first point, obviously,
is that this is hypocritical, and what they're
doing is exposing that. I ask why is
my is the the third point in that.
I'm so glad this is actually being discussed,
though, at some level. And, again, I'll add
a a fourth point that this is a
example of why you guys are a success
in all of this. Do you realize this
is crazy at a time where the the
the the your work, independent media, people out
there who are calling these things out are
forcing them to have these conversations.
This is not in my experience, this is
not the way this used to go. I
don't just mean in front of congress. I
mean, that there's certain talking points that never
used to really come out.
You should pat yourself on the back for
that. Don't believe that this operation comes anywhere
close to the constitutional definition of war. Would
it be an act of war if someone
did it to us? Nobody dies, few casualties,
they're in and out. Boom. It's a perfect
military operation. Would that be an act of
war? Of course, it would be an act
of war. I'm probably the most anti war
person in the senate. And even if we
didn't even if it didn't meet the constitutional
definition that he's pointing to, you know as
well as I and everybody else listening that
Trump or Biden with the rest would deem
it as as such. You know they would.
And I would vote to declare war if
someone invaded our country and took our president.
Listen. So I think we need to at
least acknowledge this is a one way argument.
One way arguments that don't rebound,
that you can't apply to yourselves,
that cannot be universally applicable are bad arguments.
Yeah. Look at that. Now I'm sure you
can see why that's relevant to the larger
conversation of ICE and everything else today. Right?
Because that's what's happening. Right? The arguments that
you can only apply one direction are not
good arguments because that means there's there's lacking
logic or that it's it's a contradictory statement
or there's, you know, it's there's plenty of
the examples that we can see across the
board right now.
Ray and Alex being two of them, by
the way.
But here in on Iran,
Ted Cruz comes out and says, we should
be arming the protesters in Iran now.
This is what he tweeted on the twenty
seventh. Talk about tone deaf with what's going
on in this country. For the Iranian people
to overthrow the Ayatollah, a tyrant who routinely
chants death to America, which, by the way,
he doesn't routinely chant this. It's something he
said before, and the reality of it as
he's per personally described is about the US
government. You can decide he's a liar, but
recognize the contents does matter or context because
what they're pointing to is government that's manipulating
them. In many cases, Iranians, including the government,
have reasonably
the difference of what they actually think about
Americans is on display everywhere outside of the
government framing, but would make America much safer.
Right? Make America safer to get rid of
a guy across the world who hates you,
Ted Cruz. Right? Doesn't hate us, clearly. So
this is interesting. Right? But the point would
be arm the protesters now. I can't even
believe he would say that right now. And
Mathy Mom says, we should arm protesters in
another country, but if you show up armed
in ours, the government will shoot you and
call you a terrorist. The jokes write themselves.
Now realize, even if you think even if
the guy literally it doesn't like, all the
all the lies circulating, I don't wanna we're
gonna get into it in a second. That's
why I'm pulling back on the Alex Freddie
points. But realize that this is so insulting
to your intelligence that you're you're willing to
go and throw weapons in front of other
protesters and then blame them for engaging with
them, even if that's just the way it
went down, is you're still responsible for that.
On top of that, who you're arming, which
has come out
everywhere,
including from the Iranian unions that were supporting
the protest to begin with, that these are
assets from Israel, from everywhere else. That's what
they're being you could question it. You should.
But it's historically
every time what we've seen.
And now they they they want you to
believe that the you're not allowed to bring
you know, again, I'm gonna pull back. We're
gonna get to it in a second. About
Alex Prady and the second amendment and the
rest of it, which we already went over
to an extent, but I wanna make sure
we touch on it again with the new
information that's come out. But realize how insulting
that is, guys. I mean, do and he
doesn't care about rights. He doesn't care about
whether Iranian protesters get shot or whether you
have the second amendment. He's trying to use
this to drive an agenda, and Ted Cruz
and Rubio and the rest have been long
term
they're adherent to this agenda very clearly. Now
on top of that, guys, which doesn't it
gets less attention than Gaza does,
Lebanon
continually. You realize there's been a supposed ceasefire
in Lebanon with Israel this entire time, and
they've been I mean, Sarah Abdalla is one
of the few that I actually see pointing
this out.
Breaking Southern Lebanon right now. Israel's raining bombs
on civilian areas in the middle of the
night despite a so called ceasefire.
I'm blanking on his name now all of
a sudden.
Craig Murray was one of the few people
out there actually on the ground breaking this
down. For months, nobody seems to talk about
this one. And you could prove this for
yourself a 100 times over. This is not
new, and it's illegal. There's really not even
an argument for this one. That's why nobody
really talks about it that much. We talked
about Syria as well. That's still ongoing. The
illegal occupation, the Al Qaeda forces they're using,
like like, that doesn't insulting, like, embarrassingly
implode their entire narrative, their entire history. Working
with Al Qaeda to control Syria doesn't just
yeah. It's it's ridiculous where we are. On
top of that, don't forget, we talked about
Honduras. Right? How we told you what this
would happen well before it actually came around.
The idea that they would manipulate the election
for, I think, largely Prospera and the agenda
there and the larger promen for almost capital
funding of the
freedom movement, freedom city, smart city, fifteen minute
city, great reset discussion.
Well, on top of that, I was telling
you that there was an obvious Israel in
involvement with that conversation. And I just think
this is interesting to show, as Sprinter Press
points out, proc priorities.
Honduras' new president meets Israel's envoy minutes after
being sworn in. The ceremonial bible was still
warm from Honduran president,
as as for a swearing in ceremony as
he greeted
Israel's ambassador.
Now why does that even make sense? Why
does that make sense? Because this is not
something that's been publicized.
This says a lot. If at the very
least, I'm not trying to make it into
something other than what this is just a
coordination
from political sense. You have the Israeli embassy,
the Israeli government working with the new government
in Honduras. By the way, that's not what
Hondurans want. And realize that what they're doing,
which is what they told you they would
do, is the opposite of what they were
actually fighting for in the ground. Well, who
cares? Don't listen to the people discussing
the obvious overtaking of power in the country.
Look at what they want you to think.
This is them fighting the deep state, apparently,
or whatever weird narrative to throw on top
of it. I just think it's so obvious
how this is happening right now. And, again,
I will always point out that's my opinion.
The transition is clear. But whether or not
this is some coordinated larger thing for a
clear that you can you should question that.
But my god, this is obvious to me.
On top of that, the peace president is
now telling you we're moving on to Cuba
next, guys. Trump declares national emergency over Cuba.
You know, someone explained to me how in
the world there's a US government
American national emergency because
Cuba
threatens tariffs on nations that supply oil to
them. Right? Because they're gonna attack us? When's
the last time that happened? I mean, this
is all about the same old agenda.
Lindsey Graham, Rubio, these guys have been salivating
about Cuba, and here we are.
This is not I mean, even if you
believe they deserve to be overthrown or the
government's bad, what about this is America first?
But I think I'm beating a dead horse
here. I frankly think most conservatives are very
aware of what this is right now and
are just drowning in how uncomfortable they are
about what's going on because most of them
don't wanna acknowledge it, I think. And I
don't mean that they're not saying anything. I
just mean that you don't want to, and
I get that because this is not what
you thought was going to happen, not what
any of us hoped would happen. Right?
But it's important to be honest about this.
Now, the Epstein overlap, which I think is
wildly relevant because of what the administration is
currently claiming to be doing and then what
they're actually doing. Right? So this is, I
believe, the actual reporting written with the Daily
Beast.
Ghislaine Maxwell
drops new Epstein allegations, and they're a doozy.
This came out two days ago.
Longtime Jeffrey Epstein associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, has revealed
that more than two dozen men received cushy
plea deals with the government.
Now this gets really interesting, more than just
the claims, and I'm wondering where this is
coming from. Part of me is wondering whether
this is some complete,
I guess, head fake, something like that, because
of their we'll get to the proper agreement,
the limited immunity, and all of that, as
well as this weird addition of this information
that came out, we're gonna touch on in
a second, which they did release and ultimately
was deleted and put back. And it's all
it's
showing you that they removed this information, I
think, obviously, because it was showing bad things
about Trump. But we'll get into that it
seems to be largely, you know, a a
witness claiming they saw something or the other,
which clearly matters. I don't even know if
it was a witness saying anything about Biden,
they would all buy it without even considering
it, the team sport players. But what's interesting
is that it's there. They deleted it and
put it back.
So
this whole thing at the same time, you
know, there's a lot happening. Just consider how
they play together as well as the fact
that the Epstein network
is very much a a tool
through
used to create the kind of influence over
governments that we're talking about today.
That's not to say the same thing as
it's a part of these other agendas. But
consider that what this has what this was
about and is still, in my opinion and
he was one element of this, not the
leader.
That this is about Israel and other net
the the as Whitney would call the trinational
security state or binational security state, is ultimately
about
influencing governments, manipulating them using their own sexual
proclivities and and blackmail information
into getting the policy you want.
Now, when we're talking about all these different
things happening around the world in transition, that's
worth considering.
I know most of you already know that,
but for those that may be new.
Now, it says, in a habeas petition filed
Tuesday aimed at preemptively ending her prison sentence,
that one part of it is that maybe
she's trying to play a little muscle game
here with the Trump administration, which I doubt
is gonna work out in her favor if
that's the case.
Maxwell alleged that 29 friends of the notorious
sex trafficker and had had been protected, her
word, by the Justice Department by way of
secret settlements.
Now, this is interesting because
who's the is she talking about the current
discussion right now of this administration, or is
she talking about the
ongoing
DOJ of the left and right governments that
the the whole time this has been happening?
There's only I mean, really, I think this
is pretty bad for Trump
and his administration because there's only two ways
that you can think about this making sense.
Either is what she's saying is this has
been the case, which would then mean that
through it's passed through one of his administrations
one way or the other, or she means
it's happening right now, which is clearly his
administration. I just don't see how you don't
associate this with him, or rather just his
administration
at in some way.
And it goes on to say, those settlements
went to 25 men
and four potential coconspirators.
Now that means, I guess, that the four
main people would be the ones that were,
like, literally a part of the crime, and
that 25 of them could have been people
involved with those, maybe people procuring their what
they were selling, just my opinion. And that
was reported to the Daily Beast. Now, the
petition has prompted questions regarding the identities of
the cloaked individuals and why the DOJ would
offer them protection. Now, let's not forget, guys,
we already know in a larger, kind of
abstract way that they were, as even Massey
pointed out,
redacting the names of child predators. That's what
exactly what he pointed out. And then we
have examples of different things being redacted they
claim were about Trump or other than a
claim that that came out because of the
space after his name, and you could find
they deleted his name 600 times. And all
this was public information.
So when
this, about
the cloaked individuals, I mean, there's it's not
hard to recognize that that's that they're capable
of that as they've already been doing that
for their own interest.
But this, again, might reflect on more than
just Trump's administration. Congress passed the Epstein Files
Transparency Act on November 19 to force the
executive branch to release the files in their
entirety, which they obviously haven't done.
The bill stipulated
that the justice department had thirty days, which
they've long passed, to comply,
But that deadline has since disappeared in the
rearview.
It is now late January, and less than
1% of the files have been made public.
Now today or over yesterday to today, they're
now claiming we're leasing 3,000,000 more pages. And
I think it's very telling that this is
happening on the back of what we're talking
about. I think it's very reactionary.
And really, what they ultimately release
will change everything or not, is the point.
Like, they keep doing and acting like, That's
it. We're done. And then it doesn't change
anything and we point out that it's all
redundant information that we already knew and you
redacted all the important parts. And then they
go, oh, wait. We have a truckload or
whatever keeps happening. I'm kind of being facetious,
but we've seen this process. So whatever they
claim they put out versus what they do
put out will make a big difference. Right?
The Department of Justice is openly defying the
law,
says,
Ro Khanna,
by refusing to release the full Epstein files.
And they are, guys. It's not this is
not what they're doing is breaking the law.
And they're just trying to act like we're
doing our best. That's not an excuse. That's
not how this works. Millions of files are
being kept from the public.
Maxwell's attorneys have pressed the White House for
a pardon for several months now. That's why,
you know, they they have been, and I
think this might be a factor on what's
happening here. A July interview between Maxwell and
the DOJ proved incredibly fruitful for the the
convict, however,
sparking concerns the Trump administration had offered Maxwell
a quid pro quo in exchange for a
revised
Epstein list. Well, it's not a secret. You
know? She was literally given limited immunity in
her proffer agreement, which meant that they went
whatever and this was openly discussed.
Whatever information she gave them, she was ultimately
immune from.
And this is I that's
right when this came out, I was outraged
about that.
This person should not be getting away with
anything with what she's been involved when she's
already been to prison
for these crimes and now you're this is,
I think, leading to eventually her getting off.
I I it's it's finds it might be
hard to see, like, even the fact that
they discussed this before, I think they just
realized how completely unpopular that would be, so
they're just waiting.
But I get the sense that this is
that she might have more information that has
been damaging, and this is made even more
clear as, yeah, right here at the end.
Shortly after she spoke
with deputy attorney,
general Todd Blanch, Maxwell, one of the worst
sex criminals in of the century,
received an extremely cushy transfer.
Meal service in her cell, unlimited toilet paper,
Access to private visitations in a chaplain's office
outside standard visiting hours?
What the hell is that?
You could very well be conducting some kind
of weird thing right there. Her request to
be separated from other inmates have been also
granted, with tables and cellmates reportedly being,
relocated
to her whim. Does that sound like somebody
who's getting the book thrown at them? Or
somebody who's ultimately been given benefits because she
did have some kind of exchange with this
administration? I don't know how we don't consider
that. That's insane.
And why, whether or not that she would
be given any of that, afforded any of
that with what we know she's a part
of.
I mean, no no more than no nobody
more than this administration, rather the people that
support it, have been calling out this very
problem. That's why this is such a hard
turn for most of them, and I'm glad
they're starting to call it out.
Now here is,
Maj, how do you say it again? Maj
two ninety nine saying, literally impeding with the
rule of law and obstructing justice about this
whole thing. And I think it's interestingly framed
with what they're saying about what's going on
with ICE and everything else. I've this but
they this is what they're doing. No one's
above the law except them, apparently.
DOJ has failed to meet the deadline to
release the Epstein files and is now forty
one days overdue.
This is where we come to, essentially, was
it today or late last night? It looks
like it was
ultimately today. The US Justice Department releasing more
than 3,000,000 pages.
Okay.
You tell me whether that's out already or
they're about to. The point would be that
we'll have to see what actually happens.
But that's not gonna be even if this
is, like, the most important three thou I
mean, I doubt in the first place with
what we know is going on, and I
mean what we can prove
and what they've already done, that this is
gonna mean anything.
I mean, how could Trump go from pretending
this doesn't even exist and it's all up
to them releasing the things that we know
are there? So either way,
we'll have to wait. We'll see what comes
out, and there will be people that dive
through it all. But you know my opinion.
I don't think this is gonna amount to
what they want you to think it's going
to amount to. Now this is an interesting
overlap.
Epstein files vanish after DOJ releases records mentioning
Trump.
Now it says today now right off the
bat, the the important part is they have
put some of these files back after people
made a big deal about it, which I'm
glad they did. Today, additional records connected to
Jeffrey Epstein became publicly available. Here's the link.
You can go through it for yourself.
As always on this platform, which you don't
really get in many other platforms,
people began pointing to a trove of allegations
against Donald Trump. Those documents are now gone.
Again, they're back now. And the common thread
tying the missing records together is simple. They
reference Donald Trump.
Now you could obviously point out that he
that's not proof of a crime, and then
maybe they're lying about him, and that the
only reason you would get rid of them
is because it was all a Democrat plan
to plant them for the toll. Yes. That's
all possible.
Doesn't make it less relevant that it's in
the information and that he tried to hide
it without you being told. Right? I mean,
if you wanted to come out and make
that case, then make the case. Here's how
we can prove it. But if you can't
prove that, then you can't argue that it's
all not real.
Is this is the end of the day,
even if it's exactly what I just described,
the fact that they're hiding it from you
is just as dishonest.
You know? I I think that's important to
understand. This gets into the same kind of
argument about the coordination of the protest and
all of it.
That matters, and it is a factor. But
it doesn't it's not it should not and
cannot be used to just invalidate anybody's protest
rights or anybody's rights in general because you
claim that is part of what's going on.
The same thing can be done to the
right, which has happened on both sides. January
6 or whatever else we could talk about,
guys. This is why most honest people are
starting to see this picture,
in my opinion anyway. The documents in question
were not court rulings or findings of guilt.
They were law enforcement intake records and the
and tip summaries, which is very important.
Plenty out there misrepresenting
this is absolute proof. Logs of allegations reported
to authorities, the kind of record that exist
to preserve information.
They contain disturbing claims related to Epstein and
Trump. They also contain multiple allegations naming Trump,
sometimes directly, sometimes as a participant at events,
sometimes as a figure present in environments described
by complaints.
They reported on allegations that Trump forced a
14 year old girl to give him oral
sex. That's one example. As well as allegations
that he partook in disturbing sex orgies. Below,
you can see some of the documents that
are no longer active. Now I'm not sure
which ones are back and not. As I
understand it, some have been put back and
some have not.
And you can look through this for yourself
to double
check.
But, ultimately, first, it's I mean, this is
obviously relevant. If somebody out there, a witness,
whether they're part of a Democrat operative scheme
or not, saying this on the record, which,
by the way, you could be held accountable
for that, especially sued by someone like Trump,
it matters regardless to point it out.
But I'm gonna go ahead and I'm not
gonna go through this tooth to comb about
all the different claims for that very reason.
Just recognize, as we just pointed out, the
one that they're highlighting there, these are major,
very serious
allegations.
But it ultimately comes down to this person's
claiming this and we can't prove it. So
the information's within here. What I think is
most important is that they're now trying if
this in the moment anyway, is that they're
now trying to hide this from you. Or
at least they were until it was seen.
Anybody should recognize how relevant that is if
you don't see this as a team sport
game.
But I'll include his post here, which you
can read for yourself, as well as, the
or Orwell posted this. I'll just leave this
article here. Kushner's buddies are on trial right
now for this.
Here's what Orwell was referencing. Witness at Alexander
Brothers' sex trafficking trial tells celebrity night that
became tells of a celebrity night that became
a horror.
So her point is simply that this very
well may be in reference to this exact
overlap that is if that's the case, then
this is a real event that is being
tried right now. And this is the all
of these are relevant if you're being objective.
And I'll include this post, like I said,
where you can go through these, check them
out for yourself.
Now gen x girl put this post out,
which will overlap with the recent, the the
suggestive appointment of,
Warsh in regard to the Fed.
Gen x girl writes, imagine not releasing the
Epstein files, but instead, appointing the son of
Epstein's buddy,
Ronald Lauder, as federal reserve chair.
You are she calls Trump disgusting and, you
know, everything else they're calling him. Now what's
important is Ronald Lauder is not war is
not,
I'm suddenly blanking.
Kevin Warsh is not the same person. Right?
But the connections matter, at least insofar as
that they're there and that you should know
about them and ask whether or not that
could be a driving factor in choices. But
I think that's important to frame it that
way. Right? Because
ultimately, having this father or anybody's father is
not there for make you part of what
they were part of, but it very well
could. Right? And on top of that,
in many cases, especially in our US political
sphere, that these things extend through the family.
That's not hard to see. But so that
being said, we'll play this clip, and then
I'll there's a she references a good article
here I include from Whitney Webb from the
Mint from Mint Press News about the mega
group and so on, but also the connection
to just the fact that Warsh is also
connected to Bilderberg. And I think that alone,
you can make the same point and it
shouldn't mean he's inherently or proven to be
whatever, but that is an organization that is
counter to everything Trump says he's fighting, or
rather that they're that they're they're the representation
of what Trump feigns to be fighting in
the world.
That's obviously relevant. So we'll go through some
of this right now. Let's play this clip
first.
Oh, and here's the post where disclosed TV.
Trump is preparing to nominate Kevin Warsh, son-in-law
of Ronald Lauder, the from the Estee Lauder,
you know, air,
money, former steering committee member of Bilderberg. Like,
that to me matters. Right? It very much
does this is somebody who's a part of
this for more reasons than just that. Now,
like I said, that maybe he's not some
organized part of the larger agenda. But from
a perspective of what Trump claims he's doing
and what people are claiming he's doing, I
think that stands out. And then, of course,
you then overlap that with all the other
examples
of Soros, Besant, and all the different examples
of people in his team that are exact
opposite of what he claimed and Silicon Valley
and Bill Gates and everybody else. Right? So
here's her clip first.
All world leaders,
all politicians
must lead in this effort.
Now this is Ronald Lauder speaking about why
you your speech should be restricted if they
if they argue you're being anti Semitic.
Words
are not enough.
Political speeches
are not enough.
Laws must be passed,
severe,
tough,
real laws
that will put these hate bongers
away in prison for a long time.
Well, it's always important to point out, guys.
Regardless of what you think about it, and
I would agree people who are in in
irrationally hate hate or hate irrationally people because
of their religion or their skin color, they're
disgusting. And we can call that. We can
all acknowledge what you know, you can acknowledge
your opinion whatever way it goes. But it's
also free speech. It's also protected or rather,
the constitution outlines the inherent right you have
to express whatever you wanna say. So the
idea that we're ever at a point where
we're rationalizing anything, whether it's hatred of Muslims
or Christians or anything,
by words, by statements, by you know, other
than a action that is violent, which then
becomes its own law, its own crime.
It's just unconstitutional. It's exactly what we're always
pointing out about what this administration's been doing
and so too have the others before him.
It's just the same argument. But what's important,
again, this is Louder saying this. He's also
the head of the World Jewish Congress. Now
I'm not I'm not of the mind that
being Jewish inherently makes you part of this
problem. But it's always worth noting the overlap
of what Zionism is, the political organization, and
how it uses the idea of Judaism. So
it and as as they will clearly point
out that this is something that is, you
know, the state the state of the Jews
alone, as Netanyahu points out. So it's not
it's not unjustified to point out a connection,
but it can't mean because of that, they're
all that's just how you get played. That's
what Zionism is doing to people. It's a
trap set to justify its existence. If you
wanna know more on that, actually, I'll include
a show we did about that.
Let me grab one I'll just grab the
interview we did with Dan Cohen on that
specific
on that, like, specific point.
Oh, this is a good one too here.
Let me I'll let me get both of
those. This one was more about Haiti. Oops.
That's the wrong one.
And then it's just the manu it's the
the entire conversation about how Zionism is used.
And it's entitled The Manufactured Middle East Plight
and the Zionism Lynchpin.
There's plenty of Orthodox Jewish organizations all around
the world that stand up and protest what
Zionism is at its core.
That alone is enough to recognize that it's
not all or one all or nothing. But
the point being is
that ultimately, he's there speaking about shutting down
speech.
Now, his son-in-law clearly is
a a point the the connections there could
have a very large influence on what he
does. And it's more than just being in
relation, or, like, as a as a, in
the family. So So here's Whitney's article from
2019. Masa mega group, Maxwell's and Masaad, the
spy story at the heart of the Jeffrey
Epstein scandal. So, again, if you're just tuning
in, Robert Louder, we just heard speaking. His
son-in-law is the person who is Trump is
is
suggesting become the Fed chair. Now it says,
Epstein appears to have ties to Israeli intelligence
and has well documented ties to the influential
Israeli politicians and the mega group. Yet those
entities are not isolated in and of themselves
as many have con also connected to the
organized crime network and powerful alleged pedophiles discussed
in previous installments of this series. Perhaps the
best illustration of how the connections between many
of these players often meld together can be
seen in Ron Louder, a mega group member,
founder founder member of the Reagan administration
former member, excuse me, longtime donor to Israeli
prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu
and Israel's Lacud party as well as a
longtime friend of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn.
All of these are very relevant if you
understand the big bigger picture here. If you
don't understand that, I recommend you read what
these books or go deeper into our articles
here. It's just organized crime, guys. It is
it's obvious what's,
I think, for a long time, been kind
of the driving factor of what's going on
in this country. One often overlooked yet famous
client of and friend of Roy Cullen is
the billionaire heir to the Estee Lauder cosmetics
fortune, Ronald Lauder. Lauder is often described in
the press as a leading Jewish philanthropist
and is the president of the World Jewish
Congress, yet his many media profiles tend to
leave out his his highly political past. In
a statement given by Louder to New York
Times reporter Maggie Haberman of two in 2018,
the cosmetics heir noted that he has known
Trump for over fifty years, going back to
at least the early nineteen seventies. According to
Louder, his relationship with Trump began when Trump
was a student at the Wharton School at
the,
at the University of Pennsylvania, which Louder also
attended.
Though the exact nature of their early friendship
is unclear, it's evident that they shared many
of the same connections, including to the man
who would later count them both as clients,
Roy Cohn.
Now by the way, there's tons, as always,
of information in here that goes in a
lot of different directions. I'm just gonna cut
some of the parts out that I think
are relevant to this overlap, but make sure
you read these articles.
It says during his time, excuse me, as
deputy assistant secretary of defense,
Lauder, under Reagan, Lauder all was also very
active in Israeli politics and had already become
an ally
of the then Israeli representative to the United
Nations and future prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Lauter would go on to be one of
the most important individuals in Netanyahu's rise to
power, particularly during his upset victory in 1996.
Whole story around this. We've talked about that
many times. And a major, oops,
and a major financier of Israel's right wing
Likud party. In '19,
'86, the year that Roy Cohn died, Louder
left his post at the Pentagon and became
a US ambassador to Austria. Now there's a
very there's a big overlapping conversation here, I
may just leave it with that, about the
about whether the argument being which is being
framed out there as absolute, but Whitney seems
to argue it's possible, that basically Louder as
the, ambassador in in Austria
was the was behind creating a false passport
for Epstein, which allowed him to skirt the
restrictions on him at the time. This is
during his time as deputy assistant secretary of
defense, or skip that. A few years later,
in the early nineteen nineties, Louder would join
a newly formed group that has long evaded
scrutiny from the media but has recently become
of interest in connection with the Jeffrey Epstein
scandal, the mega group. Before getting to mega
the mega group, it's worth noting one particular
act apparently undertaken by Louder while he was
US ambassador to Austria that is recent that
has recently come to light in relation to
the arrest in early July of Jeffrey Epstein.
A finding first reported by journalist Edward,
Zoll
when the police recently discovered an Austrian passport
with Epstein's picture and a fake name after
raiding his Manhattan residence. The source and purpose
of the passport came under media scrutiny.
Given that Epstein was unable to meet the
conventional
qualifications for an Austrian passport, including long term
residency in Austria, the passport lists him as
a resident of Saudi Arabia,
and fluency in German, it appears that the
only way to have acquired an Austrian passport
was by unconventional means, meaning assistance from a
well connected Austrian official or foreign diplomat with
clout in Austria.
It's as though Epstein's defense attorney declined to
reveal the identity of the friend who provided
him with the fake Austrian passport.
Lauder was both well positioned to acquire it
in Austria and also deeply connected to the
mega group, which was cofounded by Epstein's patron,
Leslie Wexner,
and to which Epstein has many connections. These
connections to both the Austrian government and the
Epstein's mentor make Lauder the most likely person
to have acquired the document on his behalf.
Now there's a lot to get into in
all this, but what I think is very
interesting is now remember, the son in laws
we're discussing
is the idea that this is somebody who's
in what appears to be very clearly interconnected
with this larger foreign policy apparatus around Epstein,
around Israel,
and was close friends with all of them,
including Trump and Netanyahu.
So I think that's very that's worth considering
that his son,
through extension, is in some way connected to
that that influence, if not very least that
they could use him to influence his son.
Now that's just pointing out the obvious, but
that shouldn't be used to argue that therefore
we know, you know, everything's everything. You know,
it's not that what happens in the independent
the mainstream alternative media today is that you
use certain points to argue an absolute which
aren't always there. Just worth considering that.
Now, going into him in particular, which will
make this even more interesting, I think.
This is a an article put up, was
this is today, actually.
Kevin Warsh says Jerome Powell has failed inside
the mind of the man who may lead
the Trump Fed.
Kevin Warsh likes to tell a story that
explains why he would remake the Federal Reserve
from top to bottom. Now let's not forget
what I see, and I think is clear
in some degree is happening, is this sort
of transition.
And in many ways, it's a sort of
what I call the bait and switch administration
where you're saying, oh, we wanna end the
Fed when your plan is to roll out
a stablecoin CBDC dynamic. Right? Which is clear.
That's what's happening.
So when you have a person coming out
in any of these conversations and offering radical
change into what we ultimately wanted, we should
be very skeptical. Hope for that, but
criticize, question,
prove. Because at the end of the day,
if you're coming out with an idea that
reimagines how this all works, I can see
the
outlines of what they're already building. And to
me, that's not what anybody wants, especially those
that talked about ending the Fed or realizing
that their way they're using Bitcoin is actually
complete manipulation of what it was originally designed
to be and all of these things. So
he explains why he would remake the Federal
Reserve from top to bottom if Trump chooses
him to be the central bank's next chair.
Trump will soon announce a replacement for current
chair Jerome Powell and has named Warsh as
one of his top candidates for the job.
Not necessarily going to happen, has to be
confirmed by the senate and so on. Warsh
made history by becoming the youngest ever Fed
governor at 35.
So he's an insider. Yeah. I mean, this
is clear from the in in the general
sense. Doesn't necessarily mean bad. As a a
stint as Milton Friedman's research assistant, which I
find interesting seeing as how what is it?
Patsy or the a a a relative of
Friedman is currently one of the leading people
in Prospera. Milton freedom Friedman is a is
a is very clearly connected to the larger
discussion. You can look this up for yourself,
not to go in that direction alone, but
it's interesting to me the overlaps to that
possibly about what I see building in all
of this. Continuing,
it says the next Fed chair can reset
the institution's credibility.
In in in Warsh's view, only by over
hauling the way the Fed thinks about its
relationship with the markets, the economy, and the
rest of the government. Which, yeah, I mean,
a lot of what most of what he's
saying, I'm like, yeah. I think we should
be. We should be re how about we
get rid of it entirely?
But it's all about, you know, rethinking and
reimagining the way that it works. And, you
know, it sounds like logic. Maybe it is.
Maybe he means this. Maybe he means to
do it away, to drive away from government
control, but the opposite is what's ultimately being
put forward.
The argument that what you're creating is that
we need we need the government to have
more control over this.
Now I there's a whole point you made
about the Fed itself being a, you know,
a non government entity, which in its own
right has its is major problem.
But the idea on top of that is
that if we with what we see the
government currently doing, left or right,
I don't think the argument in any sense
to give them more control over anything, quite
frankly. I think I hope that makes that
clear. Like, every possible way you could frame
that.
And it goes on to say, Warsh has
become a leading intellectual force in the conservative
movement to reform
the central
bank. As always, right, don't get rid of
the bad things we don't like. Re create
them in the Trump way.
Says to wars, the Fed's track record demands
that what he often calls a regime change.
Just the verb the word the terms I
find very interesting.
Again, so it's about, you know, seizing and
and overtaking it and making it
different,
not getting rid of these things.
The Fed's large holdings now effectively overstep into
the
step into the fiscal domain that is or
should be the responsibility of elected officials.
Now, yeah, there's a point you made about
what the system is and why it's broken
because of certain factors we just highlighted.
But at the same time, what we're really
highlighting here is just to take the same
broken thing and just make sure that the
people in his administration
have more power over how what happens there.
And if this was an honest situation, that
might be the best solution. But at this
point in time, with what we know our
government's involved with, this is obviously gonna lead
to more of what they're doing. That's what
I think anyway. And I think this is
just about framing him as the one coming
in to mix it all up and and
driving in the plan.
But also to give treasury secretary Scott the
cent a large share of responsibility.
Great. You know, the Soros guy. That that
that's what we all want. Right? And it
says and for how and when that happens.
Warsh served on the Fed through 02/2009.
Right. In the midst of one of the
largest collapses in this country.
That was he served on the Fed through
the collapse 02/2009.
Now it's not like
there's a whole discussion to be had about
where the responsibility lies to all that. But
I find that obviously relevant because of the
actions from every level of the system led
to where we were and are, again.
So let's bring him back. That's he he's
served under one of the best times possible.
Right?
And it says it says he is married
to Jane Louder, a billionaire by virtue of
her stake in the cosmetics company named for
her grandfather grandmother, excuse me, Estee Louder. But
Warsh's
real,
day job is working for the legendary investor
Stanley Druck Druckenmiller.
Warrash was hired in 2011
by Druckenmiller
after presiding working through the February
and stopped taking outside investors he was hired
in 2011 after Druckenmiller stopped taking outside investors'
money and set up what's the
what is it? Du Du Kent? How would
you say that? Duquesne?
Duquesne?
D u q u e s n e,
family.
To the the Duquesne family office to manage
his small nest egg. That's what he framed.
Do do how would you say that? Duquesque.
I don't
know. Now it says they that that family
found success investing in early stage,
private companies
such as Palantir.
Well, that's relevant.
Right. So the company he worked for,
which went basically private in a way,
found most of their success in Palantir.
Maybe that means nothing. Maybe it means everything.
Alex Karp, Stan, and I have been through
quite a lot together, he says. Oh, so
on top of the investment, he's close friends
with Alex Karp and every the the whole
team.
Warr says, without elaborating, he's also friendly since
college with investor Peter Thiel personally. Well, look
at that. Venture capitalist. Now look. I'm gonna
be clear.
Like like in like the Jewish Zionism point.
It doesn't just absolutely mean you're what you
know, everything we're worried about because you know
the guy, because you're close friends, or whether
you invest in everything.
That may not the point is we need
to be critical,
but wait for facts, wait for evidence. But
I think this is highly relevant and in
in and it suggests that the person who's
about to be possibly one of the ones
Trump the one that Trump seems to want
in the Fed is it is absolutely an
insider with the insider
with the entire agenda that we that I'm
worried
that I can see rolling out right now.
With all the interconnection
point you know, when it going back to
the investment, going back to the people he's
connected to, going back to his family. Now,
again, like I said, maybe that's just the
window dressing and he's gonna do the good
thing. But doesn't that seem worthy of consideration?
Sure does to me. He's also been friends
with since college with Peter Thiel and Marc
Andreessen. What do you know? It's almost just
big coincidence.
Kumar says he put him and Druckenmiller
into Bitcoin,
which, again, you know, the the larger point
of how this Bitcoin kind of co cuckoo
is taking place. Over time, Warsh also became
dear friends with Besent,
a fellow protege of Druckenmiller. Weird. It's like
one big family, who is now Trump's Treasury
Secretary. The two talked regularly for years before
Bassett took the job. They remain close.
True matters to me. Bassett is formally charged
with vetting the candidates and has said that
he intends to hand a list to some
of the three names. So, basically, whether this
guy gets in or not, Soros Bessette is
the one making the list for Trump to
pick from. That's what I always talk about
with this whole, like, Trump will bring the
best people in front of me to make
sure I make the best choices. Well, these
people then can hand you what they claim
is the full breadth of conversation, and, really,
it's a limited choice. So whatever you pick,
you they get what they want out of
you. I think he's played like that all
the time by the
way. In any case I think the relationship
to all of these people is relevant.
But I guess we'll have to wait and
see what actually pans out.
On top of that Ronald Louder.
Reportedly credited with spurring Trump's interest in buying
Greenland at which we already recently discussed. Right?
That's just one more overlapping example of how
all this seems to tie together, but it
could just be coincidence. And I genuinely mean
that. Consider that. But also consider that it's
not.
Oh, and this is just what this is
just funny to me. You this is the,
like, the mainstream
framing, which is read it for yourself. If
if this was about anybody outside the Republican
party, the teams where Republicans will be calling
this everything you need to make sure you
know their deep state. Right?
Realize that the real story goes deeper than
what what Newsweek is highlighting. But just basically
understanding Newsweek's Scott Bissent connections, or besent, to
George Soros explained. And
it's funding to start his virtual business. The
connections still go to this very day. Interestingly,
even the mainstream can highlight that, but that
doesn't matter.
Here's a quick clip. I'll just play the
first part of it actually of of basically
him in the interview
discussing
how Andreessen set him up with the idea
of Bitcoin. Now I just, the I think
Bitcoin is relevant rather just the digital money
overlap. Here's what he had to say.
You made reference to Bitcoin, and I thought
I heard a little bit of condescension
that people are buying Bitcoin and these things.
But doesn't it Charlie Munger, this is two,
three years before he died, Charlie Munger attacked
Bitcoin. He called it evil
in part because
it would begin to undermine the Fed's ability
to manage the economy.
Or it could provide market discipline.
Or it could tell the world that things
need to be fixed.
Bitcoin does not make you nervous.
Bitcoin does not make me nervous. I can
hearken back to a,
a dinner I had here in 2011,
with a someone who is another guest on
your show. I won't say his name.
Okay. It's interesting that he first says he
won't say his name, and then very quickly
says his name. But I want you to
ask yourself, why would he in any way
why would he, for any reason,
feel the need to not want to mention
his name?
Maybe nothing.
Probably not interesting though.
Someone who is another guest on your show.
I won't say his name.
Okay. I just did Marc Andreessen who showed
me the white paper
that Isn't that strange?
Took a second to think about it, and
then said, okay. Well,
okay. What what what was the first thought
that made you think maybe I shouldn't mention
his name right now? I just find that
strange.
Was the original white paper. I wish I
had understood as clearly as he did
how transformative
Bitcoin and this new technology would be.
Bitcoin doesn't trouble me. I think of it
as an important asset that can help inform
policy makers when they're doing things right and
wrong.
It is not a substitute to the dollar.
I think it can often be a very
good policeman for policy.
Think about that. Now there's more, but I
mean, just think about what he's saying right
there. This is the kind of that's the
opposite of what the white paper outlines. That's
the opposite of what anybody who's actually the
the classic Bitcoin or just cryptocurrency
driving mindset is the opposite of that.
I it's not supposed to bolster the dollar.
It's supposed to replace the the the the
current centralized system,
But they've sure as hell co opted that,
and people like Andreessen are the mindset
behind this idea. You know? They've they've taken
it and said, we'll make you guys some
money, and everyone bought into it apparently, or
far too many who you'd otherwise think have
principles, at least the way I look at
it. Here's, Derek's article, the co opting of
Bitcoin. We went to the Nashville conference and
saw a lot that really opened our eyes.
And even the way Trump discussed it, have
fun playing with your crypto, he said when
he ended the conference. Like, he just it's
it's just embarrassing the way, you know, that
he
it speaks for itself.
Bitcoin, Nashville, Peter Thiel, Donald Trump, and Rumble.
I'll also include our IMA discussion, co opting
freedom, the Bitcoin sleight of hand, and the
new AI control structure. I'll also include an
interview I had with Mark Goodwin from, that
over he's worked with Whitney Webb. In many
cases, we're we're a bunch on unlimited hangout.
Was Bitcoin a government operation and can't still
can it still be used to fight back?
Very much so worth considering that the it
it the the way it's being used is
circumventing or rather, you know, co opting is
the right word actually to, you know, taking
taking control over the direction.
Interestingly enough, here's Mark Goodwin
back in October 2025.
Imagine if they do pick Warsh to run
the Fed, though.
So just just a nod to somebody who
clearly was ahead of this story, who likely
was getting no attention for actually being right
about that because of the way our broken
media system works today. But worth noting that.
And it's not just this post. He wrote
about this, discussed it in many ways. But
he also nods to our our discussions and
and to look to some of the places
that he's discussed this, which I'll include in
our interview.
Patriotic Blonde highlights something else in this that
just, I think, is connected to the larger
conversation of, you know, I guess,
the bait and switch of it all.
Meanwhile,
she says the Trump administration has quietly introduced
an effort to repeal the seventeenth amendment, which
would rob you of your right to vote
for representation and instead have your senators appoint
pointed for you. She says, but don't mind
me. After all, I'm the one who portrayed
MAGA. Remember? She was a major MAGA supporter
who ultimately starts calling out. Now there's nuance
to this to a degree. I mean, arguably,
that there was a case where this existed
before,
right, where they're, like, the they would ultimately
choose them from the Senate side.
But I obviously agree with the sense of
when you give the government power, even if
you agree that that was at one point
the way it should have worked, You give
the government power to pick who they want
in power, well, that will continue to centralize
power in their benefit. Now, you may argue
at one point that was the way to
go. But right now, this conversation, as it's
right here in the the document, it says
this nation is best served by returning to
the prior constitutional system that provided for each
state's legislature to elect that state's United States
senators.
I just think that's insane with where we
are. Right? I mean, all that's gonna amount
to is less influence from people if you
even have influence over that today.
But you guys can read more of the
comments and do it for yourself. I think
this is I mean, look at what's happening
right now. First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment,
Fourth Amendment. Across the board, guys, have we
ever had these kind of conversations with
I mean, we've worried about this with Obama
and others. Right? But look at where we
are right now. These things are happening.
Now even if you agree with the actions
they're taking, they're still being used to change
the reality of the the constitutional
landscape here. Now before we go past this,
there's another point I wanted to play here
in this same kind of bait and switch
point. You might have seen this conversation with
Massey on on Jimmy Dore.
And they just quoted basically right here, but
this is pretty insane. We already showed we
shared with you Massey telling you that Cash
Patel's FBI was threatening him or his people
in his staff with investigations, should they not
play ball. That was his term
that he claimed they used.
Now that I mean, I have no reason
to con to think that's not what's happening
based on their actions, but we should question
it all. Here he is again on Jimmy
Dore with even more of an with saying
that this is them that he's having people
quit because they're being threatened by Trump's administration.
Guys,
I don't even I mean, if this is
what's happening, and we should question it, like,
at all, like, everything,
I don't know what more you would need
to see to understand what this group is.
This is not a Democrat. This is probably
one of the most obviously Republican
line like, line towing people in the sense
of, like, just aligning with the GOP agenda
than anybody else in the America First group.
And is clearly standing by his principles with,
I mean, everything I've seen so far in
this administration.
And he's the one they're threatening? I mean,
what does that show you?
Let me describe some of the other things
they do that you don't see.
Three of my consultants have quit, like, on
my campaign and all all three for the
same reason. And I don't blame them. I'm
not even mad at them. I if I
were in their shoes, I'd probably quit too.
They were told that your other three clients
will be will
will fire you or sorry, your other 30
clients will fire you if you keep working
for Massey.
And so they make it hard
to basically to hire the people then when
and for everyone that quit. Okay?
You go out and you interview 10 people
to replace them
and they all tell you the same thing.
I can't work for you or I'll lose
all my other clients.
So it's like a it's a mafia
in the consultant world. By the way, I
really love the consultants I got now because
they're the ones who said, screw you. I'll
just I'm gonna work for Massey because I
believe in what he's doing and I'm good
enough at my job. I'll go find some
other clients if you
What an interesting point. Like,
hypothetically, which day by day, he's making it
seem more the case. Hypothetically, that Massey is
everything he shows to be.
All you're really doing is ultimately,
like, helping him find the people who are
not ideologically driven, people who are there because
they believe in what he's fighting for. And
the people you know, it's like you're literally
helping him in the long run. Maybe people
who are dishonest might not be able to
even see that. But But isn't that interesting
to think about? And I think this is,
you know, your this is the desperation of
the current government stance.
And what it really shows you is how
obvious it is if basic
like, just a simple stance against them. Just
standing there doing the thing you claim you're
doing is that clearly contradictory.
It's night and day.
What does that tell you? You think conservatives
can't see that, guys?
Your clowns fire me. Okay.
So good for them.
The other thing they do is
so,
you know, I told you I got I
may have told you this, maybe I didn't.
I've got 15,000
donors
across The United States. My average donation is
$80.
Is that because I don't want
millionaires to to give to a super pack
and to help me? No. Hell no. I'll
take all the help I can get. The
problem is if you've reached some degree of
success
where you have
a a million dollar disposable income,
you probably can't afford to tick off this
administration,
or or they will come at your business.
And I'm not talking about IRS audits. Like
And this this should be ringing true with
all of the people who were fighting against
the attacks on the trucker convoy, the attacks
on people being debanked by the left side
of the government because they were saying the
wrong things. You've got a guy fighting for
your interest in the government
who they're doing the same thing
to, literally going at I mean, this is
everything you're claiming you're finding being represented in
the person who you think is leading your
charge.
Dollar disposable
income.
You probably can't afford to tick off this
administration
or or they will come at your business.
And I'm not talking about IRS audits. Like,
it's it's bigger than that. You won't get
the permits you need Mhmm. To to do
the business.
You're
you're foreign when you try to do business
overseas, that'll get interfered with. So they intimidate.
They can't intimidate my $80 donors. Right? There's
too many of them. But
there are
and and and really over the MAGA split
and on foreign policy,
there are people of great means.
I'm talking about extraordinary means
who could put money in my race and
post up against
the the,
Israel first billionaires.
But they're staying on the sidelines
because
their
business will get ruined.
They won't be invited to the parties,
you know, the a list parties, and all
that goes away.
So that's that's another part of what happens
behind the scenes.
There there are things that you can't see,
and and I can see that happening,
in the presidential
race as well.
Crazy.
Right? It's not surprising.
I I I mean, anybody who's gonna be
honest about any side of our government can
absolutely see that happening. Maybe even for a
position of them going, well, we know he's
fighting for the deep state, so it's okay.
You know, whatever the rationale is.
I mean, the idea that you're threatening or
using financial manipulation
to stop people from supporting him. And if
they do, attacking them
through I mean, you can just look at
what they've been doing, just this administration, to
see how that's been going on.
I just think it should really bother you
that it's being done to somebody who's actually
out there fighting on the political line for
what you actually want.
Now on that very note, by the way,
Derek put out an excellent article
following up on the fluoride conversation, which probably
got very little attention because there's so much
going on. But it matters because it's the
same continuation. As he writes, MAHHA, Bait and
Switch, Trump's EPA calls for review of fluoride
science while ignoring historic ruling on fluoride.
There's plenty of them in
be people that can't see how clear a
manipulation this is, in my opinion, or those
that don't care are out there acting like
this is a win.
The truth is you've already got the ruling.
It causes harm.
What they're being ordered to do is flesh
out that harm. That's the reality. By them
now calling for another review, everybody from Michael
Conn at the Florida Action Network and everybody
else involved is saying, we've done this six
times already. This is what they were doing
before. That's why it happened six times. They
just kept calling for another review. And then
finally, they got it to this point because
of independent media, because of people paying attention,
because of people actually caring in the Maha
movement about what this is. And now, not
only after they just pushed back on the
last one, now they're pretending they're gonna pull
this into another review. It'll drift into the
background. Meanwhile,
kids are still being given fluoride in their
drinking water.
This is this is not what winning looks
like, guys. This is what being lied to
looks like. Now on that note, by the
way, Derek is out there at the People's
Reset right now. Make sure you check out
the amazing work they're doing. A lot of
really important conversations being had. I'll include this.
Make sure you share it. Get people to
check it out. This is, at the thegreatthegreaterreset.org.
The People's Reset is what it's now called.
Make sure you check it out and support
it.
Now let's talk
about Alex Friday
and how this all overlaps. And now you
might have seen some of the new information
that went around, and I think it's very
important to talk about that. But I have
a clip that was put out that I
think is relevant.
BBC, I think, is the one that did
it that ultimately shows you the the the
information of the the both the in for
the time before,
the time during that incident, and then as
well as follow-up information
that came out recently about an incident that
happened the day before or rather a couple
days before leading up to it. And so
let's go through all this. I'll include my
shows we've done so far, which I I
argue I'd argue. I mean, the facts I
think are very clear. What we're claiming in
this,
which I entitled the negligent homicide of Alex
Prady, 100%
stands.
All the rest of it would only change
whether or not you think that this is
somebody trying to cause what they did. What
they did with the facts we have is
a crime. At the very least, a shocking
level of incompetence, malfeasance, negligence,
and people should be charged for that. That's
the whole point of this job. You don't
accidentally kill somebody based on a lie or
a misunderstanding
and act like nothing should happen.
Even if Alex, in your mind, was trying
to cause this. He had a phone in
his hand. He the the gun was out
of that holster when they opened fire on
him.
So these things aren't disputed at this point
despite there still being lies that circle around.
So you can check out this show from
January 25. Charlie and I had a great
conversation on the twenty eighth
where we talk about a lot of this
and more getting into the the philosophical and
and, like, really discussing what I was trying
to highlight and go and and, you know,
very much appreciate Charlie's stance on this. I
hope you guys will watch it. Is that
ultimately,
I'm stressing that it's important that both of
us are are pointing out. There is manipulation
taking place. And that shouldn't be debatable. We
can prove that there's organized protesters. We can
prove that there's aid to provocateurs.
My mindset is that it's pretty clearly the
government from all sides doing this to keep
us fighting ourselves. Either way, if you disagree
with that or not, the point is that
it exists. Right? We can prove that. But
the point I'm making is knowing that,
what matters, essentially, since we can argue that
not everybody's a part of that. Right? I'd
like to believe we can all acknowledge that.
January 6, Trucker Convoy. Yes. We can know
that even though there are manipulated parts, that
not everybody there is a part. So that
means that you have a right to protest.
Even if you are, inadvertently
walking into a coordinated protest, whatever that means.
The question then becomes,
whoever we're pointing to, Renee Goode, Alex Preddy,
is that person,
one,
proven to be a part of some coordinated
effort? And then, two, if that is the
case, is are they then breaking the law?
What's the justification for your action? You have
you have to understand. Even if you claim
George Soros personally handed them money to go
out there and yell on the cop's face,
unless there's a crime being broken, there is
nothing to there's no legal accountability here. And
I'm in no way suggesting that there's nothing
we should ignore that. In fact, I think
that's one of the largest problems of how
the entire thing is used against us from
all sides. It's important that we inform ourselves
and recognize that it's there.
And then the answer would be to go
hard to your principles.
If you wanna prove somebody broke the law,
then charge them for that. If you wanna
prove that there's a manipulated organized network, then
make that case and prove that
in regard to the actual elements. Now, what
we're seeing is in regard to the signal
chat, for example. Now, yes. There is coordination
there. Can we prove that that's an organized
effort to in infiltrate, manipulate, overthrow?
I think that matters. We're gonna go over
some arguments of why people do think that
is part of what that was, and it
very well may be. I still argue at
the end of the day with Renee and
Alex, which is what we have to come
back to.
Were they breaking the law?
And if they were, what was the reaction?
And was the reaction justified? And if it
was not, then who is held accountable for
that? We have to be honest about this.
Otherwise, the government will always step in right
in that nuance and take advantage of all
of us. And I really believe that most
people are starting to recognize that right now.
Now, first of all, Ian Smith senior points
this out. He wasn't complying with federal orders,
which is what we keep hearing from some
of the most self,
professed second amendment champions and constitutional
absolutists.
And Ian says, yeah. Good. I never do.
Any of you f dards remember COVID?
Now the right wants to boot lick? Where's
your ideological consistency?
Actually, where are your effing balls? He says.
Well, I mean, aside from the,
you know,
frustration with people I mean, look. This point
is obviously that it's about like, if your
argument is that lefty didn't comply
with the orders they were given, okay. You
may argue that that's what should have happened
right there. But you see, that's for them
to decide based on what they're dealing with.
And you were making those choices when it
had to do with
COVID nineteen overlaps.
And people were being told to go inside.
People were being ordered to not and people
were, like you, were out there going, I
will not comply.
How is that not the same point? Because
you find your argument more justifiable? Well, that's
a completely subjective stance.
It's about being consistent.
And if you and if you stop doing
that, the government will step in and manipulate
everybody like it does every single time.
We have to have principles here, and the
true the proof the the reality of it
is that we have the right to protest.
We have the right to refuse what we
feel is an unjust order.
They don't have the right to murder you
in the street because of that. And on
top of that, that if it is unjust,
which is, by the way,
almost entirely what they're doing, you can prove
this from courts of law down to immediate
realities of the constitution
that they're doing so. That doesn't mean you
should go out there and punch them in
the face. But at the end of the
day, there is a conversation to be had
about where that line is.
That's just not where this conversation is being
had. It's being had about absolute all or
nothing like it always is because that's the
best way to manipulate Americans.
So let's watch this clip breakdown. About nine
minutes, and I think it does a good
job of giving you the basic understanding of
this. And even kind of the narrative even
seems to be somewhat centered for the most
part. And then ultimately,
the additional part of this. So let's watch
this.
Alex Preti was killed by federal agents on
Saturday January 24.
He was shot in Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis,
less than three weeks after Renee Goode was
also shot and killed by federal agents in
the city. Shit.
Shit. In the hours after Alex Petty's death,
the Trump administration
offered this explanation.
This looks like a situation where an individual
arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage
on individuals and to kill law enforcement.
With that in mind, let's look at the
available evidence about what happened that Saturday morning.
The first video we have starts more than
six minutes before the shooting. A woman is
recording and she sees federal agents approach a
store
called Glamdole Donuts.
With her is a man who's on the
phone.
More agents arrive. They're there to arrest a
suspected illegal immigrant.
I'd also find it important that it's
suspected.
Now this is how BBC is framing it.
Right? I'm sure they have their own narrative,
but let's again be honest about the reality
of the the data that we can prove
today, which is that in most of these
cases that I can see,
they're going after people that they don't know
for a fact. They're they're they're profiling, which
is something, as Americans, we've always pushed back
on. In fact, frankly, it's unconstitutional.
That matters, but the rest of this is
more important.
They're about 25 meters from where Alex Preti
will be killed.
Less than a minute after that, the man
starts verbally abusing the agents. Oh my god.
The man continues to shout. You.
That's not Alex Preti, by the way. Then
three minutes and twenty three seconds into this
video,
we see Alex Preti.
Soon afterwards, he's being pushed back by an
agent. Do not touch me, he shouts.
The same moment is captured in another video,
which starts a little earlier.
Here's Alex Preti in the road, holding a
phone and face to face with the federal
agent.
Again, we see the agent push him, and
Alex Preti steps backwards. We can clearly see
he has a phone in one hand, nothing
in the other. Before we continue to assess
the video evidence, keep in mind what the
Trump administration said about two things,
Alex Preti's intentions
and the nature of the protest in the
street. We were told Alex Preti was an
assassin who tried to murder federal agents. We
were told he intended to Massacre law enforcement.
And we were told this. This is a
violent riot when you have someone showing up
with weapons,
and are using them to assault law enforcement
officers. I mean, see, this is what's so
infuriating for most of us is that look.
Regardless of whether you think this was justified
or whether he was out there with a
coordinated effort, they're straight up lying to you.
Now why would that need to be the
case? Why would the government have to lie
about everything, like, reflexively
if what if it's absolutely clear what he
did was wrong. It doesn't make any sense.
This is why honest people are out there.
Even if they agree or think it was
coordinated, they go like, okay. This is uncomfortable.
They're absolutely lying. They had to misframe this
to make to make you think he was
doing something he was not to justify killing
a US citizen? That should sit wrong with
everybody. Even if you agree that what he
was doing was weaponized,
that should sit with you.
The continuous video we have of the minutes
before the shooting
doesn't show anything that supports this. Here's another
video. Alex Preti is on the right. Once
more, he has nothing in one hand, a
phone in the other. Now really quickly, we
will gonna we're gonna get to the clip
of him the day before the days before
this where he kicks the car and all
that.
The obvious argument is that doesn't change the
reality of how that went down in the
situation, whether other than you're thinking that somehow
that more so justifies it. But, yeah, sure.
You can argue that the cops responding to
that are gonna be angry with him or
whatever. But aren't they supposed to be the
adults that don't reaction like, in a reactionary
sense, kill people because they're frustrated? Not not
to say that's what happened. My point would
be that regardless of that, it doesn't change
the reality of it. But that's what we're
getting today. All of these equivocating arguments about
how, look, he was out there, you know,
in their faces, coordinated left to protesting agitators.
Okay.
I'd prove all that, please. But secondarily, recognize
that none of that changes the material reality
of what happened.
Nearby are two people interacting with an agent.
One has an orange rucksack.
One has a brown coat. We see them
both again in multiple videos, including this one
that shows the moments leading up to Alex
Preti being shot.
Let's pause the video here. Now before they
go further, right, So let's just say for
sake of conversation that the orange bag and
the rest of them, they're all coordinated. They're
all there with the plan to make this
happen. It still does not change the reality
of the legal situation, guys. And on top
of that, it's not what happened. You can
quite literally prove that they weren't rushing them.
They weren't surrounding them. At the end of
the day, as you'll see right here again
for I don't know how many times he
played this, that ultimately he was there, stepped
in between them because they were he was
pushing a wound to the ground. And you
could argue that he shouldn't have touched them
or whatever, but I don't even think it's
as clear that he necessarily
touched him or just stuck his hand in
between them. But let's just say for sake
of conversation that he touched him.
That does not validate the way that they
respond to all of this. And even if
you think it does, it leads to him
being killed as an unarmed man because of
the way they reacted.
There see, this is why nuance is so
important. Do you wanna argue there's some level
of accountability for him because of what he
was doing, because of the actions from before?
That's a fair statement to make. We can
debate what level that would be. But the
point only being that he, with his actions,
knowing how belligerently
the lunacy of these people today and how
willing willingness their the willingness they have to
create
illegal situations that him doing so should have
that was helping to add to that.
But that's the best you're gonna get from
that.
That he brought it on himself. Isn't that
victim shaming? Even if it's true, since these
are people you know, you can go on
forever. Like, this is why it's important to
break this down because at the core of
this, there's no same with Renee Goode, by
the way. And I still believe this. I
still believe to this point, both of these
are largely understood as way we frame them
by most people.
This is thirty three seconds before the first
shot is fired. An agent pushes the person
with the brown coat, then pushes Alex Preti,
then pushes the person with the orange rucksack
who falls to the ground. Don't you think
that that response right there was over the
top for whatever reason?
God forbid, they say mean things to them.
Fine. They're in the street. Then, you know,
then then have somebody come charge them with
a ticket.
Why is it should not be legally justified
for an agent to be violent with you
for no reason. Whether or not you're like,
if you're violating a traffic scenario,
that them pushing you I mean, these these
are citizens too, you understand. Whether you're a
cop or not, you just violated that agreement.
You just broke the law by pushing me
to the ground for no justifiable reason. But
this never happens today. Nobody ever holds them
to the standard that they hold us to.
Like, they get
passes every day when it should be the
exact opposite.
Before continuing, let's hear the Trump administration's account
of the incident. An individual approached US border
patrol officers with a nine millimeter semiautomatic
handgun.
The officers attempted to disarm this individual,
but the armed suspect reacted violently.
There's no evidence that, at this point, the
agents knew that Alex Preti was armed. We
see him step between the person with the
orange rucksack and an agent. For a brief
moment, he touches the agent near the waist.
He's then pepper sprayed. Now my point was
simply that yeah. And let's just even say
that's what happened for sake of conversation. Right?
But I think you could pretty easily argue
We see him step between the person with
the orange rucksack and an agent.
Is that, basically, he saw him push the
woman
as a as a objective, somebody sitting there,
like, whether police or not. You shove this
woman to the ground, and he's already but
if you understand the way this is already
gone, as they just showed you, he was
out there doing this a moment before this,
and the day before that going, stop. Leave
her alone. And he stuck his hand out.
Now, I will agree that's an that's a
ridiculous thing to do with what you know
these people are doing or in any sense
because a a a cop is gonna use
that as an example to throw you to
the ground. We know this, but it does
not mean he's justified in doing what happened.
And on top of that, it's I think
it's even questionable that he did what they
the way they frame it other than just
putting his hand in there. But, again, let's
just say he did. For a brief moment,
he touches the agent near the waist. He's
then pepper sprayed. We're now twenty seven seconds
before the first shot is fired. Interesting. He
raises a hand as if to block the
spray and then turns away, bending down That's
important. As if to help the person who
the agent had pushed to the floor. That's
so important because most people don't see this.
Okay?
Fired. He raises a hand as if to
block the spray and then turns away. He
turns away. Okay? So at this point, he's
not facing any of them. He's turning down
to help the woman get up.
So good luck trying to argue this is
him with the intent to murder everybody when
the only thing that happened was him blocking
the pepper spray that you sprayed into his
eyes, by the way, and tried to help
a woman up off the ground. And as
he's helping her up off the ground, they
tackle him to the ground.
For what reason? At this point, literally, for
what reason? Because his hand brushed the guy's
coat as he tried to stop him from
breaking the law,
which is ultimately we're talking about. He shoved
this woman to the ground for no justif
no justified reason.
Bending down as if to help the person
who the age And you can see he's
holding her backpack. He's helping her up off
the ground as they're trying to muscle him
to the ground.
Pushed to the floor. The agent grabs his
arm and starts to pull him away.
As more agents arrive, they wrestle Alex Preti
to the ground.
This is nine seconds before he's shot.
President Trump referred to Alex Preti as a
gunman.
That description normally suggests someone who is actively
using a gun. None of the videos we've
analyzed show Alex Preti holding a gun. Throughout
these moments, he has a phone in his
right hand and appears to be filming.
As we return to the video, Alex Preti
is now surrounded by eight agents. He's on
his knees bent over. And look, you guys,
you can see
his arms on the ground.
At this point, you're reacting to people beating
you up.
I mean, this is not that hard to
recognize. The the the narrative is so like,
even if you wanna argue then suddenly you
started punching back. Okay. Wouldn't be surprising what's
going on, but go ahead and take a
step back then and argue this is a
riot and that they confronted him with a
gun in his hand. There's just so much
lying out there and I think that anybody
with an honest cell in their body can
recognize that. Now then you can come back
and go, but yes, he still got this
or still deserved that. But you have to
start by saying they lied to us about
the entire thing. Because that's the reality of
this. But you get this weird line where
people are un unwilling to acknowledge that because
of their political standing. That's just dishonesty.
We can clearly see his hands on the
floor There it is. And he's struggling against
being held down. Still holding a cell phone,
by the way, which is crazy. One agent
repeatedly strikes in the direction of his head.
Why? Why are you hitting him at this
point? His hands are on the ground. You're
on top of him, probably because, as we're
gonna get into, they hated him.
They knew who he was. They already documented
that because of the way he reacted the
other day. Whether you think it's unjustified or
not,
sure was crazy in my mind with what
they know they're doing. We'll get into that.
There's also points you made about whether those
people argue it's fake and so on.
But explain to me why you're hitting him
in the head with what it looks like
to be a gun in your hand.
And he's struggling against being held down. One
agent repeatedly strikes in the direction of his
head. Look at that. Let's highlight another agent
in a gray jacket. Note that his right
hand is empty.
He reaches down and removes what appears to
be a gun from Alex Preti's waistband. He
then steps back, and the gun is clearly
visible in his right hand. That image right
there that was clarified,
right, in the sense of just, well, I
don't I there there were versions that people
used AI to make it clear, and then
there was examples of just better high quality
video. Everyone claimed it was fake. I shouldn't
say it like that, but a lot of
the conservative team sport players, like, AI, it's
fake, and the same thing with that guy's
head. You know? There are people out there
using this stuff to make these images clearer
and then acting like that, therefore, makes the
image false even though you can prove that
these images are real. But it's important to
recognize that AI can do damn near anything
today. So very much still question that, but
don't pretend without knowing that for sure.
Prove things.
That gun appears to match this weapon, which
was shown in an image shared by the
authorities.
And there are several things to note here.
Carrying this type of gun is legal in
Minnesota with a valid permit. Correct. The police
say Alex Preti had one. Yep. Legal had
a permit. Another lie going on. BI director,
Kash Patel, has implied it's illegal to bring
a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any
sort of protest,
but it's not. In Minnesota, it's not illegal
to bring a loaded firearm to a protest.
The head of the FBI got that completely
wrong. And then guess what? As we'll show
you in a minute, the cat turds and
eagle gunthermans and all the rest came out
and were yelling that across the board and
still kind of argue right now.
I guess that's kind of what you deserve
for throwing your lot in with the peep
somebody like Ash Patel.
Indeed, in The US, having a gun in
your belt is not in and of itself
considered a threat.
As we saw, Alex Petty's gun was removed.
There's been no suggestion he was armed beyond
this point. And as the gun is taken,
we hear voices
shouting.
Okay. Now I I said this the first
time and still to this very point, by
the way.
You can find other examples of this video
where I don't hear that.
Like I said, that could just be a
a a the the phone, how it was
being held. I don't know. But I think
it's worth noting that because what's strange to
me is that
if that's if you don't hear it somewhere
else and the timing of it seems super
muffled, I don't know. Just I worry that
this is a manipulation in all of this.
But even if it's not, it doesn't change
the it doesn't change the legal reality of
the situation.
Are I mean, the argument that they're somehow
removed from accountability because they just reaction like,
turned and fired at whatever in front of
them because somebody yelled gun. I mean, that's
just incredible that you ever thought that was
a logical argument, but they're making it.
As we saw, Alex Preti's gun was removed.
There's been no suggestion he was armed beyond
this point. And as the gun is taken,
we hear voices shouting.
At this point, let's highlight another agent too.
This one. He'll go on to fire the
vast majority of the shots.
But look, as other agents struggle with Alex
Preti,
this agent is facing away. That's so crazy.
He then turns towards Alex Preti.
At this point, he has a clear view
of the agent in the gray jacket who's
about to remove the gun. The agent we're
now focused on is wearing a black beanie
hat, a black face covering, and sunglasses.
He's facing towards Alex Preti. We can't say
definitively he sees the gun being removed, but
he's facing in that direction. And the agent
in the gray jacket turns away, holding Alex
Preti's gun. At almost exactly the same time,
the agent in the black beanie hat draws
his weapon,
and the first shot is fired.
We can see that he fired the second,
third, and fourth shots. Alex Preti collapses to
the ground.
The agent stepped back, standing clear of his
motionless body. Another agent draws his gun and
also pointed at Alex Preti. More shots are
fired.
Which by the way is almost the craziest
part.
The reality that these skittish,
untrained idiots are out there well after the
obvious opened fire and then did it a
second time.
None of the other agents can be seen
to draw their firearms at any point. The
agent who fired the first shots can be
seen firing the final three. In total, 10
shots were fired in five seconds. And how
do you explain that? You fire the first
shot and what appears to be a reaction
to possibly even people on the street yelling
gun because they saw the guy having who
knows?
And you fire the last three shots after,
you know, what? Ten seconds of opening where
it's very clear the guy is dead? Maybe
you just wanted to make sure.
I mean, I don't even know how you
explain that other than let's make sure he
can't give his testimony.
Yeah. That may sound disgusting, but with what
we've seen, it's worth your consideration.
I'm not claiming that's what we can prove.
But the reality is with what these people
have been doing and how often they've lied
about these very shootings
and and what we know about what these
people are, how little they're trained, and what
they've been saying, it's just over the top.
And the legality of this action is under
scrutiny. It is unconstitutional
to use lethal force against someone who does
not pose
an imminent threat of,
death or serious bodily harm to another person.
Twenty five seconds after the final shot, agents
kneel by Alex Preti's body. One gestures towards
another for something on the back of his
body armor. One minute and thirteen seconds after
the final shot, we hear the agents talking
about Alex Preti's fire.
And another agent arrives,
slipping on the ice as he does.
And there's an exchange with someone in the
car where this video is being filmed. We
don't need that. It's a medical emergency. Yeah.
It is. Caused by you. You
To reiterate,
none of the videos we've analyzed show Alex
Preti holding a gun. There's no available evidence
that he was an assassin who tried to
murder federal agents.
No available evidence he intended to massacre law
enforcement
nor that it was a violent riot.
No available evidence that this was an individual
who arrived at this scene to inflict maximum
damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.
In these videos, we don't see evidence
of what the Trump administration
has been saying.
Footage shared with the BBC by the news
movement appears to show Alex Preti and other
protesters in a confrontation with federal agents in
the days after Renee Goode's death.
It's unclear exactly what the agents were doing.
This man has the same coat, facial hair,
and gait as Alex Preti, and a facial
recognition tool suggests a 97%
match.
We see him shouting abuse at the agents.
He also motions to spit at a federal
agent in a car, and then kicks the
rear light of the car twice.
Agents then wrestle him to the ground.
He's then allowed to get up, and as
he does, a gun can be seen in
his waistband.
It's in the same position as the gun
Alex Preti was carrying on the day he
was killed. At least something can. I mean,
if we're gonna be objective about the rest
of it, I can see a shirt sticking
out. But, yeah, I mean, like, probably a
high degree of certainty because of what we
know from before that that was probably the
case. I just think it's interesting that that
that they were, like, the
even like him being there, 97%
matched with his face, and then you're gonna
claim you know that's the gun. Seemed like
a weird you know? But nonetheless, I agree.
It's probably that. But we're gonna go back
to this. This earlier incident, shown in the
video shared with the BBC,
happened at the intersection of Park Avenue and
East 36th Street. Eleven days later, Alex Preti
was shot dead just over two kilometers away
on Nicollet Avenue. His killing and the Trump
administration's unsubstantiated claims about what happened
have provided another test of what Americans will
and won't accept
from the federal government.
Lord. Yes. And, of course, I'm sure that,
you know, from a British media standpoint, it's
fantastic to be like, look at how bad
they are. Look at it. Even though tons
of the same things are happening in The
UK. But this is really important to me.
So first of all Has the same code,
facial hair and There this is what's so
interesting about this. Based on what I can
see, this appears to be the reality,
which doesn't in any way change the legality
of what happened.
But what's interesting is Grok,
I've seen both of them, in one case
argued this was a fake AI created image.
And then, a new in other cases argued
that, no, it's been now verified by other
corporate media. And so it's just been going
around. Like, Taj Majore or whatever was one
that was pointing to that saying, well, Grok
said it was fake. And so it's just
interesting in the timing of when it came
out. You know, with where we are today,
it's very much worth considering because AI could
very, very easily make something like that that
it could be. But I think for the
sake of the conversation that where and where
it is, I think it's I I think
it's almost important that we take it as
base value because of it. It doesn't change
the reality. So what we're talking about here
is a guy who clearly got angry
and kicked this the car of these agents.
They got out with arguably the same gun
and then didn't do anything about that, which
I find interesting,
and let him go.
Now why would they let him go if
he just broke the I mean, there's you
throw a sandwich at somebody, and you're gonna
go to jail for thirty years. You break
their car,
break the light, and they don't take you
in? Seems
disjointed.
But what I think is interesting to me
is that
so he kicks the car. So clearly, he's
frustrated. Okay? Now the argument about the signal
chat, which, by the way, I've gone through
I went over this on one of the
past shows. You go through this stuff. There's
nothing in there other than the organized watching
and coordinated
cataloging of who they are and where they
are. Guys, these people are required to identify
themselves, and they're not.
If you if you find something in there
that goes beyond that, please show me because
it's not doxxing if they're simply enforcing what
they should be doing themselves.
But if they fight the law, then charge
them with the crime. The game of the
signal chat proves their court you know, it's
even though there is clearly some coordination, it's
being used to say all of them are
one thing. That's being abused.
My point, though, is that this guy doing
that
shows you that he's frustrated, shows you that
he's angry at them, which then could easily,
you could extrapolate that into his emotional actions,
which then you could argue that what he
did in many ways was causing this to
happen. Okay. Take all that at face value.
It doesn't change the reality that they killed
a guy in broad daylight who was not
armed with seven or eight of them surrounding
him
because of either negligence or or anger.
And if you can't come to that point
with how obvious the information is, then I
argue you're not an honest person. I argue
that you don't want to see this for
political reasons.
And and this is just where we have
to be on this. It's so self evident.
And here we are as this continues to
go forward and it gets worse as they're
now rationalizing this action. You have people out
there justifying
the execution. And now, I mean, on top
of all of it, the execution of US
citizens, but on top of all of it,
isn't it so what happened with the immigration?
Are we just done with that now? The
the game is just ICE focused on protesting?
ICE focused on protesters who are trying to
call I mean, of course, it starts with
them trying to go after what they say
was a suspected immigrant.
But why is all of the focus on
Americans? Why are they suddenly shooting Americans quicker
and quicker and quicker? You can't see how
this is building?
Even if they don't realize what they're doing.
And, you know, the same point can be
made about Renee Goode. The same exact kind
of conversation.
Same point.
Now as
Matt Walsh says, the left will now tell
us that Alex Purdy's very recent history of
instigating violent confrontations with law enforcement isn't relevant
to the shooting. But the fact that he
was a nurse somehow is relevant. I mean,
what's the point of even what do you
so what you're doing right there is saying
all of these guys over here so some
Democrats apparently. As if it's literally everybody in
the conversation who's not on his side,
says that it's not relevant. Well, that's not
true, by the way. Tons of people on
the left are pointing out why that's relevant
like I just did. Because tons of people
on the right are also not blindly adherent
to one side or the other, but they
have ideological leanings.
So first, that's a stupid broad stroke, dumb
art. This is what you get from the
people that need you to buy into the
partisanship. But the reality on top of that
is
that it doesn't change the legality, as I
keep saying. So yeah. So what's your I
mean, the only way to take what Matt's
saying is that because he was out there
trying to confront them,
but apparently within the law and all these
other examples
other than the one kicking the car, that
therefore that they were justified in some way
a little bit more at the very least
to shoot him when he wasn't armed?
Otherwise, what point are you making, Matt? You
see, and this is not even veiled, guys.
It's right on the surface of the conversation,
and that's what Ryan Grim says. The only
fact that matters is that he was a
human being who was in no way a
threat to these agents, and he was murdered
in the street.
Now, look, you could also argue that in
some other conversation out there
that Brian Grimm might have his own blind
spot to some con that Ryan Christian might
have his own blind spot to some yes.
And that probably will eventually be the case.
If you're not willing to acknowledge that and
recognize that what we're looking at is, you
know, the bigger picture,
then I think you're trapped in this. I
just need the the point would be that
it doesn't mean that now he's always right
about everything. We gotta stop the all or
nothing partisan game. Now as I said about
this in a similar overlap,
right, then this is the both all of
that considered.
Now even taking into consideration the kicking of
the car, all of it,
imagine that was a Republican
protesting
lockdowns
and forced vaccination.
Are you now gonna stand back and tell
me that you would not I mean, we
saw that during the conversation, and I'm also
saying it probably was not the smart thing
to do to act violent, whatever. But we
know as well as anybody else out there
being honest that during the COVID nineteen illusion,
we have Republicans who were acting borderline violent
as well. And in many cases, I was
arguing what they were protesting
was
justifiable of response, but that they probably went
too far. And this is the same kind
of conversation.
So you have a government who is completely
violating your rights in a shockingly authoritarian
way.
And the left was saying, just comply.
Right? Just you know what? If if you
you don't if you what was the way
they framed it now? I'm trying to remember
the exact overlap. But, you know, same point.
Right? Just comply. Just let it happen because
in the best interest of everybody,
honest people can see that the same thing
is happening.
And you know that the dishonest ones out
there would have a different opinion if it
was one versus the other. Now my point
in this is not to further divide. It's
to show people with principles that there are
people that they might listen to on their
side who do not have them. That's what
I was trying to get at. I talked
about this with Steven about whether this might
have been more divisive than what I wanted
to be, and maybe so. But I I
think it's important to recognize that there are
plenty of them on left and right who
will lie for their team.
Now Brad Miller makes an interesting point about
this.
First, I'll read this.
And I think this is important to consider
because as much as I do think that
this is framing this as if it's all
or nothing,
it is a valid part of this.
Now if you're on the left and you
can't acknowledge that there is an obvious coordinated
part of what is happening, then I think
you're you're choosing not to see that because
you want to frame it as only the
right as the problem. Right? And on the
right, the same thing in reverse.
And we need to stand back and recognize
that. And the game what the game comes
down to, let's even take the one that
seems to be the most obviously pointed out.
Even though this doesn't exist, in my opinion,
in every part part of the conversation,
you can have the argument that the left,
the left side of the illusion of the
government
allows immigrants, even though that happens on the
other side too. But you have this allowance,
right, the overwhelming, so the right can then
respond to that. Now, within that, there is
an obvious left right dynamic, where the left's
doing one thing, the right's doing the other.
But at the end of the day, it
comes down to using that problem to provide
the solution
to get what they want. And all of
the government ultimately wants the outcome. Now, it's
not always as all or nothing or simple
as that. But that's the general point to
think about. So, when we're talking about organized
even if you think it's exactly what app
the the team sport right is out there
saying about these protests,
even if that's exactly what's happening, you need
to stand back. I I argue you should
stand back and consider
that that is one part of the counterbalance
game to drive you into a place where
the government controls your life.
And then look at what Trump's administration's actually
doing. And it might be a little more
obvious to recognize that this is about getting
you to fall in line with more surveillance
and more biometric control and everything that we've
been fighting. So Eric says,
as a former special forces warrant officer with
multiple rotations running counterinsurgency
ops,
also somebody who, by the way, then has
connections to the very problematic
entities that we're acknowledging, so very well could
be that he's part of that, Always worth
pointing out. Both hunting insurgents and trying to
separate them from sympathetic populations he's been involved
with, he says. I've been organized I've seen
organized resistance up close.
From Abnar
well, so right there, I will say too,
there's
worth considering a difference between
organization
to fight what's obviously illegal and wrong in
a overwhelmingly problematic government
and government coordination
to drive you into a part of that
ploy.
I hope that's clear because it's very different
what we're talking about right there.
Like, for example, let's say the last American
vagabond decided to use some of its finances
to fund
people protesting what I think are illegal actions.
Well, that's coordinated.
Maybe we pay for signs. Maybe we get
them out there. Okay. Well, is it illegal?
Well, no. Because I believe we're doing it
for a good cause, and we're finding something
we think is wrong. And okay. But what
if something else gets involved? I don't realize.
You see how abstract it can get. Doesn't
mean we should ignore any of that. But
the point is that you can coordinate responses
to things that are obviously wrong, funding and
otherwise, and be doing so completely within your
rights in a way that is, you know,
justified. And the other side of it, you
can have the government itself with its different
assets on all sides of it, the Elon
Musks and the George Soroses, and having them
coordinate things. And And then, of course, when
Elon Musk does it, well, it's about freedom.
And George Soros, the same thing from their
side. But at the end of the day,
they're driving you into a binary manipulation where
we always end up in the same place.
I'd like to believe that's very simple, but
some people
won't consider it.
But it says from Anbar to Helmand, the
pattern is familiar. Spotters, cutouts, dead drops, or
modern equivalents. See that's you know, even that,
it's like, okay. Well, what does that mean?
It there you know, it's abstract, and it's
subjective at the end of the day. Discipline
comes roles,
specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while
bleeding the stronger force slowly. Now, I don't
I mean, honestly, even right there with the
framing, these are very militarized, like,
like, lethal descriptions that don't really resonate with
what's actually happening in the streets, other than
some kind of a, you know I mean,
are we saying there are people dropping dead
and being shot? No. We're not in a
war zone. Okay? Only people being shot are
the ones being shot by ICE.
So I think it's a little bit over
the top to frame it that way even
from the beginning point, but you'll see why
I still think it's a valid point to
make. What's unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn't
protests, he says. But see right there, that's
not true.
A lot of it is. You could argue
not the majority, but by saying that right
there, you're invalidating
the actual protest of anybody who might go
out there and protest because they think what
they're doing is wrong. Are we really of
the mind that nobody anywhere thinks what they're
doing is wrong other than people who are
coordinated to fight back because they wanna overthrow
the government? That's not the truth.
Same thing they try to say about you
guys, court protesting any other circumstance, COVID nineteen
or other, claiming it's all a coordinated fight.
You wanna you know, Nazis trying to overtake
everything. Oh, there was some truth to that,
but it wasn't the reality of everybody in
the conversation, guys. It's the same thing every
time.
Yes. It is protest. But, yes, it's also
in some ways coordinated. And it says it's
low level insurgency infrastructure.
You know, I I got I mean, obviously,
I'm thinking you could sense that I'm suspicious
about the way this is all being framed
as an absolute and insurgency. So what are
we talking about there? You realize what that
means. Right? We're talking about an outside force.
Right? An active revolt or uprising.
Well, ultimately, what argue and and, you know,
I guess you would've call it a revolution
if it was internal. In my experience, insurgency
is something from outside then fighting out from
within. But either way.
So, that means we're talking about a coordinated
effort to do what? To change power?
They're in power. Guys, they're in power. This
is what I find so infuriating. Has Clinton
gone to jail? Is Pelosi in prison?
Is Obama going to jail? What are we
talking about, guys? They're in power. The government
is still in power. All sides of it
as we will shortly again see the Democrats
in the place.
So when we talk about this as some
kind of counterbalance where the rebels find a
deep state, at what point do we recognize
that's just an illusory narrative that doesn't come
to pass when they continue to go back
and forth, when Trump works with them and
they say, We're okay, or, The Clintons are
good people. Don't worry about that. Or, They
have a inauguration, and all the people you
said he was gonna rest are all right
there high fiving him. At what point do
we recognize that? Back to the point.
Built by people who've clearly studied the playbook
in regard to the insurgencies claiming. Signal groups
had a thousand member cap per zone.
I mean, even, like, even these kind of
points, have you seen this proven to be
by zone, by location with thousand I've seen
one or a few examples of signal chats
of people who are going, I see a
police officer. Here is what his license plate
says. Here's what they're planning to do. Here's
what we think they're doing tomorrow. Yes, because
they're all breaking the law by not identifying
themselves, in many cases, even serving warrants.
Is that it's not really hard to recognize.
And it says dedicated rules, mobile chasers, plate
check. Yes. See, this is where we get
into the obvious.
Logging vehicle data into shared databases. Okay.
If they're even even if this was cops
that were identifying themselves, this is public information
and should be. The only reason it's not
is because they refuse to identify themselves. It's
just so frustratingly obvious. Twenty four seven dispatch
nodes, vectoring assets,
salute style reporting.
To this point, this is all just the
way you frame them being there doing things.
And it says, or on suspect federal vehicles,
daily chat rotations, time deletions, and frustrate forensic
recovery. Yeah. No. That no. That point, you
could argue if that's actually what's happening does
speak to more of a surreptitious
action.
But you could also argue that if you
realize you're dealing with an authoritarian government that's
using Palantir to spy on everything you're doing,
maybe you take a couple extra steps.
Or not. You see, you could frame this
any way you really want to. It's about
you being objective. Vetting processes for new joiners,
mutual aid from sympathetic local teachers, go, okay.
You know, At what point, dude, does any
of this prove what they frame it as?
Home based coordination points, rapid escalation from observing
to physical obstruction or worse. Okay. This isn't
spontaneous outrage.
You see, again, all or nothing. You mean
aside from my outrage that I absolutely felt
when I saw this happening? So am I
am I secretly part of something I don't
know about because I'm outraged at what they're
doing? No. On top of the fact that
there's tons of people who are absolutely outraged
and absolutely go out there and protest, even
if it's alongside a coordinated controlled structure.
Doesn't take a a a a genius to
be able to work out that overlapping point.
This is c two command and control, he
says, with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, task organization that
would
make a SF team,
sergeant nod in recognition, replace ICE agents with
occupying coalition forces, and the structure maps almost
one to one to early stage urban cells
we hunted. And it's okay. Maybe.
Again, I'm not doubting this is the overlap
to this, but are you seeing any all
of this?
I'm covering this constantly. I don't see even
a fraction of the way he's framing that
other than just making it command and control,
redundancy, OPSEC hygiene for the girl with the
pink hair that they tell you doesn't how
to tie her own shoes. They make fun
of it because they don't know what they're
doing. They can't even mean, but yet here
they are, controlling command and controlling everything. Well,
of course, in the argument, it wouldn't be
the girl with the pink hair. Right? It
would be a coordinated Soros from okay. Then
where is that?
I just think it's important to think about
that. And it says,
the most sobering part,
it's domestic, funded, trained somewhere, maybe in Israel,
and directed by people who live in the
same country they're trying to paralyze law enforcement
in. As if that's the old I mean,
this is what's so killing what's over the
top as well is that we're talking about
trying to paralyze
paralyze law enforcement and all all these actions
about shutting everything down. Okay.
Other than the protesting of ICE,
of them doing things which, by the way,
are illegal,
where else is this happening?
So you're telling me that their big coordinated
plan was to go after this ICE group
there? Why wouldn't it be all the police
force? Why wouldn't it be the government buildings?
Why wouldn't it be now I'm not talking
about the idea of protesting.
The argument of what you're saying there is
just make it sound like some command and
control coordinated
insurgency overthrow. Okay. And then they protest ICE.
And get a little too violent. Yeah. Charge
them for that.
But why wouldn't they then go you see
my point? If this is a controlled, why
wouldn't they be expanding into everything? Maybe they
will.
I'm saying it's quite a bit premature to
frame it like this with what we can
prove, other than you buying into what the
narrative is about what you want to think
they're doing with very little evidence to back
it up.
When your own citizens build and operate this
level of parallel intelligence and rapid response, also
realize that what this is now doing to
the average person out there reading this like
it's like it's,
divide and conquer porn, whatever you wanna call
it, some blind Republican. All the Democrats are
all terrorists fighting against the okay. This creates
that kind of driving mindset. This is like
reading a comic book, people that are obsessed
with this MAGAverse Democrats mindset, and they are
obsessed. Oh my god. This is so cool.
We're fighting the insurgency.
And then every single Democrat you see out
there who just happens to be protesting is
now part of the insurgency because the guy
said
that's I mean, he has a right to
say it. That's free speech, but it's dangerous.
It says,
working against federal officers complete with doxxing. I
have not seen a single example of doxxing
that they claim that is actual doxxing. I'm
sure it exists. Wouldn't surprise me. But the
idea that they're calling you, pointing their names
out doxxing, this is my point about everything
else, about Renee Goode and Alex Petty. They're
lying to you. And you know that, guys.
That's not doxxing. Are we really that silly?
Are we that willing to lie?
Vehicle pursuits. Yes, because they're breaking the law
and they're trying to keep them tracked because
they're not identifying themselves. But, fine. You wanna
make it a crime? Then give a ticket
for it. And harassment that's already turned lethal.
Yes. The harassment that they got killed from
that wasn't actually harassment in either case. So,
recognize that this guy who's giving you the
objective military view is wrong about that point.
You're no longer dealing with civil disobedience. Yeah.
You really are, though. You're facing distributed resistance
that's learned the lessons of successful insurgencies,
clearly. Because clearly, they're a successful insurgency right
now. Right? I mean, how how what happens
if this amounts to they do nothing?
And they protest and protest and these continue
to happen. And then ultimately, Democrats come into
power and they roll back around and then
Republicans at what point do we look back
and go, oh, yeah. So, it totally wasn't
that. They were just continuing the rigmarole back
and forth of the same old thing.
Doesn't mean you should ignore it. My point
is that until you have something that can
actually be more than just my opinion,
then we shouldn't be talking about civil war,
Tim Pool, that all the rest of these
people acting like they're excited about the boot
being stepped on your neck because it's their
boot.
I spent years training partner forces to dismantle
exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of
it are standing up in American cities, enabled
by elements of local government. I find this
to be just wildly irresponsible based on your
opinion.
But you have a right to say what
you want. Not because I want escalation.
Clearly. But because history shows that these things
don't deescalate on their own once the infrastructure
exists, and the cadre believe that they're winning
the information war.
That seems like what the point being, the
government who seems to be driving this is
very aware that they've already lost that war.
So what they need to do is go,
don't look at the writing on the wall.
Take our narrative.
We either recognize what we're actually looking at
or we pretend it's just activism until the
structures harden and spread. Right. So that means
anybody out there protesting is now a criminal.
According to this guy, that's how you frame
this. All or nothing. You're either on that
side or you're not. That's stupidity. I don't
care how you frame this. To make that
argument about all of the country is designed
to cause division.
He may not even realize that. Maybe I'm
wrong. But can you also can you not
see how this will drive some of the
most irrational people out there to frame anybody
on their other side as exactly what the
government wants you to? So do you keep
aiming at each other?
Well, here's what
Brad says. Now, I think this is super
important because he's but he he takes the
statement and simply shows you that even if
everything he says is actually what's happening,
that it's so much bigger than just the
left versus the right, which I'm of the
mind most people are seeing. As he says,
this is good analysis below, except for a
huge missing piece. It's one thing to recognize
patterns and map from one context to another,
which is opinion at the end of the
day, but it's quite another thing to understand
why,
The real why.
The agitation resistance we're currently seeing is sponsored
and fueled by the same power structure that
is ushering in greater technocratic control.
This is merely the domestic counterpart to the
current stage setting for the war abroad.
Ultimately,
DHS, ICE, and the active resistance elements are
both being manipulated by the technocrats
and their sponsors, wishing to implement more security
measures the people would normally never accept. See
how easy this is to think about and
realize that within that statement, that that has
room for both coordinated manipulative driving forces at
the top of these protest groups and the
fact that there are honest people out there
protesting within their rights.
All of that's being marshaled to get us
to fight ourselves.
It's so easy to see.
It's a Gladio style strategy of tension right
here at home, he says. The left or
actions by agent provocateurs attributed to the left
supply the chaos. There's massive outcry from the
public,
particularly on the right, which then demands or
permits an overly authoritarian response that they would
otherwise never tolerate. And you could do the
same thing the other way around, by the
way.
All this does is increase government control measures
under the guise of law and order.
God, you think this would be,
patently
clear at this point.
Even if you agree
with strong
LE efforts, law enforcement efforts, with respect to
immigration policy,
illegal immigration
is still just the cover story for what's
going on. Many ICE agents themselves don't realize
this, he writes.
And even if you agree with noncompliant
responses to government tyranny, you must recognize that
not all the resistance is organic.
See? I mean, it's not that hard to
have an objective opinion about this and recognize
that this exists across the entire conversation. That's
why you should look for facts and evidence
instead of just going, they're all the one
thing that I'm told to hate.
He says the intentionally escalatory agri pop,
isn't happening on both sides and to both
sides. In other or he says oh, excuse
me. It says it it is happening on
both sides and to both sides.
Simpleest way to look at it. In other
words, each side is both a subject and
an object of the provocateurism.
Interestingly, he says this is also right in
line with the ground the grand narrative engineering
behind both sides of the global war on
terror.
Right? It's exactly what they've done in all
these countries too. But the original post below
doesn't seem to have made that link.
Dialectical traps are used over and over and
over because so much of the public never
learns to identify and resist this type of
psychological engineering.
I'll also add that people like this, whether
knowing so or not, are guy like, basically,
that
you get trained to hate and they dehumanize
the side they want you to aim at,
and it becomes low hanging fruit. And not
many people can't resist.
So maybe he means this and just doesn't
realize, in my opinion, that he's being aimed
at people or using the broad stroke argument
in order
to make it everybody versus everybody instead of
the real problem that's pitting us against ourselves.
Bragg clearly sees it.
Dialectical traps were used over and over and
over because so much of the public never
learns to identify and resist this type of
psychological engineering.
So many people scream and rant about those
on the other side while failing to recognize
both sides are being manipulated for a single
end.
God, I wish people could hear this. And
I think that, again, like I've said,
I'm of the mind of the majority. That
line has been crossed.
But there's so many people, millions of people,
whatever percentage that is, who are influential enough
and not allowing people to see that
or allowing themselves to see it.
So here's Rand Paul speaking about this. I
think it's a good point. Just, you know,
he's making the obvious point that, like, we
can't just look at the video that's obvious
and then just lie about it. And this
is my point. Because I think that people
that are conservatives, they weren't blind team players
who respect Rand, who respect Massey more than
the rest right now and go, you know
what? I'm gonna stop pulling these punches for
the team because the team does not care
about me.
But I think after seeing this,
if you call this a good shooting, you
aren't watching the video. This was a a
a real tragedy and a mistake. The man
had been disarmed and then was shot 10
times.
I want ICE to do a good job.
I want ICE to get rid of the
the the violent people in our communities,
but we can't have it if we say
things like, oh, yeah. Well, he was an
assassin and he was a domestic terrorist. If
we say things that are obviously not true,
the situation's gonna get worse. I I agree
I agree that some of the administration made
this worse by by saying things that obviously
were untrue, and we didn't know a lot.
We we're still wondering. I mean, yeah, you
do though have a guy that is going
to pick a fight with federal law enforcement
agents, and he's armed with a pistol and
two extra clips. Why in the hell you'd
go fight officers with that in your pocket?
I don't understand. You also know that he
broke his rib the week before fighting with
these officers. So we clearly have a problem
on the other side of trying to escalate
the situation. Are you trying to just tamp
down, I I I think, what's what's gotten
out of control?
Well, what I would say is, if it
were my son and he says, dad, I'm
going to a rally. I'm a take my
gun with me. I would say not a
good idea.
But on the other side,
I've been to hundreds of rallies with people
who are armed. Virtually every meeting I go
to in were untrue and we didn't know
a lot. We were still wondering. I mean,
you you do though have a guy that
is going to pick a fight with federal
law enforcement agents, and he's armed with a
pistol and two extra clips. Why You see,
that's such dishonest framing.
By all the evidence we have, there's no
indication he went there to pick a fight.
The argument is clearly he went there in
in in a provocateory style, if you wanna
argue that since he was there angry. But
it's obviously you can make an obvious click
point that it was justified that what they're
doing is illegal in plenty of ways. And
if that doesn't matter to you, then what
are we talking about? But he did not
go there to pick a fight based on
the evidence we have. I don't know what's
in his mind. Clearly, that's not the way
that went down, and they just they just
can't help themselves.
Why in the hell you'd go fight officers
with that in your pocket? I don't understand.
And he didn't fight them either, by the
way. That's the reality. Now we're talking about
the time the time he got shot. Even
before that, when they came up to him,
he went on the ground. He didn't fight
them.
Right? He he kicked the car, assuming that's
the reality. And then he went down and
they came and let him go.
It's just as he said, I'll let him
say it again. Just I think it's important
here, you know, that we can't just lie
about these things. And you also know that
he broke his rib the week before fighting
with these officers. So we clearly have a
problem on the other side of trying to
escalate the situation.
Are you trying to just tamp down, I
I I think, what's what's gotten out of
control?
Well, what I would say is if it
were my son and he says, dad, I'm
going to a rally. I'm a take my
gun with me. I would say not a
good idea.
But on the other side,
I've been to hundreds of rallies with people
who are armed. Virtually every meeting I go
to in Kentucky,
people wear their concealed carry. They wear their
open carry. They have the constitutional
right to carry. So if we're gonna Look
at the guy's face. Isn't it funny how
he did he's like, the entire right on
the media side is kind of lockstep about,
yeah, that's inappropriate,
the second amendment right. Right? Oh, that's not
you shouldn't have an extra cliff. It's just
embarrassing themselves, really showing you that they don't
even care.
They love to throw at you what they
think you want to hear and often demonstrate
their complete lack of insight and, you know,
tone deaf reality of the elitist in their
ivory towers not being aware that they don't
actually understand what you think, Cash Patel and
the rest. Like, they but they go along
with the narrative. I think it's interesting that
Rand Paul has shown himself to be consistent,
at least in some Massey's been the one
really standing out to me. But the idea
that, yes, of course, you got the second
amendment. I feel the the way his face
looks is just funny to me. Become the
party that says, oh, you don't have a
right to carry, and you might just be
shot. There is no reason to shoot somebody.
In fact, the gun statistics show that those
who carry Mhmm. Like a thousand times less
likely to commit a crime Right. And less
likely to draw their weapon. And in this
case, it's important to know he didn't draw
his weapon. They said he brandished his weapon.
It that is not true. If you keep
saying things that are not true, you're going
to encourage more of this crap.
Good. Get him.
Right? I mean, do you see the guy's
face?
Completely expecting, oh, here we go. The gun.
Like, expecting the same old thing.
That's that's what partisan media does.
Left and right, alternative mainstream.
Now, obviously, this point should
be made everywhere, but it's worth noting. They
this is Sarah making a lot of threat
of MAGA protesting with guns and not getting
murdered for it, as she writes.
As we as they shouldn't, guys. I mean
and it's it's actually incredible to me that
anybody went along with this. Or Cash Patel
here saying, you can't bring a firearm, do
a man with magazines, do a protest, and
then getting back to I mean, Patel is
simply making things up, it says. How embarrassing
for him. But this is my point. I
don't even think he realized. He just thought
that was the right thing to say. These
kinds have no principles. They have nothing that
is sacred to them. And from what I
can see anyway. But just recognize if you
go through this and look at all the
different examples,
they're legally carrying, guys. They're legally carrying.
So too was Alex Preddy. And then we'll
get into that too right now. I think
I have right here. Yeah. This insane pushback
from these people claiming to be patriots.
Right? So recognize,
yes, this is the case, which I think
everybody honest already knows.
Here's Cat Turd
posting this after this happened. And all it
is is this person posting underneath
this comment
about a a screenshot. I mean, think of
this is the new media, guys. A screenshot,
which as I understand it is from an
old thing that's not even relevant to this
point because the the law is in place,
but maybe it was its way before is
what I think one of the posts were
saying.
But he goes, oh, really? It simply says,
Minnesota law prohibits carrying firearms at public. I
mean, you already heard from the different platforms.
It's that's not true.
And even they even even Twitter says, nope.
You're wrong.
I simply said these people are dishonest, deliberately
manipulative, and just insufferable.
He's also wrong about the gun rights in
Minnesota, by the way, but something tells me
he doesn't care nor does
Ego Guntherman, who said he was carrying a
league illegally carry. No. He wasn't, guys. He
was not. Would not be the ID none
of it. None of those arguments come into
play. Everything he was doing was completely legal
outside of the you could argue the case
of him kicking that car, for example.
But also they're doing something illegal, so there's
a conversation to be had. But my point
is that these guys are huge million person
followers
who are influencing the conversation. 4,000,000 followers seems
to be going up day by day. Even
though they keep repeatedly getting proven wrong. How
else do you understand that, guys? You don't
get more attention because you're being laughed at
and proven you're wrong. I mean, maybe you
do. But here's Grock, by the way, making
the same claim. Nope. That's incorrect. But you
know that.
Now on top of that in the investigation
side of things,
the administration in the beginning of this, this
is from a few days ago,
filed to a legal motion to oppose a
judge's order. Excuse me. That just basically the
US government wanted to cover this up.
Right? And the administration
filed that legal motion opposing a judge's order
to prevent them from destroying evidence.
I mean, think about how insane that is.
That on the surface, which I don't think
they want people to be pointing to, but
that you file a motion to Like, basically,
they file this to stop you from destroying
evidence because clearly that's what was going to
happen. It happened with the last time. Not
Renee Goode, but Well, actually, it did with
Renee Goode. But the time before this, with
the one that woman they hit with the
car and shot, and they said, Seven shots,
five holes. The guy who rammed her left
with the car. As far as I could
tell, they just never came back
with that. So, in this case,
they had to file
to basically
oppose them from they're basically saying, we wanna
destroy evidence. I mean, I just it's like
a cartoon, guys. And so here's actually just
an article. You read more about it. Judge
blocks feds from destroying evidence in Minnesota shooting.
Aaron Melnick points this out from what Josh
Gernstein cited. Judge Patrick Schultz cancels contempt hearing
Friday, where ICE chief Todd Lyons was to
be forced to testify,
but exonerates ICE for defying or excuse me,
excoriates ICE for defying almost a 100 court
orders in the last month.
This is a huge topic, but it gets
very little attention. ICE is not a law
unto itself, they write. Here's the actual post.
It says it right there. This is from
the court. ICE is not a law unto
itself. It's saying the courts warn that ICE
that the future of noncompliance with court orders
may result in future show cause orders requiring
the personnel
the personal appearances of Lyons or other government
officials. ICE says every it says, ICE is
not a law unto itself. ICE has every
right to challenge the orders of this court,
but like any litigant, ICE must follow the
orders unless they are overturned or vacated.
So in case you missed the point, they're
just going, screw it. We don't care.
Not Noem, not Bondi, not Trump, not any
of them are even blinking.
So this is them pointing out that they're
my point of piloting it right now is
that here we are making these arguments about
what they're required to do. They don't care.
They're gonna completely ignore it, look, because they
know what they're doing is wrong. I don't
know how else you can make this clear.
These are not only lib liberal judges. This
is Supreme Court. This is other court. These
are left and right, guys. And they are
calling them out. I just think it's such
a shocking level of lawlessness right now.
So here
is what the Tennessee holler report post in
regard to, the Minnesota AG discussing this about
the investigation.
You might have also seen that they were
refusing to allow them to investigate just like
they did with the Renee Good case, which
seems to be slowly changing now. I mean,
I guess you could argue that it might.
The FBI is now taking control, which makes
me feel even worse.
But that this is insane that we still
don't know the names of these people. Right?
This is a crime in and of itself.
Because, one, they were already required to identify
themselves. Now in a shooting situation, that's always
the case, and now they're hiding them. And
here is the local,
AG making this making this clear.
Actually, have the names of the individuals who
shot Alex Preddy?
If not, how can you investigate someone for
potential criminal activity if you don't know who
they are?
This is an excellent question.
And, I mean, it it it really speaks
to the fact
that it's rather absurd
that the names are not public already.
I can't imagine I mean, look, I've been
a lawyer for thirty six years. I can't
I've never seen anything like this before.
And,
we have we have heard
some reports that the names might be exist
in a report form.
I haven't heard them yet,
and, and I'm confident that we will get
those names. But the fact that I don't
know them yet is
an absurdity and is example
argue that the most logical reason, especially if
they're of the mind that it's inevitable that
it will come out, is a everywhere cover
up. Who these people are, what they posted
on their social media accounts. Right? The past
examples of things they've done, all being as
covered up as possible.
That's what I think.
But does that make sense? I mean, there's
no at this point, I also agree that
it's probably inevitable this will come out at
some point. There's just no way to legally
stretch this out. They're breaking the law by
doing this. But in the meantime,
I'm sure they're tying up everything they can.
Of how little cooperation that we're getting. I
mean, if you believe that you,
committed you you use deadly force in a
lawful manner, why would you be afraid
to let to disclose that name? You you're
Their argument is always just because the liberals
are crazy.
Okay?
It's not an argument. It's just not. Yes.
So too are the Republicans. Okay. Or the
Democrat. Whatever the the the the conservatives.
Rather, I I mean, more specifically, the con
Republicans, Democrats, teams, more players.
But that's not an argument, guys.
If it's that's always been the case. That
doesn't change anything.
The argument that you're gonna break the law
because they might is insane. And it's about
the dumbest argument in the room. But it's
the same thing to do in foreign policy
right now. That, at best,
makes you the same as them.
I mean that you did the right thing.
Step up, admit it, and let us all
deal with it. It feels like a cover
up, Kevin. And,
I I would never wanna say that about
our our federal government, but over these past
these past days, I'm not gonna ignore the
evidence in front of my Yeah. So now
see, this is what I'm saying before, is
now you're getting to a point
where you've got state like, high level state
elements who are calling the federal government corrupt.
Now I'm glad to see that to a
degree because I think this is starting to
wake people up to the bigger picture. But
I worry that before we all start to
see what's really happening, that this is being
used to break us down.
I I I've been saying it for quite
a while. I think it's day by day
becoming more and more clear as our show
gets more and more suppressed as usual, I
think. But just recognize that I in my
opinion, this is about not just, you know,
the in the internal domestic
agenda,
but that through that, if not the same
part of it, you've got something on the
outside who is stoking the worst parts of
this country.
I think that's pretty obvious right now. So
here is the investigation side of it. As
at first,
this is what was coming out. No civil
rights violation probe, just like Renee Goode, by
the way, that no we're just everyone's moved
on from that one, apparently,
which is insane.
Any in any circumstance, this always happens, whether
justified or not, whether criticized or not. And
they came out and they,
just close ranks.
Now the DOJ open civil rights investigation into
the shooting as of today.
Now ask yourself why that why that that's
weird right.
You would have done it immediately if that
was what you thought should have happened. You
came out and said no. And you moved
them around. We'll get into Vivino in a
second and the weird overlap of him. They
moved him around. They sent them somewhere else,
they claim.
Why would you do that? Whether you think
Democrats are secret well, okay. Well, if you're
not breaking the law, I'm not saying you
have nothing to hide. Don't worry about it.
That's not the point I'm making. What I'm
saying is if you're not breaking the law,
then you wouldn't need to hide from your
actions.
Stand by them. Protect them from what you
think these Democrats are doing. But these to
hide them entirely, it speaks to the opposite.
Anybody honest would say that. And in this
case,
now that you suddenly go back and go,
oh, okay. Now we're gonna do it. It
makes you look even more guilty. On top
of the fact that it makes you look
incompetent.
This is desperate. I don't I don't know
how to frame it. I mean, this is
crazy that and and Trump's walked back. We're
gonna work with walls now, but maybe not
now because now they're saying bad things again.
You know, it's just it's it feels like
they're all over the map.
This is, at the very least, clumsy. But
I think it's more about the fact that
they don't know what to do because nobody
supports what they just did. But so now
they claim it's going to be opening up.
But now, of course, the FBI is now
leading the investigation, and that's, I think, the
entire point.
Cash Patel, who can barely tie his shoes,
is gonna lead this. No. They're gonna drive
this wherever Trump tells them to. That's my
belief.
Now just like Renee Goode, investigators in Customs
and Border Protection's internal probe into Alex Prady
killing have limited evidence access. I mean, there's
no reason this would make sense. And here's
what it says on, Minnesota reformer. This was
from today.
The news of a civil rights investigation came
on the heels of the FBI saying they
would lead the investigation into Petty's killing. Previously,
the Department of Homeland Security's investigative arm was
said to be taking the lead. They're all
over the map, guys. That's Bovino, and then
he moved out of the way, and then
I mean, it's it's just clearly there's something
amiss here. DHS blocked state investigators.
Blocked state investigators. That's, by the way, unconstitutional
with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which
typically investigates shootings by law enforcement officers from
the scene of Preddy's killing
immediately. The BCA was also shut out of
the joint investigation into Goode's killing,
hindering local prosecutors from being able to weigh
possible criminal charges.
Intuit immediately in a row, killing of American
citizens that they then rapidly cover up and
we're not I mean, maybe maybe that's the
point. This is maybe why people are waking
up like they've never done before in this
moment.
How do you miss that?
You can't just be like, Democrats are bad
and act like that makes sense. Democrats are
bad. So are Republicans. That still doesn't make
sense.
Blanche would not commit to releasing the names
of the officers involved in the shooting
or the body camera footage.
Come on, guys. Can you imagine if this
was reversed and this was Obama or Biden
and everything was the same? Everything to a
t
Other than the Democrat Republican part switched? Think
about this. Can you tell me you would
support this? You would block them from releasing
information because Republicans are gonna lie about us?
Come on. It takes a special kind of
stupidity to not see how blindly dishonest this
is.
Now CNN viewers fume in this insane as
this is insane, excuse me, as witness to
Alex Brady's shooting makes shot claim. The point
was simply in this one, this has all
kind of gone around already, but one was
already that instead of actually going to help,
the report is, which we should question, because
you never know what drives people's reports or
what they say they saw, especially when they're
there and they have hatred for this group.
It does matter. That they claim that they
went there to count the bullet holes.
Even worse. One of the one of the
witnesses
claim as somebody asked them have they even
contacted you because she was there she saw
it all.
Let them know that and she says no.
They have contacted her. I do have a
legal team now who are fielding much of
that, and I lo no longer accessible in
many ways, she says, but I don't think
they have met have have my name yet.
But my point about this is that you're
talking about this investigation. How many days has
this been? And you have somebody who was
right in front of it, and you haven't
even spoken to them?
I mean, let's just pretend like they only
just now decided the investigation, which is clearly
reactive.
Well, guess what? The evidence has gone stale,
guys. This is you ask anybody investigating this
stuff. Now it's usually more relevant than sort
of, like, an ongoing murder case or things
that are moving and evolving, but you still
have a time frame here where things become
less and less
obvious.
Again, much less so with a static crime
scene, but understand that the point is still
the same. What changed over the last four
days of changing hands and conversation? You know,
I mean, it's worth considering that,
but they haven't even talked to her
yet. Now FBI supervisor has resigned
after trying to investigate agent who shot Renee
Goode. We talked about this in the one
last show about Renee.
Just wanna highlight again how not only has
it been the same point, but people literally
resigned in protest because they were refusing to
investigate
what was obviously wrong.
Now Trump came out and says surprisingly major,
mayor Jacob Frey just stated that Minneapolis does
not and will not enforce federal immigration laws.
This is after having a very bad a
very good conversation with them. Could somebody in
the inner sanctum please explain
that this is very serious violation of the
law, and he's playing with fire. He's always
like that. You better not, or I'm gonna
do bad things and act like we're negotiating.
Well, Justin Nash rightly points out, it's not,
though. In fact, a violation of the law.
It's not, in fact, a violation of the
law for a city not to enforce federal
laws. Now that makes me confusing to people
who don't understand the constitution. Will somebody please
read the tenth amendment to Trump and explain
federalism to him? Also, let him know about
the first amendment while you're at it.
We are in a shocking lack of an
of understanding in this country of the basic
realities of the constitution.
As the tenth amendment center says,
constitution, the first thing you should learn, why
it even exists,
bypassing the states. This is literally the most
basic structural part of the constitution.
The federalists went out of their way to
intentionally remove states from the enforcement of federal
law equation.
That was the entire reason they wanted to
replace the articles of Confederation,
which they claimed was a failure because of
a reliance on states to implement federal acts,
such as the tax requisition system.
Even Alexander Hamilton, the guy who wanted to
eliminate the states, summed up the entire Federalist
view in Federalist number 16.
If, quote, if the inter interposition of the
state legislators
be necessary legislatures be necessary to give effect
to a measure of the union,
they have only not to act or to
act evasively, and the measure is defeated.
Those who don't know this don't know even
the first reason why the constitution exists. Totally
unfit for office. Or they're lying to you.
Third option. They know it and don't care
because they don't want you to know it,
but Trump is saying this.
Again, you could argue a shocking level of
lack of education around the most important document
in this country, or you could argue he
doesn't care.
I mean, I should important to see these
things.
Here, US agents involved in latest Minneapolis shooting
put on leave, media reports say.
Just keeps happening.
As two federal agents were involved on Saturday's
fatal shooting, they have been placed on administrative
leave, two US media outlets have said. Now,
that didn't happen at first. That's why this
is relevant. In the beginning, this article is
from the twenty eighth. When it first happened,
they just removed they moved him. Right? As
Bovino said. But then since then, Bovino's been
removed, might retire, will point to that second.
And these people are suddenly now on leave.
Like, the entire posture has changed,
which is only gonna hurt them when this
actually comes to pass because they're gonna go,
what did you do for three day, four
day? What were you doing? Were you trying
to cover things up?
Now they're on leave. But guess what? Now
that they're on leave, there's far more wait
reason or rather
avenues for us to find out who they
are, which we have a right to know.
Department of Homeland Security said that two immigrant
immigrant immigration agents who discharged their weapons, there
was three of them it seems by the
way, during the deadly encounter were put on
leave. Now tells me something that they're only
saying two. It could be that we're wrong,
but it also could be that their most
important part of this is probably being boxed
out. Representatives of DHS could not be immediately
reached. Now hypothetically imagine one of the guys
who shot the most, maybe started it, showed
the last, was somebody who was very bad
on paper. Maybe you wouldn't wanna include that
guy. Just a thought.
As I said when this first came out,
and this is Maj Tajour nine zero nine
saying, who's the aggressor to you here? And
it's very obvious. It's it's the clip. Well,
and again, we're talking about just this not
the first example because it's at this point,
they left and arrest him. So, it's not
relevant. Other than the fact that you might
argue that them being angry at him would
somehow justify violent action, which it would not
from a legal perspective. So, I don't know
what you're arguing. So in this case, you
can clearly see that they're being violent with
the woman and then being violent with him
as they spray over his hand into his
face, then tackle him. His hands on the
ground. We just went over all of this
as she's trying to help her up.
Being people are being dishonest. And I said,
we have the right to know
that enforcer's name, as well as every one
of them are open fire. They're breaking the
law by keeping that secret.
So let's talk about Bovino,
the ICE discussion in general, and where this
goes with the overlapping of surveillance.
Now, Ken Klippenstein in a a Substack post,
and I thought had some good information,
called ICE unloads.
Immigration officers speak out. Now, what there's two
points that are important about this. One is
it goes over a couple of things I
wanted to include from one spot that you
can all verify. It's very the stuff that's
being very widely reported. But also that what
he gets into is the the disgruntled nature
rather just, I guess, the dis the disagreement,
the resistance to what Trump is doing from
within the administration, from within DHS, from within
ICE.
You're not hearing that. They don't want you
to see that. But at least from his
reporting and plenty of other examples,
they're doing it. You know, rather than standing
up, resigning, talking about it. And I think
it's worth hearing this. And many of them
are you know, you could question it. As
always, question everything because you need to say
it every time. But that recognize that
you could argue it's easy to understand why
somebody would lie about this. Maybe you can.
That's possible. Or the possible that he's making
it up. I don't think that's the case
based on his password, but it's possible. But
then third, you know, you could argue that
people within the administration
would definitely want to be anonymous because they
know how they'll be attacked for it. All
three of those things make sense. So you
consider which one makes the most sense in
what he's telling you here. Now it says,
quote, the best they can do is shoot
the guy in the back.
That's not the voice of some liberal commentator.
That's what a Homeland Security officer told Ken
this weekend,
one of over half a dozen who have
reached out to express their alarm over the
killing of Alex Prady in Minneapolis and beyond.
He says, I've listened to the stories and
the beefs of immigration officers in Minneapolis across
the country and to a person. They all
blame the shooter, one of their own, which
again, if you're again, I I would agree.
I think it's it's self evident that that's
what went down. So I'd like to believe
that most people are honest. And it says
the major May the May the major media
is stuck on framing the killing of Alex
Kurdi as some national and partisan battle, highlighting
Republicans breaking ranks and NRA protesting, MAGA wavering,
and Chuck Schumer doing whatever he's doing, but
no one is really capturing
enforcement officers on the ground are thinking. The
truth is that they're fed up and have
been for weeks. Now that's interesting, isn't it?
Because what I think what the game is,
like he's highlighting there, is to get you
dug into your side. But when you stand
back and realize that there's tons of Republicans
that are going, I'm kinda I'm not okay
with the way this is going.
And then tons of people on the left
that are you know, you could see the
overlap. More importantly, as he's highlighting, people that
are in the administration,
who are of the enforcement arm, who are
going, on this is not okay. And I
think what it shows you is that that
is this whole thing is broken down.
Just like I was trying to point out
to you during COVID that
tons of liberals concern of Democrats.
We're seeing
through it. We're calling it out. We're aware
of the bigger lie.
But the get the narrative needed you to
be stuck in that. Now, yes, there was
a slant like there is today.
But if you stand back and you look
carefully, I think you'll start to see the
outlines of what I'm talking about.
He says, I've listened to the stories and
the beeps.
He goes on to say,
the they paint a picture that is more
pull the the people from within DHS and
ICE. They paint a picture for him that
is more police academy or even Reno nine
one one than a gestapo on the marsh.
But I also find it dangerous to frame
it like they're some kind of inept group
because clearly they have enough power to be
dangerous regardless of whether they're police academy, which
I think it's a mixed bag. I think
it's both. Lack of training, but also some
very dangerous people.
It says, yes. They agree that Washington is
a huge problem
and are uncomfortable with the mission creep that
is taking them away from actual immigration enforcement.
But internally,
theirs is also a story of a gung
ho 19 year old drunken stakeouts and senior
officers disappearing into meetings and all of a
sudden needing time off. Thank you, Victus, for
the donation.
Think about this. So the idea, the over
the bigger point.
Right? That that the what do you say
that, yeah, they agree that Washington is a
huge problem right now and that the mission
creep away from what they claim they're doing
is a problem from within their side.
But it says they're also one of the
the the basically recognizing the the lack of
training, basically asking for anybody they can to
enforce all of this, which ends up with
these young, drunken, manipulate people that don't care
about anything that you believe they're supposed to
be fighting for.
They are also frustrated, it says, with the
narrative unfolding and the information war being waged
from Washington, including the flamboyant defense of the
shooting and other controversial moves in the ground.
It says, as much as I support this
administration, there needs to be more common sense
in situations like this,
not knee jerk damage control narrative that does
not line up with the evidence on the
video. Okay? Everybody can see this.
This individual was shot eight, nine times while
unarmed.
You'd think that would matter. Right? It says,
we can't always support what happens just because
it's one of us. He adds. See, guys,
I believe that most people are like this.
I believe it it behooves us to at
least start to look for that, to stop
seeing the devil in everything that's on the
other side of the conversation.
It says an ICE agent was even more
critical
critical. Yes. Quote,
yet another, quote, justified fatal shooting, 10 versus
one, and somehow you couldn't find a way
to subdue the guy or use a lethal
less than lethal force, the agent said. They
all carry belts and vests with 9,000 pieces
of equipment on them, and the best they
can do is shoot a guy in the
back.
If you're on of yourself, this should be
criticism we're hearing.
Overall, as someone who has been covering this
for months, he writes, I'm struck by how
angry
Homeland,
Homeland Security officers are with their own agencies
and their blunt dismissal of the Washington leadership.
All of the immigration officers I interviewed, he
says, for this story spoke on the condition
of anonymity, which mean which you should question
them. Like why like I am doing myself.
Sagging morale and declining standards are a constant
theme I picked up.
Problems that these sources say have been festering
long before the death of pretty and and
and good, which I think is important to
think about because I agree with that. So
it's also not important to make sure it's
also important that we don't make it just
about the current back and forth. This has
been building for quite a long time.
It says more than one ICE agent in
particular complained about how Washington's focus on labeling
protesters as impeding federal functions and thus breaking
the law and the vilification of Antifa and
others labeled paid agitators, leftists, radicals, extremists, and
terrorists is confusing the ranks while also distracting
everyone from the immigration enforcement mission, which, by
the way, is supposed to be what they're
actually doing.
But by what by focusing on the protesters,
you're removing that's what I was saying earlier.
And that is largely happening. The whole story
is shifted to them right now. It says,
quote, I and and and by the way,
shifting into what is exactly what they need
from either left or right to justify what
they're doing. Insurgency,
outside
forces, Iran,
Israel, whatever it is. It's inside. But even
though there is some level of truth to
this.
But using that to rationalize why they need
to shut down our rights. My point is
regardless of the problem, the solution should never
be a contradiction of our rights.
Ever.
In fact, understanding it means that they can't
do that. They can just choose not to
respond to respect them. They will never go
away. God given.
But someone someone out there always hates when
I say that, by the way, even though
that's the words they use, but inherent if
it makes you feel better.
It says, I can go on and on,
quote, but overall, it's been a ridiculous experience,
said one ICE agent.
He says that mainly agents on the ground
are just going along with the expanded mission
because they're more interested in their away from
home per diem pay and collecting overtime when
everyone whenever there's a mission, which makes sense.
You lean into people who have a profit
motive, which is why we found out that
they're getting paid whether or not they ultimately
have to let somebody go. So they arrest
even The US citizens and let them go,
and then they get money for that. That's
what's happening.
The brand new agents are idiots. Direct quote.
An experienced ICE agent, that's somebody from ICE,
according to Ken, said that.
The brand new agents are idiots.
An experienced ICE agent assigned to Homeland Security
Investigations told him the same sentiment was echoed
by virtually everyone he talked to,
calling them skittish young recruits who panicked when
he heard the word gun, for example,
And which kinda lines up with what we're
seeing, doesn't it? Even one of the new
ICE recruits agreed with the experienced agent's low
assessment of the Trump freshman class.
Quote, a lot of the guys, he said,
referring to the new ICE recruits he worked
alongside, quote, are honestly pretty sketchy.
Sure makes you feel good. Right? And they're
using these people to bulrush into this new
wave enforcement. That sure sounds great. The new
ICE officer continued, quote, I thought federal agents
were supposed to be clean-cut,
but some of them pass around a flask
as we're watching a suspect.
See, this is insane where we are right
now, guys, observing as well that the new
guys have some weird tattoos.
It's almost starts to sound like we have
something else.
I don't even mean ICE agents or immigration.
Sounds like we have something else, just like
we saw with every other party that's working
their way into this conversation. Guess what? They're
training with the IDF. I wonder if that
has some kind of overlap.
Realize that this is enforcement they're doing to
people in Palestine, in Syria, in Lebanon.
Now you can choose to ignore that. That's
just a point. But recognize these weird tattoos
they're talking about are the same weird tattoos
they reference in the Azov movement, the same
weird tattoos they reference on Peter Heg on
Pete Hegseth. Not a joke, by the way.
I'm talking about the idea that having a
tattoo does not make you a problem, whatever
you think it is. But on top but
it does mean something that you chose to
put it on your body. And if you're
talking about a bunch of irresponsible,
young, irrational people getting drunk and, you know,
basically,
driven violence conducted against Americans,
we might wanna ask where that's coming from.
And when you recognize the overlap to what
they're doing with how they're being trained, it's
not hard to see what this is, guys.
It says those tattoos, I'm told, are symbolic
of the fact that the new recruits tend
to be more ideologically motivated than those of
the past. This problem is compounded by the
fact, raised by several officers, that ICE is
relying on volunteers,
which we told you before, to go to
Minneapolis and other Democrat cities on these temporary
deployments because nobody wants these jobs.
Because they this is what they're dealing with,
guys. It's the same point they make about
this administration. You end up with the Cash
Patels and Bonginos and Bondis because nobody wants
this right now. Because it's so obvious what
this is gonna do to you.
You'll be thrown at the bus, most likely,
if you're not put in prison or whatever
else we could talk about. So you have
people that are desperately seeking power, but also
really bad at their job. Meritocracy, though. Right,
guys? Trump's version of DEI.
Now it says, but those who I interviewed,
he writes, agree that the tide is turning.
It says that some agencies like the FBI
are increasingly no shows in the field, meaning
that they're not getting support they once had.
And maybe that's why Trump started to walk
this back. Quote, last I heard, says one
ICE officer, FBI didn't want to help us
out much anymore, especially in Minneapolis, due to
the bad press. He squeezed heavily,
says squeezed heavily to serve on the streets
against pro so basically, the point was that
they're being forced to go against protesters. And
most of those people don't want, they think,
to waste their time. That's what he's framing
it as anyway. They worked I thought we
were going after immigrants. So we're out here
enforcing against a bunch of teenage girls, you
know, or whatever you wanna frame it as.
Like, this is what the Jack Wolfowitz of
the world would frame them as. So it's
where that's valid to make the case. But
it says pressure on them to conduct non
immigration missions missions, excuse me, even though that
contradicts their purpose.
There are signs that the Trump administration is
growing worried about the public.
Now it says that's a very different tone
than the one adopted by Stephen Miller, who
asserted shortly after Freddie's death that the intensive
care nurse, who actually was a federal government
employee, by the way, was a domestic terrorist.
How White House press secretary Caroline Levitt asked
today, when this was posted, if Trump agrees
with Miller, and she replied, quote, I have
not heard the president characterize mister Petty in
that way.
And tonight,
when this was written, news broke that border
patrol commander at large, Greg Bufino, has been
demoted
from his role and reportedly plans to retire.
Now, apparently moved back to his role in
California. They argue the the border is not
very you know, not there's not much to
do there. So arguably a demotion.
But it says Homeland Security Washington does its
stupid thing of trying to divert criticism of
their own behavior by raising the specter of
protesters
and others attacking ICE and border patrol in
revenge for pretty and good killings.
Renee Goode. Threat briefings are now focusing on
retaliatory
threats. So as we showed you already, they're
focusing on the fact they investigated Renee Goode
and her partner, even though anybody with a
brain already saw that they were in the
wrong. And the same thing with Priddy. And
they're focusing
on people that might react back to them
because of what they which is not invalid.
You damn well might get some people anger
at you because you murdered somebody.
But this is only gonna cause more from
these 19 year old drunken idiots out there
to respond to people they're being told are
terrorists.
It says, as the meeting and I shouldn't
be so hyperbolic about the framing. Some of
them are doing this. Some of them are
not. It says, as the meetings are held,
ICE agents and others I've talked to say
the government versus terrorist narrative is having a
tangible
and negative impact on the ground.
Lots of people are freaking out, one ICE
agent told him. Agents are getting seriously paranoid,
afraid of being targeted by retaliators because that's
what people like Miller and the rest are
screaming into their faces.
It says, quote, guys take it really serious
like we're fighting insurgents.
That's what you just heard on that guy's
post on Twitter.
Even though that's not everyone we're talking about
here, guys.
Though all of the federal agents I've spoken
to this weekend support immigration enforcement,
they indeed see the Minneapolis operation as something
else entirely.
An open ended counterinsurgency
in a faraway land and under
an out of touch leadership in Washington, more
concerned with optics than actual immigration.
He's closed on a plaintiff note, a plaintiff
note. I think it's time to pull out
of Minnesota that battle was lost, said the
agent. They said, f this, senior ICE officer
said about the shooting of Prady.
Now realize,
more more more concerned with optics than immigration.
Well, that point's been going outright lately because
I think that's the only I mean, it
almost is counter to what they're trying to
say. Elon Musk largely driving it to say,
look, see? Obama's the one that deported everybody.
Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for making my point for
me, bud. They're all the same thing. And
what's hilarious is that you're basically shooting yourself
in the foot with that because the argument
you're making your team,
deporter in chief and all that. Right? That
he's the one. He's these agendas, deportation,
an argument that's what he's doing. To in
one side of the argument to make the
case for why he's succeeding.
It's funny how when you pit yourself in
the argument of we're winning and they have
to defend that, that's how this happens. Lie
about everything. Eventually, you're gonna contract the previous
lie. And then right. So we're winning because
he's deporting everybody. But at the same time,
but look, Obama deported more. So what are
you talking about? Okay. Well, pick one. You
you can't just claim both those things. The
reality is that if he's not doing what
he claimed he was gonna do, then you
should be like, why aren't you deporting more
people? Right?
Oh, you know, you're not getting that, which
is very, very telling. The reality for me
is that if you stand back and look
like Brad was talking about, it's the left
right game that drives us to the same
place every time. Obama and the rest of
them were a part of this agenda. Just
like I keep showing you. Even like the
Texas border conversation we recently talked about, it's
the same point.
One a Republican's the one that drove down
and said, why is this gate swinging open
and nobody even cares about this port? They're
all over there with the wires and the
razors and the water. There's nobody even over
here. We're all talking about people sneaking through
these gates or swinging open right down the
street. It's always an illusion,
and the left and right will play it
against you as best they can to get
you in the place they need you to
be.
And none of that's to say that we
shouldn't care about the things you care about.
It's about making sure it's done in the
way that actually
truly fights for this country.
Now here's the intercept. Well, Mount Minnesota, this
is just an over you can read the
article for yourself. I'm not gonna go into
it. But while while they're replacing Bovino and
they're excited about that, well, guess who's gonna
at least what seems to be stepping into
the place? Mumbling Tom Homan because that's gonna
work out best for us. And the point
one of the points they make in the
article is he's deported far more people. So
if your argument is good, we got him
out of the way. Well, Tom is worse.
Up, arguably, we'll see how it pans out.
Either way you look at it, though, let
me let me see if we're gonna go
past this. Yeah. Here. Let me play one
clip that I forgot to include, actually, but
I grabbed it while we were playing something
else. Here is what Bovino was saying before
this, and it really speaks to the mindset
of what Ken was just highlighting. And then
recognizing that Tom Homan has been speaking just
like this the entire time.
Arrest as many people that touch you as
you want to. Those are the general orders
all the way to the top.
Everybody fucking gets it if they touch you.
You hear what I'm saying? The third is
less legal.
We're gonna look at shipping tractor trailer loads
of that shit in here. So you catch
what I'm it's all about us now, and
it ain't about them. Professional legal, ethical, moral,
you know what we're talking about. Legal, ethical,
moral, you're on camera.
But other than that,
it's what we do. What city is it,
chief? Fucking Isis fire fucking city. Oh, it's
gonna hurt.
Right. Now, at the same time, you could
argue that,
you know, what he's saying there is, you
know, part with it, like, if they touch
you, rest them, which yeah. There are there's
the I mean, you know, there's always a
point to have these conversations about why you
argue that touching them in any way. It's
but, of course, let's just make that the
line because that's what the the,
you know, the the not support you know,
it's just funny what the what position the
right's taking with all of us right now.
Totally the ones fighting the deep state, but
they're like, you better not touch that officer
or you're gonna coach this. It's just funny
to me. But look, but for the sake
of conversation, right, you that's
a a a a stated violation.
But the way that they're engaging with these
people is shockingly violent as we continue to
see. And the way he's framing this as,
this is our city. Well, you know, no,
it's not. It's their city. And what you're
doing is enforcing. But my point is it's
about the mindset with what Ken was highlighting.
And the way he's framing this as a
battle,
which that's what many Americans have been convinced
to think as well. The truth is quite
different. If you actually care about facts and
evidence other than just the narrative swirling around.
But let's get into
a point about ICE, you know, other examples
of ICE and things that they've done that
are very relevant to where we are, and
then we'll finish with some surveillance points that
are also very relevant. But just, you know,
think standing back for a second, beyond the
the individual cases of Alex Petty and Renee
Goode,
you
question at all. That's what we all this
is the whole point. Right?
But if you would be hyper focusing on
those individual examples, you can tend to kinda
miss the forest for the trees. Right? And
so let's just even say you think that
they were justified.
You can stand back very easily and see
how many things they've done that are, like,
I mean, spitting in your eye to sound
like they're kinda like they know you can
see it and they don't care. We're gonna
lie about it. We're gonna lie. We're gonna
shoot people and claim they ran into us.
I mean, it's happened ton I've done entire
shows on this. That last example, that app,
Renee, and even before that. I mean, actually,
let me think at least if I can
grab that real quick.
No. It's not popping up. It was four
Oh, well.
Oh, maybe that's it. If I if I
I'm trying to remember to put it in.
I I rarely do after the fact, but,
they there I did a, Jason did a
good clip of my larger show where there
was four times that I'm on the record,
from court documents and others, where they lied
about shooting somebody, or rather lied about them
and what they did to shoot a US
citizen.
Whether they were being rammed, their life was
threatened, or they saw a gun, lies.
Provable lies. In one case, the woman didn't
even have a gun on her. They made
it all up. That's the one where he
goes, I have seven shots five holes and
bragged about how he shot her. After they
hit her,
all very much came out. She survived, luckily.
A family they opened fire on. When it
came out in court, they were forced to
admit that it didn't even happen the way
they claimed it did, and they used that
claim to justify opening fire on a family.
These are the same people we're talking about.
Not I mean, maybe the same exact people,
but the same kind of actions we've been
seeing. So let's talk about some of the
larger
kind of, you know, things that that suggest
the
marching orders or the driving, you know, elements
from people like Bovino and what that's causing.
Aramelnik highlights this article from ABC.
Several detainees at a Texas immigration detention facility
claim it's sworn court declarations,
that they heard a human immigrant
basically calling for, you know, he can't breathe,
and then he later died. Now, the point
about this story is not necessarily I mean,
it matters. They died and how it happened,
but how that they how they've tried to
cover this story up and speaks to dishonesty.
As Erin Melnick says, the Trump administration
is still, at this moment, arguing that he
killed himself.
His death has been officially ruled a homicide.
Let's check out this report.
Let go of me, Cuban Cuban man who
died in ICE custody allegedly slammed by guards.
Now it says several detainees in a Texas
immigration fis hedge detention facility claim in sworn
court declarations that they heard a Cuban immigrant
whose death was later ruled a homicide.
That's what's most important to me. Pleading for
medication shortly before hearing what sounded like guards
slamming him to the ground. Now
it's hard to take at face value the
reports of the people who probably hate those
guards. Right? Doesn't mean they're lying. In fact,
I think the evidence shows they're not. But
it's worth pointing out that if it was
just their testimony, it'd be worth questioning it.
It's always worth questioning it, but it'd be
more so that, you know, more important than
this point. It says he is the third
detainee
to die at this detention center since it
opened last year as a tent facility on
the grounds of Fort Bliss Army Base outside
El Paso.
In an autopsy report released last week, the
El Paso County deputy medical examiner determined that
Campos died from asphyxia
due to neck and torso compression.
There's no way you misunderstand that, guys. This
is and and the reality the this is
the situation where it wasn't like they found
him with something around his neck. Okay? They
claim he killed himself.
And just like this the Epstein conversation all
over again, there's no from what I can
see, this doesn't get it's not backed up
by what the evidence shows.
It goes on to say,
Santo,
Jesus Flores, another detainee, said he heard a
struggle ensue that sounded like the slamming of
a person's body against the floor or the
wall.
Oh, and then another another says, quote, I
heard,
Geraldo,
scream
that he could not breathe. I could hear
them trying to revive him, but they could
not keep him alive.
So consider it for yourself. I think the
evidence, like a lot of these shows and
by the way, you realize how many people
have already died. Right? I don't wanna quote
off the top of my head, but it's
a large number. And there's been numerous examples.
One example that just came out was claiming
that they literally squeezed this guy's testicles until
they burst. I mean, this is like it's
just in this the the stuff that are
coming out is beyond the pale. And you
have to realize that these things are happening
because if it is the way they're being
described, which in many cases we can prove,
you're watching people who are being driven by
ideological hatred. And then on top of that,
being told they're terrorists and insurgents and mod
okay. And then you
we have, you know, examples like Guantanamo Bay.
And you realize how easy it is to
drive people to take that kind of irrational
action when you dehumanize who they're fighting. And
And then, of course, you cultivate the kind
of people that were willing to do that.
It makes me sad.
Destroying this country. Now as David points out
from this Wall Street Journal article,
since October,
seventy three percent taken into ICE
custody
had no criminal conviction,
and only five percent have violent criminal conviction.
Here's the article itself. Mister Trump campaigned on
a promise to deport criminal migrants.
The worst of the worst, they just can't
stop repeating, even though it's not been true
from day one. Last week, Homeland Security,
secretary, Christy Noem, posted on social media, We've
arrested over 10,000 criminals, illegal
aliens who were killing Americans, hurting children, and
re reigning terror in Minneapolis.
Think about that framing.
Overall, miss Noem says immigration and customs enforcement
has removed
murderers, pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and terrorists. You
can even argue that's true. I have not
seen every one of those proven to be
the reality, but let's just even say for
sake of conversation, that they arrested a murderer,
a pedophile, a rapist, and gang member, and
a terrorist.
I mean, I'm kinda being kinda being facetious,
but let's just say there's five five examples.
There's so many. Like, this is what this
is actually discussing. And we we go all
the way back to the airplane, sell El
Salvador.
That was proven from day one to be
the the vast majority. In fact, I've got
the show that pops up.
I believe it would does with this word.
There it is. This is this goes back
to the beginning, the very first example. You
had Ozturk and Khalil, and then you had
the big push with the plane to El
Salvador. Right? This is from 04/01/2025.
Trump deportations this is after that, but this
is in conjunction with the plane and then
what they were doing afterward. Trump deportations revealed
to be full of innocent people,
legal immigrants with no criminal record.
This gets into the point of what we
now know they're aiming at, which is people
who are going through the process the way
they're supposed to. But it's low hanging fruit.
Few are gonna push back about it. You
say, well, they had a traffic ticket and,
you know, they had they're they don't have
it yet,
except they were going through the process to
get the green card and had already gone
to multiple meetings. And they were showing up
for the meeting and you grab them and
deport them. That turns out to be the
majority we're dealing with, it seems. There have
been multiple reports on this, and that is
a crime. They were even confronted with this
in congress, and Christine Ohm basically lied about
it.
So it says,
she told CBS that 70%
of them have committed or have charges against
them on violent crimes. Now they argue when
it first started that it was closer to
that number. I disagree. I think the reality
of it is there there's a lot of
narratives about the people that they sent in
the beginning that were not really checked by
everybody. But I think what we can see
about just the plane they sent and then
how they were doing this, I think it's
quite obvious that they're lying about the way
this is going down. Never have I argued
that they're not, in some cases, getting criminals.
But if you're gonna let go all the
MS thirteen members to go back to El
Salvador, where they're working with Bukele, which is
easily verifiable, then you're not really going after
the bad guys. But it says since October,
seventy three percent.
So since October, seventy three percent taken into
custody had zero, no criminal convictions, and only
five percent had violent criminal convictions. That's not
the worst of the worst. Quite the opposite.
It says many of the criminal immigrants in
the administration,
oh, that the administration counts among those in
detention, are convicted criminals cold from prisons.
And not the point about some somewhere else,
but from in The United States. It says
White House border czar Tom Homan objected to
Minneapolis'
sanctuary city policy
because he said it wasn't letting the administration
take prisoners
into federal custody.
Quote, if they'd let us in their damn
jail, he said, we could arrest the bad
guys in the safety and security of the
jail. Okay.
Well, aren't these people
in jail?
What are we talking about? You wanna remove
them from jail where they're being held accountable
for their crimes and then let them go?
Where they might just end up back in
this country based on your own assessment?
Why wouldn't you let them serve the crime?
I mean, what are we talking about? Now,
if there's an argument about people being let
in the country, I get that. But you're
talking about people who are in jail for
crimes and you wanna remove them. I mean,
this is it's it's about numbers, guys. It's
about numbers.
All of which means that the Trump administration's
rhetoric about deporting criminals doesn't match its current
it doesn't match its current, much broader policy
of mass deportation.
And that's why you get Elon going, look,
Obama was doing more. Is it well, yes.
That's the point right now. You're only making
that point because you need to try to
make it seem like they're unjustly framing Trump.
But what it does, in fact, is make
the people who are rapidly going after immigrants
going, Well, then you're lying to us then.
That's what happens when you trap yourself in
a lie. But it says, as ICE agents
target businesses,
schools, and homes, scenes of arrests involving mothers,
children, and longtime US residents and US citizens,
by the way, become more common. This explains
why immigration enforcement is becoming a political liability
for Republicans.
Ending migrant chaos at the border was necessary
after the Biden administration,
but White House aide Stephen Miller's undisciplined mass
deportation and zero immigration policy
is building
deportation and zero immigration policy
is building distrust.
And the White House pitch that public safety
justifies its enforcement is losing credibility.
So look at that ending point. So at
the end of the day, as I already
told you, Stephen Miller seems to be the
architect behind this. He's also the one that
seems to be the most likely culprit for
driving the destruction of this country for a
foreign power.
At least consider that.
So lastly,
we have,
I believe, next one is surveillance.
Oh, actually, two points before that, then we're
gonna talk about the surveillance and the database.
As Melnick, cites Kyle Cheney here, he says,
comedy of errors. On January 12, ICE detained
a Minnesota resident who had rare t visa
for victims of severe human trafficking or those
who who aid law enforcement to thwart it,
even though he had legal status.
On January 16, they urged the court to
drop his case because he had been released
January 20. They never said they they said
never mind. She was sick. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait they missed a court
order deadline to explain what the f was
going on. Today, a judge ordered his release
and reimbursement for cost and fees. All that
time and effort, money, and tax dollars is
wasted, but seems to be simply because they're
not competent enough to be able to figure
out the process,
which certainly makes sense. Even if this guy
deserved to be now he's not.
That's entirely on them, even if this guy
was the worst criminal in the world. But
here's what's crazy, and this is my point
I was just making. Elle m m Aaron
Melnick, the lawyer here, says it cannot be
under understated.
The extent to which ICE agents are grabbing
random people
and then figuring out whether they're actually removable
afterwards,
this then the system is so overloaded because
of this arrest first, ask questions later policy
that people get stuck in ICE jail. But
on top of that, that people are being
let go that might not deserve to be
let go, but also that ultimately, this is
a process of just throwing everything at the
wall and seeing what sticks.
So you're getting innocent people?
And, you know, and then think about framing
it as all insurgents and all domestic terrorists
while this is what you're doing.
You think that military
guy writing on Twitter, is he aware of
all these public reports of how completely comes
in? Maybe. If so, that's it's that's embarrassing
to me because clearly it's not what we're
seeing from their end.
J town says mister speaker judge all this
about the,
basically.
Judge was it Bosberg from the beginning of
this back in, you know, when this first
was being discussed,
is now trying to get accountability for the
people who were tortured in Cicotte.
Funny how we don't talk about that anymore.
Right?
Which is clearly justifiable.
These people were, in many cases, legally in
this country with no criminal record, as I
just told you. Please question me. Look it
up. Watch my show. It's all very easy
to prove. And they were sent to El
Salvador. Many of them, like some of the
most like the the was the gay barber
guy who came back
because he wasn't supposed to be there, guys.
And he was raped. He was sexually abused.
And so now this judge is trying to
get them some level of of accountability
or rather just, you know, regressive grievances. Here,
it gives you a moment to stand in
front of the government and and make your
case. This guy
says, amid impeachment threats, Boseberg keeps plugging away
at the Alien Enemies Act case, sets another
hearing for these people that have been deported
without process.
Jay says, mister speaker, judge
is considering
returning removed violent criminals,
gang members, and terrorists. Of course, because clearly
there's no reason to
I don't know how to frame it the
wrong way. Of course, because it's smart to
blindly take at face value the framing of
the people that we've already caught them lying
about. Right, Jay?
I'm not saying some of them some of
them very well may be. But the reality
of the case is that they were sent
there unjustly without process and then were proven
not to be and were tortured in the
process of that.
And you trying to get them to come
back and get some kind of accountability,
you're saying that that's wrong because the government
that lied to us to get them there
told us they were bad guys?
Apparently so. And it says, A sitting federal
judge wants to import terrorists.
This is just what you do. It's all
radical extremist every all or nothing mind. That's
what you do when you don't have an
argument, in my opinion. The Democrats are all
terrorists.
You should laugh at them, even if some
of them are. You understand?
Aramelnik says this is utterly false. What judge
Boseberg is considering is judicial hearings
conducted over video,
which by the way means they're not all
necessarily coming back to The United States. See,
it's it's about facts that matter. Right? Where
the men sent to Secot,
that the this horrible prison that is if
you don't remember, it's worth getting into again
and looking it up. It is one of
the worst locations I've seen in regard to,
like, being built that way. It's a torture
camp.
And then tortured,
is saying the men that were sent there
and then tortured could argue that they were
wrongfully deemed members of Tran de Aragua.
Opposing that kind of hearing is, in effect,
supporting a cover up. The whole point is
that what you're trying to do here is
create a situation where they have the opportunity
to present that, And the government does too,
present what you have that argues they're a
gang member.
Guess what? They won't because they want this
behind them, it seems. But really think of
arguing this as, don't bring them back. You're
letting terrorists in. Even though we already know
that most of them were misrepresented, and that's
why this is even happening in the first
place. This is just desperation, guys. People are
are just, like, blind ideological
adherence.
Stephen Miller, of course,
citing Kyle here says a federal judge in
Minnesota has barred the Trump administration from arresting
and detaining
the state's
6,000 or 5,600
refugees
while they await
lawful permanent status,
which by the way, start there, but you'll
quickly realize that is the reality. Whether and
it's not only because of Biden, by the
way, but it doesn't change the reality. If
Trump can wave his hand and make Afrikaners
suddenly US citizens, then Biden can do the
same, whether either of them are justified. That
is the reality.
So the reality of these people are that
they're here under a legal understanding
while they seek
legal status.
That's my point about the people they're going
after. So
Trump is trying to just get rid of
it because it's an easy 5,600
numbers to add that won't get that much
pushback if no one's paying attention.
So Stephen Miller, of course, the one trying
to sabotage this country, comes out and says
the judicial sabotage of democracy
is unending.
Hope we can go right back to the
exact point we made earlier. This person doesn't
understand states' rights
and understand the reality that what we're dealing
with here is a situation or excuse me,
not, in this case, not states' rights, but
I was thinking about the jet Justin Amash
point, which was the like a similar feeling
to me. That's why my mind went there.
But in this case, a situation where you
have a legal standing
and it I mean, I you know, frankly,
it doesn't it doesn't overlap with states' rights
because the point is that these people are
legally there, and that the state is arguing
they have a right to go through this
process. And by them trying to stop that,
they're simply going, no. Well, this is the
legal reality of that, and the states have
that right.
But either way, Miller tried to argue this
is the sabotage or this is when what
you're doing is trying to fight against the
law. These people are not only confusing on
it, like, good intention people,
but you can see that what they're doing
is driving us to hate ourselves, to attack
ourselves, to cut at the root of what
this country is.
And one of the largest ways we're doing
that, by the way, is showing you everything
we've been warning about.
And as usual, it's worth pointing out all
the people that have been telling you this
for twenty years who now can't look away
fast enough.
Maybe because they never thought it was ever
gonna happen or maybe because they didn't they
they have been paid to ignore it now
or I don't even know why, but you
have to acknowledge that. Whether it's the new
world order or the digital prison or the,
you know, globalism or whatever it is, guys,
you know exactly who I'm talking about. They
can't stop ignoring this right now. They can't
keep they can't stop telling you why Palantir
should be ignored. It's a small thing, and
you're being lied about.
This is everywhere.
And it it again, on building on the
Renee Goode, Alex Praty conversation,
that alone should be enough for you to
recognize where we are. But on top of
that,
realizing that they're doing this on top of
these unjust actions,
I one, recognize that this is not illegal
doesn't do this justice.
Un American doesn't do this justice. But really
think about what else this ties to.
So for Prem Thacker
is highlighting
his older post that said this is what
the agent said. You raise your voice, I
erase your voice.
A guy, by the way, speaks with an
accent, which I think is perfect.
But he says, think about, like, think about
it like this. This ICE agent has was
on camera,
unmasked,
fulfilling one of the three demands
leader Chuck Schumer just issued in order to
agree to give DHS
more money.
By the way, which we didn't get into
today, but they already told us the bill
they're discussing. Like, at least Chuck Schumer claims
that all the Doge cuts we did, even
though they weren't really that, it was more
of an illusion, we're gonna be right back
to where they were, if not more.
So, yeah, so it was always it's it's
constant. And on top of that, that Chuck
Schumer on his side is agreeing to give
more money to DHS. So all of it
keeps going in the entire government benefits. How
much more do we need to see here,
guys? Put that aside,
and he says that he was ready to
kill someone. I don't know if you want
I mean, you could argue kill. You could
argue just, you know,
make them, you know, knock them out. That
would imply the same way. But this is
a representative of the US government telling you
that if you simply raise your voice, which
is completely within your rights, that they will
stop you from doing that.
And it seems that the the entire Trump
administration completely sides with this.
This,
brother. What? You know? I will tell you
this.
You raise your voice, I raise your voice.
If I raise my voice, you'll erase my
Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Are you serious? You said
if I raise my voice, you'll erase my
voice?
Mhmm. Mhmm. It's pretty simple.
Confirmed it three times.
Now why is that not enough for people?
Now, yes, my point as an objective, honest
reporter would be that that's one person.
But it's obvious the sentiment is there, and
it's being discussed. And Ken's reporting and plenty
of other examples are real world,
you know, what we can prove and see
with our eye or just what we can
see with our eyes. All of this connects
to this sentiment.
Right? That they're telling them. If you if
somebody comes you know, everything we've seen from
top to bottom is showing them that they're
being driven to react in many ways that
are shockingly illegal. Like, for example, not identifying
themselves. Like, for example, not presenting warrants. Or
using an administrative warrant to kick in someone's
door that's not related to the person they're
going after, all of which is shockingly illegal.
I just find that to be over the
top. If you're a conservative that believe in
the Constitution, then this should appall you.
Because not only is it happening, not only
is it being driven into their mindset, but
the administration is clearly supporting
it. That can't be denied at this point.
Now Kent also added to the post about
the ISIS secret watch list, and I just
wanna use this to, again, point to his
work that I think was good, but also
recognize
these clips.
As he shared, here's another one.
This is a clip he shares, one of
the articles he links to. But it's the
same point.
Quote, we have a nice little database,
and now you're considered a domestic terrorist.
That's what somebody said taunting a protester.
And what's scary about this more than just
that he said it, it's real.
You could prove this a lot of different
ways. They do have this list, and it's
not just about left protesters. It's about the
government, in general, monitoring Americans who are dissident
about either side.
This is why I'm trying to get people
to wake up to the bigger picture because
it is continual and it is about everybody
who simply recognizes the problem. But in this
case, that you are an American doing something
which is within your rights, and you're being
told by somebody who's supposed to be out
there enforcing the law, they're not,
that you are now added to a database
for terrorists because they didn't like you standing
there.
This is not only authoritarian, guys. This is
completely unconstitutional.
It's illegal. It is tyrannical. It's what we
are fighting. It's what people out there who
are actually there organically are fighting.
They do exist. And I don't know where
that line is, but I know it's plenty
of them that I can see, many of
which I could prove. I know there are
honest people from left and right who are
out there standing up for this because I
know who they are.
That that I'd count for one person in
one location. So I'm not gonna say I
know everybody, but the reality is that they
do exist.
And that's not what you're getting from partisans.
It says Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Trisha
McLaughlin's response was firm. There is no database
of domestic terrorists run by the DHS. And,
of course, she was lying.
Two senior national security officials tell Ken that
they are more than a dozen secret and
obscure watch lists that Homeland Security and the
FBI are using to track protesters, both anti
ICE and pro Palestinian.
Both of which are being you know, you
know how these all overlap. I mean, it's
just it couldn't be more clear. What about
that I mean, pro Palestinian,
anti ice. These are completely legitimate stances to
be held.
Antifa and others who are promiscuously labeled domestic
terrorists,
all all of which is unconstitutional.
I can reveal for the first time, he
says, that some of the secret lists and
applications go by code names, Blue Sky, Grapevine,
Hummingbird, Reaper, Sandcastle, list them all off. He
says some of these, like Hummingbird, were created
to vet and track immigrants.
May sound relevant, right? Except it was in
the cases of Afghans seeking to settle in
The United States.
So
what that was about, which may feel like
it makes sense to you if you somehow
have been convinced that every Democrat's a terrorist,
that means they're using software designed to suss
out whether somebody was a terrorist to vet
Americans who are protesting within their rights.
Now, and what's crazy is that I I
feel like that's gonna not matter to people
who it needs to matter for because they
go, yeah. Well, they are terrorists, but that's
just lunacy
where we are if you are broadly saying
that about an entire half of this country
or at least half of
the team sports side of it. Slipstream is
a classified social media repository.
Others are tools used to link people on
the streets together, including collecting on friends and
families who have nothing to do with any
purpose of law breaking, which is what they're
doing. They're tracking you.
We came out of nine eleven with the
notion that we could have a single terrorist
watch list to eliminate confusion, duplication, and avoid
bad communications.
But ever since January 6
see how this works? Not only have we
expanded exponentially
into purely domestic watch listing,
but we have also created a highly secretive
and compartmented superstructure
that few even understand, says a DHS attorney
intimately familiar with the subject. The attorney spoke
on the agreement that their identity would not
be disclosed. So question it. But realize,
January 6, guys, so that was the the
Democrats
using your protest to rationalize
monitoring everybody
on your side. Or, really, as you understand
that if you're smart, everybody on all sides.
And that continued till now Trump use it
to aim it at the other side, but
still all of you. If you still can't
see that this is about old all of
it using whatever justification they can I argue
you don't care don't want to?
This clip.
Ice agent asked why he's taking pictures of
the legal observer. It says because we have
a nice little database. Now you're on it.
It's not illegal to record.
Exactly.
Yeah. That's what we're doing. Yeah. Why are
you taking my information down? Because we have
a nice little database. Oh, good. And now
you're considered domestic terrorists. So
We're video taping you? Yeah. Over here. Are
you crazy?
Now, obviously, you could make the point that
he was being facetious.
But even joking about that, as a even
even, you know, basically threatening that is insane
to me.
But don't you also kinda get the feeling
that that's not really a joke with what
we've been seeing?
You can decide for yourself. I can't speak
to that person's mindset, but I think it's
obvious that there is clearly
that element happening out there for people who
are not doing anything illegal.
This is an interesting video I saw. I'm
gonna use this to kinda just set up
the final points we're gonna make here. I'm
not familiar with the guy. I followed it
because of this, but it's worth it's worth
considering what he has to say. Now what
you're gonna find is pretty much everything we've
already told you. But it's a it's a
good kind of put together clip. Now it
I'll make a point about the paragon overlap,
but we'll get to it in a second.
And he at the end of the clip,
it on when he posted, he he shouts
out his book and everything, but I you
can watch this if you wanna check it
out. I don't really know much about the
other background, so you guys can get in
that if you want. But I do appreciate
what he says here, and I think it's
valid. But it's also important to think about
this.
That right now, in my opinion, what he
outlines here is very easy to organize.
Many of us have been making these points
for
half a you know?
Yeah. You know, I don't know. Years.
A decade or more.
Or maybe, you know, with some of these
points, maybe eight years or more. But the
point being that if you wanted to, as
anybody in this field, especially somebody and I
I'm again, I don't know who this person
is. I'm not suggesting this is what he
what he's doing. I'm just saying to be
think about anybody you might never seen before
that comes to the scene with kind of
a well organized thing. It's it's easy to
collect all of this and then point it
out there. And if the system wants that
to be seen, then you get, oh my
god. Look at how all this comes together
and it's being seen. Now I appreciate this
video, so it's not what I'm saying about
him, but just always think about that. When
this new thing comes out of nowhere and
it's just well packaged, put together all the
stuff that we've always been saying that suddenly
gets all the attention. Ask yourself why. Now
that's not even what this is necessarily. He
doesn't he doesn't have that much reach. So
but I just all I think it's objective
and important to think about that because this
often happens. Now all that being said, I
really do I think he does a good
job on this video and he breaks this
down as it connects through multiple different sectors
of this and overlaps with Paragon Solutions and
Israel and these different companies that we that
are a very relevant part of this that
all intersects with Palantir,
with with
immigration enforcement, and literally where this is all
going. Now
you could argue, and I think you're right
to point out, that there are people who
are being arrested, who are criminals, or at
the very least, that should matter. Right? That
can exist in this conversation while also acknowledging
legitimate actions
to to make you accept this.
Or rather, they even lying about those, even
though they're real, in order to get you
to accept a worse version. You know, just
consider the problem reaction solution element of this
even if what you think is going on
is actually happening. Poor way to frame that,
I think.
Liberals hate ICE because they think it's about
border policy. It's not why I hate ICE.
I hate ICE because while we were all
arguing about politics, they were importing the software
from Gaza's genocide.
I'm talking about a company called Paragon Solutions.
They make a spyware called Graphite
that was used to track and target Palestinians
in real time. Now it's important to note
out by the the or note that, technically,
these are separate entities.
But I I agree with the point because
power it's still Paragon, and that's still very
much a part of the weaponized element that's
very much tied to Israel. But it's not
necessarily the same as we'll get into in
a second. But other than that, everything else
I was down, I think is great.
I mean, I shouldn't even say it like
that. I'm just that's a a point to
add to what he's saying, which I think
is great. They took that exact same technology,
rebranded it as immigration OS, and then sold
it to ICE to use on us. This
is no longer about stopping illegal immigrants. This
is about creating a digital prison for every
American citizen. They're using the same digital twin
technology that mapped every single person, car, and
building in Gaza
to create a live real time map of
your neighborhood,
your phone, your car, you. The goal has
never been about security. The goal is total
control, and this is the foundational system for
the new world order. It's the b system
everyone talks about, but it's not a prophecy,
it's a product. It's already here.
They tested it on Gaza.
They saw how perfectly the AI could automate
targeting, how it could remove human conscience from
the equation, and just follow the code. They
saw that it worked. Now, they're rolling it
out on us.
So don't talk to me about left or
right. It's bullshit.
It's about a system of technological control that's
so vast,
so complete that it makes all of our
political opinions completely irrelevant.
So while we're fighting over bullshit in politics,
they've brought the AI that they built for
war back to us.
Oh, man. Sounds like he's been watching the
show.
But, you know, I'm gonna keep it on
it because I really appreciate the way he
put that together. Like, this is what I
try to do in a longer form setting
to kinda connect the dots between them. You
know, there's a lot of different moving parts
to this. So it's a good job. And
I think
to end, we'll go over some of these
parts. Oh, and he writes their embassy is
also in Tel Aviv.
Now here is what what he's discussing here.
This is from, 09/02/2025,
at least in one part from The Guardian.
ICE obtains access to Israeli made spyware that
can hack phones and encrypted apps. And that's
where we get into the zero touch or
zero click conversation, which means they're using this
right now through ICE
to be able to you they can send
something, for example, to your phone, and they
don't need you to engage with it. They're
in.
That's happening right now in the that's a
shocking violation of your rights, but nobody seems
to care because they wanna know of your
why do they ask they wanna know if
you're talking about Israel?
Not a joke, really. Trump administration contract with
Paragon Solutions,
which should have been insane. That should have
been like that that should have been a
watershed moment. You know why? Because in 09/02/2025,
the whole world knew what Paragon Solutions was.
And, actually, one more thing.
Or was that?
There's there's an article that I often brought
up.
Here's another one Trump gives green light for
$2,000,000 ice deal with notorious Israeli spyware company
look at that I mean it's right on
the surface guys.
There's another one that talks about the the
previous examples of of of
par a Paragon, but I'll I'll I'll include
and here's the one he was actually referencing.
Ice you is uses Israeli company to spy
on Americans. That was from 10/05/2025.
Derek wrote this in 11/30/2024.
Meet the spyware companies preparing to unleash their
tech during Trump's second turn. She sure wish
people were paying attention. NSO Group, I think,
obviously, other than all of you here. NSO
Group, that's Paragon solution, same overlap.
Israeli spyware firm NSO Group found liable for
hacks of WhatsApp users. I mean, they're tracking
journalists. They're going after everybody.
And it's right on the surface. And that
Trump, in the beginning of his administration, immediately
makes a deal with Paragon
and Palantir, which by the way are separate,
but there's an overlapping point to all of
this to spy on Americans. That is real,
guys. There's no way around it. That is
a part of this.
Graphite caught. Now that's the one he was
referencing in the video.
First forensic confirmation of Paragon's iOS
mercenary software
finds journalists
targeted.
So think about this.
04/29/2025,
a select group of iOS users were notified
by Apple
that they were targeted with advanced spyware
through these groups. Among the group who were
journalists who consented to the technical analysis of
their cases, in this report, we discussed key
findings and forensic analysis of their devices.
Apple confirms to us that the zero click
attack was deployed.
This is
Paragon's
graphite,
mercenary spyware.
This is who Trump's currently we we realize
a month months later, Trump makes a deal
with Paragon
to use an American soil
through ICE to check for bad guy immigrants
and literally everything else you can scoop up
aside from the AI overlap that Israel's already
using through this country. I mean, how many
more examples do we truly need?
It's just it's right on the surface. Why
would this not be a huge deal? They
signed an agreement with a spyware company that's
used to attack journalists to spy on Americans.
But, yeah, we'll dump it right in front
of our we'll we'll hand it to our
police force and ICE to use on the
ground.
The only reason this is not a huge
deal is because neither the left nor the
right care about it.
Now,
Jason Baster points out, your doorbell cam just
joined the surveillance state. Don't you get it?
They're building a digital prison around you in
real time. But sure, keep pretending it's about
deporting immigrants. Ring cameras join Flock and Amazon
to create direct data access for ICE.
Funny how it all come back to what
wait a minute. Are we going after immigrants
still? Or is it all just like this
hyper focused technological advanced effort to go after
all Americans?
I mean, what am I talking about right
here? I said, remember this, guys. This is
what it looks like to be winning
if you lean into the two party illusion.
Now here's an interesting overlap. Apple, who we
just mentioned, overlapped with the last example,
01/29/2026,
acquires Israeli audio AI startup QAI.
Nothing to worry about here, guys. Not like
it's just continuing to get more and more
immersed. Apple did not disclose
the terms of the deal for XAI, which
was backed by venture capital firms, Matter Ventures,
Partners, Kleiner Perkins,
many of which there's plenty of examples to
be made, Spark Capital, and one you know,
Google Ventures, of course. The deal valued at
almost about a start up valued the start
up at about $1,600,000,000.
Apple did not say how it will use
QAI's technology, but said the startup has worked
on new applications of machine learning to help
devices understand whispered speech and to enhance audio
in challenging environments.
QAI last year filed a patent application to
use facial skin micro movements to detect words
mouthed or spoken,
identify a person and assess assess their emotions,
heart rate, respiration
rate, and other indicators. Right. Because we all
want that, don't we? Nope. This is the
government who was gonna get you because that's
what they do. But I'm sure glad Apple
got a hold of that. The Israeli company
is also working with all the other ways
they're spying on us right
now. It says QA last year filed a
patent. Oh, got that. It says QAI's 100
employees, including CEO Avid Mazeles and cofounders
Jotan Wexler and Avi Barleah will join Apple,
the company says. Great. How much you want?
I I should even joke. Yeah. They're all
Israeli UN a 200 and intelligence, but no
big deal, though. Because apparently, that doesn't even
matter anymore.
But because you're racist if you don't care,
that Israel's intelligence is quite literally muscling its
way into every part of the business, every
part of the government, everything we're seeing in
front of us. It's not even a joke.
It's not some hyperbolic statement, guys. Apple CEO
Tim Cook, who donates $1,000,000 to Trump's inauguration,
He also gave Trump a get a glass
a gift of glass and 24 karat gold,
simply just showing you the obvious relationship between
somebody who's supposed to be the other side
and Trump, which obviously matters, but also Apple
selects Palantir Foundry for analytics. Now none of
this is in and of itself
proof of anything nefarious.
But look at this incestuous overlap to all
of this in regard to what's actually being
built out around you. As Jason was saying,
this is the control grid that I, that
Whitney, that Derek, that Catherine, and all we've
been screaming about.
It's not even secret. It's right in front
of you. And they're just showing you that
they're now using ICE to rationalize all these
rapid invasive moves.
Now an Israeli QAI element can read your
facial movements and tell you what you said
when you were being quiet. I mean, this
is one step away from which, by the
way, I is already happening. Surveillance in a
ways that go way beyond simple cameras.
But that's for another conversation. Not to change
the the your point right now is to
recognize what we can prove right in front
of us.
Here is another example as Dylan points out.
Libertarian party says there's never been a more
important moment to guard your liberty. A surveillance
state is being normalized.
AI makes it cheap, fast, and scalable.
It always begins with targets the public is
trained to dismiss.
Exactly.
Then, the capability spreads until dissent sits inside
the crosshairs.
Well, guess what? A. Ice is now out
there on the streets
using meta glasses
to absorb all the information. So we've got
Israeli startup companies surveilling and and absorbing your
audio and your you know, you've got all
these different Palantir elements and overlap, elite and
Graphite and and what was the other one,
Gotham and all of this stuff, all of
which Israel has access to. It's not hard
to prove that. On top of the fact
that they are literally monitoring you and absorbing
your biometrics,
not just immigrants, by the way. But But
I'm
sure
you
could
piece
that
out.
The podcast is just showing all the examples
of them wearing their I realized it's different
than just having a camera.
It's it's directly connected, Internet access, real time,
you know, and then way beyond that, really.
We're talking about military level at this point.
And so all they're showing you is this
is how it's being used to track and
monitor you. I don't know what right thing
to have to scan your face when you're
not allowing it to happen, or so far
beyond that.
And they're using this to collect information, to
create databases,
which is what we just showed you. And
to finish,
which is another point to go all the
way back around to the know, Alex Jones
and FEMA camps and all things that are
there's points to be made. Right? Well, guess
what? Big news from Bloomberg, which confirms that
ICE has gone ahead and purchased some commercial
warehouses with the aim of converting them into
mass detention camps.
This is likely to be the big detention
story of 2026,
the literal warehousing of people in converted buildings.
ICE begins buying mega warehouse detention centers.
Wow. It's almost like we've heard this story
before about buying, you know, old businesses turned
into descent detention centers for Americans
or anybody here. Funny how that used to
be the thing that Alex and the rest
were screaming about. It's always coming and it's
building and we're doing it. And then right
now, we're looking at anything else. Now I'm
not necessarily saying that's what that amounts to.
But I'm sure it's all pointing out that
it's alarming to watch with everything else we
just showed you that you've got ice. Why
in the world this makes sense?
Buying make just major buildings for the tension
centers, it's not realistic.
And it shows you this is about something
much darker, guys. I at least I I
I saw I I mean, more than ever
these days. I hope I'm wrong. I mean,
more than ever. But
I'll always bring information
that I think is most important for you
to flush out, discuss,
investigate, interrogate.
Because we need to keep pushing on this.
We need to keep asking questions and challenging
ourselves. Questioning our own opinions, questioning the conversations
without have getting angry about it. It's okay
that people disagree.
That's been lost, it seems today.
But
you gotta keep calling it out. Because every
moment that's happening, you're making a difference out
there. I'm telling you guys, people see it.
It's changing.
But that doesn't mean the government's gonna remove,
you know, give up. That never seems to
happen. But we get enough momentum. There is
the opening for change. I've I've seen it
happening right now. Just keep fighting.
Keep standing up for what you believe in.
And yes, I mean, I get it. I
I know it can be alarming. It can
be scary. There's a lot of a lot
of dangerous and alarming things happening.
But, you know, very in my experience, few
things ever happened that are worth doing
that are easy.
You know, I mean, it's it's a challenge.
As as Bruce Fine often points out, is
that the people that were fighting for the
beginning of this country, you know, they signed
their death warrants
to to fight for this.
So I'm I'm I mean, it's as always,
it's to each person to make their own
decisions, but I think it's worth fighting for.
And I'm never calling for violence. It's for
a decision for your life to to even
go out there and protest, as many people
have pointed out, because of what they're doing.
But I think the reason that it's feels
that way, scary or alarming, is because it's
been driven there by the power structure to
make you afraid to stand up for what
you believe, to stand up for what you
are owed, what your rights are.
Right? If you're afraid to stand up there
and say that's my right, then they've won.
Simple as that.
So thank you for continuing to fight. Thank
you for calling all out. I love you
all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.